Redpill me on this stupid piece of shit.
From what I understand, the """proof""" that it works that Pop-Sci normies are fawning over is that it allegedly produced like 80 microNewtons of thrust or something.
Call me cynical, but that seems well within the margin of error for the instruments probably used to measure it. I'm not ready to throw out 400 years of physics because of a number that small.
>>8509864
>>8509866
Like I said I think it's retarded and easily debunked, but that's not really an argument against it. Our theories about the universe are not set in stone. Saying that a claim that contradicts the First Law of Motion can't be true because it violates the First Law of Motion is circular reasoning.
I'm just looking for people's inputs on whether or not the researches who built the thing just got experimental error.
>>8509868
There are like 3 open threads on this in the catalogue, which you should check out before creating a thread on a popular topic.
>>8509872
But then I wouldn't get my precious >(You)s
>>8509864
Are you thunderf00t lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&index=1&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
>>8510517
Oops wrong video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCAqDA8IfR4