I've read some of this stuff when I was kid so here's what I've found on the subject: It's too long to write about all the "crackpots" as they were called in their days... "every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realised, it becomes commonplace."

What the general public thinks of a scientist's work has no bearing on its value to science. Likewise for religious/political bodies. Only scientists are qualified to judge a scientist's works. That doesn't mean that scientists aren't human (with everything that conveys): in the early years, the scientific community did not like Einstein's relativity -- it did, after all, claim that Newton was wrong. But however much they disagreed with or disliked Einstein's theories, they never considered him a crackpot. Same with Einstein and the "new wave" of quantum physicists. Galileo was a true rockstar in the scientific community; no one called him a crackpot. No one called Mendel a crackpot either; his research was basically just misunderstood, and so faded into obscurity.

 

it did, after all, claim that Newton was wrong

not the way I see it ... what Einstein's theory claimed, was rather that Newton was incomplete ... Einstein never contradicted Newton, he only said that at certain scales his equations ceased to work. And my personal opinion is the same towards Einstein's work, I think his theories are incomplete too. Although I have to admit they've proven to be extremely sturdy and have passed test after test with flying colors.

As for Galileo. He's a complicated case. After doing lots or reading on his story, I concluded that he was right for the wrong reasons (or rather an incomplete set of reasons). But we shouldn't judge history with modern criteria, back then the Church demanded definite proof that his theories were true, and he couldn't deliver it. When that happened, the Church (executing its role as "keeper of knowledge", something like the department of education in its days) demanded that he kept quiet until he was able to prove his theories. But he couldn't keep quiet, he was too flamboyant. He was a rock star in the sense that he was also a Diva and behaved like one. He was extremely arrogant, and allowed people to think that he invented the telescope, for instance ... he did not. What he did is that he was probably the first serious person to point it to the planets and the stars.

 

I'm not sure the general public applies to well established publications such as Scientific America. I recall being at a space convention at CU Boulder where the NASA scientists considered Robert Zubrin a crackpot with crazy schemes.... and now we are starting to work on his vision. But you're right we are all human and it's easier to write things off than try to understand something or admit that you don't understand everything.

 

not the way I see it ... what Einstein's theory claimed, was rather that Newton was incomplete ... Einstein never contradicted Newton, he only said that at certain scales his equations ceased to work.

You are of course correct that GR extends Newtonian mechanics, that they reduce to the same equations of motion under sufficient constraints. But in the case of celestial mechanics, Einstein most certainly contradicts Newton. Before Einstein, one of the biggest dirty secrets in physics was how badly Mercury's orbit deviated from what Newton's equations said it should. It was like a lingering embarrassing fart at a fancy party, until GR came along and fixed the math.

As for Galileo. He's a complicated case. After doing lots or reading on his story, I concluded that he was right for the wrong reasons (or rather an incomplete set of reasons). But we shouldn't judge history with modern criteria, back then the Church demanded definite proof that his theories were true, and he couldn't deliver it. When that happened, the Church (executing its role as "keeper of knowledge", something like the department of education in its days) demanded that he kept quiet until he was able to prove his theories. But he couldn't keep quiet, he was too flamboyant. He was a rock star in the sense that he was also a Diva and behaved like one. He was extremely arrogant, and allowed people to think that he invented the telescope, for instance ... he did not. What he did is that he was probably the first serious person to point it to the planets and the stars.

Oh, I totally agree, and I don't at all blame the Church for not accepting Galileo's claims. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have believed that Earth is flying through space -- where's all the wind? But in a conversation about crackpots, we cannot bring up Galileo's name. For as full of himself as he was, he really was a badass physicists/engineer.

 

I'm not sure the general public applies to well established publications such as Scientific America. I recall being at a space convention at CU Boulder where the NASA scientists considered Robert Zubrin a crackpot with crazy schemes.... and now we are starting to work on his vision. But you're right we are all human and it's easier to write things off than try to understand something or admit that you don't understand everything.

Scientific America is a pop-sci magazine. I'm talking about professional scientists publishing in field-specific journals, the kinds with articles that only experts can understand. If you have a "world-shattering" theory about <field>, and you can't understand most of the abstracts in journals for <field>, then you're a crackpot.

 

But we shouldn't judge history with modern criteria,

But the inverse of that is true too, "don't judge the future on today's criteria". That is what NSA is trying to make people believe, that things can't ever work because they haven't been proven so far.

We still don't know what 'gravity' is for gosh sake.

 

Why did it take so long for the scientist to build a reusable rocket platform. I’m sure it was impractical and impossible until proven wrong.

The scientific community isn’t perfect. There are those that do and those that criticize.

 

Why did it take so long for the scientist to build a reusable rocket platform. I’m sure it was impractical and impossible until proven wrong.

Allow me to correct you on that ... The question should be rather "Why did it take so long for the engineer to build a reusable rocket platform" ... the science to accomplish that had already been discovered long ago, but not the technology.

