Em Drive Again

[pantheory]

Here is the latest on EM drive -- AKA microwave drive, a so called reaction-less drive.

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/china-is-claiming-it-s-already-started-testing-an-em-drive-in-space

 

We have now done several threads in this forum concerning EM drive. China is a country of Engineers; they don't sit around and worry whether something might or might not fit with theory like the west does IMO. EM drive was invented by Roger Shawyer in England. This technology  has shown positive test results for more than a decade now but Shawyer and others could not get the financing in the west to build a working prototype that could be tested in Space.

 

Nearly all could see the possibly huge potential of this technology, so China financed and built a working model, their own version of it. Now an even larger version has been sent into space, link above. Now everybody else will have to play catch up if this technology works, and I expect this will be a big head-start for China in future space ventures. Will the west be able to catch up in the near future? highly unlikely because theorists rather than Engineers are mostly running the show concerning negative recommendations, IMO.

 

I expect more news on this in the near future concerning the success of EM drive in space from the Chinese, but I wouldn't count on much more explanations than that because this technology will be a big advantage for them, and I expect there will be a great deal of secrecy surrounding their version of it. I expect future news beyond EM drive functionality in space will relate more to their achievements using this advanced technology rather than further explanations of the technology itself, so that they can maintain their technology advantage. It may not be that easy for us to close the technology gap. It appears they may have a four to five year advantage now, even if we were willing to go all out now, which we probably won't do because of western theorist's misguided opinions, which has continued to stall nearly all progress concerning EM drive, IMO.  I think Sean Carrol is a prime example of making negative comments concerning any possibilities of the validity of EM drive technology.

[bornagainathiest]

From the linked article...

 

 

 

"Peer review or it didn't happen."

 

 

 

"Big disclaimer here - all we have to go on right now is a press conference announcement and an article from a government-sponsored Chinese newspaper (and the country doesn't have the best track record when it comes to trustworthy research)."

 

 

 

"So until we see a peer-reviewed paper, we really can't say for sure whether the researchers are even testing the drive in space, let alone what their results have shown."

 

 

 

"But there are no published results that we've been able to find that show how positive the results have been."

 

 

 

"If these tests are really happening, it would be great to see some of the results come out in a peer-reviewed paper soon. Until then, we're just going to have to be extra skeptical, and assume nothing until we have some solid evidence."

 

 

 

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

 

A big problem that we Ex-Christians encounter regularly in our debates with Christians is that they are very often emotionally compromised, when it comes to their beliefs.

Because they so very much want their beliefs to be true, they lose sight of the fact that all of their claims must treated with skepticism until they are verified by multiple, independently-sourced bodies of reliable evidence.  Their enthusiasm to embrace what they believe without evidence is commonly known as... faith. 

 

In the sphere of science, the same standard applies.

Until a claim is verified it must be treated skeptically.  Disbelief is the accepted norm until the required standard of evidence is met.  So, it really doesn't matter if a claim is religious or secular, scientific or supernatural.  The default setting for claims must be skeptical disbelief.  Anything else runs the risk of letting ourselves become compromised by our emotions.  Letting what we want to be true get the better of our necessary skepticism.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[RogueScholar]

Pantheory, you probably need to spend more time looking at the literature. If you did, you would see that it is full of high quality manuscripts that have been published in high impact journals by groups and labs in China. As far as I can tell, China has been very good about using theory to inform their engineering.

[pantheory]

In the sphere of science, the same standard applies.

 

Until a claim is verified it must be treated skeptically.  Disbelief is the accepted norm until the required standard of evidence is met.  So, it really doesn't matter if a claim is religious or secular, scientific or supernatural.  The default setting for claims must be skeptical disbelief.  Anything else runs the risk of letting ourselves become compromised by our emotions.  Letting what we want to be true get the better of our necessary skepticism.

 

 

I generally agree with your statements above but have related caveats that I believe need to be added.

 

The world is run by Engineers not by science theorists. The prime example IMO was Thomas Edison. In his invention of the light bulb, being one of maybe thousands of possible examples, he is said to have tried a thousand different types of filaments within the bulb as well as hundreds of different glass-bulb configurations and design. By such experiments our modern world, and nearly the whole of modern technology, was built. If we had to rely on theorists for the light bulb we might all still be using gas lighting

 

As both a lifelong Engineer and theorist I believe I can give a better perspective concerning technology than either Engineers or scientists as a single group can muster. This brings to mind a joke more that 50 years old, that I don't believe I have told in this forum as yet, and is very pertinent to this thread. The joke goes like this:

 

Our government was looking into the possibility of developing a new, generally unproven technology. They decided on having a contest between a group of 100 Engineers vs. a hundred scientists/ theorists, offering to fund the contest, and for them to decide amongst themselves who would be the members and who would represent each side. The government gave each side three years and the funding to come up with a proposal concerning the desired technology with a progress report required after a two year period to determine if the final 1/3 of the work  should be done.

 

After just two years both sides had finished a final report by which both sides requested final funding for three years of work. The Scientist group came up with a 2,100 page report "proving" how the technology could not work. Their report was extremely well referenced with over four hundred additional scientists endorsing their conclusion and its details.

 

The Engineering group came up with a 400 page report explaining how they believed the technology worked, working drawings including manufacturing engineering plan and related report along with a very well-functioning prototype, whereby its functionality could not be denied.

 

The Engineering group received their final payment for their work and were asked to head-up a 200 million dollar contract to build a full scale prototype. The Scientist group were denied any further funding other than for their two years work.

 

The "moral" of this joke/ story is that science can take us just so far before engineering must then take over. This Engineering method discussed involves primarily educated intuition along with trial and error and is called the "Edison Method" in some circles. IMO China has long been following the Edison Method while the west lingers in the Scientific method, in what we believe is justifiable skepticism, concerning wasting money. In this case I believe the scientific method is more like religion and the engineering method is more like archeology concerning search and discovery. I have been following this EM drive (microwave propulsion) proposed technology for more than a decade now since I first became aware of it because of the internet. Since that time I believe I understand how the technology works and am greatly disappointed in the West's reluctance, sending very little to investigate and fund testing of this technology because of influences of outspoken individuals in the scientific community. IMO the risk-reword factor demands the funding of this technology. Possibly the first countries to the asteroid belt will make the best "finds" and might be able to financially dominate the rest of the world thereafter. China may now have a big head start in this technology, by which the technology gap may not be so easily closed.

 

My original hopes were on Elon Musk for this technology because of his forward-looking and thinking concerning ideas and technology risk taking, but IMO unfortunately he has been persuaded by science writings not to spend any, or little funding on its possibilities. He did, however, make at least one funny comment about this technology. He said that he liked the "ring" of the name of this technology, in that the EM part of the name (EM drive) could stand for Elon Musk.

[pantheory]

Pantheory, you probably need to spend more time looking at the literature. If you did, you would see that it is full of high quality manuscripts that have been published in high impact journals by groups and labs in China. As far as I can tell, China has been very good about using theory to inform their engineering.

 

China rightfully should be reluctant for any further disclosure of their version of this technology. They can hugely profit from the technology gap that I believe they presently have if their version of this technology can readily be developed. My guess is that it will take them about four more years to implement this technology into operational satellites and space craft. The west may be forced to purchase their assistance because it will be much cheaper and much better than present technology. They will make their assistance available for purchase but not their related technology which we will have to develop on our own IMO.

[midniterider]

Here is the latest on EM drive -- AKA microwave drive, a so called reaction-less drive.

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/china-is-claiming-it-s-already-started-testing-an-em-drive-in-space

 

We have now done several threads in this forum concerning EM drive. China is a country of Engineers; they don't sit around and worry whether something might or might not fit with theory like the west does IMO. EM drive was invented by Roger Shawyer in England. This technology  has shown positive test results for more than a decade now but Shawyer and others could not get the financing in the west to build a working prototype that could be tested in Space.

 

I hope NASA and China put some money into it to try and make it viable. I'll keep my mind open and see what happens with this technology. Reserving judgment.

