Okay, I’ll take “Erik1600”'s word for it that it’s junk. Looks like that’s what we do on the internet these days.
I really don’t get this response. Yeah, it’s a “random internet user,” but can YOU answer his (perfectly legitimate) questions? You know, the ones that greatly expand the error bars to stretch WAY past the detected thrust.
And it’s not like he’s the only one who points them out.
Guess I’ll just call it for this conversation though, since you’ve now entered the camp of “But it was written on paper by someone, and then peer reviewed, so it must be the absolute truth!”
That camp is full of idiots and pests, such as Andrew Wakefield, so enjoy your stay.
Why do you expect him to answer those questions, @crayfish stated very early on that he doesn’t follow the developments closely, in the same light, you didn’t raise those questions on your own?
Also there is more weight given to reputable sources and you should know that, if these issues were really that serious, an academic source could be quoted instead of a Reddit post.
The “faster than light” neutrinos incident is a very good example of science working correctly. They found the cause of the error and everybody agreed and that was the end of it.
My preferred outcome here would be a similar result. Science is an open minded methodology that performs experiments to understand phenomena that we can’t currently explain. The anomalous thrust detected in resonant cavity devices seems like a good example of were we can perform experiments to explain a phenomena that we don’t currently understand.
Dismissing it because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics doesn’t expand our understanding of the universe. An explanation discovered through experimentation will be good science even if the only result is that we know how to eliminate another source of error in similar experiments.
1 Like
That’s science. The clinical narcissist swinging a dead chicken over it’s head doesn’t get my serous attention.
I’m not interested in ego, just truth.
No, that’s the first part of someone thinking your idea MIGHT hold some merit.
The follow up is getting it published in a reputable journal, and then getting repeated equivalent measurements from not only your rig, but repeated verification by others.
The EMDrive managed to get peer reviewed and published, yet when glaring flaws were pointed out, the experimenters were and continue to be unwilling to comment. I wonder if that’s because the errors make their results meaningless, and they would never get funding for EMDrive related projects again?
No, it surely must be that there is no reason to address these wholly reasonable and worrying claims. After all, the scientifically illiterate among us continue to prop the paper up as “evidence” despite it being utter garbage, with the data showing iffy results and unaccounted for errors far exceeding the measurements.
The main reason “the experimenters” can not address a lot of criticism is that the only team that ever ran an apparently successful test that was controlled and documented to a standard that made it through peer review - that small group at Nasa, aka Eagleworks - does not even exist anymore. And afaik there is zero funding at Nasa to continue related experiments. They did pay a good part of the experiment out of their own private pockets, and i do not even know if their test article still exists.
All the experiments that are public are super low budget. Cause the results do not justify higher budget research. The ones that have the highest claims of success are by the original “inventor” and have no publicly confirmed experimental base whatsoever - and every day without a public and controlled demonstration undermines those claims.
So we are largely left with enthusiast/amateur experiments, who do take a lot of effort and care, but can obviously not provide the same high quality data as a fully funded laboratory could.
Afaik, the only public experiment that might continue on a level that can make it through peer review and build on Eagleworks previous work is some navy research lab looking at the EMdrive. But i have no idea if that is just another small 2 man low cost experiment within a larger navy research lab, or something more serious with a real budget.
Imho, unless the original “inventor” puts up a convincing public demonstration at some point in the future, nobody will invest large amounts of money into investigating this kind of drive. Rightly so, investment should scale with evidence.
Earth From Geostationary Orbit - up to 8K Resolution (on Youtube)
2 Likes
JWST: Hubble ‘successor’ faces new delay - bbc.co.uk
Image: NASA/CHRIS GUNN
Tiangong-1: China space station may fall to Earth ‘in days’ -bbc.co.uk
image:CHINA MANNED SPACE AGENCY
2 Likes
If your able to watch or download the show, this month’s is worth a watch.
Scott Manley visits Gemini Observatory.
2 Likes
what the h… ?? dude… 
that is crazy coincidence.
like 15 days ago i used very similar footage for some SFX in my amat. video project with this very topic being one of the main plot point.
Damn have to speed up they will beat me to it if mainstream is getting onto this already.
2 Likes
4 Likes
Why Some Astronomers Think There’s An Interstellar Asteroid Near Jupiter - Scott Manley discusses.
1 Like
Things are looking good for our space agency if this is the kind of response we get from a national TV event.
A world record and a recalibration of the universe’s age 
2 Likes
Satellite Photos Show The True Shape Of The Earth - Scott Manley
"Fat Earth Theory’ - How Earth’s Shape Changes Spacecraft Orbits - Scott Manley discusses.
2 Likes
If your able to view this months BBC The Sky at Night, it reveals some new Juno images of Jupiter’s polar regions.
Fascinating that the north polar regions aurora is shaped like a kidney bean, compared to southern pole with is more circular. Not fully understood yet.
UK your be okay, but outside the UK you might need to employ some tricks. Or other methods.
Dawn Spacecraft Buzzes Largest Asteroid - Final Orbits. - Scott Manley discusses
2 Likes