3 ms·
First, I can't possibly answer the question you asked, because you asked for the opinion of someone else. Second, if you had read into the second paragraph of
by labster 10y ago
First, I can't possibly answer the question you asked, because you asked for the opinion of someone else. Second, if you had read into the second paragraph of the link, you would see that the EmDrive is not institutionally sponsored nor developed by NASA. Third, offering analogous evidence is not the same thing as changing the question.
- blueprint 10y agoActually, it was institutionally sponsored, because the very work to peer review it was done by labs directly sponsored by NASA. If the initial work were not peer reviewed, you would not be holding it up as an example of something successful. Therefore, it's NASA's sponsorship of the peer review which is a necessary and direct cause of you calling it successful here. So my initial assessment of what you said stands. You're saying the physics community is receptive because NASA sponsored an attempts to verify it. That proves nothing about the receptivity of the physics community nor of even NASA. But I don't expect this to be something you can easily agree with. After all, you're proving my point.
- labster 10y ago> After all, you're proving my point. Which is what exactly?
- blueprint 10y agoThat you have gotten something really important really wrong which you are not yet able to be aware of.
- nl 10y agoIt isn't very clear what you think should happen here. A fairly outlandish invention was developed outside the mainstream physics community. The community saw it and made the effort to test it. This is good, right? If not, then what should happen?