Mach Effect progress

[GIThruster]

NO-ONE is 'qualified' to argue about warp drive. This is because it is currently a fantasy with not a shred of evidence.

What sort of qualification does one get in WARP DRIVE technology? Is it some piece of paper that geeks print out for themselves with 'Star Command Academy' at the top of it?

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who listened to the link above at the Space Show, that both Sonny White and Eric Davis are qualified to discuss and dispute over what GR and Alcubierre say warp is like. That's the best we have to go on, and these are the kinds of guys who understand GR's implications well enough to make reasonable statements and ask reasonable questions. Further, Eric goes into some detail about why the objections to warp coming from Australia are wrong, and in his 10 minutes or so explanation, it is again obvious why he is qualified to offer his insights to this issue. He's a physicist who has been working on this issue full time for more than a decade.

You on the other hand are not so qualified. You are not a physicist. You're not trained in GR. You're not familiar with any of the real issues or challenges. You're just a whiny pretender, complaining that he's not the center of attention. You need therapy. As I said, neither of us are qualified to argue about warp. The difference between us is I know this, and you do not.

[GIThruster]

I listened to it was waiting to hear what other's thought. Sonny White seemed more conservative about how soon we would have functioning warp drive ships even if the interferometry experiments go well. He seemed to be speaking more in decades before operational craft even if all goes well, especially of the superluminal variety. Seemed more optimistic about interplanetary sub-light "warping" in our Solar System. As for the rest of the more theoretical side discussed, anxious to hear what others here think..

I think Sonny's conservatism is common to civil servants who are looking at their careers more than the goal of their careers. If he were working for Skunkworks, he'd have pressure to perform and you might have a different answer.

In any case, though I do disagree with both Sonny and Eric as to where we ought to find exotic matter, I am very happy to see the actual calculations go forward with how to build a warp drive given one can get some exotic matter. I do own that I'm deeply disappointed and have been for years they've both bought into the polarizable vacuum story. That has waylaid advanced propulsion research since 1997 and continues to do so.

[kurt9]

I think White's work will be the final answer to the polarizable vacuum theories. Either his experiments will work or will not. If not (I expect this result), it will definitively falsify all of the QVF concepts once and for all. The community can then move on to other possibilities.

[AcesHigh]

I'm not qualified to argue about what warp drive ought to look like or how it ought to work, and neither are you.

NO-ONE is 'qualified' to argue about warp drive. This is because it is currently a fantasy with not a shred of evidence.

I would qualify it as sci-fi, not as fantasy. After all, we do have theories on how to create one, we have math to support it. If it can become reality its another entirely different story.

I think its incorrect to qualify sound scientific theories as fantasies. They are interesting and serve a purpose EVEN if they are wrong.

Is string theory right or wrong? I dont care. Its not fantasy, its serious work and deserves recognition for what it is, even if it turns out to be bullshit. Learning why it is bullshit is as important as understanding why its right (if it was)

[chrismb]

I think its incorrect to qualify sound scientific theories as fantasies. They are interesting and serve a purpose EVEN if they are wrong.

There are no 'scientific' theories being expounded here in this thread in regards 'warp drive'.

The extent of ME thruster experiments is scientific in that there is a practical possibility of independent reproduction of the experimentation, whatever the outcome of those experiments. Certainly, a 'scientific approach' can be taken in regards ME thrusters because it is a stated proposition that a certain physical configuration will lead to a certain physical behaviour.

However, the conclusions of 'ME theory' are pseudo-scientific because the conclusions of that theory contradicts currently accepted physical laws yet there is, as yet, insufficient evidence of an effect. - If there were evidence, then the laws of thermodynamics would have to be put on hold pending further developments to accommodate the possibility of entropy flows through time as well as space.

So, these are 'fantasy' theories because they do not naturally emerge from a comprehension of known physics, nor do they appear as an observation in the natural world or from a constructed experiment.

A thing being a 'fantasy' or being 'sci-fi' is not necessarily a put-down at all. In some ways, it is even the contrary; it can be a manifestation of an idea that one might hope becomes a 'scientific' theory or reality, and the creation of a practical experiment might then be prepared to establish, by scientific method, a disproof of an existing scientific theory that is held to be true.

Just to emphasise this: An unfounded speculation [that runs against an accepted scientific theory] may well lead to devising a 'genuine' experiment that follows the scientific method. An outcome of that experiment may then be a contradiction of the scientific theory that the unfounded speculation ran against. At that moment, and if the evidence of the experiment is shown to be a contradiction of the originally held scientific theory, then that theory fails and if this new, originally unfounded speculation is supported by all the experimental evidence prior to it, plus the new stuff, then IT becomes the new theory and is no longer 'unfounded'.

But it is NOT scientific for as long as it only exists as one possible conclusion from heavily manipulated equations where the algebra has been taken to braking point and that the conclusions gained from the equations does not readily meet any reasonable expectation of how reality might actually behave, and that there are no observations available to support it.

RE-CAP: A experiment, irrespective of the outcome and however well- or ill-conceived, CAN be a 'scientific experiment' if a scientific method is used.

A theory CANNOT be a 'scientific theory' if it is inconsistent with existing observations and/or expectations of the known universe. It is AN UNSUBSTANTIATED THEORY. It is A SPECULATION.

A theory becomes a 'scientific theory' if all the physical evidence available, ever, in the whole universe, supports it. An unsubstantiated theory may become a 'scientific theory' if experiments are done and/or observations gained that specifically demonstrate how the current theory fails.

[chrismb]

As I said, neither of us are qualified to argue about warp. The difference between us is I know this, and you do not.

There are no 'arguments about warp' made in posts under chrismb.

GIT is at liberty to re-iterate what arguments he things have been made in chrismb posts. chrismb posts require no information within the questions and posits to claim to be 'prior knowledge'. These questions and posits merely require a response by those who do claim to know something.

A posit has been proposed under a chrismb post that states there is not a single shred of evidence that a negative energy shell can encapsulate a space-time distortion.

This is not an argument. It is a statement, and it is a statement that is VERY EASY TO DISPROVE, IF IT IS WRONG - simply by demonstrating a single shred of evidence!

If there is no shred of evidence that can be offered, then the statement that there is no shred of evidence is [OBVIOUSLY!!] upheld.

Does GIT simply fail to understand this, or is he deliberately failing to understand this? Is it a clinical condition that he is unable to understand it? Did it not show up in the urine tests?

[GIThruster]

This is not an argument. It is a statement, and it is a statement that is VERY EASY TO DISPROVE, IF IT IS WRONG - simply by demonstrating a single shred of evidence!

This is the point of Sonny's Warp Interferometer experiment being run at JSC presently. We'll look at the data when its released so long as Paul has no troubles posting it here. Personally, I would not post it here with a whacko like chris around. This is no longer an adult venue or healthy by any means. chris has seen to that.

[chrismb]

So GIT confirms that the experiment has not yet produced any effect.

The experiment can be scientific, even if it results in nothing-at-all.

However, does GIT yet recognise that the proposal is not a 'scientific' claim, because the only other possible prelude to such a claim is someone playing double-bluff algebra giving rise to physically unrealistic, and as yet undemonstrated, outcomes?

Or does GIT not yet understand the philosophical basis of 'science' [scientia ; 'that which is KNOWN']?

[ScottL]

Perhaps you two should take this to PM and stop cluttering this thread with your back and forth. I'm reasonably sure the majority of us don't come to read these endless diatribes. So with regards to just this specific aspect of your commenting, knock it the frick off.

[GIThruster]

I'm not confirming anything except as Paul posted above, Sonny has begun testing. No data has been released yet.

chris, I don't think you understand what qualifies as "scientific" at all. I have 3 problems with your statements in this regard.

First is scientists and philosophers of science do not hold a monolithic definition as to what is science or scientific method. There is a great deal of debate on the issue. Elements of science often go missing. For example, when we're discussing the subject of the origin of life, we routinely let go the criteria for repeatability and direct observation. Yet most scientists agree that evolutionary science is indeed science. If one gets around to actually studying philosophy of science, one finds this is a pervasive issue in science--that we have no standing definition for what science is. We know it is a process and most philosophers of science and scientists agree that science is a social process that uses empirical methods, but they agree on very little else.

Second, I disagree with your dichotomy that things are either science or fantasy. Empirical methods are not the only means by which we obtain warrant for belief. There is currently another thread here looking at the mathematics of rotation. Those doing that investigation are not doing science. Pure math is a rationalist approach to obtaining knowledge that does not rely upon observation at all. This does not make it "fantasy". Obviously, we're intellectually justified in pursuing knowledge by other means than empirical method.

