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: 123
39
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Untrue.

Your post about Reich's supposed mental instability raised the issue.




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The point is, new energy R&D is in need of funding and support from the public.


This has been addressed many times in this thread. If the alleged invention cannot be demonstrated, not even in principle, which has been the case with Bearden, Searl, Rodin and others, you can't count on funding and support. The demo does not need to be of commercial scale, it can be of any scale at all. And none are forthcoming.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Trust in the mainstream academic/governmental/news media establishment to facilitate getting viable new energy devices made available for purchase is misplaced trust, in my opinion.

That's where alternative journalism comes in. One has to uncover deception.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Trust in the mainstream academic/governmental/news media establishment to facilitate getting viable new energy devices made available for purchase is misplaced trust, in my opinion.

That's where alternative journalism comes in. One has to uncover deception.


What does "journalism" have to do with abject absence of evidence in case of Reich and unclear (and that's a stretch) results from cold fusion? What does "alternative" have to do with Searl's devices that magically vanish upon completion, and Bearden's devices that do pretty much same? What does ANY kind of journalism have to do with ridiculous claims of Rodin which absolutely and definitely are not supported by anything at all? You say "deception"? Who's deceiving who? Never mind, I think I know.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


What part of NO EVIDENCE don't you get? All you keep doing is blaming these imaginary enemies, ignoring the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE for any of their fantastic claims. Quit changing the topic and deflecting. You have absolutely no reason to suspect any of this BS is true apart from not liking anything mainstream. You do not understand science so how could you? Speaking of logical fallacies...



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Regarding Reich, cold fusion, Searl, Bearden, Rodin, or any other subject matter, journalism, not in quotation marks, but honest journalism, will not cherry pick, will not use the "truth sandwich," will not use the lie of omission, and will not use fallacies of reason.

These are the things people need to be on the lookout for. And do their homework. It takes time and effort.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Regarding Reich, cold fusion, Searl, Bearden, Rodin, or any other subject matter, journalism, not in quotation marks, but honest journalism, will not cherry pick, will not use the "truth sandwich," will not use the lie of omission, and will not use fallacies of reason.

These are the things people need to be on the lookout for. And do their homework. It takes time and effort.


I'm happy to remove quotation marks from the word journalism. My question stands. What does it have to do with non-existent evidence of Searl, Bearden and Rodin devices? What does it have to do with complete absence of scientific measurement of the alleged "orgone" effect by Reich? What does journalism have to do with BLP papers which have huge gaps in logic and at times complete lack of competence in physics?

No amount of journalism can turn fiction into reality, Mary.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


And you're changing the subject, BS. Another fallacy of reason.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


And you're changing the subject, BS.


Am I? Here's your post I was replying to:


Trust in the mainstream academic/governmental/news media establishment to facilitate getting viable new energy devices made available for purchase is misplaced trust, in my opinion.

That's where alternative journalism comes in. One has to uncover deception.


I directly addressed the value (or lack of such) of journalism as it applies to description or propaganda of something that does not exist. So no, I'm firmly on the subject, Mary. I asked you specifically how journalism, either alternative or mainstream, can help Searl who's been making all sorts of claims for years but whose devices magically vanish out of sight? If by alternative you mean absolution from all semblance of common sense, so be it, but the rest of us live in the world governed by logic.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm not familiar with your skeptoid.com website or Brian Dunning. Tell me, what is it about him that makes you want to parrot his opinion? What contribution is Brian Dunning making to society?
Carl Sagan, Robert Park, and Brian Dunning are quite different people but they appear to have one desire in common:

They want to help people separate fact from fiction, and they have a belief that using a fact-based approach and often some science, is a good way to do that.

Regarding the benefit they and people like them provide to society; for the people who really ARE curious (and don't just say they're curious but already have their minds made up in a biased fashion), they provide a rational basis to evaluate many different types of claims from supernatural, to aliens and UFOs, to alternative medicine, and other types of myths and legends.

Dr Sagan and Dr Park talked about approaches to getting at the truth behind various types of beliefs, and provided some examples in their books on this subject. Dunning may not be quite as bright as those two, however he does make a unique contribution by doing his best to apply those types of analytical techniques to many stories, myths, legends, and various types of fringe science we often hear about in modern times.

His latest article podcast is #284, just released today. Some of those 284 case studies don't interest me that much but many of them do because they take a critical look at lots of stories and legends I've heard and was curious about.

One example I can give you is the story of the Rendlesham Forest UFO case: skeptoid.com...

