A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

we need more than a single planet



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 13th 20, 02:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 414
Default we need more than a single planet

On Feb/10/2020 at 08:47, wrote :
Il giorno lunedì 10 febbraio 2020 13:12:03 UTC+1, Jeff Findley ha scritto:
In article ,
says...
The violation of the principle of action and reaction necessarily involves the redefinition of the I and II principle of dynamics ... ..
inertia law is no longer a uniform rectilinear motion and F = m*a it is no longer the same.

What do I mean? That you can get out of Newtonian mechanics and build other spaceships that reach the rocky planets light years away.

Spaceships that need kilopower nuclear reactors.
But first I have to defend the F432 patent and demonstrate the PNN to a NASA that is deaf and wastes time with missiles.
Who among you can contact one of NASA who comes to see PNN tests?

Unfortunately, the PNN is incredible, but it's another world


Off to the bozo bin for you (a.k.a. the killfile).


I think you are unable to read even the translator
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg



Jeff


I can read (write, understand and speak) Italian. Though my Italian is
far from perfect, it is good enough that in my opinion even if Jeff
could read the "translator" it wouldn't change your position in his
killfile.

No one at NASA is going to go see you PNN test. It is you who must prove
that you have an interesting technology. NASA is not going to go see
every demonstration that anyone wants them to see. Having a patent does
not prove the validity or usefulness of your contraption. If you think
that you can violate the basic principles of physics, you have to
clearly state what are the new laws of physics. Then you have prove with
strong evidence that you can produce thrust in a way that the current
laws of physics can't explain and that your new laws of physics can
explain. Keep in mind that if your force is small there are numerous
things that can give very small forces such as heating one side of your
contraption more than the other, emitting photons in one direction...

If you don't have the equations of the new laws of Non-Newtonian physics
then you have to be able to do something useful with your contraption.
If you can cheaply make a car move with your contraption you might be
able to get away with saying I don't know how it works but it does. But
saying that you have something that would work in space but can't push a
car on Earth and you can't say what are the laws of physics that explain
why it would work in space will just put you in more killfiles.


Alain Fournier
Ads
  #22  
Old February 13th 20, 01:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,056
Default we need more than a single planet

In article , says...
So, why would humans on Mars make this any different? Are humans on
Mars going to abandon modern medicine? Why would they ever do that?


If you change the environment (Mars is a different environment) it is
likely that some traits will produce more offspring than others
relatively to the previous environment.


Production of offspring is one aspect of natural selection. Another is
offspring dying before procreating. Humans have mucked with both
(fertility treatments and modern neonatal care). Natural selection in
humans has been greatly diminished by modern health care.

Evolution, in the biological sense, is not about a species developing
abilities that someone thinks are better. It is not about becoming
stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful... It is about survival of
the fittest. If having alleles that cause cystic fibrosis works in your
environment, you can evolve towards that.


You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I snipped the part
where you said modern medicine allows people with cystic fibrosis to
live much longer and procreate more often than they did before. I'd
argue that the impact of modern medicine on cystic fibrosis swamps the
impact that natural selection might still have.

If a species is in an
environment where being more intelligent makes it more fit, then it will
evolve towards more intelligence. If a species is in an environment
where being stupid makes you more fit, it will evolve towards stupidity.


You are arguing for natural selection. Again, modern medicine short
circuits that by keeping less intelligent humans alive. Furthermore,
studies have shown that college educated humans tend to have fewer
offspring than non-college educated humans. Again, this goes completely
against natural selection. In fact, it's the opening sequence of the
movie Idiocracy (not that I'm saying we're going to get Idiocracy).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #23  
Old February 13th 20, 11:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default we need more than a single planet

Il giorno giovedì 13 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Alain Fournier ha scritto:
On Feb/10/2020 at 08:47, wrote :
Il giorno lunedì 10 febbraio 2020 13:12:03 UTC+1, Jeff Findley ha scritto:
In article ,
says...
The violation of the principle of action and reaction necessarily involves the redefinition of the I and II principle of dynamics ... ..
inertia law is no longer a uniform rectilinear motion and F = m*a it is no longer the same.

What do I mean? That you can get out of Newtonian mechanics and build other spaceships that reach the rocky planets light years away.

Spaceships that need kilopower nuclear reactors.
But first I have to defend the F432 patent and demonstrate the PNN to a NASA that is deaf and wastes time with missiles.
Who among you can contact one of NASA who comes to see PNN tests?

Unfortunately, the PNN is incredible, but it's another world


Off to the bozo bin for you (a.k.a. the killfile).


I think you are unable to read even the translator
http://www.asps.it/pat98.jpg



Jeff


I can read (write, understand and speak) Italian. Though my Italian is
far from perfect, it is good enough that in my opinion even if Jeff
could read the "translator" it wouldn't change your position in his
killfile.

