Can someone explain this visual or lens phenomena?

[Zorki5]

Read the Eagleworks paper more carefully. They haven't made or tested an EmDrive themselves.

Dave, the article I linked reads: "The thrust measurements were made using the low-thrust torsion pendulum at NASA Johnson Space Center."

No matter how carefully I read that, the result is the same... But I believe you might have reasons to say what you're saying.

Can you please point me to the source you're using?

[Telecaster]

Dave, the article I linked reads: "The thrust measurements were made using the low-thrust torsion pendulum at NASA Johnson Space Center."

Yep, the EmDrive was tested at JSC. I missed that earlier. Keep in mind, though, that Eagleworks is affiliated with NASA but is not itself NASA. The details are important.

The article I read was published earlier today on the (US) Astronomy magazine website. Ironically I read it just before reading your earlier post.

I hope the thing is legit. I also hope it sparks off some new physics. But let's get there before we start claiming we've got there. 

-Dave-

[N80]

Some folks, however, declare "science has limits" in the interest of shielding certain things—typically cherished beliefs—from critical scrutiny. This I have no respect for.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cherished beliefs". But the truth is, science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart". I have no respect for those who think science does.

[Zorki5]

science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart"

See: On Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins. Chapter 7, section 9.

Though I have to say it is very unlikely that you'll understand it without reading the rest of the book.

[kers]

This thread has become a phenomena on its own

i call it Phenomina

[degrub]

I'm not sure what you mean by "cherished beliefs". But the truth is, science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart". I have no respect for those who think science does.

i won't even pretend to fully understand ... there seems to be plenty of doubt about just what was shown -
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/nasas-em-drive-still-a-wtf-thruster/

[N80]

See: On Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins. Chapter 7, section 9.

Though I have to say it is very unlikely that you'll understand it without reading the rest of the book.

I'm not sure how to take that.

I would likewise refer you to God and Other Minds and Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (particularly in regard to intelligence). Both by Alvin Plantinga.

I don't know you so I can't say how much you will be able to understand.

[Zorki5]

I would likewise refer you to God and Other Minds and Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (particularly in regard to intelligence). Both by Alvin Plantinga.

There's a much better source than that, the famous Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters:

Where God Went Wrong,
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and
Who is this God Person Anyway?

[Jeremy Roussak]

This thread has become a phenomena on its own

It's a phenomenon, technically.

Jeremy

[N80]

There's a much better source than that, the famous Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters:

Where God Went Wrong,
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and
Who is this God Person Anyway?

In my opinion there is no better assessment on the interaction between religion-philosophy-science than Alvin Plantinga. His work transformed modern secular philosophy across the academic spectrum. He has had little impact on popular ideas in philosophy. Those are difficult to transform as pablum and old habits/beliefs/traditions usually are. His hallmark work is on warrant and belief.

I do not know the author you are referring to. And while some say it is unfair to judge a book by its cover, the titles smack of the influence of marketing and pop philosophy. If that is the more appropriate arena, I can provide you with an entertaining list of titles there too.

Observation: What a bunch of nerds we all are.

[Telecaster]

I'm not sure what you mean by "cherished beliefs". But the truth is, science has little or nothing to say about the "old verities and truths of the heart". I have no respect for those who think science does.

This is an area where we definitely part company. I'll leave it at that.

-Dave-

[kers]

It's a phenomenon, technically.
Jeremy

Yes lets talk now about language,
Made two mistake already today...

potato

[Farmer]

I do not know the author you are referring to. And while some say it is unfair to judge a book by its cover, the titles smack of the influence of marketing and pop philosophy. If that is the more appropriate arena, I can provide you with an entertaining list of titles there too.

Observation: What a bunch of nerds we all are.

You may not be nerdy enough.  The resource you are looking for comes via Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and ever expanding trilogy totalling 5 books).

[N80]

This is an area where we definitely part company. I'll leave it at that.

-Dave-

Well, I would agree that this is not the thread to discuss it in, but I would be happy to have a civil discussion, at the highest possible level, on this topic. It is unlikely that I could convince you to change your mind (people rarely do that regardless of the topic or the argument) but I assure you that you would find my arguments compelling enough to understand why I hold them and be unable to fault me for doing so.

[N80]

You may not be nerdy enough.  The resource you are looking for comes via Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and ever expanding trilogy totalling 5 books).

