Mach Effect progress

[Jded]

. . .there is no reason to think that Mach thruster would take away passenger's inertia (allowing arbitrary high acceleration)...

What GeeGee said. Basically, all warp craft fly on a time-like geodesic, so passengers and the craft do not experience inertia of any sort. They all experience weightlessness. This is the kind of inertia nulling necessary to perform the kinds of aerial stunts reported over the decades of modern flight. Furthermore, this kind of inertia nulling is the only kind proposed I'm aware of, meaning there haven't been any other theories about how to null inertia to the point one could fly these crazy right angles in the sky. The observation illustrates what warp can do, and the theory behind warp exclusively explains the observation.

Seems obvious to me that unless you decide all the people reporting these things are wrong, you're stuck with someone using warp drive in our atmosphere, and the descriptions of this are of at least 3 different kinds of craft--saucer, triangle and cigar shaped--all doing what we still can only guess about.

I was thinking in terms of "ordinary" mach thrusters. Using fully blown warp drive to stroll around in atmosphere seems... well, few orders of magnitude less likely (even with the technology given), then "all the people reporting these things being wrong" (that isn't even actually improbable, because you might have a selection bias in the sample: IF these things don't actually happen, then while most people aren't wrong, people who are not wrong don't report them ).

[AcesHigh]

thread has gone to garbage with all stupid UFO crap.

[AcesHigh]

I HAVE read your previous answer to him and I still find it extremelly lacking. It seems your whole argument is "you are a skeptic about UFOs, thus, you are an emotionally disturbed child"

Like I said, you have a reading comprehension fail. S'okay. Lots of people can do math but are barely able to read.

My statement was rather, that skeptics are emotionally disturbed children. This has got very little to do with what they're skeptical about. The argument I made was rather longer and involved my explanations of what is skepticism and what is critical thinking. Your mischaracterization of a single sentence as if it were my entire case demonstrates either English is your second and as yet to be mastered language, or you're a very dishonest guy.

Past history says likely the second.

Are you done now?

Not done, because the dishonest person here as always is yourself GiThruster.

There was absolutely no failed reading comprehension from my part. As always, you say nonsense and then when pointed out you accuse other people of bad reading comprehension.

I understood PERFECTLY what you meant with skeptics being emotionally disturbed children (and yes, its obvious you didnt mean ONLY UFO skeptics... the fact you thought I understood only "UFO skeptics" shows who has the reading comprehension problems here).

As for your explanations of what is skeptcism and what is critical thinking, they are plain wrong, and obviously, they are poor excuses to justify what YOU think its true.


You are no psychologist, so saying skeptics were emotionally disturbed children is pure name-calling.

Funny how some people here think that as engineers, they also dominate psychology, economics, politics, climatology, etc.

Like I said, you have a reading comprehension fail.

Back to personal attacks again, hu?

Do you even care if you make any sense? AcesHigh showed every indication of having completely failed to understand GIThruster's argument. It's not a personal attack to point this out.

the irony is that it seems you guys were the ones with reading comprehension problems, by thinking I did not understand GiThruster poor points about what makes someone a skeptic and about his definition of a critical thinker, which obviously, suits him perfectly.

[AcesHigh]

EITHER WAY, thats absolutely not the point. I dont care about who is right or not about UFOs, about what is the difference between skepticism and critical thinking, whatever.

I do care about Mach Effect and keeping this thread CLEAN of this fight that the UFO talk has caused.

We DO HAVE the General Forum to discuss UFOs veracity, or to talk about what child disorders cause people to become skeptics



Let´s talk of UFO´s, IN THIS THREAD, as SUPPOSITION only. In the same tone we talked about dark energy being MAYBE the product of advanced civilizations all over the universe using ME.

[ScottL]

"you lack the proper thinking skills"?

wow, what an awesome argument eh?

Your reading comprehension has always been lacking as well. If you'll look back in the thread, you'll see that I explained exactly how and why his thinking skills are lacking--he equates skepticism with critical thinking and these are not the same thing. Critical thinking is for adults. Skepticism is for emotionally disturbed children.

Otherwise I agree. Discussion of UFO's belongs elsewhere. I just have to ask though, since they came up by virtue of the fact that visitations by space aliens would necessitate something like M-E work--a significant issue for this thread--doesn't it seem obvious that expanding the discussion to Bigfoot, the Mayan calendar and Elvis Presley makes you the offender in chief against the kinds of trouble you say you want to avoid? You're sounding self-discrediting.

