The clouds in Exodus have been criticized as lousy CGI because they don't behave as smoke. Reviewing the epi, I am convinced that they are clouds of tiny particles moving purposefully and intelligently.

Nanobots are tiny machines which are currently in development. It is not too far out to envision nanobots which will be able to manufacture articles out of raw materials. Imagine a machine so small that it would appear like a gnat, or just a smoke particle, but which could reproduce itself from raw materials or copy anything given raw materials. Imagine that such machines include components which can fly, link together to produce a rope, or create a pulling winch. Imagine that such nanobots have been developed and have run amok. Imagine that such machines are protecting themselves from certain destruction by their creators. Might they not succeed in hiding their home by mimicking the surface of the ocean for surveillance satellites? Might they not be capable of creating a large enough magnet to foul navigation? Might they not be able to do most of the things we have seen this season?

Okay, let the pie-throwing begin!

Red

So we hear from some people that nanobots are complete fiction and we hear from some people that they are in development as we speak.

I'm guessing people like redemption and AZjeepDude get their information from sci-fi books.

Nanobots aren't fiction, but they're not exactly reality, either. The 'swarming' technology (enabling multiple robots to act as one cohesive unit) is still being developed. See a recent article on the idea here:

http://news.com.com/Photos+Robots+work+in+swarms+and+hives/2009-7337_3-5718786.html?part=rss&tag=5718786&subj=news

And that's with robots that aren't microscopic. I don't know anything about microscopic robots, but something tells me that they don't exist just yet, either.

I think the nanobot theory should go away with the purgatory theory. Too farfetched to believe. What would really impress me is if they had extremely simple explanations for things that seem to be farfetched, not farfetched explanations. I do agree that nanobot technology is right around the corner and close to reality, however i dont want it in LOST.

I think alot of it is supernatural. This is a slightly sci-fi/paranormal show, IMO, and that aspect is growing as the show goes on (like Alias).

I think the nanobot theory should go away with the purgatory theory. Too farfetched to believe. What would really impress me is if they had extremely simple explanations for things that seem to be farfetched, not farfetched explanations. I do agree that nanobot technology is right around the corner and close to reality, however i dont want it in LOST.


I really don't mind the theory but where did it come from? Who started it? On what basis do they put it forward? On simply the black wispy clouds?

The only thing I know about nanobits is that episode of Star Trek TNG where Wesley let some escape and they started to evolve and interfere with the ship's computer.

I really don't mind the theory but where did it come from? Who started it? On what basis do they put it forward? On simply the black wispy clouds?

The only thing I know about nanobits is that episode of Star Trek TNG where Wesley let some escape and they started to evolve and interfere with the ship's computer.


Yes, I believe the theory is based around the wispy clouds that bookend the monster's appearance... first the 'flaming bee' that flies by Jack and Kate just before the monster appears, and then the wispy cloud that lingers then races off after Kate throws the dynamite down the hole.

I personally would prefer a supernatural explanation than nanobots.

Nanobots are not reality, not yet. And it seems that they are a bit controversial in the nano world as well.

Here's a reply from an Argonne National Lab scientist when asked "What are nanobots"
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99257.htm
Hi
I do not believe any nanobots exist yet, Colleen. So far they are just a science-fiction
idea, that is just beginning to be visible on the horizon of our technological development
curve.

and an interesting article from US New and World Report
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040324.htm?track=rss
And Mihail Roco, director of the government's National Nanotechnology Initiative, has been publicly dismissive of molecular manufacturing and nanobots, as has the NanoBusiness Alliance, a trade group.

Hmmm...how about 'modified natural bacteria'? Hmmmm

Acting as a collective?

I'm guessing people like redemption and AZjeepDude get their information from sci-fi books.
Shatterhand, that comment was uncalled for. I support the theory, but you'll see other people are pushing it far more that I do. I didn't even come up with it.

My focus has primarily been on all the strange objects spotted in the Pilot and Exodus 2. I believe they're really there and intentional; how you choose to explain them is completely up to you.

Don't come after me because you think everyone's on the nano-bandwagon and are sick of it. I read someone's theory and supported it. In just a few posts. The theory happens to explain the unexplainable a lot more than some other theories out there. If you can't understand the difference between my insistence that there are weird objects out their and the nano theories that help explain them, then that's your problem.

This topic has been covered ad nauseum here http://www.thefuselage.com/threaded/index.php?topic=17692.0.
The group has broken down into those who think there is on such thing as nanobots, but really want to believe they are something easily explainable such as ghosts :lol2:. And then there are those of us who have realilzed the wisdom and brilliance of this theory and are finding that it helps to explain many of the things we are seeing.

I think the nanobot theory should go away with the purgatory theory. Too farfetched to believe. What would really impress me is if they had extremely simple explanations for things that seem to be farfetched, not farfetched explanations. I do agree that nanobot technology is right around the corner and close to reality, however i dont want it in LOST.


I think it's a decent theory, I just don't want it to be the answer because I've already read Prey and I don't really need to see a series TV show delve into the same topic.* It was done to a crisp in the book, and I think it's being made into a movie as well.

Acting as a collective?


Hey..that makes as much sense to me as the nanobits....

Hey..that makes as much sense to me as the nanobits....


Hmm.. I suppose it isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility that bacteria or some microscopic organisms could act as a collective. Afterall, we see schools of fish that seem to be able to communicate mass instructions and directions, as well as flocks of birds behaving in similar fashion.

In fact, I think I quite like that idea. The whole 'nanobot' theory really grates on me because it's an extremely advanced technology that would require a lot of resources to maintain (the nanobots would get damaged/degrade due to the environment, and even if they were self-repairing, they'd still need the 'parts', or at least the resources for the parts, and this island doesn't seem like the greatest source of silicon and other necessary materials), whereas with a naturally group-thinking microscopic organism, you have the possibility of maintenance through natural procreation/reproduction/cellular division, if you will.

Hmm.. I suppose it isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility that bacteria or some microscopic organisms could act as a collective. Afterall, we see schools of fish that seem to be able to communicate mass instructions and directions, as well as flocks of birds behaving in similar fashion.

