

......

________



(*) Also Dr. White at NASA carefully distanced himself and his project from the unaccepted theories of Yang and Shawyer, who he never embraced, as they are obviously incompatible with well-known physics.



Dr. White's QV-virtual plasma thruster theory? does not exactly conform to any currently accepted understanding of either the QV or Gravity.It is difficult to justify criticisms of any theory attached to the publication of any experiment, whether published or presented for purposes of funding. As someone mentioned earlier, when dealing with what is New Physics, journals expect an included theory of operation and not many venture capitalists are going to be willing to provide funding, in the early stages of any technological development without some explanation, of how/why it might work. In neither case does the attached theory have to have been proven a realistic explanation.... No, all that is required is that it be acceptable to the reviewing(s) parties. If theory had to be proven before being published, there would be no theoretical physics, at all.It is unreasonable to reject experimental claims based solely on an attached theory of operation.., or without all of the facts contributing to any claims made based on experiment. Shawyer, Yang and even Eagleworks have not provided sufficient detail of their experimental design that anyone could just duplicate their tests, without a great deal of trial and error. Rejecting experimental claims based on incomplete detail, or the lack of specific design detail, is valid.., but in that case you are rejecting their reporting or experimental design. The actual engineering and physical design...Until the dust settles on any proposed new technology, rejecting claims based on faulty theory is bad science. There seems to be a great deal of confusion, of just where the line between engineering and theory is, where the EMDrive is concerned. Most of what I have seen is an engineering effort, aimed at reproducing and testing past claims, and a healthy dose of theoretical speculation. It is the engineering that drives the experimental design, not so much what we imagine the theory of operation might be.As I have said before, It would be far better to catch the rabbit.., replicate or experimentally refute the claimed results before, cooking it!.., chasing the theory of operation. Engineering is based on what we know and trial and error, while any theory of operation would seem to be obviously New Physics and not entirely explainable by any inherited or aquired theoretical bias, based on past experience.