No one at NASA is going to go see you PNN test. It is you who must prove
that you have an interesting technology. NASA is not going to go see
every demonstration that anyone wants them to see. Having a patent does
not prove the validity or usefulness of your contraption. If you think
that you can violate the basic principles of physics, you have to
clearly state what are the new laws of physics. Then you have prove with
strong evidence that you can produce thrust in a way that the current
laws of physics can't explain and that your new laws of physics can
explain. Keep in mind that if your force is small there are numerous
things that can give very small forces such as heating one side of your
contraption more than the other, emitting photons in one direction...

If you don't have the equations of the new laws of Non-Newtonian physics
then you have to be able to do something useful with your contraption.
If you can cheaply make a car move with your contraption you might be
able to get away with saying I don't know how it works but it does. But
saying that you have something that would work in space but can't push a
car on Earth and you can't say what are the laws of physics that explain
why it would work in space will just put you in more killfiles.


Alain Fournier




Quoto la sua traduzione in italiano

Riesco a leggere (scrivere, capire e parlare) italiano. Anche se il mio italiano lo è
lungi dall'essere perfetto, è abbastanza buono che secondo me anche se Jeff
potrebbe leggere il "traduttore" non cambierebbe la tua posizione nella sua
killfile.


Nessuno alla NASA andr* a vedere il tuo test PNN.


Poteva capitare a voi Pearl Harbour? i.e. un attacco a sorpresa dei giapponesi senza preavviso? Da come pensa la Nasa si! Si solo a voi poteva capitare!
Sono 50 anni che siete stati sulla Luna e ancora non avete capito che con la missilistica non si va da nessuna parte. Ebbene si non l’avete capito!!!! :-)
Con l’astronave a trombetta si perde il 99% della massa…. E potete solo giocare sulle lunghe distanze coi robottini.Una caravella colombiana non perdeva massa invece. Vi dice niente tutto questo? No ! non vi dice niente!
Aspettatevi che altri lo capiscano …. e Pearl Harbour vi sembrer* niente rispetto a quello che vi potrebbe capitare con la PNN in mano ad altri e usata “manu militari” …. come dicevano una volta i miei avi!

Sei tu che devi provare
che hai una tecnologia interessante.


Così ve la copiate e io e la mia associazione non guadagniamo nulla!
Abbiamo lavorato gratis per la Nasa per 22 anni. :-)
Pensavo che solo gli italiani fossero del tutto scemi … la Nasa li sta battendo.
Gli italiani? Rinascimentali e buffoni mandolinari inutili. Affrescatori e decoratori di cappelle che non hanno mai colonizzato nulla per grettezza e demenza da mutazione genetica causata da invasioni barbariche. Se ne metti 2 insieme di italiani formano 3 partiti.


La NASA non sta andando a vedere
ogni dimostrazione che qualcuno vuole che vedano.


E’ sempre degli idioti supporre che gli altri siano idioti come e più di loro

Avere un brevetto fa
non provare la validit* o l'utilit* del tuo aggeggio.


Pensi qui ho detto e ripetuto www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm che i giapponesi ( ma che strano?) si sono ricopiati e pubblicato a loro nome un mio brevetto del 1998 che violava appunto il principio di azione e reazione.. solo che il brevetto del 1998 non corrisponde a quanto si vede in questo video: www..asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 … i giapponesi hanno copiato il know-how sbagliato :-)
Ho salvato l’america e l’occidente cristiano da una pnn in mano ai vostri ex nemici… ma il mio premio sono disattenzione e pernacchie :-)


Se pensi
che puoi violare i principi di base della fisica, devi farlo
indicare chiaramente quali sono le nuove leggi della fisica.


Ma chi se ne frega di rispettare le leggi della fisica . Uno esamina dei dati sperimentali e da quelli e solo da quelli fa le leggi. Se i dati sperimentali mi dicono che in elettrodinamica si può violare il principio di azione e reazione … lo faccio e basta! … le leggi fatele voi DOPO … a me ora non servono!
Lei sbaglia sequenza SONO GLI ESPERIMENTI CHE CREANO LE LEGGI FISICHE E NON IL VICEVERSA.



Quindi hai dimostrato con
forte evidenza che puoi produrre la spinta in un modo che la corrente
le leggi della fisica non possono spiegare e ciò che le tue nuove leggi della fisica possono spiegare.


E allora elimino gli esperimenti e resto felice con leggi della fisica inutili per colonizzare lo spazio esterno : la propulsione newtoniana a trombetta! Lei è comico

Tieni presente che se la tua forza è piccola ce ne sono numerosi
cose che possono dare forze molto piccole come il riscaldamento di un lato del tuo
aggeggio più dell'altro, che emette fotoni in una direzione ...


