Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Eli Paperboy Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Anti-gravity Out of Magnetics?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 867 posts in this discussion
Posted on Aug 8, 2009 3:06:09 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Dear M. Helsdon,

I would like to take a moment to say that I have greatly enjoyed your input on this thread [and elsewhere], both technically and otherwise. I admire your breadth of real knowledge, apparent intellectual discipline, and clarity of focus, and, despite some opinions to the contrary, what I see as your very level-headed, and measured responses. I find it sad that certain participants couldn't see your responses as dispassionate and [attempting-to-be] helpful. I do not blame you in the least for the small bit of latitude you've taken in certain responses, everyone does have there limits.

I have not participated much in any of the actual content of the thread, mostly because I've had nothing concrete to share. I have on more than one occasion wondered why you stick around and continue to contribute, as you're not playing in the same league as some of the other posters.

Whatever, I doubt that you need validation, you seem pretty well integrated, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyways.

I doubt that I will be around much after this. In Marilyn's other thread, you addressed the central subject of reality vs fiction. Too many other posters in this Forum do not (or are unwilling to) grasp and embrace this basic core concept, and I find it increasingly difficult to stomach where some of the discussions go.

Nice knowing you,
Bob

Edit: Ron, I would say to you: "lighten up, and don't take everyone and everything so seriously", but I can't. Perhaps some of the other posters in this forum might wish to consider such an adjustment.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 3:43:34 PM PDT
Meaty Ogre - Say It Ain't So! (And another one bites the dust, run out of town by the "problem posters"...)

Yes, some of these discussions get a little far fetched. But I'm trying to get some "speculation" going, or some lively and interesting discussion outside the bounds of the known and proven. Angry put-downs and ridicule serve no purpose, except to upset everyone.

So, do what I do. Hit "No" when the "problem posters" post, in answer to the lower right hand corner question "Do you think this post adds to the discussion?" Another option will pop up, letting you "Ignore This Poster". That way I can visit discussions, have a half page of "Ronald Craig" and "M.Helsdon" postings with only the line "You are ignoring this poster", and get to the real posters who want to share.

If you have to go, Bob, "Live Long and Prosper". And maybe drop by from time to time, even as a Lurker who doesn't post. I hate to lose such level-headed posters with such great senses of humor....

Posted on Aug 8, 2009 3:46:42 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Marilyn, After reading along a good bit, I've come to wonder if you do in fact actually read-for-content all of the sources and links you post. I get the impression that you discover some tidbit, and then rush off to post it under the guise of "stimulating discussion". It seems though, more like your just throwing stuff out there like some little kid, saying "look what I found", and then letting other people do your reading and work for you.

Science is about intellectual discipline, and methodical work. If you want to play in the game AND be respected, you may want to consider whether more due diligence and careful contemplation is in order, prior to you're going public with it.

I write this with no prejudice for or against you. I do not write this an an attack of the slightest sort, but only as hopefully helpful suggestions based on my observance of your behavior, and frustration with some of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 4:04:55 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Marilyn, I just read this note to me, which you posted apparently while I was typing up the one below. I don't have a problem with any of what you refer to as "problem posters". Even Ronald. I'm sure he can be annoying, but he does have some valid points, even if you might not want to recognize them because they come from him. As far as M. Helsdon goes, if you'll go back and read what he is TRYING to tell you, especially in some of his earlier posts to you (before YOU went off on HIM), he explains VERY patiently how you OUGHT to be going about your process, but in a more professional manner.

Marilyn, from my point of view, you are just jerking yourself around, and not seeing it. Maybe you'll sit down and be gut-level honest with yourself, and maybe you won't be able to get past a too-fragile ego. I don't know, that's for you to figure out. "This above all else, to thine own self be true" Shakespeare.

You seem like a very nice, likable person. You seem very passionate and excited about science, and where it might go. If you seriously want to share your passion with intelligent peers, and actually learn something real and worthwhile, In My Humble Opinion, you're going to have to put some work and some soulsearching in.

