djolds1 wrote:kurt9 wrote:I have followed Heim Theory as well. My take on the Tajmar experimental results is that Bosonic coupling is probably bogus. However, I think fermionic coupling (the approach that requires the high T fields) is still an open possibility. The earlier papers (prior to 2006) on fermionic coupling seem to be more rigorous in mathematics and theory.
I think I'm the one who coined the terms "fermionic" and "bosonic" coupling.
D&H's stubborn clinging to repudiated results unfortunately taints everything else they touch - it undermines their credibility.
D&H certainly have not come up with anything new recently. There isn't anything new to be said until they do some experiments.
djolds1 wrote:
http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/
I first heard of this approach in a "Space Show" podcast interview w/Woodward after SPESIF 2009. Woodward endorsed him as doing "real science," which was enough to catch my attention. Two papers presented at SPESIF 2009. The website is a bit splashy, but was produced by the guy's daughter. Cursory investigation of his CV seems to hold up - not a nut in a basement. I have been in correspondence with him for a year and a half, and have never gotten a "fraud" vibe. Might be mistaken, but honestly so.
Some hardware work, but not to the extent of the MLT team.
Unlike Heim, all derivations, mathematical chains of logic and restrictive conditions are explicitly spelled out and available. Foundational postulates are probably the simplest possible I've ever seen, yet it appears to be an original approach to unification and a GUT that ties into productive but semi-rejected work from the Einstein-Heisenberg period in the early 20th century. Far simpler in structure than Heim in terms of parsimony and elegance. Seems to account for most "oddball" findings of current physics. Also fits with some left-field intellectual suspicions voiced by Richard Hull - one of the leading cognoscenti on the old Fusor.net Forums, which partially spawned Talk-Polywell.
I will "digest" the pdf I downloaded from Williams' site.
djolds1 wrote:I think you're missing my meaning. The "habitat" can be as large as an Island 3 or more - in time. But you add inhabited volume incrementally, just as a city expands incrementally. An office complex module here, a sports center module there, a residential development module in the other place. Maybe a slowly expanded central structural spine as "government built infrastructure" for transit, utilities transmission, and general structural strength to the habitat. Not "smaller habitats." Large habitats, built slowly, and organically, just like we've been "growing" cities for millennia.
The SSI people are proposing "bolo" style habitats that would start small (say 50 people) then would grow as more people arrive.
djolds1 wrote:O'Neill cylinders are like their cousins the "Arcologies" of the '60s and '70s - attempts to "build self-contained, whole cities" in one throw. Which, when you think about it, is insanely expensive, and insanely risky. Maybe you can get everything right the first time with a jumbo jet or even an aircraft carrier - but with an entire city? ROFLMAO.
Well, Gerard O'niell and the founders of the L-5 Society were 1970's style liberals. So, of course they believed in massive centrally planned projects like Arcologies. Freeman Dyson actually discredited the economics of the whole thing in his paper "Pilgrims, Saints, and Spacemen" which was published in the L-5 News. He thought the asteroid "homestead" concept was viable, but that a lot of technology had to be developed to make this possible, not to mention much lower launch costs. Of course successful Woodward Mach technology would take care of the launch costs part. The bio-remediation technology has yet to be developed. The first attempt at this, Biosphere II, was a complete cock-up.