Ok Bobrayner, I will refrain from posting to the main definition of Inertial_Propulsion, if you will recognize my efforts in the field in the Discussion page.
 
I TOTALLY understand that controversial subjects that have the mantle of Dogma on it's shoulders has an uphill battle. I only request that others look over what I have done in the field, and debate the evidence, rather than throw stones at "the other", that does NOT conform to current beliefs.
 

Do you have any creative suggestions for how to add the GIT (Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster) definition of machine types to the main page?  It is a clearly novel approach to the subject, and has had positive (as well as negative) results in the real world.
 
"Force Rectifying" angular accelerations to produce linear acceleration as a "footloose" example of "tractoring" on the "Zero Point Field" has actual physical examples to give it credence, but the intolerance of science as a religion prevents rational debate, and examination.
 
When I whirl around on a merry-go-round, the forces I feel tugging me off of that ride, to the outside, are NOT a result of tiny bullets, impinging on me!
 
ALL of matter, that has "inertia" feels it's place in this universe through some kind of interaction with the universe around it.
 
While the "Aether" was discredited because it did NOT conform to our definition of a classical gas, the Zero Point Field (Rueda, Puthoff, and Haisch), describes a coupling of baryonic matter with it's surroundings.
 
This is the medium that the GIT series of thrusters "tractor" on.
 
I am a fairly simple guy, with beliefs engendered by my experiences, and I refuse to "toe the party line", when reality, trumps "faith".