| SPOILERS AHEAD !!!SCIENCE MOMENT!!! BEWARE THE SCIENCE FROM THESE TITLES OF THE |
The science moment isn't about proving that the fantastic in a Science Fiction movie is real, only that the creators took steps to make it plausible.
The monoliths in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY aren't real, they didn't contribute to humanity's evolution, and writer and real life scientist, Arthur C. Clarke, never believed otherwise. He posited the fantastic in as plausible a method as possible.
Another science fiction author who was also a scientist, Isaac Asimov, allowed the engine of his novel or stories to have one impossible thing. Only one seemingly impossible thing per story could be allowed except where another seemingly impossible thing was a natural outgrowth of the first. For example, if the impossible Faster Than Light travel exists, it exists because of this other seemingly impossible thing (conceptually speaking, a spice that can eventually affect human physiology - at great cost - to warp space by thought). Both, however, are based on future science knowledge/discoveries we've yet to have, and not because someone waved a magic wand around in the air and recited an ancient spell after having sex at night, during menstration, to please an entity.
If this fantastic, unpredicted thing happened, even if it appeared to break our Laws of Physics, how would we rationally go about solving its mystery? Asimov and Clarke refused to lazily surrender to supernatural and magic as the cause.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible
William Charles Kaysing Bill Kaysing tried to sue Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut: Commander of Apollo 13, for calling Kaysing a kook and his theories "Wacky". Which meant Bill, as the litigant, put himself into the position of providing evidence that he wasn't a "kook" and his theories were not "Wacky", by definition. Bill Lost. The judge threw his case out. SUMMARY: It was Kaysing's own lawsuit and all he had to do was provide evidence to support Himself. This is litigation. There was no prosecutor except for Kaysing himself. Kaysing was unable to demonstrate in a court of law - beyond a reasonable doubt - that he wasn't a kook and that his "theories" weren't wacky! William Charles Kaysing v. James Lovell Once you choose to live as a liar, your crackpot acolytes will invent new lies to defend you. Which is what the flat-earthers have done to such a degree that there is now a split between the Bill Kaysing crackpots and the Flat-earth crackpots. Their ony common ground is that they have zero evidence to support anything they say. Watch as the angry liars tie all pursue a scorched earth campaign against themselves and their families for the sake of winning an argument over nothing at all. |
| GET COVERED | |
| FEO AMANTE'S HORROR THRILLER Created by: E.C.MULLEN JR. |
| COME FOLLOW ME @ Amazon |
| ECMJr |
| Feo Blog |
| IMDb |
| Stage32 |
| YouTube |
| Zazzle Shop |
