From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 3/12/2025 6:44 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 14:14:13 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2/12/2025 7:09 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 19:44:36 +0100, Jeroen Belleman   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 12/1/25 19:14, john larkin wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 09:56:25 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
   >>>>> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> espoused much the same idea too,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That's all you need to tell you it won't work.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> We used to laugh at Laithwait's ideas and wonder how anyone could take   
   >>>>>> them seriously.  Unfortunately a lot of gullible (or ignorant) idiots   
   >>>>>> did ...so a lot of money was wasted trying to pervert the laws of   
   >>>>>> physics.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The "laws of physcs" aren't fully settled. It's conceivable that some   
   >>>>> accepted conservation principles may not be absolutely true.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> John Larkin   
   >>>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center   
   >>>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If a discrepancy in Newton's action=reaction is found, it will be   
   >>>> something tiny, or we would have noticed it long ago. To propel   
   >>>> vehicles we need something *big*.   
   >>>   
   >>> Yes, slow and tiny, cosmology-level stuff.   
   >>   
   >> This is clearly intended to be ironical, but John Larkin can't do irony.   
   >   
   > No irony. The physical constants of the universe could certainly be   
   > changing as it expands, or contracts, whatever it is doing.   
      
   "Cosmology" and "tiny" are incompatible.   
      
   > The practical effects seem to be small, especially as regards   
   > electronic design.   
      
   To be more precise, the practical effects are undetectable - which is to   
   say non-existent in any practical sense. People certainly have suggested   
   that the expansion of the universe could change the value of the   
   fundamental constants, but there's no observational evidence to support   
   the hypothesis.   
      
   >>> Obviously energy is not conserved, because we came from somewhere.   
   >>   
   >> The big bang is that somewhere. We can't know where it came from, so it   
   >> doesn't necessarily violate the conservation of mass-energy. It's   
   >> perfectly compatible with a bouncing universe.   
      
   John Larkin didn't want to think about that.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydhey   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)