Cap'n Refsmmat

Google now confirms that we're clean, so you should no longer get any warnings. Many thanks to Dave for helping track down the cause. We were able to eradicate the malicious code fairly easily. We just need to be sure it doesn't return.

Hmm, interesting. When you say "leaving the thread", which page did you go to?

We're on it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85516-malware-warnings/#entry826177

 

I don't think the malware problem still exists, but we'll need to watch for a couple days to see.

I saw that. What that means is the inventor's idea is wrong, but maybe he stumbled on to something that gives thrust completely by accident.

 

What I'd be interested in is a true vacuum test, because it's not hard to think that asymmetric heating from a temperature gradient could give you a tiny amount of thrust. ~20 Watts isn't a lot, but it has to go somewhere.

The next point in the article is

3. They didn't do it in a vacuum, so how do we know the result is valid in space?

 

While the original abstract says that tests were run "within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure", the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

Unfortunately I can't get access to the full paper without paying, but it looks like this random website has the full copy.

And the joke is moot. They were testing a working model. The problem is they also tested a non-working model, and got nominally the same answer. That points to a problem with the testing method.

Wired has a new article about the drive, with the following part:

 

2. Thrust was also measured from the 'Null Drive', doesn't that mean the experiment failed?

 

Lots of commenters jumped on this, assuming incorrectly that this was a control test and that thrust was measured when there was no drive.

 

In fact, the 'Null Drive' was a modified version of the Cannae Drive, a flying-saucer-shaped device with slots engraved in one face only. The underlying theory is that the slots create a force imbalance in resonating microwaves; the 'Null Drive' was unslotted, but still produced thrust when filled with microwaves. This may challenge the theory -- it is probably no coincidence that Cannae inventor Guido Fetta is patenting a new version which works differently -- but not the results.

 

The true 'null test' was when a load was used with no resonant cavity, and as expected this produced no thrust:

 

"Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energised twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed."

 

Equally significantly, reversing the orientation of the drive reversed the thrust.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive

 

So it's not quite so simple to throw out.

Yeah they do that try a different browser. They maintain different browser separately so when one is down the others aren't. Torch

I don't think that's how it works. Load balancing is usually geographical, not based on browser.

 

But yes, Facebook was down for a little while.

 

Now I'm sad. When Facebook goes down for twenty minutes, it's on national television; when I accidentally break SFN for twenty minutes, nobody even asks me about it.

Aircraft carriers are often tilted an/or facing the wrong way.

 

I don't have the knowledge, but what we need is a pilot with carrier experience to tell us his/her thoughts.

Aircraft carriers usually turn into the wind when starting flight operations.

 

The landing gear of carrier aircraft is reinforced so it will survive landing on a heaving deck.

I see the same behavior on my iPhone -- it always wants to take me to the last page of the thread. Looking at the HTML, that should happen for all platforms which use the mobile theme.

 

swansont, IPB is set up to show the desktop theme to iPad users, so your iPad should show exactly the same content as you see on your normal computer.

Mr Propernoun isn't accusing anyone of plagiarism. We just bought the same forum software that many other websites use, so naturally the forum looks somewhat similar.

 

I am happy to take suggestions for changes, but I don't have much time these days. Mostly I'm proud of how I rearranged individual posts to move the avatar to the right and put the focus on the text.

The arrow is actually an image. Click on it.

Like this? [math]\to[/math]

 

I used the LaTeX BBCode. Click the image to see.

Random events most certainly do not need to have equal probabilities. Probability theory is based on the idea of a measure space, where a measure (a function) assigns probabilities to different events. The measure need not be -- and usually isn't -- a constant function. Bignose is right to say this is the special case of "uniformly random" or a "uniform distribution."

 

I learned probability theory out of Probability & Measure Theory by Ash and Doleans-Dade, if you're interested. But I also teach basic probability to undergraduates, and we cover events with unequal probabilities. They are nonetheless random. The OED is plainly wrong.

 

Steve Stigler's book Statistics on the Table discusses the history of this idea, I think. Some of the earliest work in probability did assume all events have equal probability; cases where events had unequal probabilities were decomposed into combinations of cases where they did. But advances in the mathematical theory made this completely unnecessary.

 

Basically, studiot, your interpretation is about 200 years behind.

 

I've searched through my probability texts. In one the only time the word chance is used is when referring to gambling probability problems. In another it is used in several different ways one similar to how you have used it. Is there a firm consensus to how the words are used in scientific English?

The two are synonymous. But gamblers like to say "chance" and statisticians like to say "probability."

 

If I say "the event has a 20% chance of occurring" and "the event has a 20% probability of occurring," I mean exactly the same thing each time.

 

Now, odds are different from chances. An odds is the probability of an event, divided by the probability that it won't occur. Hence "3 to 1 odds", corresponding to a 75% chance.

I think it's in reference to an atom.

 

We've had an atom in the logo since long before I joined SFN, so I dunno the whole story.

It's "sfn". ScienceForums.Net.

What do you mean, "stuck in my head"? It doesn't come out from a shower?

We have advertisements provided by Google. (That's how we fund the operation of SFN.) Usually they filter out the obvious scams, but it looks like this one slipped through.

 

You'll get emails from us if you have a new message, and imatfaal's post (#9) shows the real indicator that means you have a PM.

Are you seeing "View New Messages" in the space where the advertisement (for nanotechnology products) is here?

 

 

That's a screenshot of the top of this thread. If you're seeing it there, it's an advertisement -- a scammy one.

 

The link you provided certainly is not part of SFN. It's a third party trying to trick you. Don't download or install the software, whatever it is.

SFN should never ask you to download or install software. I don't know what you're seeing.

 

If you could take a screenshot or give a link to the page in question, that'd be helpful.

I prefer Paul Feyerabend's arguments in Against Method, where he points out that any rule you might propose to define the "scientific method" has probably been violated by scores of very notable scientists.

 

For example, we talk about requiring new theories to be able to explain phenomena already explained by the existing theories, but Galilean relativity and heliocentrism were accepted long before they were able to do this.

 

He certainly doesn't complain about the fonts and images used on posters of the scientific method.

Also, why does my profile say SENIOR???

 

I am not a senior, I am a former music producer and model.... I would prefer to have the reputation of someone that is young, otherwise people will think I am an older person that does no know what they are talking about that would then define why I don't know so much about science yet, at least in conventional terminologies.

Every member with more than 30 posts is a "Senior Member", which comes with some extra privileges (downvoting posts, etc.). We don't judge the age of every member and label them as senior citizens.

But often history does not give credit to the right person!

Stigler's law of eponymy, discovered by Robert Merton, is a result of this.

Exactly. Moderators are long-time members whose judgment and wisdom we trust.

We limit the number of negative points a person may hand out, so people tend not to overuse them.

 

The funniest problem is when a member creates a new account for the sole purpose of giving themselves reputation points, as if meaningless Internet points are sufficiently meaningful for that to be worthwhile.

Godlike powers.

 

We also rely on reports of trouble made by ordinary members using the "Report" button under each post.

sunitswn91, please note the Homework Help forum rules: "A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed."

 

Please do not offer to do all the work for people, or have them contact you off SFN.