Signs your "theory" might be wrong....

Post Reply New Topic

All to true... but the problem is all the people that mocked and slowed the progress of the inventor before he proved his idea...

Just imagine what would happen if people spent their time pursuing these important things rather mocking and getting in the way or doing unimportant things instead.

By the way... I am not saying I am immune to this either. I could have discovered all this much more quickly than I did if I had't been fooled and stupid myself. But we need to recognize the problem before we can fix it.

Who has replicated cold fusion? When?


Because we're good at deceiving ourselves, as humans; we're good at taking wishful thinking for reality, and then reality bites.


They don't Ever hear of "The Anarchist's Cookbook"? From what I hear, it's pretty easy to come by a copy online. For that matter, fertilizer and diesel fuel took out a large building in Oklahoma City, Ricin and Sarin aren't difficult to manufacture at home, etc, etc, etc. As a biologist, I could probably find and culture some pretty evil microbes to spread without much difficulty, if I were evil.


We're not quite the worst, but the reason we're so far behind other wealthy countries is partly that we have a large, powerful section of the population that is stupidly fundamentalist.


The Wright Bros. weren't the first people to contemplate human flight; they're famous because they're the first ones to succeed. Likewise, people before Einstein had all kinds of theories about energy and matter and light, but the evidence is what proved that it was Einstein, and not some other theorist, who was right.


Hypotheses are known; they're treated as outlandish and false because there isn't a lot of evidence for them, or because the evidence for some mutually exclusive hypothesis is better. Being skeptical is good; every idea that humans come up with cannot all be true. We have to pick and choose what to believe, and if we pick wrong, reality (as I mentioned earlier) will bite us in the ass.


message from you was empty/no content. Try again?


As a rule, I don't accept videos as evidence in internet arguments. I don't even watch the ones posted for entertainment. They're too manipulative (music, ominous background tones, half-truths and mis-truths supported by falsified or carefully arranged cinematography...)

Someone, at some point, started knapping flint to make hand-axes. People all over the world eventually took up that technology, because it worked. Why wouldn't they? Technology necessarily proceeds by stepping from one innovation to the next.

The problem for the scientific community and for investors is that there are way, way, way more quacks and failed inventors out there than there are people who actually have insight into some kind of paradigm shift. We revere Einstein and Pasteur because they overthrew everything we had understood about physics and bacteriology at the times; they had good ideas, and they proved that they were right.

The department of defense and a japanese scientist named Arata... there may be others.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Rothwe ... rtonar.pdf

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1463



The reason is though that most people are ignorant.. most people would have never thought manned powered flight was possible and if you had tried to propose what the Wright brothers did they would say you are nits just like I have been called nuts here for proposing what I have.



My point is that these things you mention are just the tip of the iceberg... we aren't aware of all the things possible because we have been dumbed down so much technologically... this info an more would be much more widespread if kids were really being taught about science.... what we have now ids a cheap facade. But along with all those bad things there would be far far more good... they use the bad as an excuse to prevent us from getting the good. This is why we see the stagnation we do.



We went over this before though.. I think it's the opposite.. we have a large section of the population who are kind of backwards because they don't want use developing. The big cities are no different.. they may even be worse. Schools have been frozen in time.. they are the same as they were back in the 50s.. that's not an accident. It's a diversion.



I think the Einstein example isn't perfect because few people are capable of what Einstein did.. but I don't think the same is true of the WB and flight. Which is why the whole thing is so funny and sad... these were 2 guys working out of their garage... why hadn't any large corporations before this time put a monumental effort into this? Why? Because there simply was no field for it.. and groups don't think outside of their small box... that alone should show you how this whole antigrav thing has been kept secret for so long. The aviation industry won't reveal the tech because it would put them out of business and other companies won't think outside of their box.



Because it has been suppressed and mocked by the establishment.. that is the work of the cabal...

Read this book to see how....

http://vielewelten.at/pdf_en/the%20hunt ... 0point.pdf



As was shown with the wright brothers though.. the reality that bit us on the ass was that everyone had their heads up their bums.. and the same is true now of antigravity... only the cabal helped us put our heads up there... and keep them there.



That sucks... I will try again...



Where did you come up with this rule? It seems far too convenient to help the powers that be keep their secrets.. do you not watch TV and the news as well? Movies?

Everything in society is pushing the message they want and ignoring the things they want ignored... magazines.. the news etc..

Did you know that prehistoric man sat around for a hundreds of thousands of years eating raw meat around the fire before they figured out they could cook the meat?

Are we ever going to learn from our past and recognize that people are incredibly small minded?

Our fear of thinking outside the box is precisely what is keep us from advancing more quickly.... it's funny the things we take risks on or sacrifice for in society and the things we don't.... sad really..

