On Oct 6, 5:16 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
It isn't meant to be a proof; it's a simple heuristic which usually works.
I won't argue with the "usually works" part, but you are putting words
in Herr Herrings mouth here. His (and uncle Al's, and others) words
clearly state that they MEANT it to be taken as a "proof"! And even
worse it's a "proof" of nonsense. To declare that this or that is
"impossible" and then site the laws of physics as "proof" is nonsense.
It only "proves" that the proposed phenomena either doesn't follow
ideas that establishment physics currently holds OR that the person
making the statement does not have a complete grasp of how those laws
should be applied.
Bottom line: "impossible" = nonsense.
So what? Reading the paper and finding errors doesn't prove anything
either. One can come up with a correct result through a series of errors.
One can still claim the device _really works_, despite the supposed theory
behind it being a crock of shit. Since going through the details takes a
lot more time, and still doesn't _prove_ anything, why do it, unless (a)
you're interested in the details, (b) it's your "job" as a peer reviewer,
or (c) a potential investor wants to make sure they might be making a
better investment than spending their money on lottery tickets.
a). If you are making high pronouncements about the viability of the
given paper and it's contents, presumably one has an interest in it.
So if you are interested then spending the time to examine the details
makes sense.
b). Fine, but maybe your "job" is to censor certain subjects from
publication that are not considered "politically correct" for this or
that reason. And even if the review is fair and you are paid to do it,
what does that prove?
c). What is wrong with checking investments?
All these are valid reasons to check a paper in detail. So?
No, it isn't even remotely fraud.
Come on Timo! You are a better scientist that that! You are standing
there (sitting there?) telling us that if a peer reviewer rejects a
paper without even reading it, just based on some vague "opinion" that
isn't fraud? How long will you keep that job? (Yeah, I know, it
depends upon how much political suction you've got with those in
authority). And you tell me that if you advise investors on a paper
WITHOUT even reading the paper that this isn't fraud? I hope I never
hire YOU to rate venture capital investments for ME! And it follows
by logical extension that simply declaring a paper to describe things
that are "impossible" without even reading the paper is far from
ethical science. Yet Herring (and now you) seem to be taking that
position. Yikes!
An example of fraud would be claiming that you have a design for an EM
drive that works, while knowing that you've fudged the theory to make it
appear it might work, when you know it won't (and I'm not claiming this is
the case here; the errors and omissions may very well be accidental - easy
to make the theory fit when convinced beforehand it should work), and
seeking money from investors that will be used to support your lifestyle,
not development of the device (also something I'm not claiming here;
spending all of the investor money, and then more of your own, on
development of the device is a good sign of sincerity).
Well yes, that is fraud too. Are you arguing that if you have one type
of fraud it precludes all other types? I thought not.
Which I did because I was interested in the details (electromagnetic
transport of momentum is my job). I didn't think it would take very long.
Doing it while sitting at home drinking coffee meant it didn't even take
time away from anything else I should have been doing.
BINGO! The reason we are discussing this here is that we are ALL
interested in the phenomena to a degree. I have no problem with a
person so uninterested in a suggested phenomena that they don't bother
to examine it in any detail. Where I'm taking exception is when THOSE
people start making hand-waving pronouncements that this or that is
"impossible" when they don't even have enough interest to examine a
few details. Our personal schedules and what our time is worth is
irrelevant. WE determine our interests and act accordingly. However if
you are interested enough to make pronouncements one should be
interested enough to find out what you are talking about. [of
course "should" and what humans routinely do can be two different
things]
No. This still wouldn't prove it doesn't work. I said that if anybody
wants to build it, it's up to them. In the context of where it appeared in
the post, take it to mean "build it knowing the theory provided is deeply
flawed".
Obviously. So your evaluation is important investor information, isn't
it. Obviously any decision to invest time and or money in building and
testing the device is theirs and operates independent of the opinion
of others. And if I'm doing the investing, while I'll take all so-
called advice into consideration, the decision whether or not to
invest is clearly mine. Hence it's up to ME to sort out the clowns who
are asserting that this or that is "impossible" while proudly
proclaiming they have not enough interest to even read the details of
the device in question. My money isn't going to take seriously any
advice that claims this or that is "impossible". Virtually all the
"big" winners in investments had a herd of nay-sayers who judged it
"impossible" without any detailed information to back it up. How
gullible do they think people are?
No, I just went further into the details. Neither the simple assessment
nor the finding the errors in the details _proves_ anything about whether
or not the device _works_. Neither _proves_ that the theoretical
conclusions are _wrong_. The first simply shows that since A is assumed
in the theory, and the result contradicts A, there must be an error, and
the conclusion is incompatible with the assumptions. The second, finding
errors in the details, simply shows that there is an error, but does not
show that the conclusions are necessarily wrong, or incompatible with the
assumptions (unless one provides a correct derivation, leading to a
different result, which I did partly, but only partly) - this is actually
a _weaker_ result, and only serves to amplify the first conclusion.
No, you just didn't go "further" into the details, you actually WENT
into the details. Thus, your opinion had basis in science. Herr
Herring's statements didn't bother with any details. He just parroted
some dogma and proclaimed the device bogus. I would note (and since
you are into E&M you'd know) that his dogma was wrong in that he
asserted that Fields are ALWAYS "conservative" and ignored (or was
ignorant of) non-conservative fields. I even quoted my own dogma from
well-accepted textbooks to demonstrate this and he ignored it.
The bottom line is that you went into details, and came up with viable
conclusions. Others ignored the details and then gave wild untenable
pronouncements based on dogma provably wrong. I call that Night and
Day!
Note that "laziness" has nothing to do with not being interested in
the question. It has to do with not bothering to examine the question
and then making snap pronouncements as if one actually HAD examined it
in detail. The hope obviously being that others will just uncritically
accept your word as an "expert".
Appropriately prudent with the investment of one's time is not laziness. A
comes up with a list of outlandish ideas. B says "Support them". A comes
back with supposed support full of holes, and B says "Here is a critical
error; go away and come back if you can fix it." What's wrong with that?
Using classical electromagnetic theory to come up with a result
contradicting classical electromagnetic theory is a pretty good sign of a
critical error, even if you don't bother to find out exactly where it is.
Not quite. This device made the claim (which you investigated in some
detail) that it was RELATIVITY that caused the results to contradict
classical electromagnetic theory! The fact that the paper ALSO
included some classic electromagnetic theory doesn't disprove
anything. There was no assertion that classic EM theory contradicted
itself. (even though some times it does!
And using an argument
that isn't even right (the non-existence of non-conservative fields)
on top of an admission that one has no knowledge of the details of the
theory certainly doesn't place the conclusions of that argument in a
very credible light.
You want to suggest it should be investigated "properly" - why don't you
do it?
Because I get to decide how I spend my time. But... and this is the
KEY element here... I am NOT making wild pronouncements about how this
device is "impossible" and "can't work" or "violates all we know about
physics"
etc. I am also not making "crank" pronouncements that the device DOES
work or that it represents a "new physics" either! So since I have
not investigated it "properly" and for that matter have not personally
gone through the paper in detail personally as you have, I am not
about to make high pontifications as to whether or not this device is
"impossible". Only a "proper" investigation can shed light on that. I
certainly can have an "opinion" on it. And I can tell others of my
"opinion" but it's only that. And as you know opinions are like
assholes. But as soon as I assert that my opinion represents some kind
of "proof" then I am the asshole.
And that, I assert, is still the difference between you and Herr
Herring. Night and Day.
Cheers.
