NASA validates seemingly impossible space thruster

[billvon]

Indeed, black holes are on the very edge of existing science and therefore very much open for question. They are not a good example of a core scientific principle.

Gravity isn't a core principle? Keep in mind that Hawking has recently told us that the work of one of the most respected scientists (ironically, himself) has some problems with that very fundamental force. Indeed it is fortunate that he was the one to bring this up; had someone else brought up exactly the same issue, he would likely have been ignored, or at least not taken very seriously.

So I ask you: is there a line at all?

Definitely. They should make decisions on what to test, and discard the obvious dead ends or proposals that have little or no value.

IMO, an idea that at face value obviously violates a core scientific principle such as conservation of momentum should not be bothered with unless there is a really good reason to believe it has found a work-around.

Agreed. And experimental data showing it violates it is a good reason.

Not with any significance/seriousness -- not like hot fusion is. Because one is known to work and the other is understood not to.

We are spending FAR, FAR more on cold fusion research (or LENR research, or whatever the popular name for that is now) than we are spending on this device. And we are spending more on hot fusion than both of those combined. Which makes sense to me.

You aren't grasping just how far out in left field this idea is: Do any of those 10 projects implicitly claim to violate a fundamental physical law such as conservation of momentum?

No, because we don't work in that field.

Does your company have a vetting process to decide what to research?

Not for small projects. In fact we're encouraged to do independent projects (say a week or so) in our field.
Now if you wanted to spend six months and three million on a project, you'd have to go through a review process.

I propose that a cone placed horizontally underwater will produce thrust. Will your company test it for me?

Nope, because you are just some guy on the Internet making up stuff to try to win an argument.
Now, if you worked here, and you came up with a communication method that seemed to violate the Shannon limit, AND you had some preliminary results that showed it might - you would almost certainly get funding/time to work on it. Even though you would be violating one of the most fundamental theories of communications, the Shannon-Hartley theorem.

 

[cosmictraveler]

What makes you say that? All it seems to need is electricity... and there's plenty of ways to get that.

But this device uses sunlight to make it work. Once you've passed Jupiter there's really not any sunlight that can be of help.

 

[billvon]

But this device uses sunlight to make it work.

It uses electricity, actually.

 

[cosmictraveler]

It uses electricity, actually.

But the sun furnishes it with the power it needs in order to make it work. Just like solar panels, they need sunlight to make them work and without the sun they don't work at all.

 

[Kittamaru]

That isn't how science works, that's how crackpottery works (until someone proves it wrong we should assume it works: like the Rossi Reactor). New ideas must be proven to be valid and this one has not been.

Aha, and here you are caught in your own web - you are saying that they are "wasting time and money" trying to validate this idea... so which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too Russ - do they get to test it and validate or invalidate it, or do we just assume that, well, because it's new it cannot possibly work?

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy if done correctly, but you're doing it wrong. You are believing the people making the claim when I'm sure the only thing you know about them is that they work for NASA -- that isn't appealing to a relevant authority, that's gullibility. I'm sure you don't know, for example, that the lead investigator has a negative scientific reputation at NASA. But other authorities -- recognized, reputable physicists -- have also weighed-in on the issue. Why don't you trust them?

Have these reputable physicists had access to the device and actually tested it? Or are they just hand-waving it away?

And again, you're viewing this backwards: no reputable physicists have endorsed the paper. Validation isn't "nobody has proven this to be a fail", it comes when the idea is endorsed by the writers' peers.

Since you just said you will only recognize appeal to the authority of the authors of the paper and are unwilling to put any thought of your own into this and you've backed that up by not responding to technical content already provided by myself and others, what proof can I offer that you would accept? Closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears does not turn fantasy into reality.

Again, I put my faith in those with knowledge that have the device in their hands and are physically testing it. End of story.

You are the one who posted the comparison to racists. Have you forgotten what you posted?

Oh, really? Please, show me where - quote the post, verbatim. Here, I'll save you the trouble:

It's funny, you know... everyone who is saying this is a "waste of time" and a "waste of tax dollars"...

you remind me of someone...

You remind me of all the people that said the same kind of things about heavier than air flight...
You remind me of all the people that said the same kind of things about racial equality and womens rights...
You remind me of all the people that said the same kind of things about putting a man on the moon...
And you remind me of all the people that still say the same kinds of things about putting a man on Mars...

In the end... it isn't a matter of whether or not this particular device works... it's a matter of investigating new ideas and pushing the boundaries of technology.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if, say, Einstein or Edison or Tesla had only used "known proven" ideas, instead of experimenting with the unknown?

My point, as I had thought was quite clear, was that sticking to the "status quo" is not going to result in any kind of scientific advancement... or, in fact, any kind of advancement, period.

Again: you attacked me, not the other way around. And then you attacked me more for objecting to your attack!

Lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute an attack on my part.

No, this is schoolchild level physics: conservation of momentum is taught in Junior High or High School. Are you even reading the thread? I already said what the issue is.

So you are insisting that old knowledge MUST supersede all possibly scientific testing... that's nice.

This isn't "NASA", it is a small group of people who work for NASA. You need to recognize the difference.

So, NASA has not or is not giving the go ahead to test this device? What, are these rogue physicists now?

No. They aren't relevant. Since you're appealing to authority here, you are going to need to decide what sort of authority you will accept. Suffice to say I'm not a famous physicist like some of the ones who have weighed-in against this, so if you won't accept their opinions, obviously you won't accept mine. As it happens, my opinion aligns pretty closely with theirs.

And I'm going to align my opinion (which is simply that we need to test this and see what we learn) with those who actually have the device.

And I'll also refrain from asking you your credentials.

My credentials are pretty simple - I'm an enthusiast who loves reading, learning, and dreaming about space. Thus, I trust those with the mechanical and technical know-how to test the device to tell me if it works or not.

Again: not "the combined minds at NASA", just a small group of NASA researchers.

So a small group is now a single mind? How does that work? It's still a small group of highly trained professionals who were put into that position for a reason.

Intellectual dishonesty? Can you be more specific about what you think I've said that is dishonest? In order to challeng my intellectual honesty, you must read and address something in the technical content I wrote and you've so far declined to do that! What you are saying here is beyond insulting. You haven't addessed my technical content, but you don't like my conclusion so you call my technical content dishonest without ever addressing it. This is unprofessional and unscientific.

Simple - you are saying that we cannot validate an idea without testing it:

That isn't how science works, that's how crackpottery works (until someone proves it wrong we should assume it works: like the Rossi Reactor). New ideas must be proven to be valid and this one has not been.

Yet you ALSO say that this is "a waste of time and tax dollars":

I'm dismayed that NASA would waste my tax dollars investigating this junk...

You also claim to, supposedly, know more than the people studying this device at NASA, since you apparently know what it is and isn't, and what it can and cannot do:

...and even more dismayed that the "scientists" tasked with investigating it appear to have been absent the day in Junior High when the scientific method was taught.

Right now, all this is is an overly complicated and expensive electric heater.

You also, apparently, know more about the testing process, procedures, and devices than the people who paid thousands of dollars and years of their life developing these skills:

...a null test getting the same result as the main test shows the effect to be nonexistent/a calibration error? Do you not get just how big a deal it is for a group of professional scientists to make such a mistake?...

1. The idea itself is really, really bad.
2. NASA's investigation of the idea was very poorly done.

You also appear to know everything about the absolute possibilities of the universe, physics, and reality as a whole:

This idea falls into the realm of the theoretically impossible. It isn't inventing new science, it is just a basic and obvious - stupid even - misunderstanding of existing science.

The newer incarnation proposes a mechanism based on interaction with "quantum vacuum virtual plasma", a phenomena that they apparently made-up, with a name that looks suspiciously like technobabble gibberish (the word "plasma" doesn't appear to belong there).

