Improving the New Physics Section - Suggestion thread

• Improving the New Physics Section - Suggestion thread by Chris Bergin on 29 Sep, 2019 22:37
• I'm open to suggestions to improve this section of the forum after a few messages relating to paths forward here of late. This is, after all, the black sheep of the forum (because this section is the most loosely associated with the content of this site).
  
  EM Drive has always been a bowl of contention. We need a new thread, but if anyone has any ideas on how to improve the process of posting on the next thread, I'd be open to it on here. Note, suggestions will be personal suggestions, but I'll gauge approval via the likes such suggestions gain.
  
  Another item was a thread title change from "WOODWARD'S EFFECT" to "MACH EFFECT" to remove some of the tribalism the original title receives.
  
  We'd also like a dedicated moderator for this section. We'll work that out at a later date as it'd need to be someone known for their balance.
  
  These are examples, of course, so fire away with ideas.
• #1 by darkenfast on 30 Sep, 2019 02:38
• My suggestion for content of the New Physics Section:
  
  1. Welcome: Posts bringing news from reputable sources.  Example: Aviation Week article on proposal for a "Unicorn Drive". 
  Not welcome:  News from disreputable sources.  Example: Alien Channeling Today article on how an advanced race planted the idea of a "Unicorn Drive" in my head.
  
  2.  Discussion of the above.  Welcome: Posts showing that there's a mathematical solution to the "Unicorn Problem".
  Not welcome:  Posts claiming that it doesn't matter what the math says, I like unicorns and you're just biased!
  
  3.  Honest questions from dummies like me who don't have the math skills but would appreciate a simple explanation of the "Unicorn Horn Ratio" and why it matters (or doesn't).  We can always be referred to Unicorn Wiki, if that is better.
  
  Physics relies on mathematics.  We need a moderator who can understand the math enough to shut down the nonsense.  A moderator can always unblock a thread if new information comes to light: "Unicornium Detected at Lunar Poles - Physicists Rethinking Problem".
  
  I nominate Meberbs for moderator.  It would be less trouble for him to moderate (and educate), than it is for him to constantly maintain a science-based view against the repeated non-scientific assertions pushed here.  It might put some noses out of joint, but it will help the reputation of NSF overall.  It will also be in line with standards in some other sections (especially Space Policy). 
  
  Thanks!
  
  
  
  
• #2 by su27k on 30 Sep, 2019 04:09
• Separate update and discussion thread like in the SpaceX section, the current discussion threads are way too long to follow, I would like a quick way to see where we're at in terms of proving/disproving these technologies, from credible sources.
• #3 by meberbs on 30 Sep, 2019 05:19
• Quote from: darkenfast on 30 Sep, 2019 02:38

  I nominate Meberbs for moderator.  It would be less trouble for him to moderate (and educate), than it is for him to constantly maintain a science-based view against the repeated non-scientific assertions pushed here.  It might put some noses out of joint, but it will help the reputation of NSF overall.  It will also be in line with standards in some other sections (especially Space Policy). 
  

  Per Chris' criteria of "someone known for their balance" I do not believe I would qualify. I generally post in this section to balance out nonsense and the like, which makes my posts very not balanced on their own. When I think of balanced, I think of someone like Monomorphic, who has done hard work and experiments on the emDrive, and has also done good work to demonstrate experimental artifacts in Woodward's tests.
  
  I would actually rather not see moderation based on the physics of something, as that quickly results in accusations of bias that wouldn't be entirely wrong. As it is, it already happens enough that people who get moderated or banned for blatant violations of site rules would make such accusations even when it is entirely wrong. It is difficult to put a limit on sources and such, because in general a lot of good content on this site in other sections comes from people to presenting their own ideas and thoughts. Requiring some journal source first would kill that possibility here.
  
  Possibly some rules specific to this section could help if they were targeted at some of the common rhetorical techniques that tend to show up when someone is not arguing in good faith. There are a few in particular that tend to drag threads off topic, or generally reduce the quality of the discussion. I'm too tired right now to come up with a good list though, let alone something that could be formed into a good clear set of rules, where enforcement would not seem too arbitrary. 
• #4 by 1 on 30 Sep, 2019 07:04
• Quote from: darkenfast on 30 Sep, 2019 02:38

  Physics relies on mathematics.  We need a moderator who can understand the math enough to shut down the nonsense.  A moderator can always unblock a thread if new information comes to light: "Unicornium Detected at Lunar Poles - Physicists Rethinking Problem".
  

