http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B 36120

>>14950365
>Don't the current methodes of validating results only mean that there's a less than 95% chance that they did fuck up while measuring?

Actually the current methods mean there's a 100% we can't answer your question.
I'm not being a smartass,
when you have "a result" that is no different from the noise you get at the limit of your sensor; it mean you don't have a result you only have noise and pretend that one of those spike are the result of pouring kilowatt of energy in a metallic structure.

Just to give an example they certainly prevented : if they didn't blocked the Earth megnatic field that "thing" could actually be a accidental (inferior) electrodynamic drive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether

ALL those "leaked data from NASA" are only about claiming as positive proofs data that it work as a drive, when only the most attentive & rigorous scientist would know aren't proof.

Not even the theoretical model and peer review are enough
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/04/21/the-theoretical-dream-of-the-emdrive/#77fc4ed0ad9f

You can bet your ass that if the drive actually worked we wouldn't be talking about it on an imageboard we would be hearing from the news that all space agency started studying the things since it's so "easy to make" (just look at who made the original one)

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:29:32 Post No.14950579
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:29:32 Post No.14950579 [Report]

>>14950571
The whole point of publishing their paper is to be peer reviewed.
Now go make your own and prove it wrong. Or don't and just pretend you already know everything.

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:34:44 Post No.14950591
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:34:44 Post No.14950591 [Report]

>>14950365
Physics uses five to six sigma rather than two sigma. So rather than 95%, it's 99.99994267% for five sigma, or 99.9999998% for six sigma.

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:38:44 Post No.14950601
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:38:44 Post No.14950601 [Report]

>>14949356
Oh what you mean to say is we finally harnessed the power of strings to make a cosmic pulley system.

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:42:52 Post No.14950605
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:42:52 Post No.14950605 [Report]

>>14950579
I think you're mistaking his healthy skepticism as cynicism.

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:58:19 Post No.14950637
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-11-20 17:58:19 Post No.14950637 [Report]

>>14950605

Yeah, being skeptic is completely reasonable at this point. The peer review is probably sufficient support that we need "more testing". The credibility of a peer review will create initiative to invest into more expensive and better tests.

Anonymous 2016-11-20 21:38:07 Post No.14951309
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-11-20 21:38:07 Post No.14951309 [Report]

File: 1418283151837.jpg (111KB, 1600x842px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1600x842px

>>14950579
I see what you mean and I would agree with you if not for a details I left aside.

There is "something worth looking at" in the EM-Drive, I saw the peer-reviewed return on this. However it had nothing to do with producing thrust, it's just that the way it don't is still puzzling.

Maybe 20 years of studying that anomaly will lead to us ripping through spacetime but so far the peer-review can't say if it produce thrust on its own.
I just wish we stopped hearing pseudo positive result about what is already called the "meme-drive"
Testing it in space wouldn't even reduce the noise, it would just make the result less controlled and reliable.

Reminder:
The two physic models we use for all our technologies are fundamentally incompatibles over at some scales. You can't explain how some technology work with one or the other.