Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

We are the Borg.
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 66432
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3187 times
Been thanked: 2017 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:48 am

So "Wednesday" then?

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20778
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1311 times
Been thanked: 1093 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:06 am



Haven't had time to watch it yet. Just posting for later.

The video description:
Published on Nov 28, 2016

The hype of the EM drive has been truly remarkable.

The creator claims they it will give us flying cars, cheap access to space, and solve global warming.

The come the ground breaking news its passed peer review!!!

Then you look at the details.

Turns out the peer review paper claims the thrust is something like 100 millionths of a Newton per 100 watts.

If that doesnt send alarm bells ringing immediately, it should. To keep a human alive in regular life takes about 100 watts. Just standing up requires a force of 1000 Newtons. Turns out just my breath alone can provide about 100 times the thrust of the EM drive. Indeed the value is so pathetically small, it could easily be an experimental error. Now it turns out the people doing the measurement were at used NASA kit (they had the very sensitive force balance needed).

Then comes the next problem. The device... IF the results are real, would rewrite FUNDAMENTAL laws of the universe, like conservation of momentum.

So basically, IF a measurement right on the limit of what can be measured is correct, and shows an idea from a crank.... who thinks a non-sensical drive will give cheap access to space (impossible even if it worked as claimed).... was actually right!

The mere fact that NASA wants nothing to do with publicising this should tell you how much faith they have that this is actually an epoch making discovery.... and not say for instance just an experimental error on a 'thrust' that can barely be measured.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 66432
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3187 times
Been thanked: 2017 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X » Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:15 am

Sure seems to fit Prof. Park's definition of "Voodoo Science":
  • 1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
    2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
    3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
    4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
    5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
    6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
    7. The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.
The funny thing is, when you look at major discoveries in, say, physics, they do not prove difficult to demonstrate. Hate Einstein? Well, we have demonstration of time dilation far easier to understand than that Thing with Mercury Progressions Thingy . . . Thing.

Hate quantum? We have the photo-electric effect, normal interference patterns with light, and t3h d34dly double slit experiment.

Neither of these involved dancing on the edge of experimental error. Tons of other examples. Heck, the infamous "spooky interaction at a distance"--entanglement--resulted from a prediction by Einstein and Some Other Guys that, if quantum theory as understood proved correct, entanglement should happen which is . . . ridiculous! No way to test it.

Then Bell came about . . . developed a test that no one could run to make a long story short.

A few decades later, they have done the experiments. It happens. Whether we like it or it "makes sense" outside of mathematics.

Meanwhile . . . we still cannot detect chi. Homeopathic dilutions must remove every molecule of the "stuff" in the damn solution.

But, hey, I can bend spoons.

Trust me.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32427
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Trilobite of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 418 times
Been thanked: 697 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by ed » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:50 pm

Two words: PEAR Princeton.

The most embarrassing association between an institution of higher learning and woo.

EVAR!!!
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1757 times
Been thanked: 2352 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Witness » Wed Nov 30, 2016 2:26 am

Hadn't heard about that one. From their site I see they sell books & DVDs:
PEAR wrote:Margins of Reality
The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World

This pioneering work, which sparked intense controversy when it was first published two decades ago, suggests that modern science, in the name of rigor and objectivity, has arbitrarily excluded the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality.

Drawing on the results of their first decade of empirical experimentation and theoretical modeling in their Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, the authors reach provocative conclusions about the interaction of human consciousness with physical devices, information-gathering processes, and technological systems.

The scientific, personal, and social implications of this revolutionary work are staggering. MARGINS OF REALITY is nothing less than a fundamental reevaluation of how the world really works.

Margins of Reality
by Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne
432 pages; 2009 ICRL Press
$19.95
:lmao:

To work has the EM drive to be… conscious? :notsure:

User avatar
sparks
Posts: 13455
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 1659 times
Been thanked: 532 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by sparks » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:31 am

"Yes Dave. Although you and Frank took very thorough precautions against my hearing you in the pod, I could see your lips moving."

