Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 2, Insightful) 431

by PvtVoid (#49596723) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

You might have missed high temp super conductivity entirely then. The phenomenon was measured and replicated in many labs - but it was at least a few years before any plausible theory came out - and 20 years on we do not have firm agreement on the cause.

Poor comparison. High-Tc superconductivity was a demonstration of a known phenomenon (zero resistance current) under new physical circumstances. A better comparison might have been the photoelectric effect, which really had no explanation under the then-known laws of electromagnetism. The explanation for the photoelectric effect in fact did require a deep and radical revision of the basic laws of physics: Quantum Mechanics. Sometimes this happens.

These guys have not measured something which clearly requires such a revision of physics, yet they are full of breathless claims about its significance. Red flags all over the place.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 2) 431

by PvtVoid (#49596553) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

"If I were to peer-review a paper on this, I would insist on a plausible physical explanation for the claimed measurement." That's stupid. Providing proof that something interesting is happening and repeatable is viable science all on its own.

If they simply wrote a paper saying "we noticed an anomalous force in this experimental setup, and we don't understand why", then nobody would have a problem with it. They're not doing that. They are claiming that it can be used as a reactionless propulsion system, a claim which is entirely incredible without a solid physical theory to justify it.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 1, Troll) 431

by PvtVoid (#49596413) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

That's just silly. The people reporting this observable phenomenon do not claim to understand why this happens - in fact the point of the article is that we should strive to understand why this works.

They're measuring an anomalous force in an electromagnetic cavity. That's a measurement, a concrete fact. They're claiming that they'll be able to make a starship with it. That's beyond any credibility. It's totally delusional.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 0) 431

by PvtVoid (#49596281) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

That is what peer review, replication of results and further study are for...and I am biting my lip not to add "dumbass" to the end of that sentence.

If I were to peer-review a paper on this, I would insist on a plausible physical explanation for the claimed measurement. The burden of proof is on them: they are making a truly extraordinary claim, one that, if true, would entail revising all of physics from its very foundation.

When somebody sounds like a total fucking crackpot, they almost always are.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 4, Funny) 431

by PvtVoid (#49596243) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

If two magnets get close enough and snap together are they violating conservation of momentum when forces are acting on them to accelerate toward each other?

Of course not. The total momentum of the system stays zero.

When I was a kid, I tried to make a self-propelled car by putting magnets on the back and front bumpers of a toy car, reasoning that the front magnet would attract the back one, and therefore produce thrust. When I built it, I learned a valuable lesson: it doesn't work. Because the force pulling the back magnet forward is exactly counterbalanced by the force pulling the front magnet backward.

The EM drive is closely analagous to this idea. Except that they didn't figure out when they were eight that this will never work.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 2) 431

by PvtVoid (#49596063) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

I see you like to comment on something without reading it.... try taking a look at the article... it says specifically that conservation of momentum is NOT violated...

Well, the article says it, so it must be true.

If you're not throwing anything out of the back of the rocket, you're violating conservation of momentum.

Comment: This again? (Score 0, Troll) 431

by PvtVoid (#49595987) Attached to: New Test Supports NASA's Controversial EM Drive

In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant.

Let's see: we can violate conservation of momentum by invoking some sort of vaguely defined quantum woo. Riiiight. Where do I send my check?

Comment: Re:Sooo... (Score 2) 314

by PvtVoid (#49594235) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

You almost got the message correctly. The right message is no should ever develop for mozilla, or chrome, or internet explorer, or opera, or any other browser in particular. Developers should be able to develop using standards, and the browsers should correctly display content based on standards.

So ... when did http cease to be a standard?

Comment: What the fuck? (Score -1, Flamebait) 314

by PvtVoid (#49593523) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

Mozilla thinks my web browser should break sites that I choose to visit because they don't like it? I'm all for https, and I run Https Everywhere as a plugin. But it's batshit crazy for somebody to try to force this through the browser. Mozilla has been going downhill fast, but this is really the end.

Three words: Fuck you, Mozilla.

All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.

Working...