kristalris

Well, indeed read up on current psychology and it won't be incomprehensible (maybe dependent on the instrument between the ears used.) Like Shakespeare already knew as common sense alswell: William Shakespeare > Quotes > Quotable Quote “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” ― William Shakespeare, As You Like It So are you a fool or wise? (as Shakespeare already grasped there are different sorts of fools. Wise fools who know what their instrument between the ears can and can't do for being then a fool, and those that think themselves on all issues wise. The latter are inherent fools. Are you wise on picture logic? Are you wise on number logic? Are you wise on verbal logic? ​What sort of logic required do you think on grasping what the OP is about?

Yes I read the article. And the question put towards you what sort of instrument between the ears you think you've used in order to ascertain what it means - according to current broadly held - scientific insights, I put to you: what sort of instrument between the ears do you think you are using? Any physicist who got his or her degree by doing experiments without taking into account all of the instruments used should have flunked any exam. Well, the instrument between the ears according to current broadly held scientific insights hold very different sorts of instruments between the ears, leading to different conclusions on what is thought to be observed on the same data.

Have you taken into account your instrument between the ears according to current scientific insights?

Bayesian inversion.

Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble Hubble had an instrument between the ears of a non authority driven composer textwriter. He could "google" for pictures in his brain i.e. the logic or picture mathematics intuitively, above par and text logic on the relation below par and checking numerative logic as a retard i.e. non existent. like Einstein, Bach types, Churchill, Mozart Hubble types as composers can/ could. His brain told him intuitively: he it's expanding! with very few dots he drew the line as a conclusion and provided the mathematics. Yet got it wrong he had earth older than the universe. Others with the instruments between the ears to do the intuitive number logic check spotted this, corrected it and showed what was to become Hubbles law. Yet as Hubble correctly maintained until his death: whatch out for the model in which no expansion exists. Bang goes the Champagne cork!

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html Now just include the forgotten instrument between the ears and bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_winter Well, if we can land on a 4 km comet we should be able to do so on a 5 km one. Yet I guess a 4 km one like this and according to this Wikipedia be it an asteroid or comet doesn't make a great difference when sizes like this are involved. Asteroids are seen by most as spent comets. And these will ruin a lot of peoples day on impact. So, this landing at least also shows it is feasible to get a technical device of sorts and land it on the comet and or asteroid. That at least then is a beginning of subsequently figuring out what to actually land on the thing in order to deflect it. See the links at the end of the page.

I'm impressed at this great feat of European cooperation. I wonder what this also means in view of the possibilities of in the future being able to divert these objects, and thus prevent them from hitting earth? For I guess one this size would constitute a wee problem when its remains hit Amsterdam?

And what fundamental principle could make this most probably happen other than a dynamic crystal of the Higgs field having unspun Higgs particles in spin as Gluons in strings? Neigh conclusive evidence for what most probably is happening.

Yes, yet I hope that that scenario doesn't present itself. yet one in which Brevik fundamentally changes his ways and can and will be forgiven or accepted at least by those who lost loved-ones. Probably neither will ensue unless we all fundamentally start to change ourselves.

"Justice" needs a definition. A question of right and wrong can be answered in several ways. Logically done it needs a goal. But that will only suffice for those people with the logic on the brain primarily on the stated goal. People with a logic primarily on authority driven brain (= 80% in an unsafe environment) will tend to follow what the current authority will deem just. So, in a primitive society of an eye for an eye society your death will be seen as just, and an act of God when you are run down by a car and thus just. Authority driven brains are inherently religious. All humans to a more or less degree have this trait BTW. People with a logic primarily on the relationship (= 10% unsafe) will not feel that nor people with the logic primarily on the ego (= 1%). Most western legal systems have different goals for the consequences for dealing with this question. It begins with the division was it dolus, culpa or accident that you killed my father? And which degree of dolus or culpa? After that we need to see to you personal accountability. Where you compos mentis? Did you have a bad youth? et ceterra? Then, after having established what we take as fact, must we see what the laws and treaties state as how to deal with these facts. If done via a correct procedure most will agree that justice has been done. On the more theoretical basis most penal systems have as goals: vengeance, special (you not doing it again) and general (example) prevention that it happens again and upholding order. Your death only in primitive societies will provide - seeming! - satisfaction to the direct victimizes who lost a loved one or to that society as a whole. Because IMO if you haven't as a victim found your balance in life after twenty years, it is your own problem. Vengeance as a reason to punish only goes so far. So that guy who killed a large group of people in Norway has IMO had a Just punishment (even though if I'm correct he gt thirty years.) After thirty years only then can you see how society and Brevik have changed and see if society is then willing and capable of accepting him as he then is. Judging that directly is IMO extremely arrogant and based on fear of the leaders. Fear is dangerous. It spreads easily. In Norway Brevik can and probably will be held for life. For a death penalty in peacetime would IMO require absolute proof that can't be had. In a situation of extreme crises such as war or after the second world war or say in Romania with Ceaușescu I think being against the death penalty is irrelevant. It happens and is sometimes essential. As killing in war is also. So, define your justice. I hope my reaction provides you food for thought. P