In fact, I think I quite like that idea. The whole 'nanobot' theory really grates on me because it's an extremely advanced technology that would require a lot of resources to maintain (the nanobots would get damaged/degrade due to the environment, and even if they were self-repairing, they'd still need the 'parts', or at least the resources for the parts, and this island doesn't seem like the greatest source of silicon and other necessary materials), whereas with a naturally group-thinking microscopic organism, you have the possibility of maintenance through natural procreation/reproduction/cellular division, if you will.


The quest to build a self-replicating machine is under way. Self-replicating machines would be especially serviceable in space exploration. If all you have to send to Mars are a few prototypes which can then mine basic elements to manufacture hoards more, you only need to send a small rocket to Mars in advance of manned exploration to build shelters, extract oxygen from carbon dioxide and produce water maybe even fuel for the manned return trip.

If you were going to produce such a technology on earth, you might build underground to minimize escape potential and to control atmosphere and light. Perhaps there would have to be an energy source which the machines could not stray far from.

Just stream of consciousness.
Red

Afterall, we see schools of fish that seem to be able to communicate mass instructions and directions, as well as flocks of birds behaving in similar fashion.

And that weird thing where thousands of tiny black insects form a kind of a cloud.* Does anybody know what I mean?* They're so tiny that it's hard to see them unless you have the right backdrop, but they form kind of a swirling column.*

The quest to build a self-replicating machine is under way.* Self-replicating machines would be especially serviceable in space exploration.* If all you have to send to Mars are a few prototypes which can then mine basic elements to manufacture hoards more, you only need to send a small rocket to Mars in advance of manned exploration to build shelters, extract oxygen from carbon dioxide and produce water maybe even fuel for the manned return trip.*

If you were going to produce such a technology on earth, you might build underground to minimize escape potential and to control atmosphere and light.* Perhaps there would have to be an energy source which the machines could not stray far from.*

Just stream of consciousness.
Red


Here's the best we've done with 'self-replicating' robots:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7815160/

That's a far cry from what would be required from maintaining the nano-swarms on this remote island, but, in theory, the science is there, I suppose.

I think the nanobot theory should go away with the purgatory theory. Too farfetched to believe. What would really impress me is if they had extremely simple explanations for things that seem to be farfetched, not farfetched explanations. I do agree that nanobot technology is right around the corner and close to reality, however i don't want it in LOST.

Diabolo, just curious, but why are you against the nanobot technology explanation to explain some aspects of the show? I find it hard to think you see nanotechnology as too farfetched to believe. If you did some research into it, it would be proved otherwise. Is it the technology or too scifi (which nanotechnology isn't)? Or do the answers have to be very simple? IMHO, this is not a simple show and we do not live in a simple world and I just cant get my head wrapped around explaining all that is happening in this show with smoke (no pun intended) and mirrors. They almost have no choice but to use exotic current science and pseudoscience in a show like this. Maybe even some mythology thrown in for spice. Now, I don't want to come off sounding like some nanoadvocate, but it is real and being developed in many different places on the globefor a multitude of uses.


Here's the best we've done with 'self-replicating' robots:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7815160/

That's a far cry from what would be required from maintaining the nano-swarms on this remote island, but, in theory, the science is there, I suppose.

Thats the best that we've done thats been publically released. I would be willing to bet that military ventures in this area is 20-30 years beyond what us measly civilians can imagine.

Thats the best that we've done thats been publically released. I would be willing to bet that military ventures in this area is 20-30 years beyond what us measly civilians can imagine.


I very much doubt that. Military research efforts may be slightly more advanced (although I don't concede that, but it's possible), but 20-30 years beyond? No way.

Its an estimate based on when technologies for say, the shuttle, SR-71, F-117 etc. actually started vs. when these projects were made public. It may be an exaggeration but I wouldnt assume that the military is even close to being in lock step with public research.

I just finished reading "Prey" and am intrigued by this theory. It sure looked like the swarm had motion and direction in the last epi. Screen caps also show faces in the swarm. If nanotechnology is not invovled, I think that they faces appeared due to uncloaking. The dust from the explosion caused a temporary uncloaking of the others so we could see some definition. That is how the others know so much and why Danielle hears the others' whispering but does not see them. They have cloaking technology. Just a throught. For those of you who haven't read "Prey", I strongly suggest it.

Here's the best we've done with 'self-replicating' robots:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7815160/

That's a far cry from what would be required from maintaining the nano-swarms on this remote island, but, in theory, the science is there, I suppose.


Dude, don't forget about these!!!

REPLICATORS (http://paginas.terra.com.br/lazer/stargate/bluebook/database/enemies/replicators.html) :ermm:

Re the Science Fiction slam:

Many ideas first mentioned in Sci Fi came about very quickly in reality because no one had thought of them before. Waldoes-remote control arms for handling radioactives etc. were dreamed up by Robert Heinlein. He also imagined the waterbed. communications satellites, personal computers, fax machines and cell phones all were mentioned first in scifi.

There are "black" projects which are hidden even from Congress. Congress is told pls vote $x for a black project and maybe a little of the purpose-to facilitate Mars landing, if tech leaks could be used as a weapon against. US.

Science fiction is a vision of what our future could be. There are, as you said Redempt, many examples of science fiction ideas have been made into very real and vastly used products in our world today. It all started with a thought.

Well...whatever these black smoke, dots, nanobots, monster, security system thing is, they reminded me of the Langoliers.

There are "black" projects which are hidden even from Congress. Congress is told pls vote $x for a black project and maybe a little of the purpose-to facilitate Mars landing, if tech leaks could be used as a weapon against. US.

Yeah I just was listening to NPR. Some govt. analyst was talking about "black" projects and claimed that there were at least 100 "Manhattan Projects" going on in this country right now, 80% of which Congress has no idea what they are appropiating money for. They are working on technologies that would, say, deal with a technologically advanced and militarily rampant China 30 years in the future.

I first learned about the nanobot theory on another board and found it intriging. I researched the subject online and read Prey. I believe this theory answers many of the mysteries on the island. I don't think it answers all of the mysteries, but quite a few. I have yet to hear a strong enough argument to debunk this theory. It is not sci-fi. It is based in science.

