Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 1) 403

by PvtVoid (#49619871) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

We do know things about the world. Nothing is absolute in science, but some things come very, very close. Conservation of momentum is one of those.
Yes, it is. And the drive conserves momentum quite fine. Why do you claim it does not, when all the theories about how it works clearly state: it does???

I love this: when somebody complains that the theory of operation is total gibberish, the response is: "But we don't need a theory! Experiment trumps theory!" Then when somebody suggests that one needs much, much stronger evidence before you should even consider tossing out conservation of momentum, one of the most basic principles of physics, the response is "But they have a theory that shows it doesn't violate conservation of momentum".

Rinse and repeat.

I have always been kind of astonished that a group of self-selected tech geeks would repeatedly display such abysmal scientific understanding. Global warming? Not nearly enough evidence for that. Decades of studies and a broad scientific consensus are still not enough to draw an actionable conclusion. But two or three crackpots claim they have a warp drive, and everybody is lining up for their tickets for Alpha Centauri.

Very sad.

Comment: Re:Nay Sayers Are As bad as the Hypers (Score 4, Funny) 403

by PvtVoid (#49617251) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

Because liberals hate actual science - new inventions their leadership doesn't control (the majority of billionaires in the world are liberal because it is the new Christianity to control idiots) are decried. This one comes with a double-whammy because not only is it an incredibly disruptive technology, it is also something created entirely from theory to initial testing by a guy in his garage - the very idea of such a person existing goes against the idea that people need huge government research groups and megacorps leading the charge because science is just so overwhelming that individuals can't do it themselves anymore - which is the entire basis of most of the liberal leadership power base. But be assured, if they can figure out a way to drive the inventor to suicide or just wait for him to fade away to get their hands on the tech themselves we'll have asteroid-mining within the year.

Damn. Our evil plot is exposed.

Comment: Re:One Criterion Missing (Score 1) 403

by PvtVoid (#49617207) Attached to: No, NASA Did Not Accidentally Invent Warp Drive

No. These tests prove that the device is real, and that it produces force.

They don't prove any such thing. All they prove is that a bunch of questionable researchers claimed to measure a marginally significant effect, and have been hyping the fuck out of it. Scientific openness is not equivalent credulously accepting the claims of every whacko and charlatain who makes a claim, just because it "hasn't been disproven".

We do know things about the world. Nothing is absolute in science, but some things come very, very close. Conservation of momentum is one of those. You don't toss that aside without utterly overwhelming evidence. There is no such evidence here.

Comment: Re:This again? (Score 2, Insightful) 474

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) 474

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) 474

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 -1, Troll) 474

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) 474

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) 474

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) 474

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?

A debugged program is one for which you have not yet found the conditions that make it fail. -- Jerry Ogdin

Working...