I fully agree with you. I was using irony. I'm strongly opposed to this use even of lie-detectors for they can be manipulated. Law is for people by people.

Based on current scientific insights taking the data of DSM V and the Big Five personality traits as a fact should be in reach in twenty to a hundred years. To reach this we need to find a way to avoid conflicts as much as possible. First of all you need to state a common goal that can in democracies get a majority: The stated collective goal should then be having a long as possible fruitful life the least infringing on others. So you may believe and do what you want such as believing in magic as long as no infringement takes place. No problem. For then this should be judged on basis of the laws of logic, laws of nature, scientific insights into nature all within the appropriate boundaries. This can only be done in a Parliamentary Democracy. The ensuing possible discussion should be split in a seemingly contradictory way. One way is to have people that want to participate in the discussion do so in a safe environment that is void of ego. Methods like Theory U come into play given the topic and a talented well trained host to guard the process. I'm thus willing to partake in such a venture and turn my ego off and only speak when asked and do so in a very soft manner. I'm convinced that a great majority will reach the following conclusion, and it could also be that I reach another conclusion in the process. As I have done via the following method that is also needed. The reason why the latter that conflicts with the above seemingly slow yet faster method is that not all leaders with great ego's will be prepared to follow above route or they will misbehave during the process in order to frustrate the method. The later method is a confrontational method in which I do use my ego in the process. Like I have done on this site acquiring a bad reputation and warning points to boot. Here I just state what should be done and point towards the above method for explanation. We need to state as an extra fundamental human right that a minimum wage M, a minimum basic income B and a maximum income I and a maximum personal wealth W on the basis of for western societies of a yet to establish formula of say: W = 50 I; I = 10 B; and B = 2 M. In the dutch context with M being € 12000,- W would be 12 million. This would give Greece within the Eurozone the possibility to devaluate and also keep if required a local economy protected via the minimum income that could be just digital and limited to local produce. (You don't always need to have to use that emergency brake). This will "automatically" lead to a normally distributed income as I predict. You get more millionaires yet you have no billionaires or a situation of 1% of the population having 90% of the wealth. The other thing that is needed is that every share should be - ultimately -on name of a human and digitally recorded during which period. Personal accountability for that period (which you can insure). The share holder has the say over the shares like normal. Investing in shares is thus the only quick way to become a millionaire. Of all taxes payed you have a 10% or so security build up in order to hold the income and wealth level if it for what ever reason drops. So pay a billion taxes gives both status and security. Monopolies aren't allowed at the moment anyway. You need to organize openness on the goal logic and openness with logic on the relationship as well as conscientiousness in the legal system. This can be measured by quick thinking irony and lateral thought. 10% of the most open-minded judges go in a new R&D for temporary advice in order to reach consensus. It will lead to copying this model all across society. In education, science and anywhere. Not having given R&D all the data by any MT is an infringement as is not having reached consensus. you get whacked by the judge and will behave on the stated norm. Ultimately very few court cases will occur. Like a naphtha process the degree of flaming will subside as will the risk of explosions. The system will balance out. Why? Find out for yourself in the theory U method. Or claim that you are a fast thinking person who has active command or irony and lateral thought and let yourself be tested. Indeed by me. See who has got the biggest. Childish? Indeed yet you need to corner the Putin's of the world. It will balance out in a way that ultimately maybe even in 20 years time we get a global community like the EU yet much better that work together in everything. no more atom bombs and only two police forces yin and yang keeping balance and checking that no ape builds bombs. The route however is not a pacifistic one: when some apes fly into Twin Towers that is a casus belli. Do as the Romans and we Dutch colonized the world. Get in hit hard win the conventional war asap and have prior to that a foreign legion under say NATO leadership and air power of locals doing what the democratically led people want without the problem of corruption. Taliban, ISIS whatever is whacked down easily. Tried and tested. That works. The band of brothers yet not having legionnaires work in their own tribal area transforms a clan culture into a nation on its way towards a global community without nations as such. Do we go to war with Putin then on the Ukraine? I hope not. It is inherently unstable of also our own doing. Nothing we do or don't do will guarantee success. Putin is a mental six year old both emotionally and in lateral thinking. Yet he is a quick thinking whopping logic on ego and whopping logic on authority. A psychopath as it used to be called. Only when the Russians become convinced via the success of R&D democracy will they see this and have him out of power with his dito cronies. Other than western countries => R&D: let them come up with solutions. It can be tested asap in Gaza. Not bombing the Palestinians with bombs but bombing them with a personal digital income of say $ 500,= a month for 1.5 million poor Palestinians. And apologize for keeping the wall up temporarily and make sure that all Palestinians are treated with respect. That will corner Hamas at a cost a fraction of the 54 billion spent on defense by Israel. The US can enforce this on Israel. Having BTW Israel also stop the settlers. I predict peace will break out in a few years and the Palestinian economy will generate enough to pay the own basic income. Israelis and Palestinians will live in peace. You need to expect however a desperate attack by Hamas. You predict this and hope on a self denying professy. Yet you will be dammed if you let thugs decide the agenda. In the current internet day and age this could work quickly and we would also get into balance with nature. Stop the overpopulation, and over-stressing of the system. New social norms and aspirations will ensue. In short: state a sufficiently held common goal and do KISS, KBO via a SSG.

Gulp lawyers as well? Well indeed if you want a legal system whereby the judge / jury is purely objective that can be had today. It would work a bit like the execution "photo booth" they had in the DDR or GDR German Democratic Republic. The person to be shot thought a photo would be taken smiled and was shot in the head. More human BTW than having to wait years on death row for an injection. You simply add a computer with a speech type and Google translate system. And you have a lie-detector test. You subsequently ask witnesses and suspects the computer generated questions on basis of input by the police (Robocop) and the law is digitally provided by the lawmaker. Well you either get acquitted or receive immediate verdict, for what could go wrong? Shot in the head to getting a fine or jail sentence. Very objective. lying witnesses as well of course have swift justice administered. Judges in the Netherlands are more and more acting like robots anyway, hence the confusion by some that it is best taken over by robots. All humans need a basic income all over the world anyway IMO and this is one of the extra reasons to do that asap.

Awe, You might also consider an intermediate position in which you have a predetermined begin state at any point in time and a subsequent near infinite amount of probabilistic scenario's are possible that are played out all the time. Impossible scenarios are thus not played out for obvious reasons. Then we don't have a beginning or end of time but a cyclic affair. Free will is then dependent upon the way you define it. If this is indeed reality we then observe Mother Nature shoot a bullet next too the bulls eye definition of free will most people use. I'd simply redefine it so as to portray where MN is seen to have shot. You then get a more legal way of defining free will, namely in a way that all actions are assumed to have been done of free will and thus someone being seen then as a sociobot can be held accountable for actions that provide a scenario that is probably infringing on reaching any stated goal of other sociobots. In this way a pareto optimum is possible for all sociobots in getting a best scenario. The negative scenarios the punishment by law for instance subsequently make that the sociobot chooses a different line of action resulting in a better scenario for all other sociobots. Thus it is wise for a sociobot to look out for cars when crossing the street in order not to have a possible or even likely scenario of being run over by a car. Yet a scenario where you are transported as a sociobot within one second from New York to Amsterdam is absolutely impossible.

