Whoa! New type of space drive discovered

[tynopik]

The fact that this is going through very precise testing and is still producing results means it's moving from "another cold fusion debacle" to "this might actually be something..."

Until it goes through peer review from a reputable source it rises to the level of nothing.

Lab and design errors are legion and infinitely more likely than discovering a whole new physics

 

[Fritzo]

Until it goes through peer review from a reputable source it rises to the level of nothing.

Lab and design errors are legion and infinitely more likely than discovering a whole new physics

This has been going around since 2009. You'd think someone would have disproven the test by now (cold fusion was disproved in a matter of weeks, "FTL neutrinos" only took about a week). Scientists tend to be vary careful about disclosing results on these types of findings, which is why you're not seeing reports on the news just yet.

Like I said, even if it is disproven, I'll be very interested on how this whole system actually does work.

 

[tynopik]

This has been going around since 2009.

Then why hasn't it been published in a reputable journal?

 

[Markbnj]

They can do all those things.

Asking for consults, advice, verification, that's all good.

But a paper is supposed to represent the final, verified results of your research.

Because once papers are published, they're out there forever. No retraction or refutation will remove bad copies from all libraries in the world.

That's why papers are peer-reviewed, to ensure we don't have garbage cluttering up the scientific landscape.

And that's why real scientists never* publish in a vanity journal


*pointless caveats, blah blah blah

Come on, even as a non-scientist I know that not all papers are presented in peer-reviewed journals, and in fact this probably isn't ready to be presented that way. It was a conference paper intended to present an experimental finding so that others could look into it. You're just caught now in trying to defend your initially over-negative reaction to the story. Nobody here has said it is true, or even likely to be true. What I'm saying, personally, is that the results the NASA team saw make the idea and possibility slightly more credible. That's all. If you want to attack that sliver of optimism by calling all the researchers quacks, that's your business.

 

[norseamd]

Yet they seem eager to attach a pseudo-science name to it.

This is basically the culture of mainstream science. If all we ever do is look for shit that seems crazy so that we can make fun of it how far are we going to advance as humanity? Many scientists cower in the confines of mainstream attitudes and manipulate data and science for the benefit of their job and personal ego. This is not science. This is corrupt human culture infringing on science.

 

[tynopik]

Come on, even as a non-scientist I know that not all papers are presented in peer-reviewed journals

sure, for little nothing results that nobody cares about

not for results that overthrow a thousand years of physics

and in fact this probably isn't ready to be presented that way

then it shouldn't be published period

It was a conference paper intended to present an experimental finding so that others could look into it.

that's not what conference papers are for

You're just caught now in trying to defend your initially over-negative reaction to the story.

my initial post was spot on, they're a bunch of quacks

Nobody here has said it is true, or even likely to be true.

they're giving it far more credibility than it deserves

What I'm saying, personally, is that the results the NASA team saw make the idea and possibility slightly more credible. That's all.

I'm saying they're a bunch of quacks and placing any credence in what they say demonstrates extremely poor judgment

If you want to attack that sliver of optimism by calling all the researchers quacks, that's your business.

they have done NOTHING to warrant any optimism whatsoever

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I'm going to call it a quack.

 

[tynopik]

If all we ever do is look for shit that seems crazy so that we can make fun of it how far are we going to advance as humanity?

I am not ridiculing that they got crazy results, i'm ridiculing that they continue to promote earth-shattering results without subjecting them to the extraordinary scrutiny that such claims require.

If your experiment is sound, you should welcome scrutiny. The fact that they aren't tells me everything i need to know.

 

[Markbnj]

not for results that overthrow a thousand years of physics

Statements like this just eradicate whatever credibility you are hoping to establish.

 

[tynopik]

Statements like this just eradicate whatever credibility you are hoping to establish.

996 years, excuse me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Ibn Sīnā (also known by his Latinized name Avicenna) read Philoponus and published his own theory of motion in The Book of Healing in 1020. He agreed that an impetus is imparted to a projectile by the thrower; but unlike Philoponus, who believed that it was a temporary virtue that would decline even in a vacuum, he viewed it as a persistent, requiring external forces such as air resistance to dissipate it.

 

[Markbnj]

996 years, excuse me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

That is not the only problem with the statement, although it is still a problem to suggest that because humans were observing the effects of momentum 996 years ago that we have been doing "physics" for that long. If you want to keep that point of view then you can say most of the physics in the last 100 years overthrew the physics from the previous 990. Hell, Einstein has been "overthrown" in just the few decades since his work.

The other problem with the statement is that nobody has suggested that the results overthrow anything. Just because we don't yet have an explanation doesn't mean something is happening that violates our current models. And _if_ that turned out to be true, it wouldn't be the first time our current model has had to change because it doesn't work in the light of new evidence.

 

[tynopik]

The other problem with the statement is that nobody has suggested that the results overthrow anything.

What? Several people have pointed out that it directly violates the conservation of momentum.

You can't provide thrust without emitting something.

 

[Markbnj]

What? Several people have pointed out that it directly violates the conservation of momentum.

You can't provide thrust without emitting something.

How could anybody have definitely said that it doesn't emit anything when nobody has any idea what is happening? They set up a rig to measure an effect. That's all they did. Why don't you concentrate on whether their experimental regime was solid or not? Did they or did they not measure an effect? If they measured an effect then it might be best to do more experiments and try to find out what is causing it before we argue over whether what is causing it violates the laws of physics, don't you think?

 

[tynopik]

How could anybody have definitely said that it doesn't emit anything when nobody has any idea what is happening?

Um, that is their whole claim

Test results indicate that the RF resonant cavity thruster design, which is unique as an electric propulsion device, is producing a force that is not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon

That is an extraordinary claim, and when you make an extraordinary claim but aren't willing to subject your experiment to extraordinary scrutiny, you're a quack pure and simple

Why don't you concentrate on whether their experimental regime was solid or not?

BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE

What part of them refusing to subject their experiment to peer review do you not understand?

If they're not willing to take it seriously, why should i?

 

[Grooveriding]

It's legit.

Strapped one to my car this morning and shaved 2m 32s off my drive to work.

 

[Paratus]

How could anybody have definitely said that it doesn't emit anything when nobody has any idea what is happening? They set up a rig to measure an effect. That's all they did. Why don't you concentrate on whether their experimental regime was solid or not? Did they or did they not measure an effect? If they measured an effect then it might be best to do more experiments and try to find out what is causing it before we argue over whether what is causing it violates the laws of physics, don't you think?

I'm done with his argument. If he wants to rage about how they chose to inform their colleagues about the test procedures, findings, and potential explanations to research let him.

It doesn't change the findings.

 

[tynopik]

It doesn't change the findings.

It doesn't change their finding, but it changes the value you should assign to their findings

hiding your study = invalid results

if you want to pretend that not submitting to peer review is no big deal, please invest in my hoverboard. Initial results are encouraging, I promise.

 

[Paratus]

It doesn't change their finding, but it changes the value you should assign to their findings

hiding your study = invalid results

if you want to pretend that not submitting to peer review is no big deal, please invest in my hoverboard. Initial results are encouraging, I promise.

I don't know you nor have I seen your test setup. So I'll pass on the investment.

 

[Markbnj]

Um, that is their whole claim



That is an extraordinary claim, and when you make an extraordinary claim but aren't willing to subject your experiment to extraordinary scrutiny, you're a quack pure and simple



BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE

What part of them refusing to subject their experiment to peer review do you not understand?

If they're not willing to take it seriously, why should i?

Um, I'm with Paratus. Not worth arguing with you at this point.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I always love those who argue as if humans know all. Are there really smart people? Sure. Do we know everything? No. If you think there aren't things out there that counter what us humans have determined as theory/law/rules you are pretty narrow minded.

These sort of things could be avoided if the "scientists" would stop making announcements like "we think we", "we may have", "there may be". Prove it over and over in your own labs and make it repeatable, then have your peers try to disprove it, then and only then make announcements. The internet and the very quick 15 minutes of fame have made people lazy and too quick to make outlandish "we might have" announcements. It gets very old and gives a cry wolf affect after awhile.

Did I miss it or did they not say how many times they attempted this test? I see they reversed it, but I'm curious if they tore down, started from scratch and did it again to see if they got the same results?

 

[Paratus]

I always love those who argue as if humans know all. Are there really smart people? Sure. Do we know everything? No. If you think there aren't things out there that counter what us humans have determined as theory/law/rules you are pretty narrow minded.

These sort of things could be avoided if the "scientists" would stop making announcements like "we think we", "we may have", "there may be". Prove it over and over in your own labs and make it repeatable, then have your peers try to disprove it, then and only then make announcements. The internet and the very quick 15 minutes of fame have made people lazy and too quick to make outlandish "we might have" announcements. It gets very old and gives a cry wolf affect after awhile.

Did I miss it or did they not say how many times they attempted this test? I see they reversed it, but I'm curious if they tore down, started from scratch and did it again to see if they got the same results?

In the paper they reported:

Cannae slotted 6 total tests 1 reversed
Cannae un slotted 5 total tests 1 reversed
50ohm RF 2 total.

Tapered Cavity. 8 total tests.

 

[Markbnj]

These sort of things could be avoided if the "scientists" would stop making announcements like "we think we", "we may have", "there may be". Prove it over and over in your own labs and make it repeatable, then have your peers try to disprove it, then and only then make announcements. The internet and the very quick 15 minutes of fame have made people lazy and too quick to make outlandish "we might have" announcements. It gets very old and gives a cry wolf affect after awhile.

Sometimes they do make announcements, and some of them are no-doubt as interested in publicity as most humans. But by the same token they publish for their peers in forms anyone can read, and there are a zillion bloggers, magazines, etc., all trolling for new shit to report constantly. It's up to the consumer to have a skeptical approach.

 

[Paratus]

Sometimes they do make announcements, and some of them are no-doubt as interested in publicity as most humans. But by the same token they publish for their peers in forms anyone can read, and there are a zillion bloggers, magazines, etc., all trolling for new shit to report constantly. It's up to the consumer to have a skeptical approach.

I personally wonder if it wasn't the British inventor mentioned in the Wired UK article who brought the press in. Wired UK was the first publication I saw this in and I'm sure he knew the results were being presented.

 

[norseamd]

In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretical foundations for the laser and the maser in the paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation); via a re-derivation of Max Planck's law of radiation, conceptually based upon probability coefficients (Einstein coefficients) for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation; in 1928, Rudolf W. Ladenburg confirmed the existences of the phenomena of stimulated emission and negative absorption;[11] in 1939, Valentin A. Fabrikant predicted the use of stimulated emission to amplify "short" waves;[12] in 1947, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford found apparent stimulated emission in hydrogen spectra and effected the first demonstration of stimulated emission;[11] in 1950, Alfred Kastler (Nobel Prize for Physics 1966) proposed the method of optical pumping, experimentally confirmed, two years later, by Brossel, Kastler, and Winter.[13]

Townes reports that several eminent physicists – among them Niels Bohr, John von Neumann, Isidor Rabi, Polykarp Kusch, and Llewellyn Thomas — argued the maser violated Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and hence could not work.[14] In 1964 Charles H. Townes, Nikolay Basov, and Aleksandr Prokhorov shared the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics, which has led to the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser–laser principle".

As per Wikipedia.

 

[Paratus]

As per Wikipedia.

The folks who developed laser/maser eventually had solid tests and a proven theory.

We aren't there yet. It's why the term anomalous thrust is in the title. The testing actually blew the inventors current hypothesis out of the water.

Violating conservation of momentum would require more definitive testing and an ironclad theory to describe it. It's also possible the thruster doesn't actually work. However it's also possible it works but that conservation of momentum is maintained.

That fact that it's been tested by different parties and we still have anomalous thrust says there is probably something there. Hopefully the next round of IV&V testing will definitively prove it works and give us an idea of what the theory behind the operation should be.

 

[Fritzo]

Every time I post interesting scientific news, it turns into this: