ImplicitDemands

Yes because we're killing petty white collar criminals like Nixon accused of literally nothing tangible. If you drive to fast on the wrong side of the road Biden will have you, MSC, kilt.

The answer to the thread title is "Yes". But for the wrong reasons. It needn't be this way, if I'd had a companion... As it stands, you wouldn't see me mentioning or applying anything I've ever learned. Here or anywhere else. There are other things I can do for the bare necessities and I'm one of the few who can go mute and carry muteness till the bitter end. The coming months will test that statement.

Stating it works prior to calculation defeats the purpose. Duh, yet I say that the calculation should be funded simply upon the basis of novelty. Said purpose that these lasers have new elements to them. The renormalization of energy states does not reduce the number of electrons available, unlike atoms after fission, fusion, or the misunderstood annihilation. This means, that the more times you can raise an electrons energy freely (from reflection), the more energy you can produce overall. The idea is that reflection is, in fact, infinitesimal subatomic annihilation events. My designs can use this singular feature of quantum effects known as the photo electric effect, to do all of this. What is the asymmetric advantage over other people (corps, communities and countries) actually worth, certainly more than writing off anyone that sounds like the fat of the land (other posters here) with their claims. Especially if in the past, OUTSIDE this one thread Swansont, they show some different quality or higher accuracy of intell (non-googleable acumen). How many of these other members were 65% into their BS program while fighting a drawn-out tri-state legal battle? That was written shortly after the full-time semester with a side of said BS legal battle where I had an A in Applied Calc, I have sort of credentials. Regardless of potential, we are already have results. You'd write off quantum mechanics interpretations because that isn't my field, but if my name was William Sidis many would take outside.of.specialty claims seriously but my IQ wasn't measured with as much publicity as some Korean psychologist in a third world country. You don't know, either, but if as I've intuited your job is to find one gem in all the crap on this forum - start looking at posters more seriously than the typical "nutter" lingo! Look, I get it Swansont. I know how this jazz about annihilation or whatever sounds like this member who suddenly starting tying his crap into magnetic polarity But at least I know how I sound right now. Keep in mind this annihilation crap actually began months ago as the result of something I didn't intuit, an arithmetic result, expressed here. Doesn't have to with the aforementioned electron excitation, throwing in there something questionable with something else questionable makes me look ridiculous! So I'm just reaffirming what you said, my MAIN POINT is that I need someone for dictation. Unless you believe I'm not exceptional. Which would make you question why you're negging the crap out of everything yet secretly looking at some of what I've provided overall. Reaffirming why I need someone I can trust, to relay everything, not in a blurred image.

First of all. I know I take the risk of sounding like just another newbie here using these conjectures. I know but let's just tell you what's what. I'm not unsure, this isn't subject to change as I have in the past. I have the layout of my understanding of the world. This conjecture hasn't been handled without delicacy even though the words you're about to see would certainly make you believe so. The last part of this conjecture was stumbled upon with MATH and not an intentionally or "intuited" inference like the (x+1)^2 being how Isaac Newton postulated the power rule of integral and differential calc (which is a correct inference but the right answer for any stance on the Copenhagen Interpretation should be decidedly non-intuitive; which it was, keep in mind the last part is about reactionless propulsion without inertial drag as opposed to fusion). Oh, I understand having calculations, measurements, and statistical probability of being within plausibility range for the blueprinted specifications and design parameters. First of all, it's been said in this thread, "Oh, I hear such claims all the time". This is not that. If I'm "soapboxing", this is not "soapboxing", there is no ability to use your usual run-of-the-mill lingo with me, sir. No "moved to trash-bin", shouldn't be in speculations, no-blocking, banning from a falsely perceived rule-break. Because I am no run-of-the-mill member. I have what sites like these are scanned for by their administration, I am an autodidact. This isn't a "word-salad" this isn't a "pet theory". At the heart of it all, is renormalizing from higher energy states in the electron and reflection. Energy can be gaining indefinitely because of the simple photoelectric effect and it can be completely put to work immediately, with a fraction of a fraction of this gain escaping a system. To even make it to ascertain the resources for experimentation you'd need substantial convincing, all that I've listed in the first sentence of the post. Before any of that I'd have to lay everything I know out there and just doing that is difficult enough. I need someone I could, in-person, dictate all these on-paper visuals into actual schematics. You know, someone I could slowly explain to so I can start working toward substantial information. I don't think you understand how important this is. This isn't just universal computerized automation and sustained fusion until there's no material left to fuse. This is magnetic compression of the plasma until the proverbial ST fabric indentation grows deeper and narrower at the same rate it takes to stretch the ST curtain mid-vessel to equal or surpass 1G with some enormous number of reflections going on rear-craft to negate said rebounding G-fields in the vessels wake as it rises over the ground. To explain that last part, if you're talking about particle pair production, you have light hitting a particle and light coming back out of it. Well what if when that light hits it turns off a G-field. Light is released, that's reflection. But at the same time light hits that same G-field from a different angle, light that did the same thing to another G-field in a particle moments earlier. They are linked events to the object looking at those dots in the interference pattern. What if you could turn off a G-field, this sphere, that shares the exact same center with another separate G-field that is the artifact of fusion that had occurred in the same place moments earlier? Before we'd continue I'd need assurance that "you" have some authoritative and financial leeway. Of course

Okay so that math is all metrics and thermodynamics. The metrics change from watts, jules, etc etc the list goes on. The energy initial energy released from the first fusion cycle depends on the elements being fused, I was thinking simply using a vat of hydrogen plasma. This tells you the energy levels the lasers need to meet to cause fusion. So those three sources of charge from the fusion need to match that level of energy needed to continue it. So I should be able to approach that all by myself. There's of course a lot more I need to mention but I have the right idea of how to approach these types of calculations. There are all kinds of other facets to the full picture though that require some additional maths. It has to do with the practical design for the operating system that is integrated into the practical design for a fusion reactor as well as having to do with any calculations needed to maintain the reactor's automated systems.

The basis for the computer programming language that interprets inputs to perform the necessary automations for controlling a fusion reaction is the same for anything else in the thread title of the second quote, that's what universal means. They aren't trigonometric functions, I found it easier to use one of the related rates differential methods (the one used to find the angle a camera needs to adjust to follow a rocket on takeoff) to align a ray of light with the cartesian coordinates of fiber optic cables using an em induction motor that controls light refraction, and some combinatorics to find the various outcomes of any given initial on/off states. As for the theoretical absorption potential of a fusion event; other than photovoltaics and the photoionization I keep bringing up (which is more for a complex reintegration of that energy than for higher returns), most of the energy for the second fusion event comes from an exciton-catalyzed buildup that has nothing to do with the energy released from the initial fusion event itself and in fact is essential in creating it as well. There's thought experiments and not all thought experiments are created equal. When backed by a good memory it is the capacity for vivid picturization that separates the intuitive from the nonintuitive. The less intuitive you are the more you have to fall back on the rest of the process, and that's where a scientist can get stuck. You can't go anywhere in the method if your thought experiments are the equivalent of writer's block.

I have a rough-draft schematic of a robotic operation that can help harness the energy released from a fusion event and turn it electricity to do more mechanical work while turning some of that electricity back into energy for the lasers. A lot of it has to do with the properties of the materials. Of course you don't want to cover the entire perimeter of the nuclear pulse or else the device won't turn out any energy to power other devices so I did better than simple photovoltaics although it does still use those that is just one of three ways the energy from fusion is harnessed and put back in to attempt to cause more fusion. Luckily you need less energy after it starts because one fusion event has already heated the plasma.

You use the word "malfunction". Can we prove that someone, like the manufacturer, or the inspector, or those in charge of training the pilots, didn't do there job? Malfunctions are common in computer programs. I was originally in software CS before I switched to an electronic and mechanical major and the reason was most computer programs are limited to their hardware, and even the hardware depends upon the engineering makeup so I figured I could try and understand how code becomes a whole mechanical/robotic movement among everything else. I have some ideas on this, a universal blueprint that can be used for any app, robotic command, or input you can think of.

Person problem, or technical problem? I don't think anyone in this thread has the expertise to answer that.

No I'm saying the technology itself is reverse engineered and misunderstood. There's no-one to train anyone if no-one really knows computers. I've heard it was a computer program, not a terrorist group. "Zeitgeist addendum" was where I heard that.

I don't think we really understand some of the technology we have in our possession. And we get mistakes like this.

The richest people can be miserable. Bill Gates still has to wait in line. Anyway this can sort of become a tangent, I'm just going to drop this for now.

Rules and regulations, or lack there of or just in general non-specific rules and regulations that go for everyone. When any individual has unique needs/wants.

So you're saying that laws passed due to census votes has nothing to do with the disgruntlement of a nuclear physicist who can increase energy throughput from fusion? Let's look at the importance of a country, or any type of organization/group for that matter, that has sustained fusion. Every other nation, or group, has less energy available to them. This goes for anything, if I have a faster aircraft, if I have a longer range of communication, and one person was responsible for that why not make exceptions?