Your definitions are off and you are aware. We aren't talkinga bout religions where skepticism would be reached by faith, we're talking about science. Critical thinking always leads to 1 of 2 avenues of view, acceptance in-which the evidence prsented has met your requirements, and skepticism where the evidence is insufficient to meet those requirements.

I can critically think about a proposal or claim and still be skeptical of it. If the evidence has not out-weighed my skepticism, then I'm likely to remain skeptical. There is nothing disturbed about this view or approach. If you can't see this, then I should cash in and tell you I've made a lovely fusion device that looks like a tea pot and heats up water and since you're not emotionally disturbed, then you believe me right?

[AcesHigh]

"you lack the proper thinking skills"?

wow, what an awesome argument eh?

Your reading comprehension has always been lacking as well. If you'll look back in the thread, you'll see that I explained exactly how and why his thinking skills are lacking--he equates skepticism with critical thinking and these are not the same thing. Critical thinking is for adults. Skepticism is for emotionally disturbed children.

Otherwise I agree. Discussion of UFO's belongs elsewhere. I just have to ask though, since they came up by virtue of the fact that visitations by space aliens would necessitate something like M-E work--a significant issue for this thread--doesn't it seem obvious that expanding the discussion to Bigfoot, the Mayan calendar and Elvis Presley makes you the offender in chief against the kinds of trouble you say you want to avoid? You're sounding self-discrediting.

Your definitions are off and you are aware. We aren't talkinga bout religions where skepticism would be reached by faith, we're talking about science. Critical thinking always leads to 1 of 2 avenues of view, acceptance in-which the evidence prsented has met your requirements, and skepticism where the evidence is insufficient to meet those requirements.

I can critically think about a proposal or claim and still be skeptical of it. If the evidence has not out-weighed my skepticism, then I'm likely to remain skeptical. There is nothing disturbed about this view or approach. If you can't see this, then I should cash in and tell you I've made a lovely fusion device that looks like a tea pot and heats up water and since you're not emotionally disturbed, then you believe me right?

can you please stop with all those reasonable arguments and logic??? I am the one who cant understand what GIThruster said because of reading comprehension problems! You make it seem that the problem is not my reading comprehension, but GIThruster arguments themselves!

[GIThruster]

I was thinking in terms of "ordinary" mach thrusters. Using fully blown warp drive to stroll around in atmosphere seems... well, few orders of magnitude less likely (even with the technology given), then "all the people reporting these things being wrong"

Why? These reports of craft performing maneuvers in our atmosphere go back well before anyone had any idea how such a thing could be done. Today, the only plausible explanation for such acrobatics is warp drive. Why is it more plausible to assume all the eye witnesses are wrong, especially now that we have an idea what is necessary to do the same ourselves?

Just saying, M-E physics is what is required for a "space drive" as defined by Marc Millis during the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project--basically a propellantless inertial thruster. It's also what is required for generating large quantities of negative mass with negative inertia, which is what is required for warp and wormhole construction.

I really don't care that people get all twitchy when UFO's are mentioned. They're a piece in the puzzle. Refusing to allow them as part of the big picture is most unscientific given the sheer weight of evidence they represent. If it makes people less anxious, I suppose they can tell themselves the inhabitants of such craft are our future spawn, traveled back through time as any respectable wormhole generator would allow. Or, people can tell themselves that the US must have stuff at Groom Lake able to make use of M-E physics for at least the last 6+ decades. Okay. Whatever. Personally, I wouldn't make any assumptions about who is flying these ships that have been observed. I'd just note the ships are exhibiting the characteristics uniquely explained by warp drive.

The point is, that it is not less likely that we've been observing warp drives for decades than it is everyone who has reported observing them is wrong. Anyone who looks at the evidence knows that's absurd.

[AcesHigh]

I was thinking in terms of "ordinary" mach thrusters. Using fully blown warp drive to stroll around in atmosphere seems... well, few orders of magnitude less likely (even with the technology given), then "all the people reporting these things being wrong"

Why? These reports of craft performing maneuvers in our atmosphere go back well before anyone had any idea how such a thing could be done. Today, the only plausible explanation for such acrobatics is warp drive. Why is it more plausible to assume all the eye witnesses are wrong, especially now that we have an idea what is necessary to do the same ourselves?

