The professor who is funding the “Closed propulsion” centrifugal device has given me a non-response to my emailed concerns that it sounds like a reactionless drive.  I don’t even think this guy knows what a reactionless drive is, and seems to think that the inclusion of an electric motor means that something isn’t a reactionless drive.  But anyone who knows about the gyroscopic reactionless drive ideas would see that electric motors can indeed be involved.  I’ll have to try again to get through to him.

Sometimes people are so difficult to communicate with…


Photo by Frank Herfort. Post Soviet Highrise.

Frank Herfort has been criss-crossing Russia for the last four years photographing his long-term project “Imperial Pomp – Post Soviet Highrise”. His images of monstrously massive buildings with an overwhelming presence seem to come from another time and dimension.

[Source: Domus]

(via kinesthetiac)

Um, I might get the opportunity to work on “antigravity” propulsion in my Engineering course.

It sounds like this one thing that I saw on the internet not long ago, and it looked completely like pseudoscience because the very idea is
a reactionless drive, which would seem to violate known laws of physics.

After searching for the exact title of the thing from the proposed project in our course, I found a different idea for how to pull it off, but I think it’s just a more complicated looking, so as to hide the balanced forces that must be involved (which may be missed if you only think about the tension on the pendulums, but I suspect the balancing force has to happen tangentially to redirect the pendulum).  Even this idea I found on the internet declares “we propose a new concept (in physics)”.

Of course, I don’t even know if this is what the project in the engg course is.  The description was vague, but sounded so much like this, that, as I said, a google search brought me to the exact sort of thing I thought it would be…

Eh, one of my attempts to edit on rationalwiki blew up, and it’s really bewildering and becoming way too out of hand with confusion and communication failure and I might need to just give up on trying to reason with these ‘rational’ people.

I repeatedly try to articulate myself well and back up my position, but in response I get a bunch of people responding with stuff that basically sounds like: “well, I’m just right”.  Despite my prods for them to back up why they think they’re right.


“i don’t watch tv” proudly says a person who spend 8 hours a day in the internet

(via ruinedchildhood)

I’ve edited some portions of RationalWiki pages, hopefully my changes are kept because I think they are quite good.

The pages were: 
Supernatural, Ad Hoc, and Progress.

On those first two topics, I might want to go edit Wikipedia as well, where they are also in need of improvement.

Whew!  My appeal for a student loan succeeded, and I’m approved for funding!  That was fast : )

Just saw a thing about Boba Fett having survived Episode 6 of Star Wars.  Some people are upset and think this is cheap or something…but Star Wars is based on (or influenced by) old style action serials…and so “cheap” tropes like that totally fit.  It’s part of the fun.  It appeared as though they died…but nope!  They come back.

And then someone gets to say “we meet again!” in a dramatic voice…

liberalchristian asked:
I have been polite and courteous to you in my responses on this topic, so I really don't understand why you feel the need to call me irritating or gross for trying to answer a question that I was not obligated to answer. Nor am I aware of whatever past replies I've given you. I don't believe tumblr gives notifications for reblogs.

I’m not really sure I buy the claim that you don’t understand.  But even if you are oblivious, it remains true that talking as though I hadn’t just given something that addresses the exact things you say, or as though I had acted out of a mistaken belief that you had never been aware of any other looks at the subject, along with bringing up irrelevant criticisms of some other atheists, is quite irritating.  That isn’t something you get to dispute, as if you can micro manage how everyone reacts.

Implying that you think that “politely” saying irritating things makes them not irritating is also irritating, and completely misguided.  Passive aggression and baiting can be quite polite and full of plausible deniability.  And you didn’t “try to answer a question” because there was no question.

And of course I know you aren’t obligated to answer (that would have been preferable, actually, given what you did instead) nor obligated to read the book etc etc etc.


thread-of-fire asked:
Since I previously saw you wondering about morality, it turns out there is good philosophical grounding for it (regardless of god belief). It is outlined in Sense and Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier, and he uses the work of other philosophers there too.


I appreciate the book suggestion. My issue with morality without God is not that I’m not aware of the work of any philosophers attempting to resolve the question, but that their answers are unsatisfactory. Moreover, many atheists give the impression(or state outright) that they have never considered the question at all. And just so I’m clear, the argument is not that a single atheist cannot be a good person(of course they can), but whether the concept of “good” even makes sense without an objective, non-human being that defines it. 

There are, however, several religions that provide answers to the moral debate without God(Buddhism would be one), and philosophers since Plato that have attempted to define goodness, with or without deities.

Oddly I didn’t get a notification of response.  Thought I was supposed to get one of those.

But I didn’t miss much, just something irritating, and no point that requires response.  But it’s better than some of the actually gross replies I’ve gotten from you in the past.

Repeating myself is sufficient response:  it’s done, it’s there in that book.

theme by ThemesOfBoy