11–20 of 38 posts
[1] http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/05/26/warp-dri...
[2] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-v...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we're going to learn that some experimenters are sloppy.
Its amazing to me how many people who purportedly believe in science act more like priests than scientists. Science is about drawing conclusions from empirical data, not ignoring empirical data that doesn't jive with your predetermined conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we're going to learn that some experimenters are sloppy.
Its amazing to me how many people who purportedly believe in science act more like priests than scientists. Science is about drawing conclusions from empirical data, not ignoring empirical data that doesn't jive with your predetermined conclusions.
There are plenty of bizarre conclusions (dark matter and dark energy, for example) that have been drawn from stark empirical data and have withstood peer review. The EMdrive is not one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we're going to learn that some experimenters are sloppy.
How many times do these results need to be replicated before you'll believe them? So far the thrust results have been replicated more than the majority of economics and social science research (i.e. more than zero times).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It violates the conservation of momentum; so it needs to replicated many many times.
What tablet did god write this law on?
But there's such a mountain of evidence for it that we should have a very high bar for claims that it's violated. Thermal effects and measurement error are both likely sources of the discrepancy.
But another reason to be skeptical is that Noether's Theorem tells us that a violation of conservation of momentum is only possible if the laws of physics are not translation invariant, and we should be able to use the violation of conservation of momentum to illustrate a specific instance where physical laws are not translation invariant. That would be Earth-shattering. (But not, strictly speaking, impossible)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its amazing to me how many people who purportedly believe in science act more like priests than scientists. Science is about drawing conclusions from empirical data, not ignoring empirical data that doesn't jive with your predetermined conclusions.
The science is pretty settled here. No such thing can exist by laws of physics. You might as well try making a perpetual motion machine or homeopathic medicine.
Thanks, this more neatly sums up the attitude I was attempting to describe then anything I could come up with. The hubris that is endemic in much of the "scientific" community is simply amazing. Another glaring example of the gap between education and intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many times do these results need to be replicated before you'll believe them? So far the thrust results have been replicated more than the majority of economics and social science research (i.e. more than zero times).
It violates the conservation of momentum; so it needs to replicated many many times.