posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Localjoe3
Please refrain from calling me a crank or nutcase.. im a 24 year old network engineer that dabbles in motors and em technology for fun..
*snip rest of post*
I didnt call you a crank or a nutcase, I said 'same old rubbish - cranks and nutcases' and thats my opinion of the technologies and the people
publishing reports on the 'internet' as discussed here on ATS.
Theres a world of difference between building a desktop demo of a few bits of wire and foil, weighing no more than a few ounces, connected to the
mains supply (I did all that 18 years ago in high school), and building a working aircraft weighing several tonnes and carrying its own power
Look, we can all build paper airplanes, but to go from a paper airplane to Concorde is an entirely different matter - and thats what you are
suggesting by saying 'look, Ive done it on my desk!'. Moller can't even get his 'sky car' off the deck in a safe and reasonable manner using
decades old fan technologies - and hes been working at the same problem for 30 years now!
No doubt someone is working on it, but its nowhere near ready for the prime time. Its like fusion - always 20 years away. I don't forsee anything
wierd and wonderful under the US governments hat, and I havent for a while - you can quote me on this, because I can tell you now that for the next 50
years you won't see anything other than evolutionary coming out of the black projects shadow. No new power sources, no magical levitation devices,
nothing of that ilk. More exotic fuels, sure, better engines, certainly, better heat resistent materials, definitely. Antigravity? Nope.
Invisibility? Highly doubtful. Aliens? Not a chance.
*sigh* perhaps its just me, perhaps Ive outgrown this website - I disagree more and more with the 'out there' technologies being passed off as
viable fact. More and more I come here, wanting serious discussion, and more and more I just find myself reading posts and laughing. Mach 14 SR-71?
Hah! 747 to orbit? That was a good one. Mach 6 F-22? Its good, but its not that good. There was someone here the other day insisting that a
technology was viable because the US Patent Office had issued someone a patent on it - the technology was essentially a perpetual motion machine. I
had a good laugh on that.