Last week there was a problem in the system here at Aston and I couldn't write. This week, I'm busy due to computers again, but now I am strugling to do numerical calculations in my research. Seems like an excuse, and indeed it is, not to write too much, but these are busy days. I'm sorry.
Well, this week I received a link about a news on New Scientist: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?
I read it and it is very easy to recognize it is nonsense. You can read a detailed explanation why here: A Plea to Save “New Scientist”. The first hint it was a crank was simple to spot even before reading the "technical paper" about the engine, a kind of device which could make vehicles flight without wings or jets: the inventor said that the industry was boycotting his project because it is revolutionary and dangerous in the sense that it could lead powerful aerospacial industries to lose millions. Even worse, as it works without petrol, it could ruin the petrol kings!
Come on, this kind of argument is so outdated that I always smile when I read something like that. If someone develops such a revolutionary device, the industry guys would run to see who's the first to get it. Imagine that you are a businessman who has the chance to have a device which everyone will want to buy. Would you try to destroy it or to sell it? And if you are a government and has the possibility of being independent of petrol, what would you do? I suppose that being independent of petrol these days must be very powerful.
People whith ideas that doesn't work or make sense always use the expedient of blaming hidden powers trying to smash their dangerous thoughts. Remember about Galileo. It really happened to him, but in the end, the truth survived. Well, it usually does.
Picture: Dangerous Thoughts, by Lucy Francis from the website of Queensland Art Gallery.
Well, this week I received a link about a news on New Scientist: Relativity drive: The end of wings and wheels?
I read it and it is very easy to recognize it is nonsense. You can read a detailed explanation why here: A Plea to Save “New Scientist”. The first hint it was a crank was simple to spot even before reading the "technical paper" about the engine, a kind of device which could make vehicles flight without wings or jets: the inventor said that the industry was boycotting his project because it is revolutionary and dangerous in the sense that it could lead powerful aerospacial industries to lose millions. Even worse, as it works without petrol, it could ruin the petrol kings!
Come on, this kind of argument is so outdated that I always smile when I read something like that. If someone develops such a revolutionary device, the industry guys would run to see who's the first to get it. Imagine that you are a businessman who has the chance to have a device which everyone will want to buy. Would you try to destroy it or to sell it? And if you are a government and has the possibility of being independent of petrol, what would you do? I suppose that being independent of petrol these days must be very powerful.
People whith ideas that doesn't work or make sense always use the expedient of blaming hidden powers trying to smash their dangerous thoughts. Remember about Galileo. It really happened to him, but in the end, the truth survived. Well, it usually does.
Picture: Dangerous Thoughts, by Lucy Francis from the website of Queensland Art Gallery.
1 comment:
Brazil and US are working on a joit project to develop biological fuel (alcohol and bio-diesel). This is a move from the US to undermine agressive governments that control Petrol (Venezuela and Iran). So no, the 'Petrol Kings' are not conspiring 'gainst a revolucionary energy source/technology.
(I believe that Europe and China are also pursuing cleaner and cheaper energy source. So no, definitively)
Post a Comment