Talk:EmDrive/Archive 8

No Way! NO!
Sorry, this article is too condemning of the idea of the EM Drive. The article mentions sometimes anomalies are explained by new physics, and mention the precession of Mercury and Relativity. Then dismiss it being potential here completely. Many antirelativists like myself who know the controversial history of Relativity and why it is just math will tell you actually that did not even prove anything! We knew about the anomaly, and without proof Einstein made up the explanation. He never proved he was right, we knew about the precession. He just said it was caused by X without letting us find X by experiment or observation. The theory grew popular, even though it was as insane as Aether Theory that most antirelativists believe in. I'm not letting you get away with this. This article has been doctored by the ones who refuse to give up Conservation of Momentum. Unsourced the claim is most scientists disbelieve in the EM DRive. It has been confirmed several times by different people and the only problem is then with the experiment. New physics will be discovered from this, one way or another. But right now there is no proof it is not generating momentum. There is no proof the concept is wrong. And it may be the proof that Warp Drive is possible and I will have to give up my disregard for Relativity! That is just numbers! This is physical evidence! If Conservation is true it doesn't need your defense, and if not let it die! Scientists, referees...These are quoted as if they determine proof or insanity. The scientists are no more intelligent, better, or more accurate than anyone else. Science itself is not more accurate as a method of study! Because of the human element it runs off of, it actually is as bad as this article's biases!

Change it, or be unrealistic and dumb. Your call... 108.222.135.118 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Bordering on WP:NOTFORUM and pretty silly: "But right now there is no proof it is not generating momentum." I think you are confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence". Or this gem: "The scientists are no more intelligent, better, or more accurate than anyone else. Science itself is not more accurate as a method of study!" - what alternative to science should we be citing in this article? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I vote for "unrealistic and dumb" if that is on the side of reliable sources and the scientific method. Spiel496 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You cannot prove that a concept cannot work. The burden of evidence is on those who claim it would work, and there is still no good evidence for that. So far everything we have are tiny thrust values, with some experiments quoting uncertainty values that are way too low (or quoting no uncertainty values at all) to make the measurements look significant. You might be interested in the articles Tests of general relativity and Tests of special relativity. It is so much more than the precession of Mercury. --mfb (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I'd recommend that the IP has a read of WP:NPOV. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, time to play ball. Do you know that the vaunted Second Law of Thermodynamics is not proven? It actually is a purely statistical concept that is not actually a repeatable law of fundamental physics, but instead can be broken. That isn't me talking, those are scientists. They are human beings like anyone else. This is idiotic. Burden of proof may fall on the shoulders of others, but suggesting that the device is just "noise" when verified multiple times without answer is inserting your own preconceptions on how the universe MUST work. And I'm sorry...Since when did the world run by science? It is a method of study, nothing more. Facts are irregardless of whether men with doctorates accept them or not. This wiki article is obtuse, aberrant, and heretical not for failing to follow and defend scientific establishment, but for unrealistically and stupidly enforcing the prior faith one has had in past answers. We do not define the universe, we learn it. Nothing shown by any part of EM drive has been attributed to just noise. I'm editing out these statements now. 2600:1700:BCE0:A230:49AD:964B:5606:567D (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and if you are really trying to counterargue in favor of relativity, like every good and well damned scientist, you are missing the point. Defending an idea is not what are duty is for. Defending truth as it can be understood. There is nothing to prove that this is just "noise". Nor is there anything to prove that this is in violation of conservation of momentum. This wiki documents everything, but I notice in two to three areas problems stick: Science, History, and Fiction. Fiction is lambasted in general, and unrealistically represented with statements like, "oh, shooting two guns is unrealistic because its a movie" being added unnecessarily to the content of the articles. Then with Science always an assertive tone is taken, as is normal in science, without stopping to realize this foolish fighting has happened a thousand times over or more. Whether quoting an atheistic scientist who of course says the theory of evolution is not in crisis, just missing links, using mutations that kill people, and still can't create a germ out of nonliving substances... With History...A lot of ignorance Wikipedia would have to get way too deep into to really get the real problem of the modern historian, worse than the scientist, whose own methods deny the records. That one is a strength and deeply evidenced study of mine in too many areas, so I myself don't worry about those articles.

But with Science why do the articles have to make the clearly partial statement of "Evolution is a hundred percent valid" and make a slim quote by an atheist as the excuse when the atheist is ignoring the Christian and saying they cannot be a scientist so we are, nah, nah, boo, boo...All while the Wiki is trying to merely document what happened in one historical event. If we cannot capture both sides and just are trying to make statements for ourselves we are stupid. This one is really, really, really obvious in terms of defying and blatantly mocking the experiments which do not agree with traditional views of the laws of nature. But the rule of science is you discard statements that disagree with experimental results, not hold on to lies. And many scientists agree this is more than just noise, they have duplicated it in more than a single lab, and is not a hoax. So now the fear is pure faith, philosophy, and trying to protect old theories, which leads others, including this article, to lash out at the proof itself. Maybe this does fail and we find a different answer one day, maybe not. But because history runs a gauntlet fraught with hoaxes and false alarms does not validate certain theories or laws above others to the point we unobjectively have the right to perpetuate them regardless and ignorant of evidencing obstructions in the way of the trained mantra we hold dear. That is my objective argument for the changes I am about to make. If you would like to list the examples of others who have counter evidence or beliefs contrary like mine does with relativity, then go ahead. That was the point. Also, take damned to mean condemned. I'm more literary that way.

As far as relativity, that was just the point. I understand relativity and actually write fiction and spend too much time preparing notes on scientists lying about the power of warp drive for six decades until unnecessary math came along to convince them that the simplicity of bending spacetime with high energy to move faster than light made so much sense Einstein practically said it himself in John Campbell's ear. Oh, yes. I get relativity and the fabric of spacetime is an easy concept to get too and why we have some of the coolest things in sci fi that most scientists hypocritically criticize when their theories also open up the room to have these ideas work. Even others have taken Relativity to new ideas, some defiant of Einstein, because its obvious there are a few holes and alternative chances with his model that allow to get away with things, like maybe time travel and I already mentioned warp speed. But upon simply looking at the basic premise and Why we have spacetime, I realized it was illogical and false, with no real data on the subject. No touch of spacetime, weak atomic "clocks" that only does what gravity, which we already had, told them to break down and become stupidly, evilly bad timepieces. Pure math. And not even derived from other established facts, but adding things like space + time, constant speed of light despite experiments to the contrary to the extreme, and interpretations to gracefully avoid a few violations here and there. A history fraught with those trying to hold on to Aether, which is how some peg people who don't like relativity to say they are fools, versus those who also hold onto relativity and state that even if wrong they are going to keep the idea around. Science as a history is dark and destructive, full of fighting and contention and the community at each other's throats or condemning the one fool who ends up proving them all wrong. There are biases. And my only point is this...We need to objectively present outside information without creating an internal memo that determines the winner in these contests, but rather states the points of views in all their differences, points, or counterpoints, even if we disagree. I defend fiction with relativity used rather than abused, because we lied about FTL capability just because fiction is not worth a cent to people to believe in. Because movies with black holes are wrong even if a scientist designed the black hole and there are a dozen or more iterations of theory for different black holes out there. But I don't believe in relativity myself nor use it, the more easily, as a writer myself. That is being objective, and wikipedia needs to for articles for religious, scientific, historical, and other such contents, without sounding patronizing or politically correct, but mainly maintaining a style which is useful and informative. And no debate, please. For real, it was just a point about objectivity. If you want to look at relativity, do so yourself. But don't just defend it because its "science". That practically means nothing in the scheme of things. Men make much of it, but it falls apart to suggest that science made the universe and everything in it, that Alexander Graham Bell got us phones because of science. He wasn't a scientist. It does not, a phone, exist because of science or the powerful will of scientists. It exists, period. Science is just observation, experiment, hypothesis, with the hopes of finding facts and a lot of failure and other clutter getting stuck in these kinds of issues right here. Wikipedia needs to be like the phone, and just exist as fact, and not conflate things by stating facts are science, when science merely searches for facts, and we have to admit then everyone is a mere searcher whomever we could quote as providing evidence for or against even one violation of conservation or the existence of thrust. And dang, I cannot personally acquiesce to my own desire to fix this article. With writing, personal research into too many areas, and...This article is a mess right now, way too biased, and the only reason some of you don't see it, is because you are probably like me, and don't believe in what others do. That is not the point. We need this fixed, for the sake of information. 2600:1700:BCE0:A230:49AD:964B:5606:567D (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There must be a more concise way of expressing your objection. Spiel496 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a concise way, but if you're refusing to read the objection you've only proved his point. The point is that appeal to authority and appeal to majority is an informal logical fallacy. Wikipedia often uses a logical form similar to "Einstein claimed quantum mechanics is crap science, ergo quantum mechanics is crap science." (Reference). Today, even though we accept Einstein's authority to General and Special Relativity, we reject his authority that quantum mechanics is crap science.
 * One major point made above is that people can read an article, and come to their own beliefs that all the "facts" that the article presents are not "facts" but instead appeals to authority. I've read academic articles that Wikipedia quotes and have found that many don't even agree with the claims made by Wikipedia; outside of the abstract.
 * In short, I am claiming that wikipedians do not even read the sources that are referenced, sources are used as a justification for their original research in proving a belief and getting a point they want in the Wikipedia article. The argument that started this is clearly seen here []. The argument is well written, showing that our lack of understanding of what is going on is not an indication that what is going on is impossible... removed because it supported something that Arianewiki1 did not believe in. (The reference specifically talks about this point of view.)
 * To put simply, it is NOT Wikipedia's place to have a partisan point of view on what is "fact", nor even to blindly say "everyone/some-authority agrees this is fact, so it is fact", because that constitutes original research. Wikipedia has a long history of producing highly partisan pages where there is no explanation nor attempt to explain the opponent's beliefs in a way that does not mock the opponent.134.194.253.21 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we are not going to pretend that there is some debate about whether Santa Clause exists. I suggest that you try to find a website that does not have policies like our WP:V and WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Scientific focus
As written, this article fails to adhere to Wikipedia's scientific focus principle. RF cavity thruster is pseudoscience and should be labeled as such, per Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science. H eptor  talk 22:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and we shouldn't let the first sentence read like this would be an actual working thing. At least some "disputed" or similar should appear there. --mfb (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit, there is nothing wrong with calling pseudoscience what it is, and removing a citation needed tag is completely unacceptable behavior. See, , , , , , , , , --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect per WP:LABEL, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:NOTPROMO. We can't label this subject as pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice, and certainly not in the first sentence.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL states that pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". H eptor   talk 22:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think so long as they've been able to publish in scientific journals, it's probably not pseudoscience, just fringe science. It's a testable claim, and it's looking like it's mostly failing the tests. Until people make the claim that it's really truly working anyway, when it's been unequivocally disproven, and we preferably have secondary sources that show that, we shouldn't stick the pseudoscience label on it. It's not homeopathy or astrology- yet.GliderMaven (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording "The majority opinion of physicists is that this impossible, as it would violate several basic principles of physics, specifically conservation of momentum and conservation of energy." violates WP:V and WP:OR. I would hope that anyone wanting to make these kinds of changes would discuss them on the talk page first, after reviewing previous discussions about how the lead is written.- MrX 🖋 19:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * At root, science is not a consensus of scientists, it's a consensus of what the experiments show. It doesn't matter whether it violates conservation of momentum and energy; that just incredibly raises the chances of it being wrong. But no, in the end it has to actually not work, and for people to continue to state it to be science to be pseudoscience.GliderMaven (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are many sources that confirm that this device can't work per the third law of motion, see for example. There are few things that are more mainstream scientific consensus than the third law of motion, are there? I mean, I understand that it would be awesome if humanity went to the stars in a cleverly shaped microwave oven :) But seriously? I find it rather peculiar that I am having this discussion with seemingly well-educateed fellow editors. H eptor   talk 21:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources please. Fringe? Yes. Pseudoscience? Not yet. Time and additional experiments will tell, but currently papers are still being published on this (which is an indication against pseudoscience). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many source that say it does work, or that it might work, or that it's unknown whether it will work. Some of those sources are also more current than the ones you cite. We're not here to examine the evidence and reach conclusions based on our personal knowledge of Newtonian physics. We have to adhere to what sources say. If sources disagree, then we need to represent each prominent viewpoint in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 21:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, even the Daily Mail clearly states that it is against the laws of physics. H eptor   talk 21:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * GliderMaven, sadly, quite a few pseudo-scientific disciples are able to publish in low-level scientific journals. Especially health-related pseudoscience is often published in China. Homeopathy even have their own journal, published by Elsevier. Such is the world we live in..  H eptor   talk 22:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What do we learn? Peer review is just as good as the peers. --mfb (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True. Discerning good science from nonsense is really difficult, next to impossible without a long experience, preferably with formal schooling. H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk 11:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

So, per discussion above, there don't seem to be an agreement to clearly label the topic of this article as pseudoscience per WP:LABEL and Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science. Is there support to write this article from the scientific point of view, stating that the design is not compatible with our current understanding of the laws of physics, as it would violate, among other things, the third law of motion? There don't seem to be a lack of sources for this statement, see e.g. the list provided by Guy Macon:, , , , , , , , , -- <b style="color: #000040">H</b> eptor   <small style="color: #400000">talk 11:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I made more conservative changes to the article than originally proposed:
 * 1) Roger Shawyer said himself that this design is not a "reactionless drive". So it was very odd that it was described as such in the first sentence in the article
 * 2) The sentence clause "It is a controversial proposed type of electromagnetic thruster with a microwave cavity" was rather confusing, so I simplified the drive description in the lead
 * 3) "Skeptics have deemed" is poor writing style, not suited for an encyclopedia. I condensed it to "The design is controversial, as it would [...]"
 * 4) Since it is controversial if the drive actually works, I changed the main description from " a type of [...] drive" to "a proposed design".

Best wishes, Heptor (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Heptor, Guy Macon and others for the recent cleanup: the article is much better as a result.
 * The unqualified claims by the two inventors that this works, and that they have repeatedly shown it works, are classic pseudoscience. In addition to having no scientific explanation for the claim (just an unverified statement that they saw an effect, and believe it's possible), both inventors have repeatedly misled others about their results. They have never published, have hidden claimed breakthroughs behind veils of secrecy, and for 15y have claimed increasing performance targets while being unable to show any non-zero performance in public.
 * The studies by scientists from two respected institutions are not pseudoscience; they are real scientists studying the above claims -- and trying to come up with more scientific claims that could possibly explain how such a device might work, were that miraculously to be the case. A total of 1 article (White) has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This alone doesn't make the topic less psuedo-; there are plenty of published articles by scientists studying pseudoscience. The fact that White found a slight effect that he couldn't rule out, did delay labeling this topic pseudoscience. But at some point soon we should revisit this. – SJ +  08:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for reviewing the discussion and bringing additional arguments. I agree with what you wrote above. The claims that this contraption produces thrust are pseudoscientific, and the article could state it more clearly. We still have a significant improvement from how the article was before, when this concept was described as an actual thruster, and criticism was brushed off per "skeptics have deemed" . Thanks, Heptor (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, but we use sources at Wikipedia. We also follow WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 18:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, so it appears that unfortunately there is still no consensus for plainly stating that this concept is pseudoscience. Heptor (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. There is an overwhelming consensus for plainly stating that this concept is pseudoscience. As always with pseudoscience, we have a few True Believers bitterly complaining about how unfair Wikipedia is. The nerve of those Wikipedia editors, reporting what is in the sources! How DARE they! It is interfering with our god-given right to defraud investors is what it is!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where's this overwhelming consensus that you speak of?- MrX 🖋 18:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it is overwhelming, but please count me in. --mfb (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Count you in for what?- MrX 🖋 20:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For "this is pseudoscience" because I agree with that. --mfb (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There is always an overwhelming consensus for things that are in reliable sources and against unsourced claims.

"In his paper on the EMDrive, McCulloch argued that photons have mass and that photon mass varies with time. The time-varying inertia allows the EMDrive to accelerate. The idea not only violates Newton's third law of motion, it violates special relativity, general relativity and Noether's theorem. Since these are each well tested theories that form the basis of countless other theories, their violation would completely overturn all of modern physics. It's no wonder most scientists have been aggressively skeptical of the idea."

"A drive which does not expel propellant in order to produce a reaction force, but rather provides thrust from the electromagnetic field without any external interaction, is a reactionless drive. Such a closed system need not carry propellant and hence would be capable of always producing thrust, as long as it is powered, and would appear to violate the conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, leading many physicists to believe such thrusters to be impossible, labeling them as pseudoscience."

"Although the EM Drive appeared to create thrust in these tests, there was no mass or particles of any kind expelled during the process. This is a violation of Newton's third law of motion, which says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Action and reaction is a direct result of the conservation of momentum. The violation of such a basic law as the conservation of momentum would invalidate much of the basis for all of physics as we know it. Hence, many scientists and engineers feel the thrust measurements reported for the EM Drive are due to experimental error. Adding to this is the fact that those who believe the results are valid do not yet have an experimentally or a theoretically plausible proven physical explanation."

"The EmDrive is a reactionless spacecraft drive proposed by Roger Shawyer in 1999. The key thing about it is that if it works, several extremely well-understood and tested principles of physics go completely out the window."

"{Newton's] third law is known as the conservation of momentum, and is true not only in Newtonian mechanics, but in electromagnetism, General Relativity and all of quantum field theory. It's the one law that Newton came up with that still holds, with no exceptions, today.

But if the EMdrive is truly reactionless, then Newton is wrong. Also, Einstein is wrong, Maxwell is wrong and all of quantum physics is wrong. There's a fundamental symmetry that causes momentum conservation: translational symmetry. It means that if my system is over here, at a certain point in space, it should obey the same laws as if it's over there, at a different point in space. But if momentum conservation isn't truly fundamental, then translational symmetry cannot be a good symmetry of the Universe. In other words, there must be a preferred location, where the laws of physics are different in one location than others. The laws of physics, all of a sudden, depend on position.

It means that the fundamental principle of relativity is wrong. It means that if you're in an inertial reference frame, you can see an entire system's momentum change over time. Moreover, it means that observers in different reference frames will see violations of momentum conservation by different amounts. If you violate momentum conservation by different amounts, you violate energy conservation, too; energy is not only not conserved, it's not conserved by different amounts in different reference frames. The most sacred law of particle physics -- one that has been observed to apply to every system and every interaction set in history -- would be busted.

The problem isn't that these laws couldn't be overturned by experiment; of course they could. The problem is that physicists have performed so many experiments in so many different ways, so carefully and with such precision verifying them. These conservation laws have been confirmed for every gravitational, mechanical, electromagnetic and quantum interaction ever observed. And now, it's claimed that an engine, one that relies on nothing more than a simple electromagnetic power source, overthrows all of physics."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Which is why you should still be suspicious of the "emDrive," a theoretical propulsion system that supposedly could propel objects to near-relativistic speeds, despite this week's headlines touting the technology.... there are a few things you should know. Previous tests of emDrive haven't held up to scrutiny. And the NASA agency investigating the EmDrive, informally known as Eagleworks, is specifically devoted to investigation of fringe or far-future ideas such as the Alcubierre Drive, a futuristic warp drive that is both (marginally) technically possible and completely unfeasible due to bonkers energy demands. So just because you hear that NASA is intrigued by an idea, don't assume that it's going to work tomorrow... Responding to the claim that emDrive could produce thrust with a small amount of influence from microwaves, Corey Powell at Discover pointed out in August 2014 that the idea is riddled with holes. That write-up followed a slew of headlines declaring that NASA had verified the emDrive. The reality was closer to NASA engineer shrugging and saying "oh, that's neat."

One of the Shawyer's latest claims is that the EmDrive can create warp bubbles. He says the emDrive created a warp-like bubble in a NASA lab, bending space and time around it and enabling photons to go faster than the speed of light." --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Notably, the only sources that actually say that this invention is pseudoscience are blogs that come nowhere near meeting our reliable source standards. Nothing has changed from all of the previous discussions on this page in which hard core skeptics wanted to label this pseudoscience based on their own original research and grasping as really awful sources.- MrX 🖋 20:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You appear to be unfamiliar with WP:PARITY: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing in that guideline permits ignoring WP:V and WP:RS. This subject has been covered in actual reliable sources. Let's just stick with those. I also dispute that WP:PARITY has wide community consensus.- MrX 🖋 11:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and dispute it all you like, but the statement "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard..." still stands. Try posting an RfC to change it. I will make popcorn and watch as you get shot down in flames. --Guy Macon (talk)
 * There are plenty of WP:RS sources that confirm that this contraption doesn't produce thrust in any particular direction per well-established laws of physics. Its proponents nevertheless present scientifically-sounding explanations to its supposed operation. Even though not all sources explicitly call this theory pseudoscience, a wide range of well-established policies support describing the topic as pseudoscience in such cases. This includes WP:PSCI: "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. [...] The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such". WP:LABEL makes a specific exception for pseudoscientific topics. Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science: "[Wikipedia's content on] quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus". WP:PARITY is established as a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, you can't just brush it off like you did, especially when its application agrees with other policies. Heptor (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No need for me to dispute it or have an RfC. There was no RfC to add that pretzel logic word salad to the guideline in the first place, so it can readily be ignored, or at least, discounted.- MrX 🖋 12:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OR includes making up your own mind that stuff is impossible, citing lack of imagination. Oh, to be clear, the magnetic interaction with cables is a really good debunk idea, sure.  But until the rest of the world decrees it pseudoscience, the imagination will continue to wander, and we should use the same categorization as the sources. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Roger Shawyer's MIEE
Since User:Heptor took the unusual step of questioning Roger Shawyer's qualification as a "British engineer", I found that Shawyer lists "C.Eng MIEE" after his name in his paper published online by New Scientist. I think one could reasonably surmise that someone who includes "C.Eng MIEE" after their name in a paper published by a major science magazine would be legit because of the legal action the that either the Engineering Council or the Institution of Electrical Engineers would take against someone fraudulently making such a claim. Indeed when I checked on what those organizations did to enforce it, legal action & fines seemed to be the primary actions.

However, I have found that finding a directory for MIEE or C.Eng is a fruitless task. When I emailed membership@theiet.org to ask how to verify the membership, the response from the Membership Services Advisor was:

Given the IET's keeping confidentiality for its members, I think it impossible to further verify an MIEE designation. Given the the potential possible fines & legal action for anyone fraudulently claiming to be an MIEE, I think we can take Roger Shawyer at his word as we do any other person who says they are an MIEE.

