Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
Here is a heads up for you. EmDrives work with-in existing physics and need no new physics.
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.
Quote from: OnlyMe on 09/21/2017 02:23 pmQuote from: flux_capacitor on 09/21/2017 12:38 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/21/2017 12:29 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 09/21/2017 05:15 am.. 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 relativityAs 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.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 09/21/2017 12:38 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/21/2017 12:29 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 09/21/2017 05:15 am.. 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 relativityAs 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.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/21/2017 12:29 pmQuote from: ThinkerX on 09/21/2017 05:15 am.. 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 relativityAs 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?
Quote from: ThinkerX on 09/21/2017 05:15 am.. 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
.. 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.
...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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 12:12 amQuote from: Mulletron on 09/22/2017 12:06 amQuote from: X_RaY on 09/21/2017 07:36 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 09/21/2017 04:52 pm"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/bSVKVUD6LUI 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.
Quote from: Mulletron on 09/22/2017 12:06 amQuote from: X_RaY on 09/21/2017 07:36 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 09/21/2017 04:52 pm"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
Quote from: X_RaY on 09/21/2017 07:36 pmQuote from: Bob Woods on 09/21/2017 04:52 pm"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.
Quote from: Bob Woods on 09/21/2017 04:52 pm"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
Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 amYet 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.
Quote from: meberbs on 09/22/2017 02:12 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 amYet 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.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 09/22/2017 05:17 pmQuote from: meberbs on 09/22/2017 02:12 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 amYet 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.
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.
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 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.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 amYet 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.Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 amHere 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:Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/13/2017 01:11 am9) 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.
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 80237https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposiumhttps://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_MissionThe poster will contain a "Questions and Answers" section addressing some of the questions that have been commonly asked.
Quote from: Tcarey on 09/22/2017 03:21 amWhat 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...
Quote from: spupeng7 on 09/18/2017 02:12 am...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/metahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principlePlease 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)
...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.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/18/2017 12:01 pmQuote from: spupeng7 on 09/18/2017 02:12 am...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/metahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principlePlease 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.
Quote from: meberbs on 09/22/2017 05:42 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/22/2017 05:17 pmQuote from: meberbs on 09/22/2017 02:12 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 amYet 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.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 09/22/2017 06:03 pmQuote from: meberbs on 09/22/2017 05:42 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 09/22/2017 05:17 pmQuote from: meberbs on 09/22/2017 02:12 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 amYet 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.