Re: starship-design: unknown force

[STAR1SHIP@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/16/01 6:14:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:


> STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote:
> > 
> >    Part 1.1    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> >            Encoding: 7bit
>
> Arg !!! The dreaded plain text file!
> The strange thing is that Autodynamics was developed to
> explain radioactive decay that SR could not do. With all
> the ATOMIC materal listed above one would think a theory that
> COULD explain radioactive decay better would be useful.
> Ben.
> PS. I wish NASA would spend more time on a useable transport
> into space rather than all the PAPERS on everything but space
> transport into low orbit.
> Also why is it that RUSSIA had the first space tourist?
>
> -- 
> "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...
> We borrow it from our children."
> "Luna family of Octal Computers" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk


Thanks for reply Ben. Did my long text not come through? It showed on my copy 
from starship design lists  but i did not write--> 
>STAR1SHIP@aol.com wrote:
> 
>    Part 1.1    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>            Encoding: 7bit
 
Whats up, could my post of been two long for kellys mailer.
In short what i did write was -----


Gee Steve. Why don't you tell us how you really feel :-) I do not agree with 
Ben and auto dynamics but they do seem to be more on the ball than the 
traditional old fashion theories you spout ad naseaum. By the way, how are 
you coming on competing the incomplete Bohr atom model and adding a 
gravitational component and explaining how your theory violates universal law 
of like charges repel and yet remain taught today as a valid theory. 

Examiners of new theories are of three minds. 1 Skeptic, 2. Objective, 3 Open 
minded. I discard skeptics as they take the lazy position and will not take 
the burden of proof supporting their opinion, and I discard the open minded 
as the last person that wanted me to be open minded wanted to dance with my 
wife, seems many have the neurotic view to do as the Romans do. Objective 
examination required of new knowledge means that you own teachings are 
examined with the same diligence that the new knowledge is. That your beliefs 
are widely taught and published is not proof of validly. Take you own 
medicine and explain the gravitational anomaly observed. 

Tom 

and a bunch of links