The tone you set by using the term "bogus", is IMHO, inappropriate at this point. There's been at least 4 separate groups who've all reported similar results. T

The tone you set by using the term "bogus", is IMHO, inappropriate at this point. There's been at least 4 separate groups who've all reported similar results. This latest one has been peer reviewed, presuming it's not a crapshoot journal there aren't any glaring issues (granted that's not saying much given the state of peer review). Nonetheless it's more likely that an unknown systemic experimental error is causing groups to report these kind of results, but not bogus as in the case of a truly bogus "discovery" cold fushion. > 1. It violates Conservation of Momentum. If the phenomena is real, a large number of basic Physics principles would need to be discarded. According to our current understanding of the system yes, however, it's also plausible that this works via in a non-trivial interaction of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which is still a very open question, and may not actually be violating conservation of momentum. To state it more correctly, it appears the em drive violates conservation of momentum by all means we currently understand. Given the minuscule amount of thrust it's plausible there could be a unknown quantum effect. One group tested the drive in vacuum which makes it certainly more interesting if there is an actual novel physics interaction. > 2. It was designed based on certain principles. Those principles have been shown to be wrong. But it works anyway because reasons? That's a non-sequitur. If there weren't several repeated experiments showing similar results it might be a reasonable caution. However, many of the best scientific discoveries arose in similar mis-comprehensions. > 3. The results of each experiment are suspiciously close to the limits of measurement. This is the most problematic portion of the experiments. It's only an order of magnitude smaller thrust per kW than more conventional drives. However, this article at a cursory reading was designed to try various configurations of thrust to check for potential systematic experimental errors in measurement. At this point asking more serious questions would be required rather than a "this doesn't fit into my preconceptions". E.g. explain how the particular experimental design in question could be flawed, in particular, what conditions could cause the null thrust test to not remove systemic measurement. In short, scientific skepticism doesn't mean incredulity.