0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: opportunity on 20/11/2018 09:31:21A reactionless drive is possible in theory, yet it requires eliminating the idea of "antiparticles".Well, antiparticles exist.So you can't "eliminate the idea of antiparticles".So your drive fails.You can stop now.
A reactionless drive is possible in theory, yet it requires eliminating the idea of "antiparticles".
We've had this discussion in another thread, and you know I am in support of anti-particles
I do not ignore the idea of anti-particles, and thus the idea of the anti-proton, as my theory also states that the "inference" of their existence must exist, yet on further development of my theory the practicality of anti-particles across the entire spectrum of standard elementary particles become problematic.
This thread is questing for proposals and architectures , for extremely high specific impulse engines . It is not asking for disjointed , incoherent , ultimately irrelevant , coffee-house ramblings! Spewing self-serving noise does not help me promote science , or engender real solutions to problems !
Add "new" before proposals , then read the last four lines of that statement repeatedly , until the message sinks in . I am neither deceived , nor entertained , by the empty calories you have barfed onto this thread . Do leave it to people who have new, constructive ideas , of the type requested !Enough said AGAIN !P.M.
I have papers that validate my comments.
It seems to me you're floating around subjects to debunk them, for the mere thrill of ridicule.
My papers are pre-peer review
As I said, I have made "no effort" to have them published,
. The fitness of my papers is not in doubt.
Quote from: opportunity on 24/11/2018 00:59:49. The fitness of my papers is not in doubt.I explicitly cast doubt on your papers by asking for peer review.For you to say there is no doubt is clearly not true.Are your papers equally shoddy?
You're judging my work without even reading it. What does that say about you?