Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrodynamic Space Thruster

Electrodynamic Space Thruster

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates our policies on original research. I'm also concerned that this article may be pseudoscientific - although this isn't my field, so I can't really judge there. The warning signs are in the 'Possible types of interaction' section: lots of 'may's and 'possible's included in the paragraph. It tries to describe a large set of aerials which would pick up basic fluctuations in the universe -: 'Intergalactic Magnetic Fields' and 'Space-time' - and use them to ride through the local solar system at breakneck speed.

Finally, the concept itself seems to be non-notable: the scientist doesn't seem to have done a great deal else except invent a CrossFire Fusor fusion reactor, which itself seems a little hazy on the science. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Referencing is problematic. The first seven references relate to concepts like Interstellar medium and Space-time, not to the Electrodynamic Space Thruster. The eighth relates to the EmDrive, the article for which states that it is considered in at least one quarter a fraud. The ninth is a link to crossfire fusion, so basically self-referential/original research, and the tenth reference is a Youtube video. Google News and Google Scholar yield big goose eggs on the subject. Based on all I see, I'm going to go with a fairly hearty delete. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE. Ridiculous gobbledygook that nobody has paid any attention to. Beam me up, Scotty. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don’t agree labeling pejoratively something as pseudoscientific just because we don’t understand the basic physics behind it.

As it is widely known, group velocity of a wave can be faster than light because it has zero-rest-mass, and as far as I understand, phase-shifted electromagnetic forces are a kind of wave group, and can produce linear thrust by interacting with something else. This propulsion method is not claiming to be faster than light. It is claiming to produce phase-shifted electromagnetic forces to interact with interstellar medium in order to produce thrust. Sorry, but I don’t see any type of pseudoscience in these claims. The method seems to be physically reasonable and feasible to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probonopublic (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't consider "instantaneous interaction with all celestial bodies" (bolding mine) just a tad dubious? Also, the article keeps harping on how it doesn't violate classical (i.e. Newtonian) physics, but "fast interstellar spaceflight" would be in the realm of relativistic physics. Note: Probonopublic is a WP:SPA whose only edits are here and at a related Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For tackling with initial accelerations and low speeds, I think classical physics equations are easier to use. With velocities near the speed of light, the relativistic equations, although more complex, are more suitable, mainly for dealing with time-dilation. As far as I know, action-at-a-distance is an object of study also in Quantum Mechanics[1]. In my opinion, a full discussion of these broad and complex subjects should be posted in a physics forum. Anyway, it is widely known that electromagnetic forces can interact with almost everything even neutral bodies and neutral molecules; hence phase-shifted electromagnetic forces can surely produce thrust force for having similar properties.--Probonopublic (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't understand the science behind this one bit but I do understand WP:GNG and this does not meet it. Nor can I find anything in peer-reviewed journals, or even helium.com for this one. The references don't cover this subject and as such I'm going with delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]