NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program was, for a time, notorious for funding this kind of thing; they gave money to some total crackpots. I don't think they're doing it any more, but I could be wrong.
According to a friend of mine who's on the staff of New Scientist, this isn't the hoax it appears to be; rather, the science is truly (semi-)solid. Yeah, surprised me, too.
It's not a hoax, just a derivation from a speculative variant theory touted by a group of true-believer hermit scientists isolated from the rest of the community, which among other things seems to throw out (rather than extending) the whole formalism of general relativity. The theory involves extravagant claims of ability to predict all the elementary particle masses, predictions of a "neutral electron" that doesn't seem to exist, new dimensions associated with things like information and consciousness, lots of peculiar neologisms representing concepts not in standard physics; and with this paper, apparently they can pull out a faster-than-light space drive to boot.
Any one of these things in isolation wouldn't be a deal-breaker, since there are much more respected works and theories that exhibit similar characteristics. Taken together, the whole of it gives off a definite whiff of crackpottery, albeit a more-coherent-than-usual strain of crackpottery.
And if the staff of New Scientist is taking it seriously, well... I'm afraid it just provides further evidence for my rule about New Scientist. It's a fun magazine but they tend to display excessive credulity for anything touted as a revolutionary breakthrough.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2006-01-07 07:11 pm
no subject
no subject
Re: adding to the pileon
Re: adding to the pileon
Not a hoax...
Re: Not a hoax...
Any one of these things in isolation wouldn't be a deal-breaker, since there are much more respected works and theories that exhibit similar characteristics. Taken together, the whole of it gives off a definite whiff of crackpottery, albeit a more-coherent-than-usual strain of crackpottery.
And if the staff of New Scientist is taking it seriously, well... I'm afraid it just provides further evidence for my rule about New Scientist. It's a fun magazine but they tend to display excessive credulity for anything touted as a revolutionary breakthrough.