Nasa May Have Accidentally Figured Out How To Make A Warp Drive.

[pantheory]

Dude I'm about halfway through that article you linked, and while it's not a boring read all it says is what's known already - tests have been run, there seem to be some results, but it's well possible that it's really just been measurement errors. Also, there's a comment that - if true - that legendary drive seems to violate conservation of energy.

 

 

Yes, not much new material in this article. I think NASA was just formally and negatively responding to the warp drive speculation.

 

Since mainstream science does not understand how EmDrive works, most are understandably skeptical concerning the claims from a number of different independent sources including NASA, that EmDrive produces acceleration in and out of a vacuum.

 

Although this article mentions a possible violation of the conservation of energy, the normal mainstream criticism is a violation of the conservation of momentum.

[ContraBardus]

 

Dude I'm about halfway through that article you linked, and while it's not a boring read all it says is what's known already - tests have been run, there seem to be some results, but it's well possible that it's really just been measurement errors. Also, there's a comment that - if true - that legendary drive seems to violate conservation of energy.

 

 

Yes, not much new material in this article. I think NASA was just formally and negatively responding to the warp drive speculation.

 

Since mainstream science does not understand how EmDrive works, most are understandably skeptical concerning the claims from a number of different sources that EmDrive has produced acceleration in many independent tests.

 

Although this article mentions a possible violation of the conservation of energy, the normal mainstream criticism is a violation of the conservation of momentum.

 

 

There's no such thing as "Mainstream Science". That's just a buzzword for people who like to push their alternative claims that don't have sufficient evidence to support them and pass them off as some sort of cool underground scientific rebellion. There is no such movement, this isn't Star Wars and no one is fighting some evil Scientific Empire.

 

Science is Science. There is no mainstream or alternative. It's not a group of warring factions. It's a methodology for finding answers and new questions, period. I'll post this image again because it's relevant and is worth repeating given the context here.

 

 

Even if it is true that it violates our current understanding of conservation, it doesn't disprove conservation of energy, it just adds new information to what we already know and may provide an exception to it under certain conditions. Conservation of Energy isn't going to become repealed because of this, it will simply get a new footnote. It's still the best explanation for what we observe and has enough evidence to support it.

[pantheory]

 

 

Dude I'm about halfway through that article you linked, and while it's not a boring read all it says is what's known already - tests have been run, there seem to be some results, but it's well possible that it's really just been measurement errors. Also, there's a comment that - if true - that legendary drive seems to violate conservation of energy.

 

Yes, not much new material in this article. I think NASA was just formally and negatively responding to the warp drive speculation.

 

Since mainstream science does not understand how EmDrive works, most are understandably skeptical concerning the claims from a number of different sources that EmDrive has produced acceleration in many independent tests.

 

Although this article mentions a possible violation of the conservation of energy, the normal mainstream criticism is a violation of the conservation of momentum.

 

 

There's no such thing as "Mainstream Science". That's just a buzzword for people who like to push their alternative claims that don't have sufficient evidence to support them and pass them off as some sort of cool underground scientific rebellion. There is no such movement, this isn't Star Wars and no one is fighting some evil Scientific Empire.

 

Science is Science. There is no mainstream or alternative. It's not a group of warring factions. It's a methodology for finding answers and new questions, period. I'll post this image again because it's relevant and is worth repeating given the context here.

 

Even if it is true that it violates our current understanding of conservation, it doesn't disprove conservation of energy, it just adds new information to what we already know and may provide an exception to it under certain conditions. Conservation of Energy isn't going to become repealed because of this, it will simply get a new footnote. It's still the best explanation for what we observe and has enough evidence to support it.

 

 

Here is the definition of "Mainstream Science." Scroll down to Mainstream in Science to see the definition below.

 

Mainstream Science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that does not depart significantly from orthodox theories. In the philosophy of science, mainstream science is an area of scientific endeavor that has left the process of becoming established. New areas of scientific endeavor still in the process of becoming established are generally labelled protoscience or fringe science.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

 

As to Fringe Science, there are different definitions of it.