I saw in another forum where someone jokingly said that they were clouds of magnetized and trained mosquitoes, I nearly pissed myself laughing.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

I saw in another forum where someone jokingly said that they were clouds of magnetized and trained mosquitoes, I nearly pissed myself laughing.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:


Hey..some of us have wondered about modified bacteria. However getting them to act together as a collective is the problem.... :lol2:

Princeton's Group Nanotechnology discovery by could have radical implications

It has been 20 years since the futurist Eric Drexler daringly predicted a new world where miniaturized robots would build things one molecule at a time. The world of nanotechnology that Drexler envisioned is beginning to come to pass, with scientists conjuring new applications daily.

Now Salvatore Torquato, a Princeton University scientist, is proposing turning a central concept of nanotechnology on its head. If the theory bears out – and it is in its infancy -- it could have radical implications not just for industries like telecommunications and computers but also for our understanding of the nature of life.

Torquato and colleagues have published a paper in the Nov. 25 issue of Physical Review Letters, the leading physics journal, outlining a mathematical approach that would enable them to produce desired configurations of nanoparticles by manipulating the manner in which the particles interact with one another.

This may not mean much to the man on the street, but to the average scientist it is a fairly astounding proposition.

"In a sense this would allow you to play God, because the method creates, on the computer, new types of particles whose interactions are tuned precisely so as to yield a desired structure," said Pablo Debenedetti, a professor of chemical engineering at Princeton.

http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2642

...bacteria. However getting them to act together as a collective is the problem....

Quantum physics states that at the molecular level, all atoms "know" what all other atoms are doing. In proximity to extreme electromagnetism, nanobots (at the molecular level) would be presumed to be able to work together to unite into any real, visible shape imaginable.

All this debate about nanobots is all very healthy and educational, I'm not against it being persued, but it highlights a problem about some of the more sciency theories about Lost in this forum. While it may be *plausible* explanation for all the freaky stuff going on (according to the novels that have been read here), is it *likely* to be the explanation? The answer's no, because it simply doesn't fit the story.

From what we know the Dharma stations have been on the island since the mid-to-late seventies, when there wasn't even microtechnology, let alone nanotechnology. End of.

Also, I think from a narrative standpoint, using nanobots as an explanation lacks charm. As part of another more hi-tech series, the idea of nanobots developing a malevolent will is great, it just doesn't gel with Lost. It would take a mammoth feat of writing to convincingly introduce such an alien concept into Lost's setting. Lost is about extreme survival and coming to terms with your past. Its about hell in paradise. Its about being preyed upon by dark and unknown forces. How would the characters react to the knowledge that the monster is a swarm of microscopic robots? Even Sawyer would have trouble finding witticism for that, though he'd probably nickname them 'shrinkydinks'.

The show will keep continuing to surprise us because of the rate at which its secrets are divulged. That is, very slowly and not without a fair amount of pain. There will be very few I-told-you-so's amongst us speculating fans. Those who do get that pleasure won't be the type who see gaps and haphazardly try to fill them.

I think in the next 4-5 eps:
Walt will be found
The Swan's purpose will be revealed
A search for the other stations will begin
The Others/Monster will attack (because everyone is too safe at the moment)
Desmond will return

If at least two of these things don't happen, the show is moving far *too* slowly.

understand, i'm not supporting the nanobots theory, but i don't understand how people are discounting it because it "doesn't exist". do you really think our government, including government scientists are honest about how advanced technology is? in the 60's people thought computers were sci-fi, yet our government had been using them for years. what about nuclear technology? did we hear about it as they discovered nuclear fusion? nope. so, to simply discount something as "not developed yet" when, in fact, it probably is, is naive. again, that being said, i don't necessarily think that's what the writers are using to explain the black smoke--nor do i have my own theory of what it is.

...i don't understand how people are discounting it because it "doesn't exist". do you really think our government, including government scientists are honest about how advanced technology is? ...what about nuclear technology? did we hear about it as they discovered nuclear fusion? nope. so, to simply discount something as "not developed yet" when, in fact, it probably is, is naive...

I agree with you! Nanotechnology was first discussed publically by the scientific community as early as 1959 and had been worked on by scientists years before that. So...it is not beyond the realm of reason that the Dharma Initiative may have been trying to use nanotechnology in the 1970's.

Any comments on a news article published today? Seems that nanotechnology DOES exist!! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10435559/

I agree with you! Nanotechnology was first discussed publically by the scientific community as early as 1959 and had been worked on by scientists years before that. So...it is not beyond the realm of reason that the Dharma Initiative may have been trying to use nanotechnology in the 1970's.

Any comments on a news article published today? Seems that nanotechnology DOES exist!! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10435559/

great article, aquarius! so, it seems if you combine nanotechnology and scalar electromagnetics (used to manipulate weather, for mind control, for weaponry, de-differentiation--basically, healing--terraforming, etc.) you get many answers to the most puzzling questions we are all asking about "lost".

Well...whatever these black smoke, dots, nanobots, monster, security system thing is, they reminded me of the Langoliers.

Don't do it! Don't dredge up that terrible TV Movie!!




Arrrrrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!!

I just brought it up by quoting you!

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't do it! Don't dredge up that terrible TV Movie!!




Arrrrrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!!

I just brought it up by quoting you!

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hahaha..don't let time catch up to you!! LOL That movie WAS kinda cheesy

hahaha..don't let time catch up to you!! LOL That movie WAS kinda cheesy

While I was watching it, I kept thinking, "This is a Micheal Crichton Movie Wannabe!"

Then I began to make plans to kill the cast, but soon came to my sences and decided to watch the only movie worse than the Langoliers, Carrot Top's Chairman of the Board.



God what an awful movie!

Nanobots may be shown in the pilot.
http://www.thetailsection.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153

We've been discussing the Black smoke and someone mentioned that the smoke appeared to attack. I think it's nano-tech. check it out. Backs up the nano-bot theory with a neat graphic.

Well...whatever these black smoke, dots, nanobots, monster, security system thing is, they reminded me of the Langoliers.

Oh, I had almost forgotten about Stephen King and The Langoliers. A great read and something that makes me go "hmmmmm". Worth thinking about.