 

This is a fun read: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions

 

Nearly all could see the possibly huge potential of this technology, so China financed and built a working model, their own version of it. Now an even larger version has been sent into space, link above. Now everybody else will have to play catch up if this technology works, and I expect this will be a big head-start for China in future space ventures. Will the west be able to catch up in the near future? highly unlikely because theorists rather than Engineers are mostly running the show concerning negative recommendations, IMO.

 

Heavy conjecture in the above paragraph.

 

I expect more news on this in the near future concerning the success of EM drive in space from the Chinese, but I wouldn't count on much more explanations than that because this technology will be a big advantage for them, and I expect there will be a great deal of secrecy surrounding their version of it. I expect future news beyond EM drive functionality in space will relate more to their achievements using this advanced technology rather than further explanations of the technology itself, so that they can maintain their technology advantage. It may not be that easy for us to close the technology gap. It appears they may have a four to five year advantage now, even if we were willing to go all out now, which we probably won't do because of western theorist's misguided opinions, which has continued to stall nearly all progress concerning EM drive, IMO.  I think Sean Carrol is a prime example of making negative comments concerning any possibilities of the validity of EM drive technology.

 

Fortune telling.

[pantheory]

midniterider,

 

I hope NASA and China put some money into it to try and make it viable. I'll keep my mind open and see what happens with this technology. Reserving judgment.

 

Me too. "I know" China will continue financing it but I hope that the US and the west will wake up from their Van-Winkle slumber concerning this technology and others.

 

This is a fun read: https://en.wikiquote...ect_predictions

 

Yes, a very fun read

 

Heavy conjecture in the above paragraph.

 

Yes, that is true. Maybe instead of IMO I should have said IMHO, which would be equal to an almost certainty, with the realization that the big print gives it to you while the fine print takes it away while costing you dearly

 

Fortune telling.

 

Yes, tis true but lightly take note of my predictions in this thread and countless others of mine in this forum. Such predictions are included with IMO or "I think" to separate opinion from statements. Such "opinions" are based upon 50 years of study, research, with a book of personal theory and a number of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers.

[bornagainathiest]

 

In the sphere of science, the same standard applies.

 

Until a claim is verified it must be treated skeptically.  Disbelief is the accepted norm until the required standard of evidence is met.  So, it really doesn't matter if a claim is religious or secular, scientific or supernatural.  The default setting for claims must be skeptical disbelief.  Anything else runs the risk of letting ourselves become compromised by our emotions.  Letting what we want to be true get the better of our necessary skepticism.

 

 

I generally agree with your statements above but have related caveats that I believe need to be added.

 

The world is run by Engineers not by science theorists. The prime example IMO was Thomas Edison. In his invention of the light bulb, being one of maybe thousands of possible examples, he is said to have tried a thousand different types of elements within the light bulb as well as hundreds of different glass-bulb configurations and design. By such experiments our modern world, and nearly the whole of modern technology, was built. If we had to rely on theorists for the light bulb we might all still be using gas lighting

 

As both a lifelong Engineer and theorist I believe I can give a better perspective concerning technology than either Engineers or scientists as a single group can muster. This brings to mind a joke more that 50 years old, that I don't believe I have told in this forum as yet, and is very pertinent to this thread. It goes like this:

 

Our government was looking into the possibility of developing a new, generally unproven technology. They decided on having a contest between a group of 100 Engineers vs. a hundred scientists/ theorists, offering to fund the contest, and for them to decide amongst themselves who would represent each side. The government gave each side three years and the funding to come up with a proposal concerning the proposed technology, with one progress report required after a two year period to determine if the final 1/3 of the funding should be continued and paid.

 

After just two years both sides had finished a final report by which both sides requested final funding for three years work. The Scientist group came up with an 2,100 page report "proving" how the technology could not work. Their report was extremely well referenced with over four hundred additional scientists endorsing their conclusion and its details.

 

The Engineering group came up with a 400 page report explaining how they believed the technology worked, working drawings including manufacturing engineering reports, and a very well-functioning prototype, whereby its functionality could not be denied.

 

The Engineering group received their final payment for their work and were asked to be part of a 200 million dollar contract to build a full scale prototype. The Scientist group was denied any additional funding other than for their two years work.

 

The "moral" of this joke/ story is that science can take us just so far before engineering must then take over. The Engineering method is called the "Edison Method" in some circles. IMO China has long been following the Edison Method while the west lingers in the Scientific method, in what we believe is justifiable skepticism. In this case I believe the scientific method is more like religion and the engineering method is more like archeology concerning search and discovery. I have been following this EM drive (microwave propulsion) proposed technology for more than a decade now since I first became aware of it because of the internet. Since that time I believe I understand how the technology works and am greatly disappointed in the West's reluctance to investigate and fund testing of this technology because of influences of outspoken individuals in the scientific community. IMO the risk-reword factor demands the funding of this technology. Possibly the first countries to the mining of the asteroid belt might be able to financially dominate the rest of the world thereafter. China may now have a big head start in this technology, by which the technology gap may not be so easily closed.

 

My original hopes were on Elon Musk for this technology because of his forward-looking ideas and technology risk taking, but IMO unfortunately he has been persuaded by science writings not to spend any, or little funding on its possibilities. He did, however, make at least one funny comment about this technology. He said that he liked the "ring" of the name of this technology, in that the EM part of the name (EM drive) could stand for Elon Musk.

 

 

Pantheory,

 

I stand by what I wrote and cannot, in all good conscience, accept the caveats you would like to see in place.  

 

That's because I do not share in the two beliefs that you build these caveats upon.  You believe that engineers and not science theorists run the world and you believe that you can give a better perspective concerning technology than either engineers or scientists as a single group can muster.  While the first might be debatable, the second amounts to no more than a claim from you that must be accepted by faith. (Please note that here I do not use the word 'faith' in a religious or supernatural sense.)  You clearly have great faith (confidence) in your own abilities - but based upon my interactions with you over the years, I cannot accept that your abilities actually live up to the confidence you seem to have in them.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

 

BAA,

 

In the sphere of science, the same standard applies.Until a claim is verified it must be treated skeptically.  Disbelief is the accepted norm until the required standard of evidence is met.  So, it really doesn't matter if a claim is religious or secular, scientific or supernatural.  The default setting for claims must be skeptical disbelief.  Anything else runs the risk of letting ourselves become compromised by our emotions.  Letting what we want to be true get the better of our necessary skepticism.

 

 

pantheory,

 

I generally agree with your statements above but have related caveats that I believe need to be added.

 

The world is run by Engineers, not by science theorists. The prime example IMO was Thomas Edison. In his invention of the light bulb, being one of maybe thousands of possible examples. He is said to have tried a thousand different types of filaments within the light bulb as well as hundreds of different glass-bulb configurations. By such experiments our modern world, and nearly the whole of modern technology and the world, was built. If we had to rely on theorists for the light bulb we might still be using gas lighting   .............................................................................................................................................................

 

BAA,

 

..........I do not share in the two beliefs that you build these caveats upon.  You believe that engineers and not science theorists run the world and you believe that you can give a better perspective concerning technology than either engineers or scientists as a single group can muster.  While the first might be debatable, the second amounts to no more than a claim from you that must be accepted by faith. (Please note that here I do not use the word 'faith' in a religious or supernatural sense.)  You clearly have great faith (confidence) in your own abilities - but based upon my interactions with you over the years, I cannot accept that your abilities actually live up to the confidence you seem to have in them.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

If one has broad knowledge of two different fields, one can often be a better judge of technology involving both fields than other individuals or a group having knowledge of just one of the two fields, IMO.

 

You are not alone in your opinion. More than one person has questioned my opinions and abilities over the many years. The basis for my confidence is primarily because my theories IMO have not been contradicted over scores of years. My predictions have been off in time, however, usually because of optimism. An example is that after our moon landing I originally believed that man would have been to Mars before the turn of the millennium. We are probably still decades away from man setting foot there for the first time.