3 ms·
I guess a cheap and efficient propulsion that doesn't fit our understanding of physics was too good to be true. Still, it's a bit sad, that would have been beau
by bleuarff 10y ago
I guess a cheap and efficient propulsion that doesn't fit our understanding of physics was too good to be true. Still, it's a bit sad, that would have been beautiful if it were true.
- bayesian_horse 10y agoAs far as I understand it, it's not quite over yet. Maybe the refusal itself can't be replicated by the other groups. Now that will keep these physicists busy for a while...
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y agoIt's not really over until we understand where these readings are coming from, whether error or new physics.
- marvin 10y agoThat was my thought as well. I'm glad someone spends the time required to refute a claim like this, because it did seem more long-lived and potentially within the realm of possibility than your run-of-the-mill claim that violates known physics. If we never take the time to explore claims that violate our current understanding, our understanding will stop advancing. Too many scientists are overly dogmatic.