Now Reading
EmGate Wars Continue After Publication of Peer-Reviewed EmDrive Paper

EmGate Wars Continue After Publication of Peer-Reviewed EmDrive Paper

by Giulio PriscoAugust 5, 2015

On July 27 Hacked reported that new experimental results on the controversial, “impossible” EmDrive, essentially confirm that the mysterious effect is real. Despite many experimental confirmation from reputable sources, the EmDrive (Electro Magnetic Drive), proposed by aerospace engineer Roger Shawyer, has caused and continues to provoke heated Internet wars marked by considerable animosity. Predictably, the EmGate wars continue even though Shawyer’s paper is now published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Shawyer’s paper, titled “Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe,” has been published on July 10 in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Astronautica (the paper will appear in Volume 116, November–December 2015, Pages 166–174 of the print edition of the journal), with a 5 minute audio/slide presentation with the same title, updated to include the latest test data from the University of Dresden in Germany. The presentation notes:

Published Test Data of eight EmDrive thrusters from five independent sources in four countries confirm EmDrive theory.

The updated audio-visual presentation is not peer-reviewed, which could cause the wrong impression that the paper itself is not peer-reviewed. But Shawyer’s paper has been peer-reviewed like all papers accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the prestigious journal of the International Academy of Astronautics, published by Elsevier Press.

“Shawyer spent years having his technology ridiculed by the international space science research community and being called a fraud,” notes International Business Times. The EmDrive proposal was predictably scorned by the smug scientific establishment for allegedly violating the laws of physics, including the conservation of momentum, but Shawyer claims that the measured result – the conversion of electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant – isn’t incompatible with fundamental physical laws.

The EmDrive Effect is Confirmed by Current Experimental Evidence

EmDriveNow that smug scientists are forced to abandon their ad-hominem attacks based on Shawyer’s lack of peer reviewed articles, they are complaining that the last experimental confirmation of the EmDrive effect, by Martin Tajmar at Dresden University, is not yet peer reviewed. When Tajmar’s work will appear in a peer reviewed journal, they will think of something else to say – smugness is not easily defeated.

Some critics say that Tajmar’s results don’t “confirm” the EmDrive. In some cases, their “arguments” don’t seem very scientific. “My insight is that the EMDrive is complete crap and a waste of time,” CalTech physicist Sean Carroll told 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.”

Carrol conveniently forgot to quote the next sentence in the abstract, which reads:

Nevertheless, we do observe thrusts close to the magnitude of the actual predictions after eliminating many possible error sources that should warrant further investigation into the phenomena.

More scientific objections note that Tajmar might have overlooked other possible sources of measurement errors, and new experiments could invalidate his results. But isn’t that always the case?

Physics is an experimental science. Researchers experiment in the laboratory, and at times their experiments produce results that seem at odds with currently accepted theoretical frameworks. In such cases, the experiments should be carefully analyzed and repeated by other teams in other laboratories, to make sure that there are no experimental errors. This is exactly what’s happening now, and the EmDrive effect is confirmed by current experimental evidence.

Further research might uncover experimental errors in the measurements of Tajmar’s and other teams. Otherwise, further studies might reveal that the conflict between theory and experimental results is only apparent and the missing momentum is hidden somewhere for the scientists to find, without requiring new physics. Or, perhaps, EmDrive studies might produce new physics and a Nobel. We don’t presently know how things will turn out, but one thing is certain: in physics, when theory and experiment disagree, experiment always wins, not smug “authorities.”

In science, there is always healthy disagreement between researchers, and that’s precisely how science advances. In this sense, the EmDrive controversy is nothing new. But the peculiar aspect of the EmGate wars is the high level of animosity and “religious” fanaticism demonstrated by some smug scientists and politically motivated “intellectuals” who have never seen a scientific lab. Perhaps the EmGate wars should be seen in the context of a wider cultural war on imagination. In the paper, Shawyer mentions the awesome, world-changing implications of the EmDrive.

Second generation EmDrive offers the best solution for low cost access to space, and for a near term interstellar mission.

Images from Roger Shawyer and Shutterstock.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by us. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
What's your reaction?
Love it
Hate it
  • Jossarian

    Nice article. Indeed, Physics is an experimental science:

    • Giulio Prisco

      If Feynman says so, who could disagree? Almost every chapter of the Feynman Lecture on Physics insists that experiment decides.

      • The final experiment is the market, because people could fool themselves in believing an experiment was successful, but they can not fool their pockets.

        I have hope for the EmDrive, the Mach drive and Rossi’s e-cat.
        They would open the deep space to humankind.

        • Giulio Prisco

          Hi Mirco, good to see you here. I am kind of agnostic about the EmDrive itself. Based on what we know
          at the moment, the effect could be due to systematic experimental
          errors, or it could be real but explainable with known physics, or it
          could require entirely know physics. I am hopeful, but I am not holding my breath.Time and more research will tell.

          This article is mainly about the attitude of the mainstream research community, which I find far too smug (I believe I might have said that a couple of times in the text 🙂

          • The results I’ve seen show thrust ten times greater than a pure photon drive, like a laser or light sail, or, a maser drive (microwaves), so the EM Drive is producing more thrust than it should if it were merely shoving microwaves out one end. That amount of thrust is relatively easy to measure, and sources of error are readily excluded by reorienting the test rig on the thrust balance to generate thrusts in different directions. These have been done, so its clear that spurious data in the signal isn’t the source.

        • IgnoranceBeater

          “I have hope for the EmDrive, the Mach drive and *Rossi’s e-cat*.”

          For f- sake.

          A quote attributed to Einstein comes to mind: “”Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

        • Jimmy Hoffa

          i have hope for the emdrive too. i do not have even the slightest hope for the rossi ecat. in fact i believe rossi might be a shyster.

  • Giulio Prisco

    Hi M.Long, thanks for commenting. I totally agree with you that skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific method. An experiment like this, which produce results that seem at dramatic odds with known physics, must be considered with a lot of skepticism, analyzed, and repeated as many times as it takes to confirm the results beyond reasonable doubt and rule out all possible sources of experimental error.

    And that is exactly what is happening. NASA, the Chinese, Tajmar’s and other teams are working on that with all due care and skepticism. Don’t you thing they checked their experimental results many, many times, before presenting them in public and exposing themselves to the (very predictable) attacks of the anti-EmDrive crowd?

    Skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific method – but not smugness. Smugness means bigoted self-righteousness, a feeling of superiority, the certainty of having all the answers, and a propensity to dismissing others’ arguments without scientific consideration, and using gossip and name-calling instead of scientific arguments in debates. That’s the attitude that I’m criticizing.

    As in my comment above, I am kind of agnostic about the EmDrive itself. Based on what we know at the moment, the effect could be due to systematic experimental errors, or it could be real but explainable with known physics (that’s what I tend to consider more likely), or it could require entirely know physics. Time and more research will tell.

    So, this article is not a defense of the EmDrive. It is a defense of the scientific method. The real one, not the smug version.

  • rogerpenna

    The problem here is that even if the EM Drive works, it probably doesn’t work based on Shawyer’s theories, which ARE incompatible with physics.

    Each one testing it has it´s own theories about why they get small thrusts.

    Also, it´s important to note that the higher thrust levels were not done in vacuum. Whenever someone tests it in vacuum, like NASA and Tajmar, the thrust measurements are much, MUCH smaller.

    • “The problem here is that even if the EM Drive works, it probably doesn’t work based on Shawyer’s theories, which ARE incompatible with physics.”

      In my experience many people BELIEVE to have a right comprehension of something but, even if they are considered experts and intelligent, they don’t.
      So, when presented with something new, they often fall back to denying reality until reality overcome them.
      The problem is they have a mental model of the phenomenon and they think it is general and complete but it is not.

      When Feynman tell us physicists are not mathematicians and deal with real things and not abstract thinking and formal reasoning, he tell us also physicists usually have some understanding of the end state so they are able to have holes in their initial understanding and get anyway to the end goal they want test.

      This is an advantage when you know the end state of your formula, but it is not when you do not know what the end state is. Then it become a job of brute forcing every solution to check where it will get you. And understanding what the solution tell you about how translate it in something physical.

