Re: starship-design: Re: Mystery force tugs

[Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca>]

Steve VanDevender wrote:

> Well, I don't buy your idea without more details either.  If you claim
> to be so familiar with autodynamics and that it explains the
> discrepancy, why don't you just describe how?

I gave you the link,so the author can discribe it better than I can.
Since I can't READ the paper on the IR solution I wish not to comment
on it, other than the thrust if is from the RTG's should be getting smaller
as the RTG's cool.
 
> It makes a lot more sense to me that the discrepancy results from an
> overlooked known physical effect than that it's proof for an untested
> and unconventional physical theory.

A discrepancy in any theory is a sign that the theory needs revising.
So far all the theories I have read about gravity before Autodynamics
and gravity was a lot of hand waving and mumbo-jumbo. You can't point to
a object and say -- you cause gravity --.  Gravity is one subject
not very much R&D money is spent on today.
.
> 
>  > > I'm very surprised this made it to the list. Now, what is this about
>  > > rewriting physics on four data points that are not readily reproducible?
>  > > Really now.

I say only 1 point is needed -- the point in space where the BIG BANG happened.
Ben.
-- 
"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