See my previous to you.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 1:08:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2009 1:19:56 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Hi MO,

Sorry to see you go.

Marilyn,

There's little point posting this or responding to any of your other posts here or elsewhere as you declare you have blocked my posts, but:

"(And another one bites the dust, run out of town by the "problem posters"...)"

Unfortunately, you are one of the 'problem posters'.

When a reasoned level reply is given to one of your statements, you respond with name calling. When the response is couched in gentle humor, you count this as ridicule. You fail to respond to rational counter-arguments.

"...and get to the real posters who want to share."

Thereby declaring that rather than being an open-minded "Truth Seeker" you only want to read posts that comply with your world view.

Unfortunately the majority of the sites you send people off to are either irrelevant (I don't believe you've actually read the content, thereby making yourself look silly) or are pure pseudoscience.

Although declaring you don't 'believe' in other forums you have stated categorically:

* That Olmec stone heads prove Mesoamerican/African contact (this dates back to José Melgar in 1862 and Ivan Gladstone Van Sertima's 1976 book "They Came Before Columbus" -- neither view is considered valid). The diffusionist perspective has been pretty well demolished by modern DNA analysis.

* That you are partially convinced that Quetzalcoatl was an alien (I strongly advise that you read "Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl: the once and future lord of the Toltecs" by H. B. Nicholson). There's no evidence.

* That various myths such as Achilles heel may be proof of human/alien hybrids. There's a controversy over claimed Neanderthal/Cro-magnon hybrids; human/alien hybrids would have even more problems, not least being incompatible biochemistry.

* Direct people to Vibration propulsion, a form of reactionless space drive (two of which did not purport to be space drives so you didn't read the abstracts, one that featured a pseudoscience Oscillation thruster which simply cannot work). Such 'machines' break Newton's Third Law, and none have been shown to work.

Etc.

I'm not actually attacking 'you' but the ideas and material you send us to.

It is very tragic for Western civilisation that people become excited by false truths rather than the real exploration of science. There are concepts, discoveries and speculation out there that are truly amazing, but you don't have to meander into pseudoscience to find them.

There's a review of "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future" by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in this week's 'New Scientist'. Probably relevant.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 4:40:39 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Hey, Meaty! Don't go! :(

Darn ... I was just getting ready to destroy (and dude, I mean *devastate*) your argument on the previous page by showing that the forehead-on-keyboard impact point would be centered more around the lowest row of keys if one were an elderly woman wearing fluffy legwarmers and wrapped in a shawl.

Posted on Aug 9, 2009 6:36:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2009 6:38:12 AM PDT
Ok. I'm out. RC and MH have scored another victory. You two have chased me from discussion to discussion with nothing but your negative nit-picking. When I've stated repeatedly that if I wanted to just "research" a topic, I wouldn't be in these discussions. I'm not trying to "present a paper", I merely want to encourage interesting, intelligent and lively discussions.

Even an "out there" website has ideas or even aspects worth civil and speculative discussion. Although that never seems to happen anymore, since you two bury my latest post in nearly every discussion, with twelve back-and-forth posts of nonsense.

Silly me. Guess I mis-read this forum. Everyone just wants to sit at their computers and trade lists of books. Thoughtful 'speculative musings' seems to be of no interest to anyone.

Ciao!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 8:40:07 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2009 8:43:01 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Marilyn, Marilyn,

"You two have chased me from discussion to discussion with nothing but your negative nit-picking."

Before you started the naming calling, you invited me to check up on threads under 'Aliens' and 'Space Opera', which I did, but you don't seem to have liked the resulting comments (I've only been posting for a few weeks).