So, I ask again: What puts you in a position to declare, quite simply, that the people testing this device are so naive and stupid?

 

[Kittamaru]

But the sun furnishes it with the power it needs in order to make it work. Just like solar panels, they need sunlight to make them work and without the sun they don't work at all.

The sun furnishes it via solar panels. You could, alternatively, use nuclear power, or a radioisotope thermoelectric generator to power it.

 

[cosmictraveler]

The sun furnishes it via solar panels. You could, alternatively, use nuclear power, or a radioisotope thermoelectric generator to power it.

But that is not what this thruster uses, it states it uses sunlight ONLY.

 

[spidergoat]

All you need is one crew member to go awry and make a hole in the spaceship to kill everyone on board. Remember that 1 out of 4 people have mental problems and you can never tell who they are until they do something like destroy the ship by putting a hole in it somewhere.

Bulkheads and robot guards.

 

[spidergoat]

Probably just an error, as Russ said.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...antum-spaceship-is-doubtful.html#.U-JkSBY1Ph4

 

[billvon]

But the sun furnishes it with the power it needs in order to make it work.

Right. Or you could use an RTG, or a reactor.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Right. Or you could use an RTG, or a reactor.

Just how far do you think this system could travel with a full crew And a RTG? It won't go very far and since our nearest neighbor is well over 3 light years away I'd doubt this thing could ever reach there and if it ever did it would take many generations of people and how would anyopne know if there is any suitable planets to go to.

 

[Kittamaru]

But that is not what this thruster uses, it states it uses sunlight ONLY.

What's your point? It can be adapted to use a host of different forms of power generation

 

[billvon]

Just how far do you think this system could travel with a full crew And a RTG? It won't go very far and since our nearest neighbor is well over 3 light years away I'd doubt this thing could ever reach there and if it ever did it would take many generations of people and how would anyopne know if there is any suitable planets to go to.

Definitely. The thrust to weight ratio isn't there for manned missions, even if it does work (which is very doubtful.) It if does work it will more likely find applications on satellite stationkeeping, deep space probes and unmanned orbital transfer vehicles rather than manned flight of any sort.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Aha, and here you are caught in your own web - you are saying that they are "wasting time and money" trying to validate this idea... so which is it? You can't have your cake and eat it too Russ - do they get to test it and validate or invalidate it, or do we just assume that, well, because it's new it cannot possibly work?

That isn't my catch-22, it is theirs. I don't make the rules and they are the ones potentially hamstrung by it (and crackpots complain about this all the time). The scientific community is not obligated to stand up and take notice of every new idea. If scientists look at the idea and decide it looks stupid at face value (and several have), then the idea just dies, never refuted but never validated. Hopefully though, NASA will just find/fix their error to clean the egg off their face and this will go away without a struggle.

And by the way, "...because it's new it cannot possibly work" doesn't bear any relation to anything I've said. You are misrepresenting what I've said, which is ironic considering you just accused me of intellectual dishonesty.

[re-ordered for relevance]
Simple - you are saying that we cannot validate an idea without testing it:

Yet you ALSO say that this is "a waste of time and tax dollars":

There was no "we" in what I said. "We" have no obligation here. "We" can choose to test it or choose to not test it, and my preference would be to choose not to. Because, as I pointed out above, most junk science just gets ignored because most scientists recognize and choose to ignore it.

Have these reputable physicists had access to the device and actually tested it?

Again, that's not how science works. It is mind-boggling that I have to keep saying that to you. Scientists read the paper and evaluate the paper based on the content of the paper. Then if the paper appears to have some validity, they might decide to try to replicate the experiment for themselves. Since this idea is so bad at face value, the scientists who have weighed-in are unlikly to bother replicating the experiment -- they see no need to.

Again, I put my faith in those with knowledge that have the device in their hands and are physically testing it. End of story.

Rossi says his ECat works and won't let anyone else test it or deconstruct it, so we should just accept his claims as being true (and send him money!). I get it. Unfortunately, Kittamaru, that isn't a scientific approach and should not be the type of judgment applied in the science section of this forum. But at least it makes discussions straightforward: no need to discuss anything technical, since you'll just choose to believe the claims without any vetting whatsoever by anyone!

