Chinese building Anti Gravity Drive (Emdrive)

dmpoole said:
I'm also pretty sure that Science has been proved wrong many times.
Click to expand...



Science is essentially an iterative process. Yes, it has been proved wrong, but the frequency with which that has happened is decreasing as scientists learn more. There are still huge gaps in "why", but very very few things missing or not understood amongst "what". The macroscopic universe is pretty much sewn up; nearly all of the issues are at the sub-atomic/quantum level, or at the various extremes.


M
 
dmpoole said:
Did anybody see this the other night?

SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: Horizon
On: BBC 2 Midlands (102)
Date: Tuesday 3rd November 2009 (Already shown)
Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole?.

Basically Einsteins theory and what is know about science breaks down in the singularity of every Black Hole (I think I got that right).
I'm also pretty sure that Science has been proved wrong many times.
I'm not sticking up for Teki's OP because I know zero about science but watching that documentary showed that science facts break down at certain points.
Click to expand...

Well yes, the mathematics behind General Relativity breaks down at singularities... but it also predicted them long before we detected or saw them. w11tho explained better :p
 
dmpoole said:
Did anybody see this the other night?

SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: Horizon
On: BBC 2 Midlands (102)
Date: Tuesday 3rd November 2009 (Already shown)
Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole?.

Basically Einsteins theory and what is know about science breaks down in the singularity of every Black Hole (I think I got that right).
I'm also pretty sure that Science has been proved wrong many times.
I'm not sticking up for Teki's OP because I know zero about science but watching that documentary showed that science facts break down at certain points.
Click to expand...

It's well known that some theories apply within limits. Newtonian physics is the classic example.

But that doesn't negate the fact that Einstein was able to support his claims, that other people were able to confirm them and that experimental evidence also supported them...and so it doesn't matter that they were initially ridiculed.

My point was that science isn't the monolithic closed-minded dogma that it was being made out to be in the post that I replied to.

Shawyer is making extraordinary claims, which require extraordinary evidence. If he could supply a viable theory as to why his device would work as claimed or supply decent experimental evidence and allow other people to verify it, then his work would be accepted. It would have to be - that's how science works. Plenty of scientists would enjoy someone finding a big hole in current theories, because that would be something new to investigate and who knows what could be found?
 
You'd think if he was serious he'd have booked a flight and be presenting it along with schematics at MIT by now....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom