- #1
nomadreid
Gold Member
- 1,665
- 203
The following is a five-year-old post on one of NASA's websites.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/201...StAxsTjIuS3b08fUOyMcPh1-nBjeiwgwWkI3H7jnA0Has
It exposes the holes in the state of affairs at that moment -- first, the article does explicitly mention that the supposed theory for the supposed thrust is rubbish, so OK. It also implies that the positive results announced from experiment have not yet been replicated, so these results remain dubious. Also that the results of the NASA team were mentioned in a blog rather than a peer-reviewed paper seems odd. So, it is nonetheless funded by NASA probably because the stakes are so high -- wild ideas sometimes produce results, so NASA gambles. However, has there been any more serious attempts at replication or possible explanations of why such a thing should work since then?
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/201...StAxsTjIuS3b08fUOyMcPh1-nBjeiwgwWkI3H7jnA0Has
It exposes the holes in the state of affairs at that moment -- first, the article does explicitly mention that the supposed theory for the supposed thrust is rubbish, so OK. It also implies that the positive results announced from experiment have not yet been replicated, so these results remain dubious. Also that the results of the NASA team were mentioned in a blog rather than a peer-reviewed paper seems odd. So, it is nonetheless funded by NASA probably because the stakes are so high -- wild ideas sometimes produce results, so NASA gambles. However, has there been any more serious attempts at replication or possible explanations of why such a thing should work since then?