|
While being skeptical is fine...
1) The drive still exists. Multiple, independently built copies.
2) The inventor has released the secret. Two German labs, a Chinese lab, and NASA skunkworks have all independently built it.
3) As the above shows... Nope. No one's bought the patent, and the evidence hasn't been destroyed. Just people refuse to believe it.
Everyone who's built the device is shocked to report it works; at least preliminary tests show thrust. They aren't fully ready to publish because they need to do more research, so yeah, it might be bunk, but it doesn't really look like a hoax.
I want to see the device tested in orbit, but that's going to require a lot of money from people who believe themselves too smart to buy it.
|
|
|
|
|
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote: Everyone who's built the device is shocked to report it works; at least preliminary tests show thrust. They aren't fully ready to publish because they need to do more research, so yeah, it might be bunk, but it doesn't really look like a hoax.
Let's see what the peer reviewed data shows.
Remember when it was recently thought that a particle had gone faster than the speed of light, the researchers very carefully went over their data to discover what had actually happened.
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote: Just people refuse to believe it.
'believe' is not a word that is used in scientific studies, 'evidence' and 'proof' are words that are used.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: 'believe' is not a word that is used in scientific studies, 'evidence' and 'proof' are words that are used.
Right. I'm not talking about scientific studies not believing it. The scientific studies have provided evidence in the form of empirical measurements of thrust.
It's random people like you and me who don't believe the evidence being presented.
I argue for giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they're seeing thrust, they need to study it further, and to do that they need funding. People declaring it impossible and a hoax are essentially saying it's not worth their taxpayer money.
|
|
|
|
|
erzengel.des.lichtes wrote: It's random people like you and me who don't believe the evidence being presented.
What is a 'non-random' person?
Also, I don't need to 'believe' evidence.
All I am asking for is the evidence to be presented in the form of peer reviewed scientific journal articles.
'Belief' does not come into the scientific method.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: What is a 'non-random' person?
A 'non-random' person would be a person who has actually had direct experience with the device, such as someone at Skunkworks, or Northwestern Polytechnical University, or... you get the idea. Build the em-drive yourself and you would no longer be a "random person".
GuyThiebaut wrote: Also, I don't need to 'believe' evidence.
Sure you do! I can give you a picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon, but if you're a "Truther" you won't believe the evidence. Or the entire pile that goes along with it. Humans are quite capable of not believing evidence.
All I ask is that when judging by the scientific method, you check your prejudices at the door. Don't declare it a hoax without doing the slightest bit of research, don't point out all the ways previous hoaxes worked in an attempt to discredit it even though none of them apply. Instead, say something like "The preliminary evidence is interesting. I look forward to its submission to a peer reviewed journal."
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you - this is how big leaps forward are made. Why just dismiss it without looking deeper? Sometimes I think we're in probably the most unambitious, cynical phase mankind has ever seen. People seem to prefer bickering over nothing on Facebook than trying to do something nobody has done before. 
Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
+5 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: Not wanting to sound too corny, hasn't every major achievement started with a dream or outlandish idea? People didn't get to moon by saying "I'll believe it when I see it".
The Moon was reached by applying well-known engineering principles in a disciplined manner, not by wishing it so.
Extraordinary claims such as the EM drive require extraordinary proof. While I would not claim that all physical laws have been discovered (The eminent English physicist Lord Kelvin did so at the end of the 19th century, just before Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were discovered), I am also hesitant to accept the discovery of a new phenomenon without extraordinary proof.
Quite a few supposed discoveries of the last hundred years have turned out to be either errors (cold fusion, faster-than-light neutrinos) or deliberate frauds (all "psi" phenomena).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Actually people had dreamed about going to the moon for centuries, long before it was possible to do so. Even on the first manned landing there were a lot of questions about whether it was possible - the key thing is that they tried anyway.
Proof is critical, but you don't get proof without trying.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
A dream is very different from an engineering project.
When NASA started Project Apollo, there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible. Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again.
