5 ms·

The trick is that this is not a closed discussion. The thrust was suspiciously repeated in many experiments, and question is whether it's some fundamental flaw

The trick is that this is not a closed discussion. The thrust was suspiciously repeated in many experiments, and question is whether it's some fundamental flaw with experiments, or it is real. I guess, the more info is available to the public, the better. Hopefully someone will test it properly. But no way it can be considered as "provably works"

lomnakkus 10y ago
What do you mean by "closed discussion", specifically? We've been hearing about this for ~1 year at this point, so I'm not sure what you mean. > I guess, the more info is available to the public, the better. This is up for debate -- esp. given the whole "fake news" thing and the observation that people basically love echo chambers (as observed in the field of Behavioural Economics). If, by "info" you mean "actually provable[1] info", then I probably agree. [1] To some reasonable standard of "proof". Certainly we don't need "mathematical" proof, but we need something better than "a study says". (See: reproducibility crisis[2], the fact that a "study" doesn't require any particular standard of evidence, etc.) [2] Meta: I wonder if the BE field is itself suffering from a reproducibility crisis? Anyone know?
- michwill 10y ago
  Oh yeah, I wasn't clear, yes. Not "everything is clear, the case is closed" - that's what I meant
mapt 10y ago
"The thrust was suspiciously repeated in many experiments" <--- How sure are you of that? http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results claims that there are six orders of magnitude difference between the lowest detected thrust and the highest detected thrust. Going from the assumption that some effect actually exists and all the physical principles we have painstakingly tested ten million times over are wrong... Most of these studies are still complete BS, because they don't agree closely enough to be a replication.

lomnakkus 10y ago

What do you mean by "closed discussion", specifically? We've been hearing about this for ~1 year at this point, so I'm not sure what you mean. > I guess, the more info is available to the public, the better. This is up for debate -- esp. given the whole "fake news" thing and the observation that people basically love echo chambers (as observed in the field of Behavioural Economics). If, by "info" you mean "actually provable[1] info", then I probably agree. [1] To some reasonable standard of "proof". Certainly we don't need "mathematical" proof, but we need something better than "a study says". (See: reproducibility crisis[2], the fact that a "study" doesn't require any particular standard of evidence, etc.) [2] Meta: I wonder if the BE field is itself suffering from a reproducibility crisis? Anyone know?

michwill 10y ago
Oh yeah, I wasn't clear, yes. Not "everything is clear, the case is closed" - that's what I meant

mapt 10y ago

"The thrust was suspiciously repeated in many experiments" <--- How sure are you of that? http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results claims that there are six orders of magnitude difference between the lowest detected thrust and the highest detected thrust. Going from the assumption that some effect actually exists and all the physical principles we have painstakingly tested ten million times over are wrong... Most of these studies are still complete BS, because they don't agree closely enough to be a replication.