🚀 NASA Engineer Claims His New Engine Breaks the Laws of Physics—Scientists Are Stunned 😱🧪

Meet David Burns, a long-time NASA veteran and aerospace engineer who worked at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

Burns recently made headlines when he proposed a design for an engine that, by all traditional scientific understanding, should not work.

And yet—his math says it does.

Dubbed the “Helical Engine”, this bizarre piece of conceptual tech doesn’t use any fuel and doesn’t eject anything to produce thrust.

In a vacuum—where traditional engines fail without something to push against—this engine thrives.

How? By exploiting the strange loopholes buried deep in the math of relativistic physics.

Burns describes the Helical Engine as a long, looping structure where ions are accelerated inside a vacuum chamber in a continuous, spiraling motion at near-light speeds.

These ions shift their mass depending on their speed (as described by Einstein’s theory of relativity), and by moving them back and forth at varying speeds in this unique helical pattern, the system supposedly

builds up thrust without any propellant.

If your brain just short-circuited a little, you’re not alone.

Scientists have spent centuries telling us that you can’t get thrust without pushing something in the opposite direction.

It’s Newton’s Third Law 101: for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction.

Push a rocket exhaust down, and the rocket goes up.

Burn fuel, expel mass, gain momentum.

Simple.

Except… Burns says you don’t need to expel mass.

His engine doesn’t throw anything out the back.

There’s no rocket fuel.

There’s no combustion.

There’s just the clever manipulation of momentum within a sealed system—and yet, somehow, thrust is created.

This immediately raises one massive, glowing, physics-breaking red flag: closed systems shouldn’t be able to move themselves.

That’s why the scientific community has been skeptical—but also intrigued.

Because Burns isn’t just some backyard tinkerer.

He’s a NASA-trained scientist who’s run the numbers, and he’s published the concept paper for peer review.

He even wrote in the study: “The engine would violate the conservation of momentum and would likely be disallowed by all current physical theories.”

So why is anyone taking it seriously?

Because similar “impossible engines” have flirted with legitimacy before.

Remember the EM Drive? That controversial, cone-shaped engine that allegedly created thrust without expelling fuel? For years, it had scientists divided.

Some replication attempts showed micro-newtons of thrust, others didn’t.

It was never fully debunked, but never confirmed either.

What it did do was make physicists ask deeper questions about the nature of force, mass, and space.

Burns’ Helical Engine is now doing the same thing—but on a much bolder level.

He estimates that a working version of his engine would need to be 200 meters long and weigh several tons, and even then, the thrust it produces would be minuscule.

But space is the perfect testing ground—no friction, no atmosphere, and infinite distance.

Even the tiniest push over time becomes a huge leap.

And an engine that runs without fuel would be a game-changer for long-range missions to Mars, the outer solar system, or even interstellar travel.

The implications are staggering.

Imagine spacecraft that never need to refuel.

Satellites that can self-correct their orbits forever.

Deep space probes that never run out of energy.

A Helical Engine could revolutionize propulsion technology, create new types of clean energy systems, and force physics textbooks to rewrite their core principles.

Naturally, the skeptics have stepped in.

Many physicists argue that the Helical Engine seems to violate the law of conservation of momentum—a bedrock of classical and modern mechanics.

Others point out that no known physics supports thrust generation in a closed system without expelling mass.

And several experts have warned that while the math may look appealing on paper, it could simply be a misinterpretation of relativistic effects.

Still, the timing is interesting.

We now live in a world where the U.S.

Navy has admitted to researching warp drive and where former Pentagon officials talk openly about anti-gravity propulsion in declassified UFO reports.

Fringe science is no longer taboo—it’s being explored, discussed, and slowly peeled apart for truth.

And Burns isn’t asking for funding or trying to build a prototype—yet.

He’s simply saying, “Here’s the math.

Here’s the idea.

Prove me wrong.

” That’s classic science.

Others in the aerospace world are quietly intrigued.

If any part of this idea holds weight, it could lead to a new propulsion paradigm.

Not just for spacecraft, but for satellites, drones, or any system where fuel limitations have capped performance.

Burns may not have cracked gravity, but he’s certainly cracked the minds of every physicist who’s read his paper and couldn’t fully disprove it.

The question now isn’t just whether the Helical Engine works—it’s whether we’re ready to question the laws of physics as we understand them.

Because if David Burns is right, we’ve just crossed the line from theoretical propulsion into science fiction made real.

And that means Earth may be about to take its biggest step—without ever needing a single drop of rocket fuel.

So, is it genius? Madness? Or both?

Only time—and a few brave physicists—will tell.