I edited my post at 5:29 providing the point that the Higgs field is a stable and constant entity. That is what makes it different to other fields that have varying strengths through our visible universe. Only when a particle of matter (or part of it) starts to interact with the Higgs field does the Higgs mechanism start working. Here then a more dynamic and in part chaotic part of the mechanism starts off. That is then where what you call symmetry breaking problems arise. What will the Higgs do? Join the particle or fall back as a Higgs particle? In my model the Higgs particle is an extremely small un-split-able lump of un-compressable yet deform-able mass. On average acting as a perfect sphere due too the influence of the other lumps of mass especially the smaller same sort of lumps being the gravitons. Like hale is formed. When a string of six spinning Higgs particles being Gluons comes by, with six gluons spinning the other way, as a photon or as Sensei has moddeld you can build these two strings up to fit the entire SM, it bounces off the unspun Higgs particles. I.e. any stringed particle always waves in an extremely constant way. Especially so if we assume that such non spinning lumps acting on average as a perfect sphere will go to order of a dynamic crystal. I.e. having every Higgs particle remain in its own virtual box and always hitting the next Higgs particle when it gets to the virtual wall of the box. This can of course be simulated in a idealized computer simulation of say 1000 x 1000 x 1000 perfect mass less spheres in a virtual box with super conductive walls. Given the accuracy and room of a billiard table I predict it will go to the order of a dynamic crystal in the middle away of the walls. This is one of the tests. If it renders a result you get an immediate paradigm shift for then it proves that the second law of thermodynamics is not fundamental. It remains however even then a law yet within new boundaries. The Higgs field is then to be seen as a double dynamic crystal with the assumed graviton field because with only one field it is impossible to create the observed non Euclidian space we observe. Logic. So when an according to SM massive and thus slow particle comes along the gravitons that are unspun yet working on the basis of wanting to go to order causing disorder in the Higgsfield will spin a Higgs into a gluon that can join or not join the string. Any of the six gluons can hold trillions of extra spun Higgs particles. The mass rises in the string => momentum rises = Newton => acceleration = DE. We are all accelerating in a Champagne bubble scenario. Not a Big Bang but big squirts of a yet to form galaxy. (It also explains thus DM BTW) Photons curve and redshift holding c in the curve and curve in at twice the Newton value. They have mass, yet only created a bit of gravity when split or repaired and thus explain the OP. Break the surface tension caused by the two fields keeping the string together and you get magnetism. Having two strings rub against each other does this. Hit the two strings head on you get a matter anti matter collision. The double crystal works like a hologram and both particles are > c graviton faster than the Higgs. The rest is absolute nothing and a lot of that yet filled in a very short time frame with moving mass. There is much more on the model BTW. In very short this is an elegant and testable (in more ways that the one test I just gave BTW) concept, elegantly explaining the OP and also as stated earlier consistent with GR and QM. Taking out that that divides these two laws of physics: the mass-less particles. These are galloping unicorns that I can take out and replace with an other galloping unicorn in science as long as it is done in a testable way. Which I've done. Again GR & QM remain laws of physics within the boundary that holds them apart when taking photons for instance then to be mass less. So no as said earlier I provide a true paradigm shift. all earlier observations and laws remain intact. Yet it all becomes Newton again.

Not random speculation, yet based on what scientists explained as to the working thereof. As I understand it it is a field that is present everywhere where we can assume particles of the standard model can exist in our visible universe. When matter travels through it it is held a bit back and the Higgs field provides mass to that matter, to part of it anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism Assuming thus this Wikipedia page is correct. My model that was already given prior to the CERN find was consistent with that even before I knew of the Higgs mechanism. Why the Higgs, well it is the only field we have that is nearly everywhere, and constant not variable, now isn't it? Well then, given the correctness of the observation in the OP what would then be our prime suspect for investigation for a creative mind? Now try and think in an Occam's razor like adult way and make an educated guess like solving a crime scene like a scientist would do that if asked to do that quickly? That is of course come up with a guess covering all known observations by you in one integral elegant way. Be it verbally or mathematically. For all other fields don't provide this mass providing an elegant jump to gravity. ? I say mathematics and creativity are not the same. You say nonsense. So they are the same? A computer uses mathematics correctly if properly functional and programmed. You think a computer is thus creative?