Peaceray (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

New conference note by Tajmar et al
The SpaceDrive Project - First Results on EMDrive and Mach-Effect Thrusters. One of the results: Interactions between insufficiently shielded cables and the magnetic field of Earth can lead to thrust values similar to the claimed thrust values. --mfb (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting explanation indeed. Heptor (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "When they turned on the system but dampened the power going to the actual drive so essentially no microwaves were bouncing around, the EmDrive still managed to produce thrust—something it should not have done if it works the way the NASA team claims."
 * "The researchers have tentatively concluded that the effect they measured is the result of Earth’s magnetic field interacting with power cables in the chamber, a result that other experts agree with." Source: National Geographic
 * -Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should the EmDrive be labeled as Pseudoscience?
Should the RF resonant cavity thruster (commonly called the EmDrive in the popular press) be labeled as Pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)



Survey

 * Support as proposer. The RF resonant cavity thruster and all claims by its inventors are classic pseudoscience. They claim that the drive provides a substantial amount of thrust and they claim that they have demonstrated this, but nobody can conform or replicate their results. They have never published, are very secretive about the details, and for over fifteen years have made claims of larger and larger thrusts while being unable to show any thrust at all in any public demonstration.
 * The studies by NASA Eagleworks and the team of Chinese researchers are examples of legitimate scientists testing the pseudoscientific claims and finding a slight effect of unknown cause. There may be some unknown physical effect in play, and this is probably worth investigating, but that doesn't change the fact that the RF resonant cavity thruster and all claims by its inventors are classic pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. First, bear in mind that the article is not about the Emdrive trademark/product, but about RF resonant cavity thrusters of any provenance.  Wikipedia widely maintains this bureaucratic distinction rather doggedly - just today, to find out the density of Styrofoam, I had to go to "expanded polystyrene".  Thus, we should consider all RF thruster tests, not just Emdrive's.  Then, I say, go to the references.  Are those citations to the Discovery Institute, or are they citations to Popular Science and New Scientist and even Nature?  Well, there's your answer.  Wrong science is not pseudoscience, it's just wrong.  If it's wrong.  For something impossible there sure are a lot of speculations how it could work. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - no science, just claims of sciencing-stuff-going-on-here. Classic pseudo-science, if not outright fraud then clearly self-delusional claptrap. "It could work if Newton's Third Law is junk" is not science, it's wishful thinking. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No mention of fraud in the article. Heaviside glow (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Orangemike suggests that it should be described as fraud in the article. However, if this Shawyer person indeed has an engineering background as some claim, then his claims about this device are almost certainly made in bad faith in order to defraud investors. Heptor (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Geographic article cited below says that scientists are testing this. Nothing about pseudo.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Verifiability is a core policy, and so it the prohibition on original research, which is exactly what is being proposed here. The vast majority of reliable sources simply do not state that this concept is pseudoscience. Wnt is exactly right.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Neutral Point of View means that Wikipedia does not decide whether or not a topic is pseudo-scientific. Instead it reports that reputable secondary sources claim that the topic is pseudo-scientific. And that other reputable secondary sources do not make such claims. -- Derek Ross &#124; Talk'' 02:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Exactly. It's not up to us to label it as pseudoscience. It's under investigation, but it's clear from the article content that mainstream science not only thinks it will not work, but that it is impossible for it to work. If and when reliable sources decide to call this pseudoscience then we can use the term. Meters (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this is treated seriously by scientists. It is very likely to be falsified, and then be in yet another category. if after it is thoroughly debunked then people hang on and believe it, then it would be pseudoscience, but it is not yet at that point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see the serious scientists treating this seriously. --mfb (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Qualified support: "Should the [subject of this article] be labelled X" is wholly insufficient and problematic way to frame an inquiry in any RfC, imo, and the present example shows just why something more specific is called for. "Pseudoscience" is used at least once in the article already (correctly in my analysis), and I presume that the current discussion is not about whether to maintain that use, since it is clearly attributed and relevant to that context.  So are we talking about a mention in the lead? If so, of what nature? Are we talking about a category listing? Specifics are important here or you drastically reduce the chances of a firm consensus understanding emerging, which is the entire point of an RfC.  So the best I can do is offer conditional support; there are plenty of contexts where I can see WP:DUE weight established here (between the one explicit use in a WP:Reliable source and the other many profound doubts expressed in others) for an explicit reference to pseudoscience.  Does such a description belong in the lead? Eh, it's a close call, but maybe not. A lot of serious labs, engineers and experimental physicists thought enough of this idea to build prototypes, even if some were for the express purpose of debunking rather than verifying the concept.  That means they at least recognized is as something falsifiable, which is a key distinguishing element between science and most pseudoscience.  Anyway, I don't want to get out into the weeds of my own original research on this: the point is, I definitely feel the current use of the term (which is not in Wikipedia's statement-of-fact voice but rather attributed to a reliable source) is without a question appropriate. A broader description in the lead or a pervasive tremd throughout the article? Probably that does not meet the WP:WEIGHT burden; in any event, the article does a good job already of making clear that this concept would violate basic physical laws and is almost certainly a theoretic impossibility.


