>>469>pilot wave theories are rigorous, just not popular. I'd encourage you to maybe read about them before dismissing them.
I am aware, and I never dismissed them in previous conversation; but it's also important to note that a pilot wave theory has never been experimentally verified so pinning it as a cause, although bold and interesting if true, is somewhat vacuous at the moment. My issue is that they never mathematically detailed how pilot waves implies 'EMdrive works', this is why I say it's hand waving. If they had a detailed model we could make specific predictions that we can test, and we would have an idea of what type of results to expect. And if we didn't get those results we could falsify it and move on.
>what error source isn't covered in the paper?
Possible error from the testing apparatus is mentioned but the data is so close to the margin of error that it borders insignificance.
>if there is no known rigorous explanation of real results, does that mean the results are false
Not necessarily, but in the 21st century physics this is a huge minus for something that Sawyer had claimed to have figured out. It's another minus that none of the operating principles he originally proposed for it had been previously verified and have since been abandoned; when the result he wanted didn't come the theory just happily changed from being based off of superposition of microwaves to hidden variable theory.
In science when we test an idea and don't get the result we expected we need to consider that it might be wrong, tweaking everything to get the same (or near same) result after not getting the data you were looking for means that you're not making your idea falsifiable. It's the pattern that homeopathy goes through, scientific theories need to be falsifiable.
>or the theory needs work?
>looks pretty consistent to me.
I'm talking about consistency between different people independently verifying the theory. There isn't any. If it worked you'd expect different, unasociated people to be able to set up the same experiment and get the same results, with the tests I mentioned we never saw that. The same person (or group) running the same experiment over and over and getting the same result isn't independent verification; in fact this is where the polywater craze came from, it's why so many people believed the N-ray was real, it's pathological science.
Should people keep testing it? Sure. If many people could precisely repeat the experiment (with higher precision) in the most recent paper that would be really cool. I'd be glad to be proven wrong. But this has had such a bad track record so far and we can't ignore that. It isn't a convincing trend.
I feel like this conversation is about to run in a circle and there isn't much to discuss until the recent result is either independently verified, or we could see it be falsified, or if dreadful colors show they'll just change it again and again if they don't get the results they were looking for. But I've enjoyed chatting.