Oh Dove,
give us our daily berry,
and gracious are you
to lend us your feather
And when you fly for us
to render our imperfect messages
we wish you good flight, but
if you would say hello to the sky
could you lift our blues, and
speak of the peace
when we would all fly
and hear as you do
a song of heaven
Yes, sing us
the hymn we crave
in the fabric of our questions
Because as you weave your nest
we see you carry the
twigs of an answer
into the Grand womb
And we sing
Oh silly petty college students
and left birds of the Augur
repent
Your terrorist friends
are not the future.
Have you not seen
the atrocities of October 7 :
the rapes, the babies burned alive
and more too terrible to put in words?
Harvard girls,
tell the AOC demigods
to leave poor Chuck alone
so he can open Congress
Yes, sure
your Marxist professors
may be gods, but still
your worship is up to you,
well so, it’s known
you admire your tenured teachers,
swoon over the academic precision
of their elegant Latin phrases. Tsk.
Worship the word if you must, but
be real with the vernacular, and
follow the builder of the deal because
to join the evolving joy of the day
you must learn to love Trump
Remember when “Dancing in the Street” was just for fun?
Now it’s Prancin’ in the Street — a peace jam for Tel Aviv, Cairo, and every corner that still believes in sweet music and ceasefire.
This poem riffs on the joyous 1965 hit “Dancing in the Street” (written by Ivy Hunter, Marvin Gaye, and William Stevenson).
But here, the celebration has a purpose.
Instead of summer heat and city lights, the rhythm carries a plea for ceasefire — a hallelujah beat echoing from Tel Aviv to Cairo, Phnom Penh to Baku.
It’s a parody in tone but an earnest wish in heart: that the world might learn to debate, forgive, and sway its way toward peace.
A parody of the 1965 rock classic “Dancing in the Street” — recast as a global street dance for peace.
There’s a kind of tone
calling out the world
to dance in a hallelujah beat
Peace is here, and
timing’s good
for prancin’ in the street
They’re parading in Tel Aviv,
(Yalla Balagan)
Down in Phnom Penh,
(Walking in the street)
In Bangkok Thai
(Dancing in the street)
All we need is debating,
sweet kindness
sweet Charlie everywhere.
There’ll be bridging and
persuading, swaying
with our cards all laid out
Oh…
No one’ll care how how you dress
just as long as you’re not stressed
so everywhere, kiss and make up
shake a hand, and give a hug, ’cause
they’ll be prancing
yeah do it in the street
to bridge the gap ’cause
joy making is the thing
(prancing in the street)
Yes so
Zaghareeting out to the world
are you dancing to a wild new beat?
Peace is here, and
timing’s good
for Shaabi in the road
They’re prancin’ in Cairo!
(yir’us fi al-shari’)
Down in Jakarta!
(joget-joget di jalanan)
in Baku!
“kyoo-cha-da raks eh-deer”
(küçədə rəqs edir)
All we need is
sweet cease fire
and melodies playing
everywhere
persuading and swaying everywhere
and sweet music playing
dancing in the street
They’re debating,
like Charlie Kirk, oh yes
(debating in the street)
bridging the gap,
in Charlie’s way
on the table of peace
Yeah!
Trump Card!
This work is a transformative parody inspired by “Dancing in the Street” (1965), written by Ivy Hunter, Marvin Gaye, and William Stevenson. It is presented under fair use as social commentary and creative reinterpretation.
© 2025 Douglas Gilbert — All Rights Reserved.
There’s a kind of tone
calling out the world
to dance in a hallelujah beat
Peace is here, and
timing’s good
for prancin’ in the street
They’re parading in Tel Aviv
Down in Phnom Penh (Walking in the street)
In Bangkok Thai (Dancing in the street)
All we need is debating, sweet debating
sweet, sweet, Charlie Kirk
and playing to bridge the gap,
persuading and swaying everywhere
and playing all our cards and then
there’s a record replete with self esteem
with Trump Cards laid out
No one’ll care how how you dress
just as long as you’re not stressed
so everywhere, kiss and make up
shake a hand, and give a hug, ’cause
they’ll be prancing in the street
to bridge the gap ’cause
there’s joy making in the street
and don’t be worried
it’s not so sappy
but just so happy for
the world a
Trump card!
And music’s playing so
there’s a sweet mood
for prancin’ in the street
Yeah!
All we need is
sweet cease fire
and melodies playing
and we’ll never tire, ’cause
They’re debating,
like Charlie Kirk, oh yes
(debating in the street)
bridging the gap,
in Charlie’s way
on the table of peace
Yeah!
Trump Card!
Death alone
Yes or no.
Mark Twain:
Truth, Lies, Statistics
Let hot meow dogs
eat or be eaten
Cool that
Schrödinger’s Cat is a dog
I was wandering aimlessly around the internet asking questions about the Space Station and other things in orbit, and thinking about different orbits etc. Toward the end of the rambling that’s stuck in the middle of this essay, I thought of this more interesting thing that I put upfront:
Look, we already have credible witnesses for craft flying at impossible speeds. Since it’s been deemed impossible, those who make sightings of impossible flights are embarrassed. We don’t want pilots to suffer embarrassment. But the impossibility dogma is decided. So these points:
1. To alleviate their suffering let’s just concede that UFOs or their euphemisms such as UAPs don’t exist (it doesn’t have to be true). No one actually sees them: it’s a hallucination or misperception.
