Comments on: Debunking Laithwaite’s Critics

By: Sandro

Sandro — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:15:02 +0000

Dear Adam,My name is Gabrielle Pedriani, and I work at CBS News in Washington, DC. I’ve been conducting some reeacrsh into helium-3 on the moon, and I’ve noticed that you have some very strong viewpoints concerning this matter. I would love to speak with you about what you know, and about why you believe that mining the moon for helium-3 is not yet economically feasible. I would also be interested in hearing what you believe to be the next best thing: how can we utilize space most efficiently?You can reach me by e-mail at , or by telephone at 202–457-1526. I look forward to hearing from you soon,Best,Gabrielle

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:19:17 +0000

Martin Kask & Gary Church, thanks for “liking” my post.

If you don’t appreciate the power of mathematics and its essential nature for the progress of science and engineering, let me explain some more.

What Imperial College did not do was put numbers into their formula and check if it matched Laithwaite’s Big Wheel experiment.

Gyroscopic precession is off by 2 orders of magnitude. That is the reason why Imperial College is incorrect. Very sloppy of them.

Therefore, if Imperial College can make that sort of mistakes, I am not surprised that lesser beings such as yourselves make the same mistake, too.

By: Martin Kask

Martin Kask — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:02:16 +0000

What arrogance it is to try to sell the quackery book on this site.

The only worthwhile posts on this blog were recently made by Gary Michael Church. And when he posted a post for the quacksmiths to “buzz off” the post got deleted. Here is the repost:
“Go away.…GO AWAY!

From American Anti-gravity; “Creative ideas from unique innovators across society, including psychic powers, social activism, UFO’s, and more”

This garbage does not belong on this blog any more than Benjamin the gravity modifier and his quackery;

“There is a new formula for gravitational acceleration I discovered in 2007 that doesnt require mass. It’s g = (tau)c^2, where c is the velocity of light and tau is short for te change in time dialation divided by the distance over time dialation. It works for gravitational fields, it works for mechanical forces: if you tie a stone to a string and rotate it it will give you the exact acceleration and it also works for electromagnetic fields, that is why we can use electromagnetic fields to modify gravity.”

You are a goofball quack and need to go somewhere else. This blog is about safeguarding humanity and transhumanism– not UFO’s and Anti-gravity pseudo-science. Idiots like you and Mad Otto make a joke out of this site and disappoint the people coming here looking for information. You disgust me.

Go away. GET OUT! Take Mad Otto with you.”

It is obvious that the goal of Solomon and Otto is not to save humankind but to make money writing about whatever captures the minds of the audience. Be it horribly wrong or not.

Go away and shut up already indeed!