It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 120
39
<< 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
LOL!

From "The Wright Brothers and Cold Fusion" (page 30) by Jed Rothwell:


To introduce a new technology you must fight two groups of
people: the scientists who oppose it and the scientists who
invent it. The Wrights were their own worst enemies from
1906 to 1908. After battling with the establishment for five
years, they began acting like paranoid flakes. Some cold fusion
scientists are worse.

It is never easy to sell revolutionary technology. Invent a
better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door,
burn your house down, and run you out of town.




posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
A lot of my favorite sites attack crazy nonsense and try to get at the truth. But I guess we had different ideas about what "hit piece" means; in your mind it's a requirement for something in the hit piece to be false, and in my perception a hit piece can be nothing but factual assertions that points out all the ways some ridiculous assertions are wrong.


A hit piece is recognized by the obvious intent of the writer. The intent is to cherry pick what is included in it so that the subject of the piece looks bad.

This is accomplished by the lie of omission and the truth sandwich: two lies with a truth in the middle or two truths with a lie in the middle. The goal is to obfuscate.

The lie of omission is taking things out of context.

Another technique employed in a hit piece is ridicule. Ridicule is a fallacy of reason.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
b) I have a really good head on my my shoulders, thank God, and tons of formal training and bazillion hours in the lab. All of that is conducive of critical thinking. What I read about Reich raises as many red flags as the Chinese Army has, and more. What I read on that site a bout Reich does not.


Yes, you have made it clear that you consider yourself superior. One example:


Originally posted by buddhasystem
I have no peer in this thread.


I submit that humility is a virtue.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
I may be curious, but this is low on my list of priorities. Besides, you abjectly resigned from providing info of that sort.


Let's recap the sequence of events.

  • You post an excerpt questioning Reich's mental stability on November 7.
  • I inquire whether or not you're aware of the role of front groups financed by oligarchs on the same day. I ask you where the website you posted gets their funding.
  • Instead of answering my question, you divert attention to "quack science" and taxpayers' expense.
  • Again on November 7 I raise the issue with you: "I’ll word it a different way: Are you of the belief that SRMHP is not a front group?" This time I ask a second question about the website of the site's endorser the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health.
  • On November 11 I ask: "Why no reply to my question about front groups/the source you quoted?"
  • You answer that the question is paranoid.


I submit that calling the question "paranoid" is very similar to the attack on Reich in the original website in question.

The point about the question about the domain just being registered is that it could be an indicator of sloppy work done by an organization whose mission is not associated with making a contribution to society in an honest fashion. I did not see on The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice's site any information about how they're funded. It's a dot org. I think their funding should be listed on their site.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
You wouldn't know, Mary.


I'll tell you what I know: human nature.

I know about clashing egos, arrogance, greed, and fear.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Seriously Mary, do you know how absurd you're behaving? You don't know even basic physics, yet you think you can properly tell what is science and what is hoax based on nothing else but what people on the internet say? Even when people in the field tell you it's unscientific you're ready to defend to the death bull# you can't even understand. Yet you claim it's all a conspiracy to silence these deluded people. They don't even have a working prototype, yet you continuously act like whatever they say must be the truth. You don't have the background to evaluate any of this, but by jove, it must be true simply because it's not "mainstream".



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Seriously Mary, do you know how absurd you're behaving? You don't know even basic physics, yet you think you can properly tell what is science and what is hoax based on nothing else but what people on the internet say?


I thank God for the internet.

If ordinary people are able to rebuild this planet after the global financial meltdown finishes it will largely be because of the line of communication of the internet.

Free energy technology is the wave of the future. Eventually it will happen. I don't know how long it will take. But it will happen.


Originally posted by 547000
Even when people in the field tell you it's unscientific you're ready to defend to the death bull# you can't even understand.


I'm persistent, aren't I?

I'm curious and I have patience.

"People in the field" use every manner of fallacies of reason to shoot down posts about innovations coming from alternative science and technology.

"Bull#" is your opinion.

I submit you don't understand Rodin's work nor do you care to.


Originally posted by 547000
Yet you claim it's all a conspiracy to silence these deluded people. They don't even have a working prototype, yet you continuously act like whatever they say must be the truth. You don't have the background to evaluate any of this, but by jove, it must be true simply because it's not "mainstream".


