Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Who's at Gitmo? | Main | VA nurse investigated for sedition for letter to editor »

February 10, 2006

Friday (putative) octo-blogging

Boingboing on the mysterious case of the drain-clogging octopus of Staffordshire.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Friday (putative) octo-blogging:


but but but..what about random friday? *sniff*

(one of these days the admin is going to yell, shut up at me. :D )

hmmm...fried octopus.

off topic, off topic, but this is a good idea.

MJK, should modify the Friday random ten from iTune to reader link submission. (set some rule say... one link for each person, first ten persons will be posted. Only legal mp3 etc. or if it is too hard, only gray+legal mp3.)

bad song submission will be subject of endless joke and whining for the entire weekend. haaa....! (imagine the length of thread people arguing over bad/good music each week. We'll need riot gears.)

Maybe you could satisfy everyone by calling this section the "Friday random eight."

I chose an octopus album cover to be our mascot. See above.

adding on top of octopus,

they say they find the solution for einstein general theory of relativity. (which also says anti gravity exist and we can travel near speed of light.) Don't tell the octopus, they are going to take over the universe before us.

oh ps. the soln. hasn't been checked yet. So he could be very wrong. In that case. I still think fried octopus is as delicious as calamari.

Felber's calculations show how to use the repulsion of a body speeding through space to provide the enormous energy needed to accelerate massive payloads quickly with negligible stress. The new solution of Einstein's field equation shows that the payload would 'fall weightlessly' in an antigravity beam even as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

uhmmm, quick update. He seems to be a crank. Well, I am going out for a fried calamari.

this is funny (Physic crackpot index. Somebody posted it in answer to the theory)

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.



I like the crackpot list. Whenever someone talks about a theory for an antigravity device, I think of Robert Park's observation: with an antigravity device, one could build a perpetual motion machine. Just make an unbalanced wheel that spins half in and half out of your antigravity field. With this device, you could generate unlimited energy. Therefore, until you can figure out a way around conservation of energy, there's no use trying to build an antigravity device.

It's kind of like Hawking's debunking of the possibility of time travel. If it's possible, we'll develop it someday. Which means we'd have already met time travellers from the future.

The comments to this entry are closed.