  
  Agreed. Discussion of new physics needs to begin with an understanding of "old" physics. IMO, Part of a new moderators duties in this regard should also be to ensure that proper terminology is used when possible/reasonable. In most other sections of the forum, it's often enough to infer (or ask) what a member actually means, but in New Physics, we should be more rigorous in our posts. Of course, additional patience can be afforded to non-native English speakers.
  
  

  Quote from: meberbs on 30 Sep, 2019 05:19

  I would actually rather not see moderation based on the physics of something, as that quickly results in accusations of bias that wouldn't be entirely wrong.
  

  
  I think moderation based on physics is fine, depending on how established the physics in question is. To be clear, I see "moderation" as more about keeping threads on track rather than simply stopping a conversation cold. For example, if a member is clearly displaying a lack of comprehension of a well established concept, it might be useful to redirect the conversation to a dedicated thread (or threads) in the "advanced concepts" section where their particular areas of difficulty can be addressed. This would serve to keep the main thread from being dominated by a side conversation while still allowing the poster to speak their thoughts.
  
  Of course, if someone starts insisting the Earth is flat, I'd have no issue seeing their posts sent into the void.
  
• #5 by M.E.T. on 30 Sep, 2019 12:37
• No offence to Meberbs or Monomorphic, but a moderator should be impartial with regard  to the most popular/ contentious topics in this section. I do not believe either of those gentlemen  meet that requirement in relation to the Mach Effect, which is one of the most hotly debated topics around.
  
  Credit to Meberbs, who acknowledged as much himself upthread, but I would respectfully extend that disqualification to Monomorphic as well, who is in the middle of a rather acrimonious and ongoing difference of opinion with Prof Woodward and his team.
  
  I suggest a moderator who occupies neutral ground on that issue.
• #6 by D_Dom on 30 Sep, 2019 23:48
•   I like the detailed opening used in the EM-Drive thread, it specifies the "rules of engagement" well. We have often debated whether or not to have separate threads for "experiments" and "theory". Choosing to keep them together has been helpful in my humble opinion.
    Separating updates and discussion could be beneficial. Updates are typically few and far between compared to ongoing discussion about the scientific method and its practical application in this field of research.
  
  Regarding a thread title change from "WOODWARD'S EFFECT" to "MACH EFFECT" to remove some of the tribalism the original title receives. Here is a proposed opening statement for this thread, substituting Mach Effect for Woodward. This may be edited into the first post or a new thread started with the new title.
     
  
  "This is a thread focused on objective analysis of the Mach Effect. Previously known as the Woodward Effect, we prefer this terminology to encourage objective analysis of whether or not this effect can be used to generate propellantless thrust for space applications.
    Professor James Woodward, of California State University Fullerton predicts "transient mass fluctuations" in objects absorbing energy while accelerating. His evidence includes data from experiments with ultra-sonic PZT actuators on a low-thrust torsional pendulum.  There is still much debate on if the reported thrust is real propulsion or an experimental artifact.
  Through the Space Studies Institute (SSI), Professor Woodward and his laboratory partner, Dr. Heidi Fearn have been awarded Phase I and II of NASA's Innovative Advanced Concepts program. The project team is as follows:
  Emeritus Professor James Woodward - Principal Investigator
  Professor Heidi Fearn - Institutional Principal Investigator (CSUF)
  Mr. Gary Hudson (SSI)
  Mr. Chip Akins
  Dr. John Brandenburg
  Mr. Marshall Eubanks
  Professor Daniel Kennefick
  Mr. Paul March
  Dr. José Rodal
  Link to the first thread:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
  Woodward effect on wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
  Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome.   Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people.   As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged.  Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.
  
  Commercial advertisement is discouraged.
  
  In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.
  
  Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)
  This link   http://math.typeit.org/
  enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.
  --
  Links to previous threads:   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
  Woodward effect on wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect"
  
  I haven't yet verified the links and will continue to refine wording based on the excellent posts contributed above.
   As always, your comments greatly appreciated, this is a community effort.
  
  
  
• #7 by Bob Woods on 01 Oct, 2019 00:31
• While I'm not opposed to splitting the thread, I don't see a big need either. Back in the heady days a couple of years ago when a hundred posts could appear, things are pretty tame now.
• #8 by Asteroza on 01 Oct, 2019 05:06
• Perhaps splitting the major threads into pairs, for each of the major thrusts (no pun intended) in research. Essentially, have a thread pair dedicated to both promoting discussion/research into a particular theory/path (theory concepts and supporting experiment design), and the corresponding active experimental attempts to disprove said theory?
  