 

You might be right. They had the quarternion calculations and gimbal control to do this already. I know some NASA scientists. Many are very involved in the engineering as to guide the designs. They can be frustratingly smug in their understanding and self praising. They don’t always make the best decisions either but it’s just a personal observation. Are we actually saying scientists are infallible and completely honest to the point of being humble? No right?

 

You are arguing with someone that believes the climate isn't changing and sea levels aren't rising.

That's not true. Here are just a few links to disprove your lame lies again.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...for-someone-else.127958/page-347#post-1121255
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/but-science.129797/page-30#post-1124819
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/state-of-the-union.93986/page-2#post-691563
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/but-science.129797/page-31#post-1125702
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/hows-the-weather.106497/page-128#post-1368399

 

But the inverse of that is true too, "don't judge the future on today's criteria". That is what NSA is trying to make people believe, that things can't ever work because they haven't been proven so far.

We still don't know what 'gravity' is for gosh sake.

All I'm saying is the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of these exotic propulsion systems the better the experiments get to find this elusive property, the evidence of some exotic property decreases. That's a clear indication of noise or external influences, not a coherent, repeatable and testable signal you would get when you examine any real physical process.

 

Yep but that’s why it needs better testing. I agree and they’re adjusting the design to isolate. Why give up until it’s ruled out completely? Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. All we are saying is let’s not rule it out until it’s proven.

 

Yep but that’s why it needs better testing. I agree and they’re adjusting the design to isolate. Why give up until it’s ruled out completely? Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. All we are saying is let’s not rule it out until it’s proven.

They can knock themselves out testing it but the basic physics of why it can't work won't change. I would love to have a free energy perpetual motion machine of the first kind (that's what reactionless propulsion devices really are) attached to the house. The massive saving on the summer cooling electric bill would be nice.

I. INTRODUCTION
A device that can generate thrust without consuming reaction mass (i.e., propellant) has long been sought by propulsion engineers as the so-called “space drive.” Such a device might be discounted as violating the conservation of momentum, however, this fact has not deterred a number of researchers from attempting to hypothesize and, in some cases, build such a device.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.00494v1.pdf

A "space drive" is a hypothetical device that generates a propulsive force in free space using an input of power without the need for a reaction mass. Any device that generates photons (e.g., a laser) would qualify as a propellantless "photon rocket," but the force generated by emitting photons per power input (3.33 μN/kW) is too small to be a practical propulsion device. The ability to generate greater force per power input would be highly desirable, but, as demonstrated in this paper, such a device would be able to operate as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Since applying a constant force results in a constant acceleration, the kinetic energy of a mass driven by such a device increases quadratically with time, while the energy input increases only linearly with time. Thus, at some point, the kinetic energy of the device-driven mass exceeds the energy input, and if this energy is collected via decelerating the mass (via regenerative electromagnetic braking, for example), then there would be a net gain in energy. For devices with thrust-to-power ratios on the order of 1 N/kW that have been discussed recently in connection with the so-called EM drive, this breakeven occurs at velocities low enough to be feasible with current technology, clearly demonstrating the absurdity of such a device. When relativistic effects are taken into account, it is shown that the photon rocket can only reach energy breakeven as the accelerated mass asymptotically approaches the speed of light. Thus, any device with a thrust-to-power ratio greater than the photon rocket would be able to operate as a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, and thus should be excluded by the First Law of Thermodynamics.

If you want thrust then you need this, something flying out the back.

 

Well who knows for sure if it’s free. There may be something we are missing but may have an interesting result. There are some interesting things I’ve seen that defies explanation using current science. That’s when the rules change... or our interpretation changes. I’ll wait for it to play out without passing judgement. That’s all.

 

Well who knows for sure if it’s free. There may be something we are missing but may have an interesting result. There are some interesting things I’ve seen that defies explanation using current science. That’s when the rules change... or our interpretation changes. I’ll wait for it to play out without passing judgement. That’s all.

As a degenerate gambler, I can tell you expertly, nothing is free.

 

Ah, so the issue you are pointing out is that it’s “free”. I can agree with you there. Solar power could look free but we know it isn’t. It’s possible we are observing something of value. Still waiting for the results.

 

Ah, so the issue you are pointing out is that it’s “free”. I can agree with you there. Solar power could look free but we know it isn’t. It’s possible we are observing something of value. Still waiting for the results.

We are doing something valuable, we are improving our ability to economically measure extremely small amounts of thrust (torsional measurements of these bogus drives) under earth conditions.

 

I wonder why we haven’t been able to harness static electric from the atmosphere yet.

 

I wonder why we haven’t been able to harness static electric from the atmosphere yet.

Maybe because it's static electricity (charges at rest/not moving). For our current power systems we need current electricity (charges in motion). These are really two different types of electricity (a field of study, not a thing).

New York city uses about 11 GW of electricity, a rough equivalent in large lighting strikes would be about 22 per second at 500 megajoules of energy, every second.

 

Sandia was playing with an idea to tether a satellite in space which would generate static electricity and harness this power. This was what I was referring to.