Voi avete tarpato le ali all’elettrodinamica classica sviluppandola in un'unica direzione. E’ quella direzione che ha generato leggi fisiche che si presentano come indiscutibili. Detto in parole povere Newton non conosceva neppure l’esistenza dell’elettrodinamica ma ha fatto (secondo il suo punto di vista) un principio di azione e reazione che deve essere inviolabile pure per l’elettrodinamica. Non sapete fare esperimenti che si discostino da percorsi gi* tracciati. Non avete fantasia sperimentale.

Se non hai le equazioni delle nuove leggi della fisica non newtoniana


Ripeto la sequenza a cui non arriva :
1) prima devi fare esperimenti diversi da quelli fatti da Lorentz e Ampere (tanto per citarne alcuni ) …..
2) poi fai le tue leggi fisiche


allora devi essere in grado di fare qualcosa di utile con il tuo aggeggio.
Se riesci a muovere una macchina a buon mercato con il tuo aggeggio, potresti esserlo
in grado di cavarmela dicendo che non so come funziona ma lo fa. Ma
dicendo che hai qualcosa che funzionerebbe nello spazio ma non puoi spingere a
auto sulla Terra e non puoi dire quali sono le leggi della fisica che spiegano
perché avrebbe funzionato nello spazio ti metter* in più killfile.


Io confido che qualcuno prima o poi venga a vedere/sperimentare la pnn e vi lasci felici con i vostri perfetti killfile :-)
Saluti

E.Laureti









  #24  
Old February 14th 20, 01:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 414
Default we need more than a single planet

Il 13 febbraio 2020 17:40, ha scritto :
Il giorno giovedì 13 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Alain Fournier ha scritto:
On Feb/10/2020 at 08:47,
wrote :
Il giorno lunedì 10 febbraio 2020 13:12:03 UTC+1, Jeff Findley ha scritto:
In article ,
says...
The violation of the principle of action and reaction necessarily involves the redefinition of the I and II principle of dynamics ... ..
inertia law is no longer a uniform rectilinear motion and F = m*a it is no longer the same.

What do I mean? That you can get out of Newtonian mechanics and build other spaceships that reach the rocky planets light years away.

Spaceships that need kilopower nuclear reactors.
But first I have to defend the F432 patent and demonstrate the PNN to a NASA that is deaf and wastes time with missiles.
Who among you can contact one of NASA who comes to see PNN tests?

Unfortunately, the PNN is incredible, but it's another world



Sei tu che devi provare
che hai una tecnologia interessante.


Così ve la copiate e io e la mia associazione non guadagniamo nulla!


È perché che hai un brevetto. Non è perfetto. Ma se non vuoi proteggere
la tua invenzione usando il tuo brevetto, perché hai richiesto un brevetto?

Se pensi
che puoi violare i principi di base della fisica, devi farlo
indicare chiaramente quali sono le nuove leggi della fisica.


Ma chi se ne frega di rispettare le leggi della fisica .


La NASA e coloro che hanno soldi si preoccupano delle leggi della
fisica. Quelli che tu vuoi che vengano a vedere la tua demonstrazione.


Alain Fournier
  #25  
Old February 14th 20, 02:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 414
Default we need more than a single planet

On Feb/13/2020 at 07:34, Jeff Findley wrote :
In article , says...
So, why would humans on Mars make this any different? Are humans on
Mars going to abandon modern medicine? Why would they ever do that?


If you change the environment (Mars is a different environment) it is
likely that some traits will produce more offspring than others
relatively to the previous environment.


Production of offspring is one aspect of natural selection. Another is
offspring dying before procreating. Humans have mucked with both
(fertility treatments and modern neonatal care). Natural selection in
humans has been greatly diminished by modern health care.

Evolution, in the biological sense, is not about a species developing
abilities that someone thinks are better. It is not about becoming
stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful... It is about survival of
the fittest. If having alleles that cause cystic fibrosis works in your
environment, you can evolve towards that.


You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. I snipped the part
where you said modern medicine allows people with cystic fibrosis to
live much longer and procreate more often than they did before. I'd
argue that the impact of modern medicine on cystic fibrosis swamps the
impact that natural selection might still have.


From my point of view, your the one talking out of both sides of your
mouth. Yes modern medicine has a big impact on the transmission of the
alleles causing cystic fibrosis, that is what will cause evolution in
this respect. It used to be that those alleles were suppressed, now much
less. That will change the genetic makeup of humanity. In other words it
will make humans evolve towards a species where those alleles are more
frequent. I think that you have a false perception of what evolution is
in the biological sense. It isn't about species becoming better
according to what you think is better. Humans can evolve towards more
cystic fibrosis alleles, that is evolution.

