vger

Eden was wonderful. Until one specific moment.

Therein lies a similar dilemma. To say that spaceflight is bad because it's built upon missiles that were built to kill, is analogous to saying nuclear energy is bad because it has been used for killing. Science is like a syringe. Inherently neither good nor evil. It is up to the individual to decide whether to fill it with a healing medicine, or a deadly poison.

For some reason this old thing just crossed my mind. It actually amazes me that events such as Roswell get so much attention when it seems so much easier to debunk as a genuine alien craft incident. Still intriguing as a cover-up story, but not as an "X-File." In all the U.F.O. paraphernalia I read in my teens, I never came across this story - only stumbling upon it by accident on the web one day last year. Granted, this happened in 1942 just after America entered WWII, so it's likely that this would be from an enemy nation and not from space. But then consider the fact that over 1000 shells were fired at the darned thing, for over 30 minutes, and it just sat there and grinned back at the pitiful weaponry. The entire city saw this happening. The cannons destroyed no target, though managed to accidentally kill a few people on the ground, along with causing some considerable property damage. One of the explanations is laughable - always the classic go-to explanation for any U.F.O. "Weather Balloon." Goodness, that's one tough weather balloon. Alien or not, it survived a barrage that would have taken out a bomber in under than a minute. One of the most basic "UFO mistakes," being that it could be a star, satellite (even though none existed yet), or other object much higher than it seemed, can't apply here. With so many search lights converging on it, its true altitude would have been very easy to determine. Any thoughts on what else it could be?

The paradox is even simpler than that. We've all been told that "Being yourself" is the ideal. That means if we decide to "be ourselves," we're following someone else's ideology

Not sure if this is relevant. Kinda wish I had recorded it because it was a fun little experiment. There was an old multiplayer game series called Descent. The whole thing took place in zero gravity and you could thrust in any direction you wanted while fighting (think like a classic FPS but adding the Z-axis to freedom of movement). While gravity didn't exist, there was clearly a "top" of the craft you were fighting in. One day I got bored and decided to treat a different direction as "down" then where the floor obviously was. The other players did seem to respond differently to how I was flying, but I can't remember the details.

Earth's core has its own spin.

Depends. IF the cylinders worked they way they did in the book, we probably wouldn't even bat an eye. We'd never see the first wave coming. Once they left Mars, they were purely ballistic with a trajectory so accurate, that they just aero-braked into Earth's atmosphere and then slammed into the ground. The cylinders didn't even have engines - from the outside they appeared to be seamless metal objects. They were launched from Mars by a cannon, "Jules Verne" style. IF we picked them up on the way in, we'd figure they were meteors, shrug, and move on, assuming they'd burn up. Once stuff started crawling out of the cylinders and causing chaos, there'd be a tremendous amount of renewed interest in asteroid deflection. If anyone is bored and wants to hear a somewhat more modern take on the classic Orson Welles hoax that doesn't completely butcher and reinvent the invaders, check this out from 1971.

I was wondering when someone would think of the Martian launchers.

Is all of this conjecture based on when they last saw it before it reached the 'dark side?' Are they still getting a signal? I was under the impression that we had to wait until it emerges again, to know if everything is still running smoothly.

So there are patent trolls... and then there are PATENT TROLLS.

That's exactly what it reminded me of. So someone tried to patent what was already a popular UFO "design?" *cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_%28UFO%29

This. It implies that the stereotypical "primordial ooze" ingredients could easily be present in ANY system, even before planets form. This includes the systems that are billions of years old. Good evidence pointing towards a universe teeming with life.

I can't think of any reason this couldn't work. Radio is just a wavelength of light, and we have creatures that use light to communicate. It just doesn't seem likely, because there's much more to gain from light detection in the visible range. Not many things reflect radio waves. It's fine for detecting a metal object coming towards you, but I wouldn't want to try hunting a Gazelle with it. I don't even know why you referred to this as telekinesis though, because this wouldn't be that at all based on the supernatural definition. The idea of telekinesis is a form of communication that we are either unable to detect, or don't recognize as relevant for communication (like "brain waves").

Preferred, but not necessary. As long as it produces appropriate dots, not 5-pointed stars.

I thought we were going even one step better than that. The VLT is supposed to have a resolution high enough to see the landing sites.

Felt like this needed its own thread. I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more interest around here so far. The main drawback seems to be that we'd need to get everyone feeling comfortable with nuclear devices in space. I know WE realize it's not as apocalyptic as the idea implies, but many aren't - for the same reasons that many aren't comfortable with nuclear power on Earth. All that aside, this bugger is theoretically the Turbo-Charged V8 of space travel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/06/vasimr-rocket-mars_n_7009118.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

It would've been cool to see this investigated further, but gosh, the film was already long enough. The build-up to the events of Interstellar could easily be sufficient for a prequel film.

I had one when I was a kid, and literally all it did was project the stars on the room. I look at what's available now and most of what I can find is actually an inverse of what it should be. Like it projects light everywhere EXCEPT where the stars are. And often it also has traced constellations and even displays the names of them. I haven't been able to find anything that produces the more realistic display that one would expect from visiting a full-scale planetarium. Anybody know of one?

In the case of foam, it would probably be best to get a device that carves a shape out of a solid object. You don't need moving parts, so no need to bother with a 3D printer.

KM has written space music? Song titles pls?

They need to give some AI, servos, and sensors to that lamp so it can follow you around the room and illuminate whatever it is you're doing.

From what I knew of Apollo 12, it sort of fit the bill. Not that this really had any impact on their competence though. They were just more... colorful?

You still might see that leg heal itself faster with a placebo. It won't magically happen overnight, but the difference would be sufficient enough that it could be recordable. Yes, let's just assume that this kind of thing is limited to crystal ball readers and give carte blanche to pharmaceutical companies. The marketing of "science drugs" should be getting even MORE scrutiny. Those are the guys who have spent millions of man-hours in psychological research to determine the best ways to invade the brains of the public, and this is only going to continue getting worse, the more they learn about how the mind works. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead. Headon. Apply directly to the forehead.

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/04/cern-researchers-confirm-existence-force

Does it have to be CGI? Can you at least draw some basic pics and scan them? You'd have a much better chance at getting somebody to do some renders that way.