As you say you have blocked the comments using "Ignore This Poster", whatever I (or Ronald) post doesn't get past your self-imposed filter. Therefore our "negative nit-picking" cannot appear to cause you offense. The 'nit-picking' was actually providing constructive feedback for speculations lacking in or running counter to accepted historical or scientific fact. I *was* expecting you to respond my comments with material to support your ideas.

If critical comments are unacceptable, then "speculative musings" are simply speculation, impossible to build on. This is why, as I've explained before on other threads, in science peer review is important, and without it, a speculation, hypothesis or theory is worthless.

Many of the scientists involved in anti-gravity research named in the web-sites you have identified have failed to accept peer review, refused to release details of their research or their experimental findings have been found to be unrepeatable by others. In scientific endeavor, these all immediately set alarm bells ringing as to the value and credibility of their research.

You were getting "interesting, intelligent and lively discussions" and for my part, I started using humor to defuse the name calling and the retrospective editing of such comments.

Please consider MO's comments regarding the "central subject of reality vs fiction".

In fiction, the author creates the laws of their imaginary universe; in science it is necessary to work within the context of the laws of this universe.

Scientific knowledge relies on the expansion of our understanding. Whilst that understanding will *never* be complete (though we may reach a point where our capability to explore and experiment is limited by our available technology) the framework of scientific knowledge lies within the context of approximation. Thus Einstein's theories of space-time run further than those of Newton, but (and it is a big but) if Newton's Laws say something is impossible, then it almost always is. So perpetual motion machines and reactionless drives are impossible and will remain highly improbable, unless there are major discoveries in quantum physics.

Scientific fact can be divided into determining roughly what is impossible, improbable, probable and possible. All of the (relevant) sites you have pointed us to lie somewhere between impossible and improbable.

Science fact can and will change over time: the most important change in recent times has been the acceptance of continental drift: the idea originated with Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was expanded on by Alfred Wegener in 1912, though during his life time geologists did not accept his ideas because he was primarily a meteorologist. However only in the 1960s, with additional geological finding to support the theory of plate tectonics, that the idea became accepted 'scientific fact'. Similarly, various observation at the scale of the very small or the very big provide questions of the existing scientific concensus, and drive onwards the process of the acquisition of understanding. Often it is unexpected discoveries that don't fit the existing model that drive the process forward.

If you speculate in the context of 'science fiction' they your imagination may be applauded (though too much detail or erroneous facts will get you into trouble). If you speculate in the context of 'science' well outside the box of scientific knowledge, then inevitably you should expect comments and questions.

Note that even in 'science fiction' popular authors can get it wrong. (Larry Niven in the first edition of Ringworld had the Earth rotating in the wrong direction; then the stability of his ringworld was modelled and found to be faulty, giving him the basis of the next book! Frank Herbert built up the ecology of Dune but forgot to have a source for the oxygen in the atmosphere of Arrakis and made the worms the source.)

It is all part of the process.

It is absolutely necessary to understand the difference between 'science fiction' and 'science fact'.

As Amazon is a book-site, for my part, it seemed sensible to name a few books that might provide information to contrast with websites based on suspect material. I think you will find reading about Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl very interesting (and I wish I had read that book before spending time at Tula (Tollan) and Chichen Itza).

I'm sorry you are upset (and I was pretty disappointed when you 'turned' and started responding to thoughtful comments with name calling).

I seem to have been the only person to actually look at those sites, and I'm sorry if some of the resulting humor (Proton cars) offends you.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 9:23:55 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Well double darn. I wish someone would have emailed me and let me know a passion play was in progress. I get here and find Marilyn has already nailed herself up on the cross...

(What was the emoticon for rolling your eyes again?)

I'm sorry Marilyn but it's been my impression that to achieve these "interesting, intelligent and lively discussions" of yours, you have no problem whatsoever playing fast and loose with the facts and logic. "Speculative musings" based mainly or only on fringe, pseudoscience "results" are decidedly uninteresting and a waste of time IMHO.

