View Single Post
Old September 24 2008, 11:27 PM   #45
Lieutenant Commander
prometheuspan's Avatar
Location: yes, i do live
Re: WARP derived from known physics

That is not true and you insult those who have tried to have a conversation with you by stating so. A conversation is a two-way dialogue, after all.
Its great to have one of those. Let me know if and when it starts or what forum i have to sign up for.

Personally, I agree this should be kicked over the Science forum, since the goal is to discuss a fictional propulsion system solely within the context of existing science.
My goal is build a working FTL drive. I don't know what everybody elses goals are other than to beef up their egos by pissing on mine.

Second, it would likely have been better to approach this one "statement" at a time, rather then positing an entire theory. That way, to conversation stays focused on one thing at a time and discuss it to a consensus. Once that is done, move on to the next "statement" so as to build on each preceding one.
Dear humanz; sorry my mind doesn't work in clinity little baby steps.
I WAS going to solve all of your problems, but, since you can't handle communications deeper than a single paragraph, I've decided trying to help humans is entirely pointless.

Third, Science is not just about the results. You also really do have to "show the work on the chalkboard" to prove those results are valid. If Einstein's paper on Relativity was just the equation and the equation alone, the professional science community would not have taken it seriously.
Give me a break. If you have any knowledge at all about the underlying complexities then you know as well as i do that covering them is impossible given the forum rules regarding three posts and the post limit. One second you say less is more and the next second theres not enough. I can't win either way, so, why bother?

And fourth, understand that Science is about the math. I don't know how many professional scientists "lucidly visualize" or however you said was how you developed your theories, but I do know that they develop theories that involve a great deal of equations that are all then solved so as to offer a mathematical proof of their theorem.
Virtually all of the ones that made the big breakthroughs describe doing so via thought experiments.

If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you're going to have a difficult time working with those of us with scientific backgrounds because we work the way the discipline tells us to work.
Thats gibberish and crap. Science says talk about the theory, not the person. Science says ask questions and ask for clarification, not, shoot from the hip and ask questions later. None of this has anything to do with science, its all alpha dog egotism and pack psychology.

And for every "genius" you can quote who broke the system, if their work is recognized by the professional scientific community, somewhere along the way, they presented that work in a way that conformed to that discipline.
Actually, einstein and others redefined the discipline and made it conform to them.

I'm not looking to do that, I'm just (was. Have now given up) trying to start
a conversation by generating a working lexicon for primary important principles.

Obviously, this board doesn't have what it takes, and its always been a flat waste of time.
please come help get us into space for real!!
prometheuspan is offline   Reply With Quote