Suppressed science and technology is real. The tyranny of "peer review" controlled by the mainstream establishment and the refusal to publish certain topics in mainstream journals is real.

Knowledge of the deception and utter ruthlessness of the powers that be is essential if one is to understand what is going on in the world of science and technology.

It has been demonstrated on this thread that the "people in the field" have little interest or knowledge about the pressures that are brought to bear on the innovators that have been discussed on this thread.

My OP stated that Rodin's work was "fascinating." And it is. I do not consider him a fraud or delusional. Eccentric? Yes.

I am a researcher. And I am interested in the problems of the world and how we can solve them with technology. I am a person who feels a responsibility to make a difference in the world in whatever way that I can. Using my intuition to judge the competency and honesty of scientists and inventors is within my abilities, whether you or any other member of ATS recognize it or not.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am a researcher.... I'm curious.

You demonstrate that you are neither a researcher, nor curious. A curious researcher asks questions, such as "I wonder if free energy is possible?" and then looks for answers.

You on the other hand, start with an answer:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Free energy technology is the wave of the future. Eventually it will happen. I don't know how long it will take. But it will happen.
That statement demonstrates the exact opposite of curiosity. How can you claim to be curious when you start with the answer?



It has been demonstrated on this thread that the "people in the field" have little interest or knowledge about the pressures that are brought to bear on the innovators that have been discussed on this thread.
You have demonstrated no knowledge of that yourself. But if you are really curious then let's look at an example:

How Science Works


Another good example comes from the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. His theory was roundly rejected, but not for reasons of obtuseness on the part of scientists. As it happens, there were excellent arguments against his theory. The most important was that his notion of continents drifting over the surface of the earth was, according to all the evidence, preposterous. The amount of energy required to move a continent is stupendous, and Wegener never proposed any explanation for whatever force was driving this movement. Moreover, a physicist showed that, if continents were freely drifting over the surface of the earth, dynamic forces would cause them to drift in the general direction of the equator. The fact that, after billions of years the continents are not all sitting on the equator was considered to be powerful enough to disprove Wegener’s theory.

What changed everything was the acquisition of new data. First came the discovery that the magnetization of adjacent strips of ocean floor showed a pattern of regular reversals. The only explanation that made sense was seafloor spreading combined with reversals in the earth’s magnetic field. This lent strong support to another idea, that of slow circulation in the earth’s mantle. In turn, the acceptance of such slow circulation lent support to Wegener’s theory. At this point, scientists were convinced rather quickly. The evidence was now in place and the most important objection to the theory (the lack of any mechanism to drive the continents) was put to rest.

This comes out as a positive score for science. Scientists weren’t wrong to reject the theory in the first half of the 20th century; the available evidence didn’t support it. Note that the rejection of the theory was never considered final; the problem was that there wasn’t enough evidence and no apparent underlying mechanism.
If you want to apply this to topics discussed in this thread like cold fusion, the final determination of cold fusion still isn't known, since as that points out, no rejection by science is final.

If and when enough evidence is presented that cold fusion exists, then it will be accepted. Since there's not "enough evidence and no apparent underlying mechanism" yet for cold fusion either, science is just as right to be skeptical of cold fusion as it was to be skeptical of plate tectonics, where scientists changed their views quickly when ample evidence was presented.

What convinced people the Wright brothers plane really flew? Seeing it fly.

If a real customer was buying real cold fusion devices from Andrea Rossi, that would be convincing and would be comparable to seeing the Wright brothers plane fly, but we have yet to see that, so scientists are right to be skeptical about cold fusion even if it's real, because the evidence is just too flimsy to be convincing yet. But it's not a final judgement.

That's how science works.
edit on 13-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I understand Rodin's work since I studied number theory. I'm afraid neither you nor Rodin understands Rodin's work. If you want free energy so bad, give me a billion dollars. I'll sell you some DVDs in return.
edit on 13-11-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


  1. How do you presume to know what I started with? I became a serious researcher after 9-11. One topic led to another. I am on an eclectic search for answers for how we can bring this planet to a place of sanity.

