Correct - Casey believes that the drive is impossible, given our understanding of physics. Given his background and credentials, I'm happy to defer to his opinion on the matter, over my own optimism.

Both he and I are firm believers of the scientific method though, so if researchers can show it experimentally then that's where the fun really begins. To my knowledge, the experiments until now have been fairly poor, with barely significant results (on the edge of noise).

But that's not what he's saying, now is it? He is dismissing it entirely as "impossible". Care to point me to the part of the scientific method which says "Feel free to dismiss outright things that don't make sense to you"?

Everything in science starts out impossible. It doesn't even get considered in science unless it has a chance of being impossible. Then it is up to the scientist to demonstrate that it is possible and explain how it is possible.

Edit:

The 1) demonstrate and 2) explain parts are critical and it's not science unless you have 1). Preferably 2) also. EM has neither to match the magnitude of the claims until they can push something across the solar system and back (such that loss of mass is ruled out and the propulsive effect is without a doubt not instrument error).

> EM has neither to match the magnitude of the claims until they can push something across the solar system and back

That is hyperbolic. Pushing something around in orbit is sufficient to move forward (pardon the pun).

Good point, but it would need to accelerate and decelerate in orbit enough to confirm that mass loss isn't driving it.

If we can't call perpetual motion machines "impossible" then what can we call impossible?

I think he's just expressing a healthy degree of skepticism, with a touch of hyperbole for flavour. He's likely just a bit sick of being asked his opinion on the drive until there's further experiments and research conducted on the matter.

I'm not dismissing your interest and excitement in the topic either. I'd love for it to be functional, and for us to learn new information on the way our universe works. The bar for entry is set particularly high on this, that's all :)

Unfortunately - even if you had some weird results that didn't fit the prevailing theorems, publishing would likely destroy your professional credibility. See: Fleischmann/Pons and their publications of abnormal results that others speculated might be related to cold fusion, the decades of slander and defamation of them as quacks (despite the fact that they themselves had not claimed anything of the sort), and their recent vindication.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold...

HN discussion: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold...

> Perhaps most surprising is that, in the formative years of atomic science in the early 20th century, some scientists reported inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations. In the 1910s and 1920s, this research was reported in popular newspapers and magazines, and papers were published in the top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science and Nature. The experiments, using relatively simple, low-energy benchtop apparatus, did not use radioactive sources so the results defied prevailing theory. Several researchers independently detected the production of the gases helium-4, neon, argon, and an as-yet-unidentified element of mass-3, which we now identify as tritium. Two of these researchers were Nobel laureates.

To think that our current models adequately explain every phenomenon in the universe is truly the height of hubris. They can't even explain every phenomenon that has been observed on Planet Earth, let alone universally.

Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - but we do a tremendous disservice by disincentivizing scientists from ever reporting a novel finding that disagrees with the prevailing theories.

Sure, but it's not about whether or not the thing works. When I read his comment, I thought to myself, "What else has this guy missed in his work with such a dismissive attitude?" It's a messy mentality IMHO. And, you know, all seriousness aside, here he is saying the EmDrive is impossible, yet he's actually working on the hyperloop. Badum-psh!

I think, given the structure of phrase, we can assume some irony there - not only baseless dismissal.

EM drive remains pretty controversial, and does present significant problems with explanation, and as an extraordinary device requires extraordinary evidence. So it could be conceivable not to focus too deeply on a remark which isn't the main point of the article.

That, and that the amount of energy you put in to produce a unit of impulse with a theoretical EM drive is 10 times larger than the amount of energy required to produce that same impulse with a Hall effect thruster. For the journey to Mars that means the EM drive would tend to be much slower in practice even if it worked.

I'm pretty sure that fapjacks believes that the reactionless drive is possible, and all of the "No, this is silly" folks are just contrarian deniers who are holding back progress.

Gotta love starry-eyed futurology people.

Woah there horsey, you're basically sticking anyone that thinks reactionless drive might be possible into the crazy conspiracy theory category, and there are plenty of people that are interested in honest reproducible research on the topic.

Just blanket suggesting that it is in no way possible without any evidence is no better than blanket suggesting it is possible without any evidence (well, it's a little better, since the laws of physics are on your side, but...)

Right. That's the spirit of my original comment. There are obviously people here with some serious investment in their own educations and egos that think this thing is impossible. Yet, here we are, peer-reviewed evidence[0] mounting.

[0] http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120