Replies

Kevmo? Is that you?

The fervency of your desire to believe in a thing does not influence in the slightest whether it is indeed real.

Notice that in your entire TL;DR reposting of the article, they say, "results will be presented," but do not say "the results are soon to be published in..." The reason they aren't saying that is that there are no experimental results yet of a quality decent enough that anyone will even try to publish them.

As for the rest of your rant, frankly, it's nonsense. As a former condensed matter theorist let me disabuse you of at least two idiotic ideas you have: 1) there are no "entrenched paradigms" in theoretical physics. If there really is something here, a theorist would love to be the first person in the world to explain it. And as soon as there is a reproducible signal significantly higher than the noise there will no shortage of theorists clamoring to to do just that. 2) Theoreticians aren't shoving each other out of the way for grant money. There's probably no lower overhead advanced technology practice in the world than theoretical physics. The extent of my professional expenses in 1984 was a salary barely higher than a graduate student's and the cost of paper, pencils, and dry erase markers for my white boards.

It is simply a LIE concocted by anti-scientific ignoramuses and snake oil salesman that cold-fusion, reactionless drives, perpetual motion machines of the first and second kinds, warp engines, and you name whatever kookburger nonsense next makes its way down the pike don't make it because they're opposed by some priestly class of keepers of the sacred entrenched paradigm.

Finally, NASA isn't outside of the scientific mainstream, and they certainly aren't outside of the government cash stream. As soon as NASA actually believes they have a publishable result, they will have NO DIFFICULTY whatsoever in getting it printed in the most prestigious journals in the world. None.

They haven't tried to do that because they aren't willing to stake their reputations on something tantalizing but unproven.

As you say, the fervency of your desire to believe in a thing does not influence in the slightest whether it is indeed real.

And I’ve found that people who need to use personal insults to back their opinions - “rant,” “idiotic ideas,” “lie,” “kookburger nonsense” etc. - are basically bullsh*t artists.

Starting with the personalization of your attack. My “entire TL;DR reposting of the article” as you said, was simply because you didn’t read it. Presented papers aren’t merely read, they’re released for publication. These scientists actually are credible scientists and acknowledged as such. perhaps they can’t hold a candle to the brilliance of your personal work in condensed matter theory, but really, who can? The rest of the world simply has to muddle on with their own Ph.Ds and their own grants and their own work, even though you’ve retired. It’s a shame, but there it is.

And as for your dismissal of the politics of peer-reviewed acceptance and its connection with grant money, you truly undermine your claim to actual work in the science field. Also, even though you solved Einstein’s Unified Field Theory with a pencil and paper before you threw it away as boring, actual experimental physicists have to, well, make experiments to get that data you dismiss as non-existent. And that takes grant money - connected to the peer-review gatekeepers.

To pretend I’m making up these links of power in the scientific world is absurd. And to follow up that absurdity, you deny NASA’s involvement over an article which - if you actually read it - you’d have noticed is actually connected to NASA.

Finally, I don’t know who Kevmo is, but it was probably just another insult on your part. You know, you remind me of someone - there was a theoretical scientist in the 1800’s who penciled out proof that if a train hit 60 miles per hour the wind would kill everyone on board. Check your lineage, I think you’re related.