Yes. And it's cold, rigorous science that will get it done... or it'll be done by passionate ideologues who will turn science into garbage in the process.
Yet another claim of a propellantless space drive
- Thread starter martinbayer
- Start date
I hope not, but string theory guys have been stuck for more than twenty years and it's about time cold science got a little warmed up.
Well said.
And you think by abandoning the scientific method and simply *deciding* that an as-yet unproven idea is correct, that'll make it correct?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 9,795
It's worse than that.
That [ALL the expletives deleted] was being paid to develop a new vaccine preservative. But his new stuff was somewhat more expensive to make than the mercury-based preservative everyone was using currently.
So, what's a man to do, since his stuff won't be used if the old stuff is cheaper?
Salesmanship 101: kill the competing product. But instead of finding accurate complaints to make about the mercury-based preservative, he went to the big scary Autism (even now, a very poorly understood mental issue) and alleged a link without very solid statistical evidence backing it up.
That [even more expletives deleted] put money in his bank account over the lives of children!!!!!!!! My thoughts for what I'd like to do to him involve a woodchipper.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Also, there are a good way to avoid scurnity; not to make fuzz until the revolutionary idea or theory is peer-reviewed and repeated by other scientists. If there is some mistake or different explanation, it would either be caught (and the whole story would become only a trivial incident), or at least scientist would be able to point out that he followed all proper procedure and others who get the same results were mistaken too.
The main reason why such blunders as cold fusion became devastating for scientists imvolved was that they didn't follow the procedure and made their discovery public before they could be completely sure that there are any discovery. Pons and Fleishman got crunched not because they rejected some "dogma", but because they firstly declared their "great discovery" to public, and only after that presented it to scientific community for critical review (and their presentation was extremely unsatisfactory - they behaved like inventors, worried that someone would stole their designs, rather than scientists interested in discovering new).
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
They got stuck because nobody yet could present better theory. The old theory may be completely unsatisfactory, but until better theory is suggested - not mereky new, but better, i.e. more comprehensive, more accurate, or simply simpler (sorry for the tautology) - the scientific community would stuck with the existing one. Like in late XIX century, when nearly everybody agrees that "luminous aether" theory is clumsy and contradictory, but nobody could suggest anything better; and then Einstein came with relativity, and scientists finally could get rid of aether. Not merely because relativity was "new", but because it was better.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 9,795
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
NASA Veteran’s Propellantless Propulsion Drive That Physics Says Shouldn’t Work Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity - The Debrief
A veteran NASA scientist says his company has tested a propellantless propulsion drive technology that produced one Earth gravity of thrust.thedebrief.org
You have to watch that, however---take the Channelled Scablands:
the flood hypothesis sounded so much like a Young Earther Creationist's search for a Noachian Deluge that Gradualists dismissed it out of hand.
And then there was impact theory. Jefferson's line about how he "could sooner believe that learned men could lie than believe stones fall from heaven" didn't age well.
Yes, Jefferson was proven wrong. But he wasn't proven wrong by someone simply declaring him wrong. Democritus believe 2400 years ago that matter was composed of atoms. He was right, sorta. But he didn't *prove* that he was right. And thus it was appropriate to not believe him, but to rather demand evidence.
Similarly: recently I've seen a lot of people desperately claiming that the Indian mathematician/astronomer Brahmagupta beat Newton to understanding gravity by a thousand years. But he didn't: Newton characterized gravitation mathematically, Brahmagupta just sorta vaguely. While Brahmagupta was apparently a hell of a mathematician, he apparently didn't apply that to gravity, and simply posited that heavy things attract other things. That's nice and all, but it's not terribly useful, nor does he go any way towards *proving* his idea.
View: https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1772270080174301225
That's why Newton will be remembered forever, while Brahmagupta is a "who?" of history.
View: https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1772270080174301225
That's why Newton will be remembered forever, while Brahmagupta is a "who?" of history.
Nik
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 July 2009
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 1,003
When I shared a desk with our 'complaints' guy, we often got 'weird' calls on a Friday afternoon. Not because the 'weirdos' came out on Fridays but, being Friday, other people who'd usually field such calls went home at noon, or 2 PM at latest...
Like my colleague...
My beloved wife taught me the rudiments of 'telephone manner' beyond my default, 'Huh ??'
Some of the calls were easy, like explaining that the oleic acid in our products was entirely synthetic. Thus pacifying Vegetarians, Vegans, and the many, many folk who considered cows sacred and/or pigs profane. Yes, I was aware of that trigger for ghastly 'Indian Mutiny'...
Some totally had the 'wrong end of stick', like claiming our site's many products used MERCURY {Spit !!} as preservative.
Thiomersal ? Nah, went out of general use a dozen years ago. In fact, our only use for it was here in labs where warily used to prevent prompt spoilage of one (1) 'factorised' titration reagent, which otherwise grew green algae faster than a stagnant pond. Just the light filtering past the floor cupboard's doors sufficed...
I very, very carefully avoided any mention of the mercury in dental fillings, and that distinctive metallic tang from newly set...
