NASA engineers

[barbos]

I haven't noted that Barbos has criticized the actual test methodology, only criticizing the composition of the test report as though it was a paper presented for publication in a major journal with him as referee. Being a math major, he seems to insist on specific statistical analysis of the data (whether or not it is meaningful to the intent of the test). I suppose an English major as referee would be criticizing the syntax and sentence structure of the report.

That's right.
I am not familiar with this kind of measurements, and have no idea what their apparatus can do.
As a physicist I know for a fact that original idea for this reaction-less drive is utter nonsense and should never have got any funding at all.
As an experimental physicist it's mind boggling for me to see presenting measurement without associated errors/uncertainties.
But that's a kinda things I got used to expect from engineers.
As for the methodology, I don't see any, they essentially put that thing on a gauge and made few measurements.
Average dumbass would do the same, whereas real scientists would study apparatus to learn its capabilities and quirks first.

 

[skepticalbip]

I haven't noted that Barbos has criticized the actual test methodology, only criticizing the composition of the test report as though it was a paper presented for publication in a major journal with him as referee. Being a math major, he seems to insist on specific statistical analysis of the data (whether or not it is meaningful to the intent of the test). I suppose an English major as referee would be criticizing the syntax and sentence structure of the report.

That's right.
I am not familiar with this kind of measurements, and have no idea what their apparatus can do.
As a physicist I know for a fact that original idea for this reaction-less drive is utter nonsense and should never have got any funding at all.
As an experimental physicist it's mind boggling for me to see presenting measurement without associated errors/uncertainties.
But that's a kinda things I got used to expect from engineers.
As for the methodology, I don't see any, they essentially put that thing on a gauge and made few measurements.
Average dumbass would do the same, whereas real scientists would study apparatus to learn its capabilities and quirks first.

That is quite close minded and the kind of reasoning that hinders scientific advancement. Most of the time, claims contrary to our accepted models are pure nonsense - but very occasionally they are not. Such claims, especially by people who should have some understanding (like the Chinese scientists) should be looked into just in case. Plus scientists (at least thinking scientists) dream of overthrowing some accepted model and introducing a better model. Galileo faced such close mindedness by those who were entrenched and invested in their model. Einstein even faced decades of resistance from entrenched scientists.

Rather than disecting the contraption and applying our current models to "prove" it can't work as the Chinese say, these engineers simply turned the sucker on and tested it. They did get positive results even if they didn't apply the statistic analysis you wished for (all data points positive and well, well above the minimum resolution of the test equipment is positive no matter how you apply the statistics). From my reading of the OP, this was the extent of the test goal, to determine if the sucker produced any thrust (regardless of how much) or if the Chinese were full of shit. The why there was a measured thrust is now something that scientists can study now that they know that there is an effect and that effect seems to be contrary to our currently accepted understanding.

 

[barbos]

That's right.
I am not familiar with this kind of measurements, and have no idea what their apparatus can do.
As a physicist I know for a fact that original idea for this reaction-less drive is utter nonsense and should never have got any funding at all.
As an experimental physicist it's mind boggling for me to see presenting measurement without associated errors/uncertainties.
But that's a kinda things I got used to expect from engineers.
As for the methodology, I don't see any, they essentially put that thing on a gauge and made few measurements.
Average dumbass would do the same, whereas real scientists would study apparatus to learn its capabilities and quirks first.

That is quite close minded and the kind of reasoning that hinders scientific advancement.

I am not surprised to hear that. You display usual (for a layman) and yet profound misunderstanding how science works.
Scientists are quite open minded, what they are not open minded to is clearly faulty application of known laws.
That british fucktard I mean engineer presented obviously erroneous calculations claiming he is not suggesting any new physics and got money for that.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is quite close minded and the kind of reasoning that hinders scientific advancement.

I am not surprised to hear that. You display usual (for a layman) and yet profound misunderstanding how science works.
Scientists are quite open minded, what they are not open minded to is clearly faulty application of known laws.
That british fucktard I mean engineer presented obviously erroneous calculations claiming he is not suggesting any new physics and got money for that.

Yes, good scientists are quite open minded - but remain skeptical until the evidence is in. This is quite unlike the strong cynicism and knee jerk rejection of anything that you don't already believe to be true that you display. Have you bothered to actually read the link you offered in the OP? Do you know anything about actual physical testing or are you just a number crunching academic?

