https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJM6lP9CuSw
Scott Manley does a good job explaining everything for you visual learners.
It's not the first time that a concept has sprung up like this.
I have hope that a concept like this could be used to generate power as a replacement for traditional power stations.
Weird that microwaves in a funky copper cone don't seem to violate well-established principles of physics that are preserved in the entire massive range of scales we can observe!
Thunderf00t knew this over a year ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCAqDA8IfR4
Anyone who has taken a high school physics class knew it over a year ago.
Anyone with knowledge of scientific method knew it over a year ago.
Impossible thing is impossible. More at 11.
Dunno about the rest of you smart asses, but I'm sad it came up empty.
The man gave it a damn good shot and had physicists everywhere turning their heads and peaking their eyebrows, whether in anger or curiosity.
That is real science.
Good try my dude.
Debunking it was real science, the original claims made by the "inventor" were not.
Both were science, they got some results, albeit from another source, things were learned, science was done. Cake was had.
Copper-smithing a fancy cone with some electrical bits in it while pulling some explanation for what it does and how it does it without doing any extensive research into the phenomenon you're making claim to out of thin-air because it "makes sense" isn't so much science as it is fancy prop-making.
Even if it weren't the energy input required was too high to have ever been practical.
No it isn't???
You make it sound like NASA didn't take it on board and thoroughly investigate the drive.
That's what a hypothesis is, the testing after isn't a separate bit done to "debunk" anything, it's just another part of the process
Well........Shit....
Guess now we wait until we can build continuous burning engines.
I'm not talking about NASA, I'm talking about the inventor who actually tried to explain its operation with "quantum vacuum virtual plasma."
Eagleworks is NASA's crackpot containment lab, nothing that comes out of there should be taken at face value nor should it be considered science.
this is literally on par with perpetual motion devices, that it got so much traction in mainstream media goes to show how shoddy modern science journalism is
My dude NASA took a crack at this just because everyone wouldn't stop squealing about it.
It's fundamentally pseudoscience.
A guy fucking around with waves and bad testing conditions making bodacious claims and causing controversy due to popsci media is not science.
Science is not just "think of stupid idea, act on stupid idea, see if it works", there's an entire extra step in there about using the results of other stupid ideas to see if your stupid idea can actually work or of it is a lost cause.
No, no it really isn't. I'm actually sort of worried that the fact you believe that what this crackpot did was Science is at the root of the misconceptions that fuel attitudes like "The British people are tired of experts!". As in, people have fundamentally lost touch with what scientific method actually is.
I'm not praising the man for any scientific method or not, he had an idea, I hold my reservations that he was clinically retarded or was laughing in his chair writing his next big bullshit book.
He had many people talking, testing and pushing the limits and brought into doubt some resolute laws of physics, those laws consisted to be still bang on the money but it was enough of a doubt to have serious debate and testing over. I never claimed he did any science, he brought forth an idea that people far smarted than either of us thought it was worth investing time and money into to prove/debunk on both sides.
How can you say "I never claimed he did any science" and "That is science" in the same post and still think you have any weight to your argument.
It's only science if you're right and carry around a smug sense of superiority.
Because he sparked a shit load of conversation and testing?
In the same way people keep having to debunk holistic medicine and vaccines causing autism scientifically. I don't think the original idea deserves any credit.
Holistic medicine only had to be debunked once, if people keep doing it it's simply out of annoyance.
I'm quite sure this wasn't the case here, and I doubt people will keep banging on about it or at the very least it won't leave youtube and certainly doesn't kill anybody like holistic medicine does.
Let's be honest here: lots of established rules on science are extremely robust, and whilst there is some room for questioning theories (and I mean theory literally, not in the colloquial way people use the word), I had very little expectation of this working on the outset. Whilst it would be interesting if this worked, it would also break all sorts of fundamental concepts we've come to understand over the years, and it would be a nightmare to figure out how to work around it. It reminds me of how scientists in the old days tried to account for the strange retrograde and prograde motion of planets like Mercury by imagining two circular orbits, when the beautifully simplistic explanation of an ellipse ended up being the correct answer.
Whilst that's true on the whole, we have found out some very interesting things based on what could be considered improvisation and guess-work, such as the very recent discovery of a gel that can heal damaged brains in mice that have had strokes induced in them.
He lead a bunch of scientists and engineers on a wild goose chase, wasted everyone's time and money, and mislead an already poorly-informed public which reinforced misconceptions about science. What he did was not science, it was very explicitly anti-science.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