 * And that's the more important thing: describing the inconsistencies in a way that is accessible and useful to the reader; using the exact handle "pseudoscience" is less important than that. The hope is that readers typically can read between the lines and infer from the descriptions of the concept (while availing themselves of our referenced/linked articles to fill in the gaps in their own knowledge) that the concept is nonsense.  As a pragmatic matter, I look at the situation this way: ultimately the reader either has progressed in their level of understanding of the physical universe such that they understand the need for consistent physical laws which operate without predictably (when cross effects of these laws are taken into account) in any hypothetical--or said individual is not yet at that place.  If the former, then the descriptions of the EmDrive (and like models) being inconsistent with some well established physical laws will already impart the knowledge that the general concept is flimsy.  If the latter, then the use of "pseudoscience" for that variety of reader is merely talismanic; they are only understanding that the concept is faulty because we have used a label which is strongly recognizable/prejudicial enough that they take away the general idea that this device is unlikely to become a reality, but we haven't really succeeded in educating them deeply on the topic if that that's the case, and that's a rather shallow amount of information to impart.  So when we are talking to that reader we have to be extra careful not to impute labels to topic which are not found directly and abundantly in the sources, because that reader has no ability to appreciate the nuances at play and might walk away from the descriptor "pseudoscience" thinking that this is equivalent science to homeopathy or "quantum healing" or some such. Considering the balance of value added between the aggregate readers and the state of the available sourcing, I can see the argument for not including the label in the lead.  But to excise any reference to pseudoscience from the article would be a much bigger issue, and a mistake. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 05:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One vague National Geographic news claim "with many physicists relegating the EmDrive to the world of pseudoscience" is not a very strong basis for using the term "pseudoscience". What's many? Five? 50? 500? 5000? And who are these physicists? Are they crackpots or are they eminent scientists? We don't know, because the article makes no mention of how many or who the opposing physicists are. That's simply lousy writing by National Geographic. In Wikipedia terms, it's unsourced WP:WEASEL wording. In fact, the only physicists mentioned by name are those who support the theory.. Meters (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may wish to refamiliarize yourself with WP:WEASEL, because the wording of that section of WP:WTW explicitly states that we caution against such statements when they are presented as objective fact in Wikipedia's own voice, but it is not our place to judge the quality of work or the veracity of opinions or statements found in WP:reliable sources (which would be a blatant exercise in WP:original research). In fact, while everybody knows that subsection by its wikilink shorthand, the actual header is "unsupported attributions", and the language makes it explicitly clear that we apply the weasel word analysis only to our own objective statements of fact, not to attributed statements--and certainly not in an analysis of the sources themselves (again, original research in its purest form): "[V]iews that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret..." (emphasis in original). That said, I agree that one source is not a gold standard, which is why I support this narrow inclusion of one attributed statement directed towards a specific point and not something broader, stamped across the article. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And you may wish to reread what I wrote. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I did not call Wikipedia repeating what National Geographic wrote WP:Weasel. I said that the unsupported claim in National Geographic was not was not a very strong basis for using the term "pseudoscience". It's lousy reporting by National Geographic. Any statement along the lines  of "many so-and-sos think such and such" with nothign to back up the statement is the reporting media's equivalent of Wikipedia's Weasel. Meters (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it's still not appropriate for us as Wikipedia editors to engage in an independent analysis of the science and whether a WP:reliable source "got it right" with regard to particular statements. That's just not within our remit under our project's policies, and remains an exercise in WP:original research, whether the editor's act of personal evaluation is being justified under WP:weasel or not. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 19:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've wasted enough time on this. I have made no "independent analysis of the science" here and I have not suggested that anyone else do so either. I have an opinion about he likelihood that this is not valid science, but my opinion is not germane to this discussion and so I have not given that opinion..Again, I'm not calling this Weasel wording on Wikipedia. I was just making the point that it is lazy, poor journalism by the source, and is certainly not justification for Wikipedia labelling this entire topic as "pseudoscience", which is what this survey is asking about. Based on that single source the most I would support is something along the lines of "National Geographic states ' blah blah' ", definitely no a blanket statement in Wikipedia's voice that this is pseudoscience... Meters (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A) Feel free to stop "wasting your time" at any point; you're the one who responded to my comment--with an incorrect reading of policy as I see it. B) Once again, it doesn't matter whether you are trying to say that WP:WEASEL applies to the analysis of statements inside a WP:Reliable source or not; I assure you, I took you at your word the first time you said that was not the point you were trying to make.  But it is nevertheless WP:original research to decide a source is not valid for a given purpose because it didn't meet your standard of the burden of proof for the way it chooses to describe the topic.  C) If you review the comment you first replied to above, you will find that I also support, based on the WP:WEIGHT of that one source, only a clearly attributed and narrowly-focused statement--and that I don't support a blanket statement (in Wikipedia's voice) that this is psuedoscience as a purely objective matter, any more than you do.  In fact, not only did I say as much explicitly and at length in that post, that distinction was the crux of my own !vote.  So at the end of the day, it doesn't seem our perspectives are that far apart, at least as regards how the cite should look, if included. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 02:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just because it's unlikely to pan out doesn't make it pseudo-science on its own. I agree that this will almost certainly turn out to be a false hypothesis, but we're not voting on whether or not we think it will work. At least some Non-crackpots seem to have deemed this a long-shot worth treating seriously.  This is more of a Cold Fusion situation.  ApLundell (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The scientific consensus is settling on this, and very soon that consensus will likely be that the theories have been falsified, but to blanketly call it PS right now seems a bit premature and jumping the gun. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The situation here is the same as with most other pseudoscientific theories from Homeopathy to the Loch Ness Monster. A few publications in seemingly legitimate fora here and there are quite common because the proponents of the theories are working hard to make it happen. Debunking these theories doesn't usually warrant peer-reviewed publications: in our case it's a simple application of the Newton's Laws of Motion, it's on the level of a high school report, not a journal article. That's why we have WP:PARITY. There is nothing special about this article compared to other topics covered by WP:PSCI. Heptor (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose A hypothesis that is thoroughly tested and fails is very different from something that can be considered pseudoscience. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not pseudo because it failed, it's pseudo because it is inconsistent with science as it is currently understood.Heptor (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The final arbiter in science is the experiment though. Just because it violates conservation of momentum and energy doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, although it looks pretty bad, but if it fails the experiments, then, after it's published, and generally agreed that's what's happened, then it's wrong, and not science. Anyone that then continues to act as if it's science, that's pseudoscience. We're roughly at the stage where the results of good experiments are coming in and it's looking very bad. GliderMaven (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR, . The problem is that there is no justification for the believe that the EM drive should produce thrust any more than it should cause cancer or make it rain. If EM drive goes then any ridiculous claim is science until proven otherwise. Heptor (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Note that some of the experiments show a small amount of thrust. All I'm saying is that until we get a secondary source that analyses the primary sources and shows (as I strongly believe) that there is no thrust, Wikipedia cannot go further than the published science. GliderMaven (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And don't you agree that most scientists also strongly believe that there can be no thrust here? That's why you'll likely never get any secondary source that makes the analysis you ask for. It would take a lot of work to make it. Scientists can't be expected to investigate every ridiculous claim that there is out there. That's why we have WP:parity. Heptor (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most scientists didn't think that the OPERA experiment proved that neutrinos were superluminal either, but it wasn't until the results were explained that the matter was settled. You actually want the article to include OR, not me. GliderMaven (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The OPERA researchers never claimed that they had proven that something moves faster than the speed of light. They reported the results of an experiment that appeared to observe muon neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light and concluded that they did something wrong but they didn't know what. Just the opposite of the RF resonant cavity thruster people, who have fraudulently claimed that the violation of the laws of physics is real. See OPERA experiment and Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly. Your example clearly shows the difference between scientists and pseudoscientists. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's still science right now. As long as people are still doing experiments and getting them published in reasonably high-impact journals, it's part of science. GliderMaven (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now It's not a settled matter yet as far as I can tell. Just because an hypothesis is likely to be falsified doesn't make it automatically pseudoscience. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: a falsifiable hypothesis to explain a repeatable observation (i.e. that these devices seem to produce thrust) is not pseudoscience just because it goes against existing principles, even if those principles are well-accepted cornerstones of modern science. One might object to calling these devices "thrusters" until most of the much-more-likely hypotheses have been ruled out, but this is the name many sources give them. It only becomes pseudoscience once people keep adhering to the hypothesis after it's been thoroughly debunked. -- Link <sup style="font-size: x-small;">(t&bull;c&bull;m) 07:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But, if what you say goes then anything goes. What's there to stop me from saying that clicking my heels sometimes causes rain? I can come up with a bogus explanation if you want, possibly based on chaos theory with some quantum thrown in. Point being, there is no scientific reason to think that the EM drive should cause thrust any more than it should cause cancer or make people fall in love. It's pseudo, even if not all sources explicitly call it that. Heptor (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, maybe I should have said "an unexpected repeatable observation" -- your example of rain is something we have a pretty good understanding of, and it doesn't require heel-clicking. In the cavity thruster case, however, anomalous thrust is observed, and not yet explained, which makes it a topic of scientific interest. Also, the "sometimes" in your example is unquantified and not comparable to the case at hand: if rain (thrust) always ensued immediately after you clicked your heels (turned on the cavity thruster), then yes, your chaos theory model would be within the realm of science. It could most likely be debunked pretty easily, but then there would still be the unexplained observation that it always rains after you click your heels. And if you want to leave the "sometimes", if you came up with a mathematically sound model based on established chaos theory and quantum mechanics, that predicted a large (i.e. measurable and discernible from noise) probability of rain being caused by clicking your heels, it would also, in my opinion, be fringe science rather than pseudoscience. -- Link <sup style="font-size: x-small;">(t&bull;c&bull;m) 06:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The claims are extraordinary, and the evidence is pretty clear that the "demonstrations" are fraudulent. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No mention of fraud in the article. Heaviside glow (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The concept, even including the fact that it challenges known physical laws, has been in public view for well over a decade. It continues to attract research interest but in all this time testing has produced an embarassing (to its promoters) paucity of verifiable results and a considerable number of hypotheses from mainstream science that explain why apparent tiny "false positive" thrusts can be due to experimental error. Classing the concept as Pseudoscience is the mainstream accepted view today that Wikipedia should reflect. Opposers please understand that IF IT HAPPENS TOMORROW that a proof of RF resonant cavity thrust is published in peer-reviewed reliable sources then Wikipedia is uniquely capable of reporting that surprising information within minutes. The same would apply to revolutionary discoveries that force recharacterization of any of this List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. But in none of these cases should Wikipedia attempt, or be congratulated for, foresight. Where it is apparent that the majority of scientists reject outright, reject after testing or ignore the RF resonant cavity thrust hypothesis then WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL policy supports classing it as pseudoscience in the light of best present knowledge. DroneB (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost Support, but... My problem is that, while I regard most of this matter as about as likely as perpetual motion, and the regard the efficiency of propulsion with reaction mass of zero rest mass as probably hopelessly too inefficient to be of interest if it can be done at all, I am not at all comfortable with the term Pseudoscience in this connection. It is not as though no one is doing investigation or falsification etc. Compare the articles on items such as cold fusion and polywater; wouldn't "fringe science" or "pathological science" or some other term that I have missed, be more appropriate? The rest of the text does cover the poverty of the prospects. I do reckon that fully and explicitly covering the implausibility of positive results and the theoretical basis for scepticism are unconditionally necessary. JonRichfield (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In what substantive way is this different from cold fusion? The cold fusion "inventors" claimed a large energy output, there were efforts to replicate their results, the efforts came up with essentially zero energy preoduced (plus or minus a tiny amount; no measurements is 100% accurate). There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur. The cavity thruster "inventors" claim a large thrust, there were efforts to replicate their results, the efforts came up with essentially zero thrust (plus or minus a tiny amount; no measurements is 100% accurate). There is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow an RF resonant cavity thruster to produce thrust. The cold fusion people have one advantage; cold fusion, if it exists, does not violate the basic laws of physics. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually like that suggestion of "fringe science" and I think if it, or other reasonable middle-ground solutions, had been considered before the RfC, they might have had a chance of being adopted by the local consensus of editors working on the article. The problem is, now that the RfC is well under way and trending towards omitting the "psuedoscience" label, I suspect that those editors who have !voted for the proposal that is likely to win the consensus will (as a combination of both fair principle and commitment bias) reject other "similar sounding" labels as an attempt to thwart or devalue the consensus.  Which is a shame, because I think that suggestion has some merit and strikes a good balance between the competing concerns which have some of us on or near the fence on this one. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 19:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - not seeing WP:V to support that WP:LABEL. It looks mostly like rumor and speculation, not something called pseudo science in coverage phys.org or denounced by scientific bodies.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still waiting for WP:V from WP:RS labeling this as pseudoscience. Until then, to label it as pseudoscience is WP:OR & WP:POV. Peaceray (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The idea of an RFCT is contradicted by (most people's understanding of) current scientific theory; and all experiments done so far have found that RFCT drives don't work. But the supporters of RFCT are doing real science, and trying design and build a working RFCT drive. It's not like they're trying to sell RFCT vehicles, with claims that they work supported by unconvincing scientific papers. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the topic is the subject of legitimate scientific inquiry, attempting to explain a discrepancy. Heaviside glow (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. THAT NASA WARP DRIVE? YEAH, IT'S STILL POPPYCOCK and many other similar mainsteam judgements - Of course, somebody may wikilawyer that poppycock is not the same as pseudoscience.... Staszek Lem (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could cite something from a study or a review or survey of the scientific literature rather than what is essentially an opinion piece that more or less implores us to disregard all empirical results because it just cannot be true. Peaceray (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a opinion of a no-bullshit person I trusted. You know, this is how science works: something is really-really just simply cannot be true no matter whatsoever. Unless solidly proven otherwise. Please google the phrase about extraordinary claims. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are sources that confirm that it violates the laws of physics and that it doesn't work, and there are a few sources that explicitly call it pseudoscience. See e.g. Guy Macon's . Heptor (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited quotes that I have read from below more or less say "It doesn't really work because it cannot work because it violates the laws of physics." Sorry, I am heavily influenced by what I learned in statistics & in evaluating psychological studies. It's all about empiricism. If one repeatedly fails to replicate an experiment, then it calls the first experiment(s) into question. If it sometimes works & sometimes not, then one needs to delve into what is causing the difference. If experiments reliably produce the same results under the same conditions & it does not agree with theory or laws, then maybe it is time to reshape the world view. Reliable empiricism should reshape theory & laws, not the other way around. Peaceray (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point -- it violates the laws of physics. Wikipedia is written from the current scientific consensus, and the laws of physics are a very integral part of this consensus. Per WP:FRINGELEVEL, "Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." All knowledge is to some degree uncertain, including scientific knowledge. So it may indeed turn out that this device produce thrust, perhaps even in the direction proposed by its "inventor". This is not the current scientific consensus however. Heptor (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that we are rejecting the scientific method here? "Scientific Laws record what happens." A Scientific Law "describes what phenomena happens." If one has a phenomena that is repeatable & the scientific law fails to describe it, one must determine either how the observed phenomena is really something else that is occurring, or why it somehow fits the law, or one needs to adjust the law accordingly. To reject empirical results out of hand & not apply scientific rigor is the real pseudoscience. Peaceray (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The scientific method is outside of the purview of Wikipedia. Wikipedia merely reports on what the secondary literature says about a topic. Nobody has put forward anything in this discussion that says that there is anything wrong with Wikipedia's treatment of the topic. Nobody has provided a source saying that there is fraud, or deliberate attempts to mislead. Heaviside glow (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The scientific method is about establishing facts. It is wrong to present opinions as fact, & that is what I object to. Please see my response to Heaviside glow below. Peaceray (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , as mentions, applying the scientific method is outside our scope. So if I may be allowed a brief transgression against WP:NOTAFORUM, the reason why sources call RFCD pseudoscience, and, indeed, bullshit, is about how the experiments are normally constructed. While scientific experiments are often designed to test a specific established law of nature or a hypothesis for a new law of nature, they are not doing that with RFCD. They just constructed something random and expect it to produce thrust for no discernible reason. The way they hype the experiment and solicit investor funds suggests that the motivation for this experiment is something else then science. There are additional issues, including that the methodology is not published so that others can attempt to replicate it, claims that it works when nobody is watching combined with failures to work when demonstrated in public, with fifteen years of unverified claims of increasing thrust. To be clear, nobody suggests suggests to write that it's fraud in the article since there are no reliable sources for that, but we are allowed to make our own opinions. Heptor (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And we can note opinions, as long as we clearly identify & attribute them, & do not state that they are fact. Please see my response to Heaviside glow below.
 * My allusion to the scientific method is analogous to WP:V. They are both forms of proof. Peaceray (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And the article can and should mention all these points if reliable secondary sources state them. And if or when reliable secondary sources start calling RF resonant cavity thrusters a pseudoscience, the article can and should be so updated. Heaviside glow (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot present opinion as fact. You can state something like "Many sources label the RF resonant cavity thruster as pseudoscience" then cite the sources in footnotes, but you cannot state that "RF resonant cavity thruster is pseudoscience" as there is no source yet that proves it. We are subject to verification & maintaining a neutral point of view. We are not a soapbox nor are we social media. "All we want are the facts. Peaceray (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not Yet - I think most would agree that it's likely shenanigans, but while there are still legitimate scientists working to disprove it, I think the "pseudoscience" claim might be premature. NickCT (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I did some counting: I see 8*"support", 1*"Almost Support, but", 18*"oppose". There is clearly no consensus for calling it pseudoscience at the moment. --mfb (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not enough RSs calling it a pseudoscience, and too many scientists trying to verify it. Diego (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least for now. When I first heard about this I immediately knew there was approximately 0% chance it was going to be a real effect. However the line between legitimate science and pseudoscience does not lie in success or failure. It lies in methodology & respect for experimental results. At this time the sources appear to show a significant number of reputable scientists legitimately exploring the fringes of science and coming up with negative results or results within an unclear margin of experimental error. If scientists close the chapter on this research in the future, and it continues as a significant field of crackpottery, then we may need to tag that as pseudo-science. I suspect that won't be necessary. Unlike astrology homeopathy and UFOs, I don't see much natural niche to sustain a significant market for crackpottery here. Alsee (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is going the same way as cold fusion already. Claims by some people with replication attempts mostly finding nothing. Replications attempts that claim to find something do so with wildly different numbers, poor or simply no quantification of systematic uncertainties, rarely making it through peer review and never in appropriate journals, ... in a few years this will be as dead as cold fusion. --mfb (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as I don't see any sources explicitly calling this "pseudoscience" right now. I think it's a bit premature to label this as pseudoscience before a consensus in the scientific community has been reached and research has stopped. Hickland (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as currently it is treated by experimenters as a scientific experiment, and several scientific theories are being proposed to explain the observed effects. There's a difference between pseudoscience and honest scientific attempts to explain an unexpected phenomenon. Recent papers by Tajmar examining sources of electromagnetic interference and ways to minimize them as an explanation to the anomalous thrust are pure science as it should be done. 79.179.91.124 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
A lot of people who don't take pseudoscience seriously have shown an interest in it. If this was just the normal crackpot, perpetual motion, free energy stuff then NASA and others would not have wasted their time testing it. Dowsers, astrologers and wombat magnetisers can hammer on the door all day. They don't get out of bed for that tosh. Clearly, they saw something worthy of evaluation here. Of course, the fact that it doesn't seem to work is not exactly unexpected but serious people have thought it worth making sure. They must have thought that there was an open question, even if it only had the slimmest of chances of confounding expectations.