He made a unique contribution there that I've not seen anywhere else. He took the audio tape made by a key witness (Lt Col Halt), and superimposed some beeps on it at intervals the lighthouse used to show a very plausible correlation between what is recorded on the witnesses audiotape, and the lighthouse. The light house flashing interval exactly matches the audiotape. Some people who previously thought that audiotape was some of the best evidence ever that Earth has been visited by aliens have reconsidered their views since hearing that. I think bringing people a little closer to the truth is a valuable contribution.

Then again there are those who have already made up their minds and no conceivable amount of evidence seems to influence their thinking, whether it is regarding aliens at Rendlesham forest, Free energy, alternative medicine, or Marko Rodin, or what have you.

Even if I may only agree with 98% of his findings, I don't hold the 2% where I disagree with him against him, because it's clear to me he's trying to apply critical thinking and a rational approach, with sources provided so the reader can make up their own minds about the evidence he presents. So basically, I admire his approach, even if I don't agree 100% with everything he says.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That comparison with the Wright brothers is 100% undiluted demagoguery. The Wright brothers went to some great length to conduct large-scale public demonstrations of their invention long before there was large-scale commercialization.
I agree it's not a fair comparison.

The Wright brothers had a plane that flew, but the flight controls were imperfect and needed some tweaking which took a couple of years of R&D before it was ready to commercialize.

We've seen no evidence that such an analogy applies to Bearden, meaning we've seen no working product that just needs some tweaking. Even if we applied the Wright brothers analogy and gave him an extra 2-3 years to tweak the product like the Wright brothers got, how long has Bearden been making claims "it's almost ready"? A lot longer than extra 2-3 years the Wright brothers needed to refine their flight controls.

Here's a 2002 statement on Bearden's website saying he needs another year to begin producing and shipping units: www.cheniere.org...

If we gave him a year, or two, that still means he should have been shipping units in 2004. If he had actually done that, then the Wright brothers analogy might have had a little merit, but since he didn't, it doesn't.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


And I couldn't help thinking about another great invention -- the radio.

en.wikipedia.org...


Feeling challenged by skeptics, Marconi prepared a better organized and documented test


So that's the litmus paper -- if a true discovery has been made, the inventor vigorously pursues documented testing and demonstration.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

This is a sign of a great inventor or scientist...they are their own worst critics. They try to think of every way a critic of their theory or invention can discredit it, and then try to discredit it themselves, so they can present their findings in defense when a critic tries to do the same thing.

The lack of this approach is also why if Andrea Rossi has truly commercialized cold fusion, he's the worst inventor ever. He has read countless criticisms about the ways his tests have failed to satisfy skeptics, and yet unlike Marconi who improved his tests to satisfy skeptics, Rossi continues to make similar "tests" which don't address the skeptical concerns.

It is no wonder the skeptical community is unconvinced. However it is a wonder that some people still seem to truly think he's ushered in a new age of cheap energy based on one person's unconfirmed claims.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The lack of this approach is also why if Andrea Rossi has truly commercialized cold fusion, he's the worst inventor ever.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

For those of you preferring not to waste time stating the obvious:



The full documentary is now available online: "Thrive"

New energy technology is discussed in the context of the big picture of what's going on in the world.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Mary, please don't be discouraged by these incredibly disingenuous representatives of the science community.

They have no choice but to act the way they do. It is behavior that is to be expected from a cornered animal. We cannot blame them, for they act out of instinct to preserve their hegemony on reality.

The 'evidence' they deny the existence of does exist, they choose to ignore it and instead speculate on the mental health of those scientists they do not agree with.

Reich, Searl, Keely, Wolff, Bohm, and Bell have all put forth their arguments and their evidence.

Thats just naming a few.

The arbitrary division they make between scientists they want to listen to, and those they don't want to listen to, is just that: Arbitrary.

There is no inherent reason, other than personal bias, to disregard opposing views in science.

Scientific theories are meant to be FALSIFIED, not VERIFIED.

They continually ask for verification, but that is the wrong question. They should be asking who falsified the experiments, and explained away the evidence as something else.

Einstein and his assistant did not falsify Reich's theory. They explained it away with ad hoc speculation. They could be right, they could be wrong. We won't know until someone does an experiment to falsify Reich's theory. That would involve building 'orgone accumulators' and acquiring some radioactive samples.

As you should be aware, Reich was doing several experiments with radioactive materials in his later years. He was not hallucinating phenomenon, nor were the dozens of people that were working with him.

Just because we don't agree with his method of explaining the phenomenon, does not mean there was no phenomenon.

However, in order to properly address his work in a scientific way, you MUST offer your own interpretation of his data - rather than ignore the data based on ad hominem attacks.

I agree there is no 'mystical' orgone, but that is because I believe the phenomenon can be discussed using the institutional language of physics. Rather than 'cosmic orgone' we should rather be talking about an anti-entropic bio-electromagnetic force that tends towards organization and is somehow amplified in anomalous ways when it interacts with radioactive material.

I do not know the correct interpretation, or what we should call it instead of 'orgone', but that is why it needs to be focused on honestly and maturely, rather than the childish emotional response that his work has received.

P.S. I am interested in what BS and Arb think of the relationship between Gravity Probe B, Michelson-Morley, Casimir effect, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, zero point, vacuum density fluctuations, etc. It seems to me they cannot logically understand this issue if they don't address the consequences of this area.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Mary, please don't be discouraged by these incredibly disingenuous representatives of the science community.

They have no choice but to act the way they do. It is behavior that is to be expected from a cornered animal.


Sheesh Beebs, in two short paragraphs you managed to use "disingenuous" and "animal" with regards to my humble person.

I guess when you have no evidence of anything, you feel compelled to resort to this. Feel free to dwell in that made-up world, I'll post once in a while exposing the idiocy of it.

Incidentally, how am I cornered if there is no evidence of any claims made so far in the thread? Do you happen to have photographs of orgone and its behavior under various conditions?

edit on 15-11-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Scientific theories are meant to be FALSIFIED, not VERIFIED.

They continually ask for verification, but that is the wrong question. They should be asking who falsified the experiments, and explained away the evidence as something else.
Scientific theories or hypotheses are tested. The results of the testing may be to confirm the theory, or may be to reject the theory, or they may be indeterminate.

I've been trying to give cold fusion, or whatever other process seems to be generating excess heat, the benefit of the doubt in the US Navy experiments by just stating it's unconfirmed. That's an extraordinary claim with a tiny bit of evidence of something, that may not even be cold fusion. We don't know what it is.

The other claims you refer to are extraordinary claims with even less evidence.


Einstein and his assistant did not falsify Reich's theory. They explained it away with ad hoc speculation.
So "hot air rises" is speculative? I didn't even try to replicate the experiment and that was my first guess. Every time I see a hot air balloon, I'm reminded that the claim that hot air rises is not speculative.


P.S. I am interested in what BS and Arb think of the relationship between Gravity Probe B, Michelson-Morley, Casimir effect, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, zero point, vacuum density fluctuations, etc. It seems to me they cannot logically understand this issue if they don't address the consequences of this area.
We've discussed Zero point energy in this thread which according to wiki is "the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state." That has some relation to Gravity Probe B?

I thought that establishing the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics was an unsolved problem in physics? Theories such as Loop Quantum Gravity and string theory have been proposed, but confirming those ideas with experiment is elusive. So what relationship are you talking about?



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So "hot air rises" is speculative? I didn't even try to replicate the experiment and that was my first guess. Every time I see a hot air balloon, I'm reminded that the claim that hot air rises is not speculative.


Indeed. There aren't hot air balloons around where we live (because it's an island, so too risky to fly), but guess what, I don't need balloons for that observation. I make a few steps up the stairs in my house and can feel the temperature gradient.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Sheesh Beebs, in two short paragraphs you managed to use "disingenuous" and "animal" with regards to my humble person.

I guess when you have no evidence of anything, you feel compelled to resort to this. Feel free to dwell in that made-up world, I'll post once in a while exposing the idiocy of it.

Incidentally, how am I cornered if there is no evidence of any claims made so far in the thread? Do you happen to have photographs of orgone and its behavior under various conditions?


Again, you make the claim there is no evidence. For at least Reich, that is just plain untrue.

Is it MY job to shove his books into your face? All the evidence is there, all of his data, the configurations of his experimental apparatus, explanations for his techniques using those apparatus, etc. etc. I can't read it for you.

If you think he is wrong, you need to READ the material, compile the evidence he puts forward, and then BOTH: conduct the experiments yourself and attempt to explain away all of the phenomenon and data in a different way than Reich himself did. You need to FALSIFY his theory. Otherwise, you are just blabbering on about something you know nothing about - which is usually what you say these 'charlatans' are doing - but if you don't familiarize yourself with the source material, you are acting no better than those you denounce.

Pages 351-431 in his Selected Writings is a start. But of course, if you ever came down off your horse to actually read those pages, you would do well to read the rest of the book to put the chapter in context. You simply HAVE to read his writings to have any credibility speculating on the truthfulness of his theory.

And yes, there are photographs of some of his apparatus, if I remember correctly there are also photographs that claim to show the 'orgone energy' itself.

There IS evidence, but you IGNORE it because your philosophical presuppositions and worldview cannot accept that there is evidence that contradicts those presuppositions.




top topics



 
39
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join