FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Security Consultants Claim New Terrorist Bombs May Mean No More In-Flight WiFi

Nov 3, 2010, 6:18 pm

#10

N965VJ

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Oct 2006

Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco

Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset

Posts: 12,509

Here's the full article that appeared in New Scientist, a magazine that has not endeared itself to the scientific community:

New Scientist is a British-based publication where many thousands of
lay people get their information on scientific matters, and (IMHO) it
does an excellent job about 70% of the time. But the combination of a
sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers (most
obviously in physics) is rendering it unreliable often enough to
constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science.

There are many areas in cosmology, fundamental physics and so on where
there are controversies over issues that are hotly contested by
various competent, highly educated and respected scientists, and I
have no quarrel with New Scientist publishing views on various sides
of these debates, even when those from the opposing camp would
consider the claims to be nonsense.

However, I really was gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy
in the article “Fly by Light” in the 9 September 2006 issue,
concerning the supposed “electromagnetic drive” of Roger Shawyer. If
Shawyer’s claims have been accurately reported, they violate
conservation of momentum. This is not a contested matter; in its
modern, relativistic form it is accepted by every educated physicist
on the planet. The writer of this article, Justin Mullins, seems
aware that conservation of momentum is violated, but then churns out a
lot of meaningless double-talk about “reference frames” which he seems
to think demonstrates that relativity somehow comes to the rescue.

Reply