Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

We are the Borg.
99guspuppet
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:55 pm
Title: ElBubba
Location: NW Denver , Colorado

Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by 99guspuppet »

A electromagnetic thruster concept has been lurking about since about 2001. Developed by Roger Shawyer , the claim was it did not require propellant. News reports say NASA has recently tested it ( 2014 ) and that thrust was measured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

So my thoughts are are 3-fold.

#1 What level of credibility should this development be accorded ? on a scale of zero to ten .
#2 If it becomes reality, what can we do with it ? Power a craft to Mars ? Lift a piano ?
#3 If it appears to be largely credible , how can we accelerate it's development ?

I really want to go to Mars , so I will probably be a sucker for any scheme that promises that result.
( Like Mars-One.com )
Dent the Universe .... support #IPPParadigm
clarsct
Posts: 5872
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:30 am

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by clarsct »

There is a lot of skepticism about this. I'll dig up some links in a bit. PM me in a week if I forget.

Basically, a lot of fairly bright folks fell for cold fusion, as well. I would need to see the experiments independently replicated.

After that...well. If it pans out, it does make travelling between planets a lot easier, though I don't know about faster. I would have to see some efficiency stats to have an idea if it's of any use to us on Earth.

The real draw is the ability to create thrust without having to take material with you to do so. Means we can make probes and spacecraft lighter and cheaper.

But until it can be independently verified, it's all speculation for me.

Welcome, by the by. Please feel free to look about. We're somewhat troll-free at the moment, but do mind your step.
Some of us are a little abrasive, but that's skepticism for you. The debates can be intense, but then again...skeptics.

I am somewhat inrigued by the OP..or the concept. Just not on the bandwagon without more testing.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

"Reading other people's opinions is a good way to avoid thinking." --My Wife
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29253
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Anaxagoras »

Lifting a piano (in earth gravity) probably not.

In zero gravity though, it doesn't take much to move something.

My understanding of the ion drive is that it's not good for getting anything out of a large gravity well, but could be good for thrust in outer space where there is no significant gravity.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73839
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X »

FIRST!

No . . . wait . . . sorry . . . wrong thread.

--J.D.

P.S. Welcome to the Forums!

P.P.S. Two drink minimum. . . .
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

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23528
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister »

corplinx wrote:It isn't supposed to be a zero energy device, just a zero propellant one....
The conservation of momentum is no less a physical law of the universe than is the conservation of energy.

Suggesting it can be violated is no less woo.

And that's all there is to that.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29253
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Anaxagoras »

Is this the paper?

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 006052.pdf

So they don't talk about the physics, but they tested two devices, one which was supposed to produce thrust and one which wasn't. They both produced thrust. I have no idea what effect is really happening here.


Can NASA be trusted? In general I would say so, but of course it's not impossible for them to be wrong. Here in Japan there was a recent case of scientific misconduct at an important government-sponsored research institute. Hopefully such cases are the exception rather than the rule.

I see no reason yet to suspect any dishonesty is at work here, but maybe something other than these unusual theories is at work. After all, the device that wasn't supposed to produce thrust, did.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23528
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister »

Anaxagoras wrote:Is this the paper?

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4029

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 006052.pdf

So they don't talk about the physics, but they tested two devices, one which was supposed to produce thrust and one which wasn't. They both produced thrust. I have no idea what effect is really happening here.
Which points precisely to a problem with the test control. A bad test design. Why it is bad is an interesting question but not an important one. They have, in effect, demonstrated a momentum placebo. :) A.K.A. wishful thinking. Nothing more 'important' than that. I don't know if it is bad math, bad measurement, or just wishful thinking, but it.is.bad. If that is interesting, so be it. But whatever the problem, the solution will not be useful to the advancement of science.
Can NASA be trusted? In general I would say so,...
Why would you say so? What have they done in the last 30-odd years that would lead you to conclude that they are anything other than utterly incompetent? They don't even do real rocket science anymore. I doubt they even so much as calculate an orbit anymore; that work is left to the real scientists whose work they sponsor such as universities, industry, etc.

No sir. I do not like them.

Honest to god, Einstein and Newton, absent new physics that utterly lays waste to every model of the universe that we think we know and understand, and the formula to go with it, this is stupid. It is not even worth testing. Not worth the salary of the secretary devoting the time to open the email of the idiot suggesting it should be tested. Momentum, like energy, is conserved.

Unless some form of mass, be it a photon, traditional propellent, or even a astronaut's turd, exits the ass-end, there will be no net gain of momentum at the fore-end. Period.

