91–95 of 95 posts
User Steuard explains why EmDrive doesn't work and responds to an ad-hominem attack https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9473209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9476202
User Steuard explains why EmDrive doesn't work and responds to an ad-hominem attack https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9473209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9476202
Sorry to point out that Steuard comments are as valid as me stating that because I don't understand how to calculate the integral, there can be no way anyone else can . Just because some people don't know how to do something doesn't mean its not possible.
User Steuard explains why EmDrive doesn't work and responds to an ad-hominem attack https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9473209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9476202
Sorry to point out that Steuard comments are as valid as me stating that because I don't understand how to calculate the integral, there can be no way anyone else can . Just because some people don't know how to do something doesn't mean its not possible.
While this is a wrong place to continue this, I still think that I must answer this.
This analogy is incorrect. Let me rephrase your statement about the integral: "I'm incapable of calculating the integral therefore it cannot be calculated"
It's not a question of human capabilities. The problem with EmDrive is not that we say that humans are incapable of inventing a reactionless drive.
The problem is that all working physics theories embed conservation of momentum, and reactionless drives contradict conservation of momentum. This is equivalent to saying "here's a proof this integral cannot be calculated in all useful mathematical formalisms". Please note that there are no "proofs" in physics, and I'm only using this as an analogy.
Of course you could define a formalism that makes it possible to calculate the integral, which EmDrive proponents don't do.
I would be glad to be proven wrong. If there was a rigorous experiment that invalidates all modern physical theories, I would change my mind really fast, so would the majority of scientists. However, EmDrive proponents produce no rigorous experiments. The analogy would be saying "oh those silly mathematicians saying I couldn't calculate this integral, here's my calculation!" while having many errors in your calculations.
> By the way we saw the same thing in algo trading, were a cabal of finance professors argued for more than 10years that the EMH theory holds and algo trading is a hoax. Just saying..
Again, this analogy is incorrect, because you won't find an adequate physicist that disputes conservation of momentum. And EMH was/is disputed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to point out that Steuard comments are as valid as me stating that because I don't understand how to calculate the integral, there can be no way anyone else can . Just because some people don't know how to do something doesn't mean its not possible.
> because I don't understand how to calculate the integral, there can be no way anyone else can > Just because some people don't know how to do something doesn't mean its not possible. While this is a wrong place to continue this, I still think that I must answer this. This analogy is incorrect. Let me rephrase your statement about the integral: "I'm incapable of calculating the integral therefore it cannot be calcul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because I don't understand how to calculate the integral, there can be no way anyone else can > Just because some people don't know how to do something doesn't mean its not possible. While this is a wrong place to continue this, I still think that I must answer this. This analogy is incorrect. Let me rephrase your statement about the integral: "I'm incapable of calculating the integral therefore it cannot be calcul…
I agree that it might be a false assumption emdrive works. But I don't think you should state that the standard model is evidence of that emdrive cannot work. Again I agree with conservation of momentum, but what if your assumption is wrong? What if emdrive don't violate it? My point is, rather focus your energy on building your own version than throwing out statements which also have no proof.
I specifically said that reactionless drives contradict conservation of momentum. This is a direct result of all useful physical theories.
> what if your assumption is wrong? What if emdrive don't violate it?
Believe it or not, but I've answered this question before. If EmDrive doesn't violate conservation of momentum, then according to standard model it cannot produce more thrust than a photon drive, which makes EmDrive utterly useless.
> My point is, rather focus your energy on building your own version [...]
My own version: EmDrive inventor is a crackpot, which can be deduced from papers he writes and statements he makes. I'm not obliged to explain every single crackpot claim. The burden of proof is on the side making extraordinary claims.
> [...] than throwing out statements which also have no proof
Please quote specific statements rather than making broad accusation of baseless speech.
I'm tired of dissecting every single one of your sentences.