- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,594
Antigravity puzzle solved 50 years ago
- Thread starter DannyinJapan
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2001
- Messages
- 4,500
Daniel Koster said:I thought you were an alien, Josh...?
Who else would live inside a soccer ball?
Yes, of course, human. I just wanted to get a native Earthling's opinion on the whole matter. Since I couldn't find one, I figured Danny would be the next best thing
Transmitting from the Dome,
--Josh
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,594
I am 1/2 human, thank you.
The alien part of me gives my bones a rubbery consistency and allows me to squeeze through narrow places like a weasel or jackie chan.
The alien part of me gives my bones a rubbery consistency and allows me to squeeze through narrow places like a weasel or jackie chan.
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
and a studier of myths and legends, old ways, etc, I've read many accts of gods riding across the sky in chariots, or angels descending on fiery clouds, Sumerian/Mesopotamian Enki's flight in the UFO to look down of the earth from space (sounds like rocket tech to me), etc.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,594
By the way Firkin, I am sorry I got angry.
I have a lot of engineer relatives and I guess I am hypersensitive sometimes.
I have a lot of engineer relatives and I guess I am hypersensitive sometimes.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 1999
- Messages
- 34,096
OK, whose going to hook up a khukuri and make it levitate?
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2001
- Messages
- 4,500
Bill Martino said:
Uncle Bill's deal of the day in the not-too-distant future:
"Beautiful 18" levitating AK. Usual fine work by Sher with the almost-convex edge and a glow in the dark saatisal handle. Woodchucks take note. Unfortunately, the village tech stuttered a little bit with the antigravitics on this one, and there's a slight amount of handle wobble during flight that will probably never get any worse. Fix it yourself in five minutes with a soldering iron or fly it as is for a hundred years."
--Josh
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
Keith
I can see it now , the painter squashes a cock roach on a nearly finished painting and realizes that he has ruined his master piece. He quickly comes up with the idea to add a few " artistic" additions to camoflage his mistake.
See it is perfectly explainable and who knows how many people have been mislead by such a simple explainable thing. I am shocked at what people intrepret as facts these days, I think some good old fashion common sence should be applied, why certain alarmist would have you thinking that aliens were controling the government, media, both political parties and use people in odd and distressing ways,.... Wait a second the voices in my head are loosing the connection( darn solar flares),... Yes there we go , if you look close, it kind of looks like a squashed bug now dosen't it? I'm quite sure the other "evidence" can be explain as easily......
See it is perfectly explainable and who knows how many people have been mislead by such a simple explainable thing. I am shocked at what people intrepret as facts these days, I think some good old fashion common sence should be applied, why certain alarmist would have you thinking that aliens were controling the government, media, both political parties and use people in odd and distressing ways,.... Wait a second the voices in my head are loosing the connection( darn solar flares),... Yes there we go , if you look close, it kind of looks like a squashed bug now dosen't it? I'm quite sure the other "evidence" can be explain as easily......
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 68
The concept of gravity as traditionally known in the world of science is based on velocity and the effects of centrifugal force. However the aspect of charged particles ever present in the environment, both on the planet and in space provide a means to overcome this effect. Research in super conductors has shown the principle of harnessing these particles via magnetic field constriction. The principle is similar to creating a laser by collecting photons into a coherent beam, except we collect charged particles via magnetic flux.
In theory we should be able to combine these fields at any point in space and hover or accelerate by sliding along the flux lines, this would explain why some UFO sightings claim the object can change direction instantanteously at very high acceleration. The trick is the substain the process of controlling the rate, magnitude and vector of the flield constriction. I have no doublt that are government is looking at this science, but conservative thinking and the aspect of money and power will prevent any application for our benefit at present. :grumpy:
Sharks_Edge
Karl
In theory we should be able to combine these fields at any point in space and hover or accelerate by sliding along the flux lines, this would explain why some UFO sightings claim the object can change direction instantanteously at very high acceleration. The trick is the substain the process of controlling the rate, magnitude and vector of the flield constriction. I have no doublt that are government is looking at this science, but conservative thinking and the aspect of money and power will prevent any application for our benefit at present. :grumpy:
Sharks_Edge
Karl
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 61
Danny,
Firkin hasn't turned up in this thread again, but I imagine your anger was at least partly directed at me. If so, no worries, man. I think the "antigravity" stuff we were discussing earlier is junk science that isn't consistent with physics. As far as UFOs, I'm much more agnostic. There's no fundamental limit on pushing mass between stars. If you've got enough rocket fuel (or whatever), and time, getting nearly anywhere in our galaxy shouldn't be problematic.
Based on our knowledge of physics, the prospect would be enormously expensive and time consuming, but that's hardly evidence someone, somewhere doesn't have the resources and free time to give it a shot. An earlier poster said something to the effect of life arising elsewhere being a near mathematical certainty. In my opinion, that's overstating the odds a bit, but my gut feeling is that some variant of what we'd recognize as "life" is probably pretty common in our Universe. Whether or not it will evolve into something we'd recognize as intelligent is unknown. Part of the problem being one of definition -- philosophers, linguists and computer scientists are still arguing over some pretty basic issues.
I recently found out the "Galactic Core Series" by Greg Benford is being reprinted in paperback. That's some extremely well-written hard sci-fi that posits common, intelligible extra-terrestrial life that is largely supressed by artificial intelligences convinced that biology's fundamental unpredictability is a threat to their (the machines) long-term survival. I've only read the first two in the series, but highly recommend them.
Now for something completely different...
For example, consider rapidly swinging a ball attached to a string in a horizontal plane. There are two ways to describe this scenario mathematically (well, there are more, but these two are the simplest):
(1) From the "rest frame" of the ball. There is tension in the string pulling the ball toward your hand. Newton's 2nd Law, F=ma would seem to imply that the ball should accelerate toward the center, unless there's another force acting on the ball. So, to make Newton's 2nd Law give the right answer, we assign a fictional "centrifugal" force that exactly balances the inward directed tension.
As written, Newton's 2nd Law doesn't apply to systems that are undergoing acceleration, like the twirling ball. So we "cheat" and introduce a new force to make things work out.
(2) From your rest frame. The ball is moving with high velocity in a straight line. The tension in the string curves its path inward at each instant, thereby deforming the straight path of the ball into a circle. If you clip the string while the ball is spinning, it immediately flies off in a straight line, tangent to the circle describing its former orbit. This is how a sling works, for example.
Classical mechanics was built around defining appropriate fictional forces to correct Newton's Law for important non-inertial cases. One good example being artillery aiming tables: as cannons ranges improved (particularly big Naval guns), the deviation caused by the Earth's rotation became significant. If you want to hit a target several miles away, you have to account for the fact that it's rotating away from your original point of aim. Hence the coriolis force was introduced as a mathematical shortcut.
Philosophers and 19th century physicists talked about the existence of a universal reference frame, one that is inertial with respect to all objects. This was occasionally referred to as "God's reference frame." From that fictitious frame, the mechanics of the universe is mathematically simplest.
Einstein's fundamental insight that forms the core of General Relativity is: not only would actually finding such a frame be difficult, it is actually impossible. Accelerations between non-inertial frames are indistinguishable from forces we refer to as gravity. We must be satisfied with local measurements relative to our own, accelerating reference frames, because there's no way to get off the merry-go-round and view it from the outside -- the merry-go-round is the entire universe!
In short (too late!!! ), I think gr is really cool. I'm not sure if everything above was entirely clear (or even if anyone actually cares...), but I'm happy to answer questions about it.
Last I heard, there's been a lot of talk about coherent beams of massive particles, but nobody's actually realized one in the lab. Theorists kill a lot of trees writing about this sort of thing. It's like a moving Bose-Einstein condensate, which would be of enormous interest to statistical physicists. In a BEc, a collection of atoms (Helium, iirc in the experimental literature) is cooled down close enough to absolute zero that they all assume the same quantum state. At ultra-low temperature, there's no thermal energy available to jostle the atoms into excited states and one, (relatively) simple wavefunction describes all of the atoms. In other words, the atoms lose their individual identity and you get a quantum mechanical "particle" that's much, much larger than usual. BEcs have all kinds of interesting properties that experimentalists are only now getting a look at.
Physics is fun. Well, academia isn't so much, but physics itself is.
Firkin hasn't turned up in this thread again, but I imagine your anger was at least partly directed at me. If so, no worries, man. I think the "antigravity" stuff we were discussing earlier is junk science that isn't consistent with physics. As far as UFOs, I'm much more agnostic. There's no fundamental limit on pushing mass between stars. If you've got enough rocket fuel (or whatever), and time, getting nearly anywhere in our galaxy shouldn't be problematic.
Based on our knowledge of physics, the prospect would be enormously expensive and time consuming, but that's hardly evidence someone, somewhere doesn't have the resources and free time to give it a shot. An earlier poster said something to the effect of life arising elsewhere being a near mathematical certainty. In my opinion, that's overstating the odds a bit, but my gut feeling is that some variant of what we'd recognize as "life" is probably pretty common in our Universe. Whether or not it will evolve into something we'd recognize as intelligent is unknown. Part of the problem being one of definition -- philosophers, linguists and computer scientists are still arguing over some pretty basic issues.
I recently found out the "Galactic Core Series" by Greg Benford is being reprinted in paperback. That's some extremely well-written hard sci-fi that posits common, intelligible extra-terrestrial life that is largely supressed by artificial intelligences convinced that biology's fundamental unpredictability is a threat to their (the machines) long-term survival. I've only read the first two in the series, but highly recommend them.
Now for something completely different...
I'm not sure what you mean by this, Karl. The centrifugal "force," like the coriolis "force" aren't really forces at all. They're corrections to Newton's second law applied in non-inertial reference frames.Sharks_Edge said:
For example, consider rapidly swinging a ball attached to a string in a horizontal plane. There are two ways to describe this scenario mathematically (well, there are more, but these two are the simplest
):(1) From the "rest frame" of the ball. There is tension in the string pulling the ball toward your hand. Newton's 2nd Law, F=ma would seem to imply that the ball should accelerate toward the center, unless there's another force acting on the ball. So, to make Newton's 2nd Law give the right answer, we assign a fictional "centrifugal" force that exactly balances the inward directed tension.
As written, Newton's 2nd Law doesn't apply to systems that are undergoing acceleration, like the twirling ball. So we "cheat" and introduce a new force to make things work out.
(2) From your rest frame. The ball is moving with high velocity in a straight line. The tension in the string curves its path inward at each instant, thereby deforming the straight path of the ball into a circle. If you clip the string while the ball is spinning, it immediately flies off in a straight line, tangent to the circle describing its former orbit. This is how a sling works, for example.
Classical mechanics was built around defining appropriate fictional forces to correct Newton's Law for important non-inertial cases. One good example being artillery aiming tables: as cannons ranges improved (particularly big Naval guns), the deviation caused by the Earth's rotation became significant. If you want to hit a target several miles away, you have to account for the fact that it's rotating away from your original point of aim. Hence the coriolis force was introduced as a mathematical shortcut.
Philosophers and 19th century physicists talked about the existence of a universal reference frame, one that is inertial with respect to all objects. This was occasionally referred to as "God's reference frame." From that fictitious frame, the mechanics of the universe is mathematically simplest.
Einstein's fundamental insight that forms the core of General Relativity is: not only would actually finding such a frame be difficult, it is actually impossible. Accelerations between non-inertial frames are indistinguishable from forces we refer to as gravity. We must be satisfied with local measurements relative to our own, accelerating reference frames, because there's no way to get off the merry-go-round and view it from the outside -- the merry-go-round is the entire universe!
In short (too late!!!
), I think gr is really cool. I'm not sure if everything above was entirely clear (or even if anyone actually cares...), but I'm happy to answer questions about it.Mmm... another cool topic. No, I won't write another thesis on this one, I promise...
Last I heard, there's been a lot of talk about coherent beams of massive particles, but nobody's actually realized one in the lab. Theorists kill a lot of trees writing about this sort of thing. It's like a moving Bose-Einstein condensate, which would be of enormous interest to statistical physicists. In a BEc, a collection of atoms (Helium, iirc in the experimental literature) is cooled down close enough to absolute zero that they all assume the same quantum state. At ultra-low temperature, there's no thermal energy available to jostle the atoms into excited states and one, (relatively) simple wavefunction describes all of the atoms. In other words, the atoms lose their individual identity and you get a quantum mechanical "particle" that's much, much larger than usual. BEcs have all kinds of interesting properties that experimentalists are only now getting a look at.
Physics is fun. Well, academia isn't so much, but physics itself is.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 7,269
Once we get to another membrane, it's gonna be soooo cool!
There is a great, yes, GREAT, NOVA PBS couple of segments on String Theory, gravitrons, weak and strong forces, electro-magnetic forces, branes, and even (for those who like flashy stuff) the Big Bang. Eleven dimensions? Couldbe.
Look it up, set the time aside, watch it, and then write 500 word essays on how stuff works. This WILL be on the test.
Kis
There is a great, yes, GREAT, NOVA PBS couple of segments on String Theory, gravitrons, weak and strong forces, electro-magnetic forces, branes, and even (for those who like flashy stuff) the Big Bang. Eleven dimensions? Couldbe.
Look it up, set the time aside, watch it, and then write 500 word essays on how stuff works. This WILL be on the test.
Kis
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 1,390
Being that there are 100,000 MILLION galaxies each with about 100,000 MILLION stars that we can "see" utilizing our best technology, there's surely a "slight chance" that there's intelligent life elsewhere. (Some of us might debate if the Homo sapiens lifeform is intelligent; all the other lifeforms on the planet are, although they don't have our 1300-1400 gram brain).
Throughout history man has recorded in books, paintings authored many hundreds of years ago, statues, walls of buildings and caves, etc. descriptions and illustrations of spacecraft and spacemen. Eric Von Daniken in his "Charriots of the Gods", and many others have given us many examples of possible visitors. Pilots, astronauts, and scientists have all reported sightings, and the sources are credible. Here's a link just of astronautical sightings...
http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa081297.htm?iam=metaresults&terms=only+natural
Does the government have information that they don't want the public to know? I wouldn't doubt it one bit. Even if we are unable to produce an antifugal spacecraft now, who knows what the next 100 years will bring...
Unfortunately, I don't think it will do much to help our sort here on earth. We need to look inward, not outward to find our real connection with the cosmos!
Dan
that there's intelligent life elsewhere. (Some of us might debate if the Homo sapiens lifeform is intelligent; all the other lifeforms on the planet are, although they don't have our 1300-1400 gram brain).Throughout history man has recorded in books, paintings authored many hundreds of years ago, statues, walls of buildings and caves, etc. descriptions and illustrations of spacecraft and spacemen. Eric Von Daniken in his "Charriots of the Gods", and many others have given us many examples of possible visitors. Pilots, astronauts, and scientists have all reported sightings, and the sources are credible. Here's a link just of astronautical sightings...
http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa081297.htm?iam=metaresults&terms=only+natural
Does the government have information that they don't want the public to know? I wouldn't doubt it one bit. Even if we are unable to produce an antifugal spacecraft now, who knows what the next 100 years will bring...
Unfortunately, I don't think it will do much to help our sort here on earth. We need to look inward, not outward to find our real connection with the cosmos!
Dan
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 61
Well, it'd probably be pretty empty, actually. An occasional graviton out there "exploring the bulk," maybe.Kismet said:
My thesis research involves a 6 dimensional universe with various "nice" properties. 11-dimensional models are talked about largely because of string theory, but high dimensional physics has been under discussion (intermittently) since the early 1920s.I gotta second the recommendation -- they do a good job on that show of faithfully representing researchers' work.
Oh, my aching thesis!
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,594
Would you look at the picture and give me an objective opinion ?
Try to forget the limits that your own education has given you, after all, truth changes, right?
Peter Lynds has demonstrated to the world that Time does not exist.
So, Einsteins' work that requires time as a constant is now entirely questionable, which Im certain Einstein would have agreed with in the first place.
I am all for objective skepticism, but that means OBJECTIVE skepticism, and it feels like some people are saying " i learned in college that this isnt possible so I, knowing everything, have determined that it is not possible, no matter how much evidence nor how many astronauts indicate that there is something alien in our skies"
this is part of what made me angry the first time.
Instead of listening to what I had to say, people started regurgitating what they knew.
They didnt actually ponder or consider what they might not know.
I guess thats why we have the word "magic."
Try to forget the limits that your own education has given you, after all, truth changes, right?
Peter Lynds has demonstrated to the world that Time does not exist.
So, Einsteins' work that requires time as a constant is now entirely questionable, which Im certain Einstein would have agreed with in the first place.
I am all for objective skepticism, but that means OBJECTIVE skepticism, and it feels like some people are saying " i learned in college that this isnt possible so I, knowing everything, have determined that it is not possible, no matter how much evidence nor how many astronauts indicate that there is something alien in our skies"
this is part of what made me angry the first time.
Instead of listening to what I had to say, people started regurgitating what they knew.
They didnt actually ponder or consider what they might not know.
I guess thats why we have the word "magic."
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 61
The Buddhist (?) mural has an orange and a white circle in the sky. The painting of Mary has a weird dark lozenge in the sky. It looks grossly similar to descriptions of UFOs I've heard before. Though frankly, it could also be some obscure iconographic reference. Looks like late-Medieval, early Renaissance, probably Italian. What's the name, painter, date? Maybe there's been some study of this particular painting. Not being an Art Historian, I can't ID it.DannyinJapan said:
Are you referring to this guy:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310055
I'm not sure he's arguing time doesn't exist. It seems he's looking for enough wiggle room in the uncertainty of measurement to show that Xeno's Paradox is ill-posed. As near as I can tell, he starts by postulating his conclusion. Poor form, that.
I guess the larger point I've been trying to make is that the world doesn't have to be incomprehensible, filled with conspiracies and secret knowledge to be "magical." The world is a beautiful place, pregnant with mystery and alive with possibility. It seems that the "fringe science" crowd, in their efforts to promote themselves and make a buck, must diminish and deride "traditional" scientists who work hard to understand the natural world in terms of physical theories.
Maybe that's not your bag, and that's fine by me. This is America (at least, where I'm standing), and you can believe whatever you want to believe. I don't believe in low-energy, repulsive gravity and I've tried to state my case for that belief in non-technical terms. I think Lynds' is absolutely wrong -- time is very much directed, unless we wish to dispense with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I want to stress that I'm not trying to get involved in a pissing contest here. I have nothing but the deepest respect for anyone's right to say whatever they want. I do get a little irate when "persecuted visionaries" put up web pages, or (as in Mr. Lynds case) pollute a valuable resource like the arXiv with their poorly written screeds. Sorry, it's a hot button issue for me.
I'm actually quite fascinated by this discussion, and if you have a citation on the painting, I'd be very interested.
Cheers,
Jon
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
OK, I'm back.
Wasn't able to get on line for a while.
Danny, apology accepted.
Like MK9, I'm agnostic on UFO's. I agree that humans don't know everything. And that, in the past, new science has occured and allowed for new devices to be constructed. We want that to continue.
Dogmatism is bad, but sometimes encouraged. But is is difficult to go beyond what we now have if the effort to understand what we how have isn't undertaken. True discoveries really don't pop up out of nowhere, and they also can't be found to order, or result simply from spending more money. A lot of what is called science is tweaking and refining. Or similar to engineering. And yes it is a political endeavor, what human lactivity isn't?
There isn't a lot of difference between dogmatism and wanting to interpret anything not intuitively (intuition varies greatly--depends upon the person and his past experience) obvious as evidence for something new and revolutionary, or proof of extra-terrestrial or divine origin, IMO.
Indeed a famous and proven mathematical theorem by Goedel (don't know how to post an umlaut) demonstrates that within any closed system of rules and postulates there always will be some proposals or statements of relationships that cannot be proven to be either true of false unless one goes beyond the closed system. That suggests that for instance a human brain can never fully understand a human brain.
So yes, even at the most reductionist and analytical level, there is a place for acceptance of unavoidable ignorance and thus agnostiscism.
How to cope with that is one's own choice, and depends, among other things, upon how one sees human's or their own place in the Universe. That is the realm of faith and religion not science.
Now as to what chaps my hide, is folks (and I'm not accusing Danny of this, just of getting mostly their side of things) who jump onto something like these "lifters" and claim that is proof of some dramatically new type of physics or whatever, yet appear unable to repeatedly demonstrate something that cannot be explained by the current understanding of physics. Good science explains what we find and explains or produces more. Good science fits together, and one can see and test it. Mysteries don't "prove" anything. Once that kind of premise accepted, a water-fall starts leading to God-knows-what...curing all diseases overnight, "reptoid"-human hybrids, limitless power supplies, an invisible secret cadre of evil beings enslaving the rest of us, and on and on. Then a bunch of scam-artists start making money. Zillions of quack medical devices, "secret" plans for sale, often accompanied by the claim that anyone who has invested the considerable effort required to acquaint themselves with the actual practice of modern science has been duped, brainwashed, or is an initiate of some evil cabal.
I think that Josh's link about the guy moving the large objects is a case in point. "anti-gravity" isn't required. I don't doubt that with the proper secrecy of action and publicity of result, the guy could convince some that he used anti-gravity. He didn't do that, he is a good person who has hard-won experience and a gift for applying what he has learned. He is selling some movies, but it looks like you will get more of what he shows on his web site. Not some bunch of mysterious gobbledlygook that purports amazing powers. Just the result of cleverness and patience.
Resorting to a elaborate conpiracy theories is to rely upon a circular argument that removes the topic from the realm of rational discussion. It is similar to saying that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and the creator created the fossils and decayed isotopes and all the rest that are thought to be geologic history at the same time. Or that all of reality is perception, and it is impossible to distinguish whether you are the only person in the universe, or not. These are the realms of faith or perhaps philosophy, not science. Regardless of the effects of faith upon human interactions or human spirit, faith doesn't really lead to new technologies.
Humans seem to have an uncontrollable desire to categorize and classify things. The categories thing they choose to place in them are determined by what they believe and experience. Physical scientists are no different in this regard. The idea is to to do one's best to correlate things to tangibles observed and repeated by others, and try to produce a self-consistent, integrated picture. Mathematics is often required. That doesn't mean that just because something is self-consistent or mathematical it is a representation of the way things are.
Reproducibilty by others and solicitation of rigorous criticism by others is one of the ways this happens.
Whether or not there are seemingly miraculous energy sources and anti-gravity around the corner, I see no reason for them to change how people act or treat each other. That requires a change in people. Among the first responses to any new technology seems to be to "one-up" the other guy or figure out how it can be used to kill him.
Well enough rambling--I don't have time to craft this mess into a succinct, coherant few paragraphs. I don't usually write about stuff like this.
cheers.
Wasn't able to get on line for a while.
Danny, apology accepted.
Like MK9, I'm agnostic on UFO's. I agree that humans don't know everything. And that, in the past, new science has occured and allowed for new devices to be constructed. We want that to continue.
Dogmatism is bad, but sometimes encouraged. But is is difficult to go beyond what we now have if the effort to understand what we how have isn't undertaken. True discoveries really don't pop up out of nowhere, and they also can't be found to order, or result simply from spending more money. A lot of what is called science is tweaking and refining. Or similar to engineering. And yes it is a political endeavor, what human lactivity isn't?
There isn't a lot of difference between dogmatism and wanting to interpret anything not intuitively (intuition varies greatly--depends upon the person and his past experience) obvious as evidence for something new and revolutionary, or proof of extra-terrestrial or divine origin, IMO.
Indeed a famous and proven mathematical theorem by Goedel (don't know how to post an umlaut) demonstrates that within any closed system of rules and postulates there always will be some proposals or statements of relationships that cannot be proven to be either true of false unless one goes beyond the closed system. That suggests that for instance a human brain can never fully understand a human brain.
So yes, even at the most reductionist and analytical level, there is a place for acceptance of unavoidable ignorance and thus agnostiscism.
How to cope with that is one's own choice, and depends, among other things, upon how one sees human's or their own place in the Universe. That is the realm of faith and religion not science.
Now as to what chaps my hide, is folks (and I'm not accusing Danny of this, just of getting mostly their side of things) who jump onto something like these "lifters" and claim that is proof of some dramatically new type of physics or whatever, yet appear unable to repeatedly demonstrate something that cannot be explained by the current understanding of physics. Good science explains what we find and explains or produces more. Good science fits together, and one can see and test it. Mysteries don't "prove" anything. Once that kind of premise accepted, a water-fall starts leading to God-knows-what...curing all diseases overnight, "reptoid"-human hybrids, limitless power supplies, an invisible secret cadre of evil beings enslaving the rest of us, and on and on. Then a bunch of scam-artists start making money. Zillions of quack medical devices, "secret" plans for sale, often accompanied by the claim that anyone who has invested the considerable effort required to acquaint themselves with the actual practice of modern science has been duped, brainwashed, or is an initiate of some evil cabal.
I think that Josh's link about the guy moving the large objects is a case in point. "anti-gravity" isn't required. I don't doubt that with the proper secrecy of action and publicity of result, the guy could convince some that he used anti-gravity. He didn't do that, he is a good person who has hard-won experience and a gift for applying what he has learned. He is selling some movies, but it looks like you will get more of what he shows on his web site. Not some bunch of mysterious gobbledlygook that purports amazing powers. Just the result of cleverness and patience.
Resorting to a elaborate conpiracy theories is to rely upon a circular argument that removes the topic from the realm of rational discussion. It is similar to saying that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and the creator created the fossils and decayed isotopes and all the rest that are thought to be geologic history at the same time. Or that all of reality is perception, and it is impossible to distinguish whether you are the only person in the universe, or not. These are the realms of faith or perhaps philosophy, not science. Regardless of the effects of faith upon human interactions or human spirit, faith doesn't really lead to new technologies.
Humans seem to have an uncontrollable desire to categorize and classify things. The categories thing they choose to place in them are determined by what they believe and experience. Physical scientists are no different in this regard. The idea is to to do one's best to correlate things to tangibles observed and repeated by others, and try to produce a self-consistent, integrated picture. Mathematics is often required. That doesn't mean that just because something is self-consistent or mathematical it is a representation of the way things are.
Reproducibilty by others and solicitation of rigorous criticism by others is one of the ways this happens.
Whether or not there are seemingly miraculous energy sources and anti-gravity around the corner, I see no reason for them to change how people act or treat each other. That requires a change in people. Among the first responses to any new technology seems to be to "one-up" the other guy or figure out how it can be used to kill him.
Well enough rambling--I don't have time to craft this mess into a succinct, coherant few paragraphs. I don't usually write about stuff like this.
cheers.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,594
The Madonna with Saint Giovannino
Lippi school, Italian, 15th century.
how about this one...
Entitled " the magnificat"( French Basillica Notre-Dame in Beaune, Burgundy)
or this one
These are actual paintings you can view in museums in Europe.
If anyone doubts the authenticity, of course, its understandable.
why ? Because there are, quite clearly, UFOs in these 500 year old tapestries and paintings.
Lippi school, Italian, 15th century.
how about this one...
Entitled " the magnificat"( French Basillica Notre-Dame in Beaune, Burgundy)
or this one
These are actual paintings you can view in museums in Europe.
If anyone doubts the authenticity, of course, its understandable.
why ? Because there are, quite clearly, UFOs in these 500 year old tapestries and paintings.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2001
- Messages
- 20,978
Ok.....let's start with The Magnificat. Can you provide a specific artist?
From Olga's Gallery:
In this version, there is clearly a heavenly crown being placed on Mary's head, with a bright star above it.
Could a more reasonable explanation be made that in the other Magnificat, (we cannot see the entire picture, but we'll assume it's a similar treatment) the crown is still "in the heavens", descending down to Mary and there is an angle attending to it from the ground? The star could be accompanying the crown (as it does in Botticelli's version). The difference is that in the first version, it's behind the crown rather than above it.
Artists often take a basic idea and tweak it to their own interpretation. It is very likely that this is the case.
Note: I am not ruling out the possibility....but after you've see as many paintings with weird objects in them as I have had the pleasure of seeing....you get less excitable about things like this...
It's not unusual for skulls, devils, omens, foul language, bugs, dogs, people, vulgar acts, etc. to be portrayed in a perfectly pleasant paintings "subversively"....that is, without the client's knowing, and obscurely rendered. This is a proven fact and has provided much delight to certain types of art historians...(myself included). Dates back to Ancient Roman times.
Do a search on Trompe L'Oeil (sp?) paintings....lots of fun stuff there...
Give me some time on the other two....and maybe some more specific information if you can.
From Olga's Gallery:
Here is Botticelli's version:
In this version, there is clearly a heavenly crown being placed on Mary's head, with a bright star above it.
Could a more reasonable explanation be made that in the other Magnificat, (we cannot see the entire picture, but we'll assume it's a similar treatment) the crown is still "in the heavens", descending down to Mary and there is an angle attending to it from the ground? The star could be accompanying the crown (as it does in Botticelli's version). The difference is that in the first version, it's behind the crown rather than above it.
Artists often take a basic idea and tweak it to their own interpretation. It is very likely that this is the case.
Note: I am not ruling out the possibility....but after you've see as many paintings with weird objects in them as I have had the pleasure of seeing....you get less excitable about things like this...
It's not unusual for skulls, devils, omens, foul language, bugs, dogs, people, vulgar acts, etc. to be portrayed in a perfectly pleasant paintings "subversively"....that is, without the client's knowing, and obscurely rendered. This is a proven fact and has provided much delight to certain types of art historians...(myself included
). Dates back to Ancient Roman times.Do a search on Trompe L'Oeil (sp?) paintings....lots of fun stuff there...
Give me some time on the other two....and maybe some more specific information if you can.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,594
Dan,
Your explanation requires far more imagination than just calling it a UFO.
Try this one from Japan, 1803.
It even describes strange writings seen inside the small craft.anybody think that is a roach or heavenly crown or misty eye of God?
Your explanation requires far more imagination than just calling it a UFO.
Try this one from Japan, 1803.
It even describes strange writings seen inside the small craft.anybody think that is a roach or heavenly crown or misty eye of God?