fire400
Diamond Member
- Nov 21, 2005
- 5,204
- 21
- 81
...was this your other account?
rEMEMBEr, what the eye can catch, is not as relevant, until the final output and it's usefulness and resourcefulness to the human. Generally, no one really looks around the room, to try and see through walls to make sure the bulb is working properly when we flick-on a light switch, just only that "the surrounding space is well lit for future navigation in the dark."
Einstein made fun of quantum physics. People laugh at string theory research. Tomorrow, people will make use of technology regardless of the past.
Capturing controlled-energy in a box is not the same as contained-energy. When micro-mechanics become small enough, through whatever or whichever forms of futuristic technology, it will open up doors to employing robotics to accelerate particle research. And this can be dangerous in its own way, that when artificial intelligence can bend light enough and report to humans - controlled-radiation at the quantum level will become an evolved naked-eye-invisible weapon.
We would be able to deploy nanite/nanomachine creatures to just modify the light of surrounding space and destroy anything in its path, all from the press of a button.
Of course this is old news, DARPA already knows about this, so does China.
John F. Kennedy:
"But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind’s final war.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors."
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter