Anybody who thinks that using current propulsion systems (propellers, jets, rockets, etc.) as a viable technology for a levitating air (or space) vehicle is honking the clueless pipe, in my opinion. As you mentioned, high fuel consumption is big disadvantage. Also, they still would have to land and take off in designated areas for questions of safety and health (nobody wants to breathe all that dust and exhaust fumes). Piloting an air car is, by its nature, a dangerous proposition. So much so, that any personal air car that is not 100% self-piloting is out of the question for mass adoption. This would increase the cost exponentially. In the end, you would end up with an expensive, dangerous and fairly useless contraption. Eventually, you realize that the best you can do is no better than something that is already here: the helicopter.
But who says air car dreamers are forever stuck with a dangerous and crippling beast fastened to their backs? Who says that current propellant-based propulsion systems are all there is? Imagine if we had a transportation technology that made it possible to travel from Earth to Mars in hours or from New York City to Beijing in minutes. You may think this is impossible but, in that case, the air car will remain an eternal dream and space colonization and exploitation will forever remain primitive and overly expensive and dangerous.
The space propulsion and ground and air transportation industries must look beyond their current understanding of physics if they are to come out of the rut they are stuck in. It's obvious that current physics is not going to solve this problem anytime soon. Physicists must retrace their steps and reevaluate their fundamental assumptions and practices to uncover a solution.
Our understanding of motion is a case in point. Every physicist seems to be under the impression that inertial motion is uncaused; two bodies in relative motion remain in motion for no reason, as if by magic. But what if this is not true? What if Aristotle was right about the causality of motion? What if there is something (some form of energy) in the "vacuum" that acts as a causal substrate for motion? My point is that a correct and complete understanding of the true nature of motion would, without a doubt, uncover new avenues of research that would revolutionize transportation. NASA and Darpa should promote as many fringe avenues of research as possible, in my opinion, regardless of their expected payoffs. Nobody is going to win the lotto if nobody buys a ticket.
Literally, bicycle means 'two wheels', though, and tricycle means 'three-wheels', doh! We probably would use quadracycle for 'four-wheels' but we're too damn lazy for our own good and use car instead. But your point is well taken.
Because it has its own mobile wifi, just in case the driver might need to use twitter or something to send a message to his mom or his girlfriend. One never knows in this day and age.
PS. My karma is terrible. Can you help me with some good karma, please? Hahaha...
Oh Yeah. I almost forgot. It's a bitch trying to escape the usual shit-for-brains Slashdot censoring crowd. It feels good to have power, doesn't it? What a bunch of shitheads you all are!
Modding me down because you disagree with my views is a form of ad hominem argument. Fucking morons.
Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it? But Rome was not built in one day. Have patience. Inertia can be ignored, even under extremely powerful acceleration, if every atom in the ship and its occupants are accelerated simultaneously and equally.
Great news indeed. Still, it's depressing to think that we're still using an ancient, dangerous, primitive and very expensive space transportation technology: rocket propulsion. One thing is sure; we'll never colonize the solar system with rockets at the rate we're going.
But rejoice. Soon, a new form of transportation will arrive, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel. Check it out.
I wonder if it's based on Numenta's Bayesian HTM (hierarchical temporal memory). My understanding of neuro-like learning system is that, unless its knowledge base is organized hierachically like a tree, it could not possibly do the things its promoters are claiming for it.
ahahaha... I see that the usual politically correct Slashdot gang is hard at work, as ususal, supressing free expression. Did I mention that you people were stupid as fuck? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
This is precisely this type of condescending, we-are-am-smater-than-you attitude that turns people off on science and scientists. Maybe physicists should concentrate on the foundational issues (e.g., the true nature of motion) first before they go chasing after gravity waves. You folks are not as smart as you think you are.
Did you know that over 90% of physicists believe that matter can move in spacetime even though it is known that spacetime is frozen from the infinite past to the infinite future? Did you know that physicists have no clue as to what keeps a moving particle in motion? Did you know that most physicists believe that moving bodies remain in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic?
My own research, based on the application of the principle of causality to motion, has led me to conclude that we are swimming in a enormous sea of energetic particles. Having a correct causal model of motion will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation.
LOL. I get this a lot. It's better to be a kook than an ass kisser any time. Are there any people with gonads left in science? Or more to the point, are there any gonads on Slashdot?
You want science to be popular? Just stop the elitist condescension and admit that you don't know it all and that you (especially, the more famous scientists) may be wrong about many things. The public has the right to mistrust scientists just as much as the religious leaders. We don't like to be preached to from on high. We want respect.
As an example, if you ask a physicist to explain why two particles in relative motion remain in motion, you come face to face with bullshit and ignorance. One may tell you that nothing is needed (the magical unseen cosmic hand) while the other may insist that physics is not about the why but the how of things. To a thinking layperson, both answers are pathetically wrong. Learn about why an analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are swimming in an immense sea of energetic particles.
My theory is that some Mexican or Columbian drug cartel needed a safe way to retrieve bundles of dope dropped off the coast of Florida and floating right below the surface of the water. What (who?) would be better suited for the job than Waldo? I'm sure Waldo is sporting a new black coating by now.
Submarine folks should know better than naming their craft any name other than Nemo. Serves them right. Besides, Waldo is probably a code name for a cocaine mule in that part of the country.
It just goes to show ya. If it's not one thing, it's another.
Doctors should try their own medicine, IMO. I dismiss those who dismiss me. That is all.
I'm just an idea man. If my ideas are good, others will act on them and they do. There are several people working on implementing their own a COSA interpreters and associated user interfaces. Currently, I don't have the time to develop code. Besides, I am really interested in the hardware aspect of the model.
Also, it is not as if I am twisting anybody's arm to read my stuff. My motto is, love it or leave it.
Re:Good Points But...
on
Coders At Work
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Compared to how easy it could be if it were done right? Yes. At any rate, since you are so happy with yourself, I won't feel sorry for you when you'll lose your programming job five or ten years from now, just because your services are no longer needed. By anybody.
Slashdot Mirror
Anybody who thinks that using current propulsion systems (propellers, jets, rockets, etc.) as a viable technology for a levitating air (or space) vehicle is honking the clueless pipe, in my opinion. As you mentioned, high fuel consumption is big disadvantage. Also, they still would have to land and take off in designated areas for questions of safety and health (nobody wants to breathe all that dust and exhaust fumes). Piloting an air car is, by its nature, a dangerous proposition. So much so, that any personal air car that is not 100% self-piloting is out of the question for mass adoption. This would increase the cost exponentially. In the end, you would end up with an expensive, dangerous and fairly useless contraption. Eventually, you realize that the best you can do is no better than something that is already here: the helicopter.
But who says air car dreamers are forever stuck with a dangerous and crippling beast fastened to their backs? Who says that current propellant-based propulsion systems are all there is? Imagine if we had a transportation technology that made it possible to travel from Earth to Mars in hours or from New York City to Beijing in minutes. You may think this is impossible but, in that case, the air car will remain an eternal dream and space colonization and exploitation will forever remain primitive and overly expensive and dangerous.
The space propulsion and ground and air transportation industries must look beyond their current understanding of physics if they are to come out of the rut they are stuck in. It's obvious that current physics is not going to solve this problem anytime soon. Physicists must retrace their steps and reevaluate their fundamental assumptions and practices to uncover a solution.
Our understanding of motion is a case in point. Every physicist seems to be under the impression that inertial motion is uncaused; two bodies in relative motion remain in motion for no reason, as if by magic. But what if this is not true? What if Aristotle was right about the causality of motion? What if there is something (some form of energy) in the "vacuum" that acts as a causal substrate for motion? My point is that a correct and complete understanding of the true nature of motion would, without a doubt, uncover new avenues of research that would revolutionize transportation. NASA and Darpa should promote as many fringe avenues of research as possible, in my opinion, regardless of their expected payoffs. Nobody is going to win the lotto if nobody buys a ticket.
Physics: The Problem with Motion
Yeah, but it is a lot easier to charge your electric car in the garage now than it is to find hydrogen for your hydrogen car.
Literally, bicycle means 'two wheels', though, and tricycle means 'three-wheels', doh! We probably would use quadracycle for 'four-wheels' but we're too damn lazy for our own good and use car instead. But your point is well taken.
Hexicycle, octocycle, decicycle, anyone? Bueller?
Because it has its own mobile wifi, just in case the driver might need to use twitter or something to send a message to his mom or his girlfriend. One never knows in this day and age.
PS. My karma is terrible. Can you help me with some good karma, please? Hahaha...
My name is Louis Savain and I approved the above message. LOL.
Oh Yeah. I almost forgot. It's a bitch trying to escape the usual shit-for-brains Slashdot censoring crowd. It feels good to have power, doesn't it? What a bunch of shitheads you all are!
Modding me down because you disagree with my views is a form of ad hominem argument. Fucking morons.
So here, censor this and see if I care. LOL.
Not so. You and I live in interesting times.
Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it? But Rome was not built in one day. Have patience. Inertia can be ignored, even under extremely powerful acceleration, if every atom in the ship and its occupants are accelerated simultaneously and equally.
Great news indeed. Still, it's depressing to think that we're still using an ancient, dangerous, primitive and very expensive space transportation technology: rocket propulsion. One thing is sure; we'll never colonize the solar system with rockets at the rate we're going.
But rejoice. Soon, a new form of transportation will arrive, one based on the realization that we are immersed in an immense ocean of energetic particles. This is a consequence of a reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion. Soon, we'll have vehicles that can move at tremendous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring damages due to inertial effects. Floating cities, unlimited clean energy, earth to mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes... That's the future of energy and travel. Check it out.
The Problem With Motion
I wonder if it's based on Numenta's Bayesian HTM (hierarchical temporal memory). My understanding of neuro-like learning system is that, unless its knowledge base is organized hierachically like a tree, it could not possibly do the things its promoters are claiming for it.
ahahaha... I see that the usual politically correct Slashdot gang is hard at work, as ususal, supressing free expression. Did I mention that you people were stupid as fuck? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
'Not even wrong' does not do it justice. You're a gutless ass kisser on a mission. :-D
You're not even wrong.
If you got any gonads, identify yourself and be on the record. Why be ashamed of what you are? A little bit of gonads is all it takes. :-D
This is precisely this type of condescending, we-are-am-smater-than-you attitude that turns people off on science and scientists. Maybe physicists should concentrate on the foundational issues (e.g., the true nature of motion) first before they go chasing after gravity waves. You folks are not as smart as you think you are.
Did you know that over 90% of physicists believe that matter can move in spacetime even though it is known that spacetime is frozen from the infinite past to the infinite future? Did you know that physicists have no clue as to what keeps a moving particle in motion? Did you know that most physicists believe that moving bodies remain in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic?
My own research, based on the application of the principle of causality to motion, has led me to conclude that we are swimming in a enormous sea of energetic particles. Having a correct causal model of motion will unleash an age of free energy and extremely fast transportation.
The Problem With Motion
note my non-anonymity
You call mujadaddy non-anonymity? Your gonads are the same size as an electron and you know it. LOL.
LOL. I get this a lot. It's better to be a kook than an ass kisser any time. Are there any people with gonads left in science? Or more to the point, are there any gonads on Slashdot?
If you got any gonads, identify yourself. :-D
You want science to be popular? Just stop the elitist condescension and admit that you don't know it all and that you (especially, the more famous scientists) may be wrong about many things. The public has the right to mistrust scientists just as much as the religious leaders. We don't like to be preached to from on high. We want respect.
As an example, if you ask a physicist to explain why two particles in relative motion remain in motion, you come face to face with bullshit and ignorance. One may tell you that nothing is needed (the magical unseen cosmic hand) while the other may insist that physics is not about the why but the how of things. To a thinking layperson, both answers are pathetically wrong. Learn about why an analysis of the causality of motion leads to the conclusion that we are swimming in an immense sea of energetic particles.
Physics: The Problem With Motion
My theory is that some Mexican or Columbian drug cartel needed a safe way to retrieve bundles of dope dropped off the coast of Florida and floating right below the surface of the water. What (who?) would be better suited for the job than Waldo? I'm sure Waldo is sporting a new black coating by now.
Submarine folks should know better than naming their craft any name other than Nemo. Serves them right. Besides, Waldo is probably a code name for a cocaine mule in that part of the country.
It just goes to show ya. If it's not one thing, it's another.
Ha ha. Old timer. Played with Fortran or COBOL lately?
Doctors should try their own medicine, IMO. I dismiss those who dismiss me. That is all.
I'm just an idea man. If my ideas are good, others will act on them and they do. There are several people working on implementing their own a COSA interpreters and associated user interfaces. Currently, I don't have the time to develop code. Besides, I am really interested in the hardware aspect of the model.
Also, it is not as if I am twisting anybody's arm to read my stuff. My motto is, love it or leave it.
Opinions, opinions, opinions. See ya.
As they say, opinions are a dime a dozen.
Compared to how easy it could be if it were done right? Yes. At any rate, since you are so happy with yourself, I won't feel sorry for you when you'll lose your programming job five or ten years from now, just because your services are no longer needed. By anybody.