perk

oh, i deleted a part of a sentence when restructuring without replacing it appropriatly, it should have read: "as every writing that is supposed to convey an argument" and regarding the size of the paper: that depends on its purpose, there are fields of study where it is hugely relevant to put your work in the proper context (bigger percentage of content in section 1 and less in 4) or other fields where the context is clear but your experimental setup/control takes up 80% of the paper

the rules are generally the same as every writing: construct your argument: 1.1. outline what you are interested in (your thesis), 1.2. why you are interested in that question (applications/unanswered questions/conjectures) 1.3. how it was handled by others so far (relevant results) 2. what questions do you want to answer, and how 3. detail the methods of inquiry 4. apply the methods of inquiry 5. present results 6. conclude by tying your results back to your initial questions and motivations.

Thanks, i didn't know that, but looking at Eq. 19 its quite obviously the way you describe http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0009013v1.pdf

Well i just read a paper discussing the "necessity" of expansion or contraction, and it is possible to have no expansion of the volume elements, when the radial expansion (behind the bubble) is cancelled out by angular contractions (at the same point behind the bubble).. but in the general family of those solutions you still need regions that violate the strong energy condition to get the appropriate radial expansion http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110086v3.pdf

I agree with most of what you write, especially that there is a difference between "cold" fusion in general and beating conservation laws. I am not sure about a sublight warpdrive without exotic matter. The tenant of every warp solution is a region of relative expansion and relative contraction, (such that the bubble moves, no matter how fast), there you get from einsteins field equations a stress energy tensor for the expanding region that violates the strong energy condition, i.e. requires "exotic matter". Can you clarify how that is on the table?

I tried to build a large craft, and KSP continues to trouble the process.... :/ currently it has 1280 parts, craft file available here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4n3886jp1t451fg/torus_unselectable.craft?dl=0 as you can see in the video i cant select, click or modify any parts in the upper ring. this problem persisted through restarting KSP and loading the craft from the file posted above.

sorry, i should have clarified that my comment only refered to the fusing of "ordinary" atoms not fusing of muonic atoms

that depends on your understanding of "cold", overcoming the coloumb-barrier without putting as much energy into the fusing particles to do it sure breaks physics...

But what if we count the sheep backward, that surely must produce at least some bananas we can use for our pet project space travel? ....

You seem to have no amount of perspective. Your argument that there are unanswered questions, does nothing to invalidate what we already know. Nothing about your wishful thinking will suddenly change a century of observations. Maybe you really deply hold the believe that newtonian mechanics is total and utter crap and wrong to the core, and every prediction of a ball rolling down an incline made from newtonian mechanics must be wrong, because we have quantum field theory and general relativity now. And of course in such a world where newtonian answers suddenly dont work anymore for the phenomena it was designed to explain, it is also possible that this new super duper wishful thinking QMVPEM-Cannae drive physics makes all particle accelerator experiments invalid in the sense that we know not even the weigth ratio of protons and electrons anymore........ Good luck in your solipsistic universe.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

You dont seem to understand what happens when such a worldline (that timetravels) exists. You dont create that worldline by "timetraveling", in our background that looks pretty much like FLRW there needs to be a topological artifact that you encounter on your worldline that sort of "loops" you back. As soon as you enter the past lightcone of your worldline you can perturb your worldline to create a CTC, but not every timetravel is a CTC. The "technique" used is the topological artifact, something that differs from the smooth, homogenous and isotropic FLRW, by quite a large amount. (Wormhole)

for an eve player a bit on the light side of displayed ui content

they cost so much toner when i print out my internet to read it....

May i ask where you read that, so that we can find out how you missunderstood it? CTCs are not a method of time travel, they are a result. When you have a worldline, that fullfills the criteria for "time travel". i.e. it intersects its own past lightcone, then there is a pertubation of that worldline to a CTC... the technicalities are of course more involved, when you for instance enter the past lightcone but stay on the lightlike boundary you only get an almost closed timelike curve etc...

This question makes no sense and is not related to any physical quantity. The object is represented by its worldline, the tangential vector to that worldline is its velocity. The change of that velocity vector field along the worldline is governed by its acceleration vectorfield. The difference of 2 velocity vectors from two different tangentspaces at two different events on the worldline has no meaning.

Please don't insult your readership with this silly eggdance. This is factually false at the "require linearity" point. Building your whole "guesswork" on a utterly wrong understanding of GR will never lead you to any actual physics but instead science fiction, fantasy or woo.

This reads like cargo cult science.

the generator hausing is much more robust, but as you can see in the window the cooling-cover of the generator was damaged in the same way as the container was

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGG936qQaBA

my usual fix for launchpad problems is to copy the file to the SPH and launch it from the runway, that one can support much bigger craft

pg01202 can you elaborate? are you discussing any particular causality problem stemming from incorporating quantum field theory into gravity, or are you just throwing around words in the hopes something sticks?

then they would miss the launchwindow and had to wait 40 years for the next minimum energy grand tour?

He is not talking about time dialation effect of relativistic velocity as far as i understand his writing, he is talking about a lense thirring effect, of a rotating mass.. the problem is he needs to create at least an apparent horizon for that to work and then we are squarely back in "wormhole to an earlier space time event"-territory

Thats so dark, that i can not make out very much

Ok i will do that, when i have time, i can upload a screenshot now that shows the problem magnified: when you move the assembly inside the VAB to the outer edge of the VAB (so that it is mostly outside to the direction of the launchpad) even more stability enhancers get missplaced: http://imgur.com/a/bBAAE and the second picture shows what happens if you launch that craft from the runway, everything stays smooth and doesnt get missplaced