"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Arbitrageur


When an inventor needs an independent lab test, how does it get paid for, if not by the inventor?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I specifically asked you if you believed that "orgone" was flowing through the metallic plumbing Reich was using in his contraptions. That there are "electrical properties of biological processes" is a separate subject -- of course there are, but it doesn't mean that you can build pipes etc for that "orgone" or whatever.

I don't really know how to answer your question any better than what I have already stated

...anything would be better because you didn't answer it anyhow.

because it just isn't the right question to be asking.

It absolutely is. Using specific materials in his contraptions, Reich was effectively making claims about properties of "orgone", such as its ability to flow down a specific type of a pipe. It only makes sense to look closely at the evidence, instead of ignoring it, which is what you prefer to do.

Orgone is just a word to describe a phenomenon. He made it up. Just because you don't agree with the word, doesn't mean there isn't a phenomenon.

I can't "agree" with the word and I don't care much about it, except it's pretty funny. But conversely, this doesn't mean that there is a phenomenon. I tend to think that there is not, because the calorimetric experiment was obviously primitive and flawed -- you'll find temperature gradients in any room including your own, and pretty significant ones as well.

Phlogiston isn't a correct concept either, but we don't conclude that fire isn't real.

We don't, but Reich does not have an equivalent of fire.

That he wasn't right, doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. The phenomenon could exist, and be explained by electromagnetism.

I could win a lottery next month. Aliens could visit us tonight. Why waste your time talking about what's potentially possible?

You see, electromagnetic phenomena are measurable. We are surrounded by receivers, and we don't observe any "orgone" radiation. That really puts the nail in its coffin.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

When an inventor needs an independent lab test, how does it get paid for, if not by the inventor?

Well then you just inverted your own logic when you applied it to pharma companies. You weren't happy that they pay for testing. Now you are happy.

Can't have it both ways, Mary.

The concept of "peer review" exists for a reason. People are fallible, whether operating lab equipment or analyzing the results. I just finished a paper and I swear I read the text dozens of times, and the reviewer still found in accuracies which I had to correct! It takes more than one pair of eyes to look at the method, the measurement and the data analysis, and that's where peer review comes in, with multiple people digging through the material. If it hasn't been done, I can't be satisfied with quality of stuff that's being presented.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Perhaps the government should conduct tests of inventions. I have no idea - never thought about it.

Certainly the government should test drugs for safety and effectiveness and no other party should.

I repeat the question: Who pays for "independent" lab tests for inventors?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Look what I added above.

The salient part is that the results were never subjected to peer review.

reply to post by buddhasystem


The fact remains that for the purpose of this thread Reich's work is the issue, not someone's interpretation of how to apply his work in relation to chemtrails. Calling Reich a "fool" based on an ATS thread regarding chemtrails makes no sense and is not worth discussing.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

The fact remains that for the purpose of this thread Reich's work is the issue

Wait, I thought it was Rodin. Never mind...

not someone's interpretation of how to apply his work in relation to chemtrails. Calling Reich a "fool" based on an ATS thread regarding chemtrails makes no sense and is not worth discussing.

Oh I can call him a fool regardless. You see, the "chembusters" applied principles identical to Reich's. If you don't like it, tough.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Perhaps the government should conduct tests of inventions. I have no idea - never thought about it.

This is not a bad idea!

Inventions are in the public interest. Having taxpayer-funded tests would make them independent - provided the government were really the government and not government for and by corporations, which is what we have.

But were the government not corrupt, it's not a bad idea.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
When an inventor needs an independent lab test, how does it get paid for, if not by the inventor?

Actually I've personally visited some testing laboratories around the world to assess their testing capabilities. My first observation is that some labs are way better than others, in terms of capabilities, equipment, staffing, and reputation. If a shoddy lab is selected I might not have much confidence in it for that reason.

But if the lab has good capabilities, a good reputation, and writes a good report that doesn't involve any new physics, I don't have any problem with the inventor paying the lab. I could threaten or cajole a lab with a good reputation to bias the report in my favor since I paid for it, and a good lab just wouldn't do that because their reputation is on the line. If there's a problem it comes back to them and what's on their report, and they know it.

However if there is new physics involved, it's a different story, and like Buddhasystem, I can't believe any lab reports claiming to prove new physics if they haven't been peer reviewed. In fact, where new physics is involved, even peer review isn't sufficiently convincing. What is required in addition to peer review is replication by multiple labs, with the replications being peer reviewed as well.

