 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 11:17 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Yes I know is only magnetic force passing through a superconductor and
> getting stuck on its way through but since I don't know much about
> Quantum Physics I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed
> or interact, to achieve lift at quantum level or something like that. I
> wonder why I don't read scientists trying to make practical use of
> anti-gravity.
Because, anti-gravity isn't possible until you understand "gravity". The
magnetic stuff isn't anti-gravity, and it requires superconductors,
which do not work at sane temperatures (as in any range of such that are
practical, at all, or would provide enough lifting for more than a small
disc, over a magnet).
> I was told that they have found a way to tele+transport a
> monochrome laser light 1 meter using Quantum Physics, where are those
> experiments, we could use that.
For what? Just because you can monkey with like 1:10,000 photons
produced by such a laser, in a way that results in that one photon being
"teleported" a meter or so, doesn't mean that you can do shit all useful
with it. Seriously, if it was that easy to produce quantum effects, or
entangled pairs, we would already have light sabers (basically, you
split the pair, send on out the business end, and send the other down
the tube, to be "bounced" back, or absorbed, so that the other half of
the pair "stops" at the length you want. Problem is, the blade could be
only as long as the "hilt", or more precisely the absorption/reflection
chamber. Second problem - even if you had part of each pair bouncing
around inside a reflection chamber, it would take you a week to form a
blade, and it would dissipate in seconds, the moment it hit something,
since you can't "consistently" produce entangled pairs at anything near
the scale, and rate, needed to do it.
Same problem with trying to "teleport" lasers. It only works,
consistently, with single photons, and then only with some X number, out
of Y produced. What do you want next, make them bend around corners, or
produce Star Trek holodecks?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 9:24 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and
>> testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle,
>> UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil
>> military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis
>> of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some
>> phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.
>
> I have seen quite some videos and documentaries about ufology, including
> videos that claim to be the most convincing evidence of UFOs. They weren't
> very convincing.
>
> Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. People interpret what
> they see in all kind of wrong ways because they don't know what they are
> seeing. Mouth-to-mouth word spreads these stories, and people invent new
> details to them, even without realizing (that's because people do not
> repeat the words they hear; instead they repeat the mental image they
> got when they were told the story). Some people repeat as personal
> experience something that they heard from a good friend (this is very
> well documented in multitude of cases, including the infamous Roswell
> "UFO" case). Some people lie.
>
Eye witness testimony is "so" unreliable that, in one of the shows on TV
recently, 10 people couldn't pin down, in a staged crime:
1. The number involved (correct number was 4, the average number given
was 2, with 3 being the next closest. None of them got 4).
2. The person that took the item (they claimed everything from the woman
arguing, to one of the other people in the crowd with them, had, when it
was actually taken by one, then handed off to another.)
3. How any of the people involved where dressed (Not even going to go
into that, see later.)
4. What, and from where, it was stolen (wallet, from the guys back pocket).
5. Couldn't avoid "false" memories, resulting from two plants, whose
only job was to get 50% of it right, but introduce three wrong details.
The end result was the only verified "suspect" that wasn't even involved
at all, the woman who was either in a hat, or not, wearing red, white,
or dark clothes, her and the man she was arguing with, or her and two
men, one of which stole a camera, out of a camera bag (no bag, and it
was a wallet, out of his pocket). It only got worse, when they put them
in a room, asked them questions together, so they fed off each other,
and the two plants dropped the "camera", and "she had a hat, and a white
coat on", BS into the mix.
The farther you get from the event, the more useless the information
gets. The more people have time to talk to each other, the more useless
the information gets. And, unless you are very careful to pick the guy
that doesn't embellish, and it *very* precise in their details, without
adding in feelings, and side thoughts, etc., even the stuff you get out
of a witness "within minutes" of it happening, is often complete gibberish.
Now, the "witnesses" in UFO cases are rarely clinical, they add details,
as they go, they tend to talk about what they felt, rather than only
what they saw, i.e., even from the standpoint of talking to them,
"within minutes" of the event, their testimony would be thrown out as
unlikely to be reliable, without additional information, right from the
start. Yet, we are supposed to presume that, having had years to
rethink, reexamine, talk to other people, listen to, or read, other
stories like their own, etc., there testimony of what happened got "more
reliable" with time?
Yep, as you said Warp, the whole idea that this is sensible, or that you
can trust any of it, at all, without *clear* evidence, like the missing
"crashed ship" or other verifiable facts, is pure absurdity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/19/2011 7:03 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I can't believe there is no way till now to by any scientist to
> make a use of this and make a damn car, maybe it would generate more
> problems that solutions, people bumping on each other's cars... Imagine
> a 8 line highway car accident!
I remember watching a TV show when I was a kid about flying cars that
made them sound like they'd be a reality really soon. That was a long
time ago and I'm still waiting!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2011 05:32 PM, Warp wrote:
> I don't really understand why some people get so excited about these
> "levitation" experiments. They are no different from airplanes and
> helicopters. All of them hover in the air without toucing the ground.
> The mechanism is just a bit different depending on the phenomenon.
Helicopters hover by expending vast amounts of energy per second. This
levitating magnet appears to expend no energy at all.
> What makes the "levitation" of a superconductor over a magnet (or the
> other way around) so cool is that it's not something you experience in
> everyday life (for obvious reasons).
WRONG! The thing that makes it so cool is the liquid nitrogen. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> Now, the "witnesses" in UFO cases are rarely clinical, they add details,
> as they go, they tend to talk about what they felt, rather than only
> what they saw, i.e., even from the standpoint of talking to them,
> "within minutes" of the event, their testimony would be thrown out as
> unlikely to be reliable, without additional information, right from the
> start. Yet, we are supposed to presume that, having had years to
> rethink, reexamine, talk to other people, listen to, or read, other
> stories like their own, etc., there testimony of what happened got "more
> reliable" with time?
Another less known fact (which I already mentioned in my earlier post)
is that it's surprisingly common for people to have witnessed something
personally when in fact they didn't, and instead they were just told about
it.
One reason for this happening is that people misremember things. When a
person is told a story, he forms a mental image of that story in his head.
In other words, he uses his imagination to envision what is being told.
Much later this person may well misremember this event and mistakenly think
that he himself witnessed those events he only imagined back then. In other
words, he forgets that it was his own imagination of the story he was being
told, not an actual direct witnessing.
It has happened many times that when these "first-hand" eyewitnesses are
scrutinized in more detail, it turns out that they didn't actually witness
the event themselves. For example the Roswell UFO event was rife with this
type of eyewitnesses.
Another problem is that, as I said, people do not repeat the words they
hear. They repeat the mental image they got from those words. Naturally
it's impossible for the mental image to be the same as the real event.
People "fill in the blanks", form concrete mental images from vague
descriptions, and so on. When they later describe these mental images they
got, they may be wildly different from the original events. (And when this
retelling is further retold by others, it changes even more, and so on.)
Eyewitness testimony is just worthless. Ufologists and ufo believers
should stop putting so much weight on them.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Helicopters hover by expending vast amounts of energy per second. This
> levitating magnet appears to expend no energy at all.
In the same way as an object on a table seems to be "expending no energy
at all" to stop it from falling through the table, or a boat on water seems
to likewise be "expending no energy at all" to stop it from sinking to the
bottom.
The four fundamental interactions work like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/10/2011 01:56 PM, Warp wrote:
> Another less known fact (which I already mentioned in my earlier post)
> is that it's surprisingly common for people to have witnessed something
> personally when in fact they didn't, and instead they were just told about
> it.
I read about an experiment which culminated in the researchers asking a
group of people if they'd seen the Bugs Bunnie poster last time they
were at Disney World. (They didn't just ask; they did things like show
people a poster next to a Mickey Mouse poster and so on and so forth.) A
significant number of people claimed they *had* in fact seen this poster.
(Those of you paying attention will notice that Bugs Bunnie is *not* a
Disney character, and wouldn't be seen dead at Disney World...)
> Another problem is that, as I said, people do not repeat the words they
> hear. They repeat the mental image they got from those words.
There's a famous demonstration which involves telling a person that
you're going to read them a description and then quiz them on it, so
they need to remember as many details as possible. You give them a long
drawn-out description of a house by a road, with a garden and a car and
so on and so forth. At the end, you ask what colour the car was.
Everybody is sure they heard you say a colour, but in fact the story
does not specify the car's actual colour. False recall, right there.
Pretty easy to demonstrate [provided you can find somebody who doesn't
already know it's a trick].
> Eyewitness testimony is just worthless. Ufologists and ufo believers
> should stop putting so much weight on them.
And courtrooms.
Oh, wait...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/21/2011 6:17, Invisible wrote:
> (Those of you paying attention will notice that Bugs Bunnie is *not* a
> Disney character, and wouldn't be seen dead at Disney World...)
Hmm. I should try dressing up as Bugs Bunny for halloween and see if they'll
let me into disney land.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of
useful things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
Lightsabers no, maybe in a 1,000 years more when we learn to be more
civil. If it's useful and moral I think is good for Humanity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/22/2011 17:38, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Yes, all the tricks: Transporters, holodecks, replicators & a lot of useful
> things for space exploration and every day use, why not?
Why not *what*? Why not just invent these fictional devices without any
idea of how to go about doing so?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
