Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6313883" data-attributes="member: 13107">Hey, I'm all behind advancing our understanding of quantum mechanics and gravity.But the idea sounds on par with making a worm-hold out of a ring / rotating singularity.  There are maths that imply that something might work (but mostly have been shown that the result would be highly unstable and possibly emitting a huge quantity of radiation), and are not taken seriously as a kind of practical application of the physics.In the papers that I found (the links that I posted), the force that was achieved was minute, with some indication that alternate effects could account for it.  About on par with cold fusion producing tiny energy amounts, which have been attributed to errors in the experiment design.Then, there is a real theory, but no demonstration of it as of yet, and since the maths are still incomplete, very probably the physical theory is either incomplete or wrong, but in either case nothing yet to place any expectation of a practical result.Attaching a design and calling it "NASA's design for a spacecraft" gives the idea a reality which it doesn't have.  Attaching the idea to NASA and putting it in the front page (online) of the Washington Post really is promoting it too strongly.How many folks will have looked at the article and now think that NASA actually has plans to build the depicted spacecraft (or anything even close)?What hope have we to help folks cope with real issues (climate change/global warming; disease control; genetics; environmental hazards; and more) if this gets such a misleading presentation?Thx!TomB</blockquote>

Verification