05-02-2015, 07:54 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Calgary
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
This post from reddit outlines what is actually known about the device, rather than what the inventors say it can do:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/...hem_about_the/ Honestly, this is the closest thing I've come to reading anything resembling an actual honest report about the device, but it's sourced (In a basic way) and it's held up to criticism in the responses to the post. |
05-03-2015, 12:48 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Apr 2015
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
Quote:
As for the latter, that's confusing as a criticism. To be sure skepticism is warranted, however you can't get to the stage of widespread reproducibility without multiple groups doing the experiments. Part of science is trying to reproduce claims. It's somewhat backwards to claim that this isn't science because it hasn't been widely reproduced when only two independent groups have tried to so far. My suggestion, have multiple independent groups test this. Skepticism should encourage many people testing an idea. To be sure there are many valid reasons to be skeptical, including the fact it hasn't gotten to the stage of the scientific community trying to reproduce the results, but the step before reproduction by the wider community is a valid part of science. It'd be quite strange to claim otherwise as I don't believe it's possible for an idea to be instantly tested by the entire scientific community, it doesn't fail science simply because it hasn't been. |
|
05-03-2015, 01:43 AM | #13 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
Quote:
Quote:
There are basically a couple possibilities for what's going on:
|
||
05-03-2015, 01:56 AM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Calgary
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
Quote:
The tests have been underfunded, mostly because you're half right, but they've not been done incompetently. Both tests also found that something was going on that shouldn't be, but whether that's measurement errors due to their poor funding, or the drives actually working totally counter to the laws of physics as written remains to be seen. And for it to be seen some more testing needs to be done, just because it seems like it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's not worth testing. In fact I'd say for that exact reason it's very much worth testing, if only so we can put it in the Cold Fusion pile and move on. |
|
05-03-2015, 02:35 AM | #15 | ||
Join Date: Apr 2015
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is, if this is ignored, it will continue to generate publicity, which is IMO detrimental regardless or whether it's true or false. |
||
05-03-2015, 02:54 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
Quote:
Evidence for that statement is lacking. |
|
05-03-2015, 03:11 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: Apr 2015
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
Quote:
And at any rate, I would agree that it's not worth the time if nobody had tried to test this or the initial experiments showed negative results. However, actual positive experimental results from an independent party warrants others attempting to reproduce the experiment, if only to demonstrate that there was in fact an error of some kind. Insisting that nobody should bother because it was probably an error is rather bullheaded. |
|
05-03-2015, 04:21 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
I'm not insisting that nobody bother if they're interested in the topic. Just saying that there's an intelligible reason why no-one of note has bothered.
|
05-03-2015, 05:10 AM | #19 | |
Computer Scientist
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
Quote:
|
|
05-03-2015, 02:38 PM | #20 |
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???
So the Chinese researchers that built their own larger drive and tested it are discounted because why?
__________________
Joseph Paul |
Tags |
gurps, sci fi, space travel, spaceships |
|
|