    • Most people’s understanding of conservation is limited to newtonian treatments of it. Real physicists know that there are plenty of examples of real phenomenon that disobey Newtonian conservation. For instance, the orbit of Mercury is WAY off from what Newton predicts it to be, but is entirely in keeping when you factor in Einsteinian Relativistic frame dragging. So too, Mach Effects, derived from General Relativity, comply with conservation when you treat the system thats functioning as including not just the drive itself, but all the far off active mass in the universe that the drive interacts with according to Machs Principle, via inertia, as Woodward has proposed.

      • rogerpenna

        why are you replying to a criticism of Shawyer’s Theory for the way the EM Drive works, by using Mach Effect as an example?

        I said that it´s Shawyer’s Theory that is nonsense, not any propellantless propulsion nor the EM Drive.

        • It’s an example, Roger, and there are good reasons to suspect that the EM Drive does what it does due to Mach Effects, especially given the differences in thrust generated when the dielectric unit was removed from the thruster. Reading an interview of Shawyer, its obvious that, whether or not his theory is proven to be the cause of why his Drive works, that he’s created something that does produce thrust. Sonny White has his own theory about the EM Drive as well as Woodward’s METs. That there are thrusts being recorded isn’t nullified by the fact that there are many theories about why it happens.

          • rogerpenna

            I agree that the thrusts aren’t nullified by the fact there are many theories, nor I ever said that.

            I am talking exclusively about Shawyer’s theory here, and his very large thrust results, which were not done in vacuum.

            I also agree that EM Drive may be working due to Woodward’s Mach Effect Theory, which imho is a much more elegant theory anyway than Sonny White’s Quantum Vacuum Foam…

            Are you aware of Dr Heidi Fern’s last findings regarding Mach Effect theory?

          • Yes I know Heidi, she works with Jim Woodward. I get regular email updates from them both.
            As for the thrust results: I agree his own results weren’t done in a vacuum, but the tests of the EM Drive done at Eagleworks were done both in air and a vacuum. I agree that Sonny’s quantum theory is both inelegant and likely wrong.

          • rogerpenna

            Yes, I know Eagleworks and Tajmar tested in vacuum. I said that in my first post. And also said that Eagleworks and Tajmar, while getting thrusts, these were orders of magnitude smaller than the ones achieved by Shawyer and the chinese, both of which did not do tests in vacuum.

            It seems you are on the defensive and because of that isn´t even reading my posts.

          • Nonsense.

    • Jarea

      That is bad signal. It can be that something is leaking and radiating. I would like to see high thrust in vacuum. In fact, i would connect a superconductor and 1 MW microwave generator and put that in a vacuum chamber and see if that thing fly without leak.

  • Great article Giulio. Glad to see some objective reporting about both sides of this debate.

  • Reconsider renormalization and resolution to the vacuum catastrophe and answers to the list of unsolved physics problem THEN make your comments on EM drive.

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    Clarke’s First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
    possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is
    impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    Science does not compel us to accept every theory as true without ample experimental validation, but there is also no room for mindless authoritarianism in science. The facts are the facts, no matter how many prestigious scientists believe otherwise.

    I hadn’t followed the EmDrive, but my initial thought was, “If someone is making claims of spontaneously generated particles from quantum foam, they had better be doing their experiments in a hard vacuum to eliminate the possibility of accelerating particles of gas which wouldn’t be available as a propellant in space.” Some of the comments under this article state that the thrust is much less when the experiment is performed in a vacuum. If true, that’s bad news for the EmDrive. Once the test apparatus is created, how difficult would it be to measure the thrust produced at different atmospheric pressures? I would think that would be very easy, so why are we speculating about this issue?

  • Brad Arnold

    LENR is closely comparable to the EmDrive. I have quotes by experts and loads of experimental data, and it is always the same: you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. Sorry, but the Pons and Fleischmann effect is real.

    “LENR has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation, without producing nasty waste.” – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center

    “Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

    “There are many companies now racing to bring Low Energy Nuclear Reaction products to the marketplace. One notable company is Solar Hydrogen Trends, which claims to have accidentally discovered a way to use LENR to produce hydrogen gas from water at the energy equivalent of producing pollution free oil for about $5.00 a barrel. Their hydrogen gas producing reactor has been independently tested by two well known companies, AirKinetics, Inc. and TRC Solutions. Both companies found that the reactor works as promised, and the TRC Solutions PDF report is quite shocking. Solar Hydrogen Trends claims that their technology can be scaled down to power automobiles or scaled up to power jet aircraft, ships, and entire cities.”

