R: R: R: [EVA] AT Fields
e.barone at flashnet.it
Thu Oct 28 23:34:37 EDT 1999
> Gravitational changes are always relitive to the frame of reference. You
> _can't_ have an absolute effect on gravity, since there is no frame
> independant way to measure gravity. And I think the distinction as to it
> reversing gravity or not is semantic at best: it produces an effect
> similiar to gravity not being present, which is sufficient for a
> gravitational AT field.
Still, putting gravity into the matter really looks like an unnecessary
complication to me. besides, gravitation is not eve the strongest of the
forces in the universe...sorta looks inadequate to me...
> Well, considering we were talking about 60 meter tall biological robots
> generating gravitational fields to fend off Angels...
...I had thought you meant a talk along the lines of "actually in real life
there are these and those facts that would support such a theory"...but
honestly, we've been talking about enormous energy and mass density levels
inserted in terrestrial environments... x_x
> Quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet. If I appealed to it, then
> it was by mistake/oversight.
No prob, they keep jumping everytime they seem to catch hints of the mass of
> Sure. I just wanted to use a term without the religious connotations
> that soul brings along. For some reason, this sort of talk about souls
> makes me a bit uncomfortable.
Oh. Yes, of course, wasn't thinking about religion. Never really used it
much watching Eva, it looks rather more of a show about man rather than God
to me. For that reason, I appreciate attmpts at relating science with the
show. Some problems with a total spatial separation as the ATField are the
damages sustained by some angels with weaker atfields and the fact that i
being a wave phenomenon implies a consistence of the surrounding space on
Emanuele Barone - e.barone at flashnet.it Jobs | |¯ the Mac
-- www.macstep.com -- is at | _ |_ with
More information about the oldeva