Quote from: Rodal on 09/29/2014 04:16 pmOh, and the drink is a Martini.Huh. Shaken or stirred?There's also this paper:
Oh, and the drink is a Martini.
Being unable to build a consistent and reproducible experiment in 17 years is completely compatible with "no true effect is possible" or "true effect is possible but were never encountered yet", and less and less compatible with "some true effect was witnessed at some point". Regardless of priors and theories.
QuoteThe one thing that changes the dynamic is if you can increase the thrust/power to the level where spurious sources of thrust are differentiated by the power level. The larger the thrust being measured, the easier it is to figure out the source.So even if the theory is wrong, after so many years of chasing something uncertain, and if you're convinced either by the underlying theory or previous results, surely it makes sense to keep trying to increase the thrust while only slowly chipping away at the spurious potential sources.If "my" theory is correct (true effect is impossible) : the thrust is spurious, trying to augment it is trying to augment a spurious effect. At some point it could appear clearly as spurious because it was augmented. Ok, I give you that.
The one thing that changes the dynamic is if you can increase the thrust/power to the level where spurious sources of thrust are differentiated by the power level. The larger the thrust being measured, the easier it is to figure out the source.So even if the theory is wrong, after so many years of chasing something uncertain, and if you're convinced either by the underlying theory or previous results, surely it makes sense to keep trying to increase the thrust while only slowly chipping away at the spurious potential sources.
But it is also possible that in this antagonistic interplay between lowering the effects one recognize as spurious and augmenting the effects believed to be true (still spurious, but not recognized as such), and changing constantly from set-ups, devices, experimental conditions... one is just keeping on the level of confusion needed to maintain an illusion of true effect and progress when there is none.
So even if augmenting the thrust could be a way to find and understand it as a spurious effect (real progress) my take is that it is not the best way. Focus should be on a good appropriate balance and isolating the device, first, like Brito et al. Then if you have a positive result, this is a clean result, apply for Nobel. Else, null result (like Brito et al), this is also a clean result. Then try another theory/design. Don't expect better thrusting as any guideline for the new design as this is all or nothing, either you have a real effect (and improvement can come later, after the Nobel) or you have no real effect (and improving thrust is pointless). So every new design is a blank page. Consider our medieval scientists, after some time at becoming expert at hoping on a given scale to optimise the averaged apparent weight they build a new and better scale. The experience gained in hoping to fool a mechanical scale is still useful to get non null result with the new model of scale, but not as good. Disparate results... but still non null, and still possible to refine the aptitude to fool this new kind of scale... (also at lower levels). Better and better scales, lower and lower effects, but still non null, and still possible to "improve" on any given scale. At some point a monk remarks that blowing downward has a very small but significant and continuous effect on apparent weight. That would be a real effect (for the goal of flying/hovering). What was gained in terms of progress by all those years of hoping when discovering this new real effect ? Better scales, I grant you that, but for the real effect it's like starting from a blank page.
... after years of this, at some point you can only address the forest of potential sources, as I said, by attempting to increase the force. If you fail to do so, that is another brick in the wall against accepting the theory. So it's best for all parties involved, including the critics, yes?
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
Intresting:Axion Dark Matter ExperimentsG.Rybka Talk at the Workshop on Frontiers of New Physics: Colliders and Beyond in Trieste, Italy (2014)Oops :Check slides 29/31 and 28/31 on the inclusion of dielectrics (no time for chatting just now)
Quote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 03:03 pmIf the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This is certainly not true.
If the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.
Quote from: Ron Stahl on 09/29/2014 06:29 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 03:03 pmIf the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This is certainly not true.Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/29/2014 07:23 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 09/29/2014 06:29 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 03:03 pmIf the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This is certainly not true.Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?Can this be replicated at a different location?No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/29/2014 07:23 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 09/29/2014 06:29 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 03:03 pmIf the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This is certainly not true.Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?Can this be replicated at a different location?No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOIs it because of claimed NDA's NOIs it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NOIt is because there is no comparable facility to CERNDo you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/29/2014 07:38 pmQuoteWhat about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?Can this be replicated at a different location?No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOIs it because of claimed NDA's NOIs it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NOIt is because there is no comparable facility to CERNDo you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO. Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.
QuoteWhat about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?Can this be replicated at a different location?No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOIs it because of claimed NDA's NOIs it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NOIt is because there is no comparable facility to CERNDo you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?Can this be replicated at a different location?No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:40 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/29/2014 07:38 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/29/2014 07:23 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 09/29/2014 06:29 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 03:03 pmIf the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This is certainly not true.Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?Can this be replicated at a different location?No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOIs it because of claimed NDA's NOIs it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NOIt is because there is no comparable facility to CERNDo you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO. Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.I did not put an angry face, on the contrary, I'm smiling I'm glad that you brought up CERN as a comparison, as there is a huge difference to be noticed (besides the scale of CERN):The experiments at CERN are being performed with the simultaneous cooperations of hundreds of scientists from across the world. I know of several from MIT and other world universities.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/29/2014 07:38 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/29/2014 07:23 pmQuote from: Ron Stahl on 09/29/2014 06:29 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/28/2014 03:03 pmIf the experiments cannot be easily reproduced at all by other scientists at other locations, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This is certainly not true.Fixed that for Rodal. Is Rodal's statement now true?What about the discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN?Can this be replicated at a different location?No. It cannot presently and therefore cannot be considered part of scientific progress according to Rodal.Does that make Rodal's statement true of false?And why can't it be replicated? is it because of somebody's "personal touch" ? NOIs it because of claimed NDA's NOIs it because the testing protocol is not scientifically provided NOIt is because there is no comparable facility to CERNDo you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO. Maybe you should update your statement about scientific progress then, rather than getting angry.
Do you think that Woodward's or Eagleworks facilities compare in any way to CERN ? NO.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:52 pmI hereby update my poorly worded previous statement :If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/29/2014 07:54 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:52 pmI hereby update my poorly worded previous statement :If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.Ah! That's better.Thank you Dr. Rodal.So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:59 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/29/2014 07:54 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 09/29/2014 07:52 pmI hereby update my poorly worded previous statement :If the experiments cannot be reproduced by other scientists, they cannot be considered part of the scientific progress.This takes care of CERN, as there are hundreds of scientists involved from across academic institutions from across the world.Ah! That's better.Thank you Dr. Rodal.So how does your updated statement relate to the matter in hand?I would rather discuss numbers, possible other effects (look at my recent postings on Axion dark matter) and engineering calculations than spend more time on this don't you think Not interested in a thread on definitions of what is and what is not science. Maybe we should do that on a thread on Karl Poper