JCC Go science?

I made the mistake of listening to his NPR interview on Science Friday where he said he came up with an equation for consciousness.

 

Vivec, this is the web address for an advanced propulsion concepts paper published by Dr. Harold White, who is the head of the advanced propulsion program for NASA.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492.pdf

Now take note of the very first sentence of the Abstract.

NASA/JSC is implementing an advanced propulsion physics laboratory, informally known as "Eagleworks", to pursue propulsion technologies necessary to enable human exploration of the solar system over the next 50 years, and enabling interstellar spaceflight by the end of the century.

These are the web address for his two other warp physics papers.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015936.pdf


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf

Please explain to me how three physics papers written on the basis of experiments conducted at the Johnson Space Centre is anything other than official.

 

Ender that gap is always going to exist. The reality is that good journalism has its own techniques and expertise, too. An informed scientist and amateur journalist will produce results just as bad as an informed journalist but amateur scientist. One cannot realistically expect most or even many people to cross-train this extensively, especially given the remuneration for these posts.

 

Well my previous post touches upon this. I'm not a scientist (I'm skeptical of calling economics a science and political science isn't) but I've experienced situations where I've seen outright falsehoods printed by the press on programs I was a part of. I was there, and they weren't, but they're reporting with confidence about what happened and my friends have assumed it was gospel.

It's not dissimilar to what happened with this breathless "ZOMG TURING TEST PASSED!" rubbish. No, it ****ing didn't, but that stopped precisely nobody getting excited at the prospect.

So rather than saying "all media is wrong" or "always trust the experts", I'm more saying that a more humble approach is to assume that a lot of what's going on is generally not visible to the public. People in the industry will have access to industry publications that you wouldn't typically read outside that industry and they have a better perspective. They took years to study the theory and application of a theory to practical environments and there is merit in strongly considering they might have better insight than I.

 

It's cynical of me, but I've just sort of come to terms with the omnipresence of the Cycle:

Christ, he's gone full Chopra. You never go full Chopra.

 

You're completely misunderstanding Eagleworks here. They're not a warp drive team. They investigate alternative forms of propulsion. There is no NASA warp drive team.

Regardless, instead of worrying over what NASA team is working on what, try to actually *learn* the physics concepts being discussed.

 

Yeah wasn't there discussion from them about some form of travel that wasn't warp drives, light speed or wormhole portals but it couldn't solve the question of the energy/fuel to power a craft up to the speeds it needs? and wouldn't you be accelerating over the space of 2 years or something?

Not a scientist but happy to be edumacated.

 

I'm not entirely sure. I haven't been following their work too much (only to rebut VLM and co).

Also, VLM, if you think I'm not being nice, I suggest you e-mail a man named Manuel Calderon de la Barca Sanchez, tell him what you think about the warp drives, and see what response you get.

 

He's a great striker. I look forward to seeing him score the most goals this world cup?

 

You show him how NASA is doing this, I even mentioned Eagleworks does other propulsion, and he still denies it.

 

VLM, indulge me a moment if you will.

Ramza, too, has spoken out against the theories. For the avoidance of any doubt about motives etc, can I ask you to explain Vivec's objections to me in your own words?

 

Can you explain to me his objection to NASA funding it even though NASA is funding it?

 

It's poor form to answer a question with a question, VLM.

However, I will answer this if you answer mine; that seems only fair.

 

Hahaha. It is hilarious watching you all simply ignore what is posted here. Poor form indeed.

 

Agreed. If a link that somebody else posted really offends you that much, than don't read it, otherwise you don't have the right to stomp all over everyone who has an opinion that's different than yours.

 

Well, it's hardly "an opinion" when there's verifiable data behind it.

But VLM, I've not asked a lot. Can you please explain Vivec's objections? Yes or no?

 

OK, so basically

1) We have someone who has faith in science, but in the same way others have faith in god;
2) A personality clash
3) Objectivity suffers.

Hoo, ray.

 

Well, this is....creepy

 

I hadn't heard of that before. I just did a quick search on it and apparently it's been hitting the news on and off during the last year and a half or so. But the oldest articles basically have the same information as this one does. You'd think they'd know more by now....

 

Optimus Prime tells you cool stuff about space.

 

SCIENCE IS YOUR FAVORITE SCIFI ACTORS SAYING FACTOIDS WITH BACKGROUND FOOTAGE OF SPACE

 

Erm, a factoid is not a "small fact"; it's a falsehood that is oft repeated and assumed to be a fact.

i.e. saying a factoid is a small fact is in fact, a factoid.

Like saying unskilled tradespeople understand science as much as the next person. That would be a factoid.

 

I WAS OCCUPIED AT WORK

 

^ factoid

 

^ [(d^3)(x)]/[d*(t^3)]