Re: starship-design: Re: No comments

[kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

Timothy van der Linden wrote:

> 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.

I didn't think we discussed monopoles in private, just DST's (which I'm
leery to test, due to the X-rays. Maybe if I did it from a distance I
would be safe?

I'll send my design diagrams to everyone on SSD as soon as I can. I
assure you, I'll send them at latest, by tommorow.
> 
> Furthermore, you should have responded to my possible explanation for your
> measured effect.

I thought it was self-answerable: I placed the compass near the device,
and the needle reversed direction, with the north end pointing towards
the device. If I placed the compass on the other side, it reversed
again, the same way. I tried with angles, circling the device, on
top,underneath, and nowhere did the south end stay towards the device.
Maybe even if its not a monopole, it might still have a useful purpose.

> 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.

Afraid I don't understand what you mean...
> 
> 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.

Good points. I'll try to abide by them from now on.

Kyle Mcallister