6 ms·

That's not the case. Tajmar did one in vacuum. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-dr-martin-tajmar-generates-thrust-test-controversial-space-propulsion-technology

That's not the case. Tajmar did one in vacuum. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-dr-martin-tajmar-generates-thrust-test-controversial-space-propulsion-technology-1513151 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-dr-martin-tajmar-generates-... They did it last year and alo found some thrust signals, altough they were very careful to leave the door open to measurement errors, like Lorentz forces. Eagleworls lab will also attemp one vacuum test in a more equipped NASA lab. I tend to think it's all vapourware since it goes against so many well founded rules that it's more likely that it's just pathological science. The theory in the OP is also likely to be rubbish. The author of the paper was challenged many times and failed to provide sound answers. Furthermore he supports a telepathy "researcher" which is also a red flag.

marcus_holmes 11y ago
Because we should only research orthodox, approved subjects, and not go where the data leads us? You're seriously suggesting that his mathematics should be studied less seriously because he has a friend who studies telepathy?
- spacehome 11y ago
  Well, it's not just a friend, it's something he supports. There's something to be said for Bayesian updating, and in this case I'm willing to say that people who have the right of it scientifically are less likely to support telepathy.
  - marcus_holmes 11y ago
    I haven't read any previous studies of telepathy, so I have no informed opinion on it. Which seems to be a minority position: the majority position seems to be to assume that not only is telepathy "not real" but also anyone studying it is clearly a "not real" scientist. Is there any data to support your theory that people who are willing to study telepathy are less mathematically able than those who are not? Because it seems to me that people who are willing to rule out an entire area of study for social reasons are less able scientists than those who are willing to go where the data leads regardless of reputational consequences. This EM drive is a case in point. Studies seem to suggest there is a real thing happening here, but scientists are not willing to study it because of the reputational risk. Which is clearly bad science.
    - jcoffland 11y ago
      You keep saying "go where the data leads" but the data is leading in circles so far. What data would lead you to study telepathy? There's data then there's wishful thinking.
      - lisivka 11y ago
        I am sorry, but nerve system is electric. It emits electromagnetic signals. Nerve system is also perfect receiver for these signals. If you will train your body to emit/recognize these signals, you will be able to communicate telepathically. Your "hardware" (bioware?) allows you to do that. Some sharks are using that skill to locate fish.
        spacehome 11y ago
        Not sure if troll or serious. Go ahead and try that and get back to us.
        rdancer 11y ago
        And it's been done[1], successfully — but the signals need to be amplified before the receiving brain can detect them. Parapsychology research was answering a pressing need in the 1950s, and so it was pursued and funded. Now that we have ubiquitous resilient encrypted wireless broadband communication on the worldwide scale, and we're pretty sure the enemy forces cannot submit our soldiers using the power of concentration, the need is much less pressing. Recent advances in brain activity imaging with fMRI and the impetus to create computer-brain interfaces will lead to any advances in telepathy that can be had, and maybe discover new questions to study. Out of all the futures that seemed possible at the beginning of the Cold War, ours is no less strange and awesome than one where telepathy were a mundane experience. Being skeptical about telepathy in the style of the great Sci Fi works of the latter half of the 20th century reflects the understanding that some ideas become reality, and some just peter out. [1] http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-brain-to-brain-telepathy-communication-via-the-internet http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-brain-to-brain-telepathy-com...
        11y ago
- kowdermeister 11y ago
  > Because we should only research orthodox, approved subjects, and not go where the data leads us? Data is crappy at the moment, but I agree, it's at least interesting in the case of the EmDrive that people are measuring something. -- Actually yes, if somebody follows crank science my trust factor goes down (the Mariana trench). But that's me, if you see no problem with it, just study his paper. He also a big opponent of dark matter. But hey, I'm just a programmer, what do I know about theoretical physics. Read this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3hjmtv/my_conversation_with_dr_mcculloch_on_mihsc_some/ https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3hjmtv/my_conversa... The guy who challenges him is a PHD student who happen to be usually on the right side of theories although sometimes being too hard headed.

marcus_holmes 11y ago

Because we should only research orthodox, approved subjects, and not go where the data leads us? You're seriously suggesting that his mathematics should be studied less seriously because he has a friend who studies telepathy?

spacehome 11y ago
Well, it's not just a friend, it's something he supports. There's something to be said for Bayesian updating, and in this case I'm willing to say that people who have the right of it scientifically are less likely to support telepathy.
- marcus_holmes 11y ago
  I haven't read any previous studies of telepathy, so I have no informed opinion on it. Which seems to be a minority position: the majority position seems to be to assume that not only is telepathy "not real" but also anyone studying it is clearly a "not real" scientist. Is there any data to support your theory that people who are willing to study telepathy are less mathematically able than those who are not? Because it seems to me that people who are willing to rule out an entire area of study for social reasons are less able scientists than those who are willing to go where the data leads regardless of reputational consequences. This EM drive is a case in point. Studies seem to suggest there is a real thing happening here, but scientists are not willing to study it because of the reputational risk. Which is clearly bad science.
  - jcoffland 11y ago
    You keep saying "go where the data leads" but the data is leading in circles so far. What data would lead you to study telepathy? There's data then there's wishful thinking.
    - lisivka 11y ago
      I am sorry, but nerve system is electric. It emits electromagnetic signals. Nerve system is also perfect receiver for these signals. If you will train your body to emit/recognize these signals, you will be able to communicate telepathically. Your "hardware" (bioware?) allows you to do that. Some sharks are using that skill to locate fish.
      - spacehome 11y ago
        Not sure if troll or serious. Go ahead and try that and get back to us.
      - rdancer 11y ago
        And it's been done[1], successfully — but the signals need to be amplified before the receiving brain can detect them. Parapsychology research was answering a pressing need in the 1950s, and so it was pursued and funded. Now that we have ubiquitous resilient encrypted wireless broadband communication on the worldwide scale, and we're pretty sure the enemy forces cannot submit our soldiers using the power of concentration, the need is much less pressing. Recent advances in brain activity imaging with fMRI and the impetus to create computer-brain interfaces will lead to any advances in telepathy that can be had, and maybe discover new questions to study. Out of all the futures that seemed possible at the beginning of the Cold War, ours is no less strange and awesome than one where telepathy were a mundane experience. Being skeptical about telepathy in the style of the great Sci Fi works of the latter half of the 20th century reflects the understanding that some ideas become reality, and some just peter out. [1] http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-brain-to-brain-telepathy-communication-via-the-internet http://www.kurzweilai.net/first-brain-to-brain-telepathy-com...
        11y ago
kowdermeister 11y ago
> Because we should only research orthodox, approved subjects, and not go where the data leads us? Data is crappy at the moment, but I agree, it's at least interesting in the case of the EmDrive that people are measuring something. -- Actually yes, if somebody follows crank science my trust factor goes down (the Mariana trench). But that's me, if you see no problem with it, just study his paper. He also a big opponent of dark matter. But hey, I'm just a programmer, what do I know about theoretical physics. Read this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3hjmtv/my_conversation_with_dr_mcculloch_on_mihsc_some/ https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/3hjmtv/my_conversa... The guy who challenges him is a PHD student who happen to be usually on the right side of theories although sometimes being too hard headed.