Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
BrotherWu

BrotherWu

MAGA
<Silver Donator>
3,259
6,502
No, German Scientists Have Not Confirmed the "Impossible" EMDrive

"I noted in [the study's] conclusion paragraphs that [Tajmar's] apparatus was producing hundreds of micro-Newtons of thrust when it got very hot and that his measuring instrumentation is not very accurate when the apparatus becomes hot," Davis told io9. "He also stated that he was still recording thrust signals even after the electrical power was turned off which is a huge key clue that his thrust measurements are all systematic artifact false positive thrust signals."

NASA aerospace engineer Marc Millis tells io9 something similar. The experiment, Millis explains, seemed to show thrust lingering even after the power was off, which would be indicative of a thermal effect.

What's more, when looking at previous EMDrive experiments, Davis noticed that the alleged thrust was generated slowly, and not instantaneously, when the electrical power was switched on.

"This is a direct indication of a thermal effect in reverse (heating versus cooling), which produces a clear false positive thrust signal," says Davis. "Tajmar has to account for and reconcile this fact as well in his data analysis which he apparently did not discuss in his paper. This would be another nail in the coffin against the existence of any real definite momentum violating thrust produced in the microwave cavity."
 
T

Troll_sl

shitlord
1,703
7
People need to just stop shitting themselves in excitement. If it's real, it's going to be at least a year (if not multiple years) before it's confirmed. And even assuming it is, there's no guarantee of its scalability.

My money is still on testing anomalies. The effect is just way too small and there are so many variables they're just not accounting for. Like that thermal effect.
 
I

Itzena_sl

shitlord
4,609
6
BrotherWu;1176771 said:
No, German Scientists Have Not Confirmed the ??oImpossible??? EMDrive

Not saying anything else, but this is ashittyline from someone who claims to be a scientist:
"The microwave cavity thruster as set-up by Tajmar continues to violate momentum conservation and thus does not work as advertised," says Eric W. Davis, a Senior Research Physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin.
Click to expand...
"It doesn't follow the rules of physics as we understand them therefore it can't be real" is aterribleargument.
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I mean in a lot of cases you'd be right, that's a silly argument to make.

But when you have hundreds of years of research all pointing to a hard law of physics like conservation of mass, energy and momentum, and then you have this one anomalous contradiction that comes up, that hasn't even been subjected to peer review yet, its a pretty sound case to be making. He should probably have couched the language a bit by throwing a probably or some such in there, such as "And thus probably does not work as advertised", but really, he's almost certainly correct either way.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
I'm not a scientist but isn't what they are doing peer review? Independent verification etc? Saying it hasn't been peer reviewed is a weak argument when the whole point of what they're doing is verifying an astounding claim in the first place.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Cad_sl said:
I'm not a scientist but isn't what they are doing peer review? Independent verification etc? Saying it hasn't been peer reviewed is a weak argument when the whole point of what they're doing is verifying an astounding claim in the first place.
Click to expand...
By a layman's definition of peer review, as in, your peers review your work, sure. This is the disconnect between the scientific communities' use of words like "Theory" "hypothesis" "law" "peer review" and the mass media and the public's perception of what these words mean.

By academic and professional standards peer review is a specific process by which the original experiment's data is open to the public, is reviewed by experts in the field, published in credible journals related to the subjects in question, and then subjected to rigorous third party examination from all over the place.

As far as I can tell, pretty much all major physicists are pooh poohing this stuff, and the fact that it would require one of the three probably most fundamental laws of physics to be voided to work, those are damn good reasons to be skeptical.

BrotherWu's article is actually a pretty solid take down of the stuff

"This is a direct indication of a thermal effect in reverse (heating versus cooling), which produces a clear false positive thrust signal," says Davis. "Tajmar has to account for and reconcile this fact as well in his data analysis which he apparently did not discuss in his paper. This would be another nail in the coffin against the existence of any real definite momentum violating thrust produced in the microwave cavity."
Click to expand...
And

Davis points out that the researchers are not declaring any result that would definitively and positively substantiate previous experiments, and adds that he has little faith in these sorts of projects producing meaningful engines for future spacecraft.
Click to expand...
And

"My insight is that the EMDrive is complete crap and a waste of time," Carroll tells io9. "Right there in the abstract this paper says, 'Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive', so I'm not sure what the news is. I'm going to spend my time thinking about ideas that don't violate conservation of momentum."
Click to expand...
We'd all like this to turn into something major, but when something sounds too good to be true, and this does, it probably is. This is being sold like the old snake oil salesmen of the past sold cure all potions. "It requires no fuel!" "It produces thrust without conserving momentum!" "It violates all the laws of physics!" "It bakes, cooks and cleans the dishes, all with the press of a single button!"

