Even things we think we know very well may be wrong, so having a certain budget for "fringe" subjects which may yield unexpected results is not a bad idea. At the same time it's probably a good idea to assume everything they report is a measurement/test setup error until further proof.

Yup. As it is said "If a physicist says it's possible, then it's possible. If a physicist says it's impossible, then it's undecided."

The actual saying is that everything that an elderly distinguishes scientist has an opinion about is probably possible.

It's a complicated way if saying almost everything is possible so don't believe old dogs who have given up on optimism. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_c_clarke_100793

Everything in their field, that is. Since some elderly scientists have come up with some pretty nonsensical ideas about things outside their field.

I don't think they have in this case.

> Burns has worked on his design in private, without any sponsorship from NASA

> Burns has worked on his design in private, without any sponsorship from NASA

Seems like they didn't, though as usual the article completely buries that information.

I kinda wish NASA had a policy like Disney, where you can't use your affiliation with them in association with personal projects (though for a different reason.)

It's always worth trying out new ideas. It's not like we're going to run out of paper or something.

My only complaint is that publicity is disproportionately allocated to the studies least likely to be right. While paper isn't limited, room in the newspaper is.

I always tell my kids: If you aren't failing, you aren't trying hard enough.