If a species is in an
environment where being more intelligent makes it more fit, then it will
evolve towards more intelligence. If a species is in an environment
where being stupid makes you more fit, it will evolve towards stupidity.


You are arguing for natural selection. Again, modern medicine short
circuits that by keeping less intelligent humans alive. Furthermore,
studies have shown that college educated humans tend to have fewer
offspring than non-college educated humans. Again, this goes completely
against natural selection.


No it doesn't. If we are in an environment where non-college educated
humans thrive better than college educated humans, we will evolve
towards a species with less college educated humans. Biological
evolution is not about becoming smarter and more educated because you
think that is a good thing. Mother nature doesn't care about what you
think is a good thing and will make humanity evolve towards less smarts
and less college education if we are in an environment favourable to those.

In fact, it's the opening sequence of the
movie Idiocracy (not that I'm saying we're going to get Idiocracy).


I didn't see that movie. But it seems to me that would be a movie about
humanity evolving towards idiocy. That is evolution in the biological
sense. Once again, the fact that you and I think it is better to be
smart than to be an idiot, doesn't mean that evolution has to go towards
smarter people. Mother nature doesn't care about what we think is the best.


Alain Fournier
  #26  
Old February 14th 20, 02:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default we need more than a single planet

Il giorno venerdì 14 febbraio 2020 01:50:57 UTC+1, Alain Fournier ha scritto:
Il 13 febbraio 2020 17:40, ha scritto :
Il giorno giovedì 13 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Alain Fournier ha scritto:
On Feb/10/2020 at 08:47,
wrote :
Il giorno lunedì 10 febbraio 2020 13:12:03 UTC+1, Jeff Findley ha scritto:
In article ,
says...
The violation of the principle of action and reaction necessarily involves the redefinition of the I and II principle of dynamics ... ..
inertia law is no longer a uniform rectilinear motion and F = m*a it is no longer the same.

What do I mean? That you can get out of Newtonian mechanics and build other spaceships that reach the rocky planets light years away.

Spaceships that need kilopower nuclear reactors.
But first I have to defend the F432 patent and demonstrate the PNN to a NASA that is deaf and wastes time with missiles.
Who among you can contact one of NASA who comes to see PNN tests?

Unfortunately, the PNN is incredible, but it's another world



Sei tu che devi provare
che hai una tecnologia interessante.


Così ve la copiate e io e la mia associazione non guadagniamo nulla!


È perché che hai un brevetto. Non è perfetto.


il mio brevetto del 1998 è scaduto nel 2018 per la legge italiana sui brevetti.
La nuova pnn di cui NON ho depositato brevetto è diversa da quella del 1998.
Ma fondamentalmente non ci sto a farmi copiare un nuovo brevetto come quello del 1998, brevetto che per vie misteriose si sono copiati i 2 giapponesi..
Chi mi paga gli avvocati se non ho risorse per difendere il nuovo brevetto? Il mio sospetto che è quasi una certezza è che i brevetti che valgono se li copiano alla velocit* della luce con qualche variante. Così ti ritrovi a difenderti contro industrie aerospaziali (Alenia spazio, o l'ESA o FIAT AVIO ) senza avere i soldi per pagare gli avvocati! E' come una guerra che devo combattere disarmato.



Ma se non vuoi proteggere
la tua invenzione usando il tuo brevetto, perché hai richiesto un brevetto?

Se pensi
che puoi violare i principi di base della fisica, devi farlo
indicare chiaramente quali sono le nuove leggi della fisica.


Ma chi se ne frega di rispettare le leggi della fisica .


La NASA e coloro che hanno soldi si preoccupano delle leggi della
fisica. Quelli che tu vuoi che vengano a vedere la tua demonstrazione.


Lei non esce fuori dalla procedura mentale che ha impostato per le leggi della fisica. Per me sono solo e soltanto NUOVI DATI SPERIMENTALI CHE CAMBIANO LE LEGGI DELLA FISICA.
Nel dettaglio con la PNN si conserva sia l'energia che la quantit* di moto.
Come esattamente si conservano non lo posso ancora valutare dato che l'impedenza dei miei prototipi non si è ancora sostanzialmente abbassata.

Saluti



Alain Fournier


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
tired of being single? 8d1 peter_ Misc 0 September 16th 06 08:50 AM
Single Stages That Could Go All The Way Charles Talleyrand Technology 4 March 15th 06 08:43 PM
Machholz and single malt Joe S. Amateur Astronomy 23 December 22nd 04 09:59 PM
reading a single value Nico Vermaas FITS 1 July 28th 03 07:14 PM
Reading a single value Nico Vermaas FITS 1 July 21st 03 06:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.