[onoway]

Anyone have any thoughts about this?
https://www.extremet...-actually-works

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2016-November-30, 23:36, said:

Anyone have any thoughts about this?
https://www.extremet...-actually-works

There is apparently reason to be sceptical. http://www.armaghpla...pace-drive.html

[billw55]

It's essentially a hoax. Violates conservation of momentum. And has not been verified to work - in experiments, the margin of error is greater than the reported effect. Just another entry in a long history of alleged perpetual motion machines.

[Al_U_Card]

billw55, on 2016-December-02, 10:55, said:

It's essentially a hoax. Violates conservation of momentum. And has not been verified to work - in experiments, the margin of error is greater than the reported effect. Just another entry in a long history of alleged perpetual motion machines.

It is indeed a meme that has been recently perfected. If your intention is to "find" a given result then you can statistically tease out a "significant" effect no matter how great the system variability. Scientific sleight of hand.

[mike777]

onoway, on 2016-November-30, 23:36, said:

Anyone have any thoughts about this?
https://www.extremet...-actually-works

yes, goes against the laws of science, the thinking is it is a measurement error but so far have not read where this has been shown to be an error. From what i read hoax is far too strong a word to use. It was a good faith experiment and at this point evidence of the error has not been found,,,yet.

[fromageGB]

I don't see many uses for 30-50 microNewtons even if it does work. I'd need something like 1,000,000,000 of these quantum vacuum plasma thrusters under my bonnet/hood, assuming they are massless.

[onoway]

Well that's disappointing, it all sounded pretty cool.

[barmar]

onoway, on 2016-December-03, 23:19, said:

Well that's disappointing, it all sounded pretty cool.

So did cold fusion. That never panned out, either.

[mike777]

fromageGB, on 2016-December-03, 08:49, said:

I don't see many uses for 30-50 microNewtons even if it does work. I'd need something like 1,000,000,000 of these quantum vacuum plasma thrusters under my bonnet/hood, assuming they are massless.

ya



the big news would be a law of science is false.
-----------------------------



real true big news is that this has not been proven:
https://en.wikipedia...i/Supersymmetry

If you want to say not true ok ok ok...

[helene_t]

billw55, on 2016-December-02, 10:55, said:

It's essentially a hoax. Violates conservation of momentum. And has not been verified to work - in experiments, the margin of error is greater than the reported effect. Just another entry in a long history of alleged perpetual motion machines.

As I read it, it is not a perpetual motion machine, i.e. it does not violate conservation of energy, although it does violate conservation of momentum.

[billw55]

helene_t, on 2016-December-05, 09:37, said:

As I read it, it is not a perpetual motion machine, i.e. it does not violate conservation of energy, although it does violate conservation of momentum.

I suppose so. Basically it purports to produce thrust from a closed system. Although as I understand, it has not actually been tested as a closed system.

As for being a hoax, the difference there is whether the "inventor" believes it himself. I can't answer that for sure, but from what I read he does seem to believe it. So maybe "hoax" is not the right word. Perhaps "nonsense" is better.

[barmar]

It's just an experimental error, like a few years ago when experimenters thought that some neutrinos had gone faster than light.

https://en.wikipedia...eutrino_anomaly

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-December-05, 16:35, said:

It's just an experimental error, like a few years ago when experimenters thought that some neutrinos had gone faster than light.

From what I understand, past experiments suffered from such issues as the measured "thrust" being smaller than the margin of error, in the wrong direction, and detected with the power source off, in addition to being nonreplicable. However, in the latest experiment by NASA's Eagleworks group, they seem to be claiming to have gotten a consistent result. I still believe it is experimental error pending replication, but this is at least more interesting than the past results.

[barmar]

To quote Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Any violation of the long-established conservation laws is certainly extraordinary.

[onoway]

yes well there were so many stories in so many places saying that NASA had found it to work in spite of it apparently violating some of the laws of science it is encouraging those of us who know nothing about that area of science to take it as having value.

I don't think we are anywhere near understanding everything about the world and wouldn't be amazed to hear that something had come along which upset an applecart or two, we as a species have thought before that we had all the answers and been proven wrong. So much of the information related to the science of things turns out to be profit driven rather than understanding or if you will truth driven, that it tends to bring everything into question, which may be unfair, but there it is.

Right now as many of you know, I believe that much of the "science" of food production has leaped into a worm hole and is streaming off in the wrong direction. There is a lot of "science" behind either side, but unfortunately the bad "science" has been backed up by very clever salesmanship and manipulation of people's opinions. Gradually truth based science is beginning to get official traction but in the meantime an immense amount of damage has been and continues to be done.

fool me once... and most of us have no real way to know if we are being fooled or not. Thus I bring these things here as I know many of you have expertise in these areas and I have none.

[mike777]

onoway, on 2016-December-06, 17:28, said:

yes well there were so many stories in so many places saying that NASA had found it to work in spite of it apparently violating some of the laws of science it is encouraging those of us who know nothing about that area of science to take it as having value.

I don't think we are anywhere near understanding everything about the world and wouldn't be amazed to hear that something had come along which upset an applecart or two, we as a species have thought before that we had all the answers and been proven wrong. So much of the information related to the science of things turns out to be profit driven rather than understanding or if you will truth driven, that it tends to bring everything into question, which may be unfair, but there it is.

Right now as many of you know, I believe that much of the "science" of food production has leaped into a worm hole and is streaming off in the wrong direction. There is a lot of "science" behind either side, but unfortunately the bad "science" has been backed up by very clever salesmanship and manipulation of people's opinions. Gradually truth based science is beginning to get official traction but in the meantime an immense amount of damage has been and continues to be done.

fool me once... and most of us have no real way to know if we are being fooled or not. Thus I bring these things here as I know many of you have expertise in these areas and I have none.

Onoway please do not stop challenging science, please do not stop challenging studies.

We need people such aS YOU you who challenge science.

----------------------------



A BIT off topic but I seem to recall NASA telling us that there is life on Mars. Life on Mars from us.

[billw55]

mike777, on 2016-December-06, 23:26, said:

Onoway please do not stop challenging science, please do not stop challenging studies.

This is correct. Science is only good when it is the outcome of much scrutiny. Even in this thread, when I read the most current information it seemed slightly more interesting than my previous awareness of the subject.

[helene_t]

onoway, on 2016-December-06, 17:28, said:

I don't think we are anywhere near understanding everything about the world and wouldn't be amazed to hear that something had come along which upset an applecart or two, we as a species have thought before that we had all the answers and been proven wrong.

I don't disagree but I don't think it applies to fundamental theories like conservation of momentum.

In applied sciences (climate, medicine, agriculture etc), scientists have to make predictions because of the urgent practical need, but those predictions will often be based on a somewhat shallow understanding. They represent our best guess, sometimes even by far our best guess, but nonetheless it is unsurprising that they sometimes undergo revision.

In exact sciences (physics, chemistry) we really have a very solid foundation. It is extremely rare that an established theory gets revised. Rather, science tends to progress by answering (or coming closer and closer to answering) open questions.

This is not to say that conservation of momentum, the periodic table etc. should be treated as religious dogma. But it would require extraordinary evidence to revise those theories. A single experiment that yielded a borderline significant deviation from what the theory predicts is not enough.

Note that cold fusion was a completely different animal. Cold fusion did not violate fundamental physics. Actually, it is generally accepted that at least one form of cold fusion (namely muon catalysis) actually exists, and more forms might well exists. The objections were: 1) Cold fusion is not likely to become economically viable anytime soon. 2) The particular experiment (Fleischmann-Pons) was very fishy and might be a statistical fluke or some methodological error.

[helene_t]

Maybe not a hoax after all?

http://www.iflscienc...ossible-engine/

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2017-November-24, 01:59, said:

Maybe not a hoax after all?

The last 3 years have been good for the De Broglie–Bohm (aka pilot wave) model. Genuine experimental proof that the EmDrive really works would probably be enough to make it a serious rival to the Copenhagen model. Do we have any QM physicists on BBF that know more about the state of play?