Funny thing: After my talking callers down from tirade, we usually ended up trading cat-stories...
Like my colleague...
My beloved wife taught me the rudiments of 'telephone manner' beyond my default, 'Huh ??'
Some of the calls were easy, like explaining that the oleic acid in our products was entirely synthetic. Thus pacifying Vegetarians, Vegans, and the many, many folk who considered cows sacred and/or pigs profane. Yes, I was aware of that trigger for ghastly 'Indian Mutiny'...
Some totally had the 'wrong end of stick', like claiming our site's many products used MERCURY {Spit !!} as preservative.
Thiomersal ? Nah, went out of general use a dozen years ago. In fact, our only use for it was here in labs where warily used to prevent prompt spoilage of one (1) 'factorised' titration reagent, which otherwise grew green algae faster than a stagnant pond. Just the light filtering past the floor cupboard's doors sufficed...
I very, very carefully avoided any mention of the mercury in dental fillings, and that distinctive metallic tang from newly set...
Funny thing: After my talking callers down from tirade, we usually ended up trading cat-stories...
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
I wonder whether dark matter may turn out to be the equivalent of aether 2.0.
Last edited:
Dark matter, phantom energy, The Big Rip all very well could go the way of the aether, and for much the same reason: it's a useful-ish placeholder until a much better understasnding comes along.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 9,128
NASA Veteran’s Propellantless Propulsion Drive That Physics Says Shouldn’t Work Just Produced Enough Thrust to Overcome Earth’s Gravity - The Debrief
A veteran NASA scientist says his company has tested a propellantless propulsion drive technology that produced one Earth gravity of thrust.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,665
- Reaction score
- 4,165
Heard several times in discussions when I was reading Biology:
'This is the best we can think of today - it is likely to be proven wrong sometime in the future when a better theory comes along'.
Remember that at the end of the 19th century, some scientists -quite a lot, really- thought all the big questions had been answered. Then the 20th century happened.
'This is the best we can think of today - it is likely to be proven wrong sometime in the future when a better theory comes along'.
Remember that at the end of the 19th century, some scientists -quite a lot, really- thought all the big questions had been answered. Then the 20th century happened.
In my opinion, the modus operandi of scientists has evolved towards the comfort and stability of public officials. Discoveries that can change the world (and the established order) can wait for them to retire.
I agree, if you'll allow me, I have a better theory: recognize that the human mind is incapable of solving some mysteries of physics using mathematics and entrust this work to artificial intelligence. Don't we prefer digging machines to shovels? Isn't this a case of intellectual arrogance? Are mathematicians afraid of being replaced by machines?
Or it may simply be a prediction wrapped in several layers of mathematical theory to try to explain some contradictions resulting from another rival mathematical theory. This scientific behavior increasingly resembles religion.
Astronomer?... When I saw the drawing I thought this guy was selling bracelets to tourists... I have to strengthen my social sensitivity.
Sagan?
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
I fully agree with the proposal, but I see one problem here; in current state of artificial intellect, it's incapable of critical thinking. Yes, it could bombard you with bold theories, but how would you distinguish between brilliant new concept and senseless technobabble? Machines are capable of both, you know.
That's true, but the good thing about machines is that they can be ordered to work as long as necessary until the humans supervising them are satisfied with the results... And if not, they can be reprogrammed until they do. Better yet, if they have the ability to learn, that can save centuries of programming.
You don't understand scientists. You don't win the Nobel, you don't sell books, you don't achieve fame by going along with the consensus.
All *scientists* WANT to cure cancer or upend Einstein, cancel gravity, get fusion power from a cup of water. The problem is, all the *easy* stuff has been done, all the low hanging fruit have been picked. now to eke out the tiniest bit of forward progress you need a machine the size of an apartment building and a budget big enough to run a small nation. The time of the lone weirdo advancing fundamental knowledge in his basement is almost certainly over.
Also: AI lies. Lots of stories recently of subject matter experts asking chatbots to explain the subject, and AI getting it wrong. But it often gets it wrong in a way that sounds good to the non-experts. So once all the experts have been replaced with AI, who will there be to check on the veracity of the AI pronouncements?
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
True, and that's a big part of the problem of using AI for research; it could create a perfectly solid-looking theory, explain all details, demponstrate how it connects with other scientific knowledge... and only later someone would finally notice that the whole theory build on "2x2=5" grade assumption.
There’s also growing concern with current large language models of “model collapse,” where it’s run out of human produced inputs and starts analyzing AI generated inputs, creating a feedback loop where the innaccuracies of the first generation of AI content are rooted even more deeply in the next, and so on, and so on. It doesn’t take long for the LLM to become useless as it continually churns out BS, because it doesn’t actually understand anything.
Now, I’m aware that this isn’t what most people have in mind when they talk about AI enabled scientific research, but at the moment, LLMs are the state of the art. Skynet and Wintermute are works of fiction, and anything nearly that capable is, at the moment, purely aspirational. And so we can’t simply order a program to work harder so it can figure out which of its outputs are bullshit and which are viable when the reason it produces such vast quantities of material on request is because it’s incapable of telling the difference in the first place.
