81–88 of 88 posts
I guess a cheap and efficient propulsion that doesn't fit our understanding of physics was too good to be true. Still, it's a bit sad, that would have been beautiful if it were true.
As far as I understand it, it's not quite over yet. Maybe the refusal itself can't be replicated by the other groups. Now that will keep these physicists busy for a while...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. The universe and the science that describe it are the same thing. Much as I am the same thing as the chemicals and reactions that describe me. However, our understanding of the science may be flawed, and perhaps that's what you're really meaning to say.
That seems a bit like saying a CAD file describing a roller coaster is the roller coaster. We have a model of our perception of the universe
On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting. The universe and the science that describe it are the same thing. Much as I am the same thing as the chemicals and reactions that describe me. However, our understanding of the science may be flawed, and perhaps that's what you're really meaning to say.
I'm confused. Was your response to me or Certhas? If it was to me, I don't agree. Science is a collection of human ideas that exist in the minds of humans. As another commenter said, it's our model of the universe. There is no difference between science and our understanding of science unless you're talking about differences in understanding between individual people.
> On the other hand, the universe is nothing more than the set of constraints that we call "science". The universe is the model, and science is an effort to duplicate that model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's free energy or free momentum, using only physics that has been perfectly described in hundreds of millions of contexts and experiments, for one and a half centuries, using mathematics that don't allow for either, you can rule out this alternative. The likelihood that free momentum and free energy are possible is indistinguishable from 0. They are empirically impossible in the strongest reasonable sense the wo…
I feel like you're suggesting that the universe springs forth from scientific theory and not the other way around.
The reason that we know this is far stronger than simply: "It hasn't been observed yet". That would allow that any new thing could end up violating the established rules.
It could be that if you write the one hundred millionth Mersenne prime on a cookie, and the one two hundred millionth on a banana they start circling each other and create free energy. This claim has not been falsified. So on what grounds do we rule it out? Because it is incompatible at an incredibly deep level with everything we know about cookies, bananas, and how their physical properties depend on what's written on them.
Every aspect of each of these objects that has ever been observed has been found to be describable in terms of some unbelievably simple mathematical structures. For these unbelievably simple mathematical structures we have prove that anything that can be described by them does not allow free energy.
An observation like the Mersenne, cookie, banana interaction can not violate the mathematical derivation, therefore it implies that out of all the infinitude of observations that have been made of bananas and cookies, that all were describable by energy and momentum conserving physical theories, somehow this one arbitrary one is special. It can not be described by even the type of mathematics we have hitherto used and yet was completely invisible.
How could that be? Flying Spaghetti Monster of course. Just as the FSM hid the true age of the earth from us by interfering with science, so it also conspired to hide the free energy Mersenne Banana Cookie interaction from us.
In other words: If you know that the FSM did not create the earth 4000 years ago, then you even more definitely know that there is no free momentum/energy. If you think that we can't know either of these things, then your concept of knowledge sucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like you're suggesting that the universe springs forth from scientific theory and not the other way around.
No I'm not. I'm saying that we know something about how the universe works. And one of the things we know is that there is no free momentum or energy (in flat space time). The reason that we know this is far stronger than simply: "It hasn't been observed yet". That would allow that any new thing could end up violating the established rules. It could be that if you write the one hundred millionth Mersenne prime on a c…
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t... The critical passages - translated by myself Page 2: The hint: "Again it showed the same behavior - until the drive was directed towards the top for testing purposes. Usually, the drive is put on a torsion balance in a way that it can best turn the scale left or right. With the drive directed towards the top nothing should be measurable. [...] However, t…
The Austrian experimental physicist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Tajmar is a legend already, since he measured in 2002 a gravitomagnetic effect in spinning superconductors at Seibersdorf, but this sensational effect is also probably just bad experimental setup and not a new gravitational theory. He is the author of the classic book "Advanced Space Propulsion Systems".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I'm not. I'm saying that we know something about how the universe works. And one of the things we know is that there is no free momentum or energy (in flat space time). The reason that we know this is far stronger than simply: "It hasn't been observed yet". That would allow that any new thing could end up violating the established rules. It could be that if you write the one hundred millionth Mersenne prime on a c…
I'm not suggesting that anyone spend much time entertaining ideas like the prime cookie or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm merely pointing out that theory does not dictate outcomes. I'm happy that they have disproven the EM drive (or that this appears to be the case), but one of the things that's bothered me about the discourse surrounding this phenomenon has been the notion that we should immediately dismiss it as…
It's improbable to flip a coin 10 times and get head ten times. It's for all practical purposes impossible to do so 10^10 times. This level of mathematical probability is functionally indistinguishable from 0 thus it is entirely accurate to call it impossible.
It's not logically impossible of course, it just happens not to be possible in our universe. It's physically impossible. Like the prime cookie. The appropriate amount of time spent on investigating prime cookies is not "very small", it's 0.
Now there is of course reason to investigate the EM Drive to some degree: To figure out where the bug was. To learn about potential experimental errors. As a puzzle, to solve the apparent paradox. But any other framing of the issue is dishonest.