Just saying, M-E physics is what is required for a "space drive" as defined by Marc Millis during the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project--basically a propellantless inertial thruster. It's also what is required for generating large quantities of negative mass with negative inertia, which is what is required for warp and wormhole construction.

I really don't care that people get all twitchy when UFO's are mentioned. They're a piece in the puzzle. Refusing to allow them as part of the big picture is most unscientific given the sheer weight of evidence they represent. If it makes people less anxious, I suppose they can tell themselves the inhabitants of such craft are our future spawn, traveled back through time as any respectable wormhole generator would allow. Or, people can tell themselves that the US must have stuff at Groom Lake able to make use of M-E physics for at least the last 6+ decades. Okay. Whatever. Personally, I wouldn't make any assumptions about who is flying these ships that have been observed. I'd just note the ships are exhibiting the characteristics uniquely explained by warp drive.

The point is, that it is not less likely that we've been observing warp drives for decades than it is everyone who has reported observing them is wrong. Anyone who looks at the evidence knows that's absurd.

there are plenty of reports of ghosts, bigfoot, chupacabras, images of the virgin Mary crying, etc. Please, cut the crap from this thread. Its NOT scientific no matter what you say. And no, its NOT important to this thread.

it may be INTERESTING as a SPECULATION, just like the speculation about dark energy. Now, when you twist the thread to support your UFO theories, or use your UFO theories to support ME, and pose it as TRUTH because of evidence YOU think its real, you are just ruining the thread and creating off-topic discussion.


you say that anyone who looks at the evidence knows its an absurd to not believe in UFOs (as aliens visiting us). However, there are PLENTY of people who have looked at UFO evidence and dismiss them. And then, of course, instead of responding appropriately, you consider them as skeptics with bad childhoods, because they dont agree with you. Please, stop being infantile. You dont own the truth. People who dismiss UFOs as alien constructs have as much reason to do so, and perhaps more, than you do to consider them real.

and that disagreement is bound to create an OFFTOPIC argument that is useless to this topic. Even if UFO´s are real and propelled by ME, the fact they are propelled by ME would still be only speculation, thus, again, useless to the thread.

its speculation about an speculation, and therefore, you should be using IFs and MAYBEs, instead of asserting that they are real, that they are spacecraft and that they almost surely are propelled by ME drives.

[GIThruster]

Aces, how many times does someone need to ignore you before you get the hint?

No matter how self-important you might view yourself, you don't get to decide what other people post on, and the implications and connection to M-E physics is obvious, so what you consider "NOT important" is irrelevant.

[AcesHigh]

Aces, how many times does someone need to ignore you before you get the hint?

No matter how self-important you might view yourself, you don't get to decide what other people post on, and the implications and connection the M-E physics is obvious, so what you consider "NOT important" is irrelevant.

GI, you are the only person with self-importance delusions in this thread. You are seeing for yourself that your stupid UFO arguments are resulting in an offtopic discussion, and yet, you are unable to restrain yourself.

you could just admit you are wrong once (not about UFOs existing, but about insisting on the discussion) and drop the subject here and open another thread at General to discuss it. But no. Thats just too much for you.

[GeeGee]

all warp craft fly on a time-like geodesic, so passengers and the craft do not experience inertia of any sort.

Yes, but he's not talking about warp drive in that quote.

modest amounts of REM evidently is not prohibited. These can be used to null the inertia of objects, making rapid (but slightly sub-light speed) interstellar travel possible.

Warp drives actually require more REM than a traversable wormhole, by the way.

[GIThruster]

Yes, I recall that for an absurdly benign wormhole, one which the gravitational sheering at the throat is small enough to not tear people into tiny bits; you need about a Jupiter mass of REM. For a warp ship you'd need the same but for a much larger opening, so more REM for a warp drive.

It's been years since I read TWISTS. Does Jim say how to use REM to null the inertia of objects without building a warp generator? I don't recall any of that. Or could it be that what he was saying was, you could build a warp generator to null the inertia, but not powerful enough to travel FTL?

[Jded]

I was thinking in terms of "ordinary" mach thrusters. Using fully blown warp drive to stroll around in atmosphere seems... well, few orders of magnitude less likely (even with the technology given), then "all the people reporting these things being wrong"

Why?

Killing a bacteria with a nuke? Flying in atmosphere is easy. Even we can do it. Flying in atmosphere with a Mach drive is even easier. Negating inertia of a whole ship (and who knows how much air around it, to avoid cavitation, extreme friction etc.) is not. It's several orders of magnitude more energy, completely wasted on ability to do pointless manoeuvres. Even if the energy is free, processing equipment and safety factor is not (blowing up half a planet on malfunction). I can see interstellar cruiser doing it, very carefully (still AFAIK permanent wormhole is an all-round better option), but not an inter-system scout boat.