Now, I’m aware that this isn’t what most people have in mind when they talk about AI enabled scientific research, but at the moment, LLMs are the state of the art. Skynet and Wintermute are works of fiction, and anything nearly that capable is, at the moment, purely aspirational. And so we can’t simply order a program to work harder so it can figure out which of its outputs are bullshit and which are viable when the reason it produces such vast quantities of material on request is because it’s incapable of telling the difference in the first place.
Well, that's all true, it also took a machine the size of a building to build the Trinity bomb, but a million casualties were avoided in the invasion of Japan. The issue that worries me is that I have the feeling (and I'm not the only one) that the building-sized machine has been offline since 1973.
That's not a problem, after more than a century of ignoring advertising we humans are very good at filtering out lies.
Nik
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 July 2009
- Messages
- 1,241
- Reaction score
- 1,003
Glimmer of hope is that some repeatable weirdness shows up and gets chased unto clarity...
Back in the day, when electronics invention could be done on a breakfast tray with a couple of S-Decs plus a 741 in a DIL holder, I crafted a bunch of circuits that should not have worked.
It wasn't 'Beyond Theory, it was 'Beyond Default Model'.
'Edge-effect' stuff.
And I knew it.
Like my minimal-parts proximity switch. The oscillator could not, did not work as-is because the R-C timing asked too high a frequency of the hapless audio-frequency transistors at its core. Wave near antenna as if playing a Theremin --What it began as-- or touch room's outer door-knob --To which it was then wired-- and 'C' increased enough for the circuit to awake, squawk alert....
My kid-brother was seriously impressed by this 'Santa Detector' I'd swiftly crafted for his bedroom, even more so when Santa some-how evaded it and delivered the goods...
Back in the day, when electronics invention could be done on a breakfast tray with a couple of S-Decs plus a 741 in a DIL holder, I crafted a bunch of circuits that should not have worked.
It wasn't 'Beyond Theory, it was 'Beyond Default Model'.
'Edge-effect' stuff.
And I knew it.
Like my minimal-parts proximity switch. The oscillator could not, did not work as-is because the R-C timing asked too high a frequency of the hapless audio-frequency transistors at its core. Wave near antenna as if playing a Theremin --What it began as-- or touch room's outer door-knob --To which it was then wired-- and 'C' increased enough for the circuit to awake, squawk alert....
My kid-brother was seriously impressed by this 'Santa Detector' I'd swiftly crafted for his bedroom, even more so when Santa some-how evaded it and delivered the goods...
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Really???That's not a problem, after more than a century of ignoring advertising we humans are very good at filtering out lies.
Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
I think President Lincoln still provided the most realistic assessment: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Last edited:
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 8,873
- Reaction score
- 9,795
I think so.
And a good yardstick in general. You want to claim something really weird/exotic? You'd better have some really impressive evidence, too.
After all, the surest sound of a new scientific breakthrough is not "eureka!" but "hmmm, that's weird..."
If humans can't figure out the math to do something, then how will computers, which require humans to teach them math in the first place?
Fleming!
In my opinion, the problem with artificial intelligence and quantum computers could be asking the right questions and interpreting the answers. Maybe some kind of interface needs to be created.Really???
Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I think Lincoln still provided the most realistic assessment: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Indeed.
A: "I had a ham sammich for lunch." OK, sure, I believe you.
B: "I had a T-Rex sammich for lunch." Ummm... ok, wanna back that assertion up?
C: "I'm a politician and I'm going to lower taxes, reduce the power and scope of government and restore recognition of all your rights." Naw, dog, I don't believe a got-dayum syllable outta yer lyin' word-hole, including "and" and "the."
Don't forget "hold my beer." Though I think that's largely relegated to Amazing Advancements In Pyrotechnics.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Pardon my assessment, but you appear to be simply retreading a well worn path of elementary analysis, however, welcome to the party, dude!
Last edited:
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
Gesundheit!
Really???
Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
I think President Lincoln still provided the most realistic assessment: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
I thought Bob Marley said this (Get up, stand up... !)
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 3,023
I honestly think that you are utterly, sadly, completely mistaken here: In my quote Lincoln was clearly solemnly talking about fundamental human gullibility, whereas, according to Wikipedia, Mr. Marley was apparently rambling in a drug infused state about poverty and the lives of Haitians (and not that that's not a righteous cause!), but we're discussing oranges vs, apples here, so WTF??? But for sure, druggies are evidently more susceptible to more or less subtle social messaging - just don't compare a stone cold sober icon/martyr of democracy to a junkey sellout stoner...I thought Bob Marley said this (Get up, stand up... !)
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
-
UAP explanation: US anti gravity secret project?
- Started by nunyobuisness
- Replies: 83
-
NASA Selects Futuristic Space Technology Concepts for Early Study- Started by X-39
- Replies: 4
-
-
