Mineral X

Michael Andre-Driussi · 11 Aug 1999, 06:43 · from urth-v0028.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at sirius.com>
Subject: (urth) Mineral X
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 06:43:42
Message-ID: <urth-v0028-0041 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0041.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mitchell A. Bailey,

To step back and state the obvious: this is a case where the
medieval/rennaisance vocabulary of Commonwealth science has Wolfean
ambiguities when describing post-twentieth century technology.

The term "antimaterial" hints at antimatter, a hint reinforced by the
degradation of the substance in contact with normal Urth matter (as you
noted before).

The term "iron" is slippery, because while it might have been only used in
the sense of "a heavy metal," it is long known for having magnetic
properties (so "lead" would have been a case of a very heavy metal with no
magnetic properties).

So there are antimatter-like effects, and antigravity effects, with just a
hint of magnetic forces at play.

Call Doctor Utonium--this is a job for the Powerpuff Girls!

=3Dmantis=3D

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net