NASA engineers

[barbos]

There is nothing to research here. The guy is clearly an imbecile who can't solve simple physical problem.

So "the guy" has become "a bunch of retarded engineers"?

"The guy" is a British inventor of this atrocity who by miraculous coincidence is aeronautical engineer himself.
"bunch of retarded engineers" are the authors of this supposed "'verification"

 

[barbos]

--

 

[barbos]

You saying that does not make it so.

Exactly, these retards are just saying

Since when Chinese engineers became authority on science?

Chinese engineers are just as incapable as their western counterparts. Their nationality does nothing to make them more or less capable.

Fixed for you

The thing is, these NASA imbeciles addressed hypothetical "physics".

No, they didn't. They outright say that they don't comment on the supposed physics about it; their entire work has just been to test the device itself, not whether or not it works based on the physics claimed to be behind it.

Yes they did, I quoted it and it was utter garbage and nonsensical mumbo-jumbo

 

[barbos]

barbos, on what basis have you decided that this is not science, and that Nasa's tests are invalid? Your dismissal seems to be without reason.

Their report contains "measurements" without errors.
That's a FAIL in any lab report, even for football players.

 

[barbos]

As of now, we have clear 100% fraud Rossi running the show unopposed by sane people.
Same thing with this EmDrive. It's mind boggling.

There is nothing to research here. The guy is clearly an imbecile who can't solve simple physical problem.

Wow. Decisions by proclamation.

I wonder why no one has suggested barbos as head of NASA.

I was not going to bore you with details about Rossi and proofs that he is a fraud and scammer.
It was just an example of NASA's lack of judgement, nothing more.

 

[barbos]

Taxpayer's money are spent on this bullshit, Unbelievable!!!
NASA is just a bunch of retarded engineers who would not even pass "experiments&measurements" 101.
Forget about math and physics 101.

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the entire agency based purely on a single paper, I wouldn't get too worked up about the taxpayer money spent on this, given all the other ways that taxpayer money is misspent in non-NASA activities. NASA's entire budget is about 0.5% of the national budget. Figure out what you gave the Feds last year and multiply by 0.005. That's how much you gave for everything that NASA does. Now multiply that number by something that is probably smaller than 0.00001 or so for this work (and I'm probably being generous). If there's enough numbers left to make up even a penny of what you gave the feds, I'll be impressed.

I am not worked out about it. What I am worked out about is crystal clear case of incompetence.

 

[barbos]

That one is easy. You offer proper testing of their device and publish result without any double speak mumbo-jumbo, calling a guy a fraud if he is one.

So, you'd spend tax money on research.

No, not on research on shutting down the scam.
shutting down through inexpensive testing of the device with following conclusion that it is a scam.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I am not worked out about it. What I am worked out about is crystal clear case of incompetence.

Well, it *is* a government organization, so it will have its appropriate share of incompetence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, you'd spend tax money on research.

No, not on research on shutting down the scam .

But to find out that it's a scam requires, according to you, proper testing.
That's research, barbos.

shutting down through inexpensive testing of the device with following conclusion that it is a scam.

Oh. So you know the conclusion before you start testing. That's a big time saver, sure. It's very inexpensive, too.

Um...but it's still taxpayer money, even if it's 'inexpensive' testing. How are you going to judge whether or not you've spent ENOUGH money to truly test the device, rather than wasteful amounts of money?
I mean, if you can predict the necessary budget before it's approved, before the test is even designed, that would be very useful for congress. And the military. And NASA. And the taxpayers!

And then, by what criteria do you judge that you spent enough money, but no more than enough money, and how do you prove it to people who read the reports?

 

[barbos]

No, not on research on shutting down the scam .

But to find out that it's a scam requires, according to you, proper testing.
That's research, barbos.

Well, I call it properly conducted testing.

shutting down through inexpensive testing of the device with following conclusion that it is a scam.

Oh. So you know the conclusion before you start testing. That's a big time saver, sure. It's very inexpensive, too.

Yes, in this particular case testing is a formality. Cause all prior testing is enough already to make a proper conclusion.

Um...but it's still taxpayer money, even if it's 'inexpensive' testing.

Yes, and that's why it's important that taxpayers get a conclusion worth money spent.

How are you going to judge whether or not you've spent ENOUGH money to truly test the device, rather than wasteful amounts of money?
I mean, if you can predict the necessary budget before it's approved, before the test is even designed, that would be very useful for congress. And the military. And NASA. And the taxpayers!


And then, by what criteria do you judge that you spent enough money, but no more than enough money, and how do you prove it to people who read the reports?

I think it's not worth my time debating this irrelevant point.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This is only one thing they have done research on. How does that make the entire organization retarded?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, I call it properly conducted testing.

Well, you should probably explain that. How there's a difference between researching a claim and testing it....?

Yes, in this particular case testing is a formality. Cause all prior testing is enough already to make a proper conclusion.

So, wait. there WAS research, which was not bullshit, but this research was the bullshit because it wasn't proper testing. Because you don't agree with the results they got.
Or something about their report.
Why didn't you open with 'this testing was bullshit because THIS testing (link) already established the answer.'?

Yes, and that's why it's important that taxpayers get a conclusion worth money spent.

A conclusion you agree with, you're saying.

I think it's not worth my time debating this irrelevant point.

Well, you can know that the debate (testing/research) will prove the point to be irrelevant, but how will the rest of us know before we actually get results?

 

[barbos]

This is only one thing they have done research on. How does that make the entire organization retarded?

This is not the only one thing. It's most ridiculous example. As I said before, Cold Fusion is another. Then there was Lake Mono debacle.
But this thing is by far most retarded.