I also believe that the nanobot theory is not too far fetched. Nanobots run amuck. Some still doing some good, others behaving badly. Nanobots would have the power to heal, which would explain why Locke can walk again. I know it's been done in "Prey" which would disappoint a lot of people expecting the writers to come up with their own original ideas.

There's been discussion they were on board the aircraft before it crashed. It's possible they were all around when they were on the beach too....doing God knows what. Watching, learning, interacting, interfering.

Quantum physics states that at the molecular level, all atoms "know" what all other atoms are doing. In proximity to extreme electromagnetism, nanobots (at the molecular level) would be presumed to be able to work together to unite into any real, visible shape imaginable.

And it's been proven that these same atoms on an even smaller scale, subatomic particles of light, behave according to WHO is observing them. Therefore creating a theory that one does create one's own reality. We see and make of it what we see. Someone else sees and makes something different of it.

There is a Michael Critchton book about a cloud a nanobots wreaking havoc. I can't remeber the name though. That theory does make sense.

4 8 15 16 23 42
Execute
Elecromagnet On!
Nanobots pulled back to the island.

Another incident prevented!

God knows what would happen if the nano bots got off the island.

Maybe they'd turn up inside a plane and cause it to crash.

Good grief!

And it's been proven that these same atoms on an even smaller scale, subatomic particles of light, behave according to WHO is observing them. Therefore creating a theory that one does create one's own reality. We see and make of it what we see. Someone else sees and makes something different of it.

And right you are! Maybe this would account for why various versions of the "monster" are appearing on the island: As smoke, a boar, a polar bear, a horse, Jack's father, and such. We do create our own realities.

There is a Michael Critchton book about a cloud a nanobots wreaking havoc. I can't remeber the name though. That theory does make sense.

That book would be Prey.


God knows what would happen if the nano bots got off the island. Maybe they'd turn up inside a plane and cause it to crash.

Magnetized atomic/subatomic particles have been shown to be able to "cold-melt" metal, thus making metal objects just fall apart. Could this be an explanation for the plane breaking up mid-air without an explosion? I think it's possible. It's the Hutchinson Effect.


4 8 15 16 23 42
Execute
Elecromagnet On!
Nanobots pulled back to the island.
Another incident prevented!

What a neat idea!!!


...they reminded me of the Langoliers

The only movie ever made that was worst than that really bad ending of 'The Langoliers' was "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"!!!

Quantum events only occur on a quantum scale, thus it cannot be used to explain polar bears/monsters etc.

I would hate to think that intelligent nanobot swarms have anything to do with the show, they are a bad sci fi cliché. The idea just doesn't sit well with the show, so far all the technology shown within the show exists in reality and to suddenly drop nanobot swarms in as part of the plot would be lazy writing in my opinion.

Even though this is a fictional show i think it's still worth keeping in mind Occam's razor as things haven't gone into the realms of fictional or pseudoscience yet.

I would hate to think that intelligent nanobot swarms have anything to do with the show, they are a bad sci fi cliché. The idea just doesn't sit well with the show, so far all the technology shown within the show exists in reality and to suddenly drop nanobot swarms in as part of the plot would be lazy writing in my opinion.


Did you see my link to the tailsection in this thread... the swarm was in the pilot. So they may have been planning on nano-bots since the beginning. I think that is tremendous forward planning and thinking.

My question is... if it's not nanobots. What is it then?... Are you suggesting that the smoke was a psychotic fit / hallucination? All surviors had the same fit at the same time? That would be lazy writing IMO.

Hasn't the swooping black table top already been debunked by the show creators as a directional marker the CGI blast? Discounting that incident there hasn't been another case of smoke acting in any other way than smoke normaly would.

Quantum events only occur on a quantum scale...

As you read this, you, your body, your eyes, your brain, your mind, the light around you, and everything in the room with you is working on a quantum scale.

Jack, did you watch the same episode of "Exodus, Part II" that I did?

(Jack and Kate both reach the bottom of the hillside. Jack looks around. They
hear a scuttling, rattling noise getting louder. Jack turns and through the
greenery, he sees a wisp of black smoke zoom quickly across the clearing and
quickly vanishing into the trees on the right.)

(The scuttling, rattling noise disappears as well. Jack turns and looks at the
clearing. Did she see it? He turns and looks questioningly at Kate.)

KATE: Yeah, I saw it.

(Behind them, Locke and Hurley have both reached the bottom.)

KATE: We got to get out of here.



The smoke that they saw did not act like normal smoke. It moved through the trees like a creature of some sort. And it made noise.

Not to mention this:

(Kate grunts and throws the dynamite into the hole. Locke and Jack turn their
heads and shut their eyes as they wait for the explosion. Kate covers her head
with her arms.)

(The creature stomps.)

(The dynamite explodes.)

(We hear the sound of the creature roar.)

(A cloud of black smoke rises out of the hole. It appears to dissipate
outward.)

(Jack watches with disbelief as he sees the black smoke suddenly turn and zoom
away. The creature's roar echoes. We hear the lingering sounds of wings
fluttering.)

(Kate and Jack stare at where the black smoke used to be.)

(Locke groans. Kate turns to help Jack pull Locke out of the hole. The three
of them collapse onto the dirt pathway - panting, exhausted.)

(Jack looks at Locke. He turns and looks back at where the black, smoke-like
creature used to be.)

(Camera holds on Locke.)

The smoke behaves like anything but smoke. Unless you're talking about the fire smoke, in which case, yes. It acted like smoke.

The smoke that they saw did not act like normal smoke. It moved through the trees like a creature of some sort. And it made noise.
The smoke in that scene acted perfectly normal, the unusual thing in that situation was that something was creating smoke while apparently moving through the air in forrest leaving a trail. The question is what was creating the smoke?

As for the other situation, kate had just thrown dynamite down a hole and after the explosion smoke came out. Sounds pretty normal to me.

i don't think the smoke "acted perferctly normal" at all...

it acted with purpose, and the losties noticed it and Locke verbalized the peculiarity of it to Kate and Kate agreed...

we were clearly meant to see and question it...

exactly, Simplist. I was going to post screencaps, but of course they don't capture the movement of the smoke. So all I can do is suggest another viewing of Exodus, because the smoke in the jungle is not ordinary smoke at all. Is it a swarm of nanobots? I don't know. It's the most plausible explanation I've read so far, but I'm continuously surprised by the show.

Hasn't the swooping black table top already been debunked by the show creators as a directional marker the CGI blast? Discounting that incident there hasn't been another case of smoke acting in any other way than smoke normaly would.
I've heard many people post this.... I haven't been able to find one creator quote. If you have a source ( gotta be legit - not just a post from a fan saying they heard this) And I'll change my mind on the pilot smoke... it happens in three different locations in the pilot. One is when Jack is looking up at the plane... not during the explosion.

The smoke in that scene acted perfectly normal, the unusual thing in that situation was that something was creating smoke while apparently moving through the air in forrest leaving a trail. The question is what was creating the smoke?

As for the other situation, kate had just thrown dynamite down a hole and after the explosion smoke came out. Sounds pretty normal to me.

If you'd seen it, you'd know. Ordinary waste gas it ain't ;)

OMG! I have been posting this stuff on the spoiler theories for awhile now....only after I watched Kate and the horse! I read this thread back in June...read Prey and became a nonobot believer.....I am getting torn up alive over there!!!! Now Iknow I have somewhere to go to talk about this...gonna make dinner...come back and re read this thread!

WOO HOO NANOBOT BELIEVERS!!!!!

exactly, Simplist. I was going to post screencaps, but of course they don't capture the movement of the smoke. So all I can do is suggest another viewing of Exodus, because the smoke in the jungle is not ordinary smoke at all. Is it a swarm of nanobots? I don't know. It's the most plausible explanation I've read so far, but I'm continuously surprised by the show.
The most plausible situation so far? Nanobots do not exist, nanotechnology exists but nanobots do not. They are just a theory. How is that plausible?

As i said before, the smoke in the jungle acts naturally. If i hang a smoke bomb from a peice of string and trail it round it produces a trail like that seen in the paticular scene. The smoke isn't whisping around the jungle as it is being left in a trail, it is what ever is producing the smoke that is moving round the jungle.

The creators have specifically said (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=1999&highlight=pseudo) that everything can be explained either through science or pseudo-science. Considering the project list on thehansofoundation.org (http://thehansofoundation.org/activeproject.html) sites include such pseudo-science as Remote Viewing and Life-Extension projects, I think we can't rule something out on the show just because it's not possible now. This was supposed to be a scientifc project possibly gone wrong in a very remote location. Why couldn't they have developed nanobots? I understand you are an Occam's Razor kinda guy, but it is fiction, after all.

And, the explosion smoke does not behave like normal smoke. I understand what you're saying regarding the snaking smoke, and it's not a bad theory that the smoke was trailing something. Maybe it is. But the explosion smoke? It simply does not behave like smoke. And we are seeing it head-on. It isn't trailing something obscured in the jungle.

I still can't wrap my mind around or grasping the idea that the writers of this show are ripping of Michael C. It would be so dissapointing and obvious and not worth the investment of figuring out this show. I am hoping for either something so obvious that isn't so much of the stretch of imagination and that would put us all in that "duh!!!" state or it is something so revolutionary that we are all realing with amazment.

Granted, it is fiction but so far in this fictional show there has been nothing that can't be explained without resorting to pseudoscience.

Remote viewing is pseudoscience but it can be argued that it doesn't require any leaps in technology to observe or test it. I wouldn't call life extension projects pseudoscience, after all scientists have already been playing with genes in fruit flies to extend there lives.

The problem i have is that there is a massive difference in the technology required for the previous two subjects and the technology required to have autonomas swarms of microscopic robots, it would require many leaps in more than one field for it to come into being. It would be like driving to a park in a petrol powered car and then getting a hoverboard out the boot.

I just can't see the writers using nanobots in the plot. Yes it's all fiction in the end but in my opinion it just wouldnt gel. Atleast at a stretch there is some from of argument or plausability in this theory apposed to "the island is in space" or "the button is connect to a stick that prods God in the arse".

iamicarus: I agree to some degree. There are a lot of folks that think the whole thing is Matrix-y, and the flashbacks aren't real. I liked the Matrix as much as the next person, but I hope they aren't taking that old trope around the block again. I've got no argument against the false-memory thing, I just don't want it to be that. So I get where you're coming from about the Crichton-nanobot thing.

With the nanobots, I think it will only be one small part of something much larger. I was mostly playing the Devil's Advocate against the "It Must Be Something From Reality" camp. (I'm not much of an Occam's Razor kind of person when it comes to fiction...) I honestly have nothing invested in whether it's nanobots or not!:smile:

As you read this, you, your body, your eyes, your brain, your mind, the light around you, and everything in the room with you is working on a quantum scale.

And yet I have never experienced quantum tunneling or quantum teleportation! Listen, Quantum weirdness is only weird because it never happens on the macroscopic scale. To describe Quantum effects taking place on a macroscopic scale reveals Quantum Ignorance. Yes all the atoms that make up your body are subject to quantum effects, but these effects take place on a scale that we as macroscopic human beings never experience. If you don't believe me, the next time you leave your house, why use the door? Just hurl yourself against the wall. Quantum mechanics predicts that you might just pass right through it. Of course the chances of this happening is proportional to your mass, too bad you're so massive!


The only movie ever made that was worst than that really bad ending of 'The Langoliers' was "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"!!!

Watch "Chairman of the Board" with Carrot Top. Ugh...

Quantum events only occur on a quantum scale, thus it cannot be used to explain polar bears/monsters etc.

Amen!

Did you see my link to the tailsection in this thread... the swarm was in the pilot.

That was a piece of ash or debris, not a nano swarm.

I thought this nanobot theory died after Javi (I believe it was) said, in effect, "It's not nanobots"

I thought this nanobot theory died after Javi (I believe it was) said, in effect, "It's not nanobots"

Can you be more precise in your statement? Can you give us a quote of your source? Please understand that I'm not trying to put you on the spot -- I, like most of the participants on this board just want to learn. I'm concerned over certain words in your quoted statement, e.g.:

I thought ...theory died..
Javi... I believe it was...
said, in effect...If Javi really said (and meant!) this, then maybe we all should get off of the nanobot theory...but until proved otherwise, I can't think of any other explanation for the crazy "smoke" and its effects. Of course if I were as creative as the writers of this show maybe I could be wealthy author by now...

