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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
I have no peer in this thread.
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.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
You wouldn't know, Mary.
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?
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.
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".
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I am a researcher.... I'm curious.
That statement demonstrates the exact opposite of curiosity. How can you claim to be curious when you start with the 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.
You have demonstrated no knowledge of that yourself. But if you are really curious then let's look at an example:
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
There is much to explore about it in alternative writings and videos.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
They are all written by Mills and there is no independent confirmation of the hydrino anywhere.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
"A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine"
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.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
"A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine"
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.
If you're trying to make a point, please make it.
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:
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.
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.
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.