  2. The problem with your argument about how science works is your copious use of fallacies such as name-calling, ridicule, and hit-pieces coupled with your refusal to acknowledge evidence of harassment and more serious suppression in the history of science and technology. Additionally, you wanted this thread sent to the "Hoax" forum on page 1 because of your obsession with the role of the number 9 and the use of the word "equal."

  3. Commercialization of a product is not the only measure of viability of a device or a concept. All of the information available needs to be considered in the context of the total picture.



edit on 11/13/11 by Mary Rose because: Clarification



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


I have purchased DVDs for the purpose of education. They are valuable tools and an honest way to make a living for those producing them.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


And why don't they use that money to build prototypes and prove once and for all their theories apply to reality? Why do they only keep selling DVDs? Why is it that their prototypes fly out of the atmosphere or end up consuming more energy than producing?

Besides, how would you know their devices are over-unity without even freshman physics knowledge? You need to at least understand this little to verify their claims. Otherwise you are just parroting something you heard, which is ironic since you claim science students do just that.
edit on 13-11-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Selling DVDs is the only option left to an inventor who has been harassed, ridiculed, had a patent taken over by the government, or otherwise marginalized by the mainstream establishment. Funding for R&D is a major issue. A marginalized person cannot get adequate funding.

I'm probably better off because I don't have freshman physics knowledge. I don't have to unlearn. Magnetism is a poorly understood subject. There is much to explore about it in alternative writings and videos.

I make no claims of any device working. What I have done is post information I find credible and interesting and defend public figures against the ridicule on this thread that would be considered against Terms and Conditions were it directed at a member.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
b) I have a really good head on my my shoulders, thank God, and tons of formal training and bazillion hours in the lab. All of that is conducive of critical thinking. What I read about Reich raises as many red flags as the Chinese Army has, and more. What I read on that site a bout Reich does not.


Yes, you have made it clear that you consider yourself superior. One example:


Originally posted by buddhasystem
I have no peer in this thread.


I submit that humility is a virtue.


You can submit all you want. All I'm posting here comes from direct experience and studies, and not because I subscribe to some ideology. And if you value humility, maybe it's a good start to refrain calling Reich a "giant of physics" since it implies a fair amount expertise in the subject, which you so clearly don't have -- at all.




  • You post an excerpt questioning Reich's mental stability on November 7.
  • I inquire whether or not you're aware of the role of front groups financed by oligarchs on the same day. I ask you where the website you posted gets their funding.
  • Instead of answering my question, you divert attention to "quack science" and taxpayers' expense.
  • Again on November 7 I raise the issue with you: "I’ll word it a different way: Are you of the belief that SRMHP is not a front group?" This time I ask a second question about the website of the site's endorser the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health.
  • On November 11 I ask: "Why no reply to my question about front groups/the source you quoted?"
  • You answer that the question is paranoid.


  • Yes Mary, you fielded a hypothesis which you failed to give a factual basis, and in that regard you are right in the company of charlatans you are trying to so vigorously defend. What specific entity and with what precise agenda financed that publication?

    There is nothing impossible in the realm of the absurd that you love so much. For example, let's imagine that Einstein was brainwashed by advanced space aliens so he purposely created a misleading theory of relativity, that mankind accepted. This was done to conceal the existence of orgone, which aliens value to much, and they harvest it from Earth. I'm sure that this is true, and even though I don't know jack about aliens, or don't have any facts to support this, any opposition to this notion will only demonstrate suppression by TPTB.

    Does that sound familiar?



    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:33 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Mary Rose
     


    How can you find anything credible when you have no idea what they're talking about and don't even have, at the very least, little education in the topic they're talking about? You even seem to be ignoring that the vast majority of scientists don't think it's science in the first place, or it seems you will believe anything because of that.
    edit on 13-11-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:34 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    I'm probably better off because I don't have freshman physics knowledge. I don't have to unlearn. Magnetism is a poorly understood subject.


    What a fantastic paragraph you created! First to extoll virtues of ignorance, then go on to complain that XYZ is poorly understood! Of course it's poorly understood, especially by those who don't want to invest time to learn.


    There is much to explore about it in alternative writings and videos.