    • Same people believing in LENR seem to believe in emdrive. I am not surprised.

      • Brad Arnold

        I do not blame you for healthy skepticism, although pathological skepticism is irrational.

        LENR is easily shown to be true, and if you noticed the Solar Hydrogen Trends technology has two respectable detailed verifications. Sometimes I wonder how much proof a person needs. As for the EmDrive, I have also read that it has two respectably third party verifications, but I don’t have that link in front of me, and frankly I doubt it would change your “pathoskeptic” mind anyway, so I won’t go through the effort to track that link down.

        Suffice it to say that I believe both technologies have an over 99% chance of being legitimate. Never the less, I would rather a person be overly skeptical than be a magical thinker (which I am not, as you could tell if you looked up my FB profile).

        • SHT is obvious fraud. No question about that.

          • Brad Arnold

            SHT? I am sorry, but I don’t get the reference. I google it, and that didn’t help me either.

          • Your own refrence, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Also known as SH(I)T.

          • Brad Arnold

            I now understand. So you think that both AirKinetics, Inc. and TRC Solutions are participating in this fraud? Have you investigated each of these firms? Have you examined their detailed reports? I am finding your undue skepticism to be pathological rather than reasonable or reality based. There is virtually no chance that both firms would participate in such fraud, and their detailed reports are very convincing. It doesn’t make sense why somebody would believe they are “obvious fraud” unless they simply chose to retreat into magical thinking to protect their ego from cognitive dissidence.

        • And pathological skeptisism is just a term invented by promoters of woo, to dismiss critique.

          In today’s world you cannot be too skeptical. Articles like this are not very helpful to increase public understanding of science. On the contrary, their undermine it.

          • Brad Arnold

            “In today’s world you cannot be too skeptical.”

            Well that’s your mistake. It is irrational to be too skeptical because you are living in a perpetual state of disbelief. Instead, approach things in a spectrum fashion rather than in a diacodemy fashion. In other words, instead of defaulting to no unless you are overwhelmingly certain it is yes, assign a number between 1 and ten to the strength of your certainty.

            BTW, two respectably and detailed third party affirmations is normally what is required to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            No, scientifically speaking, you can never be sceptical enough.

            If you’re already satisfied with a 2/10, your not satisfied with science anymore, but with pseudo-science.

            Things like the EM-drive, E-cat, etc. aren’t even worth a 0.5, so it’s really a waste of time and effort to put any belief in it.

            So, even taking your example, the problem with fanfappers and the gullible, is that they think and imagine they see a 7, where they should see a 0,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

          • Brad Arnold

            “No, scientifically speaking, you can never be sceptical enough.”

            That is being a pseudo-skeptic. Skeptic – a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.


            All pseudoskeptics will claim to be true skeptics. But regardless of how they define themselves, a pseudoskeptic is a pseudoskeptic if their characteristics and behaviors fit the traits of one:

            Automatically dismisses and denies all data that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy.

            Are judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            That’s a circular argument. It’s also worthless as an argument (aka; it has no argumentational value).

            Let me use reciprocity (you guys never seem to realise this pnt of a true argument): All fanfappers will claim they are not fanfappers. But regardless of how they define themselves, a fanfapper is a fanfapper if their characteristics and behaviours fit the traits of one: *insert what I think the traits of fanfappers are here*.

            See? I know you guys love this sort of self-affirming philosophical nonsense, but it really doesn’t bring anything worthwhile to the table. Just revert the exact same kind of ‘arguments’, and you can fit it however and whoever you want.

            Let me continue in the same manner you started:

            Making claims of anyone who is being sceptical in a way one doesn’t like, being a ‘pseudosceptic’ or ‘pathosceptic’ is a hallmark of a woo-adept.

            And, just like you did, I’ll give the obligatory link:


            Please note, that I used exactly the same kind of arguments as you did in your posts. If you find them lacking… well, exactly.

