> That this is being published in a journal which does not cover basic physics is not helping
AIAA is an extremely reputable journal and society. All the members are extremely familiar with conservation of momentum.
The observation of superluminal photons (later disproved) was published in reputable journals as well.
No scientist took either result very seriously. However, the observation of anomalous results is a result worth of publication and communication to other scientists and engineers.
As a practicing scientist, I can assure you that peer-review does not mean something is 'correct', but that is it not provably false, and that the results may be important to the community.
The hope is that this gives the idea some legitimacy, which will encourage others to test the idea too. It's like a win-win situation, if you test it and you discredit the effect, that's a free paper. If you verify it or add your own little spin, you'll go down in the history books along with this team.
> That this is being published in a journal which does not cover basic physics is not helping
AIAA is an extremely reputable journal and society. All the members are extremely familiar with conservation of momentum.
The observation of superluminal photons (later disproved) was published in reputable journals as well.
No scientist took either result very seriously. However, the observation of anomalous results is a result worth of publication and communication to other scientists and engineers.
As a practicing scientist, I can assure you that peer-review does not mean something is 'correct', but that is it not provably false, and that the results may be important to the community.