    Of course, you won't break any sweat watching TV. Just kick back and feel important.



    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:18 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    They are all written by Mills and there is no independent confirmation of the hydrino anywhere.


    From "A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine," "Emerging BlackLight Power: Synopsis and Commentary" by Mike Carrell, Page 60:




    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose

    "A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine"



    From the above link, "The Mysteries and Myths of Heat: A Brief History of Hot and Cold," by Eugene F. Mallove, Page 98:


    Through new physical descriptions of the energetic aether
    and other emerging understandings of the flaws of classical
    thermodynamics, all the textbooks will need to be rewritten. If
    anyone thinks this will be easy, given the behavior of the scientific
    establishment since the discovery of low-energy nuclear
    reactions, think again. As with cold fusion, to get the ossified
    scientific establishment even to listen will require irrefutable
    devices embodying these principles. It is now certain that these
    will come.



    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:25 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose

    "A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine"



    From the above link, "Commentary on Maxwell’s Equations and Special Relativity Theory," by William H. Cantrell, Page 99:


    Abstract

    The importance of Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT)
    is discussed in the context of our modern technology and the
    progress of science. Historical reasons are given for the development
    of SRT, and the problems it attempted to solve concerning
    The Holy Grail of Science: Maxwell’s Equations. (See
    definitions of technical terms in display boxes.) The justification
    for SRT, that of making Maxwell’s Equations covariant to
    inertial translation by using the Lorentz-transformation, is discussed.
    This, in turn, creates problems, paradoxes, and logical
    flaws, which are enumerated herein. SRT is challenged by at
    least three alternative theories from various researchers. These
    theories merit attention because they do not require the concept
    of length and time to be modified (tampered with) to
    obtain correct answers.





    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:26 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose

    Originally posted by Arbitrageur
    They are all written by Mills and there is no independent confirmation of the hydrino anywhere.


    From "A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine," "Emerging BlackLight Power: Synopsis and Commentary" by Mike Carrell, Page 60:

    If you're trying to make a point, please make it.

    Just posting a screenshot doesn't give me a clue what you're trying to say.

    I posted that Mills wrote the articles, which you replied to. Where that screenshot says "The laboratories and techniques used in this work include:" that refers to the work of Mills.

    Remember this link from a previous post? See #9:
    How to Spot Pseudoscience --- This 15-point checklist will help you tell science from pseudoscience.


    9. Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?
    Science works by starting with a null hypothesis and searching for evidence. Pseudoscience starts with a positive hypothesis and supports it with questionable research and anecdotal reasoning. It's unlikely that an institution dedicated to the promotion of any given claim will present any type of evidence other than that which supports their claim, and its bias should be given serious consideration.
    I don't recall seeing any of those labs making any claims about hydrinos, but correct me if I'm wrong. The claims come from Mills.

    Mills can use any lab he wants and make any claims he wants in interpreting lab data, but the claims are still his. Using pseudoscience checklist point #9, the bias of his claims would be in question even if his commercial venture didn't depend on his claims, but the fact that it does makes his claims even more suspect, and according to the scientific paper I posted previously, his claims are inconsistent with observation.
    edit on 13-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:59 PM
    link   
    From "Who was Dr. Wilhelm Reich and why has history tried so hard to erase him?" by Jerry Morton:


    Before dismissing what you are about to read, consider that the FDA did everything in its power to eliminate the knowledge of orgone energy from the world because, it claimed, "it doesn't exist." If orgone energy does not exist, it is, therefore, not a threat, is it? Rather than ignore this thing that does not exist, the FDA effectively sentenced Dr. Wilhelm Reich to death and, for at least a decade, actively pursued a campaign to destroy all the books, notes and research papers it could find containing the word "orgone." Judging by the government's actions, orgone energy does, indeed, exist.



    posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:20 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Mary Rose
     


    Is it not remarkable that Reich claimed to have SEEN "orgone" but didn't bother to try and photograph it?

    He lived in the era when analog photography was developed to the state of perfection. In addition, there are other means of detecting light, so a true researcher would have availed himself to the many tools available for the study of the claimed luminous substance.

    And he didn't.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    39
    << 117  118  119    121  122  123 >>

    log in

    join