In the end, the article that outlines the EMDrive is nothing but a hope for the optimistic outlook on how perceived ideas on the nature of mechanics and physics that have sat around collecting dust are now being used for a perceived benefit. A lot of people here seem to miss the context and the perspective by which this article was written. While the author of this plea, Mr. Baez, is factually correct about the Conservation of Momentum, even he makes the admitted notion that New Scientist is of a benefit of explaining the abstractions of science into laymans or near laymans terms.
New Scientist has been publishing occasional crackpot articles as long as I have been reading it (20 years and counting). It has always been thus, and it has nothing to do with declining science literacy or rising demands for sensationalism. The editors there consider publishing such tripe part of their mandate–both to entertain their readers with news of the weird, and to tweak the stuffy, mainstream science boffins.
Am no scientist and have absolutely no idea what you lot talk about on this blog, but I do know one thing for certain, New Scientist would be better of called “The Black Hole” because they only contain half a story as well!
Now, I would postulate to a lot of you here that, this really should be the goal of New Scientist overall. Okay, so one article seems to not have the staying power that would be rooted in scientific fact and might be crossing the line into science fiction, but another thing that is neglected here, is that this article was written by someone who is presenting a rather complicated piece of physics to the average person who is trying to understand the nature of what is really happening in this device. Taking the abstract and congealing it into a savory story of something that many people would think that is fantastic in nature.
|So I have a subscription to New Scientists, how do I read it on my Kindle Fire 7 HD?||0||Jun 4, 2016|
|Subscription for Kindle?||8||Aug 12, 2015|