"He was told to lie by people who find it easy to lie. HAL doesn't know how. And so he became paranoid."



And I still loathe nice things.

We all do what we can. :)
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 66432
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3187 times
Been thanked: 2017 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:37 am

Image

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
sparks
Posts: 13455
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
Has thanked: 1659 times
Been thanked: 532 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by sparks » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:48 am

"Perhaps you will dream of HAL, just as I often do."

:-)
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 69412
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2777 times
Been thanked: 1066 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:01 pm

So it does work, but not good enough just yet?

Right? :twisted:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19791
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed
Has thanked: 567 times
Been thanked: 578 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister » Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:11 pm

nope

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 69412
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2777 times
Been thanked: 1066 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:13 pm

:P
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32427
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Trilobite of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 418 times
Been thanked: 697 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by ed » Fri Dec 02, 2016 2:54 pm

Witness wrote:Hadn't heard about that one. From their site I see they sell books & DVDs:
PEAR wrote:Margins of Reality
The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World

This pioneering work, which sparked intense controversy when it was first published two decades ago, suggests that modern science, in the name of rigor and objectivity, has arbitrarily excluded the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality.

Drawing on the results of their first decade of empirical experimentation and theoretical modeling in their Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, the authors reach provocative conclusions about the interaction of human consciousness with physical devices, information-gathering processes, and technological systems.

The scientific, personal, and social implications of this revolutionary work are staggering. MARGINS OF REALITY is nothing less than a fundamental reevaluation of how the world really works.

Margins of Reality
by Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne
432 pages; 2009 ICRL Press
$19.95
:lmao:

To work has the EM drive to be… conscious? :notsure:
I spent many hours debating that THERE. In essence, it was a model of how not to do research. The "effect" was real, you see, so the inability to measure it was the result of bias, error and so on. They made a fine art of interpreting the nature of random fluctuation, and moving goal posts.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
no one in particular
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 4:56 am
Location: Austin, TX
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 37 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by no one in particular » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:02 pm

PBS Space Time is a fun little YT channel focused on physics.

Here is their blatantly skeptical take on the current state of the EM Drive peer review. It hits some of the same points as the Thunderf00t video above and largely criticizes the same recent paper.

Killing me with humorous lines will not Clark Kent the egg salad. ~Skeptoid

It seems that our RIVER has run dry.

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 14896
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1757 times
Been thanked: 2352 times

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Witness » Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:54 am

Image
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics
Frontiers of Propulsion Science


Marc G. Millis; Eric W. Davis

Frontiers of Propulsion Science is the first-ever compilation of emerging science relevant to such notions as space drives, warp drives, gravity control, and faster-than-light travel--the kind of breakthroughs that would revolutionize spaceflight and enable human voyages to other star systems. Although these concepts might sound like science fiction, they are appearing in growing numbers in reputable scientific journals. This is a nascent field where a variety of concepts and issues are being explored in the scientific literature, beginning in about the early 1990s. The collective status is still in step 1 and 2 of the scientific method, with initial observations being made and initial hypotheses being formulated, but a small number of approaches are already at step 4, with experiments underway. This emerging science, combined with the realization that rockets are fundamentally inadequate for interstellar exploration, led NASA to support the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project from 1996 through 2002. Frontiers of Propulsion Science covers that project as well as other related work, so as to provide managers, scientists, engineers, and graduate students with enough starting material that they can comprehend the status of this research and decide if and how to pursue it in more depth themselves. Five major sections are included in the book: Understanding the Problem lays the groundwork for the technical details to follow; Propulsion Without Rockets discusses space drives and gravity control, both in general terms and with specific examples; Faster-Than-Light Travel starts with a review of the known relativistic limits, followed by the faster-than-light implications from both general relativity and quantum physics; Energy Considerations deals with spacecraft power systems and summarizes the limits of technology based on accrued science; and From This Point Forward offers suggestions for how to manage and conduct research on such visionary topics.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.479953