Oooh! Ooooh!

Like many young lads, I have, on occasion, mused over my ongoing projects, trying to take them a step further in the hope that I might finally happen across a solution and maybe work towards a prototype and finally a life/species changing and, perhaps, money spinning product and/or principle. I speak of course of teleportation, time travel, and, on this occasion, anti-gravity.

It has struck me in the past that despite the relative modernity of the likes of aeroplanes, that nature has been providing clues to the possibility or indeed the probability of many modern technological advances for millennia. Birds clearly demonstrate the possibility of flight, and have been doing so since way before humans were picking their noses. (I'll have that one please!). Another clue for the aerofoil, although perhaps a little tangenital (I invented that), is stuff that doesn't fly. My favourite is trees. This example falls down a bit, especially...since trees do in fact fall down. But really, most of a tree's life span is spent not falling down. The massive majority of it, in fact. They spend loads of time exposed to winds of varying strengths and they have a tendency to not fly away. Ok, they're anchored to the ground, which helps, but in section trees are pretty much round, and round is a shitty aerofoil. Also, round, or cylindrical, in fact, is immensely strong. Each part of the structure supports each other part of the structure, another good reason why they stay standing. The corners of old castles were built on this basis...and light houses. Square and rectangular are also rubbish aerofoils: "It flies like a brick/house(/le(a)d zeppelin)" etc.
So, not only have birds and pterodactyls and bats and dragonflies and sycamore seeds demonstrated the possibility of flight, but trees and cows have been demonstrating how not to do it. These are principles that I've had in mind for a while, and in fact, it's not rocket science...which is really not all that difficult either. Research it: something burny in a tube and some semi-intelligent vectoring - that's rokkits that is!
So actually it's a bit of a surprise to me that it took us so long to start flying, because we were surrounded by inspiration.
So, back to anti-gravity...I'm a bit out of my depth here, because I don't actually get gravity. But I do...I've got a bit of it myself, and I'm attached to a rock by it too. It's apparently a very weak force, which is why stuff doesn't stick to me, and it becomes bigger, the bigger the object...like why I'm stuck to the rock, and why that rock is stuck(ish) to the Sun, and that Sun is stuck(ish) to some massive invisible thing in the middle of the galaxy.
I'm not even sure if anti-gravity accurately describes the project. I guess what we're looking for is something to free us of the gravitational influence of the planet. Hot air balloons, aeroplanes, rockets...and even jumping do that, albeit temporarily. But that's cheating, because that stuff only really works under specific circumstances. Jumping doesn't get us to Mars. Aeroplanes don't work in space. And rockets?....well, the thing is, it's not anti-gravity, it's vectored force, which will just as well work with gravity as against it. We want to be anti-ing the gravity of 'stuff'. Having broken free of the planet's gravitational pull, we'd presumably be trying to anti the gravitational pull of the Sun, and then, presumably, the massive invisible thing in the centre of the galaxy.

Somewhat unusually, I have digressed. That's what childhood musings are all about though..but I'll try to get to the point.
We don't have any blue prints for anti-gravity. There's nothing in nature to poke us in the right direction. At least, I can't think of anything. Nothing we see flying about does it with anti-gravity. It's all aerodynamics...apart from hot air balloons which, of course, are not natural, but that's about pressure differentials. This indicates to me that there is no way to achieve it. Of course, evolution hasn't finished yet, and we have some very talented scientists out there doing all sorts of unnatural stuff, and I'm not either of them...I'm just a (grown up) child, musing. So maybe our best hope is to take our lead from some of those things which spectacularly fail to anti gravity.

We need to be doing the stuff rocks don't do!

Know what I mean?

I don't honestly know where this is going. I've had a beer or two...and some...and I heard unsubstantiated reports of the death of someone I know today. So...well, I feel I need to speak about the death of Harry Carpenter. In a way, it's as much about anyone I've known, loved and lost, and I should make clear now that Harry Carpenter was not someone I knew personally, but he was certainly someone special to me.

When I was eight, I had a friend called James Wilkinson who aspired to be a boxer. I still have that friend and he claims to have bloodied my nose at some time in our history. I think Sylvester Stallone had a lot to do with his aspiration and Jim (as I know him now) never did become that boxer. He would have died. Somewhat interestingly, his endeavours since have involved him selling toilet paper to the Queen of England...which I think is excellent, and which goes some way toward answering certain questions about her majesty's throne room requirements.

As a result of Jim's interest in boxing, I started (as is my nature) to research the sport, and became particularly taken by Larry Holmes who was the heavy weight champion at the time. My unconfirmed belief is - speaking of Sly Stallion - that Apollo Creed of the Rocky series was based on Larry Holmes. I'm sure there are plenty of arguments for Ali being the influence there, rhetoric-wise. Larry Holmes was (and still is) my boxing hero but he came a bit unstuck taking on a young Mike Tyson way after his illustrious career had (should have) been put to bed. He badly under-estimated that encounter much like Ali badly under-estimated Holmes in a previous encounter.

Around the same time, I had become aware of Frank Bruno. His outrageous physique, earth shattering power and his humble Englishness was enchanting. Along with much of Britain, I think, I had my hopes on him bringing the (a) heavy weight title back to England. Sadly, Bruno's physique and lack of killer instinct worked against him, but I was rooting for him on the 25th of February 1989 (I had to look that up) when I tuned into BBC radio at a million o'clock in the morning to listen to our Harry providing commentary on the fight live from Las Vegas.

Bruno stood a chance. There's no two ways about it. Catch Tyson right, with that kind of power, and anything can happen. Sadly - while I hoped...desperately, desperately - I, like millions of others, did not entirely believe he was going to do it.

Harry Carpenter had become chummy with Bruno prior to this. He'd commented on many of Bruno's previous contests and Bruno's disarming personality won Harry, a nation, and arguably, the world over. Their 'double act' is legendary in boxing and world sport in general. Rightly so.

Bruno lost, knocked out by the ruthless and (at the time) indomitable Tyson in round 5 ( I had to look that up too). Let it be said that this was officially a TKO, but he was truly done for. Tyson won fair and square.

Harry was a truly professional broadcaster. He knew his subject and he kept himself well educated about all things boxing. His commentary was legendarily unbiased. When Harry uttered the immortal (hopefully) "Get in there Frank!" as Bruno rocked Tyson in the first round, I honestly believed, like him, that the unlikely was imminent. That, to me, is when Harry Carpenter became more than a voice. He understood me...he embraced my desire for Frank Bruno to vanquish one of the scariest and most ferocious boxers of all time. Harry Carpenter so so so rarely divulged his emotions on air. I was one of millions tuned in that night, sat on his shoulder hanging on every word. This is the measure of a great broadcaster. This in particular was an example of his great humanity.

I don't have god, but god bless Harry Carpenter.

Get in there 'arry!