Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 765417 times)

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3360 on: 11/24/2014 01:44 PM »
As to thrust balance, there are lots of different designs.  The suspension notion has some merit, but if one is to completely eliminate thermal as a spurious source, those wires are serious trouble.  What I think  would be much better, and perhaps in many ways easier; would be to use magnetic suspension.  This is surprisingly easy to do and apart from the stray magnetic fields this generates, it solves a host of issues.  MIT is doing this and I have to say, I like it!  But when you're using these powerful fields for suspension, you both need to make judicious use of something like Mu metal during your testing (once you have thrust) to show you don't have b field coupling, and you'll need to make a fully powered test where your dummy load is as perfect as it can be.  For the MET, this is simple: just alter the phase between the 1w and 2w portions of the power supply as this should not matter much for coupling and so provide a good dummy.  For thruster designs that use a single frequency component, the task is harder.  You'll need to think on that.  Here though for your consideration is a small vid of the MIT Space Propulsion Lab balance in acton.  It's a fun setup.  There's nothing like floating stuff in the extra bedroom.  :-)


Quote
Please elaborate on the bolded statements above.....Do you think a properly sealed, in an air tight container, insulated and baffled test article could suffice as a substitute for a vacuum, at least for lower power level studies? I'm planning on putting my test article in a sealed, foil lined box surrounded by insulation for example. I want to eliminate conduction convection and radiation as much as possible and not break the bank. Do you think that is enough? I understand the utility of using a hard vacuum as a pentamount test, but using the crawl walk run approach along with proper controls, we can glean useful results.

Also do you think that elaborate magnetic suspension is better than a low torsion string? Considering we're trying to measure mosquito fart levels of thrust here?
A sealed box is a pretty good cheap and easy test.  In fact Woodward used this to debunk the asymmetric Lifter stuff back in the '90's.  He put a lifter in a box and even though the Lifter could lift the weight of the box while it was outside the box, it did not generate any net thrust when in the box.  (You have to actually weigh the box to know there is not some small force other than ion wind.)  So obviously this thrust was just ion wind.  It's a nice alternative to a larger system, but even then people argued with him that he hadn't provided what they considered adequate scientific controls.  For a cheap test, a box is fine so long as you know it is completely airtight and you can always test outside the box for fields.  (An optical on/off switch is good here but be certain the eye is completely sealed.)  Getting a small amount of Mu metal foil and waving it around the box is actually better than trying to make your own foil lined box because Mu metal needs to be properly annealed (in a magnetic field in hydrogen atmosphere) to maintain its anisotropy--you can't make a full magnetic shield by folding and soldering it unless you anneal it afterward.  What you can do is if you have a supposed thrust signature that you want to demonstrate is not the result of magnetic coupling, just wave it around outside the box.  Since it is 100,000X more permeable than air, you'll definitely alter any supposed magnetic coupling by doing this and you'll see changes in measured signature.

Torsion strings are susceptible to very pronounced thermal effects.  The trouble with them is not so much isolating them from thermal, but rather in demonstrating you have done this.  You can invent your own protocols for this.  Find a way to heat the suspension wires and show this doesn't give what looks like a thrust signature.  Good protocols can often make a relatively weak system perform robustly.  The question really becomes whether the protocols themselves result in a method that is still flexible and utilitarian enough to get the job done.  Same with vacuum.  People say they want to see E-12T to know there's no ion wind, but ion wind scales with pressure so if you know you have the same thrust signature at E-1T and E-3T, you know you don't have ion wind and can get by with a cheaper, more utilitarian system.  And this is a case where the cheaper system is better--acrylic chambers like Woodward's and the one in the vid at MIT, don't couple with powerful e fields.  Stainless--necessary for hard vacuum--does.  You can save a year's worth of hard work coping with stainless coupling by not using stainless.  George Hathaway chronicled his frustrations at his lab in Canada doing this and Eagle took a year as well.  It's a big issue especially if you're on a timeline with a professional budget.  Still if you have the budget, polycarb like Lexan is better than acrylic since it has a much lower vapor pressure and can sustain more vacuum.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2014 01:53 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3361 on: 11/24/2014 02:06 PM »
Well, the propulsive efficiency of the "advertised" experimental devices is very low.  For some reason, I seem to be the only person to put this in English:  The devices aim to convert electrical energy into linear momentum.
That is one interpretation, based upon certain explanations for the thrust being true and others not.  Generally though, any explanation that holds this view that this is a force transducer, leads to a violation of conservation.  The exception to this, is Woodward's theory which posits that this, if indeed it is generating Mach-Effects; is a gravinertial transistor, not a transducer.  It is not transforming electrical power into kinetic but rather, controlling the flow of inertial flux into and out of the active mass, and that therefore the vast bulk of the energy and power provided is not electrical but gravinertial.  This is why Woodward's theory alone does not violate conservation.  Also, it is why Woodward's theory alone posits hugely improved thrust to electrical power ratios than what we've seen--the power is not being transduced or converted into thrust.  It is merely controlling the flux that gives matter its mass.