Oh, really? Please, show me where - quote the post, verbatim. Here, I'll save you the trouble:

"You remind me of all the people that said the same kind of things about about racial equality and womens rights..."

You have me as being similar to racists and mysognists too. Why not throw in a Hitler reference too? Uncalled for.

My point, as I had thought was quite clear, was that sticking to the "status quo" is not going to result in any kind of scientific advancement... or, in fact, any kind of advancement, period.

When the scientific proces stops resulting in scientific advancement, feel free to bring that complaint back up but until then, that claim is just plain false.

So you are insisting that old knowledge MUST supersede all possibly scientific testing...

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. It is starting to seem like you are doing it on purpose.

Conservation of momentum is old, but it is also new: it is re-tested and re-validated a near infinite number of times a day in countless circumstances.

So, NASA has not or is not giving the go ahead to test this device?

We're talking about the conclusion, not the decision to test it. "NASA", as an organization, has not claimed a validation of the device.

And I'm going to align my opinion (which is simply that we need to test this and see what we learn) with those who actually have the device.

Some food for thought, for future posts. When you put "NASA validates seemingly impossible space thruster" in your title and then start talking about applications before it is validated, it implies you believe that NASA validated the space thruster. If all you believe is that this is worthy of additional testing, that's not nearly as bad as believing it is "validated". But you didn't make that clear (at least to me) and keep saying things that still imply you think it is "validated".

But you should also note that the word "validated" comes from the badly written news articles about the test, not from the paper on the test itself. So your constraint of only listening to the scientists who did the test don't apply to that -- and, indeed, you violated it there.

So a small group is now a single mind?

Huh? I didn't say that.

It's still a small group of highly trained professionals who were put into that position for a reason.

Yes; A reason you and I can only speculate about.

You also claim to, supposedly, know more than the people studying this device at NASA, since you apparently know what it is and isn't, and what it can and cannot do:

You also, apparently, know more about the testing process, procedures, and devices than the people who paid thousands of dollars and years of their life developing these skills:

By now my opinions are largely moot since respected scientists have said very similar things. But perhaps you should re-evaluate my capabilities based on the fact that what I've said here aligns well with what respected scientists are saying.

You also appear to know everything about the absolute possibilities of the universe, physics, and reality as a whole:

So, I ask again: What puts you in a position to declare, quite simply, that the people testing this device are so naive and stupid?

Well that's just stupid; I never said any such things. Your interpretation of what I said bears no relation to what I actually said, probably because what I said contains technical content and you are still unwilling or unable to parse technical content. I'll have to go simpler and more direct:

Say it with me, Kittamaru: conservation of momentum. You are aware that it is taught in high school physics classes (at the latest), are you not?

 

[Kittamaru]

Yes yes, conservation of momentum and all that jazz... and what if it's wrong? What if, under some conditions we have as of yet not discovered, conservation of momentum doesn't apply?

We already know that many things interact differently at the macroscopic scale and the sub-atomic scale... we've had theories that have stood for years and even decades challenged, modified, and sometimes outright proven wrong.

What's to say this isn't one of them?

Yet, if we just cling desperately to what we're comfortable with, to what we THINK we know... then we'll never really know for sure.

As I said, I am going to put my faith in the ones that A) Have the knowledge and training to know, B) Have the device on hand to test, and C) Have the equipment to properly test such a device.

I'm not trying to proclaim this as the next great thing... what I am excited about are the things we could potentially learn from this; if the testing proves that this does in fact work as intended... well shit, the community will be turned on its head.

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure. Continue to reach out.
Benjamin Franklin

Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
Thomas A. Edison

What is worse... for them to spend money and time on this and find out it doesn't work... or for them to not do so and have this be something that could have worked?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Gravity isn't a core principle?

