It was aliens. Everyone knows humans can't move heavy things.

As I understand it, they're really intended one day for moving heavy things around in an industrial setting. I'm sure it's massively power inefficient, but hell, it's cool.

I was in this little windstorm. I think my area got a quick burst of wind up in the 90mph range (West Valley City), as we had some extremely heavy things that got moved around--it only lasted about 2-4 seconds. It also made the house vibrate, so I know it wasn't in the 70'ish range...it was higher. Then the rest of the gusts were around 60-70.

BTW, if anyone was wondering, this little windstorm happened along the Wasatch Front--Salt Lake City. Nasty little wind storm, it sure killed a lot of trees, fences, etc...

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

Why not sue? It seems the insurance company never should have contested the claim. This is a big part of what property insurance exists for. And the fact that it was caused by a precariously secured extremely heavy thing just shows some negligence on the part of the property owners. It makes no difference if it's a cross.

I disagree with this video. But I'll upvote to promote discussion.

Exploitation is a very natural drive. Since when did animals treated their rivals and prey as their equals and share their abundance?

Seeing all creatures on earth as 'equals' is a uniquely exclusively human and extremely philosophical, which is, man made. But yet, exploiting one's environment and designing them to aid one's self isn't a strictly human thing. Lots of species out there exploit other animals or their surroundings to do their bidding.

Scissor ants harvest leaves, against that tree's will, to grow a fungal farm. Hyenas steal cheetah's food when they're exhausted from chasing the prey. And they don't give a gazelle's ass whether the cheetah dies of hunger or exhaustion.

And when it comes to cruelty, mammals like lions kill off all cubs when newly taken control of a pride in order to wipe out the previous leader's seeds and to lessen competition by them near future. Birds kill the competitor's young by replacing the competition's egg with their own egg.

So what this video argues has nothing to do with how the actual nature runs things.

Do whatever you wanna do with these animals as you please. Feed'em, help'em, sleep with'em do whatever you want. You might even have an awed sense of respect towards the way nature works. But coming up with a 'rule' that somehow harming animals are wrong, that's just absurd.

Yes, humans are still co-dependent with several other domesticated animals, and still heavily dependent on nature itself. That's all good. But because of this, now we have to treat every animals differently? No. We aid animals that give us benefit. We get rid of animals that do us harm. That's the basic principle, and what the heck is so wrong with that? This seems to be the main focus point. And I say there's nothing wrong with aiding ourselves and exploiting what's around us.

But people may say that sometimes we go too far. I believe torturing animals is wrong, but not because of what this video is suggesting. I believe it's because we shouldn't promote things that allows entertainment from pain and suffering of of others (another reason why I don't like gory movies).

So what if we're torturing the animal to do our bidding, such as moving heavy things and etc, and there's no other means to do it? Well then that's fine by me. Because if it is truly too much for the animal to bear, it would die out or be severely disobedient. But obviously the animal doesn't mind it too much, as long as it's being fed regularly and groomed once in awhile, the good side of being domesticated and sticking with humans. So there's always a give and take. My argument is that the animal, in ecologic terms, wanted to be exploited in return for human protection.

So overall I would say that this video is made with good intentions to achieve a certain goal. It tries to promote as what I believe are the right things, but the reason they give are just plain wrong.

i honestly find that difficult to understand - like, it goes against my intuitive sense of things: heavy things fall quicker.