Posted on Aug 9, 2009 10:15:36 AM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Martin, Ron, It doesn't appear to me that Marilyn has any desire to "get" it. Either that, or she simply doesn't have the capacity. I don't scorn her, I feel genuinely sad for her. With her current attitude and outlook, she'll spend the rest of her life chasing chimera and jousting at windmills.

Note: I'm quite proud of myself for dredging the "chimera" analogy out of my subconscious/memory. After using the term above, I got that puzzling little nagging whisper that said I wasn't QUITE sure I was using the correct word, so I googled chimera, and Wikipedia had this to say: "The term chimera has also come to mean, more generally, an impossible or foolish fantasy."

Marilyn, they even have a mythological creature named after what you're doing. I really do hope that after your upset over this incident passes, you really do try to understand what we've all been begging you to understand, and perhaps have a direction-changing epiphany.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 11:41:39 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
MO,

"With her current attitude and outlook, she'll spend the rest of her life chasing chimera and jousting at windmills."

Yes, I fear you are correct. There's been a growing suspicion that this thread was a quixotic exercise.

Probably a far better framing of this thread would have been 'Antigravity in science fiction'? Then you can proceed from Cavorite onwards unhindered by the hard cruel world of physics.

A matter of serious concern is that hard science (and many other fields) is losing the interest or sympathy of the majority of the population. Subjects are becoming so complex and so hyperspecialised that they alienate the people they are intended to serve. It is said that in the Renaissance, an educated person could achieve understanding in all the fields of science and knowledge: with a display of cool "sprezzatura" be a true polymath. These days, very few people can be more than a specialist in one field (sometimes a very narrow one at that) and at most a 'jack of all trades' in others.

This exclusion by specialisation seems to be driving the growth of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Antigravity is one of the areas that has numerous 'fringe' theories surrounding it.

I'm sorry that Marilyn chose to label attempts to provide her with information as negative nit-picking. They weren't intended as such.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 12:38:13 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Martin,

Your proposal that the exclusion by specialization seems to be driving the growth of pseudoscience and etc misc "fringe" thinking caused me a great deal of reflection and internal debate. Enough so that it made me think that this subject might be an excellent topic of conversation for those so inclined to weigh in. May I suggest that you formulate your thought as an initial post for a new thread? I think there is much more to this troubling direction than just what you've proposed, and perhaps it might do some good to air in a public forum. I have thoughts about your proposal, but haven't thought them through well enough yet to want to respond just yet. (Also need to tear away from the internet machine and the Xbox, and reacquaint myself with that "real life" thing for a short period).

Edit: A separate but related thread might also be discussion about the place of real science (science vs fiction) in science fiction.

Posted on Aug 9, 2009 12:41:41 PM PDT
Oh no! You all seem to be ending or leaving this discussion just as I've discovered it. This series of posts has been the MOST entertainment I've had in a long time! So that I'm not one of Marilyn's "lurkers", I'll hazard a post.

Marilyn...the main issue is, I think, that you rarely actually venture an opinion or discuss any of the items you post as links for discussion. You leave it to others. This could be part of your 'fence sitting' attitude, or open mindedness. This is fine in some ways and can be vastly entertaining, but our society advances through science, and there are hard decisions that need to be made about issues like global warming. Thus, being grounded in science is very important. I would guess that you would like the TV show "FRINGE". If you haven't seen it, then you should. Season 2 is starting soon. You can catch up on season one on hulu.com. It will give you LOTS of new things to speculate about and I think you'll like it. But, I think you should separate out pseudo-science and pure speculation with science. The others like Mo and Martin who post here have really posted well thought out reasons why the links you've posted are not science, and thus are most likely not true. You are right that this IS negativity, but that is exactly how science advances. It requires proof and testing. What you should be asking them is, "Is there any way this could be possible? What would it take to prove something like this is true?" Truth and proof are funny things. I'd like to know what you make of the Russell's teapot argument. See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot - Though this is used in arguments about religion, it goes to the heart of arguing that things are possible because they can't be totally proved false. Really, would you be happy spending research $$ (i.e. your taxes) to have poltergeists tell us about UFO propulsion, or would you rather have the $$ go to something else? You would be better off, I think, referencing articles along the lines of these where true research is being attempted on some occult types of issues -> http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=occult-science

