Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2015, 07:54 PM   #11
Calvin
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Calgary
Default 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.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 12:48 AM   #12
Sassy Psionic Space Squid
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
There have been no peer-reviewed papers about any of it (and NASA doesn't keep secrets about this kind of thing - they encourage their scientists to publish). nasaspaceflight.com (where most of this seems to be coming from) is not NASA nor even affiliated with NASA.

Until someone proves it via the usual scientific channels (peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals and based on work by multiple un-related teams), it's just a rumor.

I want it to be true as much as anyone, but it's science fiction, not science, at this point.
As for the former, no, a NASA group has done the experiments, that at least is not being made up.

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.
Sassy Psionic Space Squid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 01:43 AM   #13
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassy Psionic Space Squid View Post
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.
There isn't widespread reproducibility; there seem to be two groups who have found anomalous readings, neither of which is of any note.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassy Psionic Space Squid View Post
My suggestion, have multiple independent groups test this. Skepticism should encourage many people testing an idea.
There are a vast number of ideas that are not worth testing. The original theory of the EMDrive was based on the author being incompetent at basic geometry, so even if something is going on, it's not what they think it is.

There are basically a couple possibilities for what's going on:
  1. Some sort of measurement error.
  2. Some sort of peculiar interaction with the testing apparatus.
  3. Violation of basic conservation laws.
Both explanation 1 and explanation 2 mean the device is useless as a space drive. Explanation 3 requires way more evidence than has been presented, and is not worth even considering at the moment.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 01:56 AM   #14
Calvin
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Calgary
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
There are a vast number of ideas that are not worth testing. The original theory of the EMDrive was based on the author being incompetent at basic geometry, so even if something is going on, it's not what they think it is.

Both explanation 1 and explanation 2 mean the device is useless as a space drive. Explanation 3 requires way more evidence than has been presented, and is not worth even considering at the moment.
I think that these two points are at odds with each other, it's certainly worth testing, if only to make sure that #3 isn't the case.

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.
Calvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 02:35 AM   #15
Sassy Psionic Space Squid
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
There isn't widespread reproducibility; there seem to be two groups who have found anomalous readings, neither of which is of any note.
Nobody has tested this but them, so actual reproducibility remains to be seen. For it to qualify as non-reproducible or reproducible, people would actually have to try to reproduce it. That's part of the definition, say-so simply does not enter the equation here.

Quote:
There are a vast number of ideas that are not worth testing. The original theory of the EMDrive was based on the author being incompetent at basic geometry, so even if something is going on, it's not what they think it is.

There are basically a couple possibilities for what's going on:
  1. Some sort of measurement error.
  2. Some sort of peculiar interaction with the testing apparatus.
  3. Violation of basic conservation laws.
Both explanation 1 and explanation 2 mean the device is useless as a space drive. Explanation 3 requires way more evidence than has been presented, and is not worth even considering at the moment.
This is of course true, I have no respect for the "inventor" of this idea, he's full of it. However, I disagree with it not being worth considering. If these experiments were in error, it's completely worth proving it, in my opinion.

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.
Sassy Psionic Space Squid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 02:54 AM   #16
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
I think that these two points are at odds with each other, it's certainly worth testing, if only to make sure that #3 isn't the case.
There are a vast number of things that can in theory be tested, but isn't, because the odds of success are too low to be worth the effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin View Post
The tests have been underfunded, mostly because you're half right, but they've not been done incompetently.
Evidence for that statement is lacking.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 03:11 AM   #17
Sassy Psionic Space Squid
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
There are a vast number of things that can in theory be tested, but isn't, because the odds of success are too low to be worth the effort.
That's not the point of science at all.

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.
Sassy Psionic Space Squid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 04:21 AM   #18
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassy Psionic Space Squid View Post
Insisting that nobody should bother because it was probably an error is rather bullheaded.
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.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 05:10 AM   #19
jeff_wilson
Computer Scientist
 
jeff_wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sassy Psionic Space Squid View Post
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.
Are you willing to do this yourself on your own nickel? Or if you know of a source of funding, I'm willing to give it a shot.
__________________
.
Reposed playtest leader.

The Campaigns of William Stoddard
jeff_wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2015, 02:38 PM   #20
Joseph Paul
Custom User Title
 
Joseph Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Default Re: Reactionless Thrusters for real???

So the Chinese researchers that built their own larger drive and tested it are discounted because why?
__________________
Joseph Paul
Joseph Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gurps, sci fi, space travel, spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.