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.
Originally posted by Uncinus
and where electricity is replaced with orgone, so really actually entirely different.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by bsbray11
Argument from authority noted.
And Ted Gunderson is what exactly? More authoritative than Einstein?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Uncinus
and where electricity is replaced with orgone, so really actually entirely different.
Right, but you seem to have been trying to argue that the materials automatically refuted the possibility of it being of any use, which is nonsense.
Originally posted by bsbray11
First of all, two completely different subjects. Second of all, I am not actually claiming to have proof. You are. That's your kryptonite buddy.
Originally posted by Uncinus
I'm arguing that one works based on demonstrable scientific principles. The other has not been demonstrated to work.
On December 30, 1940, Reich wrote to Albert Einstein saying he had a scientific discovery he wanted to discuss, and on January 13, 1941 went to visit Einstein in Princeton. They talked for five hours, and Einstein agreed to test an orgone accumulator, which Reich had constructed out of a Faraday cage made of galvanized steel and insulated by wood and paper on the outside.Einstein agreed that if, as Reich suggested, an object's temperature could be raised without an apparent heating source, it would be a "bombshell" in physics.
Reich supplied Einstein with a small accumulator during their second meeting, and Einstein performed the experiment in his basement, which involved taking the temperature atop, inside, and near the device. He also stripped the device down to its Faraday cage to compare temperatures. In his attempt to replicate Reich's findings, Einstein observed a rise in temperature,which Reich argued was caused by the orgone energy that had accumulated inside the Faraday cage.However, one of Einstein's assistants pointed out that the temperature was lower on the floor than on the ceiling. Following that remark, Einstein modified the experiment and, as a result, concluded that the effect was simply due to the temperature gradient inside the room. He wrote back to Reich, describing his experiments and expressing the hope that Reich would develop a more skeptical approach.
Reich responded with a 25-page letter to Einstein, expressing concern that "convection from the ceiling" would join "air germs" and "Brownian movement" to explain away new findings. The correspondence between Reich and Einstein was published by Reich's press as The Einstein Affair in 1953, possibly without Einstein's permission.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Uncinus
I'm arguing that one works based on demonstrable scientific principles. The other has not been demonstrated to work.
It has not been scientifically demonstrated, to my knowledge, I agree.
Do you recognize any difference at all between a lack of evidence, and proving a negative?
And a follow-up to that. What evidence do you think the FDA had exactly, to justify seizing and burning/destroying all of Reich's work and putting him in jail? They must have had some pretty strong damned proof that he was obviously wrong, to go to such extreme measures, so what was it?
Originally posted by adeclerk
I await your response to the tune of, "orgone is the only thing on this planet that is not scientifically verifiable nor in any way demonstrable".
ETA: I was mentioning the materials because, as any adult should know, a bunch of crystal, copper and fiberglass thrown together won't do anything.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Who said anything about proof. It's "evidence of absence", it's a reasonable inference that if there SHOULD be evidence if something exists, and there's NO apparent evidence, then it SEEMS like that thing does not exist.
I think he pissed them off, and they were just being dicks about it.
Originally posted by bsbray11
It isn't a matter of it not being possible it prove.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by bsbray11
It isn't a matter of it not being possible it prove.
No, it's about it apparently never being demonstrated to work.
Originally posted by adeclerk
Einstein took it seriously. How did that work out, can you tell me?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by bsbray11
It isn't a matter of it not being possible it prove.
No, it's about it apparently never being demonstrated to work.
Not to a rigorous scientific standard,
Originally posted by bsbray11
How about argument from authority? Can you tell me what that is?
Originally posted by bsbray11
So it comes down to this: Do I take a former FBI chief's word about covert military operations going on, or do I take your anonymous internet layman denial over top of it?
As I said, I'd take this guy's testimony over yours any day of the week. For some reason I bet he can actually spell, too.
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by bsbray11
How about argument from authority? Can you tell me what that is?
Similar to this?
Originally posted by Uncinus
Originally posted by bsbray11
Not to a rigorous scientific standard,
No. I mean not at all that I'm aware of, or you have shown me. Not even to high school science fair standard.
The point being that in 80 years, some kid should have been able to concoct a science fair experiment to show that it works. Emily Rosa for example.
All the accumulator is is a box where you sit in, and you feel funny, then neutral, then sweaty. It would be trivial to make two identical boxes, one of which was "grounded" so the orgone bled away (or deactivated in some way). Then get 20 people, have them randomly sit in one box then the other, and then document what effects they report.
That would not be a scientific experiment.
Originally posted by adeclerk
Nice job poisoning the well. So his scientific test wasn't good enough for you
And it doesn't bother you that these things aren't even remotely demonstrable?
Originally posted by Phage
That would not be a scientific experiment.
Why not?