Russ for a floor , Kirk for a ceiling <| sep |> Okay , champ . Delete your account , then . It ' s just an account on just a website . <| sep |> Atleast they haven ' t quite got to the whole wot $ 200 pz 2 j and 30 k gold shit . <| sep |> How else am I supposed to be able to read the gibberish those barely literate children post over there ? Seriously though , I ' ve seen posts over there that were absolute flat out hate speech that would have gotten other subs banned a long time ago . Fuck that sub and the idiots that run it . <| sep |> There are not many theoretical reasons , why and how the EMDrive should gain thrust by changing of speed of light inside the resonator , as Roger Shawyer is claiming . One of possible explanations , which I proposed is , the photons change their speed by their polarization by reflection on inner walls of resonator or by their mutual interference and spin annihilation . For this mechanism to work , the EMDrive must be arranged in much more specific way , than this one which NASA is still trying . NASA methodology may be good in vacuum testing and exclusion of sources of mechanical or electrical noise but with respect to production of reliable and sufficiently high thrust the conditions for standing wave resonance and interference their methodology is clearly uncontrolled and suboptimal . If you take a look at the Shawyer ' s EMDrive p r o t o t ypeshawyerinventoremdrive . jpg , which reportedly exhibits thrust in many orders of magnitude higher than NASA device , then as a physicist you can realize many things 1 . Shawyer ' s EMDrive is powered with magnetron , which isn ' t connected to resonator directly but via long waveguides . No bouncing of microwaves back into magnetron therefore can occcur there 2 . Mr . Shawyer is using pair of input waveguides , not single one . This enables the effective mutual interference of two wave sources , not just accidental one . 3 . Mr . Shawyer ' s waveguides are narrow , so that they enter the resonator in a single spots , which therefore represent well defined pinpoint sources of energy entering the resonator . Again this is a necessary condition for achieving defined wave resonance and interference geometry . 4 . Mr . Shawyer ' s waveguides don ' t enter the resonator at random places , but in specific height , which represents the half of the height of resonator . With respect to effectiveness of input energy utilization and reproducible geometry of wave spreading the energy enters the resonator at crests of standing waves . 5 . The height of resonator could be tuned with respect to wavelength of standing waves within the resonator 6 . I even suspect , that shape of Shawyer ' s resonator is optimized with respect to Brewster angle for polarization of microwaves by reflection , i . e . the size ratio of smaller and larger side of resonator is also not accidental as well as the angle of resonator cone . In another words , the NASA is pushing microwaves into conical cavity , but it doesn ' t care about what these waves are doing inside it . In naive theory the thrust of EMDrive depends only on the size ratio of circular sides of the resonator . But in reality in may depend on dozens of additional parameters . The consequence is , the thrust of NASA device is by multiple orders lower than this one reported by Shawyer , which introduces the low signalnoise ratio and poor reproducibility of NASA results . Occasionally the thrust of NASA EMDrive points to the opposite direction , than EMDrive theory implies and its direction often even doesn ' t depend on the actual orientation of EMDrive . This is an indicia , that NASA has something very wrong with its EMDrive setup . It suffers with Cargo effect , i . e . it ' s testing the device , which looks like EMDrive at the first look , but it actually doesn ' t work like the EMDrive .