 

[barbos]

I am not surprised to hear that. You display usual (for a layman) and yet profound misunderstanding how science works.
Scientists are quite open minded, what they are not open minded to is clearly faulty application of known laws.
That british fucktard I mean engineer presented obviously erroneous calculations claiming he is not suggesting any new physics and got money for that.

Yes, good scientists are quite open minded - but remain skeptical until the evidence is in. This is quite unlike the strong cynicism and knee jerk rejection of anything that you don't already believe to be true that you display. Have you bothered to actually read the link you offered in the OP? Do you know anything about actual physical testing or are you just a number cruncher?

Would you be merely skeptical if presented with perpetual motion device idea?
And would you be open minded if you knew that author is bullshitting/lying?
I know everything about physical testing and I am well above average (for an experimental physicist) about theory.
The fact is, people like me are at disadvantage because we know more to make 100% correct judgment with less information than these who call themselves open minded but not to actual hard work of studying the subject.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, good scientists are quite open minded - but remain skeptical until the evidence is in. This is quite unlike the strong cynicism and knee jerk rejection of anything that you don't already believe to be true that you display. Have you bothered to actually read the link you offered in the OP? Do you know anything about actual physical testing or are you just a number cruncher?

Would you be merely skeptical if presented with perpetual motion device idea?

To relate the question to this contraption that appears to produce thrust contrary to our current understanding, I would be intrigued (and skeptical of any explanation of how it did it) if shown a device that appeared to be running with no input power and I would be damned driven to determine how it worked.

And would you be open minded if you knew that author is bullshitting/lying?

?
Are you saying that the data presented in the linked paper is all faked? How do you know that? Or again, have you actually bothered to read your OP link?

Ignore the hand waving guesses as to how the thrust is generated and concentrate on the data that shows there is thrust. Of course I still reserve my skepticism and would need to see this test replicated independently.

I know everything about physical testing and I am well above average (for an experimental physicist) about theory.
The fact is, people like me are at disadvantage because we know more to make 100% correct judgment with less information than these who call themselves open minded but not to actual hard work of studying the subject.

Arrogance does not equal knowledge or ability.

 

[barbos]

Would you be merely skeptical if presented with perpetual motion device idea?

To relate the question to this contraption that appears to produce thrust contrary to our current understanding, I would be intrigued (and skeptical of any explanation of how it did it) if shown a device that appeared to be running with no input power and I would be damned driven to determine how it worked.

That's not what I asked you.
Let me repeat it for the tenth time. It all started with british aerospace engineer making a calculation claiming using known science, yet his calculation resulted in momentum being not conserved. Anybody with even basic physics education would have pointed out that the guy ignored force on tapered walls. Now he gets money and makes experiment geting positive results. But he is fucking engineer!
If one thing we know about this partivcular engineer is that he is fucking imbecile. Then Chinese do it, positive result again.
Then this NASA "experement", not aware of errors but positive result again, interesting enough they got 100 less thrust than chinese. Kinda points toward NASAs thrustometer being 100 times more accurate I guess next will be someone with even better thrustometer, and get 100 times less than NASA
My question was about that british fucktard. As far as physics concerned what he is claiming is as impossible as perpetual motion.
So will you be open minded if someone with physics knowledge comparable to that of Paris Hilton would claim perpetual motion?

And would you be open minded if you knew that author is bullshitting/lying?

?
Are you saying that the data presented in the linked paper is all faked? How do you know that? Or again, have you actually bothered to read your OP link?

No, that's not what I am claiming. I gave you a hypothetical situation to test your open mindedness.

Ignore the hand waving guesses as to how the thrust is generated and concentrate on the data that shows there is thrust. Of course I still reserve my skepticism and would need to see this test replicated independently.

Data shows absolutely nothing, other than authors being incapable of doing experiment.

I know everything about physical testing and I am well above average (for an experimental physicist) about theory.
The fact is, people like me are at disadvantage because we know more to make 100% correct judgment with less information than these who call themselves open minded but not to actual hard work of studying the subject.

Arrogance does not equal knowledge or ability.

So you would prefer me to lie? You asked me a question, I answered and now you call me arrogant?

 

[Bullmoose Too]

They don't actually go into space! It's all a conspiracy to steal our tax dollars!!!!!!!!! [/conservolibertarian]

I think I can top that;

If NASA actually sent somebody into outer space then why didn't the astronaughts bring back Jesus?[\christian fundimentalist]

Did I top that post?

