Best products from r/EmDrive

We found 22 comments on r/EmDrive discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 18 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/EmDrive:

u/glennfish · 1 pointr/EmDrive

In the context of learning, essentially what you are proposing is what Thomas Kuhn proposed as a paradigm shift. If you haven't read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" you and everyone should. It's available at amazon https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

However, the premise that Kuhn proposed was that it took a generation of scientists to die away before the new ideas had a chance to emerge. When he wrote the book, that was probably true, but in the present, in many disciplines, the ability to change a paradigm has gone from 30 years to 18 months, so it may not be as relevant as it was when written.

As to the premise of I'll believe it when I see it, that seems more to be a license plate slogan, i.e. Wisconsin "Just cows and cheese."

The simple fact of the matter, and my returning to this forum after an absence, is that there is a very high risk now of creating false expectations instead of revolutionary discovery. In my other OP thread, there is commentary showing me to be a defender of test results from a methodological perspective, which ultimately turned out to be subject to falsification.

I am not capable nor qualified to argue the physics side of this. I am absolutely qualified and capable of arguing the social psychology side of this. My simple premise is this. Looking at this from a philosophy of science point of view (it's a real academic discipline), the debate in this forum has gone from wonder and excitement to pathological. The physics doesn't support this. The experimentation doesn't support this. The 7,000 odd subscribers to this forum have to understand that this is approaching a pathological and near theological debate comparable to Scientology or hollow earth beliefs.

There are some competent and highly qualified individuals doing best efforts research into the EMdrive phenomenon, and some of them have the capacity to produce results, if positive, deserve scrutiny. However, IMHO, this reddit forum at this time with the commentaries posted, with the lame debates posted, does not contribute to those who wish to learn and know more.

Essentially, there are no plausible arguments for EMdrive, and no theoretical models that extend beyond crack-pottery. There are some interesting experiments in process that may push for a closer look, but none of them have come to fruition.

I am trying to take the high road and simply state that EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, and in Physics, EVERYONE is entitled to a poster presentation, however, in the end, data has be replicated and scrutinized and beat to death and is the only thing that contributes to an extension of what we think of as knowledge. EMdrive hasn't yet gone beyond the poster presentation stage.

u/flux_capacitor78 · 2 pointsr/EmDrive

Today's cosmogony (especially concerning the hot big bang and cosmic inflation models) is a history of the universe in its remote past that has been modified several times and is nowadays made from mainstream assumptions that might continue to evolve or even change completely.

Any new theoretical model that emerges and correctly fits all observations and makes accurate predictions is yet considered as fringe science, especially because it needs the assimilation of paradigm shifts and because of the existence of various bogus theories floating around. It encounters hostility from well established inner circles, particularly in the way Science is now organised. Should the Hoyle-Narlikar theory be proven to work as a useful extension of Einstein's general relativity, a cosmogony that is consistent with HN gravity would then be written, not the other way around.

But for the purposes of space propulsion today, for how gravity acts and creates inertia in the present, is what is important. The Hoyle-Narlikar theory boils down to Einstein's general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid density distribution of the universe, and going to the rest frame of the smooth fluid. The two theories are fully compatible, and they make identical predictions.

Three books to read for those interested in the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity:

  • Action at a distance in physics and cosmology, F. Hoyle and J.V. Narlikar, W. H. Freeman & Co. (1974)

  • Lectures on Cosmology and Action at a Distance Electrodynamics, F. Hoyle and J.V. Narlikar, World Scientific Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics (1996)

  • A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality, F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge and J.V. Narlikar, Cambridge University Press (2000)

    The first two books are highly technical. The third actually nails the subject of mainstream cosmogony down and presents alternatives (like authors' quasi-steady state cosmology). It also mentions in its preface the problem of politics in the field of modern cosmology and astrophysics.

    As for the C-field or "creation field" mentioned in the dedicated Wikipedia article, it was added to the steady-state theory so as the universe expands, the matter density remains constant. But it is not required, and recent papers left it out. In her papers on Mach effects, Heidi Fearn does not use it.
u/crackpot_killer · 1 pointr/EmDrive

If this is what the BBC is putting out for science journalism these days, they've lost a lot of respect and credibility. The article starts out with being misleading:

>The theorists say: "This is theoretically possible." The engineers then figure out how to make it work, confident the maths is correct and the theory stands up.

>

>These camps are not mutually exclusive of course. Theorists understand engineering. Engineers draw on their deep understanding of the theory. It's normally a pretty harmonious, if competitive, relationship.

They completely omit experimental physicists. Experimental physicists are the ones who design and build physics experiments. They are the ones with the understanding of theory, not the engineers. Don't get me wrong, I work with (mostly electrical) engineers, daily, and am continually impressed with their technical ability, but their knowledge of any advanced theory is almost non-existent. Their theoretical knowledge rarely goes beyond their undergraduate general education requirements (a couple of semesters of intro physics, and maybe an a little electromagnetic theory for the EEs). It's the experimental physicists who both have a theoretical understanding, through graduate-level course work in physics and keeping up with the latest updates in journals, and (usually) some engineering or technical ability that allows them to build experiments and interface with both theorists and engineers. Of course many engineers are employed to help develop the finer points of systems in physics experiments, but those systems themselves are usually first developed by physicists, e.g. fast electronics for data acquisition systems.

Going back to the article:

>Yet occasionally these two worlds collide. The theorists say something is just not possible and the engineers say: "We're going to try it anyway - it's worth a shot."

>

>There is one field of science where just such a contest has been raging for years, perhaps the most contentious field in all science/engineering - gravity control.

There is no contest, just like there is no contest about the existence of global warming. The contests exist only in the minds of people who doesn't really have a grasp of the subject. No reputable physicist - theorist or experimentalist - believes gravity control is possible with out current level of understanding. Why? Because we only understand gravity classically, i.e. General Relativity. There is no good theory of quantum gravity, what you'd likely have to understand to have any sort of "gravity control". I have never met an engineer who even understands GR, it's usually just not relevant to them, and Ron Evans seems no different, except he seems to embrace his ignorance and runs with it.

If you read Evans' book on Project Greenglow, it is the definition of crank science. It is filled with crackpot gems such as:

>Nowadays we might think of the ether in terms of the quantum vacuum of space.

No. That's not what the vacuum is or anyone who any understanding of quantum field theory will say it is. You can thumb through the text yourself and find - if you have some understanding of advanced theoretical concepts in physics - even more egregious violations of the laws of physics and our current understanding. Don't believe anything Evans says.

Again, returning the to BBC article:

>In the US, Nasa aerospace engineer Marc Millis began a parallel project - the Breakthrough Physics Propulsion Program

NASA needs to stop hiring crackpots like Millis and White, they give it a bad name. Millis has been posted here before and has developed ideas which include, but are not limited to:

>The differential sail was a speculation that it might be possible to induce differences in the pressure of vacuum fluctuations on either side of sail-like structure

Again, this shows a poor or non-existent understanding of some fundamental concepts in physics. It boggles the mind as to why NASA keeps hiring guys who have little to no understanding of them, to basically act as theorists. It's making NASA look like it doesn't know what it's doing in this area.

>Out of the blue, a Russian chemist called Dr Eugene Podkletnov claimed he'd stumbled on the answer by accident. By using rapidly spinning superconductors Podkletnov claimed he'd managed to create a "gravity shield".

> [...]

>Yet to theorists like Dr John Ellis, at Cern, it was no surprise when nothing came of it: "So this guy had the idea that by messing around with superconductors he could change the strength of the earth's gravitational field? Crap!"

Ellis' mocking reaction is in line with probably all reputable physicists. No one thinks superconductors can manipulate or block gravity in anyway, unless they've come up with a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism, which of course, they haven't. Podkletnov, and by extension Tajmar, are engaged in fringe physics (fringe does not mean pushing the bounds, it means it's out of bounds and nonsensical), at best. Both display a clear lack of understanding of physics, and Tajmar's frequent publications in dis-reputable journals on topics that no real physicist would touch, demonstrate this.

The article then throws in a reference to the accelerating expansion of the universe and dark energy:

>Yet just when it seemed the engineers were running out of ideas, it was theoretical physics which threw them a lifeline.

