Re: Cheap Shots,

From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2000 - 20:06:33 MDT

At 11:53 AM 8/06/00 -0400, Mike Lorrey belatedly wrote:

>> I'm prepared to take
>> Eliezer's case far more seriously than, say, any of us (I assume) take the
>> Lorrey Drive, because its goal does not fly in the face of what we know to
>> be true

>a) How many times in your life has 'what we know to be true' been tossed
out the
>window?

As far as I can recall, never (at the level of fundamental conservation
laws we're apparently talking here). Oh, maybe CP violation. Relativity and
QT were already up and running when I was a kid, if only just. :)

>b) Considering that Prof. John Cramer of the U of W has stated that such a
>device would work if the working mass were circulating at relativistic
>velocities (an opinion that Sasha Chislenko also held)

Hmm. Sorry, Mike, I don't know how to evaluate this statement, since I
never learned in any detail, or even any generality, how your Drive is
meant to function - aside from its apparent resemblance to a Dean Drive.
(As I dimly recall, a request for details could not be met in the absence
of complicated non-disclosure documentation sent by mail, which I declined
to provide on the grounds that life is too short.) Could you post some more
details now?

Damien

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:04 MDT