>>14373268It's obvious because it's the only relevant paper in the field published by serious researchers in recent years. In fact I would argue that it is likely to be the last serious attempt on the topic this century.
>moving mass is analogous to electric currentYou don't understand this on a very fundamental level (which is midwitery, but admittedly not lowwitted since serious researchers make the same mistakes albeit in a harder formalism). The GEM equation is
Where the mass density must always be positive and the rest of the RHS are constants therefore the divergence of the potential must always be negative. That is to say a gravitational field divergence can only ever be zero or negative.
In EM you have
But in this case the current density can be both positive and negative, this is why you can have dipoles in electric vector fields.
Now, when you move things around you can generate all sorts of interesting vector fields due to the interaction of the gravity field with the gravitometric field, but fundamentally you cannot violate the equations above and produce a postive gravitational (or gravitoelectric field in GEM) at any point. In particular the proposal for the drive explicitly requires negative mass density which is not possible. It was proved more rigorously in a very recent paper (in this case that the energy density of a region of space cannot be negative, which is the GR equivalent since as I said they work in GR not with GEM formalism in general):
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.064038To repeat the second sentence, we are unlikely to see another serious attempt on the topic. Warp drives are not theoretically possible, especially if GR is true.
