1. Sign-up to become a member, and most of the ads you see will disappear. It only takes 30 seconds to sign up, so join the discussion today!
    Dismiss Notice

Device to defy gravity. A hoax or the real deal?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Lars Larsen, Jul 29, 2002.

  1. CharlesD

    CharlesD Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These creatures sometimes visit me also, they come when they think no humans are watching, but some times they are visible to the human eye. Sometimes they take samples of various plants in the garden. I beleive they can either fly or teleport because when they are startled they quickly disppear even when surrounded by fences as tall as they are.
     
  2. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Psst! Julie! Did you tell Charles, too? Either that, or he has seen these strange, almond-eyed visitors for himself.
     
  3. Julie K

    Julie K Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jack,
    I never mentioned these visitors to Charles before. Don't you see, we're both reporting the same phenomenon - these visitors are real!!

    I've also observed how they can levitate over seemingly impassable heights and their habit of taking plant samples. I wonder what strange (and possibly sinister) reason they have to analyze our plants?
     
  4. MickeS

    MickeS Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    5,058
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sometimes I really feel like Julie and Jack should just hook up and spare us their silliness. [​IMG]
    /Mike
     
  5. BrianW

    BrianW Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 1999
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Brian
     
  6. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It may be the almond-eyed, stealthy, plant-stealing visitors, Brian!
     
  7. Julie K

    Julie K Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And don't forget that they leave ovals of bent grass stalks!
     
  8. CharlesD

    CharlesD Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and the mysterious "fuel" pellets.
     
  9. Julie K

    Julie K Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know, they might be spent fuel pellets...
     
  10. Dana Fillhart

    Dana Fillhart Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, one individual's spent fuel pellets is another's untapped natural resource...
    ...
    On a serious note, I think the joke's gone way overboard. For one, we know you wouldn't be supportive of jumping to the conclusion of extraterrestrial visitors so the teach-by-analogy bit is not only obvious, it's gotten to the point of "Bash him over the head with it" -- actually it's been reached a hundred times already above that you've probably earned yourself a few free airfare tickets from so many miles.
    The only point I think the "naysayers" (note the quotation marks; they mean something) are trying to say is, with something that hasn't yet been experimentally validated one way or the other, why all the arrogant condescension? And don't think it isn't -- the above attempt, while sophomoric to the extreme, was certainly condescending in trying to explain one shouldn't jump to the wildest conclusions. I don't think anybody here who has expressed hope that Podkletov's experiment yields results has done any such jumping; to the contrary, I think those who hold his experiment in skepticism have shown nothing but the worst of contempt.
    It isn't "People think he's discovered a way to shield gravity, prove us wrong," it's "People know some experiment's been done to shield gravity, and think support should be given to those who are trying to reproduce it." The latter half of the second statement is what is receiving the contempt from skeptics here and in the scientific community at large, and in my opinion is, until something more than vague "Group 1 and 2 of 3 attempts can't reproduce the environment, let alone the results of the experiments" comes along, unwarranted. Skeptics and wishful-thinkers alike should take a step back and say, "Nothing's known empiracally but the science seems sound, that's WHY Boeing's doing the experiment," and let the scientific method take its course, without undue ridicule and contempt.
    Just my 2c of wishing for a little more wonder and a little less condescension.
    (Oh, and yes, I'm guilty of it too with my "Grasp-at-straws" comment above; the joke was just too good to pass up at the time, but with how I really feel about the matter, it was uncalled-for. My bad; I'm sorry.)
     
  11. DennisHP

    DennisHP Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with Dana. We've all been told the only stupid question is one that is not raised. Maybe not a perfect analogy here but I think the point is there.
    [Rest of post deleted by admin. Do not repost.]
     
  12. Julie K

    Julie K Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dana,
    You missed a few key points, I think.
    (1) The "grass ovals" (deer beds) were not an analogy to this 'anti-gravity' device - it was a thread drift and a joke at that. (See Jack's comment about the expected flood of crop circle posts following the opening of Signs. I already see 'signs' of this effect in an uncritical examination of crop circles in this morning's Los Angeles Times.)
    (2) Undue ridicule and contempt: I know that in today's society it is in vogue to believe that all ideas should be treated as if they have they same validity but I don't buy that. A belief in astrology is not the same as a knowledge of astronomy. The belief that alien visitors create crop circles is not the same as a knowledge of physics. While I won't ridicule people, I can and do ridicule astrology, crop circles, new age phenomenon and so forth. And too bad if someone doesn't like it.
    (Yeah, and just wait until I post my fake astrological predictions that skewer astrology...)
    (3) Don't confuse points (1) and (2) with skeptics' ideas on the Podkletov's works. However, it seems as if many believers seem to equate "show me the proof" with expressions of contempt or being harsh or any number of other phrases and telling us skeptics that we are just being nasty arrogant know-it-alls just because we want some independent confirmation before we believe it. [​IMG]
    (4) You think this thread has been 'contempt'? Just wait until Podkletov submits his work to a peer reviewed journal. He will be torn apart and scrutinized beyond belief. (And that's assuming his work is sound!) People who review scientific papers and work do not play nice or do their utmost to avoid hurting an author's work. They do not try to avoid being harsh and couldn't care less about exhibiting a sense of wonder. This thread is nothing compared to that.
    (5) Much of this thread has not been so much a reaction to Podkletov's work, but of the statement early on that basically seemed to say that because we once thought X was impossible, we must therefore accept any Y as being true.
     
