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: tanka418
Prior plausibility: EM Drive.
Videos being "doctored"...irrelevant.
Since you don't know that the videos were "doctored", and can't prove they were.
You should look up the legal definition of evidence some time...it might be useful.
And, I haven't shifted the "Burdon of proof", you did.
When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying.
That is what you are being "called to task" for.
What is even worse is that you proceeded to use inaccurate science and assumptions in your attempt to "debunk"...thus complicating the issue.
By the way...the video IS valid evidence. IF you knew what you were looking at; it will provide all of the "real", "scientific" evidence needed to prove that it was BS. But, you are to busy defending a false position to take a look at the real world...
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: tanka418
And, I haven't shifted the "Burdon of proof", you did. When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying. That is what you are being "called to task" for.
So are you the creator of the video?
When people call hoax it could be a simple opinion and not some all knowing final claim they need to prove,
You mentioning burden of proof and saying its being shifted to that poster sound like you are the creator of the video asking to be debunked, are you?
originally posted by: GetHyped
originally posted by: tanka418
Prior plausibility: EM Drive.
...has nothing to do with anti-gravity. And even if it did, it's like saying "planes are proof that I can fly!". No. Nice try.
I don't need to You or OP needs to prove they weren't.
You should look up the scientific definition, it's the definition that's actually relevent here.
Yes you did: "Thing is...you have to prove a hoax! And proof of "hoax" is not anywhere to be seen here".
["When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying."
Lying, deluded, it's funtionally the same, here.
"That is what you are being "called to task" for."
You should take your logic and critical thought "to task" instead.
Yeah, good luck presenting a youtube video of an extraordinary claim in a scientific paper. See how far you get with that one lol!
Jumping isn't anti-gravity, because jumpers have done none of the things in the definition of anti-gravity:
originally posted by: tanka418
I suspect you know little to nothing about "anti-gravity"...for instance; did you know that Terrestrial Humans have had primitive "anti-gravity" devices for hundreds of years. Humans, and may other animals have "anti-gravity" abilities...
The ability is called: Jumping.
Definition of ANTIGRAVITY : reducing, canceling, or protecting against the effect of gravity
originally posted by: tanka418
I suspect you know little to nothing about "anti-gravity"...for instance; did you know that Terrestrial Humans have had primitive "anti-gravity" devices for hundreds of years. Humans, and may other animals have "anti-gravity" abilities...
The ability is called: Jumping.
The device: a ladder.
Thee aren't any "real" anti-gravity devices / systems, gravity is what it is and noting else.. There are however technologies, abilities, primitive devices that can over come the effects of Gravity. Dudes "fakey" thruster, if it actually could work would certainly qualify as "anti-gravity" because it can offset the effects of gravity.
Anti-gravity is an idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift. Anti-gravity is a recurring concept in science fiction, particularly in the context of spacecraft propulsion. An early example is the gravity blocking substance "Cavorite" in H. G. Wells' The First Men in the Moon.
In Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means. In the 20th century, Newton's model was replaced by general relativity where gravity is not a force but the result of the geometry of spacetime. Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances.[1][2][3] Quantum physicists have postulated the existence of gravitons, a set of massless elementary particles that transmit the force, and the possibility of creating or destroying these is unclear.
"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by using electromagnetic fields.[4][5]
Please explain the differences...if you can.
You have not established either "lying", or "delusion"...
Leaving the only delusion apparent here being yours.
Instead, you should take your own council...
Again...nothing extraordinary here...nothing in the claim, nor anywhere else...And, by the way, videos are commonly used in science.
An article on "extraordinary claims"
You objected to the lack of scientific procedure, and while I doubt you know much about scientific anything...This could, with only a little work be a perfectly good hypothesis statement / paper. Though I will agree that Dude's presentation need much work.
Quickly...what is the real difference between a YouTube video and a professional one?
originally posted by: GetHyped
Redefining "anti-gravity" to suite your claims is dishonest. Here:
Anti-gravity is an idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift. Anti-gravity is a recurring concept in science fiction, particularly in the context of spacecraft propulsion. An early example is the gravity blocking substance "Cavorite" in H. G. Wells' The First Men in the Moon.
In Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means. In the 20th century, Newton's model was replaced by general relativity where gravity is not a force but the result of the geometry of spacetime. Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances.[1][2][3] Quantum physicists have postulated the existence of gravitons, a set of massless elementary particles that transmit the force, and the possibility of creating or destroying these is unclear.
"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by using electromagnetic fields.[4][5]
en.wikipedia.org...
I have. Multiple times. The onus is on the person making the extraordinary claim to present the extraordinary evidence to support that claim.
I'm delusional for believing a youtube video claiming "anti-gravity" is a hoax? Ok, pal.
Anti-gravity IS an extraordinary claim. And no, a single youtube video is NOT considered credible scientific evidence.
You're really reaching here. At what point does defying the laws of physics and negating the effects of gravity NOT become an extraordinary claim?
No. A single youtube video demonstrating physics-defying effects with absolutely no prior plausibility is, unsurprisingly, not considered credible scientific evidence.
"Quickly...what is the real difference between a YouTube video and a professional one?"
See above.
There's only so many times I can point out how a youtube video demonstrating supposedly extraordinary, physics-defying effects is not evidence. There is absolutely no way to rule out the very real and obvious possibility of camera trickery/tampering. I'm not going to go round and round with you pointing this out, if you wish to remain so credulous then PM me and I'll give you details about this bridge for sale.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418
I can't be bothered with repeating yet again why a youtube video is not scientific evidence. Read my previous posts.
However, clearly you are not terribly familiar with the difference in rigour between legal and scientific evidence so read away, my friend:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(law)
The basic premise of doubt as well of the standards of evidence are completely different between the scientific method and the legal system. They are not the same. Stop trying to conflate the two for the purposes of your argument.
originally posted by: tanka418
It to bad you didn't actually read and understand what was said;
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. (law)
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
Oh look!! Scientific evidence is still simply "evidence".'
Now the "rigor" you mention...isn't any more stringent in science than in a court of law. In fact, in a court the admissibility of evidence is far more strict, and, debatable. Making legal evidence somewhat superior, mostly for reasons of statistical analysis, and inference.
Again from the science article: "Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."
So again; what was wrong with Dude's evidence? What he presented, inappropriately, was certainly empirical, even if it did lack something in protocol. But, neither you nor I have the authority to dictate protocol for his level of science. In as much as he was not a professional scientist, I would say (as a professional computer scientist), he didn't do too badly, Again, even IF his data and presentation say something other than what he thought.
No, sorry man...it is not permissible to reject evidence simply because you don't like the content; and that is exactly what you are doing. His evidence meets all of the criteria for either kind of evidence...although; did you notice how they are actually the same thing?...oh that's right, you think science is some sort of magical thing, prolly sent and enforced by some demi-god somewhere...sorry...not true.
You complain about YouTube, yet have no idea of the variety of content on YouTube. Did you know that when YouTube started it filled a niche created by the lack of video display abilities of your browser. Playing any video required a player of some sort. YouTube made an easily transportable display platform that was compatible with virtually all browsers. Its not so needed any more since the release of HTML/5.x and the ability of compatible browsers to display video (mp4, mov, ogg) directly.
However, until the release of HTML5.x and the full implementation, YouTube will continue to be used by a wide base of users, and that will include quite serious science...this isn't a matter of public opinion, your opinion, nor indeed, anyone's opinion; it is a matter of technology and technology's penetration. I have, and will continue to watch serious scientific video presentations on YouTube (though I would prefer not to...).
originally posted by: GetHyped
Well done for missing the point. Now, for the last and final time, because I won't bother responding you you any more in this thread: a layman presenting a video of a claim that allegedly defies the laws of physics is an extraordinary claim. A video on youtube, where all sorts of trickery can take place and cannot be independently rules out, is not evidence of such a claim.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418
Oh look, it's a UFO! It can't be a hoax because it hasn't been proven, but it's on YouTube so it must be legit. There is absolutely no plausible explanation other than it being real:
www.youtube.com...
Run for your lives!!!
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418
Pan me for details about the bridge I've got for sale.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Jumping isn't anti-gravity, because jumpers have done none of the things in the definition of anti-gravity:
www.merriam-webster.com...
Definition of ANTIGRAVITY : reducing, canceling, or protecting against the effect of gravity
They haven't reduced gravity.
They haven't canceled gravity.
They aren't protected from the effects of gravity. They still feel the full effect of gravity, whilst decelerating in their upward trajectory and accelerating in their downward trajectory.
Podkletnov claimed to have made some type of antigravity (reduced gravity), but these claims have never been independently confirmed as far as we know.
Actually, "jumping" does all of those things over the short term...
Jumping removes the effects of gravity during the short period of upward acceleration...
Jumping removes the effects of gravity during the short period of upward acceleration...
Ya know...all I was trying to do is get you to actually use a little science, logic and sense, but if you don't want to...