Of course in the faze of getting the concept of the model tested mathematics is indispensable tool as in subsequently working the concept of a model to a integral mathematical model that has yet further testable hypothesis. Ultimately defined correctly in a fully mathematical model to be taken within assumed inherently un-testable boundaries as a law. Thing is if we take the OP as a fact, I can immediately point as to where to start looking and testing. You simply can't. So I'd be off the mark immediately. Because you are only interested in mathematics I haven't given the entire model as yet. And no it is not ad randomly strung together. It is logically and elegantly strung together. Science is the systematic i.e. logical affair. It is not in its deepest level thus a mathematical affair. Our brain simply doesn't work on mathematics. That is why. It works on intuition. Testable thoughts either spring or don't spring to mind on a problem. That is the creative faze you subsequently rigorously test with use of mathematics. Some are creative other less so and some are simply hardly creative even in the best of circumstances. And indeed as you also acknowledge it requires creativity. Mathematics and creativity are two different things. Finally get it? Further more the OP situation NASA team only has to show in a measurable way that more energy comes out than is put in. measurable only in the sense that they can say it is clearly more than the other without having to be exact. They do not have to show a theory. For then current science is already falsified. Just like observing an apple falling upwards with an unknown speed would falsify Newtons law on the subject. Proving and thus falsifying your position that it requires more than logical reasoning that you incorrectly always see as word salad. What you further more fail to acknowledge is that the verbal concept of the model was given by me prior to the OP find. Thus providing further evidence of being correct as long as NASA et al aren't proven wrong and all the more so when NASA is proven correct. Eh, and you gave an explanation on the working of the OP other than NASA being wrong? Must of missed that then. In which post was that?

Well Strange you are dodging the issue. So I'll bring the issue back to the OP question. Your only position make or break is thus that NASA et al have probably made a mistake. Now assume they haven't made a mistake, and I thus force you to take that as a fact. What then? Mathematics? Or proper use of the instrument between the ears based on all known observations taken as fact? Of course only those with a creative brain can hope to get anywhere with the latter. Mathematics won't help you solve that problem other than when extrapolation can solve the problem, which is simply not always the case. Especially not when it is clear (which was already clear from the start) that we are in need of a paradigm shift. Even in procedure because you need to get back to basics. Remains you don't have the foggiest if we take the OP as a fact and I do.

SM = standard model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse well in this Wikipedia I at least count more pro this than against this. Anyway a lot take it to be the best explanation. Why take the Higgs field? Well, that would be the most simple way to explain it all that is why. Occams razor. Most economical way in producing an integral and testable model. The latter does not need mathematics other than drawings sketches and basic verbal logic, nice analogies. You must scientifically look at the idea or concept for a model that is most elegant and integral. that is what should count besides its test-ability. And Strange you seem to miss a wee point here: if indeed the OP shows a black swan => current science goes bust not only in current way of explaining how this can be but also in correct procedure. Correct procedure excludes mathematics in this faze for the same reason as why we humans survived the past 100000 years as failed apes on a ape norm. We survived without mathematics for the greater part of it. Proper guesswork simply doesn't require mathematics, it requires lateral thought as openness on the goal combined with openness on the instrument between the ears in this specific question. I.e. lateral humour and irony before you get to the mathematics. It shows you where to start looking for answers. Yet people who fall short on those traits simply can't understand that. That too is part of current psychology as described by Kuhn. Anyway do you have even the foggiest as to how the OP can be explained? If you don't then you have nothing. And simply saying they must have made a mistake won't cut the chase either in proper science. Albeit I agree it could be that they indeed have made a mistake. Yet that would only show for my model that we still can't get a handle on the problem. Yet my model remains objectively testable and that is what counts besides observations. So it is logically and thus scientifically neigh infinitely superior to your nothing on the subject. I at least have something. And if you have something explaining the OP what is it then? And finally: can we repeatedly fire off a single photon in a entanglement experiment having every shot provide the same Alice and Bob result? Or, how can we measure that the photon is in exactly the same state when fired repeatedly?

