Mach Effect progress

[MSimon]

Like I said chris, you don't understand the answer because you don't understand entropy and the Arrow of Time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

How then are we going to have a conversation about it?

You're really great at pretending you understand things that in fact, you are clueless about.

Entropy and the arrow of time are macro concepts.

[GIThruster]

Entropy and the arrow of time are macro concepts.

I don't know what you mean by that and if it's on topic I'm interested to hear what you think, but I do agree with the notion that conservation and thermodynamic issues need to be fully accounted for by M-E theory in order for us to consider M-E theory tenable.

[93143]

No, he's not. Look at his latest post, for example, where he ignores the obvious interpretation of slightly clunky grammar in favour of a rather pointless attempt to accuse GIThruster of a logical fallacy. He is not innocent in this.

What interpretation can be put on GIT last post, then? Either it is the fallacy above, or if it is the alternative construction given in the chrismb post then it is equally invalid because the chrismb post did answer the question. Whether it was a right or wrong answer, the claim that the question was not answered is not correct.

Was GIT claiming that the chrismb post did not answer the question (which is false), OR was he claiming that the poster under chrismb does not understand Mach effect (for which no substantiation was given, except the false claim that the chrismb post did not answer the question).

If if is GIT's claim that the chrismb post did not answer the question correctly, and thus a limitation of understanding is thereby demonstrated, it is for GIT to say that AND to show in what way it was in error.

You responded to the question, but your response was essentially devoid of substance. It is thus reasonable to say that you didn't "answer" the question. And since your mode of 'not answering' the question was to provide a response that failed to demonstrate any physical understanding (it reads like an attempt to get part marks on a short-answer question), it is not unreasonable to infer that you lack such understanding.

I don't think I will bother with this any more. You seem to think very well of your own reasoning powers, but it is becoming increasingly evident that either you are trolling or you are not as smart as you think you are.

Betruger, take note: I'm not commenting on GIThruster's half of this mess. Your arguments against him do not pertain.

[chrismb]

You responded to the question, but your response was essentially devoid of substance.

There should be no expectation that a chrismb post would contain any substance on 'ME theory'. No claim, and no comment has been made in a chrismb post on 'the theory'.

What has appeared in chrismb posts are concerns that the outcome of the 'ME theory' is inconsistent with thermodynamics, and that 'negative shells containing warped space by electromagnetic means' is way beyond anything GRT alludes to. These posts have then been condemned on the basis that the questions have been raised whilst a poser of such questions knows nothing of GRT and thermodynamics.

Why start criticising chrismb posts for not knowing 'ME theory'? chrismb posts have made no attempt to suggest prior knowledge of the theory, but instead chrismb posts have been critiqued for not interpreting GRT and thermodynamics in the extreme algebraically-manipulative manner which is sympathetic towards so-called 'ME theory' and so-called 'warp drive'.

But, in any case, if there is more to 'ME theory' than the idea of using mass fluctuations to stimulate a propellent thrust then state what is wrong with that observation.

[GIThruster]

chrismb posts have made no attempt to suggest prior knowledge of the theory. . .

If you expect anyone to take you seriously in your criticisms of any theory, you need to clearly demonstrate you understand that theory. Otherwise we're all justified in accepting you as a troll and a fraud.

[chrismb]

If you expect anyone to take you seriously in your criticisms of any theory, you need to clearly demonstrate you understand that theory. Otherwise we're all justified in accepting you as a troll and a fraud.

Why?

If a theory is proposed which concludes in predicting the existence of magic flying pixies that bring presents to children at Christmas, then one merely needs to address the unrealistic conclusion of the theory to question the validity of the theory, howsoever it is formulated.

If such a postulation was questioned as being unrealistic, and there was prima facie evidence to the contrary (in this case, viz. that's Santa Claus' job) then it would be for the proposer of the pixie postulation to justify how the conclusion does fit in with current understanding.

It's not for the critique to include a rebuttal of each and every step of the logic of the theory, it is for the proposer to justify the outcome. This is the bit that GIT declines to understand.

[chrismb]

The discussion is fine. But I have been getting complaints about the flame wars.

Contents of chrismb posts have never sought to flame, merely to raise complaint of fallacies and reifications and have only ever been the succeeding 'effect' from such posts, not the preceding 'cause' of others.

As has been determined in earlier posts, repetition of this is fruitless. The point has now been well made (and ignored by the ignorant).

If there are no questions addressed requiring, nor intending to incite, a chrismb post then none will be given.

QRT.

[GIThruster]

You really don't have any idea how seemingly and utterly mad you are.

I'm so very sorry for you.

Just FYI, there aren't any sensible people who could agree with what you're writing. If you don't understand a theory, you don't criticize it. The fact you find yourself compelled, to criticize things you don't understand, paints you as psychotic, and desperately needing to demonstrate your worth despite you have nothing of use to share.

You need professional help, chris. Please don't put it off.

[chrismb]

Are you expecting a response?

QRT.

[GeeGee]

Let's not get carried away now. Being snarky isn't psychotic. It's just annoying behavior.

[MSimon]

Entropy and the arrow of time are macro concepts.

I don't know what you mean by that and if it's on topic I'm interested to hear what you think, but I do agree with the notion that conservation and thermodynamic issues need to be fully accounted for by M-E theory in order for us to consider M-E theory tenable.

The arrow of time has no meaning at the quantum level.

And yes. For ME to "work" the energy must come from somewhere. Does that "coming from somewhere" increase or decrease the order elsewhere? i.e. is it thermodynamic or quantum?

[MSimon]

You really don't have any idea how seemingly and utterly mad you are.

I'm so very sorry for you.

Just FYI, there aren't any sensible people who could agree with what you're writing. If you don't understand a theory, you don't criticize it. The fact you find yourself compelled, to criticize things you don't understand, paints you as psychotic, and desperately needing to demonstrate your worth despite you have nothing of use to share.

You need professional help, chris. Please don't put it off.

You need professional help, chris. Please don't put it off.

In light of my recent request I'd say this was out of bounds. Do control yourself.

[CaptainBeowulf]

And yes. For ME to "work" the energy must come from somewhere. Does that "coming from somewhere" increase or decrease the order elsewhere? i.e. is it thermodynamic or quantum?

My impression from what I've seen of Woodward's work is that it's thermodynamic. There should be a straight-up transfer of momentum to from the thruster to the rest of the mass of the universe - the whole universe is being used as reaction mass.

White's QVF theory may be energy or momentum transfer at a quantum level. Even after trying to read the paper that IIRC is on a NASA server somewhere, plus a couple of interviews where White talks about the idea, I can't say that I really understand exactly what he's proposing.

[kcdodd]

Entropy and the arrow of time are macro concepts.

I don't know what you mean by that and if it's on topic I'm interested to hear what you think, but I do agree with the notion that conservation and thermodynamic issues need to be fully accounted for by M-E theory in order for us to consider M-E theory tenable.

The arrow of time has no meaning at the quantum level.

And yes. For ME to "work" the energy must come from somewhere. Does that "coming from somewhere" increase or decrease the order elsewhere? i.e. is it thermodynamic or quantum?

Well, I'm not sure the arrow of time really has a meaning in any fundamental theory, because all the physics I know works the same if you look at it "forward", or "backward". As far as I understand, entropy and the arrow of time are the result of an incomplete description of a system.

[GIThruster]

. . .all the physics I know works the same if you look at it "forward", or "backward".

You can't uncook an egg. I suggest reading Eddington.