I followed up on it as the BBC did for me. I also followed up on on the reported in space that intelligent beings had to have made witch was vastly just bad journalism. I saw the corners report that… ok this gets into politics so I’ll drop that.
But ya I do.
I was always told neutrinos traveled faster then light and Einstein was ok with that.
You misunderstand the meaning of the word.
As defined not really.
Let me try this: English is older then you, then everyone you know, older then a lot of nations. Some words just don’t make a lot of sense anymore. Like the phrase “the sun comes up”. Don’t have your way with words, with out understanding them and wounder why you got “word herpes”
There are a lot of words that should be left to history.
Really take religious discussions off the board.
It was just an analogy with unicorns. Also there is nothing we cannot speak about don’t be like that
Religion and science have nothing to do with one another. Now that you have finally revealed the fact that you are incapable of recognizing basic scientific rigor, I’ll take my leave.
If you knew what is rigor you had never proclame of what is made tomorow.
I really don’t care about religions, I’m not a believer nor an atheist.
It’s an analogy, that was to say that there is no difference to believe in unicorns or gods or what you want and if you cannot prove that this kind of entities exist or not, it is not scientifically rigorous to assume one of these assertions as evidences. This is exactly this level of rigor that forbid me to pretend I know what is the explanation on EM drive experiments. So who has no basic scientific rigor ?
Edit : why some of you overeact when the word god or religion is written. You’re not even trying to think about what I said it’s like an automaton : “if I see the word god or religion here I leave”… it’s weird. Science and religion have nothing to do … but wait where do you see science in this fuck**g thread ?!!
I see dogmatic people with a lot of posts and only one or two respecting the idea of exchange I opened this thread for. Not a lot of science here
Not really. Most scientist say that if there’s no evidence that something exists, then you are safe to assume that that thing doesn’t exist, until you find evidence to the contrary. It’s probably the only way to do science right, because otherwise you cannot be certain enough about the world and you’re likely to come to wrong conclusions (unless you get really lucky and come to the right conclusions in the wrong way). Of course, you know in the back of your mind that there’s a small chance evidence will come proving those things to be true, but until that evidence comes, there’s little point considering those things, except for researching them.
That is, of course, just a way to look at the world. If you want to be paranoid and disbelieve everything or want to be accepting and believe anything you like without evidence to support those beliefs, or anything else in between, then you are free to do so.
Yes you’re totally right. Didn’t notice your correction sorry. I don’t correct my message so yours keeps being logical.
No, the whole reason why I said that is because I’m refuting the meaning. I don’t accept the meaning of the word “as defined”, because with modern thought we now understand that humans are just animals, not anything special like ancient religion says. We are a part of nature, therefore everything we do is “natural”.
Cool I’m not the only one to think that (this is exactly what I said a few posts ago)
Then what is the antonym of artificial? Or do you deny the usage of that word?
Not trying to argue, just trying to understand how you think.
This is a really good question (not asked to me but I try)… Assembly and/or transformation of natural elements, made/provoked by an animal ?
Refuting the online dictionary. Sorry I was speaking English.
To the OP:
Essentially it boils down to this: we need a much higher-thrust test article to measure thrust and make sure it isn’t caused by something else. This requires funding and has to be reproduceable by 3rd-parties.
uh… ok?
A theory to explain EM drive results :
It’s interesting to see that some scientists try to find explanations while others simply deny results without any proof… 
Ah, okay, so I’ve spent the better part of an hour looking for new experiments, peer review, etc. Unfortunately, it was an hour wasted, as I found nothing except a mention of a post on the internet claiming the experiment was conducted in a vacuum.
End result? Still no valid evidence, just the same stuff that falls within the realm of error. What I get out of your post is “We have yet another place to put our moving goal posts, but still no reason to have even bothered coming up with these new goal posts.” You might find similar behavior in the anti-vaccination crowd.
EDIT: I finally got to the bottom of the article you posted. I’m going to point out that not only does this “explanation” require breaking Newton’s laws, but according to the article it also requires that we now accept two more propositions: “The first is that photons have inertial mass. The second is that the speed of light must change within the cavity. That won’t be easy for many theorists to stomach.”
Are there any more laws and well documented knowledge you want to toss into the pile, while we’re at it? The 0th Law of Thermodynamics, perhaps?
My point is just to notice that there is people to try to find explanations instead of “claiming The Truth”.
That’s how science is supposed to work. The burden of proof lies on the person claiming the discovery, not on everyone else. Until the discoverers actually have substantial and convincing evidence, there’s no reason to treat their claims as anything other than a semi-interesting curiosity.
The reason? It’s logically impossible to prove a negative.
The EM drive studies has not lead to strong, incontrovertible evidence in its favour. It hasn’t met the thresholds necessary to be considered a serious result. However, the ever-optimistic-but-wheres-my-jetpack pop-science media jumped all over this, and it’s reached a level of public consciousness well above what it currently deserves. The results are still very much at the “huh, that’s weird” stage.
Science is debate process. Someone finds something, a whole bunch of others says “that doesn’t look like anything to me”, and the discoverer goes back to the lab to gather more evidence until some of the skeptics (and all scientists are skeptics; 90% of the job is weeding out the ghosts in the noise, which requires not believing something until you’re really, really sure it’s real, and that you have enough evidence to convince other equally skeptical, but often otherly-vested people as well) are convinced that there’s something real there. It’s a constant, noisy, and messy back and forth that most people never see.
If there weren’t “others simply [denying] results”, then those others would be failing at their job.
That’s a thing to not accept every idea as an assertion, and another to deny experiments, results showing a presumed anomaly without doing anything except saying “It’s of course a simple error” ! How could you not see the difference between what you said and what I said ?!
I totally agree with this : “The burden of proof lies on the person claiming the discovery, not on everyone else”.
So : 6 (however, some of them seem to not be serious enough) independent experiments produced the same result/“anomaly” and there’s no explanation for it. Your answer is : “I know what it is !! It brakes a law => it’s impossible => it’s a classic error !” <= ok, but @Kichae, the burden of proof for these assertions lies on you, as you said…
I have personally no answer, and I presume time will show you were right on the explanation of this weird result, but that’s not the point. What exceeds me is that nor the person claiming the discovery, nor the one disclaiming it, can do it without a proof ! You don’t seem to see that you don’t respect your own philosophy on the opposite way…
That’s my point, and you’re not alone in this topic to do that, but I must say I am especially disappointed to see this behavior in somebody as versed in sciences as you seem to be…
I just want/hope you to correct you on your error and it can be done simply : “The burden of proof lies on the person claiming something, not on everyone else”