The big problem with Project Apollo was converting these theoretical requirements to hardware, which must work in a totally new environment.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: there were no scientific reasons to assume that reaching the Moon was not possible
..apart from the fact that it had never been done before. There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive.
http://www.space.com/26593-apollo-11-moon-landing-scariest-moments.html[^]
http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html[^]
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Any college Physics student given the distance to the Moon, the Earth's and the Moon's masses, etc. could have calculated good first approximations to the maneuvers required to take you from (1) the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit, (2) from low Earth orbit to Lunar orbit, (3) from Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface, and (4) back again.
Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess. Like I said, it had never been done before, there was no template to follow. But the people then had an ambitious dream and gave it their best shot.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: There were a lot of questions about what would happen - if the astronauts would get there, land safely and be able to return home alive.
I do not minimize the dangers involved in reaching the Moon. My point is that the solutions to these dangers were a matter of engineering, not scientific research. No new scientific principles were discovered in the attempt to reach the Moon (but many new facts were).
Brent Jenkins wrote: Yes they could - today, and retrospectively. Everything at the time was best guess.
Orbital mechanics was a well-known subject in the 1960s, and had been since Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity in the late 17th century.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
And what led to the engineering? Did people just do it as a technical experiment? Of course not - it was done purely because men had dreamed of going to the moon for centuries.
Damn, this kind of endless loop of circular nit-picking is exactly what I was talking about originally. Our ancestors (even our recent ones) just gone on with stuff, aimed high, tried to achieve the unobtainable. Some were successful, many weren't, but that's how we progressed.
Our generation is a bit duff if I'm honest. Armchair experts providing an infinite amount of background chatter and negativity (thanks mostly to soshul meeja) on any and every subject. It really makes me feel like moving off to an isolated log cabin a thousand miles from anyone.
What do we aspire to these days? Sod all, 'cos nothing's possible. Welcome to the 21st century, the Age of Mediocrity. 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: People seem to prefer bickering over nothing on Facebook than trying to do something nobody has done before.
That's what Facebook is for. If you expect anything productive to come out of Facebook, then your expectations of Facebook are several orders of magnitude higher than they should be. The people in this world actually trying to accomplish something don't waste their time of Facebook.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a criticism of Facebook, my issue is with the lack of ambition and imagination in our generation.
Where are the big movies that people will still be talking about and watching in 20 years time? Where are the iconic bands? Don't get me wrong, I like modern music and some films, but there's nothing to compare with some of the big bands and movies from the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Have we really run out of big ideas? 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah... but they forgot to dance naked around a unicorn in the starlight before conducting the test, which is why it did not work for them.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Did you miss the opening sentence "Two German researchers claim they have produced measurable amounts of thrust using a copy of NASA’s controversial EMDrive."
Without impossible dreams, nothing amazing gets made. Even if this proves to be a dead end, surely it's worth the effort to figure it out? Who know what else may come from the research?
|
|
|
|
|
Moon in 4 hours using microwaves?
1) What acceleration would that require and
2) Where would they get an extension cord that long?
|
|
|
|
|
- The acceleration required is on the order of 1 Earth gravity.
- You can find extension cords at your local hardware store.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: You can find extension cords at your local hardware store.
Indeed you can but they're always exactly 3 inches shorter than the distance between the socket and the plug of the machine you wish to extend to!
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the real problem would be stopping when you got there!
|
|
|
|
|
The calculations take this into account.
Once out of earth's atmosphere half of the journey would have the engines pointing away from the moon and half towards it - so in effect there would be a 1g acceleration throughout the whole journey, it's just that half of that journey would be using the acceleration to come to a stop.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I once calculated that if you accelerate halfway at one G, flip, and decelerate at one G, the moon is about three hours away. I've since seen an article saying that using that strategy, the moon is (as I calculated) three hours away; Mars is three days away (at opposition, I guess); and Pluto is three weeks away.
|
|
|
|
|
Now work out the size of the fuel tank required for a chemical rocket. You're in for a nasty surprise...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
