UFO Anti gravity from household items.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

Science isn't a court of law, it doesn't operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Such a notion would be absurd as any and every untestable claim would default to "true". Case in point: there are invisible unicorns in my garden. Prove me wrong.

You misunderstood the point.

With your "case in point"; I'll be quite happy to counter your assertion, just as soon as you provide some evidence of your "invisible unicorns"...what you have failed to observe is that our Scottish Engineer has provided video evidence of his device operating. So far, on the "evidence front" he is 1 while the opposition is 0.

Further the current case is in fact testable.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: tanka418

Sigh. Ever heard of Faraday?

ETA: oh, wait, somebody else already explained. Thanks!

Yes, the phone may transmit HF signals. But the signals can't leave the Faraday cage created by the tin foil. So, outside the cage there isn't any HF energy available.

Except, that in a case where that "cage" is "floating". In such a case the "cage" may act as a parasitic antenna element, and simply re-radiate the signal.

And, cell phones aren't HF devices...operating typically at hundreds of megahertz into the gigahertz ranges.

a reply to: tanka418

Here is a picture of the invisible unicorns:

ucs.clare.cam.ac.uk...

That's as much evidence as OP's vid, ergo the default position is true, right?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

Here is a picture of the invisible unicorns:

ucs.clare.cam.ac.uk...

That's as much evidence as OP's vid, ergo the default position is true, right?

No...

The OP's vid showed a homemade device apparently lifting itself off the ground, and analysis of your image showed there to be nothing except a rather lovely garden scene...it contained no "edges" by which your unicorn could be defined.

The reality here is that yall saw something you didn't like; so you are calling it a "hoax", and you are doing so without benefit of any investigation, or query. The fact that you are correct, that it is "fake", actually means nothing simply because you arrived at your conclusion incorrectly. If we were to weigh this on the merits of what has been presented; the Scottish Engineer is correct and all of yall are wrong.

If you were to actually argue and investigate the physics, involved; the actual science, then you could be correct. But, none of you did, and that alone causes you to embrace ignorance, as opposed to liberating yourselves from it.

Seriously; your whole "debunk" was based on half baked assumptions...none of which were quite correct.

a reply to: tanka418

Except, that in a case where that "cage" is "floating". In such a case the "cage" may act as a parasitic antenna element, and simply re-radiate the signal.

Why? What evidence do you have for that assertion?

[Edit- What little science I know tells me you're wrong but I'll hear you out if you think you have something.]

Why do you think that could explain this anyway? You're suggesting that an effect that would not occur until the 'device' was "floating" could cause it to "float" in the first place? Andromd logic, I suspect.

originally posted by: tanka418
The OP's vid showed a homemade device apparently lifting itself off the ground, and analysis of your image showed there to be nothing except a rather lovely garden scene...it contained no "edges" by which your unicorn could be defined.

That's because they're invisible. Dur! They are considered to be real until you can prove otherwise.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: tanka418

Except, that in a case where that "cage" is "floating". In such a case the "cage" may act as a parasitic antenna element, and simply re-radiate the signal.

Why? What evidence do you have for that assertion?

Antenna theory...

And; yes I have something, although it is not likely you can understand or accept the reality from me; so I suggest you go and ask another engineer. Course you could just Google "parasitic element" and check out the relation to antennas and EM...

Why do you think that could explain this anyway? You're suggesting that an effect that would not occur until the 'device' was "floating" could cause it to "float" in the first place? Andromd logic, I suspect.

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying...And you are misinterpreting the use and context of "floating"...In this case "floating" refers to the fact that the foil "element" is not electrically connected to anything. Thus it is allowed to "float" above reference (ground), allowing it to reradiate the signal.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: tanka418
The OP's vid showed a homemade device apparently lifting itself off the ground, and analysis of your image showed there to be nothing except a rather lovely garden scene...it contained no "edges" by which your unicorn could be defined.

That's because they're invisible. Dur! They are considered to be real until you can prove otherwise.

Okay...would be much better analogy IF you bothered to provide something that indicated these unicorns of yours existed. You know; something like dude's video...rather than an image where noting can be detected. In fact, it would almost seem that IF One can not detect these unicorns, then the greater probability is they do not exist, except in your mind. But, you see that is the difference between you and the vid...he provided something tangible, you did not.

a reply to: tanka418

I did provide something tangible. You just need to be more open-minded

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

I did provide something tangible. You just need to be more open-minded

Sorry; I seem to have missed any tangible evidence of an invisible object...

But I guess it kind of like this: You are using children's logic and science, which works quite well IF (and unfortunately; ONLY IF) One is 5 years old.

While on the other hand, I'm actually doing something involving real, shall we say, "grown-up" science and logic. There is typically little difference in the final analysis, however the "path" to conclusion is usually quite different. See, you are using fantasy, while I am using real, accepted scientific / engineering theory...so much different than your game. And a "game" is what you are trying to make of this...Tsk, Tsk...

Anyway; the bottom line is you have not, can not; prove "hoax" here with your data, and faulty analysis.

a reply to: tanka418

Very good, exactly the answer I was looking for. However, that doesn't prevent the effect in the video. When the phone is placed n the "cage" it will immediately start "looking" for a network, and as a result, will emit more RF than when it is idle, or in "ring" mode. So...that detail s no longer valid...