 

Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study. In any case, it is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from the mainstream theory in that field.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science

[ContraBardus]

 

 

 

Dude I'm about halfway through that article you linked, and while it's not a boring read all it says is what's known already - tests have been run, there seem to be some results, but it's well possible that it's really just been measurement errors. Also, there's a comment that - if true - that legendary drive seems to violate conservation of energy.

 

Yes, not much new material in this article. I think NASA was just formally and negatively responding to the warp drive speculation.

 

Since mainstream science does not understand how EmDrive works, most are understandably skeptical concerning the claims from a number of different sources that EmDrive has produced acceleration in many independent tests.

 

Although this article mentions a possible violation of the conservation of energy, the normal mainstream criticism is a violation of the conservation of momentum.

 

 

There's no such thing as "Mainstream Science". That's just a buzzword for people who like to push their alternative claims that don't have sufficient evidence to support them and pass them off as some sort of cool underground scientific rebellion. There is no such movement, this isn't Star Wars and no one is fighting some evil Scientific Empire.

 

Science is Science. There is no mainstream or alternative. It's not a group of warring factions. It's a methodology for finding answers and new questions, period. I'll post this image again because it's relevant and is worth repeating given the context here.

 

Even if it is true that it violates our current understanding of conservation, it doesn't disprove conservation of energy, it just adds new information to what we already know and may provide an exception to it under certain conditions. Conservation of Energy isn't going to become repealed because of this, it will simply get a new footnote. It's still the best explanation for what we observe and has enough evidence to support it.

 

 

Here is the definition of "Mainstream Science." Scroll down to Mainstream in Science to see the definition below.

 

Mainstream Science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study that does not depart significantly from orthodox theories. In the philosophy of science, mainstream science is an area of scientific endeavor that has left the process of becoming established. New areas of scientific endeavor still in the process of becoming established are generally labelled protoscience or fringe science.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream

 

As to Fringe Science, there are different definitions of it.

 

Fringe science may be valid science which is not considered mainstream. Alternatively, it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study. In any case, it is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from the mainstream theory in that field.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science

 

 

Never quote or link to Wikipedia as a source, ever.

 

Not for definitions, not for reference, not for anything.

 

It's a good place to start a search for information, but should never be the crux of an argument, reference, or validation.

 

It can give a basic idea and turn someone in the right direction to do actual research, but is not reliable enough to be considered a valid reference point. If you can't do better than Wiki, don't bother.

[ContraBardus]

It's also worth noting that even the Wiki article you quote about 'fringe science' is less than glowing about it. I have no idea why you believed it would be a good example to support your case. It even suggests that what you call 'fringe science' may in fact be psuedoscience just going by a different name.

 

 

...it may be a questionable scientific approach to a field of study...

Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe science as highly speculative or even as actually refuted.^[1] Fringe science theories are often advanced by persons who have no traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline.^[2][3] The general public has difficulty distinguishing between science and its imitators,^[4] and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".^[5]

The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel hypotheses which can be tested by means of the scientific method to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo (mostly the latter). This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and cranks.^[6]

Other terms used for the specific areas of fringe science are pathological science, voodoo science, and cargo cult science. Junk science is a term typically used in the political arena to describe ideas considered to be dubious or fraudulent.

A concept that was once accepted by the mainstream scientific community may become fringe science because of a later evaluation of previous research. For example, focal infection theory, which held that focal infections of the tonsils or teeth are a primary cause of systemic disease, was once considered to be medical fact. It has since been dismissed because of lack of evidence.

 

 

At any rate, neither article is enough to support your position on the matter. Science is Science. It's a methodology and that's it. It isn't split up into different groups of thought, that's philosophy, not science.

 

You could argue that different Scientists have different philosophies about how to approach science, but that doesn't change the fact that there is only one Scientific Method and anything that does not follow it is not Science.