 

[barbos]

Well, you should probably explain that. How there's a difference between researching a claim and testing it....?

Yes, in this particular case testing is a formality. Cause all prior testing is enough already to make a proper conclusion.

So, wait. there WAS research, which was not bullshit, but this research was the bullshit because it wasn't proper testing. Because you don't agree with the results they got.
Or something about their report.

Yes, something about report, data to make proper assessment is out there, it's just was not done by NASA.

Why didn't you open with 'this testing was bullshit because THIS testing (link) already established the answer.'?

Yes, and that's why it's important that taxpayers get a conclusion worth money spent.

A conclusion you agree with, you're saying.

No, conclusion which is supported and follows from presented data.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, you should probably explain that. How there's a difference between researching a claim and testing it....? So, wait. there WAS research, which was not bullshit, but this research was the bullshit because it wasn't proper testing. Because you don't agree with the results they got.
Or something about their report.

Yes, something about report, data to make proper assessment is out there, it's just was not done by NASA.

So, then, your response that you'd do 'proper testing' would be a complete and totally redundant effort and a waste of taxpayer money.
Why would you do that, then?

 

[barbos]

Yes, something about report, data to make proper assessment is out there, it's just was not done by NASA.

So, then, your response that you'd do 'proper testing' would be a complete and totally redundant effort and a waste of taxpayer money.
Why would you do that, then?

I would not and I am not NASA, I merely explained to you why I think it is a scam.
But yeah, I would prefer NASA not spending anything at all but simply using published data and interpreting it correctly.
But again I am not NASA.

 

[Bomb#20]

But to find out that it's a scam requires, according to you, proper testing.
That's research, barbos.

Well, I call it properly conducted testing.

Oh. So you know the conclusion before you start testing. That's a big time saver, sure. It's very inexpensive, too.

Yes, in this particular case testing is a formality. Cause all prior testing is enough already to make a proper conclusion.

Um...but it's still taxpayer money, even if it's 'inexpensive' testing.

Yes, and that's why it's important that taxpayers get a conclusion worth money spent.

Well, sure. That's why we need properly conducted testing. And how are we to get properly conducted testing, instead of shoddy testing, unless we properly conduct tests of our testing procedures? Which is exactly what this is.

So look at it this way. Yes, we know the conclusion before testing: prior testing has taught us physical laws, which this device would contradict if it worked. So we already knew with 99.99999% confidence that the device can't possibly work. Then more prior testing by the Chinese indicated that it does work. Now we only know it doesn't work with 99.9999% confidence. One chance in a million of new physics, otherwise it's a measurement artifact. Well, the Chinese are perfectly capable of testing rockets. If they have an artifact in their test equipment, it sure hasn't stopped them from getting into space. So maybe we have the same artifact too. That would be worth knowing. That alone is enough to justify repeating the tests, even if we put no value on a one-in-a-million chance of a physics breakthrough.

And hey, it turns out NASA's tests say the stupid thing works. Now we only know it doesn't work with 99.9998% confidence. Sure, it's still almost certainly a measurement artifact; but they're seeing 40 uN of unexplained thrust in a tester that's supposed to be accurate to within 10 uN. That's a big artifact. When they get to the bottom of it, they're likely to find out they've been making 40 uN errors in their tests of conventional ion drives. When they correct the problem, they'll know how to do properly conducted testing on ion drives instead of the shoddy testing they've been doing. It seems to me that would be a conclusion worth the money spent by the taxpayers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, then, your response that you'd do 'proper testing' would be a complete and totally redundant effort and a waste of taxpayer money.
Why would you do that, then?

I would not and I am not NASA, I merely explained to you why I think it is a scam.
But yeah, I would prefer NASA not spending anything at all but simply using published data and interpreting it correctly.

Okay.
So i remember Cold Fusion.
Someone said they could do it and published.
Someone else said they replicated the results.
Someone else said that they could not replicate the results.

It seems to me that the only way to determine if the original published data was a scam was when they tried to actually perform the tests in a lab. Not just by reading the published papers.
I am skeptical that your plan would lead to dependable results.

 

[barbos]

I would not and I am not NASA, I merely explained to you why I think it is a scam.
But yeah, I would prefer NASA not spending anything at all but simply using published data and interpreting it correctly.

Okay.
So i remember Cold Fusion.
Someone said they could do it and published.
Someone else said they replicated the results.
Someone else said that they could not replicate the results.

Not exactly.
Someone said they could do it and NOT published.
People started replicating, and proper attempts (by physicists mostly) resulted in negative results.
Improper attempts (by engineers mostly) resulted in positive results.
Then original experiment gets published and first group realizes that original researchers clearly incompetent. So they got pissed off because the wasted their time on chasing wild bullshit in the sky.
So now competent people left the field and incompetent and scammers roam free.

It seems to me that the only way to determine if the original published data was a scam was when they tried to actually perform the tests in a lab. Not just by reading the published papers.

No, that was not the only or even proper way.
Proper way was publishing the whole thing and competent people would realize that it is a bullshit and would not waste time on money on it.
Now with this EmDrive, the thing was published relatively well so competent scientists dismissed it and went on with their life, but incompetent "scientists" from China and NASA kept this garbage alive

 

[barbos]

I think people here are not aware how retarded this whole idea is.
What retarded british engineer suggested was a tapered tube closed on both sides. Fill it with EM radiation and since ends have different area it will produce overall thrust. He ignored force on tapered walls. By the same logic pretty much any bottle filed with air would fly away if left alone in space. And this is what NASA considered spending time and money testing.
Well at least they proved that chineese engineers are retards, because their measurement was reduced 100 times by simply using more accurate equipment.