I think there are infinitely more people out there who never even try to think outside the box... THOSE people are the problem... not the tiny number of people trying to scam the system or who are just wrong.

The REASON people don't take risks is because they are afraid of getting lumped in with the other ones.. that's the whole thing with society.. people don't want to get ostracized or lose their careers because people think they made some bonehead move.

Those people who are just waiting in the bushes to attack anyone who dares think outside the box are far worse for humanity than the ones who are scamming people or are just unept.



Einsteins work happened to be provable... in most instances that isn't the case.. in the later part of Einsteins life he ended up getting crucified for just that reason... he didn't follow along with everyone else in the quantum mechanics movement and he was thought to be washed up.. and some smart people now still think he was right and the QM movement is wrong.

That's actually really interesting, and there are other articles about this as well that are intriguing; however, Arata didn't "replicate" the original cold fusion experiment. His methods and materials are different. There are some other researchers claiming to have replicated Arata:
http://www.researchgate.net/post/Arata_ ... well_et_al
The Italian one looks less valid than the Japanese one, but time will tell.


That's not true, though. Humans can only perceive the world with the senses and the brain that we have, and those senses and that brain are really good at seeing things that aren't there and at making links that aren't there. It's not ignorance; it's the way our brains intrinsically work. The Wright Bros. did a heck of a lot of research before they made their flight (they even built a wind tunnel to collect data). They (and many others) built successful gliders, and their main innovation was adding pilot control and artificial power to the glider. They didn't just -boom- build an airplane de novo.


We're not stagnating, though. Our tech is easier to use - and opaque to non-experts - because it *has* to be, because it's too goddamn complex for a person to learn how to use if it's not set up to be intuitive. I have no bleeding idea how my iphone works beyond the most general of knowledge about transistors, despite being a fairly good biologist; the average designer at Apple might or might not be able to point to his or her own spleen, but ask about the Islets of Langerhans (something anyone with a single class in physiology would recognize), and they'd be lost. There's just too much knowledge for any one person to be able to absorb and operate on it all. Heck, even a lot of the more specialized or esoteric biology is beyond what I can understand. It's not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just that you have to study for years before you get it.

As far as progress, just one concrete example from our daily lives: the new(ish) CT machine at the hospital where I work produces images of such beauty that it is breathtaking. When it was first installed a couple of years ago, one of the surgeons commented, 'It won't be long before we're obsolete,' and he meant that exploratory surgery would be obsolete because the imaging capability of the CT was so amazing. Think about that: Instead of having to be sedated to the edge of death, cut open, your guts poked and prodded, and then sewn back up, you get infused with some dye and passed through a giant doughnut. No unconsciousness, no major trauma, no pain, no recovery time. Right now, even this CT can't visualize everything (nor can it, of course, fix any problems that it *does* find), but it's a major step ahead of where we were just ten, let alone 20, years ago. There are all kinds of examples like that in medicine. The progress is real.


The Wrights *weren't* the only ones working on powered flight. They were in a technological race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers


No, because they're usually wrong. If two (or five, or a dozen) hypotheses are mutually exclusive, only one can be correct; the fact that one has more evidence for it, and is thus accepted, is not usually the result of a conspiracy, but the result of people choosing to believe the hypothesis that is most likely true.

http://vielewelten.at/pdf_en/the%20hunt ... 0point.pdf


A delay in adoption of technology is preferable to overconfident early adoption of potentially dangerous technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls


I came up with it after too many internet arguments in which people posted video after video, chock full of logical fallacies and overlain with ominous tones and somber voice-overs, as evidence. They're horrible as evidence, or even entertainment, about 95% of the time; it's a waste of my minutes on the planet.

I don't have a TV, but I do spend a few hours a week watching TV on hulu (on my computer). I don't watch most news broadcasts because they're mostly just propaganda distributors for one party, the other, or both. Al Jazeera is actually a good exception to that, unless the news in question is from an Islamic country, in which case it's just as biased as an internal American broadcast. I listen to about half a dozen radio newscasts on a regular basis (because I can do so while I'm doing something else - driving, cooking, etc). I watch about half a dozen movies a year, for entertainment only.


Of course. Everyone has their own biases; it's a part of being human. That doesn't mean that it's coordinated, though.

As previously stated, I'm a biologist. Yeah, I knew that. That doesn't mean that they were necessarily small-minded or stupid, though; any given invention stands on the shoulders of the technology that came before it, and any invention depends not only on the inventor but also on the circumstances coming together for inspiration. Powered flight wasn't possible before combustion engines; combustion engines weren't possible before high calorie/weight fuels and high-quality metal refinement; etc.

Flint arrowheads weren't possible before spearheads, and spearheads weren't possible before hand-axes, and hand-axes weren't possible before people used naturally sharp broken rocks to do what their teeth could not.

I'm not sure you understand my point or if you don't think that things can improve...

My point is that we haven't tapped our potential for advancement... and right now the people in power are even fueling the fire...

The biggest thing holding back is a big element of human nature - rampant paranoid skepticism. It's a fear of exploration and a lack of imagination of what is possible.

It's not that they're 'a problem,' it's just that they don't deserve our time and attention until they prove themselves.


Well, I can't argue with that - although I would interpret it as more of a pecking-order social issue than a technological issue. Some people are just the proverbial crabs-in-a-bucket.


All geniuses have things that they are wrong -sometimes very wrong - about. Despite not being right all of the time, Mr. Einstein was hardly 'crucified,' he was just acknowledged to be wrong about some things. He spent most of his life, including his last years, being revered as one of the greatest geniuses that humanity has ever produced.

As far as quantum mechanics, there are about as many physicists who doubt it as there are biologists who doubt evolution. A lot of modern tech is dependent on quantum mechanics, and there's a big supercollider called CERN that has provided some pretty darn solid substantiation of the theories.

Which is NOT, of course, to say that our current understandings of quantum mechanics or evolution are perfect. There are still questions, and new discoveries WILL be made.

What? Of course I think that things can improve. But the system we have now is far from 'stagnation.'


Skepticism is what kept thalidomide from being authorized for sale in the US.

You didn't ask for the original though... It is based on P&F's work... the point is cold fusion was mocked by conventional science.



I think the problem is the opposite.. they ignore what is there because they are conditioned by the past and small minded thinking.



Exactly! Just as I have done immense research.. but if you were to have vote in that time of who is more qualified to achieve flight the Wright's would have lost horribly to their competition - considered a real scientist of the time. Just the same way people ridicule me because I don't have the qualifications or don't present myself like what is perceived to be qualified.



You have hit on one of the major ways this secret is kept - compartmentalization. By giving people such a narrow range of knowledge it does help industry in the short term.. it helps maintain the status quo... but it kills true innovation and revolutionary leaps. These people aren't stupid. They have crafted things just as they want them. They have also over complicated things.. They don't want people replicating what people like Tesla, TTBrown and Schauberger did...



It is coordinated... because it's been deemed a matter of national security. The question is... is it justified or not... From what I have seen it's not.

actually, Arata apparently started his work before P&F.

And it will continue to be mocked by 'conventional science' until extraordinary evidence is provided that it works. Tens of thousands of rediculous hypotheses are 'mocked by conventional scientists' each year, and for the vast majority of them, the mockery is justified. For the ones where the mockery *isn't* justified, the researcher presents enough evidence to change people's minds and then is hailed as a scientific hero.

Just to take one of the more obvious examples:
http://www.eyetricks.com/illusions.htm


What? The Wrights would have lost the vote... to you? Or do you mean to Langley? But it doesn't matter. The Wright Bros. built a successful machine and demonstrated it. Science does not work by popular vote.


On the contrary, it enables a depth of understanding that would not be possible if we all tried to generalize. If I had to know how to build an iphone, I wouldn't have been able to spend the time that I did studying, say, how beta-blockers affect a human body. I would be less effective at my job, and I still wouldnt' know enough about iphones to contribute to the field of cell phone development.

You know that Tesla's old workshop has been purchased and is being renovated, right?


Calling this CT machine a 'scrap' belies a great deal of ignorance of the diagnostic power it has. It is a thing of beauty; you shouldn't insult it before you research it.


That touches on ecology, which is something I know a little bit about. Firstly, very few people want to "depopulate" the world; what a lot of people *do* want, economists not included, is a stable population. A population is stable when the number of births in any given life cycle = the number of deaths over that same period of time; ie, for the population to be stable in a world with no deaths due to old age, disease, or accident, there could be no births. Whether or not that would be a good thing is very debatable; I would say not, given the mental calcification already demonstrated by previous generations. Renewal of the population allows for renewal of ideas as well as bodies.


Separate topic, but I'm all for that. I hate monopolies.

Yes. I'm a scientist. That's how science works. It's not always correct, but it contains within it an intrinsic error-correction methodology so that progress, while slow, is inevitable. No other system of though has ever been as successful.

*snort*
Already answered that question; I consume a hell of a lot of media other than youtube videos.


You are not correct. When the Curies discovered radium, it was hailed as a new miracle substance and unskeptically hailed around the world as not only harmless but, indeed, healthy. After all, what could be harmful about a nice glow...? Light is good, right? It wasn't stupidity, it was lack of evidence combined with a credulous adoption of a new element in industry without adequate testing.

The DoD's work was based on P&F's work....



