. . . .
Alright, I don't really know how to start this, so I
won't. I'll just start hacking away into it. What's
the deal?
Now maybe I'm reading this wrong, but there's a bias
it seems against any results, theoretical or
experimental, that have a superluminal result. What's
so &%^$%# bad about FTL? My tax dollars can pay for
scientists (so-called) who are not worth the gunpowder
it would take to blow them to hell, to come up with a
bunch of unprovable theoretical/religious garbage, and
everyone loves this. I assume this is because it takes
some motivation for these people to get off their
asses to do an experiment. So fine. BTW, the scientist
I am thinking of is Lawrence Krauss. A dumbass, who
believes that conjecturing that looking through a
telescope will alter the universe is a good bit o'
science. While, of course, killing the Breakthrough
Propulsion Physics program (there's that hatred of FTL
again...)
You can publish about time travel. But you can't talk
FTL, because it causes causality violations, and by
extension, time travel. <blink> Does anyone besides me
see how stupid this is?
I will wager this: one day, we will figure out how to
go faster than light (assuming the lazies are dead and
out of our way). It will never, ever, result in a
causality violation. You will just get there quicker.
I'm not dragging Van Flandern into this, don't worry.
I don't much go in for exploding planets. But someone
ought to take note that there's a perfectly valid
alternative for the disaster that is special
relativity, as brought forth by Tangherlini. It isn't
mathematically pretty. But neither is the mess that we
currently accept. But you can't convince true
believers of the religion of science. Debate one of
these guys, listen to what they have to say. Then go
to Sunday School, see what they have to say, and try
to ask questions and debate. These people were cut
from the same sheet of mylar.
What's the point to all this? We don't know jack
diddly squat. Not about God, about science, about the
universe, about ourselves, about the climate and/or
its change, etc. Trouble is, we can't *not* look for
answers. But we must make sure we are finding answers,
and not just making them and the story up as we go
along.
Next...
Some scoundrel does an experiment, a real, actual
experiment, and posts it to some list called Vortex. I
guess scientific experimentation is still welcome on a
list that .....
"Currently it has evolved into a discussion on "taboo"
physics reports and research. SKEPTICS BEWARE, the
topics wander from Cold Fusion, to reports of excess
energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and
detection, reports of theoretically impossible
phenomena, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot
claims"
Two people replied to the thread (three if you count
Horace's suggestion [and a very good one too!] made in
a different thread), no discussion except off list.
Robin van Spaandonk, let me publicly thank you for
letting me discuss the experiment with you. I
appreciate it very, very much.
But the rest of you, with the aforementioned
exceptions, chose to duke out politics, religion, and
assorted nonscientific whatsit. It makes me wonder why
Bill Beatty doesn't show up around here much any more.
Is he just disgusted with this? Maybe my science is
just amateurish? Wait a sec...oh yes. This list is
directly connected to a site called AMASCI.COM.
Alright, if Morton's experiment (which I seem to have
shot down in my own research, will post more if any
interest) is not worth discussing, let's talk cold
fusion. What can I do? I'm giving no one any money.
The opportunities have been essentially wasted for two
decades. Positive here, negatives here, uh, need
better calorimeter here, let's look for ash here, to
burn/recombine or not burn/recombine, x-rays here?
Neutrons? Er, what's the theory behind it?
/Can we build a damn thing that will make a cup of
warm coffee or tea?/ If not, why not???
I'll take a moment to _really_ stir the pot here, and
publicly thank Grok. He's the only one (unless I
missed a message) who responded to this. Quote, "How
come no one ever answers this oft-made reasonable
request with a working device..? The lack of any known
response is what is giving all the skeptix a
field-day."
Now that all this is outta the way, who wants to warm
up their soldering irons, throw 'the main switch,'
pull some vacuum, slam some electrons,
electrolytically fuse some stuff, reactionlessly
impel, superluminally signal, test some claims, throw
some sparks, have a Martini*** at the end of the day
and say "boy howdy, that was some fun," regardless of
the outcome?
Am I gonna have to go buy a video camera to prove that
I do this crap? Or at least try?
***Perfect, of course.
--Kyle
