[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I already said what my annoyance was, Kevin. Why are you still searching for a mystery?

...and you bicker with everyone else, Tom and Horatio included.

Actually you started snarking me because you didn't like what I wrote.

There's still no mystery here bar your over-reaction to my response taking note of the content of the article stating there are still several major hurdles to be dealt with (not least the theorised need for Dark Matter, the nature of which remains under discussion itself) and thus being a little less ego-centrically self congratulatory about it all than you were.

That isn't ignoring what I don't like. That's reading the actual article. Maybe it's different in your world when someone reading the article is as reserved (despite the article also being reserved itself and telling us to still not expect it in our lifetimes IF the theory could be proven) about it as the article.

So, in short, that would be an affirmative on the bickering. I'm evidently not the only one who does it however. But if you wanna keep pulling at the thread.................up to you. I'll avoid any science based threads you personally begin in future if you wish.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

Actually you started snarking me because you didn't like what I wrote.

-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
And here's the part that matters....

I'll avoid any science based threads you personally begin in future if you wish.

I would merely request a more balanced sense of commentary (as I've said 2x before) If you are expressing doubts why stop there surely one would some expression of enthusiasm on this development and what would be the next development on the road to progress.

I'll accept any form of affirmative or refusal.
It's just a request, Kevin. (from my annoyance, yes, but just a request)

[kevin]

I think the article is fairly short and sweet and it doesn't yet do what you are so eager to believe it does when you quite emphatically stated that it was 'wrong' that Warp Drive is impossible. The article does not say it is now possible. It says it 'might' be more 'realistic'. The might part remaining pretty big. And that difference of reading is the crux of your problem here today. It does not currently prove Star Trek was right (any more than any other faster than light proposal) at this point in time because it remains a theory which has been proposed and in part amended now in terms of the possible power requirements.

It might need Dark Energy (as the article proposes we might, once we even have a handle on it). As it would also need general power requirements. The two main theorised drawbacks of the brief article if the theory ever passed theory stage and we were looking at the actual stage of trying to build something that could be tested. So, this article really doesn't change anything hugely NOW. Which it itself kinda says. The technology to try to move from theory to reality is beyond us just now. It's interesting enough as a modification of a proposed theory but one that can't be tested yet. But might far enough ahead. When it's a small article like this that doesn't prove anything right now, I don't start getting too excited. It doesn't look like I'm the only one either. Sorry. We're dealing with things that remain very far off.

That would be the longer winded version of the original comment. And it's now nearly Sunday in my neck of the woods, which means this will soon be yesterday's pointless bicker and yesterday's news. I'm sure a fresh one awaits.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by kevin

The article does not say it is now possible. It says it 'might' be more 'realistic'

It does not currently prove Star Trek was right (any more than any other faster than light proposal) at this point in time because it remains a theory which has been proposed and in part amended now in terms of the possible power requirements.

I disagree simply based on what I know and the physics at hand.
Star Trek definitely gave us a concept of movement by a means other than Newtonian physics. It also proposed the ability to break the light speed barrier with such and ability. This was a concept never before considered. And we know after the discovery of Sagittarius A in the Heart of our Galaxy that this phenomenon happens. Objects travel faster than light all...the...time.

Which it itself kinda says. The technology to try to move from theory to reality is beyond us just now. It's interesting enough as a modification of a proposed theory but one that can't be tested yet. But might far enough ahead. When it's a small article like this that doesn't prove anything right now, I don't start getting too excited. It doesn't look like I'm the only one either. Sorry. We're dealing with things that remain very far off.

Not from how I see. Bring the power requirements equvalent to the mass energy of the Voyager 1 space craft makes this highly do-able in the power depart...to the point that if we find a way to manipulate the Higgs field we are no longer hampered by the need to use Planet sized amounts of energy to move a small object.

In other words if we knew how to create the field...we could be experimenting on this...right now. But there is much to still learn and that is very encouraging. It may take 30 or 40 nuclear reactors but it's at least withing our grasp even if not easily. That's what excites me.

That would be the longer winded version of the original comment. And it's now nearly Sunday in my neck of the woods, which means this will soon be yesterday's pointless bicker and yesterday's news. I'm sure a fresh one awaits.

Awesome!!!
Thanks and appreciated.

[omegaman]

Originally Posted by kevin

Tom and myself is exactly why I rarely comment on Omega's science based posts.

Hey guys, I never knew that.
I post these articles figuring other people may enjoy them like I do!
They're not meant to start fierce, heated debates!

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by omegaman

Hey guys, I never knew that.
I post these articles figuring other people may enjoy them like I do!
They're not meant to start fierce, heated debates!

And they are good threads, threads we all enjoy

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

The thread is fine,the discussion is fine

there is only one poster here who seems to be out of wack.

guess who

[kevin]

Originally Posted by omegaman

Hey guys, I never knew that.
I post these articles figuring other people may enjoy them like I do!
They're not meant to start fierce, heated debates!

They're fine. There was no intent to spend 3 pages on a diversion. But forums..........ya know?

[NCC-73515]

Originally Posted by Saquist

NCC-73515 and myself were quite simply expressing what is normally called enthusiasm. Omegaman expressed a certain level of interest and enthusiasm just by posting it. Isn't enthusiasm in Exploration and Science normally encouraged rather than shot down or as NCC-73515 said...ridiculed?

I wrote AT SCHOOL. As in 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by omegaman

Hey guys, I never knew that.
I post these articles figuring other people may enjoy them like I do!
They're not meant to start fierce, heated debates!

Honestly, most of them bother me. You hit the 'new posts' button and all you find is a list of wired articles. If I want to see those, I go to wired directly

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The thread is fine,the discussion is fine

there is only one poster here who seems to be out of wack.

guess who

I guess you are speaking of myself.
I make the further logical assumption that peace will be better served by my permanent departure.