Double fail:
1. No, gravity isn't a core principle.
2. You didn't say "gravity", you said "black holes". You are attempting to bait-and-switch your argument.

Definitely. They should make decisions on what to test, and discard the obvious dead ends or proposals that have little or no value.

Ok, fair enough. We're just differing on where the line is exactly and what criteria by which it should be drawn.

Agreed. And experimental data showing it violates it is a good reason.

Agreed, except I would add the word reputable to that (you did, after all, say you wouldn't accept my idea because I'm just some guy on the internet). Since the only published results prior to NASA taking this on were from a non-peer reviewed, local Chinese university journal, I would say that such a standard had not been met.

No, because we don't work in that field.

You are dodging. I said "such as". How about conservation of energy? My point is that you held up your company as an example of who might research this idea, but so far I'm not seeing it. Are you able to give any examples of comparable dumb ideas your company has researched?

Not for small projects. In fact we're encouraged to do independent projects (say a week or so) in our field.

I have a hard time believing that a person would be encouraged to pursue projects that were widely believed to be clear violations of fundamental physical principles such as conservation of energy/momentum.

Nope, because you are just some guy on the Internet making up stuff...

So is Roger Sawyer. The basic difference between me and him is that he took the time to put up a website and make a pdf paper for his idea. My idea is based on his idea: it is equivalent level garbage. But his hook was sitting out there for 15 years or so and eventually a fish bit.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Yes yes, conservation of momentum and all that jazz... and what if it's wrong? What if, under some conditions we have as of yet not discovered, conservation of momentum doesn't apply?

What if I could spontaneously turn water into wine - would you call me Jesus? What if pigs could fly? Such speculation based on nothing has no value: it is just fantasy.

We already know that many things interact differently at the macroscopic scale and the sub-atomic scale... we've had theories that have stood for years and even decades challenged, modified, and sometimes outright proven wrong.

What's to say this isn't one of them?

It has been tested exquisitely at the microscopic scale. There is no good reason to think it is wrong -- and this idea certainly doesn't provide one.

Yet, if we just cling desperately to what we're comfortable with, to what we THINK we know... then we'll never really know for sure.

That's rhetorical nonsense mixed with wrongness. Scientists don't "cling" to anything, desperately or otherwise.

As I said, I am going to put my faith in the ones that A) Have the knowledge and training to know, B) Have the device on hand to test, and C) Have the equipment to properly test such a device.

So, no attempt to consider this in light of the scientific process and no comment on the many experts who have now used strong language to condemn both the idea and NASA's testing of it? Weak.

... what I am excited about are....

Personally, I make judgements on odds before getting excited. I buy lottery tickets occasionally, but I'd never become excited by the purchase because I know I have an extremely slim chance of winning.

Similarly, I wouldn't post something in the science section of a bbs if it looked like it probably wasn't science at all and certainly wasn't an existing/accepted theory, especially if said forum already had an "alternate theories" section.

What is worse... for them to spend money and time on this and find out it doesn't work... or for them to not do so and have this be something that could have worked?

You are creating a false equivalence based on an implied equality of the odds of success. A better way to say it would be:

What is worse... for them to spend money and time on this and a million other obviously terrible ideas and find out it doesn't work... or for them to not do so and have this be something that could have worked?

See, if we open-up the floodgates so anyone willing to put in a few hours to build a website can have their idea tested by NASA, we'll be counting the waste by the billions.

 

[Kittamaru]

What if I could spontaneously turn water into wine - would you call me Jesus? What if pigs could fly? Such speculation based on nothing has no value: it is just fantasy.

Again, now we are at the point where you are seemingly saying we shouldn't even bother testing the speculation out...

It has been tested exquisitely at the microscopic scale. There is no good reason to think it is wrong -- and this idea certainly doesn't provide one.

Microscopic =/= sub-atomic, nor does it accurately represent what happens at the quantum scale.

That's rhetorical nonsense mixed with wrongness. Scientists don't "cling" to anything, desperately or otherwise.

