Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

I'm going to type this very slowly so you can follow along:

Since. The. Scientists. Are. Being. Compensated. It. Can. Not. Be. Called. Independent. Validation.

I am going to type this real fast, and I assume you can follow along regardless of my typing speed.

ALL 12 SCIENTISTS ARE TESTING THE DEVICE INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER.

Sheesh, bio tech companies conduct experiments all the time in nanotechnology, do we doubt the claims of thier scientists because their scientists are on the payroll?

Please contact reality soon. Financial dependence does not qaulify as misleading the world with the verifications of 12 scientists.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Has anyone else noticed the spooky parallels between Steorn's Orbo and Bubb's OS012?

.

Yes, they are both third value scenarios, and once again, your reactions show what value you place on your subjective experience. You dont want certainty, you want to be right about your feelings, hunches, and innerworld, and you want that to reflect objective reality. That's called mysticism. Please put mysticism back in your mysticism meta category, and start thinking objectivly.


BF

 

[WWHP]

Don't forget: offer to tell people all about it if they sign NDAs.

Yes Mojo, in buisness, when people are asked to sign an NDA, that is ALWAYS PROOF of deception, without fail, in each and every single one of the cases!

Good going sherlock! Damn, you critical thinkers are f-----a------s-------t!

BF

 

[WWHP]

Exactly.

A group - not even all scientists! - HAND PICKED by Steorn (for their buyability, perhaps?), BEING PAID by Steorn, working AT STEORN'S labs, under an NDA to release ONLY WHAT STEORN TELLS THEM THEY MAY RELEASE - This is NOT 'independent study', Rome. No matter what you believe, this is the perfect recipe for a scam, plain and simple.

sorry zaay, but your modeling of this scenario is so full of factual errors and misleading statements that it hardly qualifies as a comment at all. It's closer to political managment during a presidential campaign. Why, are you trying to swiftboat steorn?

BF

 

[WWHP]

are there any more reasonable arguments left against the third value, or OS 012? I dont think many are left.

Notice I have plenty of rebuttals left in me. Wanna know how? Because when something is true in the objective sense, it can be explained from many different points of view in common language. It can be explained from many different points of view because an objective truth is mutually viewable. yet each point of view is relative to that truth, and each viewpoint has a distinct advantage from that point of view. So therefore, there are almost an infinite number of ways to express 1 truth.

Just like there are an infinite number of ways to order the natural number 1. It's the same thing.

So a good sign for online discussion. When there is one person advancing thier argument, and others not advancing with them, that's a pretty good sign that the arguer is refining something objective, for he or she is able to maintain their argument without it *poofing* into nothingness, while explaining it to many different points of view at the same time.

Irrational ideas have to invent mystical realities, mind created realities, to keep the argument going. That cant go on too long without producing contradictions with reality, so usually, people will either leave the discussion once they can no longer rationally defend their position, or upgrade to the dominant idea if they are rational.

Goodnight!

BF

 

[WWHP]

More on Steorn:

This fellow posted this at there forum. Apparently, he is a physicist or engineer.

His thread's title was :Steorn Succeeded where Fusion research failed.

Why?

Because the Steorn engineers knew bugger all about magnetism so they were not inhibited by incorrect theory.
Fusion research is being directed by physicists and their theory of magnetism doesn't allow for the fact that it is pinned to the Gamma-atmosphere frame of reference, the inertial frame of reference, and will be affected both by the rotation of the earth on its axis and the orbiting of the earth around the sun.

The funny thing is that both are harnessing the same strong force that holds nuclei together.

Atomic energy is harnessing it in the form of fission and fusion.

Steorn is harnessing it in the form of magnetic field.

For what is magnetic field of the "iron group" ...

< http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html >

... but the manifestation of the strong force energy which is potential for all the other elements (negative or positive strain energy - fissionable or fusible) but is actual in the case of the iron group.

Ha, ha. You didn't know that, did you.

Well you do now.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes all those Forum members luxuriating in the knowledge of their high IQs to recognise this is obviously correct.

 

[WWHP]

Steorn quotes from Sean, the CEO,


"I think the point that we're making is that this publicity stunt, and it is a publicity stunt, has one direct aim, and that is to grab the attention of the scientific world really to get them angry enough to have to deal with this.

The question we're asking is an honest question to the world of science: either prove this works or prove it doesn't work - whatever you find, and to also make absolutely sure the answer is put into the public domain. As far as we're concerned, we're not asking a question we don't know the answer to."

- Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn - about violating the first Law of Thermodynamics.
"Our position on this is that we don't expect anybody in the general public to believe us at this point," McCarthy said. "We're just asking people to believe the process [of the audit.] We're saying that at the end of this process, the answer is going to be published whether we're right or wrong."

- Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn - about challenging, with public skeptical scientist testing, the first Law of Thermodynamics.

"Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Sean McCarthy, Chief Executive Officer of Steorn, and ask every question that I could think of. My conclusion at the end of our talk is that I have no idea what to make of all this. However, I can say that McCarthy was very direct and forthcoming with me.

Steorn has issued a bold challenge to the physics establishment, and this establishment will not acquiesce without a fight.

I predict that none of us will know whether this claim is valid for months, perhaps years. If the company's panel of experts determines that the claim demonstrates new science, the remaining question is, Who will pay attention to it and who will ignore it?"
- Steve Krivit (zpenergy.com)



"If I am proved wrong, this company is out of business and I will never work in this town again," he said.
Sean McCarthy

 

[WWHP]

This one is interesting, to fit Steorn.

They are releasing a quantum computer this week? Yikes!

http://www.dwavesys.com/

It's really a wonderful time to be a futurist, it's already here;-)

 

[WWHP]

Huh?

Is Bubblefish STILL here? Still trying on his OS123 stuff and nonsense?

No Zep, I left 15 pages ago, but now someone else who calls himself bubblefish is posting in my name.

 

[Mojo]

ALL 12 SCIENTISTS ARE TESTING THE DEVICE INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER.

The point being made was that they are not independent of Steorn.

Oh, and that's another 50 points, by the way (unless your keyboard is defective).

 

[Mojo]

'secrecy' is to how you are describing it is far from uncommon in buisness, it's just how the buisness world works.

They're not being secretive; they're publicising it for all they're worth.

Steon will publish their own results, and will have total control over what is released as a result of the copyright and confidentiality provisions in their contract with the "jurors". They have promised to publish the results of the "validation" process, but it's not clear whether this will include the actual data.

Mojo, according to Sean at Steorn, the team of 12 scientists is made up of 80% academia, and 20% industry. According to an elected skeptical member of thier forum, at least two of those academic members are 'about as high up as you can get'.

How is that relevant to the point it was replying to? As far as the agreement that Steorn claims they have with the jurors, it doesn't matter who the jurors are: Steorn has complete control over what is published. Unless you think Steorn are lying about the contract the have with the jurors. Do you?

And the result is in simple binary, so you should get that, it's either over-unity, or it ain't. And all of those 12 scientists have to go on public record making that claim.

Since they are claiming 285% over unity for a working model, I'm amazed it's taking them this long to prove it. It's not as if they're looking for a small effect. and none of this changes the fact that under the terms of their contract the jurors are only allowed to say what Steorn wants them to say.

since they are not excepting money from investors until they 12 member scientific team validate thier technology, this claim is not rational

We'll see what they publish, and how they publish it. Although it seems from what you've posted that "Sean from Steorn says they expect confirmation towards the end of 2007", they are also talking about publishing "Detailed technical specifications ... at the end of Quarter 1, 2007". That's next month.

I hardly think any journal would publish it,

Why not, if it passes peer review?

and Steorn already had bad experiences (surprise surprise) by approaching academia with thier claim. They wouldnt listen to them.

They said that they had approached scientists "off the record" but that the scientists refused to confirm publicly whether it works. This seens to suit steorn nicely.

what does that mean? or rather, what are you making that mean? My company's finances are often filed very intuitivly, i.e. late, that doesnt mean I am a hoax

"Intuitively" does not mean "late". This sort of obfuscatory misuse of language is one of the things that makes you look like a hoax.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Anyone else noticed that the end of the first quarter will be somewhere around.... letsee.....

April 1st !

And that Steorn previously had a reference on their press/publicity to an article about their challenge dated April 1st 2006 in the Guardian. The article didn't exist, and they later claimed it was just a placeholder that was left there by mistake.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Sheesh, this is so simple, why is this taking you so long to distinguish? (oh, that's right, I remember now, you are still trying to save face)

Not really, I don't really think that I need to do any face saving. The fact that I said that OS012 is a nice idea and, if it works, sounds like it could be useful as a dialectic should convince you that I'm prepared to give ground where I think it should be given.

Basically with the whole "objective" thing, I think that we agree on the way the world works, what can be categorised a priori and what levels of categorisation need empirical evidence. If you actually want to prove anything you need evidence. You are not actually producing any contradictions within my statements (and certainly showing me to be in contradiction with reality) and I'm not producing any with yours. We only think we are, because we're failing to use each others' definitions of "objective". If you read all my statements with "objective" basically meaning "referring to the real world in concrete terms and theoretically testable", and all yours with "objectively" meaning "it is true that it is" (and bear in mind that your logic is entirely viewpoint dependent) then there are no contradictions. However, and please note this carefully, if you continue to use the term "objectively mysterious" you will continue to run into this linguistic confusion because, as far as many (perhaps even most) people ar concerned, objective statements are viewpoint-independent statements about the real world, and, as such, are either true or false (even if you/me/anyone don't know which), unknown/mystery doesn't come into it.

As far as OS012 is concerned it's firmly in the box marked "Nice idea but almost certainly bollocks" along with Orbo.

You haven't satisfactorily rebutted people's concerns with it. There are still the problems of it being logically and linguistically non-standard and unintuitive. You haven't explained away the problem of people who don't accept it simply not using it nor being influenced by it at all. Most problematically you still have provided no details of how it works nor evidence that it works. I had a quick skim back over the badscience boards and noted that exactly the same questions were raised and you failed to provide any details, evidence or answers.

The number of people who have dismissed you are a troll far, far exceeds the number of people with whom you have reached any sort of understanding.

Perfect, absolutly perfect. I wonder how many of those people have actual critical arguments that can advance in the discussion, however.
...

The same as at badscience, you presented it so badly that the only thing that people could do was respond to your completely inadequate description of it, which they did.

they reacted to it, and FAILED TO ASK QUESTIONS, rather, ASSUMED the MEANING OF THE TEXT as opposed to MY MEANING OF THE TEXT.
...

Now you're simply adopting a boneheaded refusal to see anything wrong with it or just claim that everything mentioned supports it.

define what is wrong in OS 012, and the correction will be made.

Sorry Bubb, but all this just reeks of troll and points to OS012 having no real substance. You failed to present it initially with even pre-school level clarity, and, as noted, have given no substantial, testable details, instead people were expected to somehow magically derive the contents of your mind. When they have responded to what little content there was you've responded along the lines of "you just don't understand it, it will all make sense and be a revelation when you get it" without actually trying to increase people's understanding of it. The fact that they don't really advance their critical arguments is mainly because there is nothing of real substance to argue, trying to disprove OS012 is like trying to nail fog to a wall because there's nothing really there.

There is no rational argument against OS 012. To refute OS 012 is to prove it correct

Again, the reek of troll. The logical/linguistic contradiction aside, this is just the confirmation that what you think you have is actually just a delusion based purely on your misplaced faith in your own mental power.

OS012 has advanced about as far as most people thinking that you are simply an idiot troll, and a few people saying "Nice idea, but I don't think it can work (because you've provided no evidence or details). Prove that it works", and you failing to do so. If that was the "goal" of your childish tit-for-tat then I guess it has been acheived. I think that you've made it pretty clear that for you, success is not a swift resolution of discussion to mutual benefit, but a drawn out unpleasant process where you convince yourself that you have "advanced your truth" simply by obfuscation and just outposting everyone else combined.

 

[JonnyFive]

This fellow posted this at there forum. Apparently, he is a physicist or engineer.

And he apparently said:

Because the Steorn engineers knew bugger all about magnetism so they were not inhibited by incorrect theory.
Fusion research is being directed by physicists and their theory of magnetism doesn't allow for the fact that it is pinned to the Gamma-atmosphere frame of reference, the inertial frame of reference, and will be affected both by the rotation of the earth on its axis and the orbiting of the earth around the sun.

Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

The claim that scientists are "bound" by their models and therefore cannot see the amazing discoveries is a very commonly cited one for people making amazing claims without a lot of evidence to back them up.

Sadly, it completely flies in the face of scientific reality. Scientific and mathematical modeling is always open to reinterpretation and change. If you think scientists wouldn't dare contemplate the revision of the laws of physics, you don't know any scientists. They would simply require fairly convincing experimental evidence that those laws required revision.

Why? Because those laws are very well supported by existing evidence, and you don't just toss such things out because some guy says so. You wait for some evidence to back the claims up.

Does that make you a slave to scientific orthodoxy? No, it does not.

Claims that scientists missed something because they were "inhibited by incorrect theory" should immediately raise red flags. Although there are always scientists who are more stubborn than others, any scientist worth their degree would change their mind when provided with evidence. Evidence, by the way, includes seeing unexpected results in the lab.

The other problem with invoking magnetism, fusion, or fission is that none of these things provides for perpetual motion in the current body of observed evidence, and they have never been observed to break those laws. The laws of physics have been upheld against such challenges because they are supported by the observable evidence, not because scientists worship conservation of energy.

ETA: A fundamental problem with perpetual motion is that in order for such a device to be useful, it must not only maintain its movement (which would require negating friction and gravity among other things, or tapping into some unknown force that hasn't been discovered by science, I guess), but it must actually create more energy than is put into it.

So in order for Steorn's device to do this, it must not only negate the effects of friction and gravity (among other things), but it must also somehow create usable energy by, say, turning a turbine. It must also do this without using any external force that could ever possibly stop doing work, or else it is by definition a non-perpetual motion machine.