  So threads featuring work like Monomorphic and Shell and others to perform theory expansion experiments, and threads covering replication/refutation like the work from Dr. Tajmar's TU Dresden group.
  
  Though in practice that may not be reasonable...
• #9 by leovinus on 01 Oct, 2019 13:26
• Quote from: Chris Bergin on 29 Sep, 2019 22:37

  I'm open to suggestions to improve this section of the forum after a few messages relating to paths forward here of late. This is, after all, the black sheep of the forum (because this section is the most loosely associated with the content of this site).
  

  
  Thanks for starting this thread.
  
  1) Quality
  
  NSF is such a quality site for space-related news. Therefore, I'd like to see the same quality extend to Physics & Space frontiers in the "new physics for space technology" threads.
  
  As an example and background, back in the 80s and 90s, I often read the USENET groups sci.physics, sci.physics.research and alt.sci.physics.new-theories.
  While sci.physics was mainstream discussion, unmoderated, with the occasional crackpot, the group sci.physics.research was moderated by a team and contained very high-quality discussion of theories, experiments, math and idea's. The fringe idea's went into alt.sci.physics.new-theories. The FAQ handled via The Original Usenet Physics FAQ. The posting guidelines are a bit long in the teeth but still relevant.
  
  What I see today is that the NSF "new physics" forum combines all of those USENET groups, and that seems to be a source of contention. Personally, I'd love NSF to be like sci.physics.research as a nursery of space & physics idea's, well-founded theories, experiments. That would contribute depth to the general space theme. The fringe idea's can be discussed at other forums and moderators can point in the right direction.
  
  Several moderators would be useful. AFAIK, in sci.physics.research, a random moderator of the moderator team was assigned to check new contributions/threads.
  
  2) Education
  
  Like the L2 student memberships, a set of pointers on "how to become a good physicist" would be useful. In my opinion, a pinned post would help with, e.g.,
  
  - Career advise, and physics background from a Nobel price winner prof. Gerald 't Hooft How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist
  - The Original Usenet Physics FAQ.
  - https://profmattstrassler.com/new-start-here/
  - How to debunk  Perpetual Motion Machines http://gp.alternate-energy.net/how-to-debunk-perpetual-motion-machines-with-tom-scott_03d8387b9.html
  - https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-take-to-be-as-smart-as-Einstein
  
  Just my 2pc
  
• #10 by gaballard on 01 Oct, 2019 19:00
• If balanced means "someone who gives equal credence to all sides of claims of new physics", that almost begs the question of what the forum is ultimately for.
  
  Is it somewhere where claims of new physics are dashed on the rocks of skepticism, to see which ones make it through? Or is it somewhere where those claims can be discussed in a less rigorous and skeptical way?
  
  The former seems like it would be more the MO for this site, and I would nominate Meberbs for the moderator (I honestly already thought you were the mod for this and Advanced Physics  ), precisely because Meberbs could provide balance by being the voice of skepticism.
  
  If it's the latter, which is kind of what the majority of the users of this forum seem to see it as, that's fine also, and I would agree that someone less skeptical should moderate it. Although having a place to discuss extraordinary claims in a non-skeptical way is kind of a slippery slope, or at least adjacent to one, IMO, that could lead a little further out to the fringe (which may or may not be what everyone wants).
• #11 by Wargrim on 03 Oct, 2019 16:39
• Maybe a few points from someone who only lurks this section and never posts here:
  ( By far most of the physics and math that are part of the discussions here are well above me, so i do not feel i can contribute to the discussions or even ask good questions. )
  
  - A split between updates and discussions would make it a lot easier to find out if there are new experimental results. Or new experiments started, papers released and so on.
  - The main reason for me to come here is to see from time to time if there is any sign that some of the extraordinary claims or ideas have gained a bit of substance from small beginnings. Imho, this can only happen through experiment and demonstration - so i would always want to find those reported here, even if there is no solid established theoretical foundation.
  - The discussions about validity of results go by neccessity deep into theory and contention and make it hard to follow mixed topics.
  
  There are a few negative patterns that moderation should aim to minimize:
  - Going in circles with the same claims being repeated and the same refutations being repeated. Such redundancy should be reduced.
  - Arguing from authority, instead of based on data and math.
  - Discussions of researchers & poster's motivations and reputation, instead of experiments, data and arguments.
  
  Imho, moderation should not try to eliminate scientifically weak arguments, but let them stand and speak for themselves, allowing refutations and the judgement of readers to take place.
  
  Imho, moderation needs a high tolerance to "unfinished" theories, claims and experiments, allowing those to show merit and substance over time, otherwise, what is the point of having this section compared to advanced concepts?
  
  Moderation needs people uninvolved in the main topics of contention.
• #12 by meberbs on 06 Oct, 2019 06:24
• Here are some specific suggestions for rules that would help eliminate some of the worst, most boring, and unproductive contributions. Some of these have already been mentioned by others in some form.
  
  -Strict enforcement of on-topic discussion, in particular when papers are provided with no explanation or context for why they are relevant, or other crazy concepts are posted in the emDrive thread for no reason then also claiming propellantless propulsion. (The typical latitude for friendly "welcome back" and such posts is of course still fine.)
  -No mindless repetition. If person A makes a point, and person B makes a counterpoint to that, Person A responding by repeating the original claim with no acknowledgment of the counterpoint is not acceptable.
  -No conspiracy theories, no "scientists are suppressing ___" etc.
  
  These should basically be instant deletion of post offenses, because they inevitably lead to long off topic discussions, boring circular conversations, and usually end up with some less than civil posts. Besides the above, no personal attacks, be excellent to each other, etc. are already strong rules on this site, but this section tends to attract violations of them.
  
  A general pattern that is hard to put a clear rule on is someone continuously changing to a new explanation or concept every time there previous one is disproven. While this can be fine in some cases, often it leads in giant circles especially when the poster never indicates actual understanding of the explanation of what was wrong with what they said. One pattern is:
  A: Does X work?
  B: No, here it is known to be wrong by this general defintion/textbook proof
  A: But what if I make it more complicated with Y
  B: The general proof is general
  A: But how about Z
  B: The see above referenced proof
  etc.
  
  Coming up with new ideas shouldn't be discouraged, but a repetition where the person doesn't seem to be trying to listen and learn is more akin to a bad faith discussion.
  
  There is probably at least one more I have thought of and am forgetting.
  
  Additionally some threads may be helpful that cover common things with regular physics that come up repeatedly. (Such as the countless inefficient photon rockets made out of 2 element phased arrays that have been proposed, and maybe something on recycling photon rockets, and whatever else people think is useful.) This could be based on the NSFipedia format AC in NC came up with do deal with similar repetition in other sections.
  
  Edit: remembered one more for the list.
• #13 by Chris Bergin on 07 Oct, 2019 13:44
• Best suggestion so far is the Update only/Discussion threads like we do for SpaceX etc. Only problem is people always forget the difference and the rule is you lose your post if you post chat on an update only post (as a proven deterrent). May become a culture shock for the New Physics crowd!
  
  We like self moderation as much as possible, so for now let's just shelve the idea of a dedicated moderator and only return to that if things become annoying again.
  
  So guys, feel free to start some update only and discussion threads for the main topic here. Remember to note the enforcement of update only in the update only threads.
• #14 by Asteroza on 09 Oct, 2019 00:04
• Quote from: Chris Bergin on 07 Oct, 2019 13:44

  Best suggestion so far is the Update only/Discussion threads like we do for SpaceX etc. Only problem is people always forget the difference and the rule is you lose your post if you post chat on an update only post (as a proven deterrent). May become a culture shock for the New Physics crowd!
  
  We like self moderation as much as possible, so for now let's just shelve the idea of a dedicated moderator and only return to that if things become annoying again.
  
  So guys, feel free to start some update only and discussion threads for the main topic here. Remember to note the enforcement of update only in the update only threads.
  

  
  In this context, will updates be limited to company/organization announcements, patent filings, followed by conferences/papers/speaker videos though? Does that extend to announcing DIY experiment designs (with detailed specs)?
• #15 by D_Dom on 09 Oct, 2019 00:14
• I would welcome any and all updates on experiment results. Discussion of design details may properly belong in (wait for it)...
   a discussion thread.
• #16 by JohnFornaro on 09 Oct, 2019 14:48
• Probably the most important improvement in the New Physics Section, would be a working drive, floating across the conference room table.
  
