Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaps
You need to understand the fundamentals of the issue. This is not merely an engineering challenge. Our current understanding of physics makes it clear that this subject is as close to being a pipedream as anything else we know of.
Our current understanding of physics involved has been thoroughly tested and not found wanting.
|
I understand the fundamental issues far better than you know. Our current understanding of physics is just that...current. Who's to say what our understanding will be in 100, 200 or 1000 years. Neither you or I know what our level of understanding of physics (or anything else for that matter) will be in the medium to long term future. The only thing we can know is that it will be different and more advanced (unless something drastic happens to us).
Our current understanding of the physics involved has only been tested to within the theoretical limits of our current understanding. It has hardly been thoroughly tested because we are not smart enough to have thoroughly tested it. Thorough testing will only come with time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaps
You do not understand maths. The numbers are what the numbers must be. Artificially manipulating the numbers in an attempt to get the result you want is not only intellectually dishonest but doomed to failure.
|
Exactly, and that is equally applicable in any case, whether it be for or against the possibility of something occurring. It's as I said....you can make the maths say or mean whatever you want. You may come up with the number "#2", but it's what that #2 means in the context of your interpretation that makes all the difference.
The number is neither honest or dishonest.