That was a piece of ash or debris, not a nano swarm.
On what do you base this quote? I'm certain you meant in your opinion unless you have a quote from one of the creators. It swoops toward the engine explosion and then swoops upward. Look at it agian. In the background another swarm makes a hard right turn towards a Lostaway. When Jack is looking up at the plane just after Shannon screams we see one zip across the screen. It flies overhead and there is a sound like bees swarming. Those are observations... that can be verified. What are your facts?

I thought this nanobot theory died after Javi (I believe it was) said, in effect, "It's not nanobots"

Find us a quote link please? Javi is not the one who makes that decision. It's Damon and Carlton who know if we're right. Javi has also said that Damon and Carlton have lied to him before about what was gonna happen. So I'd really like to see that quote if it exists.

I think they are microbots, but not quite nanobots, maybe even millibots.

The most plausible situation so far? Nanobots do not exist, nanotechnology exists but nanobots do not. They are just a theory. How is that plausible?
Just because it's not in popular mechanics doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I saw a show on PBS that showed the worlds smallest engine. It fit on the head of a pin I think they built a little VW bug that was as smaller than a penny (and it actually drove). They have an nanobot engine, but they haven't figured out how to produce enough torque to get the engine to do anything useful (but then again that show was on about 8 years ago). In life never say never.

Added:

Just found this link about nano engines at Berkley http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/May/05-nanoengine.html

Just found this link about nano engines at Berkley http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/May/05-nanoengine.html


And another link of interest:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6959575/

Maybe in our (of course, fictional) story, "Lost", the scientists of the Dharma Initiative were made to be (written into the plot to be) the first to dabble in this area and "...acting on the basic biological fear of death and extinction...(distorted) their rational approach to the human condition" (quoted from article cited above). This would give us "irrational" scientists dabbling in a field far ahead of their time...and leading to "the incident"? I also find it interesting that the real life article I quoted above speaks to: "These intelligent machines will...stop the aging process...destroy disease...rebuild organs...These were some of the same areas the Dharma Initiative was originally working on.

Hey y'all. I went looking for the quote (and couldn't find it). But it was from this summer at Comicon. One of the creators when asked about the nanobots, said that it wasn't nanobots, but then he hedged and said something along the lines of "it depends on how you define nanobots..." or something like that. The only thing I have heard them officially say is definitely not happening is purgatory. So I think nanotechnology may still be on the table, one just has to figure out how...

I agree with Todell...I don't recall them completly dismissing the idea as they have Aliens and Purgatory. There has been so much discussion about the nano theory that the writers would of said something by now if we were that far off. I'm not wanting the whole island to be based around the nano technology, i.e.: Prey, but wouldn't mind it being incorporated into the island's mysteries somehow... I actually think it would be kinda neat to see what they did/do with that technology.

Found these on the web link is below. Nanobots not ruled out - depending on how you define it.

Warning this link has spoilers...

http://www2.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Comics&action=page&obj_id=49194

Can you be more precise in your statement? Can you give us a quote of your source? Please understand that I'm not trying to put you on the spot -- I, like most of the participants on this board just want to learn. I'm concerned over certain words in your quoted statement, e.g.:


Here:

http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=14649&highlight=nanobot

I guess the wording does mean it could be "some kind" of nanobots, but to me a nanobot is a nanobot.

I thought this nanobot theory died after Javi (I believe it was) said, in effect, "It's not nanobots"

Can you be more precise in your statement? Can you give us a quote of your source? Please understand that I'm not trying to put you on the spot -- I, like most of the participants on this board just want to learn.

Here:

http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=14649&highlight=nanobot

I guess the wording does mean it could be "some kind" of nanobots, but to me a nanobot is a nanobot.

We need to be very careful when reading responses from TPTB... From your source above what Javi said was: ..."damon said that the monster is not a cloud of nanites a la michael crichton's "prey".

There was no indication given in this statement that nanobots or nanotechnology is not involved in the story...only that the monster is not made of nanobots.

There was no indication given in this statement that nanobots or nanotechnology is not involved in the story...only that the monster is not made of nanobots.

Ok I was going by the assumption that this thread was about how the monster was made of nanobots. Because the "smoke wisps" mentioned in the title of the thread are part of the security system/monster. I can find the quote from TPTB about how the "wisps" represent "about 5%" of the monster.

Sorry if I'm hijackin the thread. I was just trying to save people some energy

:ohwell:

I was thinking along the same lines of nanotechnology. Have you read Prey by Michael Crichton? That was what gave me the idea.

Also(sorry to double post) does anyone know how I can get my avatar working? I have one to use, but it won't let me put one up????

Also(sorry to double post) does anyone know how I can get my avatar working? I have one to use, but it won't let me put one up????

You'll be allowed to use an avatar on December 21st which is 10 days after you joined this forum.

Fact: Nanites exist
Fact: A motor is being developed for nanites as we talk
Fact: Chips can be made from nanites and are being experimented on by PC makers.
Theory: Chips plus Motor plus Nanite (vehicle made of atoms) = Nanobot

I can not prove this right now coz i am watching football and going to bed soon but I will get the proof if necessary in the next week when time.

Fact: Nanites exist
Fact: A motor is being developed for nanites as we talk
Fact: Chips can be made from nanites and are being experimented on by PC makers.
Theory: Chips plus Motor plus Nanite (vehicle made of atoms) = Nanobot

I can not prove this right now coz i am watching football and going to bed soon but I will get the proof if necessary in the next week when time .

Read a news article from NBC dated yesterday:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10798799/
It would seem that they do exist.

I don't know about nanobots explaining the monster, but I found this personlly interesting..

Watching Felicity reruns on WE today, I saw my favourite episode where Ben gives Felicity the film canister and calls it a time machine.. thinking I'm the only Felicity/LOST fan. Sorry. But in the middle of the episode, Earl walks into a convenience store, and he's talking about.. NANOTECHNOLOGY!

This was her sophmore year, so 1999/2000? Six years ago J.J. was including nanobots in his show...

Doubt it's come up before but sorry if it had.

Actually? I love it! Thanks and welcome to the Lage!

I am glad someone else has thought of this theory too. It crossed my mind at the end of last season, and has futher been justified after the last episode. I posted a thread yesterday on this very subject. (I just went on this site yesterday, so I obviously was beaten to the punch). The subject is hit on in the book "Prey". I think the magnetic field serve to control the devices...*may have been hit on in there thread too...I haven't read the whole thing.

what do we know so far ?

Javi ruled out the nanobot issue
BUT, he did so in the way a politician would do. Which means it leaves the door open.
This was a non-statement.
Anyway, even if the nanobot tech is really not involved in Lost, it's still fun to speculate and to discuss about it (who said that discussions here HAD to be 100% accurate answers to the show, it's a speculations forum :) )

Javi's statement can be read as such :
The "thing" is not green, but it depends on how you perceive "green"
translation : the thing might be green, but it depends if you're color-blind or not :)

Then
nanobots/nanites EXIST, that's a field of science which has been explored for many years.
Nanobots are expected to be used in many applications, one of the most known would be the medical use.

But we have to distinguish between several types of nanobots/nanites/nanomachines

- mechanical machines : those are highly miniaturised machines which are designed for a simple task.
One of their purpose can also be to be able to replicate themselves. (Machines building machines)
In that sense they come close to the second type of nanites
- biotechnology : those are partly (or completely) made of living matter. they imitate the cells of a living body (animal and thus human, plant)
They can replicate themselves, just like our cells will be able to replicate themselves (mitosis) or separate their genetic code in two to give 2 "half" cells (meiosis)

then if I may widen the discussion on the subject, a mechanical nanite with a "program" (DNA is nothing else than a construction program) performing meiosis could potentially separate its "code" in 2 and this "half" nanite meeting another half nanite of another kind could create a new program (the same way we make children by sharing part of our genetic code with our partner)
But this is highly theoretical and remains in the utopy domain (for now :) )

Basically nanobots are "manmade"
Things do not require to be "small" to become nanites

there are lots of organisms who are on a microscopic scale and who aren't nanites
unicellular organisms fall into that category for example
and even if we one day manage to create (if we haven't already) unicellular machines (wether mechanical or biological) they will still fall under another category than real life created entities

Then we must introduce the evolution process into the picture

Let's say that mankind interferes with the development of a species on a microscopic scale. For example through genetics, where we would modify an amoeba to create a "nanomachine".
when does this new entity become a natural entity, or does it stay at nanomachine state ?

Once and if this machine is subject to a natural evolution process, does it become a new species, or is it still a machine

and I think that's where we have to interpret Javi's statement

The black swarm we saw on the 23rd Psalm, is it truely a nanobot swarm, or is it made of sentient elements from a new species ?
Basically this asks the question if this swarm is still made of manmade, man controlled elements, or did those elements evolve and did they take their "independance" ?

this swarn could have come from a human experiment, or they could have emerged from an "incident"
When you expose living creatures to radiations, these creatures change
They might decay, die, or be cured (radiations are used to treat cancer for example)

Furthermore, radiations are known to be used in Shows, movies, comics, etc, to grant "superpowers" to some characters (Hulk, the Fantastic 4, Spiderman though indirectly through a spider bite, etc)

Now let's say we are in a "comic book" situation (introduced by Hurley's comic)
Let's take a swarm of flies which accidentally got caught into the radiations or EM field generated by the "incident" mentionned in the Dharma film
Let's say (highly speculating here) that this incident modified the fly swarm to give them some strange abilities

Would they be nanomachines ?

That's where Javi's quote takes its sense
They are not nanobots per se, they are living creatures which have been voluntareely or accidentally altered by the "Hand of Man", but they do not fall under the "nanobot" category.
But if you consider this from another POV, these could be called nanobots, because they are far from what they used to be, but calling them nanobots would be an abuse of language

Finally, we need to reflect on their ability to "fly". They don't fly at random, they perfectly control their flightpath, and they seem to be organised
Something tells me that they even posess a group shapeshifting capacity. Which means they could take the shape of a human being for example (Ever thought that Walt's apparitions could have been the result of Walt controlling them and rearranging the shape of the swarm to create his owm image - the dripping effect resulting of the constant rearrangment of the swarm ?)
But basically, a nanobot is not supposed to fly, unless you give it wings, or some antigrav capacity
This is where the EM field from the hatch comes into play. This might just generate enough of an EM field to enable them to rise above the ground
This also would explain why they were only seen by the fusies, and not the tailies back on their beach

I personnally think that they are not nanobots per se, but a living sentient entity that travels in packs (swarm)
You may call them nanobots, but I think we'll discover that they are much more than that.

I introduce the notion of the evolution process here, because we have to decide WHAT or WHO this swarm is
When does the machine stop being a machine ?
This issue was raised in The island on the clones issue, and was also raised in movies such as Blade Runner (from the book "Do androids dream of electric sheep" by P.K. Dick) , AI, I Robot, etc
Where does life begin ?

Are they still nanobots, or did they find a life of their own
and that's once again where Javi's quote steps in. They might have once been nanobots, but now they are part of a living creature whose body is composed of evolved (in the Darwinian sense of the term) nanobots.

Lost is all about "starting a brand new life" (or starting over) (Locke mentions this to Shannon)
This would take full meaning in this theory, where the machine becomes ... human
It does not scan people and react to their emotions and reflects them, it LEARNS

When the swarm is face to face with someone in fear, it experiences fear to learn this emotion
And maybe Locke was not dragged down the hole to be take prisonner, maybe he got caught in the swarm when this swarm experience Locke's fear and tried to run away
When the swarm was face to face with the pilot, it experienced shock and horror and reflected the pilots emotion to experience this emotion itself

When it faced Locke the first time, they both looked at each other in awe
When it faced Ecko, it experienced the search for inner peace and closure, and so it learned this emotion and left Ecko unharmed

The swarm does not reflect people's fears and manifest itself as the boogeyman or the monster in the closet
It is just like a child who mimics his parents behaviours
A child feels his mother's emotions, even without a word, the child just feels it

And that also may be why They want "the boy" because he's a good learning material for the swarm
Children like Walt want to learn, experience new things (He wanted to learn from Locke)
Maybe that's what he was wanted for
and maybe that's why the other losties are so dull when it comes to sharing informations, or investigate their surroundings
They are all trapped in their own problems and they violently contrast with Walt

Basically, the experiment was to create a new lifeform
and now the machine wants to become "Human" (think of Data in Startrek TNG and his emotionnal chip)

Bravo, Tarf!!! Yours is one of the best, well-composed posts ever on this forum!!! Or maybe it's just that you expressed my beliefs better than I have ever been able to. I agree completely with you. Redemption, a new life, a new life-form...

Wow Tarf! That's awesome...

I also saw a post from Javi where he had a "political" type answer to the date when the losties landed on the island. I'm still conviced it's 2009 on the Island (Picture of Jack's luggage tag). If that was the case, could Nanotech not have developed by then?

Just my 2cents.

I found it... In one Thread Javi states:

i am not sure what comments from the creative team you are referring to so i don't feel free to make an informed statement - i do know they didn't crash after september 2004!
http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=30185

Later on he says:
it is neither important nor unimportant, it is something we have chosen to keep fuzzy until the time comes when revealing it with specificity serves our designs. http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=31273

With Javi being so ambiguious with his answer and now this smokie thing....It is very hard not to grab onto the nanobot theory....

I am all here with you guys and getting tired of people thinking we are NUTS!


THEY ARE SOMETHING OUT OF THAT PREY BOOK! and yes the idea of them going through a meiosis is wonderful....With that we have mutation and gene expression and a whole new creature! How awesome is that....and just because we are smart enough to "get" it at its roots doesn't mean that they ahve not evelved from nanobots and the rest of the general public will not understand the basics of what they really are in the NOW...

Javi is notiourious for giving ambigious answers and this HAS to be one of them...They could not let out in June that they were nonobots or any form of them ...

Also look on the cover of Prey...it is a black swarm.....

I could go on but....I am going to the movies to see Memiors of a Geisha....chick flick with the chick tonight!....

Thank you tart for you biological/scientific answer filled with reason

I think alot of it is supernatural. This is a slightly sci-fi/paranormal show, IMO, and that aspect is growing as the show goes on (like Alias).

I like that. I've waiting for them to get to the paranormal.

Nanobots is a little weird... basic. for me to believe it has to be better.`

I always thought something was familiar about Smokey, then it hit me. Remember some of the old cartoons, when a swarm of bees formed a hammer (or scissors, or anvil, ad nauseum) and then would use it to bash Wile E. Coyote, or someone? After watching these my entire childhood, I have no problem with Smokey as nanobot! lol

Nanobots is a little weird... basic. for me to believe it has to be better.`

Jed, I'm feeling your pain. Thing is, it is going to get better.

You subscribe to the nanobot theory fancyface? Still not convinced though the smoke could be:
1) and alien (doubt it since too many entities within)
2) a technology (this could include nanobots... I'm leaning to this one though not sure if I like the idea that it's nanobots)
3) a spirit (could be doubtful for the same reason as #1 BUT it could be the conduit of spirits)

You subscribe to the nanobot theory fancyface? Still not convinced though the smoke could be:
1) and alien (doubt it since too many entities within)
2) a technology (this could include nanobots... I'm leaning to this one though not sure if I like the idea that it's nanobots)
3) a spirit (could be doubtful for the same reason as #1 BUT it could be the conduit of spirits)

I'm just not all that positive to say it's one thing or another. I have some ideas but not real sure I want to go with nanobots, or any of the ones you've mentioned. All are certainly could be the ticket. I don't know, there is something missing in the theory and to be perfectly honest, I just don't buy JJ putting nanobots so blatantly into the story line. It's not like it hasn't been done. To say alien in nature or paranormal or supernatural and so on, just can't say yet. First off, in order of appearance:

The Monster Killed the pilot

Ethan Rom (Other Man) tried to kill Charlie by hanging him from a tree just to name a few of his dirty deeds.

Danielle - Well, you know that whole story is a little messed up.

The Whispers - Creepy little sneaky buggers that they are, just hiding and scaring the bahjezzass out of everyone.

Smokey - Scouts around, picking brains and plowing down trees, growl, sputter, purr purr purr. Whilst the likes of Charlie are up a tree with his eyes bugging out of his bean.

Sea Billies - (3 on the boat, so far) argh! shiver me timbers and all that.

Desmond - for the most part, he grabs a gun and says watch the film brother, and, I'm outa here"

The Others - Which we have yet to see.

Going thru some growing pains here with the show. Maybe if there weren't so many darned secrets and we had some answers to build on. :ohwell:
.

Will the Age of Aquarius begin in 2012 as the Nanotechnology Age?

I found an interesting quote at this site:
http://www.gmri.org/nano/mbne_0234.html

It says:
Never underestimate the power of a new material. Throughout history, the discovery of new material technologies has changed the direction of human society. Entire ages have been named for materials (the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, etc.). By learning from nature's nanoscale blueprints, we may be embarking on a new age -- what some have already predicted to be the "Nanotechnology Age".

Will the Age of Aquarius begin in 2012 as the Nanotechnology Age?

I found an interesting quote at this site:
http://www.gmri.org/nano/mbne_0234.html

It says:
Never underestimate the power of a new material. Throughout history, the discovery of new material technologies has changed the direction of human society. Entire ages have been named for materials (the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, etc.). By learning from nature's nanoscale blueprints, we may be embarking on a new age -- what some have already predicted to be the "Nanotechnology Age".

There are those (Ray Kurzweil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil): The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near)) who believe that "A I" is just another form of our evolution, so the links you are making to the Age of Aquarius and the Iron Age....etc. are rather interesting, especially in reference to the Mayan end time as being 2012.

Lostzilla certainly would not be a cookie-cut duplicate of the swarms from the Michael Crichton novel, but there seems to be nearly limitless ways in which to go about creating and programming micro-robots. The monster on Lost may be a very different recipe.