Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 764235 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1240 on: 10/02/2014 01:34 AM »
they wouldn't give a kopeck two bits on the whole line of research...

Fixed that for ya. 

Seriously, totally excellent post.  Wish I didn't have to depend on the translator.  Will listen harder to next week's "News in Slow French", as I try to learn your language!
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 01:47 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5918
  • Likes Given: 5257
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1241 on: 10/02/2014 02:00 AM »
Oh. E dal dipartimento di "Solo Dicendo", che lo scorso Martini tuo mancava di sostanza, diciamo.

E dal dipartimento di "Solo Dicendo", mai ti ho promesso un giardino di rose Martini real

http://www.annarbor.com/entertainment/food-drink/the-cocktail-clash/
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 02:06 AM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5918
  • Likes Given: 5257
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1242 on: 10/02/2014 02:33 AM »
......
And people able to judge the theory wont be interested to even read the book before there are clear enough signals in clean enough experimental setups (see above -> necessary).
......

@frobnicat,  also,

NASA has some outstanding physicists.  For example, John C. Mather has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 (for his work on the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite (COBE) with George Smoot (MIT).

Mather is at the NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Maryland and he is also an adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Mather
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 02:38 AM by Rodal »

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1243 on: 10/02/2014 08:34 AM »
Rumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper!  That's quite a reaction!
 
Yes it is, that is good news and may make some of my previous remarks partly irrelevant.

Quote
And let me note again, that when you are not familiar with the details of what has been published on this subject, to complain there has not be what you want published, is a little silly.  Read Woodward's book.  It's a fascinating read meant for engineers.  I promise it is fun or I owe you a beer.
What we can contribute scientifically on this thread is limited by our respective (and respectable) abilities and time. It might be silly to try to contribute to more than a decade of work before diving in all every single publication. Dr Rodal made a lot of effort to collect and summarize part of this line research for a wider audience. This is useful. As for Woodward's book, I'm not looking for fun (though that couldn't hurt) but for facts. Time permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.

At one time I was ready to unsheathe my gnuplot and make a few scatterplots of reported thrusts versus sidereal time to see if there is correlation that could indicate a coupling of device with a flow or a particular local (at least solar system wide) frame of reference. I don't know of any attempt at doing that, that may be completely off topic in the views of the leading theories of Woodward, White et al, but since those theories are far from verification other mechanisms than thought may be at play (assuming a real effect). Asked here and there if such sidereal time was ever taken into account, appears no, or no one knows (or I missed an answer on that ?)
Well, probably it would be a negative, but that could be the kind of small third party hobbyist level lateral investigation that could stand a little chance of helping the topic... In this particular case, I complain timestamped experimental data in readable format are either not publicly available or very hard to find. If any-one knows something like a list of a dozen (preferably 100s) of timestamped on/off thrust sessions results. I can't believe dr White (anomalous thrust...) did only 5 or 6 30s sessions, said "ok we got a signal" and switched to another device ... Even at hobbyist level of funding, we would expect more logged and published data points from this kind of experiments.

If anyone points me to such collected rich enough dataset I would be delighted to test my little hypothesis.

Quote
Quote from: frobnicat
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all.
Agreed, but those who have read the book are starting to make their sentiments known.  Sometimes these things take time.  The book is not even 2 years old.
Understood.

Quote
Quote
But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens. . .
All of Woodward's data has been given to Creon Levit, NASA's main comp guy at Ames.  Also this summer, Woodward upgraded his instrumentation to Labview, so the data will be easier to obtain and digest in the future.  I believe that data acquisition system goes online in just another week or so.
Progress in the process. Great news.

Quote
Quote
. . .can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?
As noted, all what you're asking for save the self-contained issue has previously been addressed, and you should not presume Eagle hasn't done the same.  NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions.  Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis.  You should not expect to see that kind of thing here.  Dennis and Creon are top notch guys.  Sometimes you just need to wait for the hammer to fall.

ok

still considering that "self-contained issue" is central and should be addressed rather sooner than later for reasons expressed at length in previous posts.

Best.



Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5918
  • Likes Given: 5257
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1244 on: 10/02/2014 11:53 AM »
...
At one time I was ready to unsheathe my gnuplot and make a few scatterplots of reported thrusts versus sidereal time to see if there is correlation that could indicate a coupling of device with a flow or a particular local (at least solar system wide) frame of reference. I don't know of any attempt at doing that, that may be completely off topic in the views of the leading theories of Woodward, White et al, but since those theories are far from verification other mechanisms than thought may be at play (assuming a real effect). Asked here and there if such sidereal time was ever taken into account, appears no, or no one knows (or I missed an answer on that ?)
Well, probably it would be a negative, but that could be the kind of small third party hobbyist level lateral investigation that could stand a little chance of helping the topic... In this particular case, I complain timestamped experimental data in readable format are either not publicly available or very hard to find. If any-one knows something like a list of a dozen (preferably 100s) of timestamped on/off thrust sessions results. I can't believe dr White (anomalous thrust...) did only 5 or 6 30s sessions, said "ok we got a signal" and switched to another device ... Even at hobbyist level of funding, we would expect more logged and published data points from this kind of experiments.

If anyone points me to such collected rich enough dataset I would be delighted to test my little hypothesis.

I am not aware of anyone taking into account sidereal time.  I would very much appreciate if you could take the time to plot the reported thrusts versus sidereal time [if possible with the data at hand] to see if there is correlation that could indicate a coupling of the devices with a flow or a particular known frame of reference.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 11:55 AM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5918
  • Likes Given: 5257
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1245 on: 10/02/2014 12:03 PM »
Quote
Rumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper!  That's quite a reaction!
 
Yes it is, that is good news and may make some of my previous remarks partly irrelevant.

It is not a rumor. It is not news.    It is not a reaction following a "a little conference paper". 

It doesn't make any of your previous remarks irrelevant.

Actually the information was already in that same conference paper itself, and this was Eagleworks plan of action

p. 21 of "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum"

<<The current plan is to support an IV&V test campaign at the Glenn Research Center (GRC) using their low thrust torsion pendulum followed by a repeat campaign at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using their low thrust torsion pendulum. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has also expressed an interest in performing a Cavendish Balance style test with the IV&V shipset.>>

A number of people have discussed this previously in this thread.  Information has been provided in this thread to support that the highest priority should be to test at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory because they are the only ones (of those mentioned) that are proposing to use a Cavendish Balance style test, as Brito, Marini and Galian used to nullify the tested "MLT" type of thruster and Brito et.al.'s reference to Woodward's theory, and as the classical experiments on gravitation (inverse square law) and Casimir force were conducted.   
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 12:34 PM by Rodal »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1246 on: 10/02/2014 01:04 PM »
...mai ti ho promesso...

Bummin'.  Was lookin' forward to it.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1247 on: 10/02/2014 01:05 PM »


John C. Mather

Please don't tell me the "C" stands for "Cotton".
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1248 on: 10/02/2014 01:05 PM »
Si je ne trouve pas que ce fait vous me devez un ours.

Ex-squeeze me?

Quote
It might be silly to try to contribute to more than a decade of work before diving in all every single publication.

Seriously, tho, I disagree with this. 

Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory.  It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.

"Asked here and there if such sidereal time was ever taken into account", and asked there and here if other dimensional info and related specifications could be shared, you find again and again, no response.  I bumped the other thread, so that the interested parties could see, in part, that this sort of approach has been going on for years.  The approach being one of not answering questions, and one of pointing to other publications as if to imply that those other pubs would reveal all of the pertinent theory. 

They don't.

Quote
If anyone points me to such collected rich enough dataset I would be delighted to test my little hypothesis.

You're a better hobbyist than I am, Gunga Din.  But I can read a chart, and it would be interesting to see your results charted with the data at hand.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • United States
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1249 on: 10/02/2014 02:04 PM »
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory.  It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.

I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information. On the contrary, those of us who have read the book, believe it contains answers and context that we have seen asked on this thread. In addition for those that are trying to get up to speed on everything that has been done both theoretically and experimentally up to 2012 then this book is in my mind the best way to do that. Jim does a very very good job of including references to all the published papers that he uses to support his arguments along with references to all the GR equations he uses to get to his derivation. He also includes references to all the papers he has published experimental results in. And to top it off it gives you a peak into the mind of the person leading this charge for the last 14+ years.

So I say again it is not the only source of TRUE information but it is the BEST source of COMPLETE information. Anyone who still wants to honestly critique Jim's work after pouring over Jim's book is still welcome to do so. Something tells me critics will still have issues they feel need to be raised after reading it.

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1250 on: 10/02/2014 02:17 PM »
Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5918
  • Likes Given: 5257
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1251 on: 10/02/2014 02:24 PM »
Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.
Excellent way to state it.   You worded it better than I did.
Has this been addressed with equations in some book or some paper?
If anybody can answer this fine.  If it cannot be answered that's fine too, I'm just interested in what are the possible causes of the NASA "anomalous thrust" experiments.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 02:37 PM by Rodal »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1252 on: 10/02/2014 02:43 PM »
I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.