  On other improvement would be a plain English statement of the Mach Effect Drive:
  
  "The Mach Effect is a conjecture that electrical energy could be converted to momentum of a mass in a directed fashion while the mass is in free space."
  
  Such a definition should be the pinned top post of subsequent threads
  
  I think that on one level meberbs would be a good, temperate mod, but at the same time, as he points out:
  
  

  Quote from: meberbs

  I would actually rather not see moderation based on the physics of something, as that quickly results in accusations of bias that wouldn't be entirely wrong.

  
  Especially in these areas of obscure physics.  Meberbs obliquely presents a type of moderation that could be practiced, tho:
  
  

  Quote from: meberbs

  Possibly some rules specific to this section could help if they were targeted at some of the common rhetorical techniques that tend to show up when someone is not arguing in good faith. There are a few in particular that tend to drag threads off topic, or generally reduce the quality of the discussion.

  
  I know that I am tired of how some posters ignore meberb's advice and suggestions over and over again. They use their "rhetorical techniques" not to inform, but more probably to virtue signal to their readership how much they believe in far fetched ideas presented with a side of pseudo science.  Perhaps there could be a 'Hall of Shame' [HoS] where repeat offenders can be placed, and their continued remarks put on some kind of hold until they demonstrate understanding of the technical considerations that meberbs has given them.  But who would want this thankless task of moderation?
  
  As to the "conspiracy of suppression".  Clearly, there's a great military advantage to the nation which first develops such a drive; whatever work is being done by the alphabet soup agencies will not be revealed to the public by those agencies.  If the military already has a Unicorn Drive, then so be it.  But if a poster develops a Unicorn Drive math based on 'Feelings of Mathmematics if Only They Weren't Squashed by the MIC', that should not be allowed.
  
  Perhaps these posts could be moved to the 'Hall of Shame', along with a brief explanation of why they were put there by mods.  A poster could have three chances to support his theories.  If those three chances ended up in the HoS, then any future posts by that user could just be deleted.  The HoS thread would only allow mods to post.
• #17 by Asteroza on 10 Oct, 2019 04:36
• Would anyone be up for suggesting the rough splits for the update/discussion pairs for the current high activity threads?
  
  quickie split might be
  
  "classical" EM Drive
  Mach Effect (MEGA Drive?)
  Woodward Effect
  
• #18 by Alex_O on 13 Oct, 2019 20:02
• Hello everyone. Let me ask a question - is there somewhere a guide to new physics? Over the several years of reading the materials of this forum, I saw many posts where people reported different ideas (new physics) and discussed this. But somehow by accident, not systemically. Not long ago I met an amazing resource on the Web and would like to show this site. There are just great things, but of course that's not all.
  
  Personal site of Koltov N.A.
  
  Pay attention to the beginning of the section.
  Part 12 - 06-Models of an electron.
  
  See the file -  Overview. Electron models.
  
  

  Quote

  The emergence (birth) of an electron.
  The key to understanding the structure of an electron can be an experiment well known to physicists on the production of an electron-positron pair when a hard gamma quantum is transmitted
  near an atomic nucleus in a strong uniform magnetic field.
  

  ...
  

  Quote

  Different electron models.
  0-Standard Model. An electron is a spherical particle that has mass, charge, spin,
  the size. The particle rotates about its axis (spin = 1/2).
  1-wave model. An electron is a ring wave.
  2-ring model. The electron is spherical, and has one axis of rotation, rotates
  relative to the center of the ring (or the charge is evenly distributed over the ring).
  3-spiral model. The electron is spherical, moves in a circular spiral.
  4-toroidal model (vortex). The electron is spherical, and has two axes of rotation,
  relative to the center of the ring and relative to its axis, these two axes are parallel.
  5-Modified toroidal model.
  the electron is spherical, but rotates relative to the center of the ring and relative to the direction of motion

  
  And for example a section
  Part 1 - 01-Non-electromagnetic fields and radiation.
  https://yadi.sk/d/sHzuKpfl3LCzQQ
  can be the source of many ideas for understanding Emdrive in general.
  
  But I do not know how to discuss these complex issues?.
  
  
• #19 by JohnFornaro on 13 Oct, 2019 21:07
• Quote from: Alex_O on 13 Oct, 2019 20:02

  Hello everyone. Let me ask a question - is there somewhere a guide to new physics?

  
  Just a suggestion, but why don't you start a new thread in this sub-forum to ask your question.   Your question doesn't make any suggestions for how to improve the New Physics section.