[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re: FTL travel
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>