Frustrated as I am about the debate, I end up not wording my comments at carefully as I should.  I did say "probably the only source of info".  But still, allow me to rephrase:

Quote from: JF
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory.  It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.

I include a scan of pages 33-35 of Woodward's "Stargate" book, claiming fair use for educational purposes.

I have relied upon a friend of mine with far better grounding in the math and GR theory, for his opinion that these few pages are not a complete derivation of the operating principles of the device.

Break it down to my level, ok?

Algebraic and undergrad calculus.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5918
  • Likes Given: 5257
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1253 on: 10/02/2014 02:45 PM »
I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.

Frustrated as I am about the debate, I end up not wording my comments at carefully as I should.  I did say "probably the only source of info".  But still, allow me to rephrase:

Quote from: JF
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory.  It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.

I include a scan of pages 33-35 of Woodward's "Stargate" book, claiming fair use for educational purposes.

I have relied upon a friend of mine with far better grounding in the math and GR theory, for his opinion that these few pages are not a complete derivation of the operating principles of the device.

Break it down to my level, ok?

Algebraic and undergrad calculus.

Thank you for posting these pages, but I don't see new equations in these particular pages that did not appear in previous papers.   Please don't answer that there are new words.  This is not meant as a criticism for writers using words, I used lots of words here too. When there are equations, I prefer to just go with equations -that's my personal viewpoint. If I am missing some new equation, I would appreciate it being pointed out. Thank you.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 03:01 PM by Rodal »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1362
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1254 on: 10/02/2014 03:35 PM »
As you probably realize, if the sources of the "external" accelerating force are taken into account, the second term still vanishes.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5918
  • Likes Given: 5257
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1255 on: 10/02/2014 03:40 PM »
As you probably realize, if the sources of the "external" accelerating force are taken into account, the second term still vanishes.
Agreed.  Of interest, in the paper that is used as a reference for those equations, Sciama himself pointed out that:.

Top of p.38, in "ON THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA", D. W. Sciama (Received 1952 August 20), Royal Astronomical Society, No. 1, 1953

<<Since the change of rho with time is very small, the gravelectric part of the field is approximately >>

The derivation of the field equation containing A) the second derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density") and B) the square of the first derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density"),

* is not in these pages attached by John. John could you also attach those pages? Thanks
* is not in any of Sciama's paper, to my knowledge.  It is the derivation, justification and final result  (of the 2nd Derivative with respect to time of  Eo ("the local proper energy density") ) that is at stake. 

Sciama lived until December 19, 1999

Did Sciama write a paper agreeing with or commenting on placing significance on the above mentioned terms A and B, that transient fluctuations in the local proper energy density could be used for (A) propellant-less propulsion and (B) wormhole stabilization ?  Did Sciama agree that local conservation of momentum could thus be moot (using A)?

« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 06:42 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1256 on: 10/02/2014 03:43 PM »
Quote
The experimental setup is not the trouble.  Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on.

That makes no sensible sense to me. In this context this would be an application driven research ? So the trouble is the experimental setup. Why should they care about theories ? If the effect is hinting at being anything like it says it is, then pour the money and hire the third party experimentalists to do an all or nothing confirmation of any real effect at all. Even if all it takes is a mW thruster mounted on an atomic force microscope cantilever to get a few pN of thrust, just to see it's real. Then make phenomenological model. Then build better/bigger devices and see if it fits such or such ground breaking theory.
Even if the fact to pursue a higher thrust might contribute to show this is not a real effect and therefore allow for a progress, my point is that putting the focus on that is not the best way to assert the reality of any effect at all.
Again, the "this is impossible" hypothesis appears not well accommodated by the strategy.
I think we're talking past each other because you're not familiar with what I've been relating, which is Woodward's work.  I have little interest in the work at Eagle because I know the QVF hypothesis is wrong.  The Eagle work interests me in as much as it may be stumbling across M-E evidence, but this would be by mistake.  For example, it works only with a  dielectric and during switching transients which bear enough in common with an AC signal they can produce decent thrust.  But the DC signal doesn't do this.

Keep in mind the contrast here.  Woodward's scheme does not violate conservation.  There's nothing "new" in his work, nor any contradictions with conventional science.  In fact, while explaining his work, he very ably answered questions about the classical and semi-classical electron models we've had for decades, and as I said, he deserves a Nobel for this alone.  I'm not suggesting you skip ahead, but chapter 7 is a nail-biter.

