Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah
There are four authors on that paper Jay, you're wrong on that one.
Irrelevant. What you tout as "our best physics" is still a minority opinion.
|
Inflation, SuperString, Mbrane theories are all minority opinions?
Quote:
I'm disappointed in your easy dismissal of JBIS; it's a longstanding journal of astronautics with an apparently credible reputation...
The points I raised come from their own website: JBIS characterizes itself as forward-looking, and peer review is optional. I am fairly reporting their own self-characterization.
|
I didn't see where peer review is optional.
How do we find out if this paper wasn't peer reviewed?
Also,
"It is on the science citation index and is one of the highest rated astronautics journals in the world."
Is this not so?
Does such a journal publish optionally reviewed papers with egregious lack of scientific basis?
Quote:
I'm still unconvinced there are no physics/astrophysics underlying what we know of the universe...
Irrelevant. I told you from the very beginning what I would accept as "physics," and neither you nor your authors are able to provide it. Kindly stop repeating the same claims and either support your argument or concede it.
|
I'll concede that apparently scientists, physicists, astrophysicists have varying degrees of what they perceive to be physics. My "reality is" was quite wrong.
Quote:
You're right though, sufficiently advanced tech would be indistinguishable from magic and all we have is speculation as to how ETi might get here.
A subtle twist on my rebuttal. You and your authors simply beg the question that space aliens would have invented whatever anonymous technology would be required to bridge interstellar distances. That is a serious science foul.
|
Theoretically, at only 10% the speed of light it is feasible to reach the nearest stars in 40-50yrs with plasuible technology, no?
I don't think assuming sufficiently advanced tech being "magic" is a serious science foul.