[pantheory]

"Mainstream" as an adjective refers to the "prevailing, current, direction of activity or influence" in a particular field. I agree there is only one science, but "mainstream science" is something different in that it refers to science involved with, or directed by the main body of scientific interpretations, theories and hypotheses.. "Mainstream Scientists" are those that are often thought of as endorsing most mainstream interpretations of observations, theories and thinking.

 

On the other hand Alternative Theory and theorists are those that propose variations of mainstream theory, theories out of favor or believed to be proven wrong, or different theories and hypothesis of various types having some notoriety, and those generally having none.

 

For example here are some alternative theories in Cosmology:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Alternative_cosmology

[mymistake]

 

 

As to Fringe Science, there are different definitions of it.

 

 

 

 

Those are improper.  I don't get it.  You have been published in a peer reviewed journal and yet you talk like a Conspiracy Theorist.  Why?  I'm sorry if your hypothesis did not go as far as you had hoped it would but we don't all get to be Albert Einstein.

[pantheory]

 

 

 

As to Fringe Science, there are different definitions of it.

 

 

 

 

Those are improper.  I don't get it.  You have been published in a peer reviewed journal and yet you talk like a Conspiracy Theorist.  Why?  I'm sorry if your hypothesis did not go as far as you had hoped it would but we don't all get to be Albert Einstein.

 

 

Concerning my belief in the scientific method, I believe very strongly in it.  As to conspiracy theories, I believe that most are totally wrong and no better than jokes. The main differences between alternative theories and mainstream theories is, while mostly using the same observations as their evidence, they believe that some mainstream interpretations of these observations are incorrect, whereby they provide different interpretations resulting in different theories.

[bornagainathiest]

If you believe so strongly in the scientific method Pantheory, then why don't you let that process continue to it's proper conclusion and let the resulting body of evidence be what decides what is bona fide science and what isn't?

 

Maybe that's because you want to interrupt and modify that process so that you can introduce your personal opinions and interpretations and put your own spin where it's not needed, required or welcome?

[mymistake]

The main differences between alternative theories and mainstream theories is, while mostly using the same observations as their evidence, they believe that some mainstream interpretations of these observations are incorrect, whereby they provide different interpretations resulting in different theories.

 

 

See?  You are talking like a conspiracy theorists.

 

A scientist does not confuse hypothesis with theory.

 

How can you not know this?  You are making a very

 

rudimentary mistake.

[TheOutsider]

I thought we went over this, what predictions can anyone's fringe "theory" make that actual, peer reviewed, commonly accepted theories can't? is it really so hard to understand that the scientific method doesn't tolerate personal bias? And in fact goes as far as it has to to eliminate it as much as possible. The whole point of peer review is to remove any subjectivity from the equation, so all you have is raw, unbiased data that has nothing to do with how anyone is feeling at any given time. Unless I'm severely mistaken about something?

 

 

I swear I'm getting flashbacks from the Bill Nye V. Ken Ham debate...

[pantheory]

If you believe so strongly in the scientific method Pantheory, then why don't you let that process continue to it's proper conclusion and let the resulting body of evidence be what decides what is bona fide science and what isn't?

 

Maybe that's because you want to interrupt and modify that process so that you can introduce your personal opinions and interpretations and put your own spin where it's not needed, required or welcome?

 

It's more than that. I believe that much of modern physics theory is wrong. If so I offer my own theories as an alternative.

 

As an example,  in cosmology when the James Webb ST goes up and has been operating successfully for several years, I expect that observations will then contradict the Big Bang model. If so I expect to have contacted many theorists and astronomers by then that through the proper promotion, will become somewhat familiar with my related theory. Instead of trying to greatly change the Big Bang model if that happens,  I expect some or many theorists will be looking at the possibility of alternative theories that have correctly predicted what I expect they will be observing. If my theory is out there and has made accurate predictions in line to what is being observed, then I expect some or many might then consider it, if I properly promote it to mainstream theorists and astronomers between now and then.