Again, I'm not saying the scientific community shouldn't be investigating this and taking it seriously. All I'm saying is that people have let the mass media get them worked up a bit too much out of line with what the actual, real, known results to date are.

Hopefully, someone will find some reason this doesn't violate the laws of physics, and yet prove it still works, and we'll be sailing to colonize Mars in a decade. But don't go selling the house and buying a ticket on the spaceship for the time being.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,899
28,620
Cad_sl said:
I'm not a scientist but isn't what they are doing peer review? Independent verification etc? Saying it hasn't been peer reviewed is a weak argument when the whole point of what they're doing is verifying an astounding claim in the first place.
Click to expand...
Peer review only means that the paper means the consensus of one groups idea of sound logic. There are peer reviews for gender justice. Peer reviewed shit is all the time verifiability proven wrong.

When it comes to physics papers, peer reviewers will typically look for a mathematical framework on how something works. Since nasa and other organizations here do not have or present any mathematical framework to justify their results, they wouldn't be accepted as peer review. If they created such frame work and got accepted with a journal, that also doesn't necessarily mean that their idea is true. I can only imagine retardation that hodj is spewing, but the basic summation is that peer review is a seal that says an idea is sound enough to warrant attention by peers, it is not a verification or acceptance than idea is necessarily correct or substantially proven.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Furry_sl said:
Peer review only means that the paper means the consensus of one groups idea of sound logic.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.

Jesus fucking christ stop pretending you know anything about science.

Scrutinizing science: Peer review

rrr_img_105165.jpg


Peer review does the same thing for science that the "inspected by #7" sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they're doing has double-checked it. In science, peer review typically works something like this:

A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.

The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review).

Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.

The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.

Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
Click to expand...
Fuck off.

The most important part of peer review is that the data is published for the public and it can therefore be tested rigorously by third parties not affiliated with the original experimenters.
 
T

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
It seems to me for something like this having the experiment be repeatable is more important than peer review.

Also, you haven't really refuted what you quoted from Furry.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
The Ancient_sl said:
It seems to me for something like this having the experiment be repeatable is more important than peer review.
Click to expand...
Repeatability and testability are the core reasons why you need peer review and complete publication of the data so that it can be scrutinized properly for error.

Also, you haven't really refuted what you quoted from Furry.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I really did. Furry's claim is peer review is just a rubber stamp saying an experiment was logically sound. That isn't the sum total of what peer review is, that's a sliver of what the over all process assures.

When someone doesn't submit their work for proper publication, they are effectively admitting they have something to hide. Revealing all the data and results, and allowing them to be scrutinized properly is how you repeat a test properly. Just doing what someone else says to do "Repeat these steps to get X result" isn't properly peer reviewing something. Other experiments need to be devised to attempt to find flaws in the original experiment. The issue has to be tackled from multiple angles.

As the i09 article points out, there are several massive confounding factors in terms of heat and the sensitivity of the equipment, just those factors alone are enough to justify rejecting these conclusions without rigorous 3rd party examination from multiple angles. Peer review is an important part of that process. Yet none of these experimenters have thus far subjected their findings to that sort of review.

As it stands, these results couldn't get published at all with the above stated confounding factors, without them being directly addressed. That's a big flashing warning sign that the people engaging in this research aren't entirely on the up and up.

The most important aspect of peer review is reaching a consensus through broad ranging, repeated testing.

No small set of studies, or single research results, should be used to justify broad ranging conclusions, like "We can't understand this anomaly in this electromagnetic drive, therefore an entire leg on which modern physics is founded must be wrong".

When these results are being reproduced in labs in universities and elsewhere around the globe, and the results are being published andaccepted as valid by the broad body of physicistswill be the time to trumpet that we've somehow violated fundamental laws of physics.

Its never fun to be the skeptic and have to pooh pooh findings that get people excited about future possibilities, but that skepticism is what makes and keeps the scientific process rigorous and profitable in terms of its benefits to human knowledge and understanding.

We risk the same sort of mystical thinking with science that we have engaged with in various other arenas. Just listening and believing isn't good enough. These people need to publish their results, and those results need to be outside the margin of error, need to eliminate major confounding factors such as thermal effect, and be repeated by researchers in unaffiliated labs around the globe for several years before we start acting like this has passed the smell test, because it hasn't. At all.
 
Sentagur

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
hodj_sl said:
Repeatability and testability are the core reasons why you need peer review and complete publication of the data so that it can be scrutinized properly for error.