The reason for this is sort of explained in the Garrett Lisi theory of everything video I asked you to watch, where basically he admits that most theories involving new physics are wrong, including probably his. So we have plenty of justification for taking a much more skeptical view of new physics, than we do for a lab testing known physics.

Remember that powerpoint presentation you printed out that cut off part of the text on the first page? Somewhere in there, he mentions the size of the problem with the cold fusion physics. It's about 50 orders of magnitude. That mans the size of the discrepancy of cold fusion with currently known physics is a factor of 100 trillion trillion trillion trillion. While this by no means proves the new technology false in any way, once again it's ample justification for a skeptical approach and a reason to err on the side of getting perhaps a little bit too much proof rather than not enough.

And of course the point we always come back to is, even if we didn't understand the new physics, people would still buy black boxes that make free energy, so the ultimate reason for skepticism still isn't regarding the labs Mills uses, it's regarding his lack of any viable product after 20 years of bilking investors.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But if the lab has good capabilities, a good reputation, and writes a good report that doesn't involve any new physics, I don't have any problem with the inventor paying the lab.

Indeed! They could publish a paper titled like "Anomalous heat production in XYZ solution" or "Spectral analysis of ABC under conditions of XYZ" etc. There are plenty of papers like that. What it does is this: it puts the phenomenon being studied on the map, allows for rigorous examination by others and furthermore, invites other researchers to replicate the result, and that should be doable. The paper does not really need to delve into new theory etc.

BS,

Why no reply to my question about front groups/the source you quoted?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
BS,

Why no reply to my question about front groups/the source you quoted?

Because I think that question is paranoid.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I see.

Are you familiar with the term "front group"?

reply to post by Mary Rose

What front group(s) are you talking about?

I know of one in particular but it's not really on-topic for this thread, but on second thought maybe it is?

It's called the "Cult Awareness Network". The old- pre-bankruptcy version was against scientology, claiming it was a cult, and the new post-bankruptcy version was apparently in favor of scientology since it changed its tune to say scientology helps "increase happiness and improve conditions for oneself and for others." So yeah, it became a front group for scientology after the lawsuit, which it wasn't before the church scientology sued and bankrupted them.

The reason I'm not sure how on topic that is, is I wonder if believers in nonsense cults line scientology have anything in common with believers in nonsense belief systems like those of Rodin, Haramein, et al? I don't know, I'll have to give that some thought. It seems like one thing they have in common is, victims in both groups have apparently been somehow brainwashed into believing a lot of stuff that's not true.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Are you speaking for BS or for yourself?

reply to post by Mary Rose

If you clarify what you meant by front groups by naming some examples, it would give me or any other participant in this thread a better idea what you are talking about.

Just because I ask for clarification doesn't imply that I'm speaking for someone else.

And just because you address a post to one person doesn't mean that nobody else can respond to it on a public discussion forum.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I'll say this a different way.

BS,

Do you have any interest in the role of front groups in disseminating information to the public?

In your case, the information you posted about Reich's mental competency?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

I'll say this a different way.

BS,

Do you have any interest in the role of front groups in disseminating information to the public?

I don't have any interest in that, because
a) we'll never come to any conclusion regarding that. You'll just say it's a nefarious plot funded by some wealthy oligarch. Well the onus is on you to point out who that oligarch was and what specific interests he/she may be pursuing.

b) all I read on that site is aligned with many other sources, it's not actually outstanding in any regard. A metal-plated outhouse is still a metal plated outhouse, in all descriptions I've found so far, including actual photos.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
b) all I read on that site is aligned with many other sources, it's not actually outstanding in any regard

That does not surprise me; there are numerous front groups funded by foundations and under the auspices of the U.N. disseminating information to the public. Many are called "NGOs" - non-governmental organizations. Many people working for front groups don't know they're front groups. They often having flowery names and flowery missions. With the website you cited, it sounded very scientific and official. That's how the powers that be fool people.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The salient part is that the results were never subjected to peer review.

Listening to the Mallove interview 12 part video series I have posted, I noted the statement that MIT received from the U.S. government an estimated $20 billion from the early 50's to 2004, when that interview took place, for hot fusion research.

Who does peer review? Academics, correct?

How can these academics be objective in their peer review when the financial support of their institution may be adversely affected by the results?