08-01-2014, 04:31 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
To understand why this is a problem, consider substituting a lightbulb for the device. You turn it off and continue to measure the same amount of light. Which is more likely (a) you have invented a lightbulb that doesn't need electricity or (b) your photometer is broken.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
08-01-2014, 04:37 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
If you made two lightbulbs, one with a filament material you had been told would work and one with a material you thought wouldn't work, and you measure light from both, do you conclude that the photometer must be broken? EDIT: To extend the analogy, when measuring something that was not at all like a light bulb, they (implicitly) did not measure light...
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. Last edited by Ulzgoroth; 08-01-2014 at 04:42 PM. |
|
08-01-2014, 04:41 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
If someone gives you instructions on how to build a device and you deliberatly build a malfunctioning device but the test results come out the same, then the test is broken.
__________________
When choosing your user name, DO NOT get clever. Typing that combination of letters, numbers, and special characters every time you want to log in will get old really fast. |
|
08-01-2014, 04:44 PM | #24 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Or you're wrong about how to make the device malfunction.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
08-01-2014, 04:44 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
You have to understand, they don't have a reactionless drive that they don't understand how works. They have anomalous sensor readings of unknown origin. One theory is that the anomalous sensor readings were caused by a an EmDrive effect, but that theory has already been falsified. At that point, there's no reason to even consider reactionless at all, as there are lots of potential reasons for anomalous sensor readings. |
|
08-01-2014, 04:49 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
Maybe because I'm in biology, where the soundness of our theoretical understanding of almost anything tops out at 'dubious'. However, I really cannot see how 'our attempt to build a non-functional variant yielded the same results as the supposedly working example' translates directly to 'clearly everything we measured is some kind of experimental artifact', which is where you seem to be taking it.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
08-01-2014, 04:50 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: near London, UK
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Feed my 110kW car engine's output through a 30N/W converter and it'll accelerate said car at over 2,000 gravities. That makes every other form of transport obsolete.
__________________
Podcast: Improvised Radio Theatre - With Dice Gaming stuff here: Tekeli-li! Blog; Webcomic Laager and Limehouse Buy things by me on Warehouse 23 |
08-01-2014, 04:53 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
If you want to convince anybody you have tiny level of reactionless thrust you *must* be able to run the experiment with everything but some key element and get no thrust. If you can't, then by far the most reasonable conclusion is something about your experimental setup is causing your measurements to be wrong. Incidentally since there is well known and incredibly cheap first order test for atmospheric interaction - wrap your pendulum in a clear plastic garbage bag, tie it around the suspension wire and see if the machine still works. You can safely assume that failure to report the result of that test indicates either the experimenters don't know what they are doing, or do know this will cause the device not to work and are running a fraud.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
08-01-2014, 04:59 PM | #29 |
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
If the device is built according to the principles described in the theory, then any device that isn't built according to those principles won't work. It would be exactly like trying to build a diesel engine according to a design that violates basic thermodynamics. If the theory is built after the fact to explain misunderstood results - such as mistaking ion wind propulsion for reactionless propulsion, which is an incredibly common mistake - then almost any device capable of producing an ion wind effect will produce the same results.
__________________
When choosing your user name, DO NOT get clever. Typing that combination of letters, numbers, and special characters every time you want to log in will get old really fast. |
08-01-2014, 05:12 PM | #30 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Tags |
spaceships |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|