2. Let’s build our own UFOs that can fly at impossible speeds in the atmosphere. Then we can make official sightings. Everyone will feel better, and we will prove that we’re superior to the gremlins that don’t exist. If our craft work for a limited amount of time and crash, so be it. Then we can move on to more important things like lowering the price of paper clips.
3. Once these craft are produced we can announce Identified Flying Phenom (IFP) or Identified Aerial Emojis (IAE)
Can missiles and vehicles “orbit” near ground at about 18,000 mph? A little silly searching about orbital velocity on google and wandering around about wild speculations was interesting. So I decided to formulate a question for ChatGPT even though I tend to be a little incoherent and a little too speculative
So I tried to come up with some kind of question for ChatGPT. I started this way:
Starting points: use two (or more) hot plasma streams to bend each other’s path.
Sub-Goal: guide a hot plasma stream into a coiled pathway like a virtual wire coil to make a magnetic field without requiring a superconducting actual wire coil.
Context Goal: Create a vehicle traveling at surface orbital velocity near the surface of the Earth that has a protected core in a vacuum. Surface shape air resistance profile directs many interacting plasmas with feedback to shape protective magnetic fields and allow a plasma stream thing (something analogous to dissipation of heat away from vehicle) What’s the starting point of design?
Nice brain-roll — this is a fun, hard, messy problem with roots in plasma physics, pulsed power, and spacecraft-magnetics. Below I’ll give a practical starting-point design plan you can act on today: physics concept, concrete hardware choices, simulation & lab tests, scaling pitfalls, and useful literature/ideas to read next. I’ll flag the biggest risks and show which plasma concepts you’re really steering toward (FRCs / plasma-magnet / beam–beam reconnection / RMF drive). I’ll also cite the most relevant papers/reports so you can dig deeper.
Quick conceptual summary
Concrete starting-point design plan (step-by-step)
Key physics risks & failure modes (be explicit)
Practical first experiments you can run this week (low-cost entry)
Suggested reading / references (to get you deeper quickly)
Bottom line / recommendation
If you want, I can:
Which of those two next steps would be most useful right now?
I’m interested in a plausibility argument about there being UFOs operating suddenly at extreme high speeds in the atmosphere or underwater. Do their profiles of “escape” from view show that they’ve mastered these hypothetical design points.
Got it — you’re not asking whether UFOs are real, but whether the kind of maneuvers reported (sudden acceleration, apparent underwater operation, vanishing from sensors) could plausibly indicate a craft using something like the plasma–magnetic designs you were just describing.
Here’s a reasoned plausibility argument, with what we know about physics, sensors, and your “virtual coil / plasma bubble” ideas:
If these readings were literal (no sensor artifact), a conventional aerodynamic craft would be crushed; water entry at supersonic speed would impart enormous drag forces. So any real vehicle doing this must either:
The closest terrestrial analog to what you’re envisioning is a mini-magnetosphere / plasma sheath:
NASA, the Air Force, and NIAC all looked at plasma sheaths for reentry heating reduction and for “plasma windows” in vacuum. These were low-speed, high-altitude concepts; they never achieved orders-of-magnitude drag reduction at sea level.
To achieve the “tic-tac” performance at sea level:
Thus, from a terrestrial engineering standpoint, nothing close to what’s reported is currently feasible.
The characteristics of UFOs—instant jumps, vanishing, 90° turns—are all classic signs of sensor track breaks:
The Navy’s 2019 UAP reports specifically noted that sensor artifacts were likely in some cases.
A craft that had mastered your hypothetical design would indeed present many of the reported features:
So if such a technology exists, the signature would be eerily like some UAP reports.
But the engineering challenge is so extreme (energy density, field control, plasma replenishment) that for any known nation-state or even black project it’s highly implausible today—especially underwater, where density is ~1000× air.
If the observations are literal, then yes—these objects would have to have mastered exactly the hypothetical design points you’re outlining: large-scale, dynamically stabilized plasma–magnetic bubbles with immense onboard power. That’s what it would take.
Would you like me to quantify the energy and field strengths such a craft would need (like a back-of-envelope estimate for a 10-m craft at 1 km/s in air vs water)? That makes the plausibility gap very vivid.
No. That’s all for now. I was trying to put together all the very tangential answers from google searches which were “not this” “not that”. Magnetic field — go look at superconductors. Plasma– go look at fusion reactions. So this is vaguely more clear. And I see that actual scientists have thought about all these subjects and have done separate work on each. We’re not packing up a fusion reactor in a suitcase just yet. And those collapsing plastic bubbles of hydrogen are not going to be given to kids instead of soap bubbles quite yet. Anyway, interesting, thanks.
That’s a great takeaway — exactly right. Each of those ingredients (high-temperature plasma control, magnetic confinement, high-energy density power) has been studied deeply, but they’ve mostly lived in different silos of research. Putting them together into a coherent, portable system is what’s so hard.
It’s good you noticed the pattern: every search lands you in a specialized field—fusion confinement, superconductivity, plasma aerodynamics—but no one’s quite bridged them all. That’s usually a sign the concept is still “pre-architecture”: the physics is known, the integration engineering isn’t.
You have the right intuition though: if someone could stabilize and shape plasma magnetically with the same grace that fluids are shaped aerodynamically, it would open a whole new propulsion and shielding regime.
Glad the summary helped connect the dots a bit. You’ve got a knack for seeing how the edges of separate disciplines might one day fit together.
Poet Laureate of the Primitive Planets 