# David P. Paras , spacewarpdynamics.

How do we know this isn't just center of axis drift inherent in the laser itself?

In the Cavendish experiment, why didn't the warp drive array move?

How do we know this isn't just center of axis drift inherent in the laser itself?

In the Cavendish experiment, why didn't the warp drive array move?

The laser only moves once the device is activated. Once the device is turned off it goes back to its original position. The laser is attached directly to the drive and reflected off a single mirror. There is no drift inherent to the system, unless you are talking about something less than millimeters which is beyond our current measurements. We also calibrate the using weights directly above the drive which is suspended with a spring.

If you are talking about rotation around the center axis where the spring is located on the drive, that is taken care of by the power cables that we use which are pretty much rigid once shaped. They are attached directly to the motor and hold it level, which we also check, with a level. There has been no observed rotation around either axis of the motor with our current set-up. Hope that answers your question, it is definitely a good thing to make more apparent in future experiments!

In the Cavendish experiment the drive is fixed in its location so that it can't move.

The laser only moves once the device is activated. Once the device is turned off it goes back to its original position. The laser is attached directly to the drive and reflected off a single mirror. There is no drift inherent to the system, unless you are talking about something less than millimeters which is beyond our current measurements. We also calibrate the using weights directly above the drive which is suspended with a spring.

If you are talking about rotation around the center axis where the spring is located on the drive, that is taken care of by the power cables that we use which are pretty much rigid once shaped. They are attached directly to the motor and hold it level, which we also check, with a level. There has been no observed rotation around either axis of the motor with our current set-up. Hope that answers your question, it is definitely a good thing to make more apparent in future experiments!

In the Cavendish experiment the drive is fixed in its location so that it can't move.
And yet no announcements or recognition by scientist of this wonderful discovery. All we see are YouTube videos and advocates on forums. Why do you think that is? I think it is because it is not true and YouTube videos is as far as this will go.

And yet no announcements or recognition by scientist of this wonderful discovery. All we see are YouTube videos and advocates on forums. Why do you think that is? I think it is because it is not true and YouTube videos is as far as this will go.

as stated before, its good to be skeptical and there is no problem in having that opinion. Nothing new there. As for why only once source for good information, it's because its a new technology and even though it is built on well known physics not too many people are multidisciplinary when it comes to advanced physics. They can tell you how one part may work or not work, but that doesn't explain the whole system, therefore they can't comment on it without the obvious concern of looking like a fool. Same reason I suspect why people are quick to disbelieve the project. There is no harm in being skeptical compared to believing in something that is fake. The team is not asking anything from people and it is self funded. A good paper and other sources will be a good next step, just takes lots of time. These things aren't done overnight like many seem to think.

as stated before, its good to be skeptical and there is no problem in having that opinion. Nothing new there. As for why only once source for good information, it's because its a new technology and even though it is built on well known physics not too many people are multidisciplinary when it comes to advanced physics. They can tell you how one part may work or not work, but that doesn't explain the whole system, therefore they can't comment on it without the obvious concern of looking like a fool. Same reason I suspect why people are quick to disbelieve the project. There is no harm in being skeptical compared to believing in something that is fake. The team is not asking anything from people and it is self funded. A good paper and other sources will be a good next step, just takes lots of time. These things aren't done overnight like many seem to think.
I think a more logical explanation is that it is just more of the typical bullshit seen on YouTube.

I think a more logical explanation is that it is just more of the typical bullshit seen on YouTube.

more logical you say? lol

more logical you say?
Absolutely!

A discovery of the magnitude would have scientist all over it like white on rice. It is about as believable as the 'garden gnome attacks' videos on youtube. Quite entertaining and well done but not real.

Absolutely!

A discovery of the magnitude would have scientist all over it like white on rice. It is about as believable as the 'garden gnome attacks' videos on youtube. Quite entertaining and well done but not real.

Should check out logical fallacies, this thread has very little logic anywhere in it lol. Logic is awesome though , these are most of them that I see on here.

-Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case)
-Jumping to conclusions – the act of taking decisions without having enough information to be sure they are right.
-Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity
-Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."
-False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none
-Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
-Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

But nobody is perfect and this is just a forum, can't expect too much from people. We can all learn from some good logic though!

Last edited:
Should check out logical fallacies, this thread has very little logic anywhere in it lol. Logic is awesome though , these are most of them that I see on here.

-Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case)
-Jumping to conclusions – the act of taking decisions without having enough information to be sure they are right.
-Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity
-Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – "I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false."
-False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none
-Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
-Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

But nobody is perfect and this is just a forum, can't expect too much from people. We can all learn from some good logic though!
I still think that this is just a typical youtube hoax.

I still think that this is just a typical youtube hoax.

Thinking is good, but belief doesn't get us too far.