Your video, Arthur C. Clarke predicts the future in 1976, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 66 Badge!

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic --- Arthur C. Clarke

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Arthur C. Clarke's predictions in his SF have been eerily prophetic. I would love it to be Rama.

But it's probably not ... :-(

Sift of the week anyway.

Childhood's End is the first, and - I loathe to admit - at this point the sole, Arthur C. Clarke book I have read.
It struck a chord in me so deep I hesitate to pick up another of his works for fear of no longer being able to function in modern society.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stanley kubric, 2001, space odyssey, trailer, recut, 2014' to 'stanley kubric, 2001, space odyssey, trailer, recut, 2014, arthur c clarke' - edited by brycewi19

That's almost exactly what I just said 17-18kg in earth terms. Do you think laid on your back you could easily throw a 17kg object 1.5-2m upwards?

He's not doing a push up he's trying to jump upright. Launching nearly 20kg of weight far enough to get to your feet would take some doing that way I'd say. Just lifting 20kg with the arms alone is an effort never mind throwing it which is effectively what's happening here.

This is part of the reason I defaulted to thinking in terms of rocketry as it's not as simple as just someone trying to lift something, they are trying to propel themselves 1-2m upwards with only a thrust from the arms. Much better to wiggle around/push up to get to your knees so one could bring one's legs muscles to bear (made very difficult by hard to bend suit).

Frankly I think it would be a total pain in the arse getting back upright. If it weren't for the suit you could easily push up to your knees and then straighten your legs but the inflation is going to make that very hard work (but doable after a struggle to one knee as other video footage proves).

The alternative however which sparked this whole argument i.e. lay on your front and push off with your arms. That I think would be considerably harder than you are making out. Throwing a 17kg weight with only your arms over 1m in height is not what I'd call effortless.

My old CRT monitor probably weighs about 20kg, it'd take everything I had to throw that over 1m up into the air. Without the power of your thigh muscles and the rigidity of your spine 20kg is quite a lot really.

How high can you "jump" with only your arms? (like those super push-ups where you clap your hands in between to show off) maybe a foot or two if your really really strong? So with the extra weight of a suit and reduced gravity multiplying the result by 6 under lunar gravity, 6feet is probably just about attainable for someone in peak physical shape. But it's defiantly not what I'd call easy!


Re: conspiracies The only one I really take at all seriously any more is the idea that 2001 (esp the book) was perhaps (very) loosely based on actual events. I have time for it simply because of Arthur C. Clarke himself who was going to give an interview (which he rarely does) on Project Camelot of all things but died about 2 weeks before it happened. If you know anything about project camelot you'll know whatever he had to say was going to be mental but then again he was very old and eccentric and plenty other people involved in the space program have "jumped the shark" so to speak. (Edgar Mitchell talks about aliens on a regualr basis, Buzz Aldrin has spoken about monoliths on Phobos, pilots being followed by "Foofighters" in WW2 etc. etc.)

But it's basically wishful thinking on my part, the story and implications are remarkably plausible for what they are but that is all they are. Combined with the whole Jack Parsons/Alastair Crowley connection to the JPL my creative juices start flowing. However the obvious counter argument i.e. that the world is largely run by genuine lunatics is never far from my mind either (look at the whole "men who stare at goats" thing).

I'll listen to anyone and some I'm even prepared to believe on their own terms but I have to defer to actual evidence where it exists (or does not exist). Consequently while I'll listen to someone like John Leer talking about stuff that would seem outlandish even in a science fiction story, people why claim the moon landing was a hoax tend to get the cold shoulder as it's pretty demonstrably not true/hard to believe.

I realise that's kind of backwards but willing suspension of disbelief is a lot easier when there's really no tangible evidence either way. (why I suspect huge incomprehensible delusions like those espoused by many religions get so much traction. It's easier to believe the big lie than the small one)

Jolly entertaining though regardless

At the end, the eagle seems a little disappointed, heh. In this case, with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rock."

The Arthur C. Clarke quote at the end is what really nailed home my upvote!

Clarkium (after Arthur C. Clarke)
Saganium (after Carl Sagan)

The problem we have now is that science has advanced so far that the average person just doesn't understand it. Science is progressing faster than our education of science, so we're running into Arthur C. Clark's third law that any science sufficiently advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic.

There is a scientific pathway that takes you from Newton's apple all the way to the most advanced computers and medical knowledge. The problem is, you can't fit that pathway into one easy to read book. You can't explain complex things in sound bites. We're talking the cumulative efforts and trial and error of human beings over the course of thousands of years that takes us from the discovery of fire to the interwebs.

You can't summarize that shit into a few simplistic parables and stories.

It's hard to understand. It takes time to understand. Not everyone *will* understand it. Not everyone wants to understand it. More XKCD goodness: http://xkcd.com/154/

but it happens whether or not you believe in it or understand it. Because someone else DID do the work.

Honestly, I never understood the ending until I learned how others interpreted it.

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

>> ^spoco2:

And in the end. I am one of those people that finds 2001 to be an unsatisfying movie. It has some awesome moments, some iconic shots and scenes, but overall it is a bit rubbish in it's conclusion.
From listening to Arthur C Clark, it would seem that's because they didn't have a good story to begin with, and I think it shows. It seemed to be a case of 'we've got these ideas that'd be good to make a movie out of'... and they just went ahead with making that movie before actually creating a workable narrative from those ideas.

And in the end. I am one of those people that finds 2001 to be an unsatisfying movie. It has some awesome moments, some iconic shots and scenes, but overall it is a bit rubbish in it's conclusion.

From listening to Arthur C Clark, it would seem that's because they didn't have a good story to begin with, and I think it shows. It seemed to be a case of 'we've got these ideas that'd be good to make a movie out of'... and they just went ahead with making that movie before actually creating a workable narrative from those ideas.

Soo... science just proved the theory behind the short story, The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur C Clarke

You had me at "Attempt no landings here"!!!

I think Arthur C. Clark just giggled a bit in his grave!

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.