6 ms·

So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.

by 0xUser 6y ago

gameswithgo 6y ago
it has all the signs, just like EM drive did, of being experimental error. that is just realism.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Did the EMdrive have a solid understanding of why it would work, rather than just being a discovered curious effect? What's interesting about this one is that there is a theory at least. Experiments aside, someone whould be able to either confirm or reject the theory on its own.
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    The EMdrive also had a "why." Note, if you investigate these sorts of devices, they typically have a why. It's just that the why tends to ignore a bunch of other things and it's a disappointment in the end. Really, if you're curious, you should dig into the history of all kinds of devices like these, anything in the Impossible Class. The inventor spends decades grinding away at it, getting inconsistent, odd little results which are just tantalizing enough to keep them stumbling forward. I have often considered a taxonomy of these sorts of enterprises, with three orthogonal systems of reckoning. The first, a type really, is what principle is being violated (Second Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's Third ...). The second is psychological: misunderstanding, self-deception, or duplicity (typically to bilk inventors), with the understanding that the inventor typically starts with misunderstanding and proceeds onward. The third would, finally, be the discovered actual source of the odd results, which could be bad experimental design, not accounting for oddly-radiating services, vibration, friction, and so forth.
    - slowmovintarget 6y ago
      This one relies on the premise that Einstein was right again. This is not unreasonable, especially given his track record.
crusso 6y ago
Justified skepticism is not hate.
- ansible 6y ago
  Yep. It is times like these I wish I could downvote submissions.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
People don't like to see quack science take funding from legitimate science. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is quack science, but it certainly reeks of the same claims as previously documented quack science.
- f154hfds 6y ago
  Where does quack science end and legitimate science begin? There's a real bottleneck in theory right now and I don't see how pushing the envelope in various directions could be a bad thing (especially given the relatively low cost this seems to have been). The surest way we can stagnate is by NOT funding this type of thing.
  - simiones 6y ago
    There are other kinds of quack science, but in this area, anything that seems to contradict the basic laws of motion and/or conservation of energy is recognizably quack science. Especially when doing so experimentally first (instead of first coming up with a theoretical/mathematical framework). Even especiallier when using electrical effects in Earth's magnetic field and measuring minute effects.
    - f154hfds 6y ago
      Where did quantum mechanics come from [1]? Where did general relativity come from [2]? They came from _experiments_ and _observations_ that couldn't be explained by the current theories. You don't just take theories to produce experiments (though this can happen to verify or to gain accuracy) - usually it works the other way around. Experiments are done to power new theory. Except a growing number of people are becoming content as you are in the existing theories because it is costlier now to probe the edges of our theories than it used to be. There are major problems though even in established theory [3]. I'm not an expert in general relativity, but there are some major unknowns (and in fact known problems) with it and to assume that our current interpretation (because as far as I can tell, the issue is mostly with the interpretation of inertia rather than the actual formalization of gravity itself) is 'correct' is just so arrogant and counter-productive. Does that mean all fringe ideas should have money poured into them? Certainly not. But if we have no funding going into experiments differing from the 'consensus', that's the surest possible approach to guaranteeing the consensus never improves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Pe... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p...

So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.

by 0xUser 6y ago

So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.

gameswithgo 6y ago

it has all the signs, just like EM drive did, of being experimental error. that is just realism.

alkonaut 6y ago
Did the EMdrive have a solid understanding of why it would work, rather than just being a discovered curious effect? What's interesting about this one is that there is a theory at least. Experiments aside, someone whould be able to either confirm or reject the theory on its own.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  The EMdrive also had a "why." Note, if you investigate these sorts of devices, they typically have a why. It's just that the why tends to ignore a bunch of other things and it's a disappointment in the end. Really, if you're curious, you should dig into the history of all kinds of devices like these, anything in the Impossible Class. The inventor spends decades grinding away at it, getting inconsistent, odd little results which are just tantalizing enough to keep them stumbling forward. I have often considered a taxonomy of these sorts of enterprises, with three orthogonal systems of reckoning. The first, a type really, is what principle is being violated (Second Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's Third ...). The second is psychological: misunderstanding, self-deception, or duplicity (typically to bilk inventors), with the understanding that the inventor typically starts with misunderstanding and proceeds onward. The third would, finally, be the discovered actual source of the odd results, which could be bad experimental design, not accounting for oddly-radiating services, vibration, friction, and so forth.
  - slowmovintarget 6y ago
    This one relies on the premise that Einstein was right again. This is not unreasonable, especially given his track record.

crusso 6y ago

Justified skepticism is not hate.

ansible 6y ago
Yep. It is times like these I wish I could downvote submissions.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

People don't like to see quack science take funding from legitimate science. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is quack science, but it certainly reeks of the same claims as previously documented quack science.

f154hfds 6y ago
Where does quack science end and legitimate science begin? There's a real bottleneck in theory right now and I don't see how pushing the envelope in various directions could be a bad thing (especially given the relatively low cost this seems to have been). The surest way we can stagnate is by NOT funding this type of thing.
- simiones 6y ago
  There are other kinds of quack science, but in this area, anything that seems to contradict the basic laws of motion and/or conservation of energy is recognizably quack science. Especially when doing so experimentally first (instead of first coming up with a theoretical/mathematical framework). Even especiallier when using electrical effects in Earth's magnetic field and measuring minute effects.
  - f154hfds 6y ago
    Where did quantum mechanics come from [1]? Where did general relativity come from [2]? They came from _experiments_ and _observations_ that couldn't be explained by the current theories. You don't just take theories to produce experiments (though this can happen to verify or to gain accuracy) - usually it works the other way around. Experiments are done to power new theory. Except a growing number of people are becoming content as you are in the existing theories because it is costlier now to probe the edges of our theories than it used to be. There are major problems though even in established theory [3]. I'm not an expert in general relativity, but there are some major unknowns (and in fact known problems) with it and to assume that our current interpretation (because as far as I can tell, the issue is mostly with the interpretation of inertia rather than the actual formalization of gravity itself) is 'correct' is just so arrogant and counter-productive. Does that mean all fringe ideas should have money poured into them? Certainly not. But if we have no funding going into experiments differing from the 'consensus', that's the surest possible approach to guaranteeing the consensus never improves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Pe... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p...