These reports of craft performing maneuvers in our atmosphere go back well before anyone had any idea how such a thing could be done. Today, the only plausible explanation for such acrobatics is warp drive.

What these reports are is unreal. They point primarily at (various) artifacts of observation. That there might be an instellar drive with some similiar characteristics is interesting, but not even secondary consideration. It's like finding connection between suddenly not seeing anything and sun stopping fusion.

Why is it more plausible to assume all the eye witnesses are wrong, especially now that we have an idea what is necessary to do the same ourselves?

Because it isn't plausible even inside the story... (Not touching the "eye witnesses" reliablility as it seems to trigger something).

Just saying, M-E physics is what is required for a "space drive" as defined by Marc Millis during the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project--basically a propellantless inertial thruster. It's also what is required for generating large quantities of negative mass with negative inertia, which is what is required for warp and wormhole construction.

I really don't care that people get all twitchy when UFO's are mentioned. They're a piece in the puzzle. Refusing to allow them as part of the big picture is most unscientific given the sheer weight of evidence they represent. If it makes people less anxious, I suppose they can tell themselves the inhabitants of such craft are our future spawn, traveled back through time as any respectable wormhole generator would allow. Or, people can tell themselves that the US must have stuff at Groom Lake able to make use of M-E physics for at least the last 6+ decades. Okay. Whatever. Personally, I wouldn't make any assumptions about who is flying these ships that have been observed. I'd just note the ships are exhibiting the characteristics uniquely explained by warp drive.

The point is, that it is not less likely that we've been observing warp drives for decades than it is everyone who has reported observing them is wrong. Anyone who looks at the evidence knows that's absurd.

The point is, some observations might fit some assumptions but the whole picture is not coherent at all. It's noise, not signal. And since human perception is pretty much like 10% actual observation and 90% brain making up stuff that (usually) fits, and not distinguishing between them in retrospection, we should expect noise. Even if there is some signal inside, we won't know without better data...

[bennmann]

I would just be happy with a wormhole data connection to my computer. Traversible opening 1um wide for a stream of light? Def not Jupiter size mass....

No latency when I play video games with people in Korea. Sounds fun. Also Mars pictures with basically no latency from NASA rovers. Also monetary systems not inhibited by trade latency.

[GIThruster]

"Killing a bacteria with a nuke? Flying in atmosphere is easy. Even we can do it. Flying in atmosphere with a Mach drive is even easier. Negating inertia of a whole ship (and who knows how much air around it, to avoid cavitation, extreme friction etc.) is not. It's several orders of magnitude more energy, completely wasted on ability to do pointless manoeuvres."

We don't know how much if any more energy is required to produce warp, and if the ship is equipped with a warp drive that allows fantastical maneuvers, it is best to use it. There is no friction, etc. The spacetime the warp bubble flies through does not connect with a warp ship at all, so there is no friction of any sort. (This also explains why there is no sound, not even of rushing air when such ships speed away.) Further, your assumption that high gee maneuvers are "pointless" is again, just assumption. When you have a ship that can operate like this, the question really becomes why operate it in any other way. Why do you think we finally took sails off steam ships?

"The point is, some observations might fit some assumptions but the whole picture is not coherent at all."

I'll admit there are plenty of unanswered questions, but the picture I'm painting is certainly coherent. If you want to make an argument against the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony, I suggest you get a copy of Leslie Kean's excellent little book and try to impeach those witnesses. What you'll find is, that it is only here in the States that we castigate eye-witnessess of these things. Elsewhere, pilots are required by law to report what they see. It is how we here in the US handle such reports that is the telling thing.

http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pil ... eslie+Kean

If you want to make a judgement about noise and signal so far as the eyewitness reports of UFO's are concerned, you'd best have done a really good review, and I've never met anyone who has done such and remained a skeptic (though I'm sure there are some.) There is simply too much evidence for any reasonable person to look at the evidence and not be convinced, IMHO.

"I would just be happy with a wormhole data connection to my computer. . .No latency when I play video games with people in Korea."

Not to mention you could get tomorrow's stock reports today.

Time travel entails the end of our entire monetary system and entry into a whole new age we can only barely begin to conceive of.