          • Brad Arnold

            I never once considered that you would admit that you are a pseudoskeptic. Just as once I realized how you judge the veracity of novel claims did I consider you wouldn’t doubt them compulsively, and furthermore discount any evidence to the contrary. You see, people like you think that the default position ought to be doubt, rather than an open mind. Furthermore, you think that a more outlandish claim must be proven beyond what is reasonably possible. Instead, you could be characterized as from Missouri (i.e. The “Show Me” state). Multiple citations of independent verification – it is easy enough to put your hands over your ears and scream “fraud.” Of course it is just a failure of imagination. I believe in evidence, but you believe in skepticism.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            Sigh. No, you still fail to note that a claim of such broad scope is meaningless. It really does not sink through. Look, try to look at it objectively. It’s EXACTLY the same as I would say: “I never once considered that you would admit you are a fanfapper.” I could then add, as some fanfappers here do: “this is irrespective of whether you deny it or not.” Your claim of me being a ‘pseudosceptic’ is just the easy way out. It’s a well know fallacy, in fact.

            Don’t you see how arrogant and useless such a statement is? First of all, one would need to agree that you are a ‘pseudosceptic’ (a term mainly used and invented by what I would call woo-believers, btw ;-)). Even if you don’t, I still would be right that you are, since denying just proves it as well. Thirdly, you would need to accept that I have someho the authority to determine who is what and find that rebuttal enough. Fifthly, one would have to agree to your own criteria for evaluating someone as a ‘pseudoskeptic’. Six; one would have to agree that your own (kind of) arguments, somehow, can not be used in reciprocity. Seven; one would have to accept that a personal opinion which one does not agree with, has merit (at least more then any other mere opinion), even in the absence of any logically valid (or any, in fact) arguments.

            Needless to say – and I know this may not get through your layers of ego – I’m not inclined to agree with you, and you offer no compelling rationale nor substantiate your opinion with valid arguments or evidence. (Yet you claim you believe in the latter).

            Basically, your comment adds nothing. But let me answer in a similar matter. People like you think that the default position ought to be “have an open mind until your brain falls out”, instead of being sceptic. Furthermore, you think that an outlandish claim has enough with even the flimsiest of possibilities of ‘it might be true’.
            Not one shred of evidence, nay, not even an indication, that it has anything remotely to do with a reactionless device – it is also easy enough to put your hands over your ears and scream “pseudosceptic”. Of course it’s a failure of rational thought (aka, gullibility).

            I believe in scientifically validated evidence, but you believe in wishful thinking.

            Note that you might not agree with all what I said here, but neither did I with your assertions and claims. Just as – i presume – you believe in what you say, I believe in what I say. Since you didn’t give any rational arguments for finding a common basis, but instead just gave your opinion, I’m doing the same in this post to you.

            If you ever want to talk about the actual content (aka, arguments) of the subject at hand, feel free. If, however, you continue to think saying ‘pseudosceptic’ is enough rebuttal, forgive me when I do the same with you as a ‘fanfapper’.

          • Martin Alfven Haider

            And yet your own handle is “pathoskeptic”…

        • IgnoranceBeater

          Whenever I see a cold-fusion/EM/E-cat/other pseudo-science believer use the words ‘pathological sceptic’, I’m reminded of “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

          LENR has not shown to be true, if by LERN you mean cold fusion.Which is, btw, always used by believers to obfuscate things, because LENR *does* exist, as long as your talking about classical LERN with muons.

          But that isn’t what you and your ilk mean, and yet you always use the “LENR” indication, just like many of the dubious scientists working on cold fusion have now weaseled out, and now confound things further by mixing the normal, accepted forms of LENR with cold-fusion mumbo-jumbo. You know this as well. Yet, you still use ‘LENR’, when not a hair on your head is thinking about the muon-reactions when using that term, isn’t it?

          As for the ‘third party verifications’… what you guys NEVER seem to understand, that NONE of those verifications have ever demonstrated, proved, indicated, or even made a case for a reactionless drive (or “pushing against virtual magic”). I’ve been repeating this over and over, yet it never, ever, sinks in.

