David Pares and Space Warp Dynamics

spacecase0

earth human
I certainly hope so. Because this could be the key to a gravitational field propulsion technology that theoretical physicists have sought for decades, to no avail.
this group already figured it out
spacewarp
and with current technology
it is why I quit my research
but now years later they appear to have gone quiet
my point is that people figure this out all the time
the big trick seems to be to get information before it goes "black"
 
this group already figured it out
spacewarp
and with current technology
it is why I quit my research
but now years later they appear to have gone quiet
my point is that people figure this out all the time
the big trick seems to be to get information before it goes "black"
I think that the chances that he's build a warp field propulsion device in his garage are similar to the odds that I'm Lord Kimbot from the planet Arcturus 4.
 

spacecase0

earth human
I don't want to talk about David Pares' unproven and theoretically unfounded claims in this thread - but I think that the chances that he's build a warp field propulsion device in his garage are similar to the odds that I'm Lord Kimbot from the planet Arcturus 4.
been debating a reply to this for a few days,
now you say you don't want to talk about David Pares, (so I kind of want to honor that and not reply)
but then go on to insult him...
now if you don't think the results of his tests are worth anything or are a fraud, I can see that point of view,
so, why not at least give us a hint as to why you think that ?
from my point of view, someone may have just stumbled on a better version of NASA's "impossible drive"
the fact that NASA called it impossible shows how stuck they are in old physics ideas.
they even verified that it works...
later decided that this verification means nothing...
the narrow view of reality really makes me wonder what goals they have
so,
I ask you,
why did you discount David Pares in the way that you did ?
 
been debating a reply to this for a few days,
now you say you don't want to talk about David Pares, (so I kind of want to honor that and not reply)
but then go on to insult him...
now if you don't think the results of his tests are worth anything or are a fraud, I can see that point of view,
so, why not at least give us a hint as to why you think that ?
from my point of view, someone may have just stumbled on a better version of NASA's "impossible drive"
the fact that NASA called it impossible shows how stuck they are in old physics ideas.
they even verified that it works...
later decided that this verification means nothing...
the narrow view of reality really makes me wonder what goals they have
so,
I ask you,
why did you discount David Pares in the way that you did ?
Because I've been studying gravitational physics for nearly 40 years and I see no way to produce any kind of propulsive gravitational field effect with a funny-looking radio antenna. It requires very specific conditions in the stress-energy tensor to produce this very unique propulsive effect, and there's no indication that he's met any of those conditions. So what he's done is an unrelated effect, and almost certainly some kind of experimental error (which is a very common mistake among amateur experimentalists) - I hope he's found something significant, but if he has, it has nothing to do with gravitation. I also looked at his paper, and it reads like crackpot physics to me. And the origin of his research is one weird account about the Bermuda Triangle.
 
Last edited:

spacecase0

earth human
Because I've been studying gravitational physics for nearly 40 years and I see no way to produce any kind of propulsive gravitational field effect with a funny-looking radio antenna. It requires very specific conditions in the stress-energy tensor to produce this very unique propulsive effect, and there's no indication that he's met any of those conditions. So what's he's done is an unrelated effect, and almost certainly some kind of experimental error (which is a very common mistake among amateur experimentalists) - I hope he's found something significant, but if he has, it has nothing to do with gravitation. I also looked at his paper, and it reads like crackpot physics to me. And the origin of his research is one weird account about the Bermuda Triangle.
my original point was that people figure this sort of thing out all the time
it is just a matter of if the ideas are crushed or not.

David Pares clearly has the physics wrong,
his theory is not logically consistent no matter what world view you have
but there is a clear path for how what he built might work,
what if a moving electrostatic field makes a magnetic field (that part is proven quite well)
and that magnetic field generated is not connected physically to what made it like an electromagnet is (I have seen this, but not "proven" in science)
this would show how the David Pares device works as well as the NASA impossibility drive works
so far every person I have pointed this out to ignores this possibility
not just that, it is often ignored with venom
makes me wonder why this idea has so much emotional content
so I went about testing that idea,
but all my high voltage power supplies have failed...
working on a new one, but it will take me time

as to experimental error, I may have done one today, it is quite common, especially with people that have no idea what they are doing, I have magnets stuck under my table that I forgot about...
it is why you reproduce your own work before asking others to do so,
but when someone is on the 5th generation of a technology,
they have likely reproduced what they did somewhere in the range of 5 times
and at that point, seems like it is time to test what they did and not just set them aside

any thoughts on all that ?
 
my original point was that people figure this sort of thing out all the time
No, they don't. To the best of my knowledge, not a single experiment in the public sector has ever succeeded in producing any detectable type of gravitational field in the lab (or garage, living room, whatever). It's very easy to make claims, which is why they're meaningless. Credible experimental data is an entirely different matter - nobody's provided that to prove their claims of generating a technological gravitational field effect.

You have this wild idea that gravity is easy to create with an experiment, but there's zero credible empirical data to support that position, and in fact, the gravitational equation illustrates why it's such a difficult effect to produce - the Einstein coupling constant. That factor shows us why huge magnitudes of mass-energy-stress-pressure-momentum are required to produce a measurable gravitational field effect.

In the academic literature I've seen exactly one viable proposal for detecting an extremely weak artificial gravitational field in the lab, and it requires two mammoth superconductors and a very finely tuned resonant laser interferometer. As far as I know, nobody's been willing to fund it yet, but that's the most likely approach to detecting a man-made gravitational field for the first time in the public sector.

David Pares clearly has the physics wrong
Well that's a huge problem, don't you think? If the physics is wrong, then the claims are also probably wrong. You just don't fall out of bed one morning and stumble upon the world's first viable warp drive. You have to know what you're doing. And if the physical theory is wrong, then you clearly don't know what you're doing.

I actually love experimentalists of all kinds - including David Pares. It's great to try new things to see what happens. But the most brilliant theoretical minds have been trying to crack the problem of a low-power warp drive for many decades, and they've come up with bupkis so far. So the chances that David Pares has stumbled upon it while trying to model a wormhole that somebody reported over the Bermuda Triangle, are beyond astronomically minute.

but there is a clear path for how what he built might work,
what if a moving electrostatic field makes a magnetic field (that part is proven quite well)
and that magnetic field generated is not connected physically to what made it like an electromagnet is (I have seen this, but not "proven" in science)
When light propagates through spacetime, the electric and magnetic fields are not connected physically to the source. So that is proven science. But if you think that we can make a static magnetic field free of a source, then I'd like to see some credible experimental data before taking any such claims seriously, because it strikes me as physically nonsensical. The field interpretation appears to be a convenient notation for the transmission of forces between interacting bodies of matter - nothing more.

this would show how the David Pares device works as well as the NASA impossibility drive works
By that you must mean "not at all," because the EM Drive also appears to be experimental error.

it is why you reproduce your own work before asking others to do so,
but when someone is on the 5th generation of a technology,
they have likely reproduced what they did somewhere in the range of 5 times
and at that point, seems like it is time to test what they did and not just set them aside
No, the number of generations is meaningless. A lone experimenter like Pares is likely misinterpreting a known effect for an unknown effect, or simply making the same error in each iteration of his fractal antenna thingy.

There's no way to know without a thorough and rigorous examination of his set-up and his test results.

I remember looking at his initial work, years ago, and seeing several possible effects that could be tilting his device a little bit, which he seemed to be completely unaware of because he hadn't safeguarded against them with his set-up. Thermal effects and ion wind effects are very tricky to eliminate, for example. Power couplings leak, producing moving air. Power lines heat up and deform, producing force. Lenz law interactions with nearby conductors produce forces. Cooling fans create air circulation when turned on. Etc etc etc.

Conducting a rigorous scientific experiment is extremely difficult. It's easy for very sincere people working with little knowledge of rigorous experimental procedure to *think* they've found an effect, when in reality they're just being fooled by their own confirmation bias. Sometimes even an entire team, or teams, of highly experienced professionals fail to identify the cause of an experimental error - if you recall the widely hyped claims of a superluminal signal along fiber-optic cables in Europe a few years ago, you'll see what I mean.

That's why every amateur experimentalist who has ever claimed to produce an anomalous gravitational field effect with a few bucks and a give 'em hell attitude, has been wrong.

I hope they'll keep trying, but I wish they'd refrain from promoting extravagant claims about making the greatest discovery in scientific history, until somebody actually replicates their effect independently in a professional lab with trained scientists performing the replication. Because that's how science works.
 
Last edited:

spacecase0

earth human
ok, I see your point of view now
thank you for taking the time to reply in detail
and I agree on most of the points.
 

Luke Morem

Intrepid Journey
my original point was that people figure this sort of thing out all the time
it is just a matter of if the ideas are crushed or not.

David Pares clearly has the physics wrong,
his theory is not logically consistent no matter what world view you have
but there is a clear path for how what he built might work,
what if a moving electrostatic field makes a magnetic field (that part is proven quite well)
and that magnetic field generated is not connected physically to what made it like an electromagnet is (I have seen this, but not "proven" in science)
this would show how the David Pares device works as well as the NASA impossibility drive works
so far every person I have pointed this out to ignores this possibility
not just that, it is often ignored with venom
makes me wonder why this idea has so much emotional content
so I went about testing that idea,
but all my high voltage power supplies have failed...
working on a new one, but it will take me time

as to experimental error, I may have done one today, it is quite common, especially with people that have no idea what they are doing, I have magnets stuck under my table that I forgot about...
it is why you reproduce your own work before asking others to do so,
but when someone is on the 5th generation of a technology,
they have likely reproduced what they did somewhere in the range of 5 times
and at that point, seems like it is time to test what they did and not just set them aside

any thoughts on all that ?
my original point was that people figure this sort of thing out all the time
it is just a matter of if the ideas are crushed or not.

David Pares clearly has the physics wrong,
his theory is not logically consistent no matter what world view you have
but there is a clear path for how what he built might work,
what if a moving electrostatic field makes a magnetic field (that part is proven quite well)
and that magnetic field generated is not connected physically to what made it like an electromagnet is (I have seen this, but not "proven" in science)
this would show how the David Pares device works as well as the NASA impossibility drive works
so far every person I have pointed this out to ignores this possibility
not just that, it is often ignored with venom
makes me wonder why this idea has so much emotional content
so I went about testing that idea,
but all my high voltage power supplies have failed...
working on a new one, but it will take me time

as to experimental error, I may have done one today, it is quite common, especially with people that have no idea what they are doing, I have magnets stuck under my table that I forgot about...
it is why you reproduce your own work before asking others to do so,
but when someone is on the 5th generation of a technology,
they have likely reproduced what they did somewhere in the range of 5 times
and at that point, seems like it is time to test what they did and not just set them aside

any thoughts on all that ?

You have been designing and replicating the same experiment he has?
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I have done the same as well but have gotten no further than the Faraday cage.

Hello and Welcome to AE!...q37

I'm building my own faraday cage, haven't started the project yet but I have almost all the materials needed...

...
 

spacecase0

earth human
I guess I have a radio license, I transmit all the time,
and I know where to transmit s that no one cares... so,
I figured that I don't really need a faraday cage for the tests.
 
Top