Re: My new site

Michael Lorrey (
Fri, 29 Nov 1996 01:43:04 -0500

Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> > He did not show that there was not thrust produced, because he used the
> > wrong equation. The sticking point is the mechanism for putting energy
> > into the sytem that will not act as an opposite reaction to the
> > centrifugal force extracted as thrust. I have it, and thats my
> > secret....
> For the love of Pete, why can't you just bloody well say so on your Web
> page, instead of sending us off on a wild goose chase? Just note on
> your Web page:
> "The key to this mechanism is the method of accelerating and slowing the
> circling balls. If this was done by normal means, the total thrust
> would cancel out. I refuse to tell you how it works."
> Look, Mike, if you can impart forwards momentum to the balls without
> disturbing the rest of the system, what the hell's the cylinder for?
> Take the damn thing out and apply force to the balls directly, then let
> them bounce off a trampoline without this elaborate cylinder thing.
> What is all this? Camouflage? If you want to keep your drive a secret,
> SAY so, don't put up elaborate misleading Web pages designed to make
> every physicist within three light years call you a crackpot. Just
> say: "No, I won't tell you how it works." Mike, somewhere in your
> system there's got to be a module where you impart forwards momentum to
> something without imparting an equal and opposite backwards momentum.
> If you've got it, the Lorrey Drive is a success, if not, a failure. As
> far as I can tell, your page does not describe such a module. At best
> it describes an unnecessarily complex way of using the momentum produced
> by another module and falsely implies that this is relevant.
> No offense, here, but I've read a work on cranks and you're beginning to
> show some symptoms. You publish a device, I say the device has a flaw,
> you claim I used the wrong equation, and then when half the mailing list
> chimes in you claim that what you published is totally irrelevant and
> the secret lies elsewhere. This is NOT proper scientific procedure EVEN
> if you know what you're doing.
> I had the opportunity to become a mathematical crank, once. I thought
> I'd disproved Cantor's Diagonal Theorem by pointing out that the finite
> numbers could be placed into one-to-one correspondence with all subsets
> of the powers of two, and thought that the Theorem stated it was not
> possible. Then on one fateful day I actually applied the Theorem and
> realized I hadn't taken the possibility of infinite subsets into
> account, just the finite ones.
> At this point I realized I had two choices. One, I could decide that
> Cantor's Diagonal Theorem wasn't true *anyway*, spend the rest of my
> life saying so, plague math professors with poorly typed equations, and
> become a general mathematical crank. Two, I could admit I made a
> mistake and get on with my life. Guess which one I chose?
> Of course, I was, in fact, wrong. This has been known to happen to me.
> Perhaps it has happened to you. Perhaps it has not. Certainly I would
> not want the billionaire inventor of the famous Lorrey Drive to hold a
> personal grudge against me. On the other hand, I don't want to see a
> fellow human turn into a crackpot when I could have saved him.
> In accordance with the scientific method, I hereby propose that this
> debate be suspended until such time as Lorrey produces experimental
> evidence or six months have elapsed, whichever comes first. If at this
> time Lorrey is the possessor of a Nobel Prize or three, I shall
> apologize handsomely. On the other hand, if Lorrey Inc. *fails* to
> drive Boeing out of business, Michael Lorrey shall admit he was wrong
> and get on with his life.
> Is it a deal?
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
> everything I know.

Michael Lorrey --------------------------------------------------- President Northstar Technologies Agent Inventor of the Lorrey Drive --------------------------------------------------- Anything I say can and should be used against me.