  13. Max Leung

    Max Leung Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Keep in mind that taking criticism is part of a scientist's job description (eg. must have a thick skin, and learns to ignore bad criticism). Science as we know it can't exist wihout critics.

    A prime example is the Soviet genetics program during the Stalin era, where it was decreed that Mendel's genetic theories are contrary to the values of the Communist Party, and henceforth would not be taught, regardless of the scientific evidence. Any scientist that disagrees would be banished from the Russian Academy of Sciences, or worse: sent to the gulag.
     
  14. Max Leung

    Max Leung Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Julie, I like that Times article...I need to get my hands on some L-Dopa! I wonder if the effects are addictive... [​IMG]
     
  15. Julie K

    Julie K Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Max, something tells me that you want that L-dopa for something other than making you gullible! [​IMG]
     
  16. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tecate and Pacifico both make me gullible. And St. Pauli Girl. Though I don't care much for Samuel Adams ale.
     
  17. Max Leung

    Max Leung Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey, if ignorance is bliss, I want a hit of that stuff by a HOT NURSE!

    What is Tecate and Pacifico? Sounds like a clothing store!
     
  18. Seth Paxton

    Seth Paxton Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 1998
    Messages:
    7,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have a new scientific application for L-Dopa now...take large doses before going to see any Bruckheimer film.
    I SMELL OSCAR!! [​IMG]
    Simply making a claim is easy....and SCIENCE IS NOT EASY. Nobody gets to go around the barriers for free. And any GOOD scientist understands and accepts these barriers.
    When a scientist goes public and basically appears to try to circumvent these barriers (proper channels) it immediately makes their work appear dubiously FAKE or SLOPPY.
    A good scientist gets excited by a discovery, but their next desired step is to get it CONFIRMED so that they can go public without being refuted. They WANT to have a strong hand when arguing their case because they WANT to be right.
    When people jump the gun to publishing they either know it's not true and just want to get some attention, OR they obviously have a non-scientific approach to things that includes JUMPING THE GUN. Now imagine what their own scientific method must be like if they are also willing to go public before something is verified. What sort of leaps within their own work might they be willing to take without verification or rigor?
    Yes, I think it's quite likely that we will experience a major paradigm shift due to some breakthrough either in micro or macro physics (such as quantum mechanics) and after that point many "new" things will become possible. But before that point I don't think we have any idea what those things are. People want time machines and anti-gravity and teleporters, but it's just as likely that the next paradigm shift will take us totally in an unseen direction where some of those ideas seem less important or perhaps even more ridiculous than they do already.
    When somebody connects the physics of Einstein with Q.Mechanics things WILL be different in a way that scientists have yet to imagine. BUT, it most likely won't be in a way that anyone else has yet imagined either, simply because the paradigm exists because NO ONE has thought this new way yet.
    Quality science is an OPEN MIND followed by rigorous confirmation. When someone skips that confirmation it is NOT quality science, and thus falls under skepticism at the very least. That doesn't mean everyone else doesn't have an open mind.
    BTW, people tried to verify cold fusion too. That cost money just like Boeing is spending. Why spend it? Because the "just in case" factor could have a big payoff. Call it betting on the longshot. But that doesn't make us jerks for calling it a longshot, because without proper verification methods that's exactly what it is (a VERY longshot).
     
  19. Mike Voigt

    Mike Voigt Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1997
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would LOVE to see this work - especially if they can increase the effect from 2% to, say, 50% or more. It would be absolutely revolutionary. I can dream of a lot of applications: "lifts" that you step into and float up (or down) to the desired point in space; launch platforms to space; construction equipment; etc., etc., etc.

    Whoever comes up with these and is successful at marketing them is going to be one heck of a wealthy person. And this planet will grow tighter yet (massive floating barge to ship several hundred thousand tons of stuff across water and land?).

    None of these are worth a damn if the effect is irreproducible. And THAT is why these things get torn apart. It is nice someone comes up with a suggestion, and perhaps even an experimental path. Once it is confirmed, we can get to work. Until then, it remains in the "wishful thinking" category.

    As a Boeing or a NASA, I would, however, consider bringing in the esteemed Dr. and have him help with setting up the experiments - followed by a pile of researchers to make sure there is no sleight of hand. And document, document, document.

    It WOULD be an awesome device.

    Mike
     
  20. Max Leung

    Max Leung Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Follow-up, kinda:
    Gravity Shielding Still Science Fiction, Boeing Says.
     

Share This Page