posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:37 AM
Originally posted by 74Templar
Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by The Vagabond
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to participate.
My challenge is free-e, (over-unity) levitation, (not mag-lev which is still grounded by a mono-rail) and faster than light travel
I am arguing it is possible so the challenge is for someone to defend the scientific dogma that it can't be done.
I would also extend that into a philosophical perspective on benefits vs adversity of developing these concepts - pro's and cons from both sides of
the debate that should shed light on why it is being kept from us. (or it isn't possible if that is your stance)
I'll accept, but just want to clarify; are you debating the possibility of it's existence vs. the fact it simply can't be done, or whether it is
feasible tech and something the government keeps from us because of the potential of losing their stranglehold on energy values? Just wondering.
good point, FTL is one side of that spectrum while technology suppression is another. I guess that would have to be an open point for pro and con
but can be explored via the philosophical angle.
I guess I am arguing that these technologies are all possible though so in essence I am arguing that they should exist.
Actually, I will save you some trouble in research, I don't plan on doing any patent searches for things like that to make it easier for us both. I
will argue from a logical standpoint not an itemized one and FTL is just one of those things science says can't be done and I say it can and will try
to explain why. You have the laws of science on your side and all I can do is try to be convincing.
The free-e and levitation can be pro or con in this light so if you want to argue they do exist is a moot point but the FTL is the barrier between us.
We could even drop the free-e and levitation but they support my FTL side of the argument.
If you want we can drop them from the theme of debate being faster than light vs no way to go FTL but I will be using them both to prove my point.
Considering I am theorizing the only info you will have to prove a con is what I bring to the table.
I'd say good luck to us both but if I just said good luck to you I would sound over-confident and I'm not but saying to us both I also sound
insecure in my position and I'm not so what I will say is let the game begin.
I am actually pulling for you btw. Only when I am challenged do I reach for depths I am otherwise complacent to and ultimately all learning curves do
is meet set criteria and don't go beyond.
FTL is beyond rocket science according to science so I have an uphill battle all the way and I am not in any of the related fields. I can only
theorize. The odds are in your favor (but don't take it for granted that the deck wasn't stacked)
Thank you for accepting. I think I tried this same challenge many years ago and had no takers at that time.
... maybe nobody took me seriously or didn't see it buried beneath mounds of threads though