>

>Recently it was discovered that the universe was not just expanding, but accelerating in its expansion, and suddenly the theorists had some explaining to do.

Yes, theorists have some explaining to do, but it most certainly doesn't throw these wrong ideas about gravity and propulsion "a line". No one knows what's causing the accelerating expansion of the universe, but that doesn't give anyone license to go "Well, we don't understand it, but it has to do with gravity, therefore, free propulsion system!". No. That would have been like late 19th century biologists saying they don't understand the mechanism for evolution (genetics) but they know it has to within biology, therefore "...the fountain of youth!". It displays a lack of understanding of the topic and the mechanism through which science progresses.

The article rounds off with the emdrive for which there is no evidence. None has been published in any reputable physics journal and the experiments so far would not be accepted by any reputable physicist, yet that doesn't stop the article from proclaiming:

>One device survived, almost unnoticed, from the Greenglow days - a propellant-less electromagnetic or EmDrive, created by British aerospace engineer Roger Shawyer.

Survived? No. It's been more than a decade and the thing 1.) still claims to violate Newton's Laws 2.) still not flying 3.) still has no evidence for its claims 4.) still not taken seriously by physicists.

As Ellis puts it in the article:

>"With the EmDrive, unlike a rocket, nothing comes out of it. So I don't see how you can generate momentum out of nothing."

Yes.

If this is a taste of what Horizon will show then the BBC has seriously taken a step down in credibility and the network heads should reconsider airing this, and consult actual physicists for more than just a couple of lines. If the program's point isn't to point out these are crackpot ideas and teaches how to spot them, then they will be doing a huge disservice and harm to science education for the general public.

u/kmarinas86 · -1 pointsr/EmDrive

Supporters of K.A.M. theory hold that it is possible to have a stable, albeit quasi-periodic, three-body system. This applies if the system is not ergodic.

http://www.amazon.com/The-KAM-Story-Introduction-Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser/dp/9814556580

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov%E2%80%93Arnold%E2%80%93Moser_theorem

u/IslandPlaya · 1 pointr/EmDrive

I share my reasons with Smolin in this book.

u/ImAWizardYo · 6 pointsr/EmDrive

>Can you point out a place where I've been substantively wrong?

Let's start with your understanding of the word "arrogance"

>I assume the opposite.

Thrilled this wasn't stated as fact.

>Perhaps you should open a physics book.

Whenever I get the chance. Other than my HS books and college level Physics, I started with this one over 20 years ago while still in HS. It's actually not that hard of a read despite what some will say. Some of the math is a little advanced but not required to follow along as context and diagrams are provided.

u/fuckspellingerrors · 3 pointsr/EmDrive

>You have a very close-minded view of what evidence is.

No, if you think that, you don't understand what I'm saying. Or you don't understand what constitutes evidence in experimental physics. Or both.

>Also, if you are so adamant on defending your view of what qualities a scientist should possess, perhaps you should take a note from your own book and provide some citation, sources and evidence to back up your claims or, at the very least, lessen the credibility of the claims you are trying to challenge?

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp2014-rev-statistics.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Analysis-Oxford-Science-Publications/dp/0198501552

This is how physicists do data analysis. Feel free to read them and educate yourself.

>Rather than just outright dismissing it as a "joke".

Criticisms have been given time and time again.

u/TheElectricPeople · 1 pointr/EmDrive

Great post.

A must-read book on the way ahead for cosmology and physics:-

The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin 2014.

In it Smolin argues that momentum and energy are intrinsic and that any effect of matter beyond the cosmological horizon (the Mach effect) violates causality.

u/tweakingforjesus · 3 pointsr/EmDrive

When i was a teenager I bought this silly book. This exact type of locomotion was proposed by the author. Even as a teenager I knew it was bunk.

u/UncleSlacky · 1 pointr/EmDrive

You should really check out his book - they may only be small effects but there may be ways to amplify them.

u/IAmMulletron · 2 pointsr/EmDrive

He's known as GIThruster and Ron Stahl on NSF. Both banned. A Woodward crony. His MO is to plug pseudoscience books on Amazon.com. http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Transport/dp/1461456223

He completely blew up EmDrive thread 1.