In any event, I agree the "this is impossible" kinds of statements are unhelpful.  And the statement that QVF violates conservation is not really true.  That's a distraction fallacy intended to be later explained away as one becomes aware of what QVF is proposing.  However what is not a distraction is that QVF violates Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP).  In that scheme, the virtual proton/electron pairs cannot gravitate or they would have collapsed the universe, and yet they mediate momentum transfer.  This means they have to have different values for their gravitational and inertial masses, which violates EEP and all of GR.  QVF is therefore not true.

Woodward's work has done the opposite of deny what we know about life the universe and everything.  He has added to what we know by explaining how the surface of the electron can spin at 100c.  This is an amazing accomplishment since before Woodward's work, that seemed like a violation of GR, and as it turns out, it is required by GR.

As to your frustration in general, I feel your pain.  I would just point out however, that frustration does not justify failure to do due diligence.  As I explained earlier, the experimental setup does not lend itself to the kinds of simplification you're requiring.  You therefore need to invest the time to look at how the setup actually works, rather than stipulate it ought to work how you'd like.  The self-contained setup is NOT the best setup for the work Woodward has been doing to date.  Along these same lines I'd note to you, that you justify the work of others who did not provide vacuum, and appear to presume Woodward did not provide vacuum.  This is not true.  All of the spurious sources one can imagine have been dealt with one by one on Woodward's balance, including thermal, ion, Dean Drive effects, displacement effect, etc.  All of this is in the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223

Quote
Time permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.
If it isn't enjoyable I'll owe you a beer, or a scotch or whatever, but not a bear.  Bear's are expensive and ill-mannered.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 05:23 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1257 on: 10/02/2014 04:03 PM »
Quote from: JohnFornaro
It has been asserted and supported that the spurious signals associated with the experimental apparatus are a flaw in the experimental procedure which should be accommodated.
By whom has this been asserted?  Not by Dennis.  Please precise your statements so we can tell if they're true.  Who made this claim about which setup?

Quote
Attempts to calculate the magnitude of some kinds of the spurious forces depend upon dimensional data of the apparatus, data which has been deliberately kept under wraps.
You must be speaking of the Eagle work.  This is certainly not true of Woodward's work.  he put it in his book, publishes it every year and handed over the raw data to NASA.  He hasn't kept anything under wraps.  Who are you speaking of?

Quote
Analysis of the theory itself has suggested substantial flaws, with several attempts to propose more and more esoteric phenomena instead of the mass fluctuations which are the foundation of Woodward's theory.
This is just factually incorrect.  There's no truth to this statement at all, John.  Are you just making this stuff up?
 
Quote
In fact, some posters have suggested that the experiment will be sufficient proof of the anomalous thrusts, regardless of the correctness of the theory.
More weasel word's John.  What posters, where?  Who is making these charges?  Stop pretending to make complaints by pretending to represent others.  Either you have a specific complaint to make or you don't.  Do you or don't you?  This is most irresponsible language, John.
 
Quote
Many posters here have provided the caveat of how they don't have the time to understand and critique the theory, but go on to assert, without support, the soundness of the theory, or to propose yet another far fetched special effect of physics in support of the theory.
I think it's entirely likely there is not a single person in this forum with the skills to understand Woodward's theory.  This doesn't mean we're not entitled to make our best judgement of the evidence we can digest and stand by that judgement.  This is what taking responsibility is all about.  You on the other hand seem contented to make veiled insults and comments about comments with no support nor evidence.   Lets see the substance for these unfounded claims, John.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 04:44 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1258 on: 10/02/2014 04:18 PM »
Quote from: JohnFornaro
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory.  It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
You're deliberately mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my word's, John.  I have repeatedly noted you can read Woodward's papers.  They're all available for free online.  The book constantly references the papers, but it is not usually the primary source--the peer reviewed papers are.  Still, the book gathers the work of 20 years into a single place, adds more detail than can be had in papers be they peer reviewed or conference, and is written for engineers rather than physicists.  Most of the people in this forum are not conversant in General Relativity, including you, John; so in general, you'll find the book a better source since it is written for people in your skill set.


Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1259 on: 10/02/2014 05:15 PM »
I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.

Frustrated as I am about the debate, I end up not wording my comments at carefully as I should.  I did say "probably the only source of info".  But still, allow me to rephrase:

Quote from: JF
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory.  It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.

You're deliberately mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my word's, John.

I'm not using your words, and please don't argue the past.  I corrected my sloppy grammar.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 05:16 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: