J.C.MacSwell

He wasn't a child (20 at the time), but thanks for the advice. I should have been listening to him.

I can still remember assuring my son Hilary would win mid election night...so I'll take that as a compliment.

How to lose the next election 101... You're running against Trump. Is it really that hard?

Hopefully this is near the bottom for the Democrats, they learn from this, and start to focus on the winning the next election by focusing (Yang like, if you'll forgive me for that) on trying to solve the very issues that brought Trump to power rather than effectively supporting him in a manner that the GOP can only dream of.

...but getting to be less and less of an exaggeration as we go...will be understatement very soon...

With an equal but opposite force on what...exactly...during this "carrying"?

Sorry. I wasn't at all clear. By "they" I was referring to the ones that pushed for Mueller being questioned and forced to testify in person. (which I think is reasonable, given the extent, depth, and expense of his Special Council)

So they already know stuff that is publicly available, believe it is impeachable, but are not comfortable to impeach until it gets better advertising?

I'm not. Best of luck.

I said it could be considered as part of the craft/system. Do you see the advantage of being able to do that?

The advantage you have is that you could still consider it part of the system/craft. In so doing you can readily tell that you should not get the result that you seem to expect. As the physics is the same either way...the result cannot be any different... Compare this to picking a reference frame. Regardless of which one you pick you should get the same result...some are simply more convenient and allow things to be more clear.

I will give you an example: If say, I tell you I have a system inside a black box, and I tell you I can get more energy out from it than I put in on a continuous basis, with no loss of energy to the system over time, you should be able to tell me that is impossible based on the known laws of physics. You don't need to know how it is designed, or what is going on inside the box. You could dismiss it out of hand, and no one here would dispute your claim that my design will not work. Without some major change in the laws of physics it simply will not work.

The anticipated results should be based on the proper application of theory. You seem to be suggesting that you would expect a result that contradicts theory. Conservation of momentum must hold, and no thought experiment or design can change that...to overturn it you need a real experiment... ...yet you don't seem to want to overturn it, just ignore it so your design can work...that is a bad expectation for your design. Conservation of momentum tells you you have made an error. You don't need to fully understand your design to discount it...you are expecting a result that is not consistent with the physics you are using to design it. For it to work the physics has to be wrong and your design based on that physics has to be wrong as well. What are the odds of that?

Having to tack: A sailboat gets it's windward momentum from the water. The solar sail gets it's sunward momentum from gravity. I'm pretty sure a solar sail would climb away from sun on one tack by increasing orbital speed, or fall toward the Sun by decreasing orbital speed on the other tack. Both require extra distance but each should be all on one tack.

Concave I would expect from experience with similar kites. Wouldn't it effect the shape detrimentally otherwise? Is there a possibility 10 is on the upper side, but the 8s underneath?

That is equivalent to claiming no force is required. If unbalanced forces are already present, it's already accelerating.

Sorry Mordred. That simply is not true. Unless by "correct amount" you mean anything greater than none at all. There is no minimum requirement.

How about 1% of revenues? Harder to hide market share than profits and multi-National Corporations pretty much control where their profits show up...to the lowest bidder in terms of taxes.

Pulling on my bootstraps...can't seem to pull with 240# of force...so still on the ground...

Thanks. Looking forward to the trip!

If you can prove any "magic", it is then called science. So the answer is no, until proven otherwise...and then no again.

I guess it's too late for me to join in?

Name change to Edsel Corsair...

Wow...so you're saying they've done it more than once? Now I'll read the OP and the article...

Any collusion between the French and Russians?