Can you please expand on the bolded statements above? This sounds very interesting. Please explain what you mean.

Shawyer's model and White's model, both paint this picture that electrical energy is being transduced into kinetic energy.  The QVF model is the simplest to understand in this regard, since it's really just a plasma thruster.  All the energy is in the drive as with an ion engine, but the propellant is supposedly virtual, so it's just a transducer.  There's no way to account for seeming violations of conservation in such a system.

Woodward's thruster is not a transducer.  It's a transistor.  It doesn't convert electrical into kinetic.  It controls the flow of gravinertial flux--the stuff that through the universe's gravitational field, gives matter its mass--in and out of the thruster.  Each Mach Effect cycle, the active mass in the thruster goes through a full 2w cycle, so the mass gets heavier, than lighter then heavier then lighter--4 discrete changes in each Mach Effect event.  Gravinertial flux is flowing from the rest of the universe, into the active mass when it gets heavier, and back out when it gets lighter, and that flux is linked to the entire universe.  So Mach Effect Thrusters are not transducers that covert energy, they're transistors, like on a sailboat.  On a large racing yacht, if you were to look at the electrical energy driving the winches for the sails, and look at the kinetic energy of the boat through the water, you would appear to have a conservation violation, since the vast majority of the power into the system is in the wind, not the winch.  Same with MET's.  The real power is in the gravinertial flux--the universal wind created by and controlled by the MET.  So you have to look at the entire system--the universe-- to do any meaningful conservation calculations with MET's.

« Last Edit: 11/24/2014 02:23 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3362 on: 11/24/2014 02:17 PM »
Indeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime.  At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped.
This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from.  The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF.  M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle.  Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3363 on: 11/24/2014 02:44 PM »
CalTech's Prof. Kip Thorne, also just wrote a popular, 336 pages long book titled "The Science of Interstellar"

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416766293&sr=8-1&keywords=kip+thorne+interstellar

Sorry, he doesn't mention in his book the Quantum Vacuum, negative mass, the Mach Effect, Prof. Woodward's theory or experiments, nor does he mention Dr. White's warp drive theory or his Q-Drive experiments.  Thorne does mention LIGO, Randall, Hawking, Witten and Einstein.

I was just listening to him Saturday: 

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/11/21/2014/into-the-wormhole-the-science-of-interstellar.html

You are familiar that he wrote the definitive study on how to build a wormhole?  The story as I've heard it is, that his friend Carl Sagan asked him if he could use black holes for interstellar flight back when Sagan was writing his little book Contact, which was later turned into the movie with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey.  Thorne went to work on this with his graduate students and came back to say, "no, you can't use a black hole, but you can use a wormhole".  Thorn then published the work he and his grad students did on wormholes and so the math is there to create them since 1988.  The trouble is, to pass people through, you need an "absurdly benign wormhole" where the gravitational gradient at the throat is low enough that it won't crush a human being.  For this you need about a jupiter mass of negative matter, which is hard to find.

Good thing Woodward found it locked up inside the electron.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3364 on: 11/24/2014 03:59 PM »

This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from.  The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF.  M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle.  Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.
this is all true but it is also true that White could be dead wrong about where his effect is coming from and the effect still be there and be exploitable. his device may be a step or two up the chain from where the power originates. It might not be scientifically sound but if it works it works. :)The formalized science will work itself out. it always does.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3365 on: 11/24/2014 06:05 PM »
Quote
The formalized science will work itself out. it always does.

I think in this regard it is wise to look at the rest of life.  Does it usually work out?  Fact is it doesn't.

If you look at the dozens of Spacedrive schemes that have been proposed over the last 20 years, it's a striking thing that none of them work.  None.  In almost every instance, these are each individually the result of an engineer pretending to be a physicist, and slapping some dopey explanation onto what ultimately is just a delusion of grandeur.  From Dean to Searle and from Shawyer to White, ALL of these schemes are obviously WRONG when you look at the theory they propose.  Remember, White is a physicist, but he was having these delusions about QVF years before he went back to school for his PhD, and he was specifically denied the opportunity to explore his QVF model because it is crank nonsense that Rice would have nothing to do with.

And this is the way science distinguishes between pathological science, pseudo-science and the real stuff: one has to have a cogent theory that one suspects might be true.  None of these schemes has such a theory, except Woodward's M-E physics.  Woodward really does stand alone here.  All the rest fails the test for what makes real science.  This stuff is actually much closer to superstition than it is to real science.

So don't kid yourself.  Its not like you can be wrong about the thing that is supposed to explain why you would build a propellantless drive and simply stumble blindly onto a working one.  While it is always possible for such a thing to happen, so is getting hit by lightning.  The smart money, is on the real science, that isn't denying Einstein's work, or proposing to violate conservation, or dodging the authorities for fraud.  The smart money, is on only those explanations which are consistent with the science we already have great reason to believe is true, and that offers lots of opportunity to extend our basic knowledge of the universe.

The smart money is on Woodward.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1371
  • Liked: 851
  • Likes Given: 266
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3366 on: 11/24/2014 06:15 PM »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3368 on: 11/24/2014 06:55 PM »
Wow.  What a great piece.  For anyone interested, the second photo is about the best shot of the lab I've ever seen.  The blue box in the foreground is the Welch Duoseal 1400.  Normally it has an acoustic enclosure around it to minimize the noise in the room.  The device to the right appears to be the old U-80 load cell Jim used back before the ARC Lite went into service in 2007.  I heard he was going to try to press it back into service so he can work on more than one thing at a time.  Looks like it's up and running again.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3369 on: 11/24/2014 07:02 PM »
Indeed, building on our previous discussion on the nature of the QV itself (has weight but gravitationally repulsive, possible QV suitability as exotic matter analogue), Dr. White repeatedly hints that he is exploring this line of research in his warp experiments. He doesn't come out and say it. He is testing Qthrusters on a test bench designed to look for warped spacetime.  At the 55:30 mark on through 58:30, he gets a tough question regarding this and he shies away from that. He's essentially saying (or I am, not sure) that creating a perturbed state in the QV is changing the shape of spacetime from flat to sloped.
This is why M-E Theory and QVF are incompatible--they make contradictory claims about where inertia comes from.  The ZPF theory White's QVF model rests upon and is an extension of, stipulates that matter gets its mass from the virtual particles in the ZPF.  M-E theory stipulates that matter gets its mass from the gravitational connection between all the universe's parts but chiefly from the farthest parts as per Mach's Principle.  Both these could be wrong, but they can't both be right because they contradict one another.

When you say "mass"......to which kind of mass are you referring? I want to clearly understand what you're saying here, instead of just dismissing you. The mass generation mechanism is clearly understood, So is mass energy equivalence. Most mass is derived through QCD (chiral symmetry breaking), while the rest is Higgs mechanism and mass-energy equivalence. To my knowledge, even the QV crowd isn't trying to change the definition of mass. Are you referring to inertial mass, when you say mass then? Or are you referring to the gain in mass from a gain in energy, aka mass energy equivalence?

Quote
The real power is in the gravinertial flux--the universal wind created by and controlled by the MET.
What is "gravinertial flux"?

https://www.google.it/search?q=gravinertial+flux&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&gfe_rd=cr&ei=HopzVPPgO8WK8QeF1ICwAg#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=rcs&q=%22gravinertial+flux%22
« Last Edit: 11/24/2014 07:36 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3370 on: 11/24/2014 07:36 PM »
In this context and for the present purpose, gravitational mass, inertial mass and inertia are all the same thing.

Mach Effects are temporary fluctuations in mass, but only in "bulk" mass since the masses of the constituent particles do not change.  The change in mass is all held in the "squishy bonds" that tie the particles together.

Whenever bulk mass is deformed, its mass changes since this strains the energy bonds between particles and these have mass.  So if it helps you can speak of it in terms of mass energy equivalence, but were you to try to change the energy in the bonds sufficient to alter the mass in the way a Mach Effect does, you'd need fantastical amounts of energy.   So speaking of mass energy equivalence could lead you astray quite quickly.  Mach Effects are not just change in the internal energy of the bonds.  To create a Mach Effect, you not only need to change the internal energy but at the same time, you need to accelerate the mass relative to the distant stars.  This then creates the 2w fluctuation based on Mach's Principle as per Woodward's derivation.

BTW, there is no way to understand this apart from Mach's Principle.  It is not "extra stuff" you don't need to understand the effect.  It is the primary enabling principle necessary for the effect to occur.  That's why I say we have strong evidence Mach is correct, because we can observe these fluctuations.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3371 on: 11/24/2014 07:42 PM »
Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3372 on: 11/24/2014 08:01 PM »
Ron; i meant in the sense that often exploitation comes before formal understanding. For example; man was cooking megafauna long before the chemistry and combustion physics were known. shamans were whipping up bizarre herbal cocktails (both effective and ineffective) before biochemistry and pharmacological sciencewas a thing. people were blowing stuff up before chemistry was a thing. rockets were made in the near east before tsilovkosky was even conceived let alone scribbled his first equations.

you don't always need pages of proven algebra and calculus and thousands of disertations, thesis and papers to do something. sometimes things come by happy accident, or informal observation or mad tinkering.

When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3373 on: 11/24/2014 08:03 PM »
His warp interferometer experiment has implicit in it that the q thruster or a similar device does warp space.

If it didn't he would have nothing to generate the warp he hopes to detect. And it has to be more than just the mass of his test article. if his interferometer was sensitive enough he could hypothetically at least measure the curvature due to the mass of atoms the beam passes by in the instrument. but it is not that sensitive.

QVF posits that any strong E field ought to produce this warp curvature.  The original interferometer was built to be able to measure something like 11 orders magnitude less curvature than his model predicted from a single capacitor.  He measured no curvature.  Then he claimed the laser was not precise enough and waited six months on a replacement, and again, no curvature.  Then he started reporting he had had "non-null results" which is fanciful at best.  If null results were possible, he had null results.  That didn't stop him claiming he had real curvature when he gave the address out at U. of AZ.

Now if you're saying he is yet again, claiming the laser was not powerful enough and he lacked resolution in the interferometer, I would just note to you he would have had to be off by more than 20 orders of magnitude for his original experiment for that to be true.  It's simply not true.  It's just yet one more example of the lack of integrity involved with the work at Eagle.  Pretty shameful really, but this is what pathological science is like.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3374 on: 11/24/2014 08:10 PM »
Ron; i meant in the sense that often exploitation comes before formal understanding. For example; man was cooking megafauna long before the chemistry and combustion physics were known. shamans were whipping up bizarre herbal cocktails (both effective and ineffective) before biochemistry and pharmacological sciencewas a thing. people were blowing stuff up before chemistry was a thing. rockets were made in the near east before tsilovkosky was even conceived let alone scribbled his first equations.

you don't always need pages of proven algebra and calculus and thousands of disertations, thesis and papers to do something. sometimes things come by happy accident, or informal observation or mad tinkering.

I understand what you're saying and it is always possible to stumble onto a discovery rather than deliberately design a hypothesis or a technology.  I am just noting, that's not a safe bet.  There's no warrant for belief when the theory that predicts is obviously wrong, and continuing to cling to what we know is wrong is a hallmark of pathological science.  This does not compare to the careful science Woodward does.  It's voodoo nonsense.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3375 on: 11/24/2014 08:16 PM »
Quote
QVF posits that any strong E field ought to produce this warp curvature.

When you say QVF, do you mean quantum vacuum friction or flux or fluctuations? Probably fluctuations huh.....Just want to make sure here. I don't want to assume. I never encounter this term. Please elaborate. Do you have a link to something that says that? I'd like to read more about what you're saying.
Quote
It's simply not true.  It's just yet one more example of the lack of integrity involved with the work at Eagle.  Pretty shameful really, but this is what pathological science is like.
Can we play nice please?
« Last Edit: 11/24/2014 08:20 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3376 on: 11/24/2014 08:20 PM »
Ron; i meant in the sense that often exploitation comes before formal understanding. For example; man was cooking megafauna long before the chemistry and combustion physics were known. shamans were whipping up bizarre herbal cocktails (both effective and ineffective) before biochemistry and pharmacological sciencewas a thing. people were blowing stuff up before chemistry was a thing. rockets were made in the near east before tsilovkosky was even conceived let alone scribbled his first equations.

you don't always need pages of proven algebra and calculus and thousands of disertations, thesis and papers to do something. sometimes things come by happy accident, or informal observation or mad tinkering.

I understand what you're saying and it is always possible to stumble onto a discovery rather than deliberately design a hypothesis or a technology.  I am just noting, that's not a safe bet.  There's no warrant for belief when the theory that predicts is obviously wrong, and continuing to cling to what we know is wrong is a hallmark of pathological science.  This does not compare to the careful science Woodward does.  It's voodoo nonsense.
I'm easy. I like Woodward. i like White. I like a long list of people you'd giggle at and give me 5 kook point's each for. I like excursions into the fringe. They don't outrage me; by turns they intrigue, amuse and embarrass me. i could name names that would cause a good deal of the people here to have explosive cranial aneurisms like in the movie "Scanners."

I don't care who does it with what device as long as someone does it and breaks us free of our current rut.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3377 on: 11/24/2014 08:33 PM »
Quoting @Ron Stahl
Quote
There's no warrant for belief when the theory that predicts is obviously wrong, and continuing to cling to what we know is wrong is a hallmark of pathological science.

Being that the work that Dr. White and Dr. Woodward are both pioneering endeavors, both of which haven't been falsified, I see no reason to have the view that somebody's theory is obviously wrong. I mean for example, I have issues with Dr. White's QVPT approach due to the thrusting against the QV and plasma language. I have serious issue with Dr. Woodward's Mach effect theory too, but I don't have the hubris to just dismiss either theories and chide them for their ideas, which are the result of continued learning and experimentation. Nobody has this all figured out yet. Why the hostility against somebody else's theory or work?

As far as White's warp theory and work. That in particular is very very early work. I'm hardly even familiar with it because I've focused on the Qthruster approach. I don't see a need to bust his chops yet because his ideas of warping space don't match yours.

This "Woodward or bust" thing has got to stop. Don't fall in love with a theory. Fall in love with the truth. Otherwise we're just going to keep feeling good about ourselves and our ideas, with our feet firmly planted eternally on Terra Firma.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2014 08:43 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3378 on: 11/24/2014 08:40 PM »


QVF posits that any strong E field ought to produce this warp curvature.  The original interferometer was built to be able to measure something like 11 orders magnitude less curvature than his model predicted from a single capacitor.  He measured no curvature.  Then he claimed the laser was not precise enough and waited six months on a replacement, and again, no curvature.  Then he started reporting he had had "non-null results" which is fanciful at best.  If null results were possible, he had null results.  That didn't stop him claiming he had real curvature when he gave the address out at U. of AZ.

Now if you're saying he is yet again, claiming the laser was not powerful enough and he lacked resolution in the interferometer, I would just note to you he would have had to be off by more than 20 orders of magnitude for his original experiment for that to be true.  It's simply not true.  It's just yet one more example of the lack of integrity involved with the work at Eagle.  Pretty shameful really, but this is what pathological science is like.

I don't think it's a case of pathological science. i think it plausible he thought his analysis methods would overcome the sensitivity issue. also his deciding to switch interferometry methods had to do with discussions and persuasion by one of his peers. at his first convention presentation he said he was going to make a purpose built test article (rather than a re-purposed q thruster) that should provide more powerful and less ambiguous warping. also it is not "now" it happened quite sometime ago maybe after his first foray into public speaking at that first convention. Also peer review formally refuted his original measurement scheme and interferometer. That would naturally lead to changing your methodology and gear.

When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3379 on: 11/24/2014 09:34 PM »
Being that the work that Dr. White and Dr. Woodward are both pioneering endeavors, both of which haven't been falsified, I see no reason to have the view that somebody's theory is obviously wrong.

Just think rationally about it rather than hoping stuff will work out.  For White to be right, Einstein has to be wrong.  Now what do you think the odds of that are?

I am chasing the truth.  I have just done the diligence and know that White and Shawyer and 15 other nuts are wrong.  That stuff is all wishful thinking that has no part in science.

Now if you had some experimental evidence that Einstein was wrong, I would reconsider, but it hasn't happened in 80 years and denying conservation is even worse, IMHO.

And keep in mind, whenever these obviously wrong ideas get traction and funding, that funding comes from sources that would otherwise invest in the options that have a real possibility of working out.  Instead, Sonny has funding and Woodward does not.  That is a real scientific tragedy.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2014 09:36 PM by Ron Stahl »

Tags: