 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/22/2011 7:32 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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?
>
Yeah, about as absurd as assuming that you can do something like a
holodeck (fields and positional light), or replicator (using fields, of
some sort, to directly organize material into structures), without some
idiot inventing a lightsaber with it. The sad thing is, the replicator,
to a limited extent (might) be feasible, for some range of things. You
don't need absolute precision, if you are making something with a simple
chemical structure, which isn't prone to producing toxic byproducts, if
you get it wrong. You just need a way to, layer by layer, apply the
materials, something we already do, with printers, for some things now,
including simple circuits.
But, it doesn't require quantum anything to do it, or precise field
manipulations, or anti-grav, or the whole host of other shit that either
seems improbable at all, or requires shit that quantum mechanics
experiments haven't even come bloody close to providing us any sort of
clue for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> 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.
Since you seem to believe seriously in all those things you have been
writing about in this thread and apparently are not just joking, can I give
you some friendly advise?
Spend some time studying how science works in general, and physics in
particular. Read some books about science and the scientific method, as
well as some introductory books on subjects like general physics and, if
you like, more specific subjects such as astrophysics. Take some course
on these subjects. Enroll into a university or similar school.
Also, study a bit about human behavior and psychology, about how the
brain works and how people interpret what they see. Get acquainted with
common misconceptions, argumentative fallacies and urban legends.
When you encounter an extraordinary claim, investigate. And when
investigating, avoid bias. Do not "investigate" only material that
supports the claim. Also investigate serious material that discredits
the claim. Search for debunking websites and consider what they are
saying and why.
As the adage goes, a brain is a terrible thing to waste.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