It isn't valid for people to mock something without testing it... that contradicts science.



It really isn't justified... it takes a lot of courage to propose new ideas... that shouldn't be mocked. You need to look at the system to realize how that is a big flaw... and it's likely exacerbated by businesses and grant seekers trying to maintain the status quo.



Again.. everything isn't able to be proven so neatly... most things aren't which is why we are like;y being held back so much because the discoveries that could be made can't be solved by people going around the system...



I think you under estimate the kinds of discoveries that could be made if people had a more well rounded knowledge base.... do we really need something like the iPhone to be focused on so much? Especially while other important area are ignored... areas that don't have a dedicated field.. conveniently..



That is virtually nothing compared to what should be done.. every science student should be walking in the exact footsteps of these people. Do you realize where we might be now if they had? That is precisely why they haven't...



You do't understand the advances we could make then.. an even that should have been done in the 50s or 60s...



Do you really believe that? If we wanted to help poor people who can't eat it could easily be done..



How can you know if there is a conspiracy controlling what scientists are allowed to see if they aren't in your field and you don't look through unconventional channels?



You know you mocking videos is a very telling thing... it shows how you are not able to adapt to a new form of information delivery. That is a very old fashioned and close minded way of viewing things.. and it shows why development of new ideas doesn't happen.

Another example of this is that you have no real justification for not accepting"youtube videos"... why would Youtube videos be different than any other kind of video or paper for that matter?



You are confusing bold moves that could endanger health with bold thinking... those things are not connected in any way shape or form.. just because you explore things mentally does not mean you have to adopt them physically. And if you do you can take immense precautions.. I think this also shows bias in your thought... because you equate taking physical precautions to paranoid skepticism.. again.. those things aren't connected in any way..



Yes it was stupidity because ALL new discoveries should be evaluated for health effects.. but that has nothing to do with exploring things mentally while still taking health precautions... if you explore all ideas you would consider the health effects as well - good and bad.

It's the responsibility of the claimant to test their theory and provide evidence to support it, not the responsibility of the mockers. The mockery stops, and turns to awe, when adequate evidence is presented.

Most often, what is used isn't courage but arrogance. Every single day, some idiot who hasn't even bothered (for example) to study basic biology at the high-school level figures that he's (and it's almost always a 'he') come up with some fantastic new idea that 'no one has ever thought of before,' and announces it on some biology chat room somewhere expecting everyone to kowtow in awe. Sometimes it's even a valid (but old) idea, but usually it's some bunk about life-force or aether or spontaneous generation that was debunked decades or even centuries ago. That level of arrogance *deserves* mockery.

And, again: if it can't be proven (or, more importantly, disproven) then it's not science. It has nothing to do with science. It's either philosophy or faity.


Ok, take the CT machine that I spoke of earlier, instead; whatever. I'm not a gearhead; I couldn't build a CT machine to save my life, even if all of the requisite parts and tools were put in front of me. The person that could put it together, though, probably wouldn't be able to see the difference between coronary arteries and mesenteric arteries. Maybe not even if they were labeled as such.
As a biologist, I've taken more physics, geology, mathematics, and chemistry (especially chemistry) than the average non-scientist. A certain amount of well-roundedness is necessary to understand what is now basic biology (but would have been cutting-edge 50 years ago). There are only so many classes that can be packed into a batchelor's degree, though, and only so many more that can be packed into a doctorate. Or time is limited and precious.

Tesla was a genius, but like all geniuses, there were some things that he was wrong about. Recapitulating the past will not move us forward. Darwin was a genius, but he couldn't pass a Bio 101 exam today without taking the class first.

Religions always promise miracles. Only science has ever delivered. The CT machine is a legitimate miracle; talk about 'what could happen if only everyone thought the way I did' is nothing but pie in the sky.

It's math. Unlike science, things in math are provable at a fundamental, real level. If we want a stable population, births must equal deaths. Whether or not we can feed a population larger than what we have now is an entirely separate question.



I can't. Likewise, I cannot know that there is *not* a purple teapot with a knit tea-cozy in the asteroid belt. I Can't know that unicorns *don't* exist.
What I *can* know is that, of every known method of thought that humans have ever tried, science works better than anything else at providing real-world miracles, despite a thousand promises a day by other methods of thought.

Videos are not new. They were showing them to us in grade school. The reason I don't usually accept them as evidence is not because they're new, but because they are too easily used for propaganda.

Because they're not peer-reviewed.

You are confusing hindsight with proper thinking in the moment. What is paranoia, and what is healthy skepticism, is a little bit harder to parse before the data is all in.

What kind of 'mental explorations' might have been helpful with radium? All of the gedanken experiments in the world wouldn't have proven one way or the other whether or not radium was safe.