🚀 go-pugleaf

Matthew Callaway <c569760@cclabs.missouri.edu> writes:

> >The B-2 is a wing.  Its a big wing, which is going to give it all the lift i
> >needs I'm sure; so why would you bother making it an "anti gravity" plane wh
> >it has all it needs to fly normally?
> 
> Are you kidding?  If someone is going to begin research on anti-gravity on a
> plane do you think they're going to pass it up because "it has all it needs t
> fly normally"?  Anti-gravity is BIG, if this whole thing is true it would be 
> incredible advance, so to say, "We make planes that fly already, so we don't
> need to develop anti-gravity for them."  is ridiculous.

That went right over your head.  What he's saying:  We have already 
built planes that fly which I think we can all agree do not require 
antigravity.  The G-2 is merely just another such plane.  If you're 
going to claim that antigravity is being worked on, why point to the 
B-2?  The principles by which it does not crash are already well-known 
and do not invoke antigravity.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA ... GIGO, Hg, Omega, Universe, Psi ... ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
"We all may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now."