Mach Effect progress

[Skipjack]

In science there is no such thing as proof.

Ok, translation error, I suppose. I meant evidence. Almost all the evidence for UFO sightings is purely annectodal. The one that is not, is easily explained with much more probable explanations.
I brought a much simpler explanation for the example you provided. You however chose to dismiss it.
I would LOVE for there to be proof of alien visitors, because I imagine it to finally inspire humans to overcome their pittyful disputes and ideological differences and focus on the big picture.

[GIThruster]

You don't seem to understand what anecdotal evidence is. Eyewitnesses reporting an observation are never anecdotal. The issue of what qualifies as anecdotal concerns an unrepresentative sample. There is no evidence that those who step forward to report eyewitness observations of UFO's are not representative of all such eyewitnesses, hence there is no opportunity here for an anecdote.

I dismissed the rest because you demonstrate no ability to analyze evidence. I don't see a way forward in this discussion. You don't have the appropriate skill set to continue here. And this really is the problem in our age, that people who can do math and in some ways think critically, mistake skepticism for critical thinking when they are two completely different things.

When you have tens of thousands of people witness something like the Phoenix Lights, and a large portion of them step forward to state they know they were not flares, and that the positions of the lights were evenly spaced and fixed relative to one another, and that the mass between them could be seen and blotted out the background; you have to be grasping at straws to say they saw flares. The only reasonable evaluation of the eyewitness accounts is they saw a craft of some sort.

Consider the kind of evidence the skeptic is here forced to require. If indeed there was an enormous craft hovering over the city of Phoenix, the outcome would be just EXACTLY what it was in the case of the Phoenix lights, so the skeptic's position that these were flares is unfalsifiable. It certainly is not a scientific position to take.

[Skipjack]

You don't have the appropriate skill set to continue here.

It is always the same with you religious believers. You emmediately resort to attacking someone on a personal level in the light of their argument being disarmed with rational argumentation, like I did earlier.
What UFO believers are listing as evidence is a bunch of stories, all different and all only by at most a hand full of people. Almost all of them can be explained by some other much more probable explanation. The only reason why people believe that it is aliens, is because they want it to be aliens. That is all. I have not seen a single, not a single piece of convincing evidence and trust me, I would LOVE it, if we had actual proof of extraterrestrial life, especially if they are an advanced species obviously not setting out to kill us.

[GIThruster]

You can research it or continue to wallow in ignorance, but you need to know that everyone admits that 95% of all objects taken as UFO's are eventually identified. It is only 5% that are interesting cases, and that still leaves thousands of sightings over hundreds of years.

You can delude yourself with claims that "The only reason why people believe that it is aliens, is because. . ." but the fact is, you are in no position to know why people are so convinced. Your ignorance precludes you from such knowledge and people who invent such suppositions are plainly not worth the time to debate.

As I said, you lack the proper thinking skills.

[AcesHigh]

"you lack the proper thinking skills"?

wow, what an awesome argument eh?


however, for the sake of this thread, I really ask you people to leave UFO´s out of the thread. Create another thread if you want to discuss about UFOs. One thing is to argue about possibility of alien life using ME... another totally different is arguing pro the existence of UFOs and their usage of ME.

its an open invite to people coming here at this important thread to discuss about Bigfoot, about the ancient Hindu Vimana spacecraft, Maya calendar, etc, etc... please, no death of Elvis Presley discussion here. We have the General forum for that.

[GIThruster]

"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.

[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.

you are wrong. 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"

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

except that there is no real proof of UFOs, much less that they use ME

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.

no. Bringing the UFO discussion here is offtopic by itself, and it generated an entire off-topic discussion. And this kind of discussion will lead to other discussions, maybe some of what I cited, or even other things.

The point is, dont go down that road.

[GIThruster]

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?

[Skipjack]

Like I said, you have a reading comprehension fail.

Back to personal attacks again, hu? I think that this sort of behaviour is what is for "emotionally disturbed children". Whenever you are faced with opposing opinions you emmediately resort to personal attacks. This is NOT the way to win an argument.

[djolds1]

Like I said, you have a reading comprehension fail.

Back to personal attacks again, hu? I think that this sort of behaviour is what is for "emotionally disturbed children". Whenever you are faced with opposing opinions you emmediately resort to personal attacks. This is NOT the way to win an argument.

Could you two please flame each other via pm, so that this thread may return to its intent?

[93143]

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.

[GIThruster]

Thank you.

[Jded]

Just a thought: do we take into account that movement (velocity) changes the light cone, so what constitutes the far-off distant mass also changes?

The "edge parts" that swap would be left with some net momentum.

I thought of that, but as I understand relativity, it doesn't actually work that way, because the speed of light is frame-independent and relativistic foreshortening is symmetric...

Anyone else have a different/better understanding?

It is symmetric (so moving forwards and backwards, with constant speed, is essentially the same), but if you change direction or speed, events may enter & exit the cone.

I don't have a good grasp of this stuff, but if the far-off distant mass is not constant, the effect seems to me a lot less magical.

BTW, could someone who understands the theory explain why exactly inertia seems to be constant in time with universe expanding?

As for the off-topic topic: IF someone higher up had since long ago good data on UFO's that was consistent with operation of Mach thruster, we would either:
A. never hear about Woodward's work, but see a lot more UFO's and substancial reduction in official military spending (why build f-22 or 35?) (extreme pointless conspiracy) or
B. all have Jetson's cars by now. Or at least see them officialy in the military.

Though it is not quite consistent. AFAIK there is no reason to think that Mach thruster would take away passenger's inertia (allowing arbitrary high acceleration)...

[GeeGee]

Though it is not quite consistent. AFAIK there is no reason to think that Mach thruster would take away passenger's inertia (allowing arbitrary high acceleration)...

I found this in the notes section in one of Woodward's papers. It's note #14 in "TWISTS OF FATE: CAN WE MAKE TRAVERSABLE
WORMHOLES IN SPACETIME?"

As M. Kaku [1996] notes in his recent review of Lawrence M. Krauss' [1995] book on the subject, if you can make TWISTs, "transporter" technology is irrelevant. I should also mention that even should it prove impossible to assemble enough exotic matter with the hideously large densities required to make TWISTs, assembly of 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. Intrepid spacefarers traveling large distances, however, would have to abandon hope of seeing their immediate relatives again.

REM is "really exotic matter". He distinguishes it from POEM, or "plain old exotic matter."

We can distinguish two classes of exotic matter, the second being a subclass of the first: 1. plain old exotic matter (POEM) – matter which for some, but not all, observers with relative velocities ≤ c with respect to the matter see a negative mass-energy, and 2. really exotic matter (REM) – matter which is negative for observers with zero relative velocity (that is, matter with negative proper mass-energy density).

[GIThruster]

. . .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.