From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 10/01/2026 6:56 pm, E.Laureti wrote:   
   >   
   > Bill Sloman  posted:   
   >   
   >> On 10/01/2026 6:02 am, E.Laureti wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Possibility of PNN replies   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Trovato chi replica dei test PNN (PNN replies if my commands are   
   listen!!!!!! )   
   >>>   
   >>> Così scrive: ……. American PNN :-) …..   
   >>>   
   >>> For the record I wanted to say that I continue to strongly support ASPS and   
   >>> the PNN drive. I have no desire whatsoever to disprove it.   
   >>   
   >> That's the whole problem. any scientist needs to be continuously alert to   
   >> the possibility of alternative explanations for the effects that they   
   >> are seeing. Popper claimed the any real scientific explanation had to be   
   >> falsifiable.   
   >   
   > 2000 years ago, the Romans built bridges using empirical procedures   
   > without theories.   
      
   The scientific method was developed after their civilisation had fallen   
   apart. It's a scheme that lets you avoid a lot of false starts. You need   
   to learn about it.   
      
   > Everything that seems apparently right to you testifies   
   > to an arthritic astronautica with farts that colonizes nothing.   
   Modern astronautics is very much about finding out more about the more   
   convenient parts of the solar system. Colonising them is strictly   
   science fiction - we don't know enough about the possible destinations   
   to make any even faintly realistic plans to colonise any of them.   
      
   > The PNN was built with empirical physical procedures, just like the   
   > Roman bridges of 2000 years ago, which are still in use while modern   
   > ones often don't even last 200 years.   
      
   The Romans didn't know enough to risk making their bridges as cheaply as   
   they could have done.   
      
   The testing of your imagined reactionless parodies empirical physical   
   procedures. You leave out any sort of control of whether the effects you   
   are seeing might come from any effects other than the ones you are   
   looking for.   
      
   > You use Popper to escape from any experiment that could disprove you.   
      
   I'm not in a position to repeat your experiments, let alone set up   
   variants which might provide useful information - which would take even   
   more money and time.   
      
   If your experiments had been rather better designed, there are people   
   like me who might have been motivated to get together to refine them,   
   but the nonsense you are peddling pretty much rules out any such effort.   
      
   I'm not fond of Popper's theory of science - Polyani comes closer to the   
   mark - but Popper does emphasise one aspect of science which is   
   important here, and you clearly haven't grasped.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)