Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6314775" data-attributes="member: 40227">OK, I wasn't able to get that PDF to download and display properly this morning.  Thanks.There's a claim about new analysis of the math to show that less negative energy may be needed for a new metric configuration.  That is certainly finished enough to be published.  Experiments regularly publish regarding their plans in advance.  As far as I can tell, his two published papers (in 2003 and this year) don't talk about either of these things seriously (I have skimmed the 2003 article but only read the abstract of the new one, as I'm not willing to pay for it).  The brief NASA whitepaper you've linked doesn't either; most specifically, the warp field interferometer design is quite vague and contains elements that appear contrary to the usual understanding of the Casimir effect.  Now, is there some NDA reason that this information can't be shared?  Perhaps, but what information is out there isn't encouraging, and keeping information behind a wall isn't a good way to do science.The problem is that "odd" in this case probably means "impossible according to the laws of physics."I'm on record above as saying that some money should be spent on Alcubierre-type warp drives.  But I have two issues with this line of research.  (1) Speaking as someone who has refereed a substantial number of physics journal articles in general relativity and related subjects (and actually been recognized for my refereeing work), what I've read does not leave me confident in the correctness of the science.  It is far too vague, and the few equations include irrelevant ones.  There are also hints that the author feels his work is much more important than it almost certainly is.  (2) We as a society absolutely do "tell folks they are looking at the wrong thing" when it comes to scientific research all the time by deciding what science to fund.  As a still-somewhat-junior scientist, I've only reviewed two grant proposals personally, but I can say that the documents I've read on this research would not stand up to the usual review process in the US, EU, or Canada.  I don't know the process used to obtain funding for this project, but it seems to have short-cut the usual funding system.  And $50k may not be a ton of cash, but it is significant as these things go.  I might add also that recent years have seen North American research budgets slashed, and I bet there are scientists who could have used that money for a much better expected pay-off.Sorry for the minor rant.  Funding is a MASSIVELY important (and unfortunately also very time-consuming) part of science these days, and it's therefore important to make judgements about the worthiness of research.  Here's something fun in compensation for the screed: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTvajOQ_xak" target="_blank">Fund me, maybe</a></blockquote>

Verification