I am not. You're just grasping at straws to somehow try to make your argument stick, and i don't feel like playing along.
The proofs for both math TRUTHS you question are so basic and simple it is like try to argue if we really know how much 2 + 2 is. Are you seriously going for the metaphysical "do we really know anything" angle in order to defend your position?
Because both the Pythagorean theorem and the irrationality of Pi can be proved unequivocally with nothing more than basic calculus. Look up Lambert's proof.
It produces a force given power in. That means it will produce a constant acceleration at a constant power.
You assume it will. We know nothing about the device, how it works or its limitations other than what was written on that paper: on a lab, it generates X thrust when Y power is applied.
It's as much settled as the truth od Pythagoras' theorem or the irrationality of pi: there's an astonishingly tiny but finite possibility that somehow everyone looking simultaneously made a mistake and didn't notice errors in any of the numerous proofs.
Absolute, provable truth exists on math - not on physics. I largely agree with your post, but this is not a minor quip. Science can, and often is, overturned by compelling evidence. All we have at the end of the day are models.
Looks pretty legit, but this an engineering paper - we tried this, that's the result we found. There're no physics or attempts to explain the devices' inner workings.
Didn't NASA test this device in the past already? I recall reading stories about this.
I'm mostly kidding about the book rewriting thing, but you're right about something: if the device really does work we have no idea why... yet. I'd expect a lot of interesting research to happen in that direction.
The main takeaway here is that if it really does works we have no idea on how. Zero. Nil. Nada. Worrying about conservation of momentum/energy when when don't really know what physical process is at play here does not make sense - for all we know we live in the aether and the device materializes invisible paddles to row it.
The title is misleading - this is false color, but one generated by the electron microscope itself instead of postprocessing. As the article states, it allows for much better contrast than grayscale.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not. You're just grasping at straws to somehow try to make your argument stick, and i don't feel like playing along.
The proofs for both math TRUTHS you question are so basic and simple it is like try to argue if we really know how much 2 + 2 is. Are you seriously going for the metaphysical "do we really know anything" angle in order to defend your position?
Yes, and none of the paper authors are related in any way to Shawyer or Fetta. You know, like in the definition of "independent".
THINK for Pete's sake. What if it doesn't? What would that *imply*?
I have no idea, since i have no idea how the device works - if it ever does. So, explain it to me like i'm a child. What does it imply?
Whatever. I'm getting bored.
Because both the Pythagorean theorem and the irrationality of Pi can be proved unequivocally with nothing more than basic calculus. Look up Lambert's proof.
I said you assume the device generates constant acceleration at constant power. What if it doesn't?
Never said do. Still, stuff like this is exciting. There seems to be something there but we have no idea what the hell it is.
My, what a douche.
Eagleworks, like it or not, is independent verification. This is hardly like the "E-Cat" where Rossi was the only person ever to operate the device.
These guys sat in a lab, built the device and observed thrust that couldn't be explained. They weren't aiming for an explanation though.
It produces a force given power in. That means it will produce a constant acceleration at a constant power.
You assume it will. We know nothing about the device, how it works or its limitations other than what was written on that paper: on a lab, it generates X thrust when Y power is applied.
It's as much settled as the truth od Pythagoras' theorem or the irrationality of pi: there's an astonishingly tiny but finite possibility that somehow everyone looking simultaneously made a mistake and didn't notice errors in any of the numerous proofs.
Absolute, provable truth exists on math - not on physics. I largely agree with your post, but this is not a minor quip. Science can, and often is, overturned by compelling evidence. All we have at the end of the day are models.
Hey, that's a weird looking 'stache over your lip...
Looks pretty legit, but this an engineering paper - we tried this, that's the result we found. There're no physics or attempts to explain the devices' inner workings.
Didn't NASA test this device in the past already? I recall reading stories about this.
I'm mostly kidding about the book rewriting thing, but you're right about something: if the device really does work we have no idea why... yet. I'd expect a lot of interesting research to happen in that direction.
And yet, it does seem to work.
The main takeaway here is that if it really does works we have no idea on how. Zero. Nil. Nada. Worrying about conservation of momentum/energy when when don't really know what physical process is at play here does not make sense - for all we know we live in the aether and the device materializes invisible paddles to row it.
So the thing apparently does work. We'll be rewriting physics books soon.
Yeah, if only we had some technology to automate computable tasks like finding patterns on emails...
It's worse - natual diamonds have imperfections and impurities. So synthetic diamonds are, by any measure, better.
Lets be fair now. I worked with SCADA systems nearly 20 years ago - computer-interfaced PLCs are nothing new.
Hardly a concern with the NES and its 2 Mhz system clock though.
Neither is FPGA simulation. There is nothing a FPGA brings to the table, simulation-wise, that cannot be implemented with plain old software.
The title is misleading - this is false color, but one generated by the electron microscope itself instead of postprocessing. As the article states, it allows for much better contrast than grayscale.
Um, why? Not only this was quite possibly much easier to implement on a Linux mini PC, it was also way cheaper.
Youtube's automatic captioning works beautifully with that computer-generated voices.
Hey, root access makes things easier. People are just lazy...