So, should we call it "pseudoscience"? Do we have good sources calling it "pseudoscience"? We should let the sources decide. I'm not sure if this was 100% guaranteed pseudoscience from the outset but my expectation is that continued belief in it after all the poor test results is increasingly likely to be pseudoscientific. That said, a quick glance at the search links has not resolved it for me. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * User:DanielRigal an factual correction (sidenote since you were just being silly with wombat magnetiser,) but I believe wombats are already lightly paramagnetic i.e. repelled microscopically by magnetic fields.   You can go to youtube and see the super magnet vs mouse demonstration.  Should be careful ... reality is often weirder than fiction.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that most peer-reviewed scientists ignore pseudoscience (See WP:Parity:


 * "Previous reports about the engine have been met with heaping doses of skepticism, with many physicists relegating the EmDrive to the world of pseudoscience... The trouble is, the EmDrive violates Newton’s third law" --National Geographic
 * "Although the EM Drive appeared to create thrust in these tests, there was no mass or particles of any kind expelled during the process. This is a violation of Newton's third law of motion, which says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Action and reaction is a direct result of the conservation of momentum. The violation of such a basic law as the conservation of momentum would invalidate much of the basis for all of physics as we know it." --engineering professor Brice Cassenti, an expert in advanced propulsion systems
 * "The story of 'NASA’s impossible space engine' has roared back to life, prompted by an updated report on NasaSpaceflight.com. But the sad truth is that not much has really changed since my original investigation. The space engine still violates known laws of physics. The evidence that it works is still marginal, based on the limited information that the NASA Eagleworks team has reported. Those findings have not been submitted to peer review, so there is no way to evaluate them independently. And NasaSpaceflight.com is not in any way a NASA outlet. The official NASA statement: 'This is a small effort that has not yet shown any tangible results.' " --Discover Magazine
 * "The makers of the drive claim that it produces thrust without propellant. Physicists say that such a thing would violate the law of conservation of momentum. Devices that claim to break a well-established law of physics have a terrible track record. The device is alleged to work by bouncing microwaves back and forth within its chamber. There is a subtle asymmetry to this, bouncing harder in one direction than the other, which produces thrust. The problem with this, of course, is that the thrust is not balanced by anything, you get net momentum in one direction without an equal and opposite momentum in the other. Newton is displeased" --Neurologica Blog
 * If [A] it violates the laws of physics, and [B] the inventors cannot show any thrust in a public demonstration, then it is pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. That is not a definition of pseudoscience. National Geographic doesn't call this pseudoscience either, but it does happen to mention that "... scientists at NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratories have been building and testing just such a thing. Called an EmDrive, the physics-defying contraption ostensibly produces thrust simply by bouncing microwaves around inside a closed, cone-shaped cavity, no fuel required.".- MrX 🖋 02:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon - this is what one would instead call a demonstration of WP:OR.  There are after all other forms of propellentless drive such as  solar sails or a beam push, Electromagnetic catapult, or a Gravity assist. (Gravity assist is usually referring to magnifying the effect of a microthrust in orbital mechanics but I suppose one could do it mechanically somewhat like someone on a swing.)   In this case, it may well be and unexpected EM effects, or undetected exhaust, maybe just uneven heating, or a simple measurement error ... but the question is still being examined while people speculate or throw rumors about.


 * I don't intend to vote as I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but would only like to answer to : well the US gov did invest in things like remote viewing in the past.<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that the dignity we credit to NASA, and other governmental scientific bodies, is a property of governments as a whole. If NASA fell in with the wombat magnetisers then that would be a shock and a pity. If some other parts of a government did then that would merely be a pity. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly concerned with the dignity of NASA but I do think we should be cautious with how we throw around the pseudoscience label. Legitimate scientists doing legitimate science do make wrong turns occasionally, and when the research involves novel propulsion technology it's not unusual for there to be a bit too much secrecy. This doesn't mean it's pseudoscience, yet. I'd suggest we treat this as it presents: an un-verified hypothesis. In a few years, if it turns out to all be hogwash but somebody is still quixotically defending it we can always go back and add the pseudoscience label at that point.Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Guy's final line here is a worrying redefinition of pseudoscience.
 * Pseudoscience describes a broken process, not simply a surprising idea that hasn't been publicly proven. ApLundell (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a broken process, not a "surprising idea that hasn't been publicly proven". Violates the laws of physics? Check. Methodology not published so that others can attempt to replicate? Check. Claims that it works when nobody is watching combined with failure to work when demonstrated in public? Check. Fifteen years of claims of larger and larger thrust? Check. Multiple reliable sources describe it as "pseudoscience", "junk science", "physics-defying", and "bullshit"? Check. Inventors acitely advertising for investors? Check. If this isn't pseudoscience then neither is the dean drive or perpetual motion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this experiment was a "RF resonant cavity thruster test" and it was done by a real group of university scientists and it was not pseudoscience. It came up with an unexpected thrust.  Is it magnetism acting on the cable?  Quite possibly.  But whatever it is, it is science.  The group attempting this experiment does not deserve to be likened to astrologers; they tried doing something real.  There's nothing unscientific about trying to prove violations of the rules of physics do or don't happen.  This is not fundamentally different from the people who wanted to test if G was decreasing (which was suggested based on far flimsier evidence, I mean seriously, ancient spacecraft in unknown space!) Wnt (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have not "real scientists" investigated the Dean Drive, Cold Fusion, Accupunture, and other examples of pseudoscience? You seem to be implying that it is only pseudoscience if nobody tries to replicate the results. And the tiny effect that was found, while worth investigating, completely failed to replicate the large thrust that the inventors have fraudulently claimed. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * nope, Cold Fusion is a hypothetical, and embarrassing false alarm... not pseudoscience. This also may be just failed concept — not pseudoscience - and WP:ONUS requires RS.  To put such a vague pejorative should take substantial amount of actual RS saying the exact word “pseudoscience” in a serious way.  Not ‘bad’ science or ‘failed’ concept — those are entirely different animals.  Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that cold fusion is tagged "pathological science" as a category, but not "pseudoscience". I am not very happy with that category either (note that that includes red rain in Kerala, an article that actually includes a micrograph of the red microorganism responsible).  I should note reactionless drive is already filed there - a purely technical resolution here would be to make a new Category:reactionless drive and put this page in it.  But I should note that reactionless drives include things like the Alcubierre drive, which oddly is not typically denigrated this way despite never having been built and requiring negative mass to build.  Any of these would still be better than the current Category:Pseudophysics somebody put this article in, I think, though still jumping the gun. Wnt (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's because the Alcubierre drive, as a physical model, does not violate any physical laws as we presently know them in a per se manner, like the model for the emDrive explicitly proposes to do. There's a world of difference difference between A) a model which proposes a phenomena we cannot yet produce (and may in reality not be able to produce ever) but which (as a model) conforms to all known physical laws, and B) a model which, by its own terms, violates universal natural laws.  I can see your confusion here and I am guessing it may stem in part from the fact that Alcubierre drive has a blurb in reactionless drive. That is actually a pretty glaring mistake on the part of some editor or another, and problematic exactly because it has the potential to mislead in exactly the fashion you have been misled here: an alcubierre drive is not actually a reactionless drive, as that technical term is applied in either theoretical or applied physics.  While it's true that the apparent motion of a body inside a warp bubble volume would be "reactionless" (as in, not the consequence of thrust caused by exhaust), the term Alcubierre "drive" is an idiomatic usage and a misnomer, in the technically sense; there would be no actual thrust at all, and thus reaction/reactionless is a meaningless distinction to the physics involved.   So the EmDrive and the Alcubierre drive are very much apples and oranges when it comes to the specific issues that need to be wrestled with in whether to describe the EmDrive as pseudoscience--and the observation that the Alcubierre drive doesn't face the same amount of condemnation is actually illustrative of the distinction between the two and why the EmDrive is vastly more appropriate for mainstream physicists to define as pseudoscience (regardless of what we ultimately resolve to do with this article here for editorial reason) than the Alcubierre drive;  the Alcubierre drive is very much speculative--so much so, that we can't even begin to test it empirically as we can to some degree with the EmDrive--but in theory and based on present understanding, it is at least consistent with all known physical laws. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 19:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Alcubierre energy-momentum tensor violates just about every known energy condition, including the ANEC, which is pretty much as big a deal as violation of conservation of momentum in the classical limit. (That said, the ANEC is basically automatically violated as soon as you start putting quantum fields in a curved background or coupling classical fields to curvature, so there's some wiggle room, most likely in the kind that requires a working theory of quantum gravity to patch up.) I'm not trying to defend the resonant cavity thruster here, but it seems some of the proposed explanations of the thrust do veer into the same "new physics required" regime as blatantly throwing all energy conditions out the window would. The one thing that truly sets them apart, in my opinion, is that if the cavity thruster effect is real, its output is much larger than you would naively expect from things arising from e.g. quantum gravity (where you would usually need a Planck-scale input to get an observable output -- exactly why QG is so hard to probe). -- Link  <sup style="font-size: x-small;">(t&bull;c&bull;m) 22:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, you're right that this is a similar situation to Cold Fusion, but if you're using Cold Fusion as an example of "pseudoscience" then you've misunderstood the term. ApLundell (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I have. Cold fusion started out as science, but the present-day view view -- against all evidence -- that cold fusion exists is pure pseudoscience. Real scientists don't hang on to disproven theories against all evidence. I can say the same thing about alchemy; it started out as legitimate science but anyone who still believes that there is a philosopher's stone that turns lead into gold is a psuedoscientist. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To assert that "because A is pseudoscience, therefore B must be pseudoscience" is Fallacy. The scientific method worked with cold fusion, not because it seemingly was impossible, but because it was empirically non-repeatable. The same standard should be applied to the RF resonant cavity thruster. Keep in mind that Einstein criticized quantum mechanics as "spooky action at a distance" & that germ theory had its deniers. Oh, & that bit about alchemy & the philospher's stone; well, that guy who came up with the laws of motion was also a pseudo-scientist (see Isaac Newton). Sometimes one has to be uncomfortable with a bit of cognitive dissonance in entertaining inconsistent beliefs until one can sort things out. Peaceray (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We have already sorted things out. The claimed thrust is empirically non-repeatable. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a statement that "No prototype has been successfully tested more than once" in the lead, yet I see that a further testing is listed in the Later works & Cannae and other drives. Have second attempts to test each prototype been exhausted? That's not my reading of those sections.
 * I have changed the lead to say "hypothesized type of propellant-free drive". This is the same as what the cold fusion article opens with. I think it is appropriate & consistent. Labeling even failed science experiments as pseudoscience is over the top.
 * Peaceray (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think pathological science is closer. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Please then provide a citation indicating that "people are tricked into false results". Anything else is just an unverified point of view. Peaceray (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea that crackpot ideas don't get serious government-backed investigation is trivially disproved: the Stargate project was ludicrous nonsense sustained by charismatic crackpots who persuaded others that there was something worth investigating. See :
 * there are really only two possibilities:
 * 1. You are dealing with someone who has confused themselves by constructing something that they do not understand, and are essentially sending this device to others and saying, "what did I do, here?" This is a benign person, in the sense that they're trying to do something good, they're simply out of their depths.
 * 2. You are dealing with a scam artist, who's deliberately trying to fool the general public, most often in an attempt to swindle large amounts of money, power and/or prestige out of a situation. This is not benign at all, but is predatory (and in many cases, criminal) behavior.
 * That about sums it up. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Em engine listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Em engine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Photon momentum
I agree the EmDrive has no known principle by which it could work, and seems to have been originally derived via an analysis that looked at radiation pressure on the two ends of the closed tapered cavity, without accounting for how the tapered walls in between contribute to a momentum-conserving true result. What I don't understand though is why the inventor, or someone since then, doesn't just let the radiation out as a way to transfer momentum. Photons carry momentum and energy. Light sails use this. Where's the disconnect, or has this been done and I'm just not aware of it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your design would work, yes :) You may want to check out Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion, there is some interesting engineering there. Heptor (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Photon rocket - works, but has way too low thrust to be interesting. --mfb (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

