🚀 go-pugleaf

Matthew Callaway (c569760@cclabs.missouri.edu) wrote:
: Regarding the quesion:

: >The B-2 is a wing.  Its a big wing, which is going to give it all the lift it
: >needs I'm sure; so why would you bother making it an "anti gravity" plane when
: >it has all it needs to fly normally?
: >
: >----Tom

: 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 to
: fly normally"?  Anti-gravity is BIG, if this whole thing is true it would be an
: incredible advance, so to say, "We make planes that fly already, so we don't
: need to develop anti-gravity for them."  is ridiculous.
: 	---Matt

  (Grin) I think the claim was more along the lines of 
"If this plane has anti-gravity then why in God's name does
it need wings?"  You see the point that bozos who believe that
the B-2 is flying by anti-grav or mysticon rays or whatever seem
to have missed is that if it DID fly by anti-grav then not even
the US air force would be dumb enough to put wings on it - they'd
make it a nice radar invisible shape or a streamlined shape -

  Having said that of course, if the B2 was designed with the
"madeupon" rays or whatever, it would be real easy to detect
because it's supposed to be leaking ions all over the place
(according to the long write up on it) so anybody could track
it really easily.

  If planes had anti-gravity then they wouldn't be PLANE shaped.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard G. Clegg      There ain't no getting round getting round
Dept. of Mathematics (Traffic Modelling group) Uni. of York.
email: richard@manor.york.ac.uk   
   rgc2@vax.york.ac.uk    www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html