 

On the other hand if astronomers see only small, young appearing blue galaxies, with no very large red appearing galaxies at the farthest distances, then my cosmological model and all others proposing an older or infinite aged universe will be proven wrong at that time.  The Big Bang model proposes that at the beginning of the universe only small blue newly forming galaxies should exist having no metalicity.

 

I have other ways of showing by experiment that other theories in modern physics are contradicted. Theory alone can do little to change opinion without new observations that many astronomers/ physicists believe contradict present theory.  The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion.

[pantheory]

 

The main differences between alternative theories and mainstream theories is, while mostly using the same observations as their evidence, they believe that some mainstream interpretations of these observations are incorrect, whereby they provide different interpretations resulting in different theories.

 

 

See?  You are talking like a conspiracy theorists.

 

A scientist does not confuse hypothesis with theory.

 

How can you not know this?  You are making a very

 

rudimentary mistake.

 

 

There is no clear distinction in science between theory and hypothesis. Theory is supposed to be well supported by ample evidence, and not contradicted by other observations/ evidence. Realize that alternative theory does this. Good alternative theory has different interpretations of the same evidence that all are aware of.

 

Hypothesis, on the other hand, are one of many possibilities to explain particular observations, that are not adequately explained by theory. Dark matter and Dark energy are two examples.

[pantheory]

I thought we went over this, what predictions can anyone's fringe "theory" make that actual, peer reviewed, commonly accepted theories can't? is it really so hard to understand that the scientific method doesn't tolerate personal bias? And in fact goes as far as it has to to eliminate it as much as possible. The whole point of peer review is to remove any subjectivity from the equation, so all you have is raw, unbiased data that has nothing to do with how anyone is feeling at any given time. Unless I'm severely mistaken about something?

 

 

I swear I'm getting flashbacks from the Bill Nye V. Ken Ham debate...Peer reviewed doesn't mean peer accepted. Peer review just means that what has been written cannot easily be contradicted, and that has the possibility of being a contribution to the body of science.

 

Being peer reviewed does not mean peer accepted. Peer review means the proposal cannot be easily contradicted, and may be a contribution to the body of science.

 

"what predictions can anyone's fringe "theory" make that actual, peer reviewed, commonly accepted theories can't?"

 

I make 87 predictions, most of which are contrary to mainstream theory.  If you are interested look at pantheory.org, starting on page 104.

[ContraBardus]

 

I thought we went over this, what predictions can anyone's fringe "theory" make that actual, peer reviewed, commonly accepted theories can't? is it really so hard to understand that the scientific method doesn't tolerate personal bias? And in fact goes as far as it has to to eliminate it as much as possible. The whole point of peer review is to remove any subjectivity from the equation, so all you have is raw, unbiased data that has nothing to do with how anyone is feeling at any given time. Unless I'm severely mistaken about something?

 

 

I swear I'm getting flashbacks from the Bill Nye V. Ken Ham debate...Peer reviewed doesn't mean peer accepted. Peer review just means that what has been written cannot easily be contradicted, and that has the possibility of being a contribution to the body of science.

 

Being peer reviewed does not mean peer accepted. Peer review means the proposal cannot be easily contradicted, and may be a contribution to the body of science.

 

"what predictions can anyone's fringe "theory" make that actual, peer reviewed, commonly accepted theories can't?"

 

I make 87 predictions, most of which are contrary to mainstream theory.  If you are interested look at pantheory.org, starting on page 104.

 

 

Not being "Peer Accepted" means that testing failed, results could not be consistently reproduced, or some other apparent error was involved that prevented proper testing. Not that some "mainstream" scientist just decided they didn't like the way a hypothesis sounded.

 

In all honesty, this site and the book contained therein reads more like a Sci-fi McGuffin explanation than actual science.

[TheOutsider]

 

I thought we went over this, what predictions can anyone's fringe "theory" make that actual, peer reviewed, commonly accepted theories can't? is it really so hard to understand that the scientific method doesn't tolerate personal bias? And in fact goes as far as it has to to eliminate it as much as possible. The whole point of peer review is to remove any subjectivity from the equation, so all you have is raw, unbiased data that has nothing to do with how anyone is feeling at any given time. Unless I'm severely mistaken about something?

 

 

I swear I'm getting flashbacks from the Bill Nye V. Ken Ham debate...Peer reviewed doesn't mean peer accepted. Peer review just means that what has been written cannot easily be contradicted, and that has the possibility of being a contribution to the body of science.

 

Being peer reviewed does not mean peer accepted. Peer review means the proposal cannot be easily contradicted, and may be a contribution to the body of science.

 

"what predictions can anyone's fringe "theory" make that actual, peer reviewed, commonly accepted theories can't?"

 

I make 87 predictions, most of which are contrary to mainstream theory.  If you are interested look at pantheory.org, starting on page 104.

Did you really just ask an admitted layman (I did say I know next to nothing in my first post in this thread right? I was absolutely serious.) to review your work? Isn't that considered bad form?

 

87 predictions contrary to "mainstream theory", how many of them throw a wrench in to what we already know about how things work?

How many of them invalidate modern technological achievements?

Is there anything in there that would mean my computer shouldn't be working like it does?

Anything that would make something we have already done, impossible?

And how accurate are these 87 predictions? Because it's one thing to make a prediction, it's another thing entirely to have it be right. I think religion in general has a good track record of being consistently wrong with their predictions, for an example.

 

I will state clearly I know nothing about the scientific theories involved, I'm not the one to be getting into a technical discussion with, I have less than nothing to offer on the subject.

 

Perhaps I should have rephrased that first question, what repeatable, usefully accurate predictions can be made with an "alternative theory" that can't be made with a currently established one? And I'll add, why can't the already established ones be corrected instead of replaced?

And I am not qualified to do the research myself with any level of competency. Sure I can read, but I can't form any valid opinions on the subject, I have to defer to those who know what they are talking about when it comes to that.

 

Consider this an exercise on my part to see if I'm holding on to any bad information.

[pantheory]

Not being "Peer Accepted" means that testing failed, results could not be consistently reproduced, or some other apparent error was involved that prevented proper testing. Not that some "mainstream" scientist just decided they didn't like the way a hypothesis sounded.

 

 

 

Not being peer accepted does not mean peer rejected. If you look online concerning "alternative theory" you will find a number of alternative theories and related papers. Because they were peer reviewed and accepted for publication in a mainstream journal does not mean that any of the peer reviewers have agreed with the theory proposed, although some might think that the new theory is intriguing.

 

Peer reviewers comment on how they think statements of a paper,  in their opinion, might be wrong,  or need to be better explained.  If there are 3 peer reviewers, for instance,  the author(s) of the paper usually have to satisfy comments from at least two of them, and must satisfy all of the editor's (journal's representative on staff) comments after he has read reviewers criticisms, comments and/or requests, and has made his own criticisms, comments and requests which must be satisfied before the editor's final approval for publication.

[mymistake]

Theory is supposed to be well supported by ample evidence, and not contradicted by other observations/ evidence. Realize that alternative theory does this. 

 

 

No.  If you show up and say you believe gravity is wrong and offer up your theory of intelligent downward pushing you are not doing science.  And if you think all of science is wrong so you offer up your "theory" of the incredible shrinking matter that always gets smaller but never goes away then you are not doing science.  

[pantheory]

"Intelligent downward pushing," is your misunderstanding and misquote of "pushing gravity." "All of science is wrong" is your exaggerated misquote where I actually said, I think that "much of modern physics" is wrong.

 

In science it is rarely said that this or that theory is wrong because theories cannot be proved and most are very difficult to disprove.

 

It can be said by the person speaking that he believes there is much evidence to support or contrary to this or that theory.

