by dissident » Thu 29 Dec 2016, 10:54:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') am a serious fan of well-written SF and I WANT to believe in the EM drive, but so far I remain unconvinced. For example, there appears to be controversy over the basic theory. This device would violate conservation of linear momentum. This is not just a principle in classical physics, but also quantum mechanics. It’s very, very, very hard to believe these low signal/noise ratio experiments, as it was with Cold Fusion. Like the recent buzz over faster than light neutrinos, this will almost certainly (and in my mind, at least, that means something like 6 9’s likelihood, or a probability of 0.999999) turn out to be either fraud or experimental error.
The NASA paper that was “peer reviewed” has NOT been duplicated, unless one believes the highly dubious Chinese claims. There is a huge difference between peer review, which amounts to reviewers saying “This is a very, very odd result, but I don’t see anything obviously wrong with the math”, and independent duplication of results. At best (and like the infamous cold fusion results) this is a very low "signal to noise" relationship experiment.
In fact, even calling it a "NASA paper" is a bit of a stretch. I believe that one of the two authors is employed at NASA and the other is not.
Here's hoping somebody somewhere can duplicate these results.
The criticism is facile and inane. So because there is no ready theoretical explanation, the device cannot be possible. Even though the device has been tested extensively including under vacuum conditions. Experimentation comes first, theory comes second. Not the other way around. It seems a lot of people think of theory like revealed truth and some holy book needs to be consulted to make a determination. So far, all the people invoking Newton's laws and linear momentum conservation clearly do not have a clue about what they are yapping about. Since they compulsively ignore the quantum foam as a full mechanical component of the full system (and not their Mickey Mouse approximation) they have phantom missing terms in their equations.
This device has thrown the established Mickey Mouse approximation wisdom into question. The first reaction is to shoot the messenger and not to go back to basics and get rid of those ad hoc approximations that were never justified by anything in the first place.
As for other papers validating the results. Sheesh, give it some time. You have no idea how long it even takes to review such a paper let alone have different labs set up and complete experiments. Researchers have to get funding approval for this sort of lab work and as we see they are caught in a catch 22. Since various opinionated windbags are pontificating that this device violates "known laws of physics" (BS^n, n>1000) there is a negative smear campaign that suppresses approvals for such research. It will really be epically retarded if this device is not tested like the Pons and Fleischmann nonsense was and still is.
Also, laboratories are not really theoretical development centers. So some sort of joint theoretical and experimental study needs to be done. This will take years if it is given a chance. But unfortunately we have everyone and his dog already concluding that this is a perpetual motion machine that "violates known laws of physics" (known only by ignorant idiots).
