Page 100 of 178

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:25 pm
by MSimon
chrismb wrote:chrismb has already retreated from society and, as far as is known, he would prefer society to stop bothering him. Such things that bother him include having sight of society undergoing a self-destruction of logic and reason in which robust science is becoming diluted by a more-mystical, democratically decided-upon reality that can only end in the demise of the world as it is currently configured through the acceptance of pathological science. There should be no place for shamen to whom honours need be bestowed before gaining wisdom. To note, this is as prevalent in 'orthodox' academic circles as it is in more 'far-flung' ideas. The only place where solid, valuable, science seems to be being done at the moment is in the engineering research of private profit-making ventures, where money is King. Getting real, working product out of the door is the real driver to knowledge, not projects that take decades of high-cash injections of tax-payers money that result in, at best, vague and ethereal results that no-one else can reproduce, even if they had the money available to attempt to reproduce them.

And don't go blaming the engineers for not undertaking projects destined for a longer time-frame than a company's '5 year plan'. That's down to the accountants. The professional engineers of the world are the main progressors of science now, not the scientists. The latter appear to be on a wholly different quest to re-unite science with religion. What counts is what the much-maligned (viz. underpaid) professional engineers do, despite how society mistreats and misunderstands them.
Yep. Which may be one reason profit has become an epithet. And capital a swear word.

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:19 pm
by cuddihy
MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Lets make a deal, shall we chris? You give me one single argument against what you believe my position is, and if I answer it to everyone's satisfaction here, excepting you of course; then you leave this forum and never return.
...and if you don't, then you leave??

chrismb has never entirely excluded the possibility of returning to the forum to discuss developments related to POLYWELL FUSION (remember, that's what the forum is about).

If people here really wanted to discuss this stuff, there are forums dedicated to it, are there not? When you refer to "a festering, malignant disease, looking to spread itself anywhere it can find purchase", does this not amply and better describe your own aims to move from your thruster forums to this FUSION forum?

However, it can be confirmed that if GIT never posts in this FUSION forum again about propellant-less thrusters, then no further posts under chrismb will appear about it either.

Is this to everyone's satisfaction here ('excepting you of course')?
Fine by me.

My moderating is rather lax but I may start moving posts to the appropriate bins if this sort of thing continues.
From my perspective the back and forth, while occaisionally tedious, often raises interesting points on each side of the question. This thread is over 100 pages for a good reason. Because there's a lot of questions, and the answers tend to be complex so it's nice to have the space to fully explore withou some nagging Topic Scold demanding everyone Stay On Topic.

Personally I'm thankful for a place where open discussion can be had. I don't think anyone but Joe Strout should have a say as to what the rules are for this forum. It's not like there's a mach effect forum or lots of news on polywell that we could otherwise react to.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:07 am
by kunkmiester
I've mentioned a few times the idea of having a space sub-forum, but it doesn't seem to have much support.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:18 am
by djolds1
kunkmiester wrote:I've mentioned a few times the idea of having a space sub-forum, but it doesn't seem to have much support.
A "Left Field Concepts" sub-board? The "General" sub-board does seem to fit the need, and is probably where this thread should be, but it does get crowded.

You have my vote in support.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:57 am
by kunkmiester

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:28 am
by GIThruster
cuddihy wrote:From my perspective the back and forth, while occaisionally tedious, often raises interesting points on each side of the question. This thread is over 100 pages for a good reason. Because there's a lot of questions, and the answers tend to be complex so it's nice to have the space to fully explore withou some nagging Topic Scold demanding everyone Stay On Topic.

Personally I'm thankful for a place where open discussion can be had. I don't think anyone but Joe Strout should have a say as to what the rules are for this forum. It's not like there's a mach effect forum or lots of news on polywell that we could otherwise react to.
Well said, and my sentiments exactly.

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:20 pm
by AcesHigh
MSimon wrote:
GIThruster wrote:coward.
I'm not sure I like the thrust of your argument.
I suppose its propellantless :lol:



bah, this is a fine topic. GIT however is short tempered and defends his opinion on the subject in an ill mannered fashion. (not to say when he himself includes off topic stuff like flying saucers)

the topic is at its best when GIT behaves and its even better when Paul March is doing the defense/explanation of Mach Effects.

I do not know Paul personally, but it seems like he is able to convince a Young Earth Creationist of the virtues of Plate Tectonics without once losing his temper, and being didatic all the while!

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:52 pm
by williatw
Warp Field Mechanics 101 Dr. Harold “Sonny” White
NASA Johnson Space Center


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 016932.pdf

If this has already been posted, my apologies for the double post. Found it myself sorry again...does anyone know if 100X is the maximum multiplier effect you can get on your initial velocity before the field is activated?

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:10 pm
by GIThruster
AcesHigh wrote:bah, this is a fine topic. GIT however is short tempered and defends his opinion on the subject in an ill mannered fashion.
Anyone else note the irony of this post showing up more than a week after the dispute is ended, merely to stir the pot? Pot. . .calling the kettle. . .

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:16 pm
by ScottL
GIThruster wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:bah, this is a fine topic. GIT however is short tempered and defends his opinion on the subject in an ill mannered fashion.
Anyone else note the irony of this post showing up more than a week after the dispute is ended, merely to stir the pot? Pot. . .calling the kettle. . .
Ignore it. Ok, back on to the topic...

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:08 pm
by chrismb
GIThruster wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:bah, this is a fine topic. GIT however is short tempered and defends his opinion on the subject in an ill mannered fashion.
Anyone else note the irony of this post showing up more than a week after the dispute is ended, merely to stir the pot? Pot. . .calling the kettle. . .
In what way does GIT say a 'dispute' ended? Does he accept not to post any more on propellantless thrusters?

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:24 pm
by GIThruster
No. I had mistakenly thought you had borrowed some common sense and decency from somewhere but I see I was mistaken. So you do indeed intend to continue to violate your word and hang in a forum where you have promised time and again to vacate yourself, deliberately for the purpose of being as annoying as possible?

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:38 pm
by paulmarch
williatw wrote:Warp Field Mechanics 101 Dr. Harold “Sonny” White
NASA Johnson Space Center


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 016932.pdf

If this has already been posted, my apologies for the double post. Found it myself sorry again...does anyone know if 100X is the maximum multiplier effect you can get on your initial velocity before the field is activated?
Per Eric Davis the QM driven limit to White's warp-drive boost factor is on the order of ~1x10^32 times the speed of light. Of course supplying the input energy for such a warp drive would be a Herculean task even if we can actually reduce the stiffness of spacetime from its nominal GRT based C^4/8*Pi*G value by a factor of say ~1x10^24. However if we can reduce the spacetime stiffness by this much by ac modulating the warp field, and given onboard antimatter energy storage capability, maximum warp drive boost factors on the order of ~1,000-to-10,000 appear to be possible when the rest of the required RF power handling technologies reach these required performance levels. Twenty third century technology anyone?

Best,

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:39 pm
by chrismb
GIT appears to mistakenly believe that when he puts in a last word in an exchange that this means he has 'ended' a 'dispute'.

No-one has ever promised not to post further under 'chrismb'. GIT should stop making up what other people say and write, because he has a tendency to believe, and thus to confuse, himself.

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:42 pm
by chrismb
Please explain what is " the stiffness of spacetime" (with nominal GRT based C^4/8*Pi*G value)