Still confused.
You admit you don't have the skills to apply C & E.
I've also 'admitted' that I understand the gist of it, and furthermore, that I believe it's applicable to the regime employed in BZ's scenario.
I haven't read it, and it's not readily available, so I can't either.
You can't download it on the internet, unless you pay sciencedirect.com $30 first, which is what I did. I expect that any good engineering school technical library will have the paper.
You say you expect Ross's conclusions to be borne out, even though you apparently accept Dr. Greening's and my analyses of Ross that show him to be wrong.
I never said that I accepted yours and Greening's analysis of Ross. I encountered some of Greening's objections to Ross at physorg, though I don't recall them. I've never read your objections.
What I said is that
if Ross' paper is "full of holes", correcting via CE wouldn't matter, anyway. However, I am mostly interested in corrections of BZ. Corrections to Greening and Ross are of less interest to me.
You're not interested in following up on those other calculations that show global collapse is expected, yet you expect us to take your banner and prove your conclusions?
To be perfectly frank with you, I some time ago posted at bautforum (which is reputed to have engineers as members) and was extremely unimpressed with the quality of responses. Only JayUtah seemed worth reading. I have a rather negative impression of "debunkers", from bautforum , from physorg, from the Randi Rhodes forum, as well as other "debunkers" whose forum is not, typically, an online forum. (pun intended).
I didn't have any great expectation from JREF, either.
I've read Greening's opinion of the JREF debunking community, in this very thread, and he doesn't seem very impressed, either.
I believe that I've clearly expressed, already, that I hope to facilitate serious researchers (who have the requisite technical background), and the ideal end product would be a cohesive work, of the sort that one would give to one's physics professor if so assigned.
I've also expressed that I am open to disproof of my expectation, should that turn out to be the case. Your statement "yet you expect
us to take your banner and prove your conclusions?" is incorrect on two levels*, and furthermore suggests an overly partisan attitude (on your part) to what, one hopes, is a rational subject where objectivity is a desirable goal.
BTW, I noticed you ducked my question (so far) regarding whether your "positive energy" calculation takes into account the dynamic effects ala Caladine and English. One might have hoped that, since you have an interest in the general subject, you might have been eager to improve your calculation. I will have to accept, at face value, that you truly believe I've made such a poor case for the application of CE that you don't think it's worth your time and/or your $30.
Honestly, what do you expect us to do with that? If you had something other than "intuition" to go on, I'd be more interested. Please present it, if there is anything.
I don't expect much of the JREF community, nor do I demand anything. I do have my hopes, however, and it may well be a lurker who takes up the challenge.
Your post does raise the question in my mind, however, of how many technical competent members of JREF there may be, who are still interested in this subject so many years after the fact. In the context of CE/BZ, "technically competent" would refer to a physicist, civil engineer, mechanical engineer, or structural engineer.
Any idea?
I think Greening would like to know this, also.
* Level 1: My "expecting" a serious response by technically competent individuals to the challenge of applying CE to BZ. Hope and expectation are two very different things. E.g., I'm in a lottery pool at work....
Level 2: That should any such individual take up the challenge, then they should feel constrained to support my expectation regarding the results of their investigation. Not so, and furthermore, people seem to make more of an effort to disprove notions that they are not favorable to. Thus, a technically competent individual who thinks CD implausible is likely a better candidate for applying CE to BZ than otherwise.
.