Indeed, yet not having a theory and repeatedly observing apples and even citrons falling upwards doesn't make them fall down. The question is of course have the different groups that claim the observations made repeated mistakes? I.e. current science says all swans are white and they claim to have observed several black swans. Yet it could be they turned off the light and have mistaken a white swan for a black one. Akin the claim of cold nuclear fusion forgetting the adjunct mountain. As you correctly point out there are some issues that need clarification. To Sensei, Pantheory and Strange: The discussion on eather or field is IMO a non discussion. I think calling the Higgs field a field for it is local yet assumed even observed to be present everywhere where we can assume particles of the SM to exist in our visible universe, being the latter probably only a small part of the system of our universe in a probable multi-verse that most scientists as do I assume to exist.. To all: In my model as said there are two separate ways and a combined way that the OP observation can be explained. One is in effect that we measure DE in a micro way. This as such is highly improbable to be measurable in such an easy way for then we should of noticed this effect much sooner. I.e. the effect that all matter acts like a little black hole and speeds up in the Higgs field resulting in a Champagne bubble cosmology. The other effect is the Yin and Yang of two fields of gravitons and Higgs particles having one cause disorder in the other. This provides you with more bang for the buck, yet only of short duration. So the only way that this seen from my model can work is in the combination of the two. You start off a process by adding energy in a cone like structure that creates more chaos in one side and order in the other side of the cone. In the process of stabilizing the order a under pressure is formed outside the system exerting a force on that system. So far so good yet that should in it self stop when you stop adding energy. Yet in sufficient vacuum you get an extreme amount of order outside the cone. The light that is trapped in the cone will get repaired by the Higgs field as the way of least disorder in the system. This repairing of the light in the cone makes the effect of DE measurable. That a photon can be "repaired" is what we observe with entanglement. The photon is to be seen as two spiraling strings of six Gluons each: Alice and Bob. Interlocked and at straight horizontal and vertical angles when un-polarized and both in one axes when polarized. (Akin two key rings that interlock.) The crystal used in the test splits the un-polarized photon and helps create sufficient order to have the graviton field spin two times six higgs particles into gluons forming two strings: yet if one is horizontaly polarized of course the other is vertically polarized. You in effect split one photon that is repaired in a way forming two photons: one Alice if polarized vertically the other Bob will be polarized horizontally. Only when we can generate a photon in a way we can predict and control will we observe that it is deterministic at this level. Yet it is this principle of order and chaos and thus repair extracting the required energy out of the Higgs and Graviton fields that keeps the micro system going sufficiently to become measurable. This repairing is in effect gravity because it is extracted out of the field, causing an under pressure and hence the pressure of the field pushes the cone in that direction. The repair in this case contrary to entanglement doesn't generate new photons but keeps the existing ones alive so to speak. The cone shape is required to get the difference in pressure.No photons need escape. So seen this way you only need to start up the system and it will take off so to speak. Akin DE, yet not quite the same because it is the required repair of the photon that causes the under pressure and thus measurable force that exceeds the amount of energy put into the system at the start.

Of course they will, because that too is explained by me as the forgotten instrument between the ears. A Bayesian inversion is what I earn my living on as a lawyer. And the something from nothing magic of Krauss et all shows this. Basic psychology. Yet, given enough reasons to doubt will topple the case and warrant serious investigation of testable concepts provided by those jokers with lateral relative thought and humour like Einstein and those with logic on human emotion shown by ironic (Poe's law) Shakespeare in combination thus Churchill creative above par educated guesswork to provide above par probable testable guesses. Einstein is a better lateral guesser than Churchill who is better than Shakespeare at that. Yet Einstein types don't understand irony and thus the instrument between the ears as well as a Churchill type who will find his master in Shakespeare in that field. At the moment we probably don't need a superior relative lateral thinker like Einstein, for we have more relevant evidence the more so with the evidence of the OP. It probably gets more simple in stead of complicated and Newton is simple. And for common sense minds like the Churchill personality traits that combine the two forms of openness and thus doesn't excel in either, will probably solve the problem in a testable way. Even when not an as fast thinker as Churchill. Simple basic psychology. Oh and BTW my model leaves the conservation of energy and dito momentum intact, for that is Newton! I agree with that BTW. Yet, what I don't understand is how they even thought of a non working model in the first place? If an as I understand closed system exerts a forward momentum then the amount of observations to counter that are staggering. If I can accelerate my sailing boat in which I sit by blowing in my own sail, what sort of control do you expect? Having any kind of control doing then the same thing would prove that it then is possible to accelerate the system with those - observed - facts. I.e. you only need a control when the alternate is unclear. Here it isn't. It is like observing an apple falling upwards and having the control citron doing the same under certain conditions. You didn't need the citron in the first pace.

