I sure wish we could get back to having dozens to hundreds of smallish ISPs to choose from. They did actually care and got things fixed fast.
By shutting down the event where his video stream was (almost) shown.
No, as long as they don't restrict the content of the bills and they do permit them somewhere reasonably where the public will see them. No dodges like letting them post them on the inside of dumpsters only.
I was primarily reacting to rubycodez post being the 4th or 5th time he said exactly the same thing in this article.
As for Tajmar, he is not the first or the last experimenter who has been in error, it's the nature of science. Remember the FTL neutrinos? As for warp drive, I can find no reference to him making such a claim. I can't even find a wild media claim of that for him.
That OP is silly to call out the use of the term 'learn' for a non-sentient thing.
If it is a parlor trick, it will be more accidental than clever I suspect. Even that would teach us something new.
It's one thing to question the very preliminary theory of operation for the thing, it's quite another to demand that it is doing nothing just because it would be inconvenient.
My gut feeling is that whatever it is, it won't violate conservation of momentum.
Machines are said to learn, but are not sentient and do not think. Memory plastic isn't sentient either.
They push against the propellant they throw away. You should spend more time understanding what was said and less figuring out a lame excuse to say someone is wrong.
We get it, we get it. You're the god of science and he's a doodie head.
No, healthy skepticism allowed us to realize that the mass of an object won't affect it's acceleration due to gravity in a vacuum and yet not be on repeated expeditions looking for a unicorn nest. Cynicism would have us still believing that an object set into motion remains in motion until it gets tired, then it falls.
Not necessarily. Leading WAGs include that it is thrusting against dark matter or space itself. In those scenarios, momentum is still conserved.
But it's not generating thrust by microwave emission. If the thrust is of the form of action-reaction, we have yet to detect what it is pushing against. Hence the wild speculation about virtual particles or the fabric of space. Even those seem more likely than it being truly reactionless but it wouldn't be any less useful if one of those proves to be the case.
So the reproduction of the reproduction of the reproduction of the experiment still leaves you disbelieving?
I agree, a scale-up is in order so we can get a better look, but surely by now, it's clear we are looking at something new even if it's not what we think it is.
Have you used broadband at all lately? The only thing they care about is prompt payment.