 * "Pseudoscience starts with a conclusion, then looks for evidence to 'prove' it (tweaking the conclusion and trying many different sorts of evidence until able to convince at least some observers).
 * Real science starts with a hypothesis, then looks to prove it wrong (moving on to a new hypothesis when successful)."

A reflection. In recent years there has always been at least one research team that felt they had a promising new approach, or an unexplained result whose experimenters were trying to replicate it. Just before the White paper came out it was seeming reasonable to revisit the framing of this idea. And now that the Chinese, German, and various half-rumored experiments have come and gone without note, + reading the above, it seems reasonable again.

The entire history of this concept:
 * No falsifiable claims by the self-styled inventors [SSI]
 * No public experimental results by SSI that were not retracted
 * SSI raise millions on claims and promises that are never borne out in any public demonstrations
 * While others take the claims seriously enough to test them, noone ever claims that SSI were able to demostrate such claims in private demonstrations either

At this point everyone is chasing the report of a dream, turned into a fantasy by wishful thinking and h[yo]peful reporting of same.


 * Repeated claims by SSI that a major test is forthcoming within 18 months ... for 15 years. No results of such tests published, indicating negative results are never published. (p-hacking)
 * Cherry picking of any reports of anyone who has published about better than inconclusive work (since there is no clear falsifiable claim, experiments can only be inconclusive)
 * SSI raise further millions on the non-peer-reviewed reports of cherry-picked work
 * Still no clear hypothesis or experimental method proposed by SSIs, just hand waving.
 * A half dozen physicists try to come up with a hypothesis that matches the hand waving. Two of them can't rule out that there might be something to look at, and set up a physical experiment that makes a few measurements that might indicate thrust.  Neither is able to replicate this, but both share their work.
 * One of these later finds the error in their original work. Another gets data from a few short runs of their setup published in a small peer-reviewed journal.
 * Rather than working to get a prototype that repeatably does anything on the ground, SSI each raise funds to try running previously failed experiments... in s p a c e.  Meanwhile inflating their previous claims, still not remotely reached.

Clearly pseudoscience in practice and context. That's independent of whether there might one day be a physics discovery that shares some features with the hand-waving of these pretenders.

Now the reasonable question: what RSes have discussed this as pseudoscience? Most sources take one of the following approaches:
 * 1) This is offensive crackpottery, if not fraud, and deserves vigorous denouncing.
 * 2) This is nonsense, not really worth debunking.  Another perpetual motion machine.  Often: not worth commenting on at all.
 * 3) This is an idea that's surely not going to pan out, but there's no harm in people testing wild theories.
 * 4) This is an idea that has been tested, and some people claim they have seen curious results.  There is no known way this could work, but there's no harm in having new experimenters take a look.
 * 5) This is an idea mentioned seriously in at least some respectable popular journal or peer reviewed journal. While most studies do not support the idea, and while it is impossible to prove a negative, it would be terribly exciting and surprising if this were true. We can imagine what that would mean, and wait to see if more studies follow.

The first two are so straightforward and routine that they don't use the language of 'pseudoscience', using language rather stronger. The last three suggest a roadmap for any future entrepreneur trying to promote a science-related idea that they are unable to demonstrate. And it is interesting that almost no external sources have commented on the SSI's type of self-promotion, which is not the norm in science or commercial rocketry. Unfortunately, taken together I'm not sure what this means for summarizing consensus of the field; just posting this here as an anchor to further conversation. – SJ + 15:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a small comment: The inventors made falsifiable claims, most notably the claim that electrodynamics would predict a thrust. A claim that has been proven wrong (as everyone with basic knowledge about momentum in electrodynamics can do). --mfb (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Perhaps a few other such claims; retracted once disproven.  – SJ +
 * Thanks for sharing your reflections, . Indeed, the sources tend to call this thing crackpotery and fraud rather then pseudoscience. The introduction currently calls it a "controversial concept", perhaps it's beating around the bush. Heptor (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not particularly controversial: it is likely fraud, mostly unknown but promoted into relevance by credulous media who like fantastical stories it inspires. Two decades of misdirection, fabrications called out by others, and strong claims that did not pan out; presented in a misleading grandiose way by people profiting from the confusion. – SJ + 17:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I find more sources characterising it as junk science than pseudoscience, but note CfI's article of 2015 showing that it is on the path to pseudoscience (or more likely pathological science). I think the most likely judgment would be pathological science at this point. The idea is nuts, but at least some of those involved in testing it are not obvious cranks. Guy (help!) 08:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought of that CFI article as an example of how this case is different. Blondlot was a competent scientist, who had made delicate measurements before; Pons + Fleischmann were established chemists; all able to set up experiments with specific + clear theoretical frameworks, testable hypotheses, and get their own work published. Yes, they fell into traps of confirmation bias, misinterpreting what they were seeing & not trying to find their own errors -- but they acted as scientists, showing their work and labs to colleagues.
 * The SSI's here are not rocketry engineers or physicists: they are pitchmen. They have no public labs and hide behind a veil of secrecy and implied business connections, patents, and self-reports of private investment. They have vague frameworks and mystique rather than testable hypotheses. They don't have scholarly reputations to uphold, they need only convince a few wealthy individuals to fund their work every few years, and occasionally get credulous press coverage by using the language of scientific experiment.
 * The CFI summary is wrong in almost every particular -- highlighting how a thoughtful reader can parse ambiguous rumors and misdirection as 'neutral' or 'needing testing' rather than 'likely fraudulent'.

CfI example
The CfI article Guy mentioned offers a parallel w/ past pathalogical science. I think this case is closer to the Dean drive and angle trisection -- not science at all, simply a mix of fantasy, self-promotion, and a simple catchy story that takes on a life of its own. It highlights flaws in how we [as a media-ted society] evaluate ambiguous ideas promoted by those who [profit from, are obsessed with] them. We should find ways not to propagate that sort of bias in articles. Examples of mistakes in the CfI overview:


 *  The EM-drive was first developed by British scientist Roger Shawyer
 * It's not a developed 'thing', it is a concept. There's no physical item that was developed and can be seen.  Even perpetual motion machines involve more development.
 * So far, in each of the labs conducting tests, force has been observed at varying levels, and in each of the slightly varying experimental setups.
 * Many tests observed no effect. Many labs observed no meaningful direction in displacement. Most observed displacement was smaller than ambient noise or other error margins.  Noone had directly measured persistent force and distinguished it from illusory forces or leakage.  The ratio of force to energy expended was tiny, maximizing noise, an easy way to generate occasional spurious correlations.
 * So far, no one can account for the force measured
 * Most experiments accounted for observations, as most likely noise or error. True already in 2015.
 * while all labs are measuring force while trying to eliminate experimental artifacts that might create false positives
 * estimating force through a series of inferences and approximations while trying to identify and eliminate artifacts, &c. The definition of experimental measurement; not well conveyed in summaries.
 * no negative or falsifying experiments have yet shown EM-drives to be totally fruitless.
 * Most experiments were falsifying. most falsifying experiments were not published. all were largely negative, but some left a door open. most obsevers concluded: totally fruitless.
 * Something interesting may be happening
 * A recurring cognitive bias in us all!
 * and no doubt still more labs will attempt to replicate force, measure possible thrust, and may even try to create working prototypes, unless someone falsifies the hypothesis. This can be done by a) locating the experimental artifact that is causing measurements of force where there is no real thrust, or b) replicating the experiment and measuring no force
 * The central fallacy: a) and b) were being done continuously, by all testers, but in this ambiguous context that was not seen as falsification.


 * There are epistemological issues at play. All knowledge may be disputed, including scientific knowledge . Such disputes are outside the scope of Wikipedia. Heptor (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Epistemology
changed the wording in the introduction from "EmDrive is a design concept that is incorrectly claimed to be a spacecraft thruster" to "EmDrive is a design concept that is controversially claimed to be a spacecraft thruster" (emphasis added). Per WP:BRD, I would like a more thorough elaboration. What is the nature of the controversy? Wikipedia is written from the scientific point of view, and law of conservation of momentum isn't controversial. The argument for such defensive writing appears to be based on epistemological scepticism concerning possible flaws in our understanding of physics. In that sense, all knowledge may plausibly be questioned, laws of physics included. When someone  jumps  out  of  an  open  window, does the person fall to the ground? Or could there be a surprising gap in our understanding of universal gravitation? This question is thoroughly addressed in. Apart from epistemological questioning of our understanding of reality, is there any point to write "controversially claimed" instead of "incorrectly claimed", and then make further defensive statements such as "theoretically implausible"? Heptor (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks a lot for being one of the very few editors on Wikipedia who actually respect the BRD cycle. Not many Wikipedians do at all - especially among the so-called "experienced editors".


