Re: starship-design: Re: magnetic monopoles

[Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>]

> From: kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>
> 
> Zenon Kulpa wrote:
> > 
> > PS. Concerning scientists, professionals, and amateurs:
> >     The though experiment and analysis done above is just what
> >     should be made by a scientist (or professional) BEFORE he/she
> >     goes into the open announcing the discovery of some as yet
> >     unknown effect or device (like a monopole).
> >     If one announces the discovery BEFORE making thorough
> >     mental analysis and experimental testing (also followed
> >     by thorough analysis, interpretation, and explanation
> >     of the obtained results), he/she is an amateur.
> >     And when he/she at the same time claims it to be scientific
> >     fact (wrongly suppressed by "hard scientists") -
> >     he/she is a pseudoscientist.
> >     Hope it helps.  -- Z
> 
> I did not announce it as a discovery. I simply said it was interesting
> and needed looking into. I asked SSD to help me make an analysis, and
> see if it was really a monopole. 
>
Are you satisfied by my analysis?

The problem is, you did not describe your design in enough
details so that one can attempt a proper analysis.
Timothy's design was a (probable) guess, but since you
did not dismiss it, I have considered it valid
and hence worth some analysis.
Before that, your claim could be dismissed only on general grounds
(you cannot make a monopole from dipoles...),
or using the First Skeptical Rule of Thumb:
if it is that simple, it should have been invented long ago...
Both ways it is not foolproof disproof (nice phrase, indeed),
and you somehow seemed offended by our skepticism...


> So, once again, I'm not a pseudoscientist.
> 
That is good news, really...
And proves my definitions were of help too  ;-)

-- Zenon