Oh, really? So when, for the longest time, conventional wisdom (and scientists of the time) said the Earth was flat, despite some people saying and trying to prove otherwise... they were not "clinging" to what was comfortable?
When Galileo Galilei tried to claim that the Earth was not, in fact, the center of the solar system, and was essentially placed under house arrest for saying so... that was not people clinging to what was comfortable?

So, no attempt to consider this in light of the scientific process and no comment on the many experts who have now used strong language to condemn both the idea and NASA's testing of it? Weak.

I will disregard anyone who says that testing something new or in a new way is somehow wrong. They are fools of the highest caliber.

Personally, I make judgements on odds before getting excited. I buy lottery tickets occasionally, but I'd never become excited by the purchase because I know I have an extremely slim chance of winning.

I fail to see the parallel.

Similarly, I wouldn't post something in the science section of a bbs if it looked like it probably wasn't science at all and certainly wasn't an existing/accepted theory, especially if said forum already had an "alternate theories" section.

*cough* Alright Bellarmine...

You are creating a false equivalence based on an implied equality of the odds of success. A better way to say it would be:

What is worse... for them to spend money and time on this and a million other obviously terrible ideas and find out it doesn't work... or for them to not do so and have this be something that could have worked?

See, if we open-up the floodgates so anyone willing to put in a few hours to build a website can have their idea tested by NASA, we'll be counting the waste by the billions.

Ah, slippery slope fallacy. Classic. So, because one idea that some people think is poor had enough merit for NASA to let a team of scientists tests, this somehow means that we will now start testing everything for Victor Esperenza's Veeg Holes to see if they really are what holds matter together, hm?

 

[paddoboy]

Oh, really? So when, for the longest time, conventional wisdom (and scientists of the time) said the Earth was flat, despite some people saying and trying to prove otherwise... they were not "clinging" to what was comfortable?
When Galileo Galilei tried to claim that the Earth was not, in fact, the center of the solar system, and was essentially placed under house arrest for saying so... that was not people clinging to what was comfortable?

Although science [meaning knowledge] has been around a long time, the tyranny of the church prevented many in the middle ages from speaking out against the religiously fitting geocentric, Ptolemaic system, that reigned for 2000 years or so.
The tyrannical power of the church in that period, stymied science, especially atsronomy and cosmology.

 

[OnlyMe]

This discussion, to be generous, has little to do with NASA funding practical classical research, of a mechanism that seems to have been conducted twice by others! Prove that there is something to the claims and perhaps you open new areas of exploration in theoretical physics as well as practical engineering. Prove it does not work as claimed and you settle the issue! It seems a relatively inexpensive and again relatively easy mechanism to reproduce and test.

Most of the objections have been comming from a perceived threat of how the claims might challenge currently accepted theoretical assumptions. Note I emphasize the theoretical part just mentioned.., because we are talking about a mechanism that interacts with or manipulates vacuum energy or zero-point energy or the associated zero-point field, which though there have been experiments which support the existence of same, no matter what you call it, it currently remains theoretical.

Is there something there, meaning as far as vacuum energy goes? Almost certainly! Do we have a diffinitive understanding of just what that is or how it interacts with the classical aspects of reality we are more familiar with? No!

NASA, the Dept. of Defense and even the Dept. of Energy very often fund practical experiments claiming to take advantage of one or another theoretical aspect of physics. Most of the time they lead nowhere, at least in the short run... But that does not mean you don't check it out. Especially if it is a low budget project.

One has to keep the difference between theory and practice.., clearly in mind, and just because something seems to be in contraditiction of theory does not mean it should not be examined... Again the basic mechanism seems to have been tested in some fashion, in at lease in two previous cases. Do you have to believe those earlier tests? No, but they are enough reason to check it out! Prove it one way or the other.

As far as scale is concerned, in the 1960s computers filled up whole rooms and sometimes whole buildings, while today people the world over carry more powerful computers in a purse or pocket and call them smart phones. Scale is something to consider after you have something worth scaling...