 * Other than that, though, although I do happen to be a strong adherent of epistemological scepticism, I think the issue at play here is a bit more superficial. The point that I'm trying to get across is that, although established scientific theories, such as theory of relativity (and hence, by extension, classical mechanics), can be called "correct", or a "fact", on Wikipedia, they cannot ever be called complete. If today were the 19th century, you would've called gravitational lensing impossible. And if today were early 20th century, you would've called accelerated metric expansion of space impossible. That's why I think we need to be really careful when using absolute terms like "impossible" and "incorrect". There may some obscure law (e.g. that the particular movement of particles as in an EmDrive somehow unleashes energy stored in extra dimensions, as hypothesised by string theory) that bypasses the law of conservation of momentum and allows for the EmDrive to work, and there is as of yet no definitive way to rule that option out. Yes, it's extremely unlikely and controversial, as described in the article, but we just can't call it impossible. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  23:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia accepts "established scientific theories" as reality. By design. And in this case? Yes, it's incorrect and impossible. There is robust consensus that if your ideas violate the laws of conservation of momentum or thermodynamics is close to a 100% guarantee that you're wrong. Guy (help!) 23:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Close to a 100%" is implausible (you can add 'highly' to it if you want). Impossible is 100% period. As I've described, there could theoretically be a way in which conversation of momentum can be bypassed. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  23:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of all verifiable phenomena inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy:
 * I didn't miss any. Guy (help!) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think "incorrectly" is too strong a word for the first sentence. I, personally, am all but certain the EM drive doesn't really work (though I should make it clear that I don't know nearly enough about the physics to make a qualified judgment), but I think the fact that NASA bothered to research it at all puts it in a different class from, for example, perpetual motion machines or water-powered cars, which it would be POV to not call pseudoscience. I think a better solution would be something like the intro to cold fusion, which says in no uncertain terms that "there is currently no accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur", but still treats it as fringe and largely discredited science rather than pseudoscience. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been conflicting results, even if most evidence points to the drive not working, there is clearly more experimental work to be done. To say "incorrectly" is still in the realm of original research. Heptor & I have had these discussions before as part of . However, at this point, to declare it "incorrect"" because of apparent conflict with Newton's law of conservation of momentum without a citation is a violation of three Wikipedia policies, neutral point of view, the need for verifiability, & respect for concensus. I find this very vexing to keep explaining this. I find it harder to assume good faith in this matter when these policies are ignored.
 * There have been conflicting results, even if most evidence points to the drive not working, there is clearly more experimental work to be done. To say "incorrectly" is still in the realm of original research. Heptor & I have had these discussions before as part of . However, at this point, to declare it "incorrect"" because of apparent conflict with Newton's law of conservation of momentum without a citation is a violation of three Wikipedia policies, neutral point of view, the need for verifiability, & respect for concensus. I find this very vexing to keep explaining this. I find it harder to assume good faith in this matter when these policies are ignored.


 * I agree with *Adelaide* in that the cold fusion article can serve as a model for this one.


 * Peaceray (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cold fusion is superficially plausible - a good friend of mine was involved in the initial experiments. Since the initial failure to replicate, it has become pathological science, but there may well be some result that is down to an as-yet unknown chemical process. The EM-drive is superficially implausible and all measurements are consistent with experimental error. It falls into the same class as perpetual motion machines. It's also worth noting that we spent years fighting off WP:FRINGE bullshit at the cold fusion article. Guy (help!) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree with *Adelaide* and Peaceray that the example at Cold fusion is a better approach to introducing the near certain implausibility, rather than having a judgement of value in Wikipedia's voice such as "is incorrectly claimed to be". The neutral tone of "there is no known mechanism that would make it work" (a simple statement of a fact) better suits our tone and is more consistent with how our other scientific articles are written. Diego (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * no, "incorrectly" is fine - this is impossible unless physics as we know it is completely wrong - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is logically and epistemologically correct, but it doesn't follow the policy of Wikipedia. To be complete with respect to epistemologic scepticism, the introduction should say that "EmDrive is [...] incorrect unless there is an obscure law of physics that bypasses the law of conservation of momentum, or our understanding of physics is somehow flawed in a way that allows EmDrive to work [as you mentioned], or [per Philosophical_skepticism] we are a brain in a vat and whoever runs the simulation decides to make a change". Wikipedia just isn't written like that, for good reason: similar reservation would have to be made for flat earth theory and maybe even for the painted doors from Looney Tunes (they could work if quantum tunneling can be made larger than currently understood). An epistemological point, your examples of gravitational lensing and accelerated metric expansion of space fail the justified true belief test: if someone had proposed gravitational lensing before the discovery of universal gravitation, that person was most likely crazy and got it it right by accident.

When we started this discussion the article was written almost as if EmDrive was a real functioning design

Heptor (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the policy interpretation, please consider the ArbCom case on fringe science. Verbatim from the decisions, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections; science is not a point of view. I hope that this addresses the concerns that were raised. Heptor (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't know about the ArbCom ruling, which seems a bit counterintuitive to me, but you have convinced me that "controversially" is not a strong enough description of the "thruster"'s implausibility. However, I am still not completely sold on your exact wording, as it is still factually untrue (for epistemological reasons, as you have described). I would agree to the word "incorrect" being used, but only in relation to the models used to justify the thruster's plausibility - not the claim that the thruster doesn't work. So, my proposed wording would something along the lines of: "... concept that, on an incorrect basis, is claimed to be a thruster". This version both respects the ArbCom ruling and (nearly) avoids the epistemically issue I had outlined. If feel that you've got a better version, feel free to leave it below. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made a bold edit in line with this approach, using the word "incorrect" but applying it to the theory used to justify the thrust effect, not the claims that it's a design intended to be used as a space truster (which it is, whether it works or not). That it doesn't work is sufficiently supported by the rest of the lede paragraph. Diego (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you please explain the epistemological issue you are concerned about? We seem to agree that there is a consensus in the sources that the justification for this drive is nonsense, so it fails to be a justified true belief. Any incorrect design can work if our understanding of the laws of physics change or turn out to be sufficiently different then currently understood. Heptor (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, now it's just a total mess. The sentence is vague, unnatural and contrived. It is technically correct but its point is deeply buried. It creates a wp:false ballance between the currently accepted theory of physics and whatever nonsense was made up to justify this contraption. Heptor (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Outline of the issue
Since the discussion started, the article has turned into a brutal edit war between multiple users, who are constantly reverting and re-reverting the same change. Meanwhile, next to no progress has been made on the discussion front. I do not want to attack any users, but I think all the editors involved in the edit war are experienced enough to know that edit-warring will at most get the article to stay in the desired stay for a day or two, until all changes made during the edit war are reverted and the article is protected, with perhaps a block heading your way to top things off. And, in this scenario, ALL progress made by both parties is erased, and the article will remain in this state for the duration of the protection (likely more than one or two days). That is an outcome worse than the current situation for both parties. Therefore, even if you feel that the current state of the article is problematic, or that the previous edit violated a Wikipedia policy, edit-warring is certainly not the most efficient way of fixing the problem. That said, edit-warring is not the only thing that hampers progress towards a resolution of this issue; there are others, which I'll describe below.

BRD cycle violations
This is the obvious one. I have little doubt that the editors involved in the edit war know exactly what the BRD cycle is, but, just for the purposes of clarification, all editors (while not required) are expected to follow it for efficiency's sake, and here is what it says: Note how there is only a single 'R' in the process, and even that is not recommended.
 * 1) Be bold: if you think that a new edit may improve the article, go ahead and implement it. Don't be afraid that others may not agree with it - all positive contributions are welcome. Be bold!
 * 2) Revert: if you believe that a new edit makes the article worse (important note: the edit not being an improvement is NOT enough to justify a revert: it has to actually make the article worse - see WP:DONTREVERT), revert it. This step is not encouraged but is sometimes necessary. If you do, however, find that you have to resort to reversion, don't forget to explain exactly why the edit that you are reverting is harmful (this point is often overlooked but is immeasurably effective in preventing edit-wars).
 * 3) Discuss: if your new edit has been reverted, and you are not convinced by the explanation provided in the edit summary, head to the article's talk page and try and convince whoever reverted you that your edit is, in fact, of benefit to the article. However, even if the reverter isn't convinced, you may still be justified in implementing your edits as long as they have achieved consensus.
 * 4) Cycle: this step is a bit controversial, as I have been called out for edit-warring having followed it in the past; but: if you are reasonably sure that a particular change addresses the opposing party's concerns after having discussed the issue on the talk page, you may attempt to implement that change. If it is still reverted, that is a strong sign that you should abandon your efforts in achieving a compromise using this approach and should instead head back to the talk page and stay there until a consensus has been reached.

Now, let's see how well the editors have followed this cycle by performing an edit-to-BRD mapping of the recent edit history (thanks to for introducing me to this effective device):
 * Heptor makes an edit changing "controversially" to "incorrectly", additionally providing justification for the change in the edit summary. That's being bold. BRD map: B+ ('+' for justification). BRD history: B.
 * Oldstone James reverts that edit with justification. BRD map: R+. BRD history: BR.
 * Heptor reaches out to discuss the matter on the talk page. BRD map: D. BRD history: BRD.
 * Guy (JzG) reverts without justification, then heads to talk page. BRD map: R-, D. BRD history: BRDRD.
 * Oldstone James reverts with justification, then returns to talk page. BRD map: R+, D. BRD history: BRDRDRD.
 * Roxy the dog reverts without justification, with no attempt to participate on talk page. BRD map: R--. BRD history BRDRDRDR.
 * Peaceray participates on talk page, then reverts with justification. BRD map: D, R+. BRD history BRDRDRDRDR.
 * Roxy the dog reverts without justification, with no attempt to participate on talk page. BRD map: R--. BRD history BRDRDRDRDRR.
 * Peaceray reverts with justification and made attempts at communication on Roxy's talk page. BRD map: R+, D. BRD history BRDRDRDRDRRRD.
 * David Gerard reverts with insufficient justification and then heads to talk page. BRD map: R, D. BRD history BRDRDRDRDRRRDRD.
 * Peaceray reverts with justification, having previously discussed the issue. BRD map: R+. BRD history BRDRDRDRDRRRDRDR.
 * Roxy the dog reverts without justification, having previously made no attempt to discuss the issue. BRD map: R--. BRD history BRDRDRDRDRRRDRDRR.

All edits highlighted in red violate the cycle and constitute edit-warring. As we can see, instead of one 'R', we get 10 (!) Rs. If your name was highlighted in red at least once, I encourage you to change your approach to editing (like I and Guy have), as, if you don't, we are not going to get anywhere.

Editing without consensus
As already mentioned above, edit-warring is not the only issue here. 4 of the red Rs from the previous section are in fact reversions of edits that have not yet achieved consensus. The last stable version before the start of the edit war is this version here: and had the wording "controversially" instead of "incorrectly". The version before that also read "controversially" but also had "probably incorrectly". So far, there is no consensus whatsoever on the talk page for any changes to any of these versions, and hence all editors replacing "controversially" with "incorrectly" are editing without consensus. This is strongly discouraged, as if everyone kept forcing in whatever they wanted without consensus, Wikipedia would be full of opinions and no facts. Therefore, if you find that your edits don't have consensus, head to the talk page and discuss the issue before making any further changes. Then come back once you've gained consensus, or don't come back at all (as described, the Cycle step in BRD-C may be attempted, but, at this point, there is no chance that such an edit would be perceived as anything but an act of edit-warring).

Reverting without explanation
As described ealier, in the far-from-common occasion where you are justified in reverting an earlier edit, it is vital that you use the edit summary to describe why that edit is harmful to the article. Your reasons must be clear to the editor that you reverted, so edit summaries like "rv softpedalling", while better than no summary at all, are insufficient, as, in all likelihood, the editor that you reverted will not opine that they "softpedalling"; instead, you need to briefly explain why their edit qualifies as backpedalling, so summaries like "this is not a forum for epistemological disputes about general correctness of physics" (in this case implying that the reverter believes calling highly implausible theories "incorrect" is only true in epistemology and not physics, where nothing would otherwise be called "correct") are preferred. This way, a lot of edit-warring may be prevented, as the original editor will then be compelled to reply to the edit summary on the talk page instead of trying to force the reverter's opinion through edit-warring.

Unfortunately, as shown in the edit-to-BRD map, a lot of reverts were not sufficiently justified, and some were not even followed up by attempts to explain the reverts on the talk page. Such reverts have absolutely zero chance of achieving any progress whatsoever, as one will have a hard time realising that they'd made a mistake when they don't even know where that mistake is. Therefore, this kind of reverts is often considered tententious and almost always considered disruptive.

Conclusion
If you find that your editing can be described by any of the three sections, I genuinely advise that you reconsider your editing strategy for your very own benefit. And I don't say that just to wikilawyer, to feel authoritative, to look good in the eyes of other editors, or to criticise you. No. I say that because I was in your situation, and I didn't reconsider my strategy strongly enough, and, guess what? Exactly what I described in the first section happened: absolutely no progress on the article was made despite clear progress on the talk page, the article got frozen for a week at a version that both parties considered to be inferior to some versions proposed on the talk page, I got a block and then a topic ban, and damaged my reputation so severely that I am to this day being discussed in regards to how bad of an editor I am. Which is obviously an outcome much worse than if I hadn't done anything at all, much less so than if I had obeyed these three rules. So, when I, the "notorious edit-warrer" and "no-consensus editor" tell you that you shouldn't do these 3 things, you hella bet I'm right. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  18:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * nah, pretty sure my justification was entirely sufficient. You seem to be posting an extremely wordy attempted filibuster as a vehicle for mischaracterising other editors' edits - argument by TL;DR is not ideal, and does not position you as an objective voice of reason. Please be considerably more concise - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you didn't find my post concise; I tried to keep unnecessary rambling to a minimum. It did turn out to be quite lengthy in the end, but that's because there was a lot of information that I needed to get across - not because I deliberately stuffed it with meaningless waffling for TL;DR effect and certainly not to distract the editors from discussing the relevant issues (in fact, I had the opposite intention - to encourage discussion of the relevant issues). I certainly didn't intend to mischarachterise the editor's contributions, either: I really do believe my post is not strongly opinionated, if at all, as most of what I've written is simply known Wikipedia policies paraphrased (note that it wasn't me who came up with these policies). I do not claim to be an objective voice of reason, but Wikipedia policies are about the closest it gets.
 * If you want a shorter summary of my post, here it is, tailored specifically to your edits: you are currently edit-warring without consensus and are reverting without sufficient justification. By "sufficient", I mean that the reasons behind your reverts must be clear to the editor that you reverted, which, as I explained, they are not. And, once again, I don't mean to criticize you just for the sake of it: technically, you have provided some justification, so I can't really blame you here. It's just that it would be more efficient if you could be a bit more specific in your edit summaries. Hopefully, that clears things up. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  17:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given I've made literally two edits to this article this year, your claim that I'm "edit-warring" is not merely trivially false, but frankly bizarre, and only suggests you may not be competent enough to post such strongly expressed statements concerning anyone's editing history - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring is edit-warring regardless of how many edits you've made. Regular reverts start becoming acts of edit-warring when "the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts", which is, to use your own words, "trivially" the case here. See WP:EW for more information. Also, be careful when accusing other editors of a lack of competence, as, if done baselessly, that may qualify as a WP:PERSONAL attack. Furthermore, if you truly believe that not knowing exactly what constitutes edit-warring and what doesn't makes you incompetent, by that definition, you yourself are not competent enough to comment on my post. So, again, careful with the logic that you use. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  18:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your definition is bizarre, idiosyncratic and inane in a way that, in assuming good faith in your edits, suggests you aren't competent to opine on the subject, and think that filibustering and word games strengthen whatever your point was instead of weakening it. If you seriously consider I was edit-warring, you know where WP:AN3 is to take your substantive evidence to this effect - or otherwise, perhaps stop making accusations that are literally, factually, nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what, you're right, and I'm wrong. Your eloquent name-calling totally got me and left me with no options but to admit that I was wrong. The argument that "my" definition (note that I literally copied and pasted the definition from WP:EW) is "inane" was what really swayed me from my side to yours, and the irrefutable "[your] accusations... are literally, factually, [sic] nonsensical" was just a nail in the coffin. I also really appreciate that you kept your message contradiction-free, as demonstrated by this phrase: "assuming good faith in your edits [literally 9 words later] and think that filibustering (from Wikipedia: a tactic to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote)".
 * On a serious note, fyi, the aim of AN3 is to prevent disruptive behaviour - not to punish the offender. Since the edit war seems to have stalled, not only is there no point in me bringing this up to AN3, but, as you said, you have only reverted once, so your offence wasn't serious enough to suggest a tendency of disruptive behaviour to start with.
 * Finally, to round off, I have no desire to engage in meaningless name-calling, and since that seems to be the only thing I am getting in return from you in this conversation, I think I'll leave it here. You are free to continue editing without consensus, edit-warring, and not using edit summaries adequately, as well as aggressively denying you did any of these, and to get defensive instead of listen whenever your actions are criticised, but I can guarantee that your editing and interactions with users would be more effective and enjoyable otherwise. But it's your choice. I will also recommend that you raise your concern at WP:EW's talk page if you don't agree with the definitions stated in the article, which seems to be the case. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  22:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I had stepped away for awhile because I frankly had a lot of editing to do elsewhere.
 * , I disagree with your assessment of my edits as edit warring. At the time of my first reverts, my edit summary was "Incorrectly" is point of view without a citation. My second was: Please see the discussion of the talk page. "Incorrectly" is point of view without a citation.


 * At that time there was no citation; perhaps I should have emphasized that as such, this was a violation of WP:OR policy. Please also see the WP:POVEDITOR essay about OR & WP:NPOV.
 * Policy is a perfectly valid reason to revert. I seldom get challenged on it, precisely because I tend to cite policy. This was one of the times that I got sloppy on citing policy.
 * The third time that I reverted, it was because that editor had reverted to the language containing "incorrect" had not participated on the talk page, even though previous edit summaries had mentioned it. The WP:EDITWAR policy states "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring." That editor had not engaged in discussion on this talk page, & had edited in conflict with the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS policy, as that editor had reverted to language that was less than 24 hours old. That editor should have respected the status quo ante.
 * WP:EDITWAR also states "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." WP:OR, WP:CONCENSUS, WP:NPOV, & WP:V are together all, IMHO, overriding policies.
 * I will note a very significant change. The word "incorrect" now has two citations. I am happy with that change, because it now means it is simply not someone's opinion (OR, POV) but has WP:V & WP:RS behind it. That was really all that I have been asking for all along in many discussions about this article.
 * Peaceray (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would love to trust you that that is indeed the case, and it would probably make the most sense if the policies were the way that you described them. However, I was myself topic-banned for doing just that: reverting edits that had no consensus and which came right after a month-long discussion on the matter. I was then told by many "experienced users" and administrators that the fact that I had consensus did not justify my edit-warring, and most/all voters for my topic ban referred (almost) exclusively to these edits in their justifications. Therefore, I have no choice but to believe that all these voters had a point. Either way, we now have a version of the article which I think we both of us appreciate, so all this didn't seem to matter in the end. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  14:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So,, basically your argument is: WP:HOWDAREYOU and WP:BOOYAHIWIN. And mine is: don't lecture people who have been here decades and have a bazillion edits, as if your interpretation of policy is ineffably correct and incontrovertibly correct. Because that's really extremely rude. You're already topic banned from creationism, I suspect we might need to broaden that to pseudoscience generally. Guy (help!) 13:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As you probably realise, that is clearly not my argument. My argument is that you have violated Wikipedia policies, and I have explained in what way. It doesn't really matter now, because the article has already reached a satisfactory state, but it was relevant at the time of writing. Accusing people who point out that you have violated Wikipedia policies of resorting to "how dare you" is a pretty dangerous path to walk, as this attitude will obviously lead to blocks if you sustain it (which you also obviously won't, as you for some reason only seem to have this attitude with me), which you also probably realise (but choose to say, anyway). What you probably realise, too, is that being an experienced editor does not exempt you from respecting Wikipedia policies, and that experienced editors are also humans and also make mistakes. Finally, what you certainly realise is that giving advice/pointing out possible improvements is not extremely rude, as that's exactly what you are doing right now with this comment. All in all, as you probably expected, you just made me say things that both of us obviously know, thus exchanging no information at all and wasting both my and your time. This may or may not be a good thing if your intention might or might not have been to simply express your disagreement with me without seeming like you don't have a point.
 * On a much more meaningful note, this sentence here, "don't lecture people who... have a bazillion edits", is probably the clearest manifestation yet of Wikipedia's biggest problem: "experienced editors" have an overt privilege that, as this sentence proves, is not even a secret. These editors have different policies, different status, and different rights. They are allowed to brute-force over edits or editors that they don't like, are exempt from criticism, are allowed to violate so many Wikipedia policies as their friend administrators allow them to, and also have the right to shit on any other user for no apparent reason. Thanks for at least providing physical evidence for this already evident phenomenon.
 * Finally, if you believe this comment is more than just empty words, you should go ahead and propose that my topic ban be expanded. I am interested to see what kind of arguments you manage to come up with. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, JzG has a point. I think it is highly presumptuous for an editor with a significantly higher block-to-edit ratio to rebuke for edit-warring those editors with a significantly lower block-to-edit ratio. There are ways to prudently revert & argue one's viewpoint, & to know when to stand down. Oldstone James, I think it would be best for you too be less accusative & more observant of what actually works to persuade people. It is better to be a WikiGnome than the alternative. Peaceray (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The device could operate for only a few dozen seconds before the magnetron failed, due to overheating.
It could simply means that the RF power on the asymmetrical cavity stressed so much the device that it changed the measure of the sensor just before to break up the device at its weakest point ...

Is it a thruster device or a device to break up a magnetron coupled to a inadequate cavity ?

A general lack of understanding of science, is that any physicist will reject the idea because it doesn't respect the fundamental laws and experimenters will attack the result on the error aspects. I think there is another question : what really happen at the nth order in a cavity when you inject a lot of power ? Just imagine the cavity is a vessel and you plug it to an oscillating hydraulic cylinder. If the vessel looks like an excavator then you have make an useful machine, else it is just a stress device that will break up.

Shawyer paper is a typical flawed demonstration, where you apply mathematical models of physic in the wrong context, add a lot pages of complicated calculus and conclude to an incredible result.

But it is just similar to ask an engineer to compute the strength when you plug 100T to a toy hydraulic cylinder : strange things happen in few seconds and then boom ...

Another question is : is Shawyer a charlatante etc. ? Or is he trying to explain an experiment he did by chance ?

2A01:CB00:237:4700:26D4:92F3:40E9:4C3 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this device is not described in the article as a “thruster device”, only as a device claimed to be a thruster. This is deliberate, because, as you also seem to suggest, it is not actually a thruster. A “device to break up a magnetron” is a far more accurate description. Whether Shawyer arrived to this design through charlatanry or through flawed engineering is a timely question indeed.

However, please note that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion of the topic, only for discussing the contents of the article. This thread should be removed, but perhaps after a polite interval to allow the original poster to see the reply. Heptor (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

RF resonant cavity thruster → EmDrive – WP:COMMONNAME. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The article should be at the name of the device, not its description. Tevildo (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Stu (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.