Replies

With all due respect, why would I be familiar with very much of the NY Slimes on the scientific end? Certainly is to find out how the enemy thinks on a political basis, but in terms of other subjects they literally belch profound ignorance; once the pattern is established, it becomes a weariness to read. This rag has of course destroyed many people’s lives with their incessant mendacity and unpunished libel over the decades; it took them 49 years to “apologize” to Goddard (07/17/1969):

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17^th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error. …

By “on a reasonable scale”, I meant in the case of Buhler actually securing taxpayer money, i.e. like people such as Solyndra did. Private capital, if he can get it, would know the risks and the way to mitigate that is of course via as much knowledge as possible of the subject soliciting the money.

The NY Times episode of editorial bullying against Goddard is quite famous. Note that the Times appealed to scientific authority, as did Goddard. On the edge of scientific innovation, appeals to authority as a bludgeon against new ideas are quite common. As the great German physicist Max Planck observed, “Science progresses funeral by funeral.”

Your explanation that "reasonable scale" means only no recourse to taxpayer funds seems a bit late. In any event, the US government has legions of scientists on the payroll who are capable of assessing whether new ideas merit public funding. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is especially good at it.

I see no reason in principle why the Department of Defense ought to be barred from investing in Buhler's project if they think it has potential. After all, considering the billions of dollars we have invested in defense satellites, Buhler's device would be highly valuable to the DoD right out of the box. If it works, it could actually save quite a bit of money for them. Notably, China is pursuing such technology.

For what it's worth, a late friend of mine worked with the DoD finding, evaluating, and financing new technologies. He was at Sandia National Labs on such business when the Phoenix Lights UFO flap was underway. The assessment of their scientists was that the objects seen were real, which means that some form of electro-gravitic or electrostatic craft are already flying in our skies -- their craft, not ours.