@nellamanodestra I say ‘perpetual motion’, you might say ‘free energy’. I am not sure about your list; is it a mixed one? Remote viewing is nonsense, but are you saying that nanotechnology is? And I think that you mean 4 forces; not 4 energies. In? fact, I have always thought that the concept of a grand unified theory is a logical error (‘begging the question’): analogies are suggestive, but not always reliable guides.
I don’t live by bumper-sticker philosophy.
@nellamanodestra One ‘knows’ straight away that a crackpot is a crackpot because he is totally lacking in self-criticism and avoids all of the usual scientific ‘checks and balances’. It is not even what a crackpot claims (although it is usually something like ‘free energy’ aka perpetual motion), but the manner? in which he sneaks around, that marks him out. BTW, all conmen are always very keen on one ‘having an open mind’.
@nellamanodestra Have you considered the very real possibility that you are not qualified to judge? Don’t you have a ‘personal issue’ with people who are clearly criminals? Newton and Einstein, and current real scientists, are not ‘pestered’ by scientific critics because they did, and do, first present their ideas to their peers. Crackpots always avoid that onerous process and try to fool layman by bypassing critical comment.? Why can you not understand that?
@nellamanodestra You appear to have a problem with comprehension: I was pointing out the logical axiom that one cannot prove a priori that something does not exist. However, as soon as someone claims? to have evidence for its existence, that evidence must be tested to destruction.
@flowerbower I never talked about perpetual motion (I think it is a fallacy), go back to my second message, I? said anti-gravity and others… With others I meant things like Remote Viewing, neuro tech, nano-tech, the nature of the energy (can the 4 energies be unified with a different interpretation of physics phenomena) and so many more, that remain unexplained at large by our current science.
@flowerbower You keep talking about crackpots, in my vocabulary there’s ignorant people and I don’t care about them. A crackpot to me is a person like you with sterile mind who thinks he knows reality.
What’s your personal issue with people who don’t share your standards?. Newton and Einstein were pestered by? people like you, not by the people you so energically criticise.
@nellamanodestra Yep, scientists were still saying ‘maybe’ to perpetual motion? at the end of the 19th century. And then they came down firmly on the side of ‘no’.
@nellamanodestra Well, that is one of? the classic knee-jerk responses of the defenders of pseudoscience. And you really cannot see that the real arrogance is to present so-called proof to a gullible public and to avoid confrontation with expert critics?
@nellamanodestra [cont] crackpots have always been part of the background noise and that Newton and Einstein were indeed pestered by them. Faraday’s correspondence is full of his hilarious put-downs of loony-tunes who ‘offered their suggestions’. So, if you are so impressed by Newton and Einstein, why are you taking the side of crackpots? I suggest that it is? because you do not have the nous to tell the difference.
@nellamanodestra Quite, one cannot prove? a negative. That is why the onus is always on the putative inventor to provide evidence FOR his idea, rather than the skeptic having to provide evidence AGAINST it. Indeed, the evidence against such concepts as antigravity and perpetual motion is already so overwhelming that any more would be superfluous. Your knowledge of science is obviously second-rate and second-hand, so why not try to ‘take on board’ the simpler concept that …
@flowerbower Right, evidence is king in science matter and since there’s no way you can present evidence against the existance of “antigravity” or any of these things.
Thinking big picture is one of the most remarkable features of big minds such as Newton who founded most of classical physics by himself. Plank with his quantum theory or Einstein with his relativity theory (Do? you need me to explain why these things are “big).
@nellamanodestra That depends upon whether he has any evidence. Someone who interacts only with other crackpots or ignorant laymen, whose ‘experiments’ work only when he is present and who avoids mainstream scientific society, is a fool or a conman.
Another sure sign of the crackpot is that he is only ever interested in ‘big’? things such as antigravity and perpetual motion. Nobelist Richard Feynman, OTOH, was obsessed with the question of why a lawn-sprinkler won’t work in reverse.
@Westernbodhisattva Quite. As I keep pointing out: the scientists who actually invented the ZPE concept, and? who continue to carry out research on it, are (apart from Robert Forward) the very last people to suggest that it can be extracted. The calculations of vast ZPE were made by ‘science writers’ just to ‘make a good story’. Such high energies would immediately conflict with relativity theory … because of their associated mass.
24 comments
No ping yet
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 8:52 am (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra I say ‘perpetual motion’, you might say ‘free energy’. I am not sure about your list; is it a mixed one? Remote viewing is nonsense, but are you saying that nanotechnology is? And I think that you mean 4 forces; not 4 energies. In? fact, I have always thought that the concept of a grand unified theory is a logical error (‘begging the question’): analogies are suggestive, but not always reliable guides.
I don’t live by bumper-sticker philosophy.
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 9:01 am (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra One ‘knows’ straight away that a crackpot is a crackpot because he is totally lacking in self-criticism and avoids all of the usual scientific ‘checks and balances’. It is not even what a crackpot claims (although it is usually something like ‘free energy’ aka perpetual motion), but the manner? in which he sneaks around, that marks him out. BTW, all conmen are always very keen on one ‘having an open mind’.
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 9:18 am (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra Have you considered the very real possibility that you are not qualified to judge? Don’t you have a ‘personal issue’ with people who are clearly criminals? Newton and Einstein, and current real scientists, are not ‘pestered’ by scientific critics because they did, and do, first present their ideas to their peers. Crackpots always avoid that onerous process and try to fool layman by bypassing critical comment.? Why can you not understand that?
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 9:36 am (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra You appear to have a problem with comprehension: I was pointing out the logical axiom that one cannot prove a priori that something does not exist. However, as soon as someone claims? to have evidence for its existence, that evidence must be tested to destruction.
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 10:35 am (UTC 0)
@flowerbower I never talked about perpetual motion (I think it is a fallacy), go back to my second message, I? said anti-gravity and others… With others I meant things like Remote Viewing, neuro tech, nano-tech, the nature of the energy (can the 4 energies be unified with a different interpretation of physics phenomena) and so many more, that remain unexplained at large by our current science.
The world is not black-white get used to it kid.
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC 0)
@flowerbower I am all in for confrontation with “experts”, but until you know calling them crackpots is just ignorant, you don’t really know.
I don’t really know about pseudoscience, but I don’t close my mind for something I don’t understand. ?
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC 0)
@flowerbower You keep talking about crackpots, in my vocabulary there’s ignorant people and I don’t care about them. A crackpot to me is a person like you with sterile mind who thinks he knows reality.
What’s your personal issue with people who don’t share your standards?. Newton and Einstein were pestered by? people like you, not by the people you so energically criticise.
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC 0)
@flowerbower You? contradict yourself, if there is NO evidence against it there is no evidence against it, PERIOD.
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra Yep, scientists were still saying ‘maybe’ to perpetual motion? at the end of the 19th century. And then they came down firmly on the side of ‘no’.
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 1:22 pm (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra Well, that is one of? the classic knee-jerk responses of the defenders of pseudoscience. And you really cannot see that the real arrogance is to present so-called proof to a gullible public and to avoid confrontation with expert critics?
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra [cont] crackpots have always been part of the background noise and that Newton and Einstein were indeed pestered by them. Faraday’s correspondence is full of his hilarious put-downs of loony-tunes who ‘offered their suggestions’. So, if you are so impressed by Newton and Einstein, why are you taking the side of crackpots? I suggest that it is? because you do not have the nous to tell the difference.
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra Quite, one cannot prove? a negative. That is why the onus is always on the putative inventor to provide evidence FOR his idea, rather than the skeptic having to provide evidence AGAINST it. Indeed, the evidence against such concepts as antigravity and perpetual motion is already so overwhelming that any more would be superfluous. Your knowledge of science is obviously second-rate and second-hand, so why not try to ‘take on board’ the simpler concept that …
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm (UTC 0)
A conscious scientist will always say maybe until he has evidence? for yes or no.
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 3:36 pm (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra An arrogant, judgemental mind is? actually the furthest thing there is from a scientific mind.
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm (UTC 0)
@flowerbower Right, evidence is king in science matter and since there’s no way you can present evidence against the existance of “antigravity” or any of these things.
Thinking big picture is one of the most remarkable features of big minds such as Newton who founded most of classical physics by himself. Plank with his quantum theory or Einstein with his relativity theory (Do? you need me to explain why these things are “big).
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 3:56 pm (UTC 0)
@nellamanodestra That depends upon whether he has any evidence. Someone who interacts only with other crackpots or ignorant laymen, whose ‘experiments’ work only when he is present and who avoids mainstream scientific society, is a fool or a conman.
Another sure sign of the crackpot is that he is only ever interested in ‘big’? things such as antigravity and perpetual motion. Nobelist Richard Feynman, OTOH, was obsessed with the question of why a lawn-sprinkler won’t work in reverse.
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 4:41 pm (UTC 0)
@flowerbower The good researcher is? the one that push through conflicting theories, regardless of what people like you think
nellamanodestra says:
January 28, 2012 at 5:38 pm (UTC 0)
@spiritinthe7thsky Is the object levitation too, or is it? more related to superconductive phenomena
jesusgray922 says:
January 28, 2012 at 6:08 pm (UTC 0)
This? is one “likeable” video. =p
truvelocity says:
January 28, 2012 at 6:36 pm (UTC 0)
He was debunked.?
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 6:48 pm (UTC 0)
@jonathoncrowe28 The only good free-energy researcher? is a dead one.
flowerbower says:
January 28, 2012 at 7:16 pm (UTC 0)
@Westernbodhisattva Quite. As I keep pointing out: the scientists who actually invented the ZPE concept, and? who continue to carry out research on it, are (apart from Robert Forward) the very last people to suggest that it can be extracted. The calculations of vast ZPE were made by ‘science writers’ just to ‘make a good story’. Such high energies would immediately conflict with relativity theory … because of their associated mass.
simJ94 says:
January 28, 2012 at 7:32 pm (UTC 0)
This is alien technology!!! I? just hope this replaces fossil fuels asap!
spiritinthe7thsky says:
January 28, 2012 at 8:20 pm (UTC 0)
All thats happening in this? video is vibration.