          NONE of the experiments have actually provided anything remotely supporting that the em-drive works as advertised. The ONLY thing those tests did, was eliminating some of the most obvious causes of the force measured. Nothing more, nothing less. Note that even the least plausible cause ‘normal’ cause which could create the measurement of such a tiny force, is still VASTLY more likely than that the drive actually works as advertised.

          Ergo: ALL ‘more normal’ (aka: less exotic) causes have first to be eliminated, before one can even begin to claim a case is being made for a reactionless drive and a necessary rewrite of our physical laws.

  • I wonder just how silly this article will look in couple of years. Emdrive is so obvious nonsense.

    • adiebolt

      Or people like you will be quoted like the idiots who said that space travel was impossible, or that technology had advanced as far as it was ever going to advance and that science should be abandoned(back in the 1940s).

      You aren’t a skeptic if you believe a phenomena that has yet to be properly explained is simply “obvious nonsense”, that makes you a fundamentalist-theist. It’s kinda scary seeing that such a large group of people claiming to be honest members of the scientific community are so adverse to actually following the scientific method.

      • Martin Alfven Haider

        As obvious here as in the case of the Electric Universe model, an elegant alternative to the Standard model. The same mentality that burned Bruno at the stake not all that long ago.

  • Al Kyda

    Looks a lot like Podkletnov’s gravity shield. That, too, had “experimental” verification. Despite this, somehow the sky in my neighborhood is conspicuously devoid of flying cars and people.

  • IgnoranceBeater

    Complaining about “animosity”, and then saying: “But the peculiar aspect of the EmGate wars is the high level of
    animosity and “religious” fanaticism demonstrated by some smug
    scientists and politically motivated “intellectuals” who have never seen
    a scientific lab.”

    Well, glad the animosity apparently only comes from one side, or one would have to think this comment isn’t really all that conductive for improving the issue and making things less filled with ‘animosity’.

    That, or one could as well revert it, using reciprocity, and say “But the peculiar aspect of the EmGate wars is the high level of
    animosity and “religious” fanaticism demonstrated by some smug em-fanfappers and politically motivated “pseudo-intellectuals” who have never seen
    a scientific lab.”

    Same thing.

    As for the whole ‘now, it’s in a peer-reviewed paper’; well, that was bound to happen, wasn’t it? Any scientist with a (media-wise) high-p^rofile contention will sooner or later get his paper reviewed somewhere. Even the Chinese in their EM-drive paper had it already ‘peer-reviewed’. It’s a necessary first check to filter out the completely bogus, but getting it published is far from any ‘proof’, as em-fanfappers now seem to indicate. Or as they act as if that was the whole point of the skeptics.

    Of course it doesn’t. In the Chinese ‘peer-reviewed’ paper, they described the em-drive as working through conventional general relativity, something which is utterly, utterly impossible, since CoM IS preserved there, and you simply CAN NOT explain a reactionless drive with those physics. Even White and Tajmar acknowledge this. So…how did it pass peer-review, then? Any phycists worth it’s salt would have known it’s completely impossible and thus a crap, yet it got published in a ‘peer-reviewed’ Chinese magazine.

    Well… doesn’t that tell you something about about different qualities of peer-review, and peer-reviewed papers and magazines?

    It’s a needed filter, yes, as a first step. It doesn’t mean anything has been proven with it getting published – certainly not in these days, where everyone wants a scoop. No-one (well, not a skeptic, at least) ever made this into a breaking point, as this article now implies. It’s a pointing out that even that first step was missing, nothing more, nothing less.

    In contrast, many fanfappers were like: “a peer-reviewed paper means nothing, we don’t need it to prove it works”. Those same fanfappers now herald the fact that it does get into a peer-reviewed magazine as an enormous victory, proving, or at least substantiating, their case. Well, which is it? One can’t have it both ways.

    And then I’m not even talking about *what* exactly it is that is getting endorsed. Because, if the magazine (and its peer-reviewers) are worth their salt this time, at least they will put a caveat in there. I strongly suspect they will ok the scientific experimentation of the device, which is normal, since it *is* being scientifically researched, but they won’t endorse any contention or implied reasoning the force measured is due to a reactionless device, or his ‘pushing against virtual plasma’.

    Of course, this will be lost again to the fanfappers out there, who, no doubt, will simply say the magazine agreed with the ‘proof’ that the EM-drive works as advertised.

  • IgnoranceBeater

    Rest assured, I’ve been pounded by your fellow em/lenr/pseudo-science believer Alainco with myriads of links to all your ‘sources’ for LENR. More than 80% were links to blogs, fora, and excerpts of books of believers, for believers. This does NOT constitute scientific evidence, nomatter how much you may wish for it.

    Of the more serious ones (papers), the vast majority were either not peer-reviewed, or could not be reliably reproduce their findings, or couldn’t demonstrate conclusively it dealt with cold fusion (aka, emissions neutrons, or isotopes in the waste). Even for those that did, most of them did not have a control mechanism (aka, the prime example being SPAWAR, which is ALWAYS linked to by your guys, but their findings are and remain totally inconclusive, since they did *not* bother to use a control mechanism to see what the direction and source of the neutrons were. I’ve said this again and again, but you guys simply do not seem to comprehend. This makes those findings , scientifically speaking, worthless. What remains are a few papers which claim they’ve encountered sporadic ‘excess heat’, which, in turn, can’t be reliably reproduced, and isn’t a definitive or even compelling indication of cold fusion in the first place.

    what yopu guys NEVER seem to comprehend, is that the tests – the few of them left after scientific scrutiny are so meagre in substnce, that they offer NO vlidation for the claim made.

    The exact same is happening with the em-drive. you do it now. You say: “This article whose thread we are commenting on refers to a peer reviewed paper verifying the Em drive.” No, it’s NOT.

    This statement is twofold wrong. First of all, the article is not just ‘commenting on a peer reviewed article’, it is implicitly or explicitly subscribing to the idea the cause is a reactionless drive (or pushing against virtual magic, pardon, plasma). Furthermore, NONE of the tests have actually *veryfied* the emdrive works as advertised.

    And that’s somethign you guys nevr, ever seem to comprehend. You’re just blind to it.

    The tests did NOT prove, nor verified, nor indicated, nor made a case for, the emdrive. as purported to work.

    After all, it’s clear no one is claiming the emdevice is a thermal expansion of the wires for instance, is it? Or some other artefact or measure-error. If one *WERE*, you wouldn’t need a bullock ‘pushing against virtual plasma’ confabulation otherwise, would you? Thus, in essence, one claims it is a reactionless device (or equivalent). In that case, the emdrive has certainly NOT been verified, nor proven, nor anything else.

    The ONLY thing one has proven thusfar, is that measure a tiny force in a complex setup, where they haven’t yet determined the exact cause of. Nothing more, nothing less. IF one would think about it rationally and logical one, would realise it is FAR more likely that a far less exotic cause is responsible, then a reactionless device. Yet, somehow, the media and fanfappers alike, think the most sensible thing to do now, is to believe the LEAST (by a vast margin!) likely cause is the actual cause. In fact, they (as you here demonstrated), even believe it has been ‘verified’ or ‘a case has been made’ for it. That’s absurd.

    Nothing of the sort and far from it.

    Let me give an analogy for you to make the difference clear. I claim the force they measured is due to dragon-magic coming from my magical dragon in my garage. I’m now saying: look, THREE independent labs have *confirmed* that force: this is clear evidence (or it has been ‘verified’) that my magical dragon exist?

    Don’t you see the obvious logical error in that?

    No IT HAS NOT. And neither has the emdrive.

    Now, realise there is EXACTLY as much evidence the force is due to a reactionless device as there is it’s due to dragon-magic, and you’ll realise how absurd the claim is that the test have demonstrated the veracity of that claim.

    Just like you, I’m convinced you simply won’t change your mind, nomatter how I point out that the ‘evidence’ you think you have, is no evidence at all, at least not in any scientific sense. That is what a fanfapper does; they don’t change their opinion
    based upon scientific evidence, instead they simply maintain their default
    pseudo-scientific and wishful-thinking argumentative rhetorical stance.

  • The theory behind the EM-Drive is already known. Electric Universe and Haramein’s Unified Theory explain it. And NASA’s latest tests confirm the thrust…