Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 1635387 times)

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
Lets be excellent to one another! The topic is "EM Drive developments related to space flight applications.
Read your posts carefully before hitting enter. Do not waste this valuable bandwidth. Maximize your signal, minimize your noise.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Here is a heads up for you. EmDrives work with-in existing physics and need no new physics.
This has been proven false for you so many times, it is unbelievable you are still saying it.

You even recently admitted that Shawyer's theory is wrong:
9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.

10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.

11) I don't understand why 10 happens.
When a theory says that the device will move to the left, and experiments show that if anything, the device moves to the right, it means the theory is wrong and you need a new one.

About a year ago, I tried to demonstrate for you exactly what you said in bullets 9 and 10, but you kept responding to my posts without answering the simple questions I had asked. It is great that you finally came to recognize those points on your own, but now continuing to insist on "no new physics" required for a working drive and "follow Shawyer's theory," in the face of the fact that this clearly is incapable of predicting emDrive behavior, is simply unscientific, and extremely counterproductive.

Offline OnlyMe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • So. Calif.
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 195
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive.  Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.

I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically.  Bondi (and expert in general relativity) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle.  Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there was no cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc. 
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects.  All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.  All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted links to Montillet's work.   Montillet is not using any extra-Machian effects
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity

As you say, there are several interpretations of Mach's principle. The "lightest" one is to say that the inertia of a body is dependent of the other masses around, involving nothing more than gravitation. The "strong" Mach's principle on the other hand, as advocated by Jim Woodward (see my previous post where I cite him and where his specific view on that subject is made evident) – as well as Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar with their own theory of gravity, and now Heidi Fearn with the Gravitational Absorber Theory derived from it – implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity (i.e. the addition of some kind of Wheeler-Feynman radiative field applied to gravity) in order to make the instantaneity of gravitational interaction possible, i.e. a gravitational interaction source of inertia that is not limited to the speed limit c of "plain vanilla" general relativity.

What is your own view on Mach's principle, among all the possibilities it suggests?

To the following portion, "implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity...", I say hogwash!

While I would agree that the inertia of an object is an instantaneous reaction to the local dynamics of however one interprets spacetime.., as causative or descriptive, the idea that there is any instantaneous connect between distant objects is just.., an artifact of imagination. To assert that it represents reality and must be added/incorporated in GR, is just plain hogwash, and inconsistent with experience.

Three questions then:
1) Have your read Woodward's book Making Starships and Stargates?
2) Have you read one or more papers of Heidi Fearn about the Gravitational Absorber Theory?* (a very recent development nowadays (year 2017) discussing current experiments about Mach effects in agreement with general relativity)
3) Do you think both are hogwash?


* Basically, GAT is a modern, non steady-state version of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity in agreement with predictions of general relativity and observations related to the accelerating cosmic expansion, including the strong interpretation of Mach's principle.

I believe or believed that the intent of my my post was clear. I also don't believe that attempting to divert to a discussion of the merits of Woodward's, Heidi Fern's and even the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity, would add any clarity to the intent of my earlier comment...

If you re-read my post you should see that what I was referring to as "hogwash" was the implication that any distant mass is instantaneously connected or affected by locally defined dynamics or our local dynamics dependent on any instantaneous interaction or affect with/from/of the distribution and/or dynamics of distant mass... and that the assertion that any theory that involves an instantaneous interaction of any sort between local dynamics and the distant universe, must be attached or added to GR, is also hogwash. While GR must adapt to the scope of our increasing knowledge of gravitational dynamics associated with an ever increasing depth of observation and experience, I have seen nothing suggesting we should return to the past and ideas of instantaneous action at a distance...

While I have found what I have read of both Woodward's and Fern's ideas to be thought provoking, I do not agree with all of their conclusions. I also don't believe that their conclusions are necessary to describe reality...

I have said it before. It would be the most exciting event in my lifetime should anyone demonstrate the ability to manipulate gravity or inertia in a useful manner, but I don't believe that is what is going on in an EmDrive. I also believe that should we ultimately prove the EmDrive to be a useful propelentless drive, it will ultimately be found to function within the context of existing physics, even should that require that we re-evaluate our understanding and interpretation of what we have come to accept as basic laws of physics.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
...
Sequence of events:

1) EmDrive starts acceleration and it's mass plus arm mass gains KE as it's velocity increases.