Yes it is valid. If searching for a network could cause the effect shown then why does he call the phone and act like that initiates the 'effect'? Bogus attempt to baffle with bull#, much like your parasitic element diversion.

a reply to: tanka418

The video in the OP is not tangible evidence of anything. For all the reasons you dismiss my unicorn picture, I can equally dismiss the video in the OP. By your definition, both are not proven hoaxes as you must apply the same standard of sloppy logic to my picture as OP's video if you are to be consistent.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: tanka418

Very good, exactly the answer I was looking for. However, that doesn't prevent the effect in the video. When the phone is placed n the "cage" it will immediately start "looking" for a network, and as a result, will emit more RF than when it is idle, or in "ring" mode. So...that detail s no longer valid...

Yes it is valid. If searching for a network could cause the effect shown then why does he call the phone and act like that initiates the 'effect'? Bogus attempt to baffle with bull#, much like your parasitic element diversion.

He calls the phone, and makes out like that is the cause because he IS bullsh**ing, and he doesn't have his stuff together enough to put out a "real" story.

The parasitic element part is real true electronics sir...absolutely no BS or diversion. Just straight up EM theory...sorry if it doesn't match yalls fantasy. Take it up with Maxwell...

And, no attempts to "baffle"...just an attempt to get yall to understand the REALITY. Far too often ATS "debunks" something using invalid science (such as it is), and then yall pat yourselves and each other on the back thinking you have done good; when in fact you have done more harm than good. You will throw truth under the buss just to debunk something you don't like, and it doesn't matter what the reality actually is.

I choose these obvious ones to call yall on YOUR BS, because it should be obvious that they are BS, and I'm not accepting. Yet it seem that all too often most of you think I'm supporting the original BS...as in this case. Ya know, it almost seems illogical that you should object at all, never mind the amount of vehemence, to me trying to correct your science...but then I live in a professional world where another's expertise is sought out and appreciated. And, it seems that there is a great deal of disdain for the educated professional opinion. Course, we highly educated professionals should realize that the average man on the street knows way more about our subject than we do.

I'm very sure that everyone arguing with me here knows much more about EM and electrical engineering than I...I've only been an engineer for 40+ years...don't know squat yet...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

The video in the OP is not tangible evidence of anything. For all the reasons you dismiss my unicorn picture, I can equally dismiss the video in the OP. By your definition, both are not proven hoaxes as you must apply the same standard of sloppy logic to my picture as OP's video if you are to be consistent.

Explain please...

And explain "sloppy logic"...(hint: you cant do either)

a reply to: bluemooone2 When do you install the fishing line? I missed that part.

originally posted by: tanka418
Yet it seem that all too often most of you think I'm supporting the original BS...

Well, we're all in agreement then: the BS in the OP is BS.

a reply to: tanka418

I'm not sure why you need me to explain how a youtube video is not evidence of anti-gravity but whatever, why not:

1) there is no prior plausibility (therefore the claim is extraordinary)
2) videos can be easily doctored to demonstrate seemingly impossible effects
3) given the above, it is reasonable to conclude that, unless credible evidence is presented to the contrary, the claim is a hoax

The "sloppy logic" is considering this to not only be valid evidence but also the burden of proof is shifted to skeptics (or, in this instance, simply non-gullible people) to "prove" the claim false when the onus is in fact on the claimant to present credible (in this instance, extraordinary) evidence to support the extraordinary claim.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

I'm not sure why you need me to explain how a youtube video is not evidence of anti-gravity but whatever, why not:

1) there is no prior plausibility (therefore the claim is extraordinary)
2) videos can be easily doctored to demonstrate seemingly impossible effects
3) given the above, it is reasonable to conclude that, unless credible evidence is presented to the contrary, the claim is a hoax

The "sloppy logic" is considering this to not only be valid evidence but also the burden of proof is shifted to skeptics (or, in this instance, simply non-gullible people) to "prove" the claim false when the onus is in fact on the claimant to present credible (in this instance, extraordinary) evidence to support the extraordinary claim.

Wow...just WOW! You completely missed the whole thing!

Prior plausibility: EM Drive. And it doesn't matter if you buy into it or not...there is apparently real science behind it...supported by two major world governments.

Videos being "doctored"...irrelevant. Since you don't know that the videos were "doctored", and can't prove they were.

You should look up the legal definition of evidence some time...it might be useful.

And, I haven't shifted the "Burdon of proof", you did. When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying. That is what you are being "called to task" for.

What is even worse is that you proceeded to use inaccurate science and assumptions in your attempt to "debunk"...thus complicating the issue.

The whole thing reduces to an opinion, and nothing more.

ETA:
By the way...the video IS valid evidence. IF you knew what you were looking at; it will provide all of the "real", "scientific" evidence needed to prove that it was BS. But, you are to busy defending a false position to take a look at the real world...

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: tanka418
Yet it seem that all too often most of you think I'm supporting the original BS...

Well, we're all in agreement then: the BS in the OP is BS.

Yes, however your methods of using poor assumption, and little actual science remains objected to.

ALL of the reasons stated here to debunk this have been incorrect.

a reply to: tanka418

And, I haven't shifted the "Burdon of proof", you did. When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying. That is what you are being "called to task" for.

So are you the creator of the video?

When people call hoax it could be a simple opinion and not some all knowing final claim they need to prove,

You mentioning burden of proof and saying its being shifted to that poster sound like you are the creator of the video asking to be debunked, are you?