Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel

[STAR1SHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/19/00 6:00:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, stevev@efn.org 
writes:

> STAR1SHIP@aol.com writes:
>   > >  Please give a citation for these writings of Einstein that you 
believe
> > > justify your position.  At best they are quite at odds with everything
> > > else Einstein wrote about relativity.  If you claim that no one else 
> can
>   > >  see them because they are "non-publized" (sic) then you should not
>   > >  expect us to believe that they exist or that they say what you claim
>   > >  they say.
>   > 
>   > Would like to give you the citation but it was inadvertently thrown
>   > out along with many text books and personal papers by stepfather when
>   > I enlisted in the Air Force.
>  
>  I just knew you'd say something like that. 

Wow, Now you are a psychic. I speak what I know to be true. Were I dishonest 
I would have not made the patent claim 7 for it would have made the patent 
examination less costly by thousands of dollars.

Einstein was so fearful of what he had to say about taking responsibility for 
inventing the atomic bomb and how it worked he dictated his 1955 work to a 
women who specialized writing physics books for children and had here place 
his words in her juvenile book to avoid government censors for he spoke of 
things others were to be executed for during that time. It was the Macarthy 
era and the climate of fear dominated discussions of atomic bomb details. 
What Einstein said started me on my search for the machine to obtain the 
super light velocities he predicted were possible.

The female author waited fro fear until 62 or 63 to publish. Fearful myself, 
I burned the atomic bomb diagrams I had written from his work and my note 
books. I kept only the library book checkout cards from my school library and 
committed my work to memory for without the written work (used to execute 
Rosenbergs) so I figured I was safe from execution. Those library references 
were thrown out.

Research and documentation to meet your naive standards was impossible at the 
time. Deal with it but you cannot ignore it simply because you do not know 
about it. For it did happen and his work will resurface as it has many time 
since. 
Examples:
1. Instructor at FAA academy in 1968 taught me Einstein's impact bomb plans 
for the third time. (The first was my uncle who built them for the Air Force)
2. Explosive ordinance manual reference book inadvertently published by US 
government printing office (1977) the impact bomb formulas I have published.
3. Found web page of Einstein's taking credit for invention and the reasons 
he told Fermi how to build the bomb in a ten minute telephone(1938) 
conversation. (Erased favorite link when switched from AOL 4.0 to 5.0)


 Like I said, if you think
>  Einstein backs you up but can't cite a work that we can read and verify
>  then we have no reason to believe you about that.

Wrong, I can cite without reference in any A Definitive Analysis of ... books 
for they are written from memory after years of study without bibliography as 
they are never required. You have no reason not to believe me. I have no 
reason to lie.

>  
>   > Skepticism is not considered 
>   > proof of an invention not working by reasonable men nor even good 
science 
> as
>   > the burden of nonworking proof is on you.
>  
>  Build your invention and prove that it works.  I have no reason to
>  believe you if you don't do what you say you can do.  I don't have to
>  prove you wrong; you have to prove yourself right, not just by words or
>  trying to impress us with titles, but by actions.

Any idiot can take your position and sit in easy chair expecting any that has 
knowledge you do not to do all the work of proof. I do not buy your nonsense. 
Any valid objective scientific examination of work requires the examiner to 
undergo the same rigorous test for his beliefs that the examinee does. You 
have failed to prove a faster than light limit for rockets so have no say in 
the validity of faster than light claims. 

>  
>  Nobody can prove that FTL is impossible at this point, but no one has
>  proved that it is possible either.  The best proof of its possibility is
>  for someone to do it.

Nonsense.
I have proven it many ways by logic and math.  Objective scientific 
examination does not allow the examiner to say what proof is acceptable to 
him but he must examine the proof available as the case merits.

  Until someone does the focus of this mailing list
>  will not be on trying to build starships using unknown and currently
>  unknowable properties of FTL drives, but on building starships that work
>  by proven principles.

You obviously have not read my patent application and the proven principles 
it works on. Visualize a small reactor placed in a hole in a three mile thick 
arctic ice sheet. Remove the control rods causing a melt down. My rocket 
exhaust comes out of that hole. If you think nothing comes out of the hole 
from the well known principle of the China syndrome than you are a bigger 
fool than your previous responses would indicate.

>   > Your fanciful claimed "Borg collective con-science(spelling 
intentional)" 
> of 
>   > speaking for "we physicists" is such non scientific nonsense I am 
> surprised I 
>   > responded.
>  
>  Science is inherently collective thinking, in the sense that the truth
>  of a theory isn't determined by one person holding forth that it is so,
>  but by other people being able to verify the theory for themselves.

That is one valid method but not the only one. You would have to physically 
to the library and do the research to verify. It is much easier to sit in 
your easy chair being a skeptic expecting others to do the work proving 
something to you as you are to lazy to do it for your self.  

> You
>  misquote me in claiming that I'm speaking for physicists; I'm speaking
>  about what they have come to understand about physics so far.

You are not speaking for the many physicists and mathematicians that have 
taught me over years that is for sure. Understand my work and you can go 
farther than misconceptions and misinformation you have not abandoned. I 
myself have little desire to teach the mistaught unless they are willing to 
listen.

>  
>   > Your Academic Superior,
>   > Na Na Na Na Na
>  
>  You're not helping your credibility by name-calling or tossing around
>  titles.  If what you say makes sense and agrees with reality, we'll
>  believe you. 

Then believe me.

> If you spout nonsense and bluster about how you must be
>right because you're more educated than we are, then we won't.

That is fair enough but then do not dare to think because I believe in faster 
than light velocities for rockets that it must be because I do not know 
something you do. Your arrogance has no place in scientific investigation 
into the possibiliities of star flight. The only reason I publish my 
creditials is because they are documented and verifiable and would indicate 
to the most reasonalble men that I just might know something you do not not.

Deal with it. You must accept you have an empty memory bank before your 
learning and comprehension centers will fill it with new knowledge.

Best Regards,
Tom 
 <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/tjac780754/indexC.htm">MATH PROOFS</A>