Third, your lack of mastery over the M-E issue clearly demonstrates you're willing to pontificate at great length on issues you know nothing about. Almost every time you post about M-E you demonstrate you don't understand what the theory proposes. You've been doing this for years. Everyone else here understands what a Mach Effect is, because they took the time to read the papers and hear out the details in calm adult discussions here. You alone, chris; have decided to debunk M-E theory with no understanding whatsoever of what it entails. Furthermore, you have done so in the most abusive and obnoxious fashion possible, completely alienating those who would otherwise give you simple answers to your questions and explain to you the dozens of places where you are wrong.

Fact is chris, you are speaking over your head because you are too bitter, hateful and emotionally disturbed to interact with others in an adult manner. I'm not exaggerating when I say you need a therapist. I'm just saying true, you can't hear what others have to say because you have so many of your own unresolved issues. You are very easily bright enough to understand M-E theory and yet you do not have even a kindergarden toy model understanding of it because your own emotional constitution twists you into something wholly unreceptive. You don't understand because you have these very serious problems, chris; and they make you unable to participate in adult discussion as an adult.

The remedy here is thus not to pander to your demands and accusations about what is and is not science. The remedy is to get you to go get some therapy, before your inner rage has you shooting up classrooms or otherwise acting out your emotional troubles.

[chrismb]

Perhaps you two should take this to PM and stop cluttering this thread with your back and forth. I'm reasonably sure the majority of us don't come to read these endless diatribes. So with regards to just this specific aspect of your commenting, knock it the frick off.

No-one should come to talk-polywell.org expecting to read a thread on ME thrusters at all.

If you don't like it and want to read about ME thrusters without a legitimate debate on whether it does, or does not, amount to a 'scientific' discussion, then go to a suitable website for it where they are not bothered about the finery of worrying about scientific discipline.

[chrismb]

First is scientists and philosophers of science do not hold a monolithic definition as to what is science or scientific method. There is a great deal of debate on the issue.

That is easy to agree with. But describing a negative energy shell bubbles containing space-warping is so waaay beyond a legitimate discussion in this regard that it beggars belief GIT could confobulate such a thing in with the legitimate 'live' debate on the limits of scientific endeavour.

For sure, there are areas of research that would push a simple 'monolithic' definition of science beyond its capacity to effectively discriminate the edge of science from beyond it. However, discussing warped space in negative energy shell bubbles ain't one of them!!!

Second, I disagree with your dichotomy that things are either science or fantasy.

Science, by definition, means 'that which is known'. If GIT finds the terms 'fantasy' and 'fiction' and 'unfounded claims' to be pejorative terms, it is unlikely that chrismb would have a complaint if GIT found new terms to describe 'that which is not known'.

So long as GIT understands science is 'that which is known', and 'not-science' to be 'that which is not known', then the terms used are immaterial.

Empirical methods are not the only means by which we obtain warrant for belief.

There is no 'belief' in science. There may be a 'belief' that a theory can be proved or disproved with an experiment. But the experiment, and its outcome, is, by definition, both 'an empirical method' and 'that which proves scientific theory'. It is what it is. Belief plays no part. This miscomprehension has been GIT's greatest failing.

Third, your lack of mastery over the M-E issue clearly demonstrates you're willing to pontificate at great length on issues you know nothing about.

GIT appears, yet again and again, to claim that posts under chrismb have made certain claims in respect of ME. What 'claims' does GIT suggest have been made in chrismb posts? GIT does not appear to have read the post above.

Almost every time you post about M-E you demonstrate you don't understand what the theory proposes.

No-one is proposing an understanding of ME. The understanding is all GIT's, so why does he only berate others for not knowing what he does, rather than provide evidentially and empirically substantiated material to support ME claims.

You alone, chris; have decided to debunk M-E theory with no understanding whatsoever of what it entails.

chrismb had never made any claim to understanding what ME theory 'entails' when he posted here. Why should he, when the claims fly in the face of conventionally accepted scientific theory, yet GIT who purports this 'new science' declines to offer proofs, describe theories, etc., and merely berates people for questioning the things he posts by saying 'go read about what I am saying elsewhere'?

Fact is chris, you are speaking over your head because you are too bitter, hateful and emotionally disturbed to interact with others in an adult manner.

When chrismb left this forum, he was obviously bitter, hateful and emotionally disturbed. This was because of a constant degradation of the subject material of this forum, the lack of scientific rigour in discussing things but instead fantasy ideas were (and still are) pitched out as if they are extant fact, and the constant 'appeal-to-authority' used as a tool in discussions and the constant insults and ad hominem attacks on anyone that disagreed with crazy posts. This became a particular nuisance when two particular clowns arrived to purvey their crap, namely GIT and another idiot spouting that he solved all the fusion problems with his stupid idea that he expected everyone to swoon at, and that polywell was shit.

I'm not exaggerating when I say you need a therapist.

chrismb was depressed when he left this forum because of his refusal to accept 'clown comments' as a proper medium for discourse. He saw two therapists, the first had a nervous breakdown and the second left her job. chrismb remained unchanged. The conclusion is that therapists need chrismb so that they see the depressing reality of how incompetent and useless the human species has become at applying rigorous, disciplined thought to analysing problems and determining solutions. chrismb, as GIT correctly determines, is a misanthrope - as all self thinking people should be. If the world was full of misanthropes then the planet would be a much happier, better place. Misanthropes seem to get on well together, and if they don't then they just stop bullshitting because they can't be bothered, and move on. It's a lesson GIT could learn. GIT should try attending the next 'Hermits United Conference'. Hermits get on really well together because they're not interested in trying to bullshit anyone, but what really pisses them off is when other people bother them by feeding out bullshit they can't be bothered to hear or read.

I'm just saying true, you can't hear what others have to say because you have so many of your own unresolved issues.

Sorry, chrismb would not be able to hear your post, if he read it.

You are very easily bright enough to understand M-E theory and yet you do not have even a kindergarden toy model understanding of it because your own emotional constitution twists you into something wholly unreceptive.

How has GIT tried to explain it?

You don't understand because you have these very serious problems, chris;

chrismb never sought to understand it. He said as much that it was a crazy idea, and well-done to those guys mad enough to try it out. If they think it is a go-er, then it's all up to them to prove it, and to explain it. They have no expectation on others to readily accept, or even take the effort to read about it. If they have something to prove and demonstrate, it is for them to prove and demonstrate.

The remedy here is thus not to pander to your demands and accusations about what is and is not science.

Why is it not a remedy to address posts pulling GIT up on his understanding of science? It is the most relevant thing in this thread, by a long margin, because he is the one pushing the idea so he needs to reconcile that with intellectual rigour to carry forward the case he is trying to make. If he is not trying to make a case for something, then what's all this shyte about?

[GIThruster]

That is easy to agree with. But describing a negative energy shell bubbles containing space-warping is so waaay beyond a legitimate discussion in this regard that it beggars belief GIT could confobulate such a thing in with the legitimate 'live' debate on the limits of scientific endeavour.

Says you. Physicists however disagree.

Why is it not a remedy to address posts pulling GIT up on his understanding of science? It is the most relevant thing in this thread, by a long margin, because he is the one pushing the idea so he needs to reconcile that with intellectual rigour to carry forward the case he is trying to make. If he is not trying to make a case for something, then what's all this shyte about?

chris, you need to try to understand, you're not pulling me up on my understanding of science. My degrees include a degree in philosophy with specializations in philosophy of science and epistemology. I have actually studied the subject at hand whereas you obviously have not. All you have is empty pretense. And just to be plain about it, there isn't anyone here who needs your instruction about how to think rationally, or how to become a misanthrope. These are very serious psychological problems you have and this is not the place to look for help. You are not instructing anyone. You are acting out. You are not informing anyone. You are deliberately causing trouble. If we had a real moderator in this forum you would have been ejected long ago.

How has GIT tried to explain it?

I have made many dozens of explanations about M-E theory over the years. The reason I'm no longer pandering to your whining for an explanation is because it is obvious to me you have an agenda other than to learn. You are here to act out your emotional disease and I don't need to be a party to that.

Go get a therapist and tell her what you just wrote about being a misanthrope.

[ScottL]

Perhaps you two should take this to PM and stop cluttering this thread with your back and forth. I'm reasonably sure the majority of us don't come to read these endless diatribes. So with regards to just this specific aspect of your commenting, knock it the frick off.

No-one should come to talk-polywell.org expecting to read a thread on ME thrusters at all.

If you don't like it and want to read about ME thrusters without a legitimate debate on whether it does, or does not, amount to a 'scientific' discussion, then go to a suitable website for it where they are not bothered about the finery of worrying about scientific discipline.

When you start debating the topic instead of goading GIT into another argument, then your point will be valid, until then, you're full of shit. We get it, we got it many pages ago, you don't believe in ME or it's possibilities, so why continue to provoke responses from GIT. Do you seriously get your rocks off on targetting him? I mean sure, he's pretty easy to get going, but darn, it's getting old fast.

[chrismb]

I have made many dozens of explanations about M-E theory over the years.

Links? GIT has made many unsubstantiated statements, but these do not amount to 'an explanation'.