NASA peer-reviewed paper

It's important to note that this hasn't been validated by anyone, let alone NASA. Until the experiment is replicated and actually analyzed, this means little more than what it did when it was leaked. Peer review ensures that at face-value, the experimental methods appear legitimate and not fabricated. It does nothing to affirm or deny its conclusions.

Anyways, stay skeptical of stuff that sounds like its driven by error (and it's important to note that the amount of error measured, and the amount of actual thrust measured, are roughly equal. That's a huge discrepancy that they've failed to isolate. Testing in space would go a long way in doing so.

One scenario is that they've discovered a physical reaction which is responsible for the apparent thrust that we can't understand at all -- which is great. Another is that their theories are correct, and they've discovered something new as well. The worst case scenario is that there is some sort of interaction occurring that they haven't corrected for, and it's biasing the results.

Quote from: ModusPonens on November 21, 2016, 04:26:09 PM

It's important to note that this hasn't been validated by anyone, let alone NASA.

I read it as a paper by NASA scientists which has now been peer reviewed.

Eagleworks is NASA's fringe science lab -- we're not really talking JPL or KSC. It's not that I'm not excited or interested in this, it's that this is barely still a theory, let alone a proven method.

RRRREEEEEEEEÈEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E333E