6 ms·
There is also the possibility of a mistake due to some subtle detail in the test methodology, which is also going down but remains the best explanation. Nevert
by yakult 11y ago
There is also the possibility of a mistake due to some subtle detail in the test methodology, which is also going down but remains the best explanation.
Nevertheless, at this point even discovering exotic mistakes in the tests are worth the relatively small investment, in that they will help design future experiments.
- DanielBMarkham 11y agoYes, we have reached the point that it doesn't matter one whit about the EM Drive. There's something interesting here going on one way or the other. Either we have some weird breakthrough physics (still unlikely), or we're going to take our measurement game to the next level. Either way it's a win.
- cjensen 11y agoGiven that there is no theoretical basis for the device, and that the device's supposed effect is trending towards zero as measurements are made more accurate, it's long past time to throw this into the dustbin of history. This never should have been taken seriously and it's a continuing embarrassment to NASA. After the Martian Bacteria[1] and Arsenic Bacteria[2] fiascos, NASA really needs to get its house in order. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFAJ-1
- wai1234 11y agoI don't see NASA having anything to do with this. Neither Eagle or "NASASpaceflight" have any affiliation with NASA.
- cjensen 11y agoThe title of this thread literally has the word "NASA" in it! The article is clear that the posting that provides the info for the article is a guy working at Eagle/NASA.
- andygates 11y agoThe non-NASA lab is under contract to do some experiments; the non-NASA forum is entirely unafilliated. This is not an agency endorsement. It's still not even a paper.
- cjensen 11y agoYou're right that it's not an agency endorsement; as I clearly stated and the article clearly states, it is from someone "affiliated" with NASA, the denial of which I was responding to.
- motoboi 11y agoThere is nothing wrong in examining this carefully. And, besides the fact that the money could be applied elsewhere, private enterprises are pursuing this.
- api 11y agoFailure has to be as okay in science as it is in business and for all the same reasons. I would love to see more failed hypotheses and projects, as it would mean people are actually thinking new thoughts and trying new things. There is no progress without failure and no discovery without mistakes. The amount of money being spent on this is tiny and the worst that happens is we get a lesson in experimental technique.
- flashman 11y agoIf you can't explain all the errors in an experiment, you still have science to do -- regardless of whether it violates currently-understood laws of physics.
- JauntTrooper 11y agoThat is, after all, how cosmic background radiation was discovered. Scientists at Bell Labs were trying to get rid of that last little bit of static interference from their radio antenna, but couldn't figure out where it was coming from.