[Spaceships] Real Life Non-Super Science Reactionless Engines

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I do not understand how lacking a sound theoretical understanding of why a phenomenon occurs makes the occurrence totally uninteresting.

It's not, but if you have a possibly interesting phenomenon, don't declare it to be something that clearly violates known physics until you've done a rather thorough investigation of the alternatives.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

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.

It means "You don't know what you're doing". It's possible (if unlikely) that something interesting is going on, but there's no reason to think it has anything to do with the initial theory.