Post by Chicawolverina on May 28, 2011 22:22:51 GMT -5
I present this article the attempts to address the a question as to whither the lightsaber is possible.
www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=59
It was linked from a Wikipedia lightsaber article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber.
The reasoning that the physics.org article is so in-tune with seems very reminiscent the same sort of overly pedantic two-dimensional lack of insight that is used against Reverse Speech.
That is that it never addresses the issue that a lightsaber plain and simple is tool of the future, it has certain critical technological elements in it that are used to make it function. Where as the article looks at it as wholly and flatly imposable, or implausible and never once asked "if".
They don't bother to consider that even the term "lightsaber" is not a definition of what makes it function, so they don't even see the machine behind the machine. Like anyone from a primitive human culture wouldn't understand an aircraft, or the radio, or have knowledge of refrigeration.
There's just certain things we get a sense for being possible, AI, Starships and Warpdrive. All the elements needed that we don't have for a lightsaber are things that a type two would probably already have developed, just as we have many elements of machinery and electronics that are readily available to build endless types apparatus.
Even the reasons they use to try and debunk Reverse Speech all based in either misinterpretations or arbitrarily projected limitations of science.
Lightsabers with their ability to project energy and then draw it back in against itself in the toroidal arch, and it's use of superconductivity, and profoundly more energetic power sources, seems to me more of a natural possibility of a near future technology, so why can't those overly pedantic slime seem to even understand what question they're attempting to answer?
Fuck'm, they will never change, so Hi-Test ARCOize them totally!
><
T'Chicawolverina!
www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=59
It was linked from a Wikipedia lightsaber article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber.
The reasoning that the physics.org article is so in-tune with seems very reminiscent the same sort of overly pedantic two-dimensional lack of insight that is used against Reverse Speech.
That is that it never addresses the issue that a lightsaber plain and simple is tool of the future, it has certain critical technological elements in it that are used to make it function. Where as the article looks at it as wholly and flatly imposable, or implausible and never once asked "if".
They don't bother to consider that even the term "lightsaber" is not a definition of what makes it function, so they don't even see the machine behind the machine. Like anyone from a primitive human culture wouldn't understand an aircraft, or the radio, or have knowledge of refrigeration.
There's just certain things we get a sense for being possible, AI, Starships and Warpdrive. All the elements needed that we don't have for a lightsaber are things that a type two would probably already have developed, just as we have many elements of machinery and electronics that are readily available to build endless types apparatus.
Even the reasons they use to try and debunk Reverse Speech all based in either misinterpretations or arbitrarily projected limitations of science.
Lightsabers with their ability to project energy and then draw it back in against itself in the toroidal arch, and it's use of superconductivity, and profoundly more energetic power sources, seems to me more of a natural possibility of a near future technology, so why can't those overly pedantic slime seem to even understand what question they're attempting to answer?
Fuck'm, they will never change, so Hi-Test ARCOize them totally!
><
T'Chicawolverina!