[syhprum]

300 megawatts produces 1 Newton of thrust as I recall it will take you a long time to get up to .99c.

[opportunity]

A 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.

We've had this discussion in another thread, and you know I am in support of anti-particles. I write about anti-particles, better than perhaps any other papers regarding why they exist. The issue is though with my work is the idea of "negative-energy gravity". Gravity and negative energy are a more fundamental entity than anti-particles. Anti-particles exist to balance the general equation. I understand that and write about that. Yet to develop upon gravity as negative energy, one can take a course of theory and create tech applications by trying to avoid the use of anti-particles such as positrons.

I'm surprised in fact no one has stepped back into the work of Dirac. Yes, sure, negative energy is associated to anti-particles, "yet" what is more primordial? I am thinking as many others already have that in using the BB model there is something more primordial before the particle realm, and that is gravity and negative energy, which can in theory be held as a concept in research by avoiding the generation of anti-particles.

There's one or two ways the idea of avoiding anti-particles can be considered, as I've found through trial and error, and key to that is focussing on creating an EM resonance field "and" it seems a deliberate "e" discharge, as with both the deliberation there is to corrupt the natural positronic formation in relation to "e" in a background resonant (neutral) EM field. Yes, indeed, such a simple statement would seem like waffle, "yet" the "principle" of why I would do that research is in the investigation of the more primary feature of gravity as negative energy.

[Bored chemist]

We've had this discussion in another thread, and you know I am in support of anti-particles

No
I know that you think they are a problem.

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.

Please stop posting about this until you make up your mind.

[opportunity]

Bored Chemist, I have papers that validate my comments.

Can I ask, "what is your interest in this subject"? It seems to me you're floating around subjects to debunk them, for the mere thrill of ridicule.


I think you're a good person with good intentions, like everyone, but when you don't accept what I say and what I have written to prove that, you're walking into a red zone. I don't expect anyone to accept anything I say in this forum, yet when I am criticised for saying things in this forum that are not true, not true despite my having papers to back what I say here, a concept of "scientific concept" itself,  "what" is you're prerogative in thinking I am contradicting my own papers?

I'll blame myself on this one. I did say that we have to avoid the idea of anti-particles, and that could have been misinterpreted to the realm that they don't exist. Ridiculous. They exist, even in my "theory" using the golden ratio for time, I have papers to prove that, but they are not "useful" in considering the possibility of reactionless drives. They're a "problem".

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

To B.C. only ; personally I think you're looking at some serious word salad there !

[opportunity]

Lol. Read again.

Word salad? Word salad indeed, and I blamed myself for initial simple statements. Yet I have provided a greater dialogue which is not enough.....not enough?

If I may, I like the BBT, I think it is currently the best possible way to explain a historical perspective of space-time. Love it. Yet, when I decided to use the Fibonacci sequence as the algorithm for time, as the new arrow, I had to stay true to that. That doesn't mean I think everything else is wrong, it means I am giving the theory I use the best chance possible. What's you're great "new theory" for this "new theories" section?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

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 !
Better if you stood on a street-corner barking your stuff at strangers , than annoying me with meaningless twaddle !
P.M.

[opportunity]

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 !

Stop posting then.


You're not a "new theorist"....you're a witness of "new theorists"?


You're witness is negative, like (fill in the blanks).

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

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.

[opportunity]

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.

You're not winning points. You sound angry.


How's life?


If you need help, I'll talk, PM me.

[Bored chemist]

I have papers that validate my comments.

Were they published in a peer reviewed journal?

[Bored chemist]

It seems to me you're floating around subjects to debunk them, for the mere thrill of ridicule.

Logically, you just accepted that your view is ridiculous.
One way or another, you should probably think hard about that.

What I'm actually trying to do is reduce the amount of stuff posted that is so bad it is self contradictory.

[opportunity]

That's very noble yet you need to properly read the links you post.

My papers are pre-peer review, and for a very good reason, namely until I get the last paper, the proof paper, over the line.  It takes time. I have not contradicted myself in any of my posts. 

[Bored chemist]

My papers are pre-peer review

So that's a "no" then.
Get back to us when they are fit for publication.

[opportunity]

Bored Chemist, once again, "no". The fitness of my papers is not in doubt. If you're game you can read an abstract of one of them on my site (see icon). As I said, I have made "no effort" to have them published, "no effort".

[Bored chemist]

As I said, I have made "no effort" to have them published,

Then we should expend no effort on reading them.

[Bored chemist]

. 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?

[opportunity]

. 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 might but others don't. I was urged to put my work in pre-press until the final paper, as discussions with scientists could have seen a number of ideas hitched.

You're judging my work without even reading it. What does that say about you?

[Professor Mega-Mind (OP)]

I will attempt to illustrate what I meant about light energy with an example :
Suppose that I have a 1.35 GW photon rocket .  Normally this produces ~1lb of thrust , the rest of the beam's energy goes into accelerating the electrons of whatever matter it hits .  If I change the characteristics of the beam , it now applies that accelerative force to the entire surface that it hits , NOT the electrons within .  This would result in an effective thrust of 1Mlb + , easily .
The "Fabric Of Space" approach requires mastery of the quantum space-time physicality .  This will take longer to achieve , but will result in artificial/anti-gravity effects , in addition to reactionless drive capability .
These are far-reaching goals , using outside-the-box approaches .  If these paths are pursued vigorously , the capabilities envisioned are sure to be realised , sooner rather than much later .
P.M.
*
Addendum - H.X-rays are required for good results . Oblique impact-angles will transfer most of the photons' energy to the electrons .
A 1GW beam will convert into 100MW plus , of constant impact-energy . The best "catcher" plasma-container , being hit with pulsing -waves of He.X-Rays.
*It is a bent universe.
P.M.

[Bored chemist]

You're judging my work without even reading it. What does that say about you?

It says that I can legitimately extrapolate from what I have read- in which there are many factual errors- and deduce that it is likely that the stuff I have not read is also full of errors.