2) EmDrive forward force = torsion wire reverse force = EmDrive stops accelerating, ie velocity gain stops, and it's force production stops.

3) However the EmDrive and other arm mass has gained velocity and KE and will continue moving forward, at a rapidly decreasing velocity, until the gained KE is stored in the torsion wire and velocity is zero.

4) Then once all forward motion is stopped, the mass of the EmDrive and arm will be driven in reverse by the stored torque in the torsion wire, back to the starting position and beyond due to the gained reverse velocity and KE from the torsion wire.

5) Due to frictional losses generated by the paddle in the oil, the EmDrive and arm mass KE will eventually be thermalised and returns to the starting position.

If you look at Jamie's displacement plot, it is very clear when each of these seperate events occurred.
Looking at your description and the data shows entirely different results. I plotted the green line to show it returning back to the starting position as described by #4. I also plotted the red line off of that one to picture approximately what would happen if the drive started operating again when the drive past the starting position (at that point the drive would be accelerating "forward" so this is what I would expect based on the hypothesis that the drive only functions when accelerating forward.)

Based on this it is clear that this hypothesis does not match the available data at all, so if what was measured was not just experimental error, this hypothesis of "only operates when accelerating forward" is wrong.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278

"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.

Hi Jeremiah,

Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.

BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU

I can also build unicorns, if i'm skilled enough with woodcraft. It doesn't make them alive nor "the thing". it has the shape of an unicorn, but not the functions and features of a real unicorn. Simiarly, plenty of people are building things that they call "emdrives", but we are yet to see a single working emdrive.
This not to say that is impossible. But simply to say that "we can build emdrives" is a lie. We build something that looks like an emdrive (maybe). Before claiming the unproven, better prove it.

Your statement is not accurate. People have built EMDrives that appear to work and while the evidence is not yet conclusive,  to say that "we are yet to see a single working EMDrive" assumes the evidence so far is not real while it may be real but weak. In fact, we may have seen a single working EMDrive already.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2017 05:18 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

In general I think it's a mistake to take null results and make conclusions far the beyond the immediate experimental setup, such as conclusions about other setups being wrong. Criticisms of other experimental setups doesn't prove the results invalid or that the criticisms are valid. Judgement is involved. While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data. What I said was just my opinion, not a statement about how "unreasonable" TT's claims about the data might be.

Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2017 06:12 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.
Read my post again, what you described is the exact opposite of what I described. I talked about multiple null results. I left open the question of what is "enough" but did not discuss arguments from authority at all. Could you provide an answer for what would be enough null results (quantity, sensitivity, etc.) for you to decide that the emDrive does not work?

What does get squashed is when someone says they found something "new" but comparable experiments have been run hundreds of times disagreeing with their results. There is no reason to take such claims seriously unless they provide extremely compelling evidence or a reason to believe that the previous experiments were all wrong.

Offline wicoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 151
While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data.

Can you please clarify what makes the current evidence "valid" in your view?  Is there a single peer-reviewed paper describing an EmDrive experiment that has all the obvious error sources quantified?  Or are you satisfied with experiments that do not account for such errors simply because they originate from "respectable" laboratories (argument of authority?) From what I know (and I welcome others to correct me), the EW paper is currently the most rigorous paper on this subject, and it has many flaws (https://github.com/eric1600/eagleworks/blob/master/Numerical-Results.pdf).

Offline Monomorphic

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
  • United States
  • Liked: 4389
  • Likes Given: 1407
What is the scale for the volts? Its not clear why the voltage is climbing over such a long period of time. Doesn't that have the effect of increasing the magnetic force over the length of the pulse? I feel like I am missing something.

The voltage increase looks large because we are very zoomed-in to the data. The actual voltage increase is only 0.04V, with (assuming ohm's law) a corresponding increase in current of 0.023A. That means the strength of the electromagnetic field is varying ≤2.5% over the 45 second duration of the pulse. That comes to a difference of 0.081uN (81nN). I think I can live with that...  ;)
« Last Edit: 09/22/2017 07:51 pm by Monomorphic »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071

"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.

Hi Jeremiah,

Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.

BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU

I can also build unicorns, if i'm skilled enough with woodcraft. It doesn't make them alive nor "the thing". it has the shape of an unicorn, but not the functions and features of a real unicorn. Simiarly, plenty of people are building things that they call "emdrives", but we are yet to see a single working emdrive.
This not to say that is impossible. But simply to say that "we can build emdrives" is a lie. We build something that looks like an emdrive (maybe). Before claiming the unproven, better prove it.

It's the symbolism at 0:48, and 2:24, and 3:16 TT. The same thing is happening now. The Monolith is about understanding, understanding what is before you.

« Last Edit: 09/22/2017 09:01 pm by Mulletron »
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline SteveD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • United States
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 10
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Here is a heads up for you. EmDrives work with-in existing physics and need no new physics.
This has been proven false for you so many times, it is unbelievable you are still saying it.

You even recently admitted that Shawyer's theory is wrong:
9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.

10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.

11) I don't understand why 10 happens.
When a theory says that the device will move to the left, and experiments show that if anything, the device moves to the right, it means the theory is wrong and you need a new one.

About a year ago, I tried to demonstrate for you exactly what you said in bullets 9 and 10, but you kept responding to my posts without answering the simple questions I had asked. It is great that you finally came to recognize those points on your own, but now continuing to insist on "no new physics" required for a working drive and "follow Shawyer's theory," in the face of the fact that this clearly is incapable of predicting emDrive behavior, is simply unscientific, and extremely counterproductive.

What expirement with null results are you referring to?  Please be specific and provide citation. 

Offline graybeardsyseng

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 201
  • Likes Given: 828
SSI President Gary C Hudson just sent out this news

"The NASA sponsored NIAC Symposium starts Monday morning at 8:30 am Denver time and I am very pleased to tell you that SSI SA Dr. Heidi Fearn will be presenting "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission" at 11:10am on Wednesday.

It will be live streamed at  www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

 Slides of Heidi’s talk, a Q&A handout and a PDF of the poster will all be public documents as of 11am Wednesday and at that time I will send them for posting on the SSI.ORG website and SSI Announcements page on Facebook ."

That is  10:10AM Pacific DT =11:10AM Mountain DT =12:10PM Central DT= 1:10PM Eastern DT, Wednesday September 27 !



to be held at the Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center, 7800 E Tufts Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237

https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

The poster will contain a "Questions and Answers" section addressing some of the questions that have been commonly asked.

NIAC

Several contributors to this forum including myself will be attending the  NIAC symposium.   If you have any specific questions etc you would like us to try and  ask or specific talks to concentrate on - or  if you are going to also be attending the symposium and would like to meet for discussions or a meal etc.  please PM me the questions etc and I will provide a contact info. 

The agenda is on the website for NIAC.   (google NASA NIAC symposium agenda)

Thanks,
Herman
graybeardsyseng
EMdrive - finally - microwaves are good for something other than heating ramen noodles and leftover pizza ;-)

Offline Tcarey

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Arlington, Tx
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 24
What is the scale for the volts? Its not clear why the voltage is climbing over such a long period of time. Doesn't that have the effect of increasing the magnetic force over the length of the pulse? I feel like I am missing something.

The voltage increase looks large because we are very zoomed-in to the data. The actual voltage increase is only 0.04V, with (assuming ohm's law) a corresponding increase in current of 0.023A. That means the strength of the electromagnetic field is varying ≤2.5% over the 45 second duration of the pulse. That comes to a difference of 0.081uN (81nN). I think I can live with that...  ;)

Thanks for that information. Cleared that up. 

Offline Eusa

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 118
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."



Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 1071
And I can feel the change in the wind right now - Rod Stewart

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5564
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."



Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common.
A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"
« Last Edit: 09/23/2017 12:40 pm by Rodal »

Offline moreno7798

Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

In general I think it's a mistake to take null results and make conclusions far the beyond the immediate experimental setup, such as conclusions about other setups being wrong. Criticisms of other experimental setups doesn't prove the results invalid or that the criticisms are valid. Judgement is involved. While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data. What I said was just my opinion, not a statement about how "unreasonable" TT's claims about the data might be.

Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.

I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.
The only humans that make no mistakes are the ones that do nothing. The only mistakes that are failures are the ones where nothing is learned.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • France
  • Liked: 860
  • Likes Given: 1076
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

In general I think it's a mistake to take null results and make conclusions far the beyond the immediate experimental setup, such as conclusions about other setups being wrong. Criticisms of other experimental setups doesn't prove the results invalid or that the criticisms are valid. Judgement is involved. While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data. What I said was just my opinion, not a statement about how "unreasonable" TT's claims about the data might be.

Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.

I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.

Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0