Magnetism isn't going to overcome entropy and run forever. It can help to mitigate gravity and friction, but it isn't just going to cancel out all forces involved. Moreover, turning a turbine to extract a usable amount of energy from the system would draw a huge amount of energy from the system (basically, whatever amount of energy you want to extract plus loss to heat and friction).

 

[aggle-rithm]

And he apparently said:



Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

The claim that scientists are "bound" by their models and therefore cannot see the amazing discoveries is a very commonly cited one for people making amazing claims without a lot of evidence to back them up.

Sadly, it completely flies in the face of scientific reality. Scientific and mathematical modeling is always open to reinterpretation and change. If you think scientists wouldn't dare contemplate the revision of the laws of physics, you don't know any scientists. They would simply require fairly convincing experimental evidence that those laws required revision.

Why? Because those laws are very well supported by existing evidence, and you don't just toss such things out because some guy says so. You wait for some evidence to back the claims up.

Does that make you a slave to scientific orthodoxy? No, it does not.

Claims that scientists missed something because they were "inhibited by incorrect theory" should immediately raise red flags. Although there are always scientists who are more stubborn than others, any scientist worth their degree would change their mind when provided with evidence. Evidence, by the way, includes seeing unexpected results in the lab.

The other problem with invoking magnetism, fusion, or fission is that none of these things provides for perpetual motion in the current body of observed evidence, and they have never been observed to break those laws. The laws of physics have been upheld against such challenges because they are supported by the observable evidence, not because scientists worship conservation of energy.

Nicely put.

Bubba apparently thinks of scientific knowledge as being like a grocery list, when it's really more like a crossword puzzle. It's even more like an extremely complex 3-dimensional structure in which each theory interlocks with and supports others. Sometimes the structure needs to be shuffled around somewhat, but the more knowledge is added to it, the more the fundamentals are affirmed.

In order to add "free energy" to the mix, the entire structure would have to be torn down and rebuilt. None of the old parts would fit, since most of them build on the laws of thermodynamics in some way. In essence, we would have to throw out everything that science has learned in the last couple of centuries.

Sounds like a lot of work. Is the evidence good enough to justify it?

 

[drkitten]

so, you are saying that Steorn may be illegally soliciting funds to put in their own private pockets for this device while at the same time PUBLICALLY stating they will not accept or seek money from investors until verification?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a fairly standard technique, called "lying." Given your track record in this very thread -- who was Aristotle supposed to have murdered again? -- it's obvious that it's a technique with which you yourself are intimately familiar.

What idiot would give them money when they claim they wont accept it?

An idiot who wants to "get in on the action" in order to make a profit before it's opened to the general public. Again, this can be fairly standard business practice; there are even a number of professional investment (venture capital) firms that go out of their way to look for businesses to capitalized before the businesses even realize that they could use (and reasonably ask for) an influx of new capital.

Any investigator or reporter could test that, offer them money, and if they accept, blow the hole scam wide open.

Not if Steorn bothers to investigate the bona fides of the person offering them money, which is a fairly routine part of any scam. You always check out the mark beforehand.

Sorry, Dr Kitten, I dont find your suggestion rational

But you do find it rational the Steorn has found a way around the laws of thermodynamics. You're more willing to believe in magic than in human stupidity.... Interesting set of priority you have.

 

[WWHP]

My 'point' of posting what a forum member said (I hardly would know if he was right or wrong) was to simply give an example of someone educatedin phsyics and engineering who is discussing/considering the possibility within science but outside the science paradigm.

'raising' red flags? emotionally charged words? are we bulls or something?

 

[WWHP]

Not if Steorn bothers to investigate the bona fides of the person offering them money, which is a fairly routine part of any scam. You always check out the mark beforehand.

Oh my god how do you know that, from watching movies? Gee, isnt what they did in the Sting?

But you do find it rational the Steorn has found a way around the laws of thermodynamics. You're more willing to believe in magic than in human stupidity.... Interesting set of priority you have.

Once again, Dr. Kitten, I am certain when I say I dont know what they have. I am certain when I say that it is an unknown. Philosophically, I am quite open to the possibility, however, that Science could simply be wrong, however small and remote.

I am simply 'hopeful' that Steorn could be right, because if they are right, that is good news for science and the world. ANd if they are wrong, then they are wrong, I lose nothing by keeping an open mind, nothing what soever.

Try it sometime

 

[drkitten]

Philosophically, I am quite open to the possibility, however, that Science could simply be wrong, however small and remote.

However, you're not open to the possibility that Steorn could be engaged in a fraud. Your exact words were that you didn't find that possibility "rational."

You're certain that the statement that Steorn is correct is "unknown."

However, you're also certain that the statement that Steorn is wrong and fraudulent is "false."

There's nothing "open" about your mind, and little that's recognizably "mind" about it.

 

[JonnyFive]

My 'point' of posting what a forum member said (I hardly would know if he was right or wrong) was to simply give an example of someone educatedin phsyