I think propellentless and taking no energy are very different things. The claim as I make it out to be is thrust without propellent. Much like an electric motor can provide but the motor cannot provide thrust in space. It would still take energy input. However if you want free energy you can use your same wheel connected to a turbine powered by the wind, free money go ahead use that. (I am pointing this out to say that your idea of turning his thrust into money by generating power seems to be economically potentially unviable as easy money even if the energy is free.)

Of course given that there is a giant interconnected mess of gravitational pulls throughout our solar system and the galaxy I've always wondered that nobody seemed to be looking at pushing/pulling on them in a more serious way than old school newtonian senses.

Because that doesn't exist. People are already making the most of what the unintuitive ends of Newtonion physics has to offer, using gravitational slingshots, the Oberth effect, Hohmann transfers and so on. There isn't really anything else left.

Why does Thermodynamics require humiliation as its last resort, and was Eddington perhaps making a snide criticism of thermodynamics and its ultimately human psychological underpinning?

Or put it on the outside of a wheel, make it go in circles, then power a generator off it, and tap off some of the power for the propellentless drive...

And sell the infinite free energy at a profit.

But it's NOT a perpetual motion machine, see, it's a magical physics drive so it MIGHT work, because he left that bit off so it's OK it might be in flagrant violation of the laws of Thermodynamics (as well as conservation of momentum).

The whole reactionless drive actually being a thinly disguised perpetual motion machine makes people so angry I've had it in my sig for months. I've had lots of weird counter arguments which range from "perpetual motion machines don't exist so you're wrong" (which is kind of missing the point) to simple applications of Newton's laws being met with a flurry of invective as if angry, rude shouting can overturn the laws of physics.

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equationsâ"then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observationâ"well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
--E. Eddington

human trafficking, underage 'actors'

Are these two problems really something that mainstream sites like Pornhub would fail to take seriously? I mean, if I ran a site where anybody could browse, I sure wouldn't want to show someone that could be a search-hit in a database of abused/vulnerable people.

Unless Pornhub's owner is too busy sleeping on a pile of cash in a non-extraditable country to care...

While I donâ(TM)t necessarily disagree with what your points, the way you convey it and using word like âoedonâ(TM)t be daftâ is counterproductive. Apple has a right as anyone else, to do business as they see fit. Here, they have opted to stay in China. A move I donâ(TM)t really agree with either. But they still do a lot of manufacturing there even though I see they are trying to shift that to more countries. Which is good. I donâ(TM)t really feel as this is all Apples doing. The world has outsourced almost all production to China. That means they get access to all of our developed IP. And getting payed for it. Now we see more and more Chinese brands that competes with western brands, in the west, but with far less laws to support integrity, safety and so on. So I think we need to stop and manufacture things there. Thatâ(TM)s only helping the Chinese government.

Humanity, civilization, world - we are in a accelerating decline, there will not be any breakthrough discoveries. Humanity is dying.

Apparently only about 10-15% of the population are able to fact-check themselves ("independent thinkers") and apparently overall only 20% can be convinced by rational argument (the independent thinkers included). Hence you have 80% that cannot fact-check at all. These people just select opinions presented to them based on non-rational criteria or sometimes come up with their own. Then they hallucinate that they have actual facts and often aggressively defend against any and all attempts to explain to them that they are wrong. Sure, occasionally this process results in a factually accurate opinion, but that is pure chance.

Hence no surprise that scams of all forms are nicely successful as long as they are presented convincingly enough. Add that physical reality as known is pretty boring and makes everything exciting (like space-tracel) hard, and you have a nice explanation why crap like this story even makes the news.

"unless extraordinary evidence is presented"

What if this is an unavoidably arbitrary and fickle standard that says more about lookism and mood affiliation than actual evidence?

Whatever you thought you might have done in 1930's Germany is what you're doing right now.

Indeed. Especially

is a hot candidate. Remember the "EM Drive" and cold fusion, for example.

One thing is missing from your list: Direct fraud. See, for example, the Rossie "E-Cat".

I'm also not sure that this "1g" representation is an honest one? Is it one g for what kind of weight? It's enough thrust to counter how much weight? That's why this might be misleading.

Not quite. You can verify it does not work that way, but if it works, it may well be something else than actual thrust.

Lets see how long this one lasts. "Defies the laws of Physics" is just an alternate formulation for "scam" (unless extraordinary evidence is presented). Unfortunately, too many people do not understand basic Physics and are willing to believe any and all crap, so this one will run a while, I expect.