 

[Underseer]

I haven't noted that Barbos has criticized the actual test methodology, only criticizing the composition of the test report as though it was a paper presented for publication in a major journal with him as referee. Being a math major, he seems to insist on specific statistical analysis of the data (whether or not it is meaningful to the intent of the test). I suppose an English major as referee would be criticizing the syntax and sentence structure of the report.

That's right.
I am not familiar with this kind of measurements, and have no idea what their apparatus can do.
As a physicist I know for a fact that original idea for this reaction-less drive is utter nonsense and should never have got any funding at all.
As an experimental physicist it's mind boggling for me to see presenting measurement without associated errors/uncertainties.
But that's a kinda things I got used to expect from engineers.
As for the methodology, I don't see any, they essentially put that thing on a gauge and made few measurements.
Average dumbass would do the same, whereas real scientists would study apparatus to learn its capabilities and quirks first.

Engineers aren't scientists. They use the products of science, but are not themselves scientists.

When you publish a paper, you are including enough information for other people to draw conclusions, let them know how much stock to put in the conclusions, and hopefully inspire them to conduct some research of their own. You publish so that others can learn more about the world and you read research so that you can know about the world.

Scientific research is about investigating reality, but engineering is just about building stuff. If they write something for the consumption of other engineers, it's so they can build stuff too. The whole goal of the writing is different, so it makes sense that they would include different details.

[conservolibertarian] Also, NASA is incompetent because it is run by the government. If the space agency were privatized, then it would become perfect and never make any mistakes. When was the last time you ever heard of a corporation ever making a mistake? (Not counting the lies of the liberal media conspiracy, of course.) [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Underseer]

Bomb,

Look, if all you were saying was that we cannot say for certain what caused the universe, then I would agree with you. If that is the argument you were making, then your argument should have looked like this: we don't have enough data, therefore we can't draw conclusions about the cause of the universe. There's a large number of hypotheses that attempt to explain what caused the Big Bang. Only one of them has any evidence supporting it at all, and that has only weak, circumstantial evidence supporting it, so it is not enough evidence to produce a consensus opinion.

However, your argument was "them stupid scientists don't unnerstan' time like I unnerstan' time, therefore...."

It doesn't matter what you put after the "therefore..." because either your argument or your conclusion are wrong. If it was simply your intent to argue that we don't know for certain what caused the Big Bang, then your argument should have been based on evidence, not "I know more about time then them thar stupid physicists, therefore..."

Anything you put after the "therefore..." is wrong, including:

• ...therefore god
• ...therefore god is an equally likely hypothesis for the creation of the universe as any other pre-big bang hypothesis
• ...therefore we don't know what caused the big bang
• ...therefore pepperoni pizza

Nothing good is going to come from a premise like that.

 

[steve_bnk]

Engineers are acutely aware of conservation of mass, conservation o energy, and entropy.

Those that deal with systems are faced with it as a fundamental limit.

The Bernoulli Equation from fluid mechanics along with Kirchov's Laws and Ohm's Law from circuit theory in terms of thermodynamics are called continuity equations.

As I understand the theory getting more thrust than energy into the system minus losses is not necessarily a violation o conservation.

Conservation applies to an arbitrary closed boundary. Mass and energy leaving and entering the boundary area, and the mass and energy inside the boundary must always be mathematically balanced.

Consider a solar powered satellite. Barring equipment failure it runs without an internal power source. The thermodynamic boundary is drawn around the satellite and the Sun. We do not consider a toy car powered by a solar cell to be a violation of conservation.

In the limit as the thermodynamic bubble increases without limit to whatever the extents of universe may be the laws of conservation do not necessarily apply or have meaning. If becomes a question of cosmology.

If more thrust is measured than power input minus losses then the conclusion is energy is being supplied from another source. The CMBR is considered to be a distributed field left over from the BB. It is not far fetched to imagine a distributed underlying field from which the particles including EM photons are derived.

As a crude analogy consider a triode vacuum tube. The Brits call it a thermionic valve. Small potential on the grid controls the flow of electrons from cathode to plate. The electrons are created by heating the cathode.

As I understand the Higgs boson it demonstrated that particle interactions are a manifestation of a deeper field.

