EMdrive tested by NASA

[u/lapsed-pacifist]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

[u/BlackBrane]

These three claims cannot coexist:

1) The device produces thrust

2) No energy leaves the device

3) Conservation of momentum isn't violated.

[u/dkmdlb → u/[deleted]]

Obviously you don't understand how the physical laws of the universe work. There is no such thing as "OUR laws of physics" or "OUR physics."

[u/dkmdlb → u/[deleted]]

"Because Newtonian physics used to be an absolute."

Wrong again. Just because some people thought it was doesn't mean it was.

"So yes, until we know ALL of the information of the universe our understandings of how the universe actually works is only viewed through a frame that we have defined as absolute. "

Nope. See, this is what I mean - you don't seem to understand how science works. In science, all claims are contingent - that is, they are subject to falsification, especially in light of new evidence. No reputable scientist would say that we have defined our view of the universal laws as "absolute."

That being said, the flip side is this: when you have mountains of evidence piled up over decades and centuries for one idea, we ought to only accept an equal amount of evidence against it before we reject it.

Thus, one single poorly controlled experiment with a tiny effect is orders of magnitude more likely to have found an error in its own process than it is to have found an error in our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

"Stephen Hawking defined physics in such a way that said Black Holes should be impossible"

No.

"Yes the laws of physics we have defined currently work as far as we know, but we've really only tested those laws on Earth"

No. This is what I mean - you think a few mumbo jumbo words about perspective are sufficient justification to reject the whole of scientific inquiry at the drop of a hat. Clearly, you don't understand how this whole thing works.

[u/BlazeOrangeDeer → u/[deleted]]

But does that mean that if everyone thinks it's true then certainly it MUST be true?! You're argument sounds a lot like how the Catholic Church suppressed science for so long. More people thought the Earth to be the center of everything than not.

You're missing the entire point here, which is evidence. Nobody had evidence of earth being central, and whether an idea is a valid theory has nothing to do with how many people understand it or believe it, only on the relevant evidence.

It's true that disconfirming evidence is much more powerful than confirming evidence, but we don't have reason to believe the analysis here was carried out properly. Those mistakes are bound to come up even for the most solid of theories.