Would you like to hear how I really feel about it?
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by DrMatt »

Photons have momentum. So a violation of conservation isn't necessary, but you still need energy inputs. If you get energy inputs from photons from the sun, you have to deal with the fact that those photons have momentum.
It could be good for very slow maneuvers within a solar system, I suppose. Moving towards the sun would involve a kind of spiral motion, the 3-D equivalent of jibing upwind.








The inventor claims that the device generates a thrust even though no detectable energy leaves the device.
Image


Nothing leaves the device, nothing happens.
The fact that the chamber has a different area on one end than the other suggests to me that the engineer hasn't thought it through.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
whitefork
Posts: 3957
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:23 pm
Title: Nearly Normal
Location: I live in Trafalgar Square with four lions to guard me.

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by whitefork »

tachyons guys. tachyons.
If it's good enough for Nelson, it's quite good enough for me.
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by DrMatt »

aliens
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by DrMatt »

I didn't do it
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23528
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister »

corplinx wrote:No propellant (rocket fuel) or classical exhaust leaves the device.

We'll see if it's more than an ion drive-like mechanism.
With ion-drive, ion's leave the ass end, thus thrust, thus momentum is conserved.

There must be actual 'exhaust'. that's where the rubber meets the road (counter-ironically).
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 49647
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Nyarlathotep »

The effect is very small. Almost undetectable. Effects that small are just as likely to be some error in measurement as some actual effect. C.f. the recent excitement about neutrinos travelling faster than light. So I wouldn't be popping any champagne corks and telling Newton to suck it just yet.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23528
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister »

Nyarlathotep wrote:The effect is very small. Almost undetectable. Effects that small are just as likely to be some error in measurement as some actual effect.
Not to be pedantic, but not 'just as likely'. Instead, 'almost certainly to a 99.999999999999... probability.

:(

i'm such a pedantic asshole.

but i did leave off a few 9's
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 49647
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Nyarlathotep »

Fair point. I was being generous.
User avatar
sparks
Posts: 17137
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by sparks »

To say that no energy leaves the device is, of course bullshit. If it's moving, or even trying to move, then energy is leaving the device.

But, unless and until someone esplainifys how this bitch works and we have a couple of dozen confirming experiments under our belt, then: Horseshit!

Thoroughly charming notion though. It could open the solar system to human travel. Anywhere else, you still need the ubiquitous FTL or warp drive.
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73839
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X »

Why do you all hate progress?

--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

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 20640
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Bruce of all Bruces
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Bruce »

If they can deliver a hoverboard by end of next year as I was promised by BTTF2, I'll buy it. Screw the theoreticians. They can do what theoreticians always do. Back fill a new theory and publish papers about it. The rest of us will be tricking Biff into running into a manure truck.
Such potential!
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by DrMatt »

Magnetic thrusters? WTF, are they suffering from ED?
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23528
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister »

NASA won't let it go.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/ ... -em-drive/
Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive
April 29, 2015

A group at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has successfully tested an electromagnetic (EM) propulsion drive in a vacuum – a major breakthrough for a multi-year international effort comprising several competing research teams. Thrust measurements of the EM Drive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum.
Perhaps they can power it with my perpetual motion machine.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29253
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Anaxagoras »

Rob Lister wrote:NASA won't let it go.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/ ... -em-drive/
Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive
April 29, 2015

A group at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has successfully tested an electromagnetic (EM) propulsion drive in a vacuum – a major breakthrough for a multi-year international effort comprising several competing research teams. Thrust measurements of the EM Drive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum.
Perhaps they can power it with my perpetual motion machine.
Could some sort of quantum effect be happening? In which case it does not "defy physics" but only defies classical physics.

IOW, what is the significance of the qualifier "classical" here?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by ceptimus »

Thrust due to thermal radiation is a real thing and eventually explained the Pioneer anomaly (Wikipedia link).

The Pioneer spacecraft, after all the known perturbations due to planetary gravity were taken into account, were measured to be decelerating by a tiny amount more than the sun's gravity would explain. It's amazing that the amount can be measured at all - it amounts to less than 1 mph every ten years - but it shows how accurately space trajectories and positions can be predicted and measured. Incidentally the same effect could not be expected to be observed for the Voyager spacecraft as they are equipped with thrusters to make course and attitude corrections, and the changes in speed when the thrusters are fired are large enough to mask any 'Pioneer anomaly' that may have been expected to be present.

Anyway, the anomaly was of great interest for many years - maybe it pointed to an error in our best theories of gravity? - but it was eventually completely explained by modelling the thermal recoil force due to the on-board radioisotope generator. The design of the spacecraft meant that more heat from the generator was radiated in some directions than others, and the very slight recoil produced by the radiated heat photons was enough to explain the acceleration.

So a thruster emitting just photons could produce a tiny acceleration - of course a thruster designed for the task would emit many more photons than the Pioneer did, and beam them deliberately all in the same direction. If the energy source came from an on-board source, I think the motor could push a spacecraft in any direction, but if the energy comes from solar panels then there is already a radiation pressure from the sun and I don't think the resulting thrust could push the spacecraft towards the sun - I doubt whether the whole system could produce any more thrust or in any more directions than a 'light sail' or mirror could.

I don't know how practical such a system might be - even if it produced accelerations many orders of magnitude more than the Pioneer anomaly did, it would still take an awful long time to get anywhere.
User avatar
ed
Posts: 40540
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by ed »

Rob Lister wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:The effect is very small. Almost undetectable. Effects that small are just as likely to be some error in measurement as some actual effect.
Not to be pedantic, but not 'just as likely'. Instead, 'almost certainly to a 99.999999999999... probability'. <-----------

:(

I'm such a pedantic asshole.

But i did leave off a few 9's

You left off a right apostrophe (indicated above). Also cleaned up your capitalization a bit.

--- another pedantic asshole
This space for let
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23528
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister »

It shows they haven't found the source of the error. Publication does not truth make.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Witness »

Rob Lister wrote:It shows they haven't found the source of the error. Publication does not truth make.
You're just jealous of all those people out there having free energy perpetual motion machines massless drives.

I read they'll send it in orbit on some micro satellite for an "in vivo" test. I just wonder how much power will be available. (But a science journalist won't stoop down to inquire into so pedestrian matters, right?)
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 20640
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Bruce of all Bruces
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Bruce »

The thing that interests me the most about this discovery is that it calls into question the particle/wave duality theory in quantum mechanics, which I always thought was a shit theory.

So did Einstein, apparently....

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517 ... l-support/
Albert Einstein, among others, objected to this idea. As his biographer Abraham Pais wrote: “We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.”
I liked the less popular Pilot Wave theory.
But there’s another view — one that’s been around for almost a century — in which particles really do have precise positions at all times. This alternative view, known as pilot-wave theory or Bohmian mechanics, never became as popular as the Copenhagen view, in part because Bohmian mechanics implies that the world must be strange in other ways.
Really? This theory was less popular because you have admit that the universe is strange? As if it isn't?

The second most interesting thing is that this discovery appears to violate third law motion, which I always thought was a shit law. :P

:Popcorn:

Why yes, I would like some more controversy on my popcorn.
Such potential!
User avatar
shemp
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:16 pm
Title: inbred shit-for-brains
Location: Planet X

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by shemp »

Just like the Global Warming nonsense, this is just another attempt to destroy America. All right-thinking people (i.e., Trump supporters) know that the rocket fuel that will enable America to conquer the stars is good old American Clean Coal! Why does NASA hate American coal miners and their families? WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THEIR CHILDREN!!??!!1!21!!??/./.!!!!
"It is not I who is mad! It is I who is crazy!" -- Ren Hoek

"what dicking deep shit i produce" -- pillory

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

People are shitting themselves to death
Crap so much they fail to take a breath
But even when their kids are starvin'
They thought Trump would throw them Charmin.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Witness »

Let's start with airplanes!

Image
User avatar
sparks
Posts: 17137
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by sparks »

Horseshit.

We almost had nuclear powered bombers. Then along comes ICBMs. Fuck.
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Witness »

↑ sparks wants to see the world burn – but slowly. :mrgreen:

Ars Technica wrote:NASA’s EM-drive still a WTF-thruster
New paper generates more noise than experimental thrust.
No Free Ponies
User avatar
sparks
Posts: 17137
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by sparks »

Indeed.

Not Burning would be a, heaven forbid, nice thing...
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73839
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X »

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

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29253
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Anaxagoras »



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: 73839
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X »

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

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
ed
Posts: 40540
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by ed »

Two words: PEAR Princeton.

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

EVAR!!!
This space for let
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34372
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Witness »

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: 17137
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by sparks »

"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: 73839
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Doctor X »

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

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
sparks
Posts: 17137
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by sparks »

"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
Rob Lister
Posts: 23528
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Thruster evaluation : NASA to be trusted ?

Post by Rob Lister »

nope