A lack of appropriately healthy skepticism is how we wind up with scams and charlatans.
“There is such a thing as a tesseract”.
(That’s just for fun)
—
Really, this isn’t sloppy science as Feynmam described.
It’s charlatanism.
If you put the matter/energy in the back end of the spacecraft and put the anti matter/negative energy in the front, and mix them in the middle, something WILL happen.
5.56mm
“Science is not about what you hope is true; it’s not about the way you’d like reality to be; it’s not about what your gut tells you; and it’s not about the patterns you can almost see when you ignore the quantitative details.”
‘Want’ and ‘hope’ don’t always refer to a positive desire. They can refer to a desire that something go wrong - very wrong - from some sociopathic desire for vengeance, superiority, or other form of blame/karma. Example: desiring natural disasters, motivated by a desire to blame humanity.
What looks fine on paper doesn’t always turn out that way in practice.
"Nature will not be fooled."
Sorry, that was me. I had a burrito for lunch.
Thanks for the post. When I saw the article last week about the warp drive being accidentally created/invented I figured that was baloney. I mean, COVID-19 wasn’t accidental.
Its obvious from his piece he hasn’t met Michael Poole yet. Maybe Poole hasn’t been born yet. Either way.
Dr Fauci is the example.
Dr. Siegel’s critique of a simulated nano-sized warp bubble is notable. The title and abstract (Worldline numerics applied to custom Casimir geometry ...) is misleading and if the reader is not careful, it could be inferred that an actual observable experiment took place. Modeling and simulation has its place but not at the expense of testable empirical evidence. Thanks for the clarification.
I find the idea of advanced aerospace vehicles via manipulation of the spacetime metric fascinating (with right eyebrow raised). The Albucierre solution demonstrated that warp bubble propulsion is physically realizable, at least in theory. The 2019 FOIA release from the DIA outlined many promising research projects regarding warp drive, exotic materials, wormholes, stargates, cloaking devices, even metallic glass [1].
I find the infiltration of motivated reasoning in science to be deeply troubling, from the academic world, to the scientific community and now into the medical arena. One prime example is “catastrophic climate change” driven by model simulation alone without considering the empirical evidence (current observational and Paleoclimate). Trying to predict the climate 80 years into the future when current long-range weather models cannot predict accurately beyond one week is insanity. CO2 is a trace gas, not a pollutant, it’s plant food resulting in greater crop yields. The war on fossil fuels is senseless and will lead to suffering and misery. The greater threat is global cooling which may be realized by the end of this decade (weaker solar cycle).
Now we have mRNA “vaccines” that cannot prevent infection, transmission to others or serious illness including death. If the vaccines work, why aren’t they working?
-Frank
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. Richard Feynman
1. https://irp.fas.org/dia/aatip-list.pdf
Wormholes are problematic for space travel, in theory, because they tend to destroy the craft inside.
—-——-———————————
That would be a problem.
Jeez looked at the replies... No Scotty in the engine room pics? We are getting lazy...
The authors argument sound great but they are incorrect. Wanting a certain outcome, or not wanting a certain outcome, or being skeptical or naïve should not affect a scientific experiment. Science is science regardless of the feelings involved.
Further, what people want and desire has a great deal to do with the motivation to do science in the first place. Figuring out aerodynamics because of a desire to fly is a very good reason. I suggest that pragmatism is an important perspective.
Like many scientists, the author has trouble distinguishing between science and a philosophy of science. He doesn’t even understand his own philosophy of science. Science is not about finding “truth“. The truth is that science is presently unable to explain consciousness, which is always present when conducting science. This is because science requires an observer, and an observer affects what is being observed.
We have to make some assumptions philosophically about our senses in order to conduct science. And science is more and more demonstrating how our perception of reality is distorted in ways that are difficult to overcome. The world of time-space-matter-and-energy is looking less and less like it is objective reality.
That being said he is probably right about warp drives. What he fails to include along with skepticism is the motivation for fraud or dishonesty or taking shortcuts due to various human frailties that apply to everyone including scientists.