Martin and Mo (and others)...I've been vastly entertained by your attempts at showing Marilyn the details behind these links. I sure would like a proton propulsion car from Malaysia!! I have NOT had to go to these links precisely because of your very fine analysis of them. Thanks for the links to the Michael illustrations (from Footfall, one of my favorite books) and the funny article about the hover boards from "Back to the Future". I have a feeling that you're fighting an uphill battle, much as the Scientific American magazine 'skeptic' articles (ex. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity). If you haven't seen the movie "Idiocracy", you should go rent it. (It's not on Hulu). Sometimes I think our society is headed that way. My favorite line, "But it's got electrolytes!"

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 12:59:58 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
MO,

"May I suggest that you formulate your thought as an initial post for a new thread?"

Will think on it - the day is coming to a close (being many hours ahead of US timezones and I've spent most of today dealing with an ill parent). Just checked my friend's book and it is ranked at #21,362 in Books on Amazon US - which must equate to a fair number of units sold; I hope he'll be pleased. What is funny, from the perspective of this thread, that one area I provided support in was Aztec mysticism...

R.A. Lee,

I believe this thread is now a dead parrot.

"I sure would like a proton propulsion car from Malaysia!!"

Unfortunately they fail to meet US safety standards and emission limits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(carmaker)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 7:15:15 PM PDT
One small point, and it will quite possibly be deemed irrelelevant, but is this not a "science fiction" forum? Most of the arguments against the "far-out" subject matter seem to reside in the seat of proven science alone.

Anti-gravity systems, Hoverboards, and Proton Cars certainly dwell in the realm of "science fiction." It would seem to me, that this forum "zone," is just the place to discuss the nature of these sorts of subjects in science fiction.

I guess my point is that negative criticism for such discussions should be expected in a proven science forum, but is it necessary here?

Considering the potential of new theories and ideas and conceptualizing their potential applications and impact on society should lie in the realms of both science and science fiction, should it not? Perhaps the science warriors would be best suited for battle on another field, or be generous enough to leave a seat open for young ladies brave enough to ask questions.

"science fiction n highly imaginative fiction typically involving actual or projected scientific phenomena" Webster's Dictionary.

Okay, the "typical" definition leans towards the "actual," but it also implies projected, and leaves plenty of room for the non-typical. In my opinion, good science fiction should examine at least some original take on said subjects, but should it not also embrace freedom of imagination? Sudden bursts of inspiration, epiphany, or accidental discoveries are the heart of science fiction, such as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstien.

Perhaps a new post should be Science or Science Fiction, where is speculation welcomed, or is it the art of Big-Oil men alone? My hands are up now, and my jaw clenched for the knock-out blow that is sure to come my way. God speed.

-Erik.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 9:47:07 PM PDT
Hi Erik,

I would say it depends on the sci-fi genre. Hard science fiction tries to get all the *current* facts right and goes from there. I've seen negative comments made about even famous authors works where a mistake was made in the science portion of their novel.

It does depend on what you want this forum to be about. It could be any and all speculation, or hard sci-fi. Since this thread started with Magnetism vs. Anti-gravity, it seemed to me (coming in new) that it would be more about the hard science aspect. It sure doesn't have to be. I'm a fan of almost all speculative fiction and fantasy.

But, I didn't see much science fiction of any type really being discussed in here, so maybe it is a dead parrot after all. I thought it was just resting! (Yes, I'm a Monty Python fan!)

- Bob Lee

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2009 11:25:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 10, 2009 4:36:45 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Erik,

"One small point, and it will quite possibly be deemed irrelelevant, but is this not a "science fiction" forum?"

This is a science fiction forum, but the thread was framed as based in 'reality'. Unfortunately, the weird sites posited were not 'science fiction' but deluded bad science. When the problems with those sites was reported it resulted in a flood of name calling. Probably, the thread should have been placed in a fantasy forum or properly kept within the bounds of science fiction, as as been previously suggested.

"I guess my point is that negative criticism for such discussions should be expected in a proven science forum, but is it necessary here?"

Sigh. The material being identified for 'discussion' wasn't residing in science fiction but in pseudoscience. I didn't notice any statements on the (relevant) websites stating they were 'fictional'. In fact, attempts to turn it towards science fiction were ignored and the thread was hi-jacked back towards 'fringe' bad science sites and sites with no relevance at all: russian rockets and malaysian car manufacturers.

"In my opinion, good science fiction should examine at least some original take on said subjects, but should it not also embrace freedom of imagination?"

None of the material was 'science fiction' but described as suitable for 'truth seekers'. There is a serious difference between 'science fiction', 'science fact' and pseudoscience. Early on I queried whther the thread related to Ning Li (she of the 'gravity shield') and Eugene Podkletnov (he of the 'gravitator') and the reply seemed to be in the negative and that the thread couldn't be re-named to a more accurate title; later a site referring to these discredited researchers was identified as for discussion.

"Perhaps the science warriors would be best suited for battle on another field, or be generous enough to leave a seat open for young ladies brave enough to ask questions."

I haven't noticed any "brave young ladies" here.

Attempts at discussion and answers not to the liking of one poster resulted in some obnoxious behavior on their part. Later they deleted some of their crass comments...

This thread is dead.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2009 10:47:09 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Just thought it wise to warn people to avoid the "young ladies brave enough to ask questions" as they seem to be in full melt-down mode on other threads. It simply isn't worth the hassle, as counter-opinions and comments result in responses ominously close to paranoid delusions, and the incidences of name calling have been oddly reversed.

Ronald, I apologise: I used to consider your use of 'wingnut' unfair... What secret military organisation/evil corporation is it we work for again? I forget. It sounds as though they really should be paying us.

Most recent post:

In reply to an earlier post Marilyn Martin
Hi J.K Meyers!
And yes, you asked the million dollar question: WHY do the M. Helsdons of the web work so diligently to explain away or stomp out every new speculative idea that is raised? The possibilities are amazing to consider:

--- He is taking money from a company working on beyond-speculative enterprises, and doesn't want to let the competition in on their little secret.

--- He is a paid dis-information specialist, in either the military or corporate world. Again, told to attack any new idea/theory with such ferocity that most posters abandon the thread, and never come back. (While the corporation or military entity knows the truth, and wants to keep it buried while they rake in billions from secret government contracts.)

To quote Deep Throat (from the Watergate era). "Just follow the money."
It's all about money and power, and how the well monied powerful will resort to literally anything to keep their power, and keep the money flowing.

The way his posts operate is a clue to his other-than-full-disclosure-attitude. His over-the-top ferocity and lengthy "explaining away" first responses are the most prominent clue, that he is acting on someone else's behalf. If his continuous hammering on the speculative idea/theory doesn't run off enough people, then he turns to attacking the poster, using a desperate mixture of ridicule, name-calling and faux feeling-sorry-for-the-poster who is so confused, mislead and downright looney. (NOT!)

If THAT fails, then he rushes to every new posting of dangerously new and outrageously possible idea/theory, and he and his buddies proceed with a back-and-forth twelve postings of nonsense. So that crucial posting ends up buried deep in junk no one wants to read, and all followers of that discussion bail.

Merely things to watch for. Just don't buy into their negative-stomping, and let these posters (like M. Helsdon and Ronald Craig) run you off from threads that are introducing some speculative ideas that are closer to the truth than these "stompers" -- and their backup corporations and/or military entities -- want anyone to believe.

Cheers!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2009 11:13:30 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
No apologies necessary! :)

Now, spill the beans, where's this all taking place?!

"Stilgar, do we have Marsign?"

"Ha ha! We have Marsign the likes of which even GAAAAAWD has not seen!"

(Can't help it, I just LOVE Lynch's Dune, however bad it is. Now, PUG DOGS OF DUNE, HO!!!)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2009 11:35:30 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Ronald,

"(Can't help it, I just LOVE Lynch's Dune, however bad it is. Now, PUG DOGS OF DUNE, HO!!!)"

Herbert was involved with Lynch's movie, so compared with the posthumous sequels it did at least try...

On the topic of antigravity there's been a post to the other antigravity thread, but I can't summon up the energy to reply.

http://www.amazon.com/tag/aliens/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1M0WJNFU1QN90&cdPage=5&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3OP5P62HBKV8M&displayType=tagsDetail&newContentID=Mx275PDACI0H3U9#Mx275PDACI0H3U9

Be warned that it looks as though the assembled aliens there may be about to spawn...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2009 11:48:13 AM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Martin, I got it that she was a bit---whatever. But that rant is certifiable. I'd say unbelievable, but really, this is the wide world of the internet.

OK---unbelievable.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2009 12:08:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 12, 2009 12:11:48 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
MO,

I may have threatened the thread there by positing that the STS-48 'aliens versus Earth's death ray fired from Australia' footage was probably ice particles and debris in microgravity excited by the RCS thrusters on the shuttle.

If I'm working for a secret conspiracy I wish they'd hurry up and send the check.

The alien has actually succeeded in annoying me, but that may be because of parent health problems.

I've been pondering some information that could restart this thread, but there's too high a risk of upsetting 'truth seekers'.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2009 4:35:09 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
:D

Thanks for the link above! Sorry to hear about probs on the home front.

Meant to ask if you'd gotten your checks for the last two months; mine are late, too! :(

Posted on Aug 14, 2009 6:43:54 AM PDT
Wow, this is the most awesome thread I've seen in a while. The angst, the invective, the irony ... wish I had caught it at the beginning and been part of it.

And to think I was just going to point out that if you are going to talk anti-gravity prospects you need to first state if you're a quantum graviton type of person or a relativity spacetime curvature kind of guy. Or gal !!

Probably was mentioned already in one of the previous threads but I must admit I skipped them to find out how the human drama played out ... :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2009 11:33:58 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Whoa_ItsWeirdOutThere,

Some of the primary actors in this thread have migrated to other... <forums>.

Yes, the discussion briefly touched on gravitons, but unfortunately as these are hypothetical elementary particles, yet to be detected, it is difficult to discuss them. Some of the string theories have an interesting take on what 'gravitons' are... I don't pretend to follow their intricacies.

If gravitons or a similar agency were to exist then there might also be anti-gravitons, and perhaps their presence could be assumed as a result of an astronomical phenomenon that cannot be explained by other means:

* A 'white hole'. Nothing remotely like one has ever been observed, and it is possible that they cannot exist in our universe (and Hawking has suggested that the reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is... a black hole).

* The expansion of the visible universe: but save very near its beginning this is simply due to inertia, and earlier theoretically caused by cosmic inflation.

* The cosmological constant: Suggests a repulsive force between objects, but the effect might be explained by other factors, and there's the issue that most quantum field theories result in a massive value when the apparent measured value is tiny.

I doubt that we can create an experiment to detect gravitons because their interaction, if they exist, with other particles is so incredibly slight. Quantum gravity is beset with the issues of renormalization.

The LIGO and VIRGO experiments may detect evidence of gravitational waves.

Gravity is... perplexing. Until we know very much more about it and are able to unite the fields of the very big and the very small, antigravity remains science fiction.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  867
Initial post:  Jul 17, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions