David P. Paras , spacewarpdynamics.

exchemist said:
OK so Engineering and Geography then.

I was not aware of this work. I cannot find any references to Space Warp Dynamics or David Paras on a quick web search. Can you direct me to something I can read, about the critical reception of this observation of a laser red shift? I presume there is a paper and some discussion or something.
Click to expand...

It should be first thing that comes up when you search for ''David Pares'' or ''Space Warp Dynamics'' in US using google. There is a website that I just linked to the paper that is free to access. What we are looking for is some critique on it and we have sent it to quite a few people. Most of it is outside of people's fields of knowledge to comment on and that is about all they say. But the red shifting is commented on as impressive to most physicists that have gotten back to us.

Here is the same link again to the website, just click the image and the paper should open in a new tab.
http://www.spacewarpdynamicsllc.com/the-artificial-inducement-of-a-loca

As for discussion I cant seem to find anyone who is too interested in a critical review of this project. This is one of the few places that people seem to be interested, open-minded, but it also has some good critical thinkers. Most people online I find either flat out believe it or flat out deny it. It would be nice to see some constructive criticism or some leads as to who would be good to contact.
 
kfinley said:
It should be first thing that comes up when you search for ''David Pares'' or ''Space Warp Dynamics'' in US using google. There is a website that I just linked to the paper that is free to access. What we are looking for is some critique on it and we have sent it to quite a few people. Most of it is outside of people's fields of knowledge to comment on and that is about all they say. But the red shifting is commented on as impressive to most physicists that have gotten back to us.

Here is the same link again to the website, just click the image and the paper should open in a new tab.
http://www.spacewarpdynamicsllc.com/the-artificial-inducement-of-a-loca

As for discussion I cant seem to find anyone who is too interested in a critical review of this project. This is one of the few places that people seem to be interested, open-minded, but it also has some good critical thinkers. Most people online I find either flat out believe it or flat out deny it. It would be nice to see some constructive criticism or some leads as to who would be good to contact.
Click to expand...
Thanks. However I'm afraid it is telling me it will download a pdf file, which I am not going to do from an unknown source.

And that is all there is, huh? Nothing from any independent source?

The link you provided before, in post 57, did not work (404 error).
 
exchemist said:
The link you provided before, in post 57, did not work (404 error).
Click to expand...
Just knock the terminal "]" off the end and it works.
I got partway into it and gave up.
Any (supposedly) scientific paper that includes the paragraphs "Pilot reports over the last 70 years indicate that while flying through thunderstorms, a linear displacement from 100 to 300 miles has been reported. After researching several cases the result
indicated that pilots experienced a linear displacement in terrestrial space (MacGregor & Gernon, 2005, 2017) and (Pares,2010, 2017)" was obviously written by someone severely lacking critical faculties.
It's a topic tailor-made for River (i.e. Oooh, Bermuda Triangle! Spooky!) but there's not a cat in hell's chance I could take it seriously.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Just knock the terminal "]" off the end and it works.
I got partway into it and gave up.
Any (supposedly) scientific paper that includes the paragraphs "Pilot reports over the last 70 years indicate that while flying through thunderstorms, a linear displacement from 100 to 300 miles has been reported. After researching several cases the result
indicated that pilots experienced a linear displacement in terrestrial space (MacGregor & Gernon, 2005, 2017) and (Pares,2010, 2017)" was obviously written by someone severely lacking critical faculties.
It's a topic tailor-made for River (i.e. Oooh, Bermuda Triangle! Spooky!) but there's not a cat in hell's chance I could take it seriously.
Click to expand...
Aha. So a real nutjob. I can't say I'm wholly surprised. Right up River and MR's street, then.
 
exchemist said:
Thanks, but I think Dywyddyr has meanwhile already done the necessary due diligence on this, to enable us to dismiss it.
Click to expand...

Dismissing it based on background information? Made it to page 5 out of 27 is pretty good. Sounds like no one investigated the actual experiments and where they went wrong. This is good information about where people stand, but I would like to hear from anyone with some critical feedback on the experiments. For those who dismiss the project from the onset there's not much I can do to change your minds and I don't want to waste people's time. If anyone is actually interested though I can try to work out any problems with the information. I can try to post the paper in a non-pdf format or fix links. *Sorry for being a forum nub*

I will try to link the paper once more as a .pdf to the wix website. Last time I just pasted it, this time I used the hyperlink tool.
The Artificial Inducement of a Local Space Warp Bubble Using a VEM Drive.pdf

and there is the Facebook page too, but that is mostly for updates, not too much additional information can be found there.
SWD Facebook

Lastly, what independent source could we find that would read the paper and publish their thoughts on it? This topic is pretty far out there for most people to take seriously as we can see most people don't even want to look at it on this forum. It's has been on the Omaha World Herald's and Reddit's front page, but that just as a news story with no one examining the details. These I'm sure don't count as an independent source.
 
el es said:
@ kfinley:

How does your test differ from this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White–Juday_warp-field_interferometer#Interferometer_experiment_with_an_EmDrive
Click to expand...

They are using a modified Shire Motor, we are using two tripole arrays. Ours drive simulates a field similar to a thunderstorm and creates a pulling force. The Shire Motor creates a thrusting force. The experiments are both similar in that they use lasers and electromagnetic fields, but the drives are of different designs. Ours was also measured with a frequency meter, I'm not sure what they used in their experiment. Lasers would be different frequencies, but that wouldn't change any results seen. All the details are in our paper. I have only read a bit about what they did because it came out after we published our tests and seemed similar. But being different designs there isn't too much in common with what they did and what we did. It seems they could not account for external interference disrupting their results. Our results were great enough to rule out external interference. Those are the main differences. I hope that answers your question!
 
Unfortunately, experiments can be expensive. Such tests in a hard vacuum may show a null result.
Have you checked the displacement using a blue laser?
 
el es said:
Unfortunately, experiments can be expensive. Such tests in a hard vacuum may show a null result.
Have you checked the displacement using a blue laser?
Click to expand...

We used a frequency meter to measure the red shift. I don't believe using a different laser would prove anything different from what we recorded with a red laser. You are right on with the running of experiments though. We pick and choose them carefully. All of the equipment is expensive and it takes a great deal of time to set anything up so that we can rule out any external factors. As for the vacuum testing, we believe that if it works in an atmosphere it would work better in a vacuum based on what we have seen so far in the experiments. While it would be a great experiment to do it would also be very time consuming and expensive to set it all up. At this moment we are more than happy with the force we can create in an atmosphere and our goal will be just to increase that efficiency to the point of liftoff, because that is the only thing that will be indisputable. There's a million experiments we can do other than liftoff but they won't really impress anyone out there that we have not impressed already. I hope that makes sense.
 
kfinley said:
Dismissing it based on background information? .
Click to expand...

Anyone who writes in a supposedly scientific paper that aeroplanes have been laterally displaced by between 100-300 miles when flying in thunderstorms is someone one need not take seriously. Is it really supposed that, if such an effect were real, it would not have been front page news and investigated very seriously by the bodies concerned with aircraft safety? Is there evidence that this has happened? Or is it just another silly "Bermuda Triangle" type story, for gullible idiots?

It may be only "background information", but the choice to include this astonishing claim tells the reader a lot about the writer's approach to physical phenomena. I am not going to read 27 pages by someone who makes claims like that, unless there is a lot of independent support for them. Which I very much doubt there is.
 
exchemist said:
Anyone who writes in a supposedly scientific paper that aeroplanes have been laterally displaced by between 100-300 miles when flying in thunderstorms is someone one need not take seriously. Is it really supposed that, if such an effect were real, it would not have been front page news and investigated very seriously by the bodies concerned with aircraft safety? Is there evidence that this has happened? Or is it just another silly "Bermuda Triangle" type story, for gullible idiots?

It may be only "background information", but the choice to include this astonishing claim tells the reader a lot about the writer's approach to physical phenomena. I am not going to read 27 pages by someone who makes claims like that, unless there is a lot of independent support for them. Which I very much doubt there is.
Click to expand...

You definitely don't need to waste your time reading the paper or doing additional research on this case. Your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

For anyone who's interested, Bruce Gernon's flight case in the Bermuda triangle has actually been very well documented which is the main reason it is included in the research. There are archive records of sun spots, solar winds, and weather reports for his case. His actual, physical navigation charts have been keep, along with his fuel receipts. He was located at one spot in the Bimini area on radar, after a 15 sec radar sweep they picked him up by Miami Beach around 100 miles away. There was radio communication between multiple people in the aircraft and at the airports tower. All this adds up to an interesting case, one that David Pares refers to only because there is physical proof that it happened.

But to look into it you have to do research which is why most people don't bother and just dismiss it as a Bermuda Triangle case. It's one of the few cases that is different.
 
Last edited:
kfinley said:
You definitely don't need to waste your time reading the paper or doing additional research on this case. Your time is probably better spent elsewhere.

For anyone who's interested, Bruce Gernon's flight case in the Bermuda triangle has actually been very well documented which is the main reason it is included in the research. There are archive records of sun spots, solar winds, and weather reports for his case. His actual, physical navigation charts have been keep, along with his fuel receipts. He was located at one spot in the Bimini area on radar, after a 15 sec radar sweep they picked him up by Miami Beach around 100 miles away. There was radio communication between multiple people in the aircraft and at the airports tower. All this adds up to an interesting case, one that David Pares refers to only because there is physical proof that it happened.

But to look into it you have to do research which is why most people don't bother and just dismiss it as a Bermuda Triangle case. It's one of the few cases that is different.
Click to expand...
You mean this really was a Bermuda Triangle story? :D
 
exchemist said:
You mean this really was a Bermuda Triangle story? :D
Click to expand...

That is how it all got started, yes. Then there are a few books on the specific case or cases like his. Many of them say he did time travel or went through a wormhole or something crazy like that. Just having a weird unexplained case doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove Space Warp is a thing. That is why experiments have to be done to replicate the conditions and reproduce the effects. You can't do that for time travel or for creating a wormhole. There isn't anything that I know of that has been done using standardized physics to explain either or those.

Space Warp has been deemed possible for quite a while now in the physics community, it is just the amount of energy needed that has been debated. It used to be said that it would take more energy than the entire universe, but it was possible. Now even NASA has come down to the entire mass of Jupiter being converted to energy to bend space or the more recent approximation of the Voyager 1 Spacecraft (700kg) converted to energy. Still far outside our grasps, but it seems to keep dropping.

Now the case for David Pares VEM drive doesn't really rely on the Bruce Gernon case because it doesn't matter if it is true or not. The concept of Space Warp has been accepted by some of the best scientists in the world, but scientists opinions on theories doesn't prove or disprove anything either.

There are separate experiments that are repeatable, that show results, and that have not be disputed yet(from what I have seen online). You can discredit many things about the project, the background information, the team working on the project, the people who believe in the project, but it's the experiments that need to be looked at the most. There hasn't been anyone to point out a flaw in them yet. And if people don't want to waste time looking at it, that's alright. The project was made public so that those who want to look at it can look at it, or point out something that we missed, or suggest a direction for us to head in. We aren't perfect, but we plan to see the project through. Through all the nay saying and criticism we receive and that we will see in the future. There is a good number of people that don't want to look into this project, but for the few that do, we get some useful feedback and insights to move forward.

**That's too long of an answer to a simple question. I don't even know if it was worth typing up when I look back at it, sorry. lol
**I will just bold the yes
 
kfinley said:
That is how it all got started, yes. Then there are a few books on the specific case or cases like his. Many of them say he did time travel or went through a wormhole or something crazy like that. Just having a weird unexplained case doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove Space Warp is a thing. That is why experiments have to be done to replicate the conditions and reproduce the effects. You can't do that for time travel or for creating a wormhole. There isn't anything that I know of that has been done using standardized physics to explain either or those.

Space Warp has been deemed possible for quite a while now in the physics community, it is just the amount of energy needed that has been debated. It used to be said that it would take more energy than the entire universe, but it was possible. Now even NASA has come down to the entire mass of Jupiter being converted to energy to bend space or the more recent approximation of the Voyager 1 Spacecraft (700kg) converted to energy. Still far outside our grasps, but it seems to keep dropping.

Now the case for David Pares VEM drive doesn't really rely on the Bruce Gernon case because it doesn't matter if it is true or not. The concept of Space Warp has been accepted by some of the best scientists in the world, but scientists opinions on theories doesn't prove or disprove anything either.

There are separate experiments that are repeatable, that show results, and that have not be disputed yet(from what I have seen online). You can discredit many things about the project, the background information, the team working on the project, the people who believe in the project, but it's the experiments that need to be looked at the most. There hasn't been anyone to point out a flaw in them yet. And if people don't want to waste time looking at it, that's alright. The project was made public so that those who want to look at it can look at it, or point out something that we missed, or suggest a direction for us to head in. We aren't perfect, but we plan to see the project through. Through all the nay saying and criticism we receive and that we will see in the future. There is a good number of people that don't want to look into this project, but for the few that do, we get some useful feedback and insights to move forward.

**That's too long of an answer to a simple question. I don't even know if it was worth typing up when I look back at it, sorry. lol
**I will just bold the yes
Click to expand...
I'd have no faith in experiments done by someone who thinks like this. And nor will most serious people.
 
kfinley said:
That is why experiments have to be done to replicate the conditions and reproduce the effects.
Click to expand...
And THIS is why no one will take it seriously.
The first that should have been done would be to ascertain whether or not the supposed effect actually occurred, and, IF it did [1] then ask "What is the logical explanation?" before haring off into "replicating it".

1 Unlikely.
 
Dywyddyr said:
And THIS is why no one will take it seriously.
The first that should have been done would be to ascertain whether or not the supposed effect actually occurred, and, IF it did [1] then ask "What is the logical explanation?" before haring off into "replicating it".

1 Unlikely.
Click to expand...

Not sure at what you are getting at or what is not explained. Ascertain if the effect occurred, try to find logical explanation, then try to replicate it. That is the process.

Unlikely is trying to get people to look at something that they've already made their mind up about. :D But that is totally okay, I've been there for many fringe science topics. At at certain point its like, why are people still talking about this when its been explained away. People be believing the earth is flat or pyramids been built by aliens. We all have that line placed somewhere in our beliefs. If this is past the line then there not much headway can be made on the subject.

I am glad that there is at least some people who still find it worthy enough to comment on! :smile:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top