I think you are right. Never read it. Not compelled to. But, there are different subspecies of nerds you know.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Don't watch all this video, but watch from about 6:10 to 8:20

https://youtu.be/acL84oWPOQM?t=6m11s

Its directly related to the OP I had.

[Ray]

Don't watch all this video, but watch from about 6:10 to 8:20

https://youtu.be/acL84oWPOQM?t=6m11s

Its directly related to the OP I had.

What an extraordinary video, promoting the theory of a flat earth and claiming the moon landing was a hoax. It was so amusing. 

It's extraordinary because of the effort made to address so many issues in some detail, especially in the following video by Dave Moor who attempts to provide critical evidence in support of the concept of a static, flat earth which was promoted in the first video. It would be interesting to see a detailed and convincing rebuttal of all the points that were raised in support of the concept of a flat earth at the centre of our galaxy. 

I'll address just one of the arguments made by Dave Moor, that was so obviously ridiculous, albeit amusing.

At some point in the video he asked, if the earth were really a sphere which is spinning at the rate of 1,675 km/hour at the equator, but spinning at a slower rate as one approaches the poles, why is it that we don't notice a difference after we take a plane flight from a northern country, where the surface of the earth is moving more slowly, to a country at the equator where the surface of the earth is moving at, say, double the speed? Surely we should feel dizzy, or our senses should detect in some way that we are spinning at an increased velocity.

The explanation is obvious. The speed of anything can be described, measured or experienced only in relation to the speed of something else. There has to be a reference point, and that reference point will have its own velocity in relation to the velocity of yet another moving body, or another reference point.

It's clearly ridiculous to imply that a person could be situated at the equator whilst simultaneously experiencing the movement of the earth's surface in another country thousand of kilometres to the north or south. We experience movement in relation to our immediate surroundings, that is, surroundings which are close enough to be in the range of our senses.

The exception appears to be the speed of light in a vacuum, which is constant whatever the speed of the observer, and is also the fastest speed that can be observed, as I understand.

ps. Here's the direct link to the amusing Dave Moor YouTube video. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvR1c4rU6Vc

[Farmer]

If we could teleport from pole to equator instantaneously, and if the process didn't account for a change in momentum, then we would indeed suffer the effects of a rapid change in velocity.  Because planes travel relatively slowly (it would take half a day, roughly, and because that velocity itself changes our momentum, we don't have an issue.  The slow change that occurs during flight is not noticeable.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Ya, don't watch the other stuff.

The original video post I made is something claimed as empirical evidence. This is something that either needs to be clarified, refuted or repeated, regardless of what results or what follows. This is the most simple, and most interesting to me.

Yes Ray, In that video he says a couple things that have no relation. But all else sound like interesting, but old theories, YET to be tested with new tools. That is why the relation from the earth to anything not tangible is mostly theoretical, unless you take ones word for it.  This test I think is something you can actually base some math on and can be documented.

[Ray]

If we could teleport from pole to equator instantaneously, and if the process didn't account for a change in momentum, then we would indeed suffer the effects of a rapid change in velocity.  Because planes travel relatively slowly (it would take half a day, roughly, and because that velocity itself changes our momentum, we don't have an issue.  The slow change that occurs during flight is not noticeable.

No. We wouldn't suffer at all. Death would be instantaneous. An instant acceleration of our surroundings, equivalent to an increase in velocity of 1,600 km per hour, or equivalent to 96,000 km per hour if the change in momentum were introduced in one second (which is much longer than an instant), would be sure to kill us.

However if the process doesn't involve any change in momentum, on departure or on arrival, then we wouldn't be aware of any change in velocity.

A person's experience of movement is always an experience in relation to the movement of things in his immediate surroundings, that are within range of his physical senses. Whatever the part of the planet we are situated, and whatever the rotational speed of the particular section of the earth's surface we are standing on, we cannot be aware of the velocity of that section of the earth we are standing on, because we are also moving at the same speed as the surface we are standing on.

If it were possible to teleport someone instantaneously from the pole to the equator, without any change in momentum, (which of course is only possible in science fiction films like Star Trek), I can't see any reason why we would experience a change in the velocity of our new location, unless a change in momentum were suddenly introduced on arrival.

This is all getting very fanciful.