Exactly what I'm on about. BTW your aether is to be assumed in the most simple way to be the Higgs field providing a non-Euclidean space. Yet to get the curved space we observe and to comply to Newton you need another particle to provide the Euclidean space because Newton will not have curving space particles without a force exerting on it. The graviton that can cause spin 2 and spin a Higgs particle into a Gluon will fit the bill. A most economic way of providing a testable concept. Gravitation is thus simply an under-pressure as you say in the Higgs field or aether if you like. Like a flat earth is still the law when within say the boundaries of a city map, so too given the boundary between QM and GR you can take the photon (and other mass-less particles they require) to be laws within those boundaries. And like with city maps, don't apply the law of flat earth when crossing the Atlantic. Ergo, with a TOE you per definition don't have boundaries then take the mass less photon (and particles) out and replace with a massive, non gravity exerting always curving photon that holds c in the Higgs field (aether) by accelerating in the curve and that is effected by gravity of larger slower strings that act like little black holes. Causing under-pressure. The engine in the OP works then as you describe. It marries QM to Newton and Newton to GR. When you have a GR or QM problem reinstate the boundaries and your mass-less particles like you would the flat earth when making a city map. At least for the time being. Again: there are several ways to test this. This repeated observation again strengthens this concept and if the observations can't be shown to be incorrect, then it falsifies current scientific view (that was already falsified by the simple fact that GR can't be married to QM.) Again because the never observed => galloping unicorn of a mass-less something from nothing particle assumption (!) probably causes the problem with GR and QM. You replace this galloping unicorn with a testable other galloping unicorn then you can describe the impossible OP problem in a probable and testable way. And the only way to get an under-pressure is to have pressure in the system. Filling an infinite cosmos with moving un-split-able mass does that. Then the only way to get the seeming something from noting is to have strings collect mass by causing spin and thus a under-pressure in order to get a curved space. That only leaves the to much order, waves and (non-) interference of light etc. to be explained. (And that is easy as well BTW)

Forget "syntax error". I'll make it more simple for you then: either what the OP depicts that NASA has done is incorrect then you / i.e. current science obviously don't have a problem. If however these observations are indeed correct then current science has a major and fundamental problem to solve, even at an "having a clue or idea" level. Put even more simple on what I'm stating: in my model whether you jump up or down in a erratic way or not doesn't make one iota of difference to the total amount of energy in the cosmos. All mass is in that idea in perpetual motion. The only thing that can be altered is that different scenario's of movement can be played out. The OP observation - if indeed correct - then shows that it is possible to get a handle on this movement game at this deeper level. Providing us with a seeming perpetual mobile. I.e. a machine that provides more energy than is seen to be put in. It can not be explained in any other way than that it is a yin and yang of order and chaos. The working of the instrument between the ears also points to this as orderly thought needs to be canceled out by disorderly dreaming in the sleep. Loose to much sleep and you go psychotic or end up as a schizophrenic i.e. dream state and reality get mixed up. What the OP machine does is in effect make use of turning one sort of disorder into another i.e. a moving spaceship.

The syntax error is either with what I state or with what the OP states or in both. So you indeed have a syntax error in the sense that you are mistaken then. Logic. Because either you can disprove the claim in the OP (no one has done so as I'm lead to believe) and if you can't, then it is sound to take the observation as a hypothetical fact. I.e. given that it is correct how could that then possibly be? Well as I show you. Because if we take as a fact hat indeed no error has been made in the observation-s-(!) then to at least give you an idea how that then could be: simplex veri sigilum: it remains Newton if you accept that photons can accelerate of their own accord. Only seemingly does that infringe on Newton namely if you assume that it becomes un-wounded and is built up of the same stuff through which it is moving: i.e. the massive Higgs particles of that same field. Because then you can trade off unspun moving mass with spun moving mass having the energy levels involved remain the same. That would provide a sound Newton way to explain what is happening in the - repeatedly - observation of an engine seemingly breaking fundamental laws of physics. An observation is an observation. A repeated observation is a repeated observation. This is a repeated observation. So either they have repeatedly made some sort of an error or it is indeed something fundamental. Well at least I provide a clue as how that then could be: not scary because newton isn't scary. It all becomes good old common sense Newton. And testable as then this test provides evidence in support for that idea for otherwise you don't have a clue. Well I do.