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.

 

UK Admits Plans to Inject Aerosols into Stratosphere

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

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 Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
Argument from authority noted.

And Ted Gunderson is what exactly? More authoritative than Einstein?


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.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

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.


I'm arguing that one works based on demonstrable scientific principles. The other has not been demonstrated to work.

If something does not work, then all it is is functionless lump of its material. Like how a dead body, no longer working, is referred to as a "lump of meat". It's a figure of speech.

The really important point is that it's been around 80 years, and nobody has demonstrated that it works.

You are familiar with "evidence of absence" from previous discussions. Well this is a very good example. If it worked, then it seems very likely that someone could have demonstrated it working in the last 80 years. Nobody has. Hence it seems likely it does not work.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

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.


Where did I claim to have proof? Of what?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, he tested his orgone device and found it ineffective in the terms that Reich said would prove it worked. And I quote:

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.

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. It's like saying that a bag of skittles has healing power because of the alignment of the glucose in the skittles coupled with the plastic bag.

edit on 6/11/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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?


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.




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?

I think he pissed them off, and they were just being dicks about it.
edit on 11-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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".


Why would you await any such response when it's obvious that from the 1950s, there has been active suppression of Reich's work?

It isn't a matter of it not being possible it prove. It's a matter of no one taking it seriously in the first place, and for no apparent (legitimate) reason. And for the record Einstein also poo-poo'ed quantum mechanics and what he called "spooky action at a distance" which has since, only in recent years, been verified. So that's where your arguments from authority get you.



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.


And like I said, this is a bunch of complete nonsense because there are already many modern electronic devices that are made out of those same materials. Really man, you wouldn't know what a real logical argument was if it knocked you on your rear.




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.


What is reasonable about assuming that covert military operations should be apparent to you? Is it because you think you are that much of a super-genius and that alert?


I think he pissed them off, and they were just being dicks about it.


Are you an authority on that kind of thing too now?
edit on 11-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

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, I already told you I agree. But every time I agree with you here, you apparently feel the need to start pushing into insinuations of it being impossible and definitively not being able to work at all that you can't prove.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Einstein took it seriously. How did that work out, can you tell me?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Einstein took it seriously. How did that work out, can you tell me?


He took it seriously enough to dismiss it, just like he took quantum mechanics seriously enough to dismiss it. How did dismissing quantum mechanics work out for Einstein? Can you tell me?

How about argument from authority? Can you tell me what that is?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

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,


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.

Or use an Orgone "Shooter" behind a curtain. Either way it's an easy experiment that costs nothing. Why in 80 years has nobody even claimed to have done something like that?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
How about argument from authority? Can you tell me what that is?


Similar to this?


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.

edit on 11-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
How about argument from authority? Can you tell me what that is?


Similar to this?


Yes, now all you have to find to complete your little puzzle is where I claim that either argument is actual proof of anything.


So in other words, no, you don't understand what argument from authority is.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

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.


Hopefully science is the only standard we are using to judge what is proven and what isn't.


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.


And I'm sure you would take it just as seriously as a science fair project.


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.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Nice job poisoning the well. So his scientific test wasn't good enough for you because he dismissed it when it didn't work in the way Reich said it would? And it doesn't bother you that these things aren't even remotely demonstrable?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



That would not be a scientific experiment.


Why not? Since "orgone" is supposed to produce physical sensations there should be a statistically significant result obtained by such an experiment.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Nice job poisoning the well. So his scientific test wasn't good enough for you


I missed the scientific test. All I saw was an anecdote. I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference.


And it doesn't bother you that these things aren't even remotely demonstrable?


Considering there are lots of people who are already convinced these devices do exactly what they are supposed to do, what you mean to ask is, "Doesn't it bother you that these things haven't been scientifically validated?" And my answer to that is "no."


If that's surprising to you, refer to the fact that I never claimed to have proof in the first place.

You may be a rabid dog, but you're barking up the wrong tree.
edit on 11-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

That would not be a scientific experiment.


Why not?


First of all it relies on anecdotal information for which no variables can actually be isolated.

Do you need more? I've seen you call other studies foul on much, much less than the amount of garbage inherent in the setup suggested above. Don't make yourself such an obvious hypocrite Phage.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I'm glad we have so many anecdotes to go on about how 'sensitives' can 'feel' 'orgone' energy. I bet they can feel chi too. And skittle energy.




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join