Behold the EM Drive which has been dubbed by most of the science press as the "the impossibilty drive":
https://www.universetoday.com/130649/nasas-em-drive-passes-peer-review-dont-get-hopes/
A Romanian dude running an EM Drive he made by soldering copper plate with a magnetron from a household microwave:
Frankly the EM Drive is the electrogravitic equivalent of sitting in an office chair and flapping your arms faster in one direction than the other to scoot yourself along. Only in the EM Drive your arms are microwaves and the difference in friction is due to the density of space rather than the wheels of the chair. You can scoot off an office chair powered by a impulse-arm drive or use a microwave-impulse drive for your spaceship, but there are much easier and more efficient methods to get around. The only thing this has going for it is news coverage. It's essentially a really inefficient form of impulse drive from Star Trek from what I understand, similar in basic principle to the mechanical versions below:
<-Short test of an asymmetrical capacitor being pulsed with ~16KV, rocking back and forth in mid-air
<-Similar test with constant voltage in a vacuum, the linear laser line shows the displacement of the capacitor. Proof positive of electropulsive action.
The main point of opposition to the idea of electropulsive motion A.K.A. electrogravitics is the idea that it violates conservation of momentum / inertia. The general premise of this concept is that you cannot push or lift against oneself for propulsion.
Baron Munchausen demonstrating a distinct lack of understanding of conservation of momentum by lifting himself and his horse by his own hair.
For those who still have no idea what conservation of momentum is see below:
Okay, now we are all on the same page. Conservation of momentum is the basic premise behind a propeller, a jet, or a rocket - throw something away from you really fast to generate a thrust.
The reason that electrogravitics are thought to violate conservation of momentum is because this concept is most often viewed from the standpoint of the following concepts:
1. Space is empty, just look at the Wikipedia page about the Michaelson-Morely experiment and Relativity Theory. There is no ether of space to act upon (a common misconception).
2. Inertia is the resistance of a body to motion and cannot be induced, never-mind the cause.
3. Electromagnetic forces and gravity have no relationship whatsoever.
The Standard Model cannot derive the gravitational constant which is the ratio of electrostatic to gravitational attraction between the protons and electrons in an atom. Without knowing how several basic forces like momentum itself originate one cannot claim to have a complete theory. An incomplete theory means there will be things that cannot be accounted for by the theory. These are called anomalies.
Einstein believed there was a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity, that’s the bulk of what he tried for decades to unify in his unified-field theory and failed. I believe he failed because he essentially fixed space while allowing for curvature, which has been represented by a set of mathematical formulas which match observations to a degree, but lacked motion of an electromagnetic ether (although he did state that relativity was regarding a gravitational ether).
Note also that Michaelson (of the Michaelson-Morely Experiment that disproved the luminiferous ether) believed in ether-based physics until the day he died. To understand the basic differences in the understandings of ether I will paint in broad strokes:
A basic definition: Ether is the medium of light (electromagnetism), it is what the waves transverse through just as ocean waves are carried through water and sound is carried through air.
Luminiferous Ether:
Think of a cosmic block of granite as representing space, a rigid transducer of electromagnetic waves While the motion of a rigid ether was disproved by the Michaelson-Morely experiment it did not disprove a motion in a dynamic ether which these experimenters recognized at the time. This interpretation was not held by Einstein who considered it a fundamental experiment under-girding relativity which lacks etheric motion.
Relativistic Ether:
The fabric of space-time that current scientific thinking espouses (the "fabric" would be more of a spatial gelatin when you really think about it) with the curvature of the medium dictated by gravity because of Einstein's interpretation of the Michaelson-Morely experiment that there is no etheric drift and therefore no motion of the ether. This is where the concept of gravitational lensing comes from.
Dynamic Ether:
The concept of the dynamic ether is that space can flow and is the medium electromagnetic and gravitational tranmission. Based on the range of frequency conduction for electric signals the ether is a compressible fluid like a gas, but can still act like a liquid or solid at if the time for the induced displacement is short enough. Space and time are still interacting with the ether. Lensing would be accounted for by the etheric drift inherent to rotating massive objects.
Dayton Miller followed up on the recommendations made by Michaelson and Morely in their paper for a measurement at altitude, in a less substantial structure than a basement, and with more than 36 datapoints. Dayton Miller’s Mt. Wilson experiments with hundreds of thousands of data-points laid the foundation for the physics which will be eventually adopted based on a dynamic ether (compressible) which acts as the “electric fluid” going back to Faraday’s experiments.
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)
Despite arguments to the contrary, I believe there is ample evidence from subsequent measurements that support Dayton Miller's experiments as seen below:
http://www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether-drift-exp/ether-drift-exp.pdf
