Mach Effect progress

[djolds1]

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?

Paul March covered synthetic gravity and inertial compensation in one of his STAIF papers - '05 or '07.

I'd personally like to see Harold White's modified Alcubierre Metric work - much lower requirements than the standard Alcubierre metric.

[polyill]

GIThruster

Have you ever seen a rabies infected mammal?

Now, that mammal might posses some rhetoric skill and even exercise it in the course of its illness, but no such exercise can cure the poor thing.

Vaccination could, but it seems the time for that is way over.

[Diogenes]

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.

This is not a subject that I feel is appropriate to a news area, but since that horse has already left the barn, why don't we discuss a bit of evidence. Does anyone remember that NASA video of an object changing direction in space?




I recall this being aired on ABC news after it happened. Astronauts were observing a planned missile launch, and it appears that an object moving through the missile's flight path moved out of the way just prior to the missile going through that region of space.


If there is another explanation for what occurred in this video I have not heard it. This is the best video of it I have found so far.


http://youtu.be/RbPckoXodOo


An object changing direction in space would seem pretty good evidence that it is under some sort of control.

[303]

lets start off by assuming it wasnt a missile , or a adrenaline-junkie alien with a badly cloaked ship

[kurt9]

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.

Such a wormhole could make for the ultimate voyeur tool!

Or, you could one up Goldfinger and steal the gold out of Fort Knox!

Or another version of "Ocean's Eleven". Peter Hamilton describes such a wormhole heist of the Las Vegas casinos in one of his "Commonwealth" novels.

[Jded]

"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,

Don't we? Don't we know the difference between minimal effective mach thruster and a warp drive? What was this topic about, again?

and if the ship is equipped with a warp drive that allows fantastical maneuvers, it is best to use it.

The typical ~100 feet long ship?

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.)

Spacetime bubbles can move through your room right now. No friction, no noise, no UFO sightings either.

Further, your assumption that high gee maneuvers are "pointless" is again, just assumption. When you have a ship that can operate like this,

it's operating on a star's energy budget and is not used for joyriding?

[/quote]

the question really becomes why operate it in any other way. Why do you think we finally took sails off steam ships?

Why do you think we don't mount nuclear reactors on gocarts?

"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..
[/quote]

Not the one here.

[GIThruster]

Since we don't have a reason to assume a warp craft would need or have a secondary propulsion system, none of your conjectures are worth the time to type them. The point remains, that only warp can explain ships flying right angles in the sky and other extreme acceleration observations, and these observations predate warp theory by decades.

[AcesHigh]

An object changing direction in space would seem pretty good evidence that it is under some sort of control.

probably an ice particle having its direction changed by the shuttle thrusters.

[GIThruster]

See that's the difference between a skeptic and a critical thinker. The skeptic has already made up his mind what is "probably" based upon the thing he's skeptical of, and he's going to argue for that point of view no matter how silly his position becomes. The critical thinker would simply say there's not nearly enough information to make a real judgement. The former is a childish, emotional response while the latter is the thinking of an adult.

[AcesHigh]

See that's the difference between a skeptic and a critical thinker. The skeptic has already made up his mind what is "probably" based upon the thing he's skeptical of, whereas the critical thinker would simply say there's not nearly enough information to make a real judgement. The former is a childish, emotional response while the later is the thinking of an adult.

all the while, the UFO believers think that is an alien craft. At least the skeptic comes up with the most probable, simple answer. And this is what you call a "critical thinker".


can it be an UFO? Yes. Can it be a teapot? Yes. Can it be a fairy? Yes, there is also a probability for it. The HIGHEST probability is that its simply a deflected ice particle.



if someone had shown this video and said it proved fairies were real, you would laugh at it. Of course, if GiThruster says its probably an UFO, instead of a fairy or a teapot, he is a critical thinker. If someone says its probably an ice particle instead of an UFO, he is an skeptic


your little idiotic differentiation between a skeptic and a critical thinker was made to so very conveniently suit your needs!

keep on, your little show is getting funnier.



here, a better definition of what skepticism and critical thinking are

http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=156

[GIThruster]

Always you with the putting insane words in the mouths of others.

I was very specific that there is not enough information to say what it is. We don't even have an idea of the size and distance of the thing and you're ready to call it an ice particle.

Seriously, you need to start acting like an adult sometime. Why not now?

[ScottL]

See that's the difference between a skeptic and a critical thinker. The skeptic has already made up his mind what is "probably" based upon the thing he's skeptical of, and he's going to argue for that point of view no matter how silly his position becomes. The critical thinker would simply say there's not nearly enough information to make a real judgement. The former is a childish, emotional response while the latter is the thinking of an adult.

What happens when you've critical thought about a claim and have come to the conclusion that the claim is unlikely in your opinion. Are you then a skeptic? If so, then you as an individual have a whole mess of problems based on your previous responses. Your definitions are not accurate and I fear you're confusing healthy skepticism with faith.

[AcesHigh]

Always you with the putting insane words in the mouths of others.

I was very specific that there is not enough information so say what it is. We don't even have an idea of the size and distance of the thing and you're ready to call it an ice particle.

I was talking about Diogenes, not you.

Astronauts were observing a planned missile launch, and it appears that an object moving through the missile's flight path moved out of the way just prior to the missile going through that region of space.


If there is another explanation for what occurred in this video I have not heard it. This is the best video of it I have found so far.

An object changing direction in space would seem pretty good evidence that it is under some sort of control.

he already assumed that the object is distant and that since it changed direction (and he assumes it changed direction on its own), its good evidence its under some sort of control.

arent those a lot of assumptions? Funny that when someone assumes its UFO evidence, you do not oppose them for lack of evidence.

yeah, thats your kind of critical thinking.

Seriously, you need to start acting like an adult sometime. Why not now?

says the most childish person on these forums.

[AcesHigh]

See that's the difference between a skeptic and a critical thinker. The skeptic has already made up his mind what is "probably" based upon the thing he's skeptical of, and he's going to argue for that point of view no matter how silly his position becomes. The critical thinker would simply say there's not nearly enough information to make a real judgement. The former is a childish, emotional response while the latter is the thinking of an adult.

What happens when you've critical thought about a claim and have come to the conclusion that the claim is unlikely in your opinion. Are you then a skeptic? If so, then you as an individual have a whole mess of problems based on your previous responses. Your definitions are not accurate and I fear you're confusing healthy skepticism with faith.

give up. You are arguing with a mule. He should stick to make ME related experiments. He is good at it at least.

[AcesHigh]

Your definitions are not accurate and I fear you're confusing healthy skepticism with faith.

something like moon landing deniers. That´s unhealthy skepticism. Even hard to call skepticism, because at the same time they are skeptics about the moon landings, they have to believe in government conspiracies, stupid russian scientists who never noticed the things they noticed, etc

oh, and evolution deniers too, many of whom call themselves "skeptics"