 

All proposals written as scientific papers, including my own, are based upon research, observations, and evidence, not speculation, otherwise they would not be published by a peer-reviewed journal.

[mymistake]

"Intelligent downward pushing," is your misunderstanding and misquote of "pushing gravity." 

 

Nope.  It is mockery.

 

 

 

In science it is rarely said that this or that theory is wrong because theories can neither be proved nor disproved.

 

Flat Earth Theory?  Plenty of ideas get disproven.

[pantheory]

 

"Intelligent downward pushing," is your misunderstanding and misquote of "pushing gravity." 

 

Nope.  It is mockery.

 

 

 

In science it is rarely said that this or that theory is wrong because theories can neither be proved nor disproved.

 

Flat Earth Theory?  Plenty of ideas get disproven.

 

 

Ideas can be disproved, but the "Flat Earth" has never been a scientific theory -- developed by the scientific method and observations.

[mymistake]

 

Ideas can be disproved, but the "Flat Earth" has never been a scientific theory -- developed by the scientific method and observations.

 

 

 

Are you sure?  Maybe if I bad mouth "mainstream science" enough on internet forums suddenly Flat Earth will become a scientific theory.

[ContraBardus]

Not sure who in this thread fits this, but I'm pretty sure at least one of us does...

 

 

...and at least some of us think it's someone else.

[pantheory]

Not sure who in this thread fits this, but I'm pretty sure at least one of us does...

 

 

...and at least some of us think it's someone else.

 

funny

[bornagainathiest]

 

If you believe so strongly in the scientific method Pantheory, then why don't you let that process continue to it's proper conclusion and let the resulting body of evidence be what decides what is bona fide science and what isn't?

 

Maybe that's because you want to interrupt and modify that process so that you can introduce your personal opinions and interpretations and put your own spin where it's not needed, required or welcome?

 

It's more than that. I believe that much of modern physics theory is wrong. If so I offer my own theories as an alternative.

 

As an example,  in cosmology when the James Webb ST goes up and has been operating successfully for several years, I expect that observations will then contradict the Big Bang model. If so I expect to have contacted many theorists and astronomers by then that through the proper promotion, will become somewhat familiar with my related theory. Instead of trying to greatly change the Big Bang model if that happens,  I expect some or many theorists will be looking at the possibility of alternative theories that have correctly predicted what I expect they will be observing. If my theory is out there and has made accurate predictions in line to what is being observed, then I expect some or many might then consider it, if I properly promote it to mainstream theorists and astronomers between now and then.

 

On the other hand if astronomers see only small, young appearing blue galaxies, with no very large red appearing galaxies at the farthest distances, then my cosmological model and all others proposing an older or infinite aged universe will be proven wrong at that time.  The Big Bang model proposes that at the beginning of the universe only small blue newly forming galaxies should exist having no metalicity.

 

I have other ways of showing by experiment that other theories in modern physics are contradicted. Theory alone can do little to change opinion without new observations that many astronomers/ physicists believe contradict present theory.  The only way theories become known is by their predictions and promotion.

 

 

Yes Pantheory, in your case it's more than that.

 

In your case you claim to believe strongly in the scientific method, except when it comes those scientific theories that don't make sense to you.

 

Like General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Big Bang cosmology.

 

We know this because you told us so.

 

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

Originally if the theory did not make sense to me I began studying it to find out the basis for the theory in the first place. I did the same thing when I began studying religions. Generally if the theory was not logical when explained, most often I concluded that the theory was flawed in some way and then explained how it was flawed based upon my studies and conclusions. I believe these conclusions became better as my related understandings improved. My next step would be to see what alternative theories were available or how the theory might otherwise be explained. If the mainstream theory was suspect alternative theories that made the most sense explaining observations best, were preferred.

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

 

You harbor a deep-seated, long-standing and unscientific prejudice against modern physics, based on your own personal inability to comprehend it.

 

Therefore, your above statement about believing strongly in the scientific method must be viewed with deep suspicion.