I see nothing that fundamentally precludes the theory of the proposed engine thrust being due to some underlying phenomena.

 

[barbos]

Engineers are acutely aware of conservation of mass, conservation o energy, and entropy.

LOL, sure

 

[steve_bnk]

Engineers are acutely aware of conservation of mass, conservation o energy, and entropy.

LOL, sure

o not know what you think is funny. Dealing with entropy is a fundamental issue in synthesizing physical systems.

Parseval's Theorem guarantees conservation when going between Laplace and Fourier transforms. important engineering function. Entropy applies. Successively take the Fourier and inverse Fourier transforms of a time domain signal and energy will be lost mathematically.

Or related the Gibbs Phenomena. You can not construct a perfect rectangular waveform from a finite Fourier series.

The problem I have seen with those from a pure physics background is they can tend to consider science which is routine in engineering to be something of a special or unique nature.

Quantum mechanics is actually not different than basic engineering principles.

A gas laser is modeled as a rectangular potential well. One end is an infinite potential well(a mirror), and the other nd a less than a infinite well(partially transmissive mirror) allowing some photons to escape. The wavelength of the photos resonate with the dimension of the box. Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors mathematically define the resonance modes of the well..

Same math and dynamic principles as the Newtonian mechanical resonance of a mechanical structure.

 

[barbos]

That's right.
I am not familiar with this kind of measurements, and have no idea what their apparatus can do.
As a physicist I know for a fact that original idea for this reaction-less drive is utter nonsense and should never have got any funding at all.
As an experimental physicist it's mind boggling for me to see presenting measurement without associated errors/uncertainties.
But that's a kinda things I got used to expect from engineers.
As for the methodology, I don't see any, they essentially put that thing on a gauge and made few measurements.
Average dumbass would do the same, whereas real scientists would study apparatus to learn its capabilities and quirks first.

Engineers aren't scientists. They use the products of science, but are not themselves scientists.

So why are they acting as they ARE?

 

[steve_bnk]

Engineers aren't scientists. They use the products of science, but are not themselves scientists.

So why are they acting as they ARE?

Thank you so much for starting my weekend with a great big belly laugh.

 

[skepticalbip]

So why are they acting as they ARE?

Thank you so much for starting my weekend with a great big belly laugh.

I have been pretty much convinced that barbos has a very poor understanding of what science is or what engineering is.

His self evaluation of his abilities not withstanding:

barbos:
I know everything about physical testing and I am well above average (for an experimental physicist) about theory.
The fact is, people like me are at disadvantage because we know more to make 100% correct judgment with less information than these who call themselves open minded but not to actual hard work of studying the subject.

 

[dystopian]

Thank you so much for starting my weekend with a great big belly laugh.

I have been pretty much convinced that barbos has a very poor understanding of what science is or what engineering is.

His self evaluation of his abilities not withstanding:

barbos:
I know everything about physical testing and I am well above average (for an experimental physicist) about theory.
The fact is, people like me are at disadvantage because we know more to make 100% correct judgment with less information than these who call themselves open minded but not to actual hard work of studying the subject.

Aside from the hilarity of declaring oneself to know everything about x and being 'well above average' in y, I couldn't help but be entertained by the bolded part. I'm not sure how, if that were actually true, it'd represent a *disadvantage*. Kind of reminds me of a quote from mass effect: "Hey, I'm just tired of biotics stealing the spotlight from people with actual disabilities. I break ribs if I sneeze too hard - being able to move crap with your mind is not a handicap."; by that same token, knowing how to 'make 100% correct judgements with less information than others have' is not a fucking disadvantage.

 

[barbos]

Thank you so much for starting my weekend with a great big belly laugh.

I have been pretty much convinced that barbos has a very poor understanding of what science is or what engineering is.

Sorry, it's not me, it's YOU.

 

[barbos]

Fact is, when you see something like this bullshit, you can be certain that some engineer behind it.
I remember watching some documentary about UFOs and at one point they show aluminum disk "levitating" over AC coil, impressive trick but (physical) trick nevertheless. Next they show a guy who says this is how UFO propulsion works. Guess who that was? that's right - engineer.
It's very rare for such brain-dead ideas to come from actual physicists. You can call it lack of open-mindedness I call it understanding of laws of nature.

 

[barbos]

people who throw "open-mindedness" "argument" here need to watch this: