Whoa! New type of space drive discovered

[tynopik]

This has nothing to do with explaining the test results and is your opinion.

This is where you're missing the boat. It has everything to do with explaining the test results because THE TEST RESULTS HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.

I have no need to explain results that have no credibility because THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.

This has nothing to do with explaining the test results

Again it has everything to do with it.

If you want to be credible, there's steps to take and procedures to follow. These procedures are time-tested and created for good reason.

When people step outside those boundaries, it says they don't take their own results seriously.

And if they don't take their results seriously, why should I?

It's amazing the amount of skepticism you apply to my straightforward factual claims while if you applied half as much critical thought to these 'scientists' you would realize how bogus they are.

You keep asking what specific proof I have they messed up, instead you should be asking them what specific proof do they have that they didn't mess up.

They're the ones making the extraordinary claim, they're the ones that have to go to extraordinary lengths to prove it. Instead we get a couple half-assed experiments and you're all on the 'Maybe they have something after all!' bandwagon.

 

[DrPizza]

Paratus, let's put it this way:
The device, unless it's simply experimental error, breaks the laws of physics. If it breaks the laws of physics, whoever explains how, clinches a Nobel prize. There's no rush throughout the science community; it appears that the science community has glanced at it and said, "awww, isn't that cute! They still haven't figured out how their device works, but the odds of the mechanism actually breaking the laws of physics are about nil.

There are too many possible mechanisms that haven't (as far as I'm aware) been ruled out before any extraordinary claim should have ever been made. It's as if I pulled an electric cord from a vacuum cleaner with a self winding retractable cord , and claimed the extra cord was coming from a parallel dimension. Then claim the mechanism is caused by "Hoover" on the side. NASA tests the claim with a Kirby vs Hoover vacuum, and when both have a cord that comes out, I by-pass peer review and make the claim that cords can come from parallel universes, but I'm not sure how.
m
Then you read that tynopik is critical of the evidence they (haven't) produced of the parallel dimension, and you apparently don't understand why he is.

 

[Regs]

I'm just blown away that we have no idea how this thing works. I was worried that all of the "low hanging fruit" in physics has been discovered, and further discoveries were going to require huge amounts of energy. This is really a curveball. Can't wait until we get some top minds working on this thing to figure it out.

In my theory, the capabilities , possibilities, and physics are always there just yet to be discovered. The problem in this equation is human behavior, politics, and the limitations of our communication.

 

[Phoenix86]

They still haven't figured out how their device works, but the odds of the mechanism actually breaking the laws of physics are about nil.

Uhh, *known physics, which are broken fairly regularly. I'm sure dozens of times in the last hundred years or so. The entire field of quantum physics broke just about every aspect of known physics.

I'm still with you on the evidence though, test, test more, perhaps learn new physics on the way.

Violating the actual laws of physics, which we obviously don't fully understand. Sure, that's not happening.

 

[Paratus]

Paratus, let's put it this way:
The device, unless it's simply experimental error, breaks the laws of physics. If it breaks the laws of physics, whoever explains how, clinches a Nobel prize. There's no rush throughout the science community; it appears that the science community has glanced at it and said, "awww, isn't that cute! They still haven't figured out how their device works, but the odds of the mechanism actually breaking the laws of physics are about nil.

There are too many possible mechanisms that haven't (as far as I'm aware) haven't been ruled out before any extraordinary claim should have ever been made. It's as if I pulled an electric cord from a vacuum cleaner with a self winding retractable cord , and claimed the extra cord was coming from a parallel dimension. Then claim the mechanism is caused by "Hoover" on the side. You test the claim with a Kirby vs Hoover vacuum, and when both have a cord that comes out, you by-pass peer review and make the claim that cords can come from parallel universes, but you're not sure how.

Then you read that tynopik is critical of the evidence they (haven't) produced of the parallel dimension, and you apparently don't understand why he is.

DrPizza

Tynopik and I don't see eye to eye on this for a couple of reasons. Tynopik will not argue any evidence because the way the evidence was presented nullified the credibility of the evidence, so there is no credible evidence to argue. Credibility was lost because they presented the paper on their experiment to date at a conference of the America Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

(wiki says this is a 50 year old organization that some have dinged in quality recently for allowing status papers. This maybe part of typoniks concern)

I was originally skeptical when I heard NASA was investigating this. Typonik wanted to know why i wasn't questioning them. Well I did, last year. I work a 5 minute walk from the lab and a co-worker of mine joined the team for a while. So I was able to see the test setup last year and talk to a couple of the experimenters. I know there's no intentional funny business going on. Experimental error is obviously still a large possibility.

So while I understand his concern I do not share it.

Now for the rest of it.

I haven't said these devices work as advertised. I have said when tested they produce a small but measurable force.

The facts are 4 different groups have managed to produce anomalous thrust. Scientist external to those groups have rightly in my opinion, shot down all of the proposed hypothesis as either violating established laws of physics or not being supported by the results of the testing.

(Have I said anything so far that you disagree with?)

The fact that there is no working hypothesis does not change the experimental evidence that when powered these devices show a small amount of force.

That force has not been properly explained as the experimental error it probably is. Nor has it been explained by new physics as the inventors claim. It's even possible though not probable it works without requiring significantly new physics.

So with the lack of experimentally verified theory explaining the observed measurable force should another round of tests be performed to definitively explain the data based on the small chance of a large payoff? Or do we assume it's experimental error and save the money?

I say continue testing for a definitive answer. What do you think DrP? Same to you Typonik.

(FYI per the paper NASA is going to have the JSC team continue investigating. Goddard and JPL are going to test it too. Johns Hopkins has expressed interest in testing. )

 

[norseamd]

Since when do we actually know the laws of physics? Because we think we do? That is the problem with science right now.

 

[disappoint]

Well I don't like to be wrong either.

But the only things I've stated in this thread are the facts as I'm aware of them Facts are not wrong. (The paper corroborates what I've said and what my friend on the project has told me in the past.)

Our brains have a bit of a dichotomy going on. On the one had we have the conscious side, the logical side we are aware of most of the time when we are awake and discussing or thinking about this stuff.

The other side is the subconscious side, the emotional side that we are largely unaware of. The subconscious side is unaware of the difference between reality and fantasy. FMRI scans show evidence that our thoughts originate in the subconscious before our conscious mind is even aware of them.

Our subconscious is capable of blocking our conscious mind from realizing certain things, usually things emotions are attached to.

Is it possible your subconscious is blocking your conscious mind from realizing this whole thing could be a sham?

You have a lot of emotional ties at stake. One is your friend that worked closely with the project. The other is your love of science, and your subconscious wants so badly for you (and everyone else) to get excited (<---emotion) about science again. This is normal, there is nothing wrong with you, please don't take this as anything negative, it's just a part of being human.

I too would like for people to be more excited about science and show more interest. But I want them to get excited about real science. Because pseudo-science is going to eventually be a let down, and in the long term cause excitement and interest about science to fall sharply as people will fear (<---another emotion) being led astray, fear being conned. Even if they don't realize why, or how, their subconscious may block them from interest and being excited about science again if they are led astray.

Thanks for your contributions to science, whatever they may be.

The other things I've stated are my opinion.

• This is worthwhile science to explore at the minuscule funding levels it's received
• The technology if proven would be a game changer for exploration.
• Testing so far has been inconclusive. Neither proven or disproven.
• I'm pretty sure momentum is being conserved in one way or another
• Further testing should be done to conclusively prove or disprove the effect.

So far no one has provided me with an argument that makes me think my opinions are "wrong".

 

[Paratus]

Uhh, *known physics, which are broken fairly regularly. I'm sure dozens of times in the last hundred years or so. The entire field of quantum physics broke just about every aspect of known physics.

I'm still with you on the evidence though, test, test more, perhaps learn new physics on the way.

Violating the actual laws of physics, which we obviously don't fully understand. Sure, that's not happening.

Since when do we actually know the laws of physics? Because we think we do? That is the problem with science right now.

It's all well and good to remember that changed to accepted theories can happen. However the issue here is potentially claiming to violate conservation of momentum. That's a law like conservation of mass and energy that has never been observed to be broken.

It also why I'm convinced that regardless of the explanation for the forces measured momentum is going to be conserved. Even if the thrusters work momentum will be conserved in the system somehow. Otherwise we're off in perpetual motion land.

Dr White hypothesizes it's due to causing a bulk drift in the quantum fluctuations in the area of the thruster in the opposite direction of the motion of the thruster. So even they aren't claiming to violate conservation of momentum. Obviously testing will have to be done to definitively prove that.

 

[Paratus]

Our brains have a bit of a dichotomy going on. On the one had we have the conscious side, the logical side we are aware of most of the time when we are awake and discussing or thinking about this stuff.

The other side is the subconscious side, the emotional side that we are largely unaware of. The subconscious side is unaware of the difference between reality and fantasy. FMRI scans show evidence that our thoughts originate in the subconscious before our conscious mind is even aware of them.

Our subconscious is capable of blocking our conscious mind from realizing certain things, usually things emotions are attached to.

Is it possible your subconscious is blocking your conscious mind from realizing this whole thing could be a sham?

You have a lot of emotional ties at stake. One is your friend that worked closely with the project. The other is your love of science, and your subconscious wants so badly for you (and everyone else) to get excited (<---emotion) about science again. This is normal, there is nothing wrong with you, please don't take this as anything negative, it's just a part of being human.

I too would like for people to be more excited about science and show more interest. But I want them to get excited about real science. Because pseudo-science is going to eventually be a let down, and in the long term cause excitement and interest about science to fall sharply as people will fear (<---another emotion) being led astray, fear being conned. Even if they don't realize why, or how, their subconscious may block them from interest and being excited about science again if they are led astray.

Thanks for your contributions to science, whatever they may be.

So you want to know if my emotions have been over riding my common sense. In short......

NO!

:sneaky: :biggrin:

If that's your question then the tone of my posts have definitely not been coming across how I want them to.

Honestly, I am excited about the potential. I'm also excited enough that the concept has enough history behind it to actually test some hardware. I've posted in this thread and others because this being a tech board I figured folks would enjoy hearing about bleeding edge propulsion research.

I am however comfortable with my level of skepticism.

Now what are my reasons for saying this is not a sham.

The "this" that I know is not a sham is the NASA testing. The pictures in the paper are of the same lab and equipment I saw myself last year. Also knowing the oversight in place at NASA and some of the folks involved I know that there is no intentional shenanigans going on. That doesn't mean it works, just that the experiment was carried out as written in the paper and the data in paper was what was recorded during the experiment.

Like I said, I was originally skeptical this was a good use of funds. But after understanding scope of the research, the potential, and the small amount of funding involved I changed my mind.


The NASA testing also isn't pseudoscience. The devices are being tested in accordance with the scientific method. The results are repeatable and have been repeated at least one other time by a team not associated iwth the inventors. The results of the experiment are being presented and published. Other centers are being asked to perform independent testing. I would expect peer reviewed publishing once the force is explained definitively with a workable theory.

So I'll leave you with this, I am excited about the potential, I'll be disappoint...ed if it's just experimental error, but I won't be surprised in the least if it is just an error.

(My contribution to science was many years of real-time ISS operations and now flight controller and astronaut training. Don't tell DrPizza though - he hates manned spaceflight. Would probably ban me if he knew.... :whiste

 

[DrPizza]

.

 

[tynopik]

Tynopik will not argue any evidence because the way the evidence was presented nullified the credibility of the evidence

You think my argument is just about the 'presentation' and has nothing to do with substance?

Really?

 

[Paratus]

You think my argument is just about the 'presentation' and has nothing to do with substance?

Really?

Going back and looking at your posts in this thread, a fair number of them attack the experimenters, the journal and paper it was published at and how that damages the credibility of the data.

All of the people listed are quacks. Getting more quacks together doesn't 'confirm' anything.

If you don't know, then say I DON'T KNOW instead of trying to come up with pseudoscience gobbedlygook

It reeks of poor judgment and attention seeking, which then calls into question this part:

They're acting more like publicity hounds than proper scientists.

They 'published' at a VANITY PUBLISHER

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

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

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

So to paraphrase: They are a bunch of quacks who published in a vanity journal unlike real scientists therefore they have nothing.

When I asked you for a technical concern your answer was :

CREDIBILITY.

So yes your primary argument has come across as who, where, and how it was presented.

 

[tynopik]

Going back and looking at your posts in this thread, a fair number of them attack the experimenters, the journal and paper it was published at and how that damages the credibility of the data.

it's certainly part of it, but was that the ONLY complaint

No

so characterizing my complaint as such is deceitful and dishonest

It has not undergone peer review. This isn't a presentation issue, this a fundamental core issue. Until it has done so, there's no point in even discussing it

(saying it was published in a vanity publisher ties into peer review because they don't review anything, they publish anything you pay them to publish)

 

[Markbnj]

It has not undergone peer review. This isn't a presentation issue, this a fundamental core issue. Until it has done so, there's no point in even discussing it

Which is basically all you've been saying in this thread, and yet we have continued discussing it. It's not like the researchers booked television appearances to tout the magic thing they built. We all get that you don't think it's real until it's actually real, and it would apparently startle you to find out everyone agrees with that.

 

[Paratus]

it's certainly part of it, but was that the ONLY complaint

No

so characterizing my complaint as such is deceitful and dishonest

It has not undergone peer review. This isn't a presentation issue, this a fundamental core issue. Until it has done so, there's no point in even discussing it

(saying it was published in a vanity publisher ties into peer review because they don't review anything, they publish anything you pay them to publish)

Reading comprehension for the loss

Let me help you out here.

The phrase, "a fair number of posts " does not mean all. It means some.
The phrase, " your primary argument has come across as", does not mean your only argument. It means, "in my opinion your main argument is". It also means there are secondary arguments that are not being addressed by this comment.

So I did not lie nor try to deceive when I providedmy characterization of your argument.

At no time did I imply that was your only argument.

If my characterization of your posts is not how you intended your argument to be received I suggest working on your posting style. Markbnj seems to have had the same characterization. So it's not just me. You could start by not calling people liars who have not lied about you.

 

[tynopik]

Reading comprehension for the loss

indeed

I wasn't referring to that post as dishonest and deceitful, I was referring to your original one

Tynopik will not argue any evidence because the way the evidence was presented nullified the credibility of the evidence, so there is no credible evidence to argue.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

As far as I am concerned, the fact that our universe spawned from apparently nothing means anything is possible. Parallel universes, multiverses, forces leaking in/out through other universes and dimensions into ours, and etc. It's really not that difficult to grasp the possibilities if you can wrap your mind around the lack of any evidence/cause as to how or why we are here right now. But yet we are.

But one this is definitely for sure - the more we discover the more questions that come up afterward.

And there will be no implications on our daily lives if this is verified (one way or the other) so need to get emotional over it!

not for results that overthrow a thousand years of physics

One thousand years ago the Earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. Or was it even that advanced yet? If you had tried to explain some of the stuff we know today to people even just 400-500 years ago you would have been burned at the stake.

 

[Paratus]

indeed

I wasn't referring to that post as dishonest and deceitful, I was referring to your original one

My intention was to reiterate what I thought your main point was.

It was not my intention to misstate your argument. So my apologies.

 

[Markbnj]

Interesting piece in Boingboing by Charles Platt, who spent some time with Woodward and watched his demonstration.

http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html

 

[Ichinisan]

Interesting piece in Boingboing by Charles Platt, who spent some time with Woodward and watched his demonstration.

http://boingboing.net/2014/11/24/the-quest-for-a-reactionless-s.html

That's really cool.

 

[Ichinisan]

How're we doing on this? Any confirmation of what caused the anomalous thrust?

 

[Paratus]

How're we doing on this? Any confirmation of what caused the anomalous thrust?

Last I heard after running their test results past a panel of physicists, they suggested there was enough promise to continue with more rigorous testing.

My friend's rotation with the group was over so I don't have any insight into what level of testing they are continuing with.

 

[Darwin333]

How is this a discovery vs. an invention? Was the device already existing when humans 'discovered it'?

The physics and underlying principles that we are trying to understand, if it truly exists, have always existed, we just didn't/don't understand it.

So yes, it is a discovery and an invention that exploits that discovery.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know what everybody is so excited about. So far the experiment shows no more thrust than the control. The thrust would be tiny if there even is any. Multiplying that thrust by adding more thrusters would increase mass, which would decrease acceleration. It's a non-starter.

It wasn't really a "control" and it was done on a tiny scale and very low power. It gets very significant when you increase the power, assuming the thrust scales as well.

If this works out it will be the biggest game changer in space travel we have ever had.

 

[Darwin333]

No you don't.

I've repeatedly explained how the scientific process and publishing works and yet you continue to make up excuse after pathetic excuse for these jokers.

here's the data:

1. When their experiment performs no better than control, real scientists recognize that their experiment didn't work, they don't try to say it just works in ways they didn't understand

2. Real scientists don't publish in vanity journals

3. Real scientists submit to peer review

4. Real scientists don't invoke 'magic physics' when they have absolutely no clue what's going on

That's the cold hard facts

That's not true in the least. Sir Isaac Newton, imho the greatest scientist in recorded history, himself invoked "god" (exactly the same thing as magic physics in a scientific context) when he reached the limit of his knowledge and understanding. Tons of our greatest scientists have done exactly the same thing, since I can't figure it out it must be "insert their favorite mystical sky fairy" divine work.

And the control you keep speaking of was not a control, they configured the device in a different way to prove or disprove the inventors hypothesis. They disproved it which brings them back to the drawing board of why they are getting the results they are.