Are you taking into account that you can only accelerate for half the trip then you have to slow for the other half, shenanigans with gravity wells like slingshots and braking notwithstanding?
yea the calculator I'm using brakes down to original velocity for the 2nd half of the journey.
What's funny is the artist's renderings of the designs feature rings around the central aircraft ex:
From what I heard, the intent of the two rings is to provide a way for EMDrives to rotate a dynamo which generates more power than it consumes. If one assumed that was correct, then designed a ship for atmospheric travel, where you housed the rings in a protective case and minimized the drag, you'd well... you'd get
They claimed that it may produce light accelerated past the speed of light. Relativity claims this is impossible- indeed, relativity itself is the mathematical construct of how the physical rules of the universe can stay the same for all non-rotating frames of reference within that frame, while mainting a maximum speed of light that is fixed for all frames. It's a hard concept to explain without you having a strong understanding of the history of the various forms of relativity- which date back to greek times. Speeds faster than the speed of light essentially break the entire mathematical basis for relativity. Either way, it's an interesting read, especially if you are in to science history.
I missed the part where they think they produced light that is FTL. I get relativity. There have been tests to confirm the predicted time dilation effects of relativity. GPS accuracy relies on relativity. If NASA does create a device for FTL travel, it may not necessarily disprove relativity but reveal that Einstein's relativity is conditional or incomplete.
Aulcubierre (warp) drives explicitly side-step relativity - they move space around themselves rather than accelerating through space sotechnicallytheir velocity is zero, and the claim on EMDrives re: FTL is that they're creating (weak and small) warp bubbles.
