Re: starship-design: Re: No comments

[TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden)]

Kyle,

>> Doesn't sound like you at all...
>
>Well, no one listened to my monopole idea (not just SSD, but many
>others). Even if it is a monopole, what's it worth if no one will give
>me a chance? The people where I'm at won't even talk to me once I say
>"monopole".

I think the main reason for people not to take you as serious as you like,
is your firmness while having only little proof.
I never saw you write: "I might have missed that". True you might not have
missed anything, but that would be extremely unlikely with the relative
crude measurements you did.

Besides all this, it helps enourmously if you have some explanation/theory
about the phenomena you discover. Such a theory will allow you and others to
explore the phenomenon in other ways.

>> Oh, I wondered, you wrote that the other group appreciates your input
>> better. What does that mean concretely?
>
>Theoretical ideas. There are some private outfits that support
>theoretical research better than the scientific community. When I first
>joined SSD, I thought theory was accepted with open arms, as LeRC did. I
>was wrong.
>
>Steve told me that the reason no one had accepted AG/ZPE ideas was
>because they hadn't been proven. I now know the reason: The scientific
>community doesn't give them a chance to prove their ideas. I'm not going
>to argue over this, since I have all the evidence I need. Its called
>firsthand expirience.

True, life would be a lot easier if everybody gave one another chances.
However if we give too many chances, we will be overwhelmed and can't help
anyone.
To avoid this overload, there are many unwritten rules. Discovering these
rules is not an easy thing. Not following these necessary rules, one may
find himself in a void.

First hand experience is good, it keeps you going. However you should enable
to let others experience at first hand too. It seems unreasonable to expect
others to believe extraordinary claims without some explanation.

I've given you several chances, and I still do, but you should us give
chances too; The information you've given us is quite little (like Zenon notes).
In fact I still don't know if the monopole you wrote about is the same as
the design we discussed in a private mailing.

Furthermore, you should have responded to my possible explanation for your
measured effect.
And when I think back to the private mailing, you weren't really bothered by
the fact, that the effect you wanted to measure was not clearly measurable
the way you did.

Summarizing:
- Give others chances by clearly and orderly showing the information you have.
- If people suggest mistakes in your approach, responding adequately will keep
  their interest.
- Trying to find an explanation/theory will help yourself and others.

Timothy