this fucking copper cone singhandedly proved that scientists are fucking polarized sheep that can't into unbiased review. jesus christ how pathetic can you be to blindly say it either breaks physics, or that the data is wrong? this is a key opportunity for science to shine but instead we get nothing but shitposts and memes. i hope all you shitters die for not taking this from a logical, empirical standpoint and looked at the data with a proper conclusion that didn't perversely adhere to the popular belief of whatever camp you're from. i can't talk about this seriously with anyone anymore. modern science discussion is on the same level as municipal politics.
This fucking copper cone singhandedly proved that scientists are fucking polarized sheep that can't into unbiased...
Nicholas Russell
Alexander Rivera
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The purported workings of this thing is an extraordinary claim, and therefore the only prudent and reasonable thing to do is to believe the claim is probably wrong until and unless extraordinary evidence is presented.
There's nothing more to discuss until that happens, or unless you're in a position with a proper lab to actually run the tests.
Noah Long
The thing was literally called the meme drive. They were asking for it.
Oliver Peterson
Feel free to make fun of us forever when you're speeding around in your magic drive, I'm you can't wait to do so. Be sure to let us know when you do, OK?
Leo Watson
Nice false equivalence. Call me when you get your nuclear powered car ok?
Owen Hall
Technically a Tesla in a nuclear powered region is a nuclear powered car.
Kevin Nguyen
Did this thing ever get proven functional or what? It got shilled hard on Veeky Forums
Camden Walker
How new are you to not know of the tribalism in any branch of academia?
As for whatever the shit that is, Bayes' theorem applies again - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Jaxson Carter
Not him but this puling out of your ass passive aggressive worthless behavior is absolute cancer. And it's afflicting society quite hard, sadly.
Blake Clark
Quite the opposite, it's pretty much universally agreed that it's some kind of thermal effect. Probably like the one that caused the Pioneer anomaly. The only ones still clinging to it either have something to lose by admitting there's nothing to it, or are part of the "free energy" crowd.
Dylan Gray
Ci. Ta tion
Jaxon Lee
>a highly biased OP blames others to be biased sheep
Nice.
Dylan Lewis
>Citation
>For something most physicist aren't discussing
The best you'll get is some forum posts, or talk to someone in your local physics department. My supervisor and I had a short discussion on it, we decided that when you remove 99% of an effect by removing the atmosphere, then it's almost certainly a thermal effect.
That said here's about as close as you'll get:
tu-dresden.de
Tl;dr:
>"""Thrust""" is always in the same direction, even when the device is rotated through 90 degrees
>Points out that the """thrust""" decays like a cooling curve
>They got a null result
>Concludes it's likely either magnetic interactions or thermal effects
Adam Roberts
>tfw positivism can't stop accidentally proving the external world is silly putty at the fringe of the human spirit
Adrian Myers
What?
Brody Richardson
format your post into a proper text block
instead of a messy string rant ya dip.
Kayden Baker
case in point. cant attack the point so he attacks.the format lol. true scientific debate is dead. welcome to memeland.
Alexander Edwards
Interesting.
Jaxson Brooks
This is perpetual motion machines. This is cold fusion. This is homeopathy. This is vaccines cause autism. This is "you should be more open minded".
Fuck off you anti-science cunt.
Oliver Kelly
I thought even with it functioning it wasn't perpetual motion?
Wyatt Stewart
Hurrrrrrrr durrrrrr im a fucking idiot durrrrr. This you btw.
Brandon Walker
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Nonsense. Who decides what counts as "extraordinary"? You?
If they can show that it works then that's all the evidence they need.
Asher Green
>jesus christ how pathetic can you be to blindly say it either breaks physics, or that the data is wrong?
I don't think you understand how understanding things works, OP.
The data produced by this experiment seems inconsistent with our understanding of how it should work. Thus, the conclusion is "either our understanding is wrong or our data is wrong" is *exactly right*.
>this is a key opportunity for science to shine
The above conclusion IS science shining. Realizing when you see something your theories can NOT explain is the fundamental operation behind science.
Anthony Thompson
No one knows how it works, no one has reliable data for it for even very low speeds/powers. Which means each side can just claim it works (or doesn't work) the way you want it to. Don't believe it works? "If it goes fast enough, it gains kinetic energy faster than you put energy into it!" Believe it works? "Something must happen to keep it conserving energy!"
>Realizing when you see something your theories can NOT explain is the fundamental operation behind science.
OP is probably talking about people discussing it online. Engineers/Physicists IRL realize that it's a huge investment (and some risk) to build one and then even more to test it reliably. Online you see a lot of "there's no formula in my textbook that explain this, so it can't happen" vs "I believe it happens so it happens".
Carter Foster
The thing about this is that all good physicists know the concept is solid. It is not controversial.
Connor Barnes
Hello namefag. Can you please explain how? I hate to use the term ELI5 but I'm not physicist and the Wikipedia article just states there's no consensus.
How does this supposedly work, and what does that mean for the scientific community? A flaw in our current laws of physics? A new law to be discovered?
Christian Jackson
exactly, you retarded nigger cattle.
Leo Lewis
Please don't reply to the schizophrenic namefag.
Jayden Martinez
Oh, sorry.
James Williams
just give me a few years bruh... i am on it... no joke...
Ryan Phillips
> If they can show that it works then that's all the evidence they need.
Yes and no. Remember the FTL neutrinos? The scientists who published the initial reports more or less said "we know that we probably fucked up somewhere, but we're not sure where, and we've been looking really hard for a long time now; help please". They might have had a lot of specific evidence for FTL neutrinos, but they had even more background evidence that neutrinos, and other particles, do not travel FTL.
In the common phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", we're being imprecise. An "extraordinary claim" is simply a claim that contradicts a lot of prior existing evidence. Such claims require /a lot/ of new evidence to overcome the contradicting prior existing evidence. I don't just decide that some claim is extraordinary. In this context, extraordinary claims are claims that contradict a lot of prior known evidence.
In other words, this is just Bayesian epistemology 101. For further reading, I suggest the work of Richard Carrier, specifically his blog posts on the topic, and his book "Proving History".
Tyler Martinez
I've read somewhere that the meme drive could prove Unruh radiation. Is this actually possible?
Nolan Taylor
It just needs reliable and provable thrust.
Until then it is nothing.
Grayson Sanchez
No ones taught the scientific method properly
Christopher Torres
>positivism
>proving anything about the external world
O how smart you are, seeing through all those silly physicists. At least get your philosophy straight if you want to outshine people.
Social dynamics can actually be rational. In the absence of the possibility that everyone is an expert on everything, sometimes reputation and dogma are the best tools we have to move forward.
Jacob Barnes
>This is cold fusion.
Isn't cold fusion anticipated by theory?
Carson Wood
No. Why do you thin that?
Andrew Martinez
Ah, I did some looking. I think I conflated cold fusion with "not-quite-as-hot" fusion.
Aaron King
The technical term is "lukewarm fusion".
Thomas Lopez
>Remember the FTL neutrinos?
I remember everyone looking into it because it was bizarre. Brushing things off is not good science. If something looks odd it needs to be investigated not for the entire community to sit on it's hands and say bullshit. This isn't exactly a budget breaking device to test the fact it hasn't garnered more interest in people trying to show it doesn't work boggles my mind.
> Bayesian epistemology
Shit tier to be honest senpai
> "extraordinary claim" is simply a claim that contradicts a lot of prior existing evidence. Such claims require /a lot/ of new evidence to overcome
No it requires one good contradiction to the current theory. A statistical burden of proof is not a good way to go about things. A single data point that's measured with enough certainty could prove any of our shit wrong.