Yeah, I really did. Furry's claim is peer review is just a rubber stamp saying an experiment was logically sound. That isn't the sum total of what peer review is, that's a sliver of what the over all process assures.

When someone doesn't submit their work for proper publication, they are effectively admitting they have something to hide. Revealing all the data and results, and allowing them to be scrutinized properly is how you repeat a test properly. Just doing what someone else says to do "Repeat these steps to get X result" isn't properly peer reviewing something. Other experiments need to be devised to attempt to find flaws in the original experiment. The issue has to be tackled from multiple angles.

As the i09 article points out, there are several massive confounding factors in terms of heat and the sensitivity of the equipment, just those factors alone are enough to justify rejecting these conclusions without rigorous 3rd party examination from multiple angles. Peer review is an important part of that process. Yet none of these experimenters have thus far subjected their findings to that sort of review.

As it stands, these results couldn't get published at all with the above stated confounding factors, without them being directly addressed. That's a big flashing warning sign that the people engaging in this research aren't entirely on the up and up.

The most important aspect of peer review is reaching a consensus through broad ranging, repeated testing.

No small set of studies, or single research results, should be used to justify broad ranging conclusions, like "We can't understand this anomaly in this electromagnetic drive, therefore an entire leg on which modern physics is founded must be wrong".

When these results are being reproduced in labs in universities and elsewhere around the globe, and the results are being published andaccepted as valid by the broad body of physicistswill be the time to trumpet that we've somehow violated fundamental laws of physics.

Its never fun to be the skeptic and have to pooh pooh findings that get people excited about future possibilities, but that skepticism is what makes and keeps the scientific process rigorous and profitable in terms of its benefits to human knowledge and understanding.

We risk the same sort of mystical thinking with science that we have engaged with in various other arenas. Just listening and believing isn't good enough. These people need to publish their results, and those results need to be outside the margin of error, need to eliminate major confounding factors such as thermal effect, and be repeated by researchers in unaffiliated labs around the globe for several years before we start acting like this has passed the smell test, because it hasn't. At all.
Click to expand...
I have reviewed your publication and completely disagree with your conclusion that "Its never fun to be the skeptic and have to pooh pooh findings.."
the sample size is solid and you have demonstrated to a certainty that you are i fact having fun pooh pooh-ing all over pseudo and woo science in addition to anything Furry posts no matter what category that falls into.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,899
28,620
Hodj still saying a bunch of shit nobody ever said to argue against points nobody ever made. It almost makes me think he has voices in his head that command him to disagree with people at any cost.

I'd answer his concerns, but he literally didn't even talk about anything that I did. In the few times where he refrences what I'm saying, he misquotes it, giving me the belief that he actually completely fails to understand what people say at a basic example. Of this claim, I will give an example:

hodj_sl said:
Furry's claim is peer review is just a rubber stamp saying an experiment was logically sound.
Click to expand...
me_sl said:
Peer review only means that the paper means the consensus of one groups idea of sound logic
Click to expand...
Obviously, I meant to say meets, but I left the typo there to show it didn't lead to this misunderstanding.The distinction is very important, because the group that does peer reviews is incredibly important for determining the reliability or extend that you can expect things to be verified. The journal of gender justice, the flat earth societies journal, or even closely related journals such as the journal of physics A vs B can have incredibly different standard that meet the credibility of the peers. Of course, in hodj world, all journals published regardless of content or what they actually say or their sources support him ultimately, while other people need to fucking link better sources.

He's pretty much the definition of a blowhard that doesn't wish to engage in any form of debate, just expell wind until other people leave.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Crying that I've not addressed your issues, which I have, while simultaneously constructing completely made up from your own ass strawmen of my positions. Must be a furry post.

When we want an expert opinion on masturbating to anthropomorphic anime cartoons, we'll ask you.

Of course, in hodj world, all journals published regardless of content or what they actually say or their sources support him ultimately
Click to expand...
This is a completely horseshit strawman that does not exist in reality.

For instance, here's a list of predatory publications that should be viewed incredibly skeptically

List of Predatory Publishers 2014 | Scholarly Open Access

You'll note that there are over 400 publishers alone, as well as over 300 individual journals, in this list, all of whoms publications should be taken with hefty doses of salt.

Furry literally cannot defend a position he takes without attempting to skew and misrepresent other's positions.

Its all he's got in these debates. Slander, lie, obfuscate. This is because he is the Kent Hovind of this forum community.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Fuck you faggot

This conversation was over two days ago, don't you dare accuse me of shitposting.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
I'd endorse Hodj's opinion on peer review also, but he is debating Furry so it seems redundant to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.