Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Quantum Drives

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quantum Drives

    Nasa succesfully completed early testing on a reactionless drive that doesn't depend on a specific and massive fuel source. It is eeemingly possible to convert electrical energy into thrust.

    NASA tests ‘impossible’ no-fuel quantum space engine – and it actually works | ExtremeTech

    The device is a bit of a mystery even to the people that built it but it exploits quantum reality at the macro scale to produce thrust. QM isn't mystical mumbo-jumbo but the underpinning of the physcial world that can be manipulated for effect in the physical world.

    There are seemingly more efficient designs according to some sources and the technology could have major implications for the exploration and exploitation of the solar system and rest of the universe.

  • #2
    Re: Quantum Drives

    Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
    Nasa succesfully completed early testing on a reactionless drive that doesn't depend on a specific and massive fuel source. It is eeemingly possible to convert electrical energy into thrust.

    NASA tests ‘impossible’ no-fuel quantum space engine – and it actually works | ExtremeTech

    The device is a bit of a mystery even to the people that built it but it exploits quantum reality at the macro scale to produce thrust. QM isn't mystical mumbo-jumbo but the underpinning of the physcial world that can be manipulated for effect in the physical world.

    There are seemingly more efficient designs according to some sources and the technology could have major implications for the exploration and exploitation of the solar system and rest of the universe.

    . Seemingly wanting to avoid unproductive controversy about the nature of existence, theyve totally ignored the question of how the drive works in favour of simply reporting the data.
    Still quite a few QPs who are not so adverse to mysticism as you are, a non physicists. Therefore, I shall listen to what they have to say on that subject. And not yourself and others who are not QPs. No offense.

    But to the topic. This is basically free energy, and there are various devices around that claim to produce it, yet the academic community says it is impossible and these men cannot get tests run, or funding to continue on. Finally some credible organization took the chance and tested one, to apparent positive results.

    This presents the opening that has been needed for a long time in other free energy devices, that academia, science says is impossible and rejected the very idea of it. Which is something Rupert Sheldrake has been fighting the establishment over for decades. But there are great forces against it, with one being still academia, but even greater, the fossil fuel industry that has a great vested interest in keeping such devices forever squashed.

    Yet if this holds, and this indeed works, and it can be improved upon greatly by gov't investing in the research, the problem of future energy production has been solved, and this will offer an opportunity for humanity to flower like it has never flowered before. And if so, this came to us when the impossible was no longer seen as impossible, and science will extend knowledge, even if it cannot understand WHY, but just that it does work.

    Do you understand how current science, being dogmatic, has held this back? The power of a paradigm is so great, and so difficult to change, especially when it comes to science. For if science says something is impossible, they will not work on it, and it is left up to the people not handcuffed by accepted academic science to discover the new.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Quantum Drives

      Perhaps we will have more to talk about when NASA is willing to talk about how it works.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Quantum Drives

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        But to the topic. This is basically free energy,
        It isn't free energy an energy input is absolutely required.

        and there are various devices around that claim to produce it, yet the academic community says it is impossible and these men cannot get tests run, or funding to continue on. Finally some credible organization took the chance and tested one, to apparent positive results.
        So tests have been run, can be run, and will be run.

        But there are great forces against it, with one being still academia, but even greater, the fossil fuel industry that has a great vested interest in keeping such devices forever squashed.
        The fossil fuel industry doesn't have a placein regards to rocket fuel.

        Yet if this holds, and this indeed works, and it can be improved upon greatly by gov't investing in the research, the problem of future energy production has been solved,
        Energy input is required for the system, all future energy production has not been solved.

        Do you understand how current science, being dogmatic, has held this back? The power of a paradigm is so great, and so difficult to change, especially when it comes to science. For if science says something is impossible, they will not work on it, and it is left up to the people not handcuffed by accepted academic science to discover the new.
        Do you understand you are not describing reality?

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Quantum Drives

          Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
          It isn't free energy an energy input is absolutely required.


          So tests have been run, can be run, and will be run.


          The fossil fuel industry doesn't have a placein regards to rocket fuel.


          Energy input is required for the system, all future energy production has not been solved.


          Do you understand you are not describing reality?
          Sorry, got it confused with free energy, for it requires energy for it to work. I did a bit more reading up on it after I made the initial post.

          But classical physicists would never even consider it as working, which illustrates a dogmatic science, which Sheldrake has pointed out for quite sometime.

          So my point about dogmatic science is accurate, if this turns out to be real.

          There are various free energy devices that science will not build and test ,for the exact same reason. Science has said it's impossible. So they end the conversation. Reminds me of dogmatic religion, and we can see the power of dogma, even in something like science.

          In so far as reality, you act as if you have a firm grip on it, using science. That is false.

          I read also online that this is like throwing a ball against the dash board in order to push the car down the road. Classical physics says that is impossible, and it is. But this is similar to doing just that.

          Let us just hope the future tests come up with the same if not better results, from what science has said was impossible. It should open up science a bit more, and get away from some of the dogma involved.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Quantum Drives

            There's a world of difference between skepticism and being stiffled by dogma. Rejecting Shelldrakian mystical babble doesn't mean one isn't inquisittive.

            Reality is a lot more complicated than suggested by Newtonian physics and not as stultiffyingly simple as unified resonant harmonic awareness fields.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Quantum Drives

              Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
              There's a world of difference between skepticism and being stiffled by dogma. Rejecting Shelldrakian mystical babble doesn't mean one isn't inquisittive.

              Reality is a lot more complicated than suggested by Newtonian physics and not as stultiffyingly simple as unified resonant harmonic awareness fields.
              Now, in English please...

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Quantum Drives

                Accepting a dataset and working from there outward doesn't mean folks aren't curious or dogmatic.
                Dark Matter, string theory, are both 2 examples of science not being chained to dogma.

                Quantum reality does have an impact at the macroscale, if it didn't stars wouldn't burn the way they do. There isn't a mystical seperation between classical physics and QM there is a comprehesion/observation gap that is being explored and understood.
                If this quantum drive opperates like the inventor claims it does we are a step closer to understanding how quantum reality has a constant impact on the entire universe and thatks being done with scientific principles.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Quantum Drives

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  Sorry, got it confused with free energy, for it requires energy for it to work. I did a bit more reading up on it after I made the initial post.

                  But classical physicists would never even consider it as working, which illustrates a dogmatic science, which Sheldrake has pointed out for quite sometime.

                  So my point about dogmatic science is accurate, if this turns out to be real.

                  There are various free energy devices that science will not build and test ,for the exact same reason. Science has said it's impossible. So they end the conversation. Reminds me of dogmatic religion, and we can see the power of dogma, even in something like science.

                  In so far as reality, you act as if you have a firm grip on it, using science. That is false.

                  I read also online that this is like throwing a ball against the dash board in order to push the car down the road. Classical physics says that is impossible, and it is. But this is similar to doing just that.

                  Let us just hope the future tests come up with the same if not better results, from what science has said was impossible. It should open up science a bit more, and get away from some of the dogma involved.
                  There is no such thing as free energy. All energy has to come from some kind of source. Now, there could be discoveries that produce useable energy at levels where it could be considered virtually inexhaustible, but that is different than "free energy".

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Quantum Drives

                    Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                    There is no such thing as free energy. All energy has to come from some kind of source. Now, there could be discoveries that produce useable energy at levels where it could be considered virtually inexhaustible, but that is different than "free energy".
                    The way I have heard that term used, the popular definition means just for an individual being able to source an energy like what is present in the quantum vacuum. It would take a device to be able to source it and use it, but since the vacuum is everywhere, it cannot be bought, traded, sold by a producer. Only the device is needed. Of course solar energy is this sort of free energy, for no one can package it and sell it. So, free energy.

                    I thought the way I used that term kinda inferred the manner in which I was using it.

                    I just hope neither the Chinese nor NASA made mistakes in measurements. For if true, this is indeed revolutionary, even if we cannot explain it or understand it right now. We eventually will, using the scientific method. It would revolutionize space travel, enabling us to travel to mars in short order, under just 1 G of acceleration. Someone figured it out and said it would take 12 days, 6 accelerating and 6 decelerating. That puts the solar system within reach of humanity, and you don't have to carry rocket fuel, unless its for landing and take off from the planet or moon.

                    I will wait and see what additional tests yield.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Quantum Drives

                      Yes, solar is free in the sense that you don't have to continue paying for it but you still have to buy the panels and maintain them. For more complicated devices, such as the one we're talking about, I would assume that the price range would be prohibitive for most people (if it turns out to be true).

                      I also agree that there are heavy powers that suppress alternate sources of energy (e.g. hydrogen from water).

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Quantum Drives

                        Originally posted by fishjoel View Post
                        Yes, solar is free in the sense that you don't have to continue paying for it but you still have to buy the panels and maintain them. For more complicated devices, such as the one we're talking about, I would assume that the price range would be prohibitive for most people (if it turns out to be true).

                        I also agree that there are heavy powers that suppress alternate sources of energy (e.g. hydrogen from water).
                        The pressure from those that add to their wealth from fossil fuels is certainly a factor. They don't want it. IN fact, when we are able to extract a limitless energy from perhaps the quantum vacuum, it will be a revolutionary event. Energy is a prerequisite for prosperity, economic models. If we could tap into the vacuum, and only need the device, the sheer demand for it would push prices down, if competition was allowed. Each home would be self sufficient in so far as electricity, and you wouldn't have a monthly bill once the device was paid off. Can you imagine the great resistance to that, coming from those that make wealth from nonrenewable energy sources? If these people could affect gov't, they could keep the people from it for quite the time. I am not sure it already has not taken place in some of these other devices that scientists scoffed at, and said it was impossible.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Quantum Drives

                          Apparently, this experiment has its skeptics;

                          NASA's Impossible Space Engine Is Total BS

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Quantum Drives

                            Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
                            Apparently, this experiment has its skeptics;

                            NASA's Impossible Space Engine Is Total BS
                            Yeah, it looks like BS. And it had its skeptics before the candidate for a PHD wrote his little piece. So skeptical in fact that no one would test it, that had credibility. Until NASA did.

                            Yet the Chinese built one and tested it, and it showed more output than the one nasa tested.

                            And, BTW, no one understands how it works, if it works. It just defies some natural law is all. So, given that, the skeptics say its impossible. And it may be.

                            But if they do repeat the tests, and if it is creating thrust out of nothing, the PHD candidate may have wished he hadn't bet his salary.

                            It is understandable that if something works, but it negates current law, this would cause plenty of skepticism, for your long held beliefs just got turned on its head. And scientists don't like that much. For it makes them look dogmatic instead of having an open mind, and that they may in fact not understand as much as they believe they do.

                            New discoveries are sometimes made, when someone forgets it is supposed to be impossible. That is why many of the new things come from young scientists, not old ones, for they have not been conditioned by the science yet, and remain open.

                            I want it to work but I have an ulteriour motive. I want science to be put in its place, and the dogmatism showed up, which should not be in science, yet it is filled with it. Just like religion.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Quantum Drives

                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                              Yeah, it looks like BS. And it had its skeptics before the candidate for a PHD wrote his little piece. So skeptical in fact that no one would test it, that had credibility. Until NASA did.

                              Yet the Chinese built one and tested it, and it showed more output than the one nasa tested.

                              And, BTW, no one understands how it works, if it works. It just defies some natural law is all. So, given that, the skeptics say its impossible. And it may be.

                              But if they do repeat the tests, and if it is creating thrust out of nothing, the PHD candidate may have wished he hadn't bet his salary.

                              It is understandable that if something works, but it negates current law, this would cause plenty of skepticism, for your long held beliefs just got turned on its head. And scientists don't like that much. For it makes them look dogmatic instead of having an open mind, and that they may in fact not understand as much as they believe they do.

                              New discoveries are sometimes made, when someone forgets it is supposed to be impossible. That is why many of the new things come from young scientists, not old ones, for they have not been conditioned by the science yet, and remain open.

                              I want it to work but I have an ulteriour motive. I want science to be put in its place, and the dogmatism showed up, which should not be in science, yet it is filled with it. Just like religion.

                              Dont get me wrong, Id think it was amazing if this thing worked. I just think it may be a bit premature to be the success of this experiment, especially since the findings are rather questionable;


                              Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust. Specifically, one test article contained internal physical modifications that were designed to produce thrust, while the other did not (with the latter being referred to as the "null" test article)
                              NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X