From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 3/01/2026 12:50 am, E.Laureti wrote:   
   >   
   > Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:   
   >   
   >> On 02/01/2026 06:32, E.Laureti wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> Bill Sloman  posted:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/01/2026 8:54 pm, E.Laureti wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Bill Sloman  posted:   
   >>>>>   
   >>   
   >>>>>> In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be   
   >>>>>> scams.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/pitchdeck   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Demonstrating that you are incompetent experimentalists isn't  a great   
   >>>> way to attract investors/   
   >>   
   >> Several LNER proponents seemed to have been able to do it.   
   >> One even took DOD for a ride :(   
   >>   
   >>> My prototypes work despite me being incompetent, while you competent people   
   >>>    only have chatter   
   >>   
   >> They only work for some very relaxed definition of "work".   
   >>   
   >> You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force   
   >> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is   
   >> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.   
   >>   
   >> One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy   
   >> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?   
   >   
   > Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say   
   >   by newtonian physics.   
   > Conclusion : PNN is absurd for  you  :-)   
      
   You misunderstand - which is your stock in trade. We wouldn't have any   
   problem with a reactionless drive, if your experiments could persuade us   
   that it worked.   
      
   Our problem is that your experiments are ill-constructed and the results   
   that you claim are consistent with a few side effects that don't involve   
   any kind of reactionless drive.   
      
   You waste your time on high-flown rhetoric, when what you should be   
   doing is constructing more persuasive experiments, whose results are   
   less easy to explain by your failure to rule out less exciting - if more   
   plausible - side effects.   
      
   Einstein didn't have much trouble getting his post-Newtonian theories   
   accepted, but he didn't run the experiments that showed that his   
   approach generated better predictions than Newtonian physics did.   
      
   The people who did run them were skilled experimentalists who knew how   
   to construct experiments that tested the theory and didn't leave room   
   for alternative ways of explaining the results.   
      
   People who are good at theory (and you aren't) aren't necessarily good   
   experimentalists. Wolfgang Pauli was famously bad, and the Pauli Effect   
   is a famous - if not all that serious - commemoration of a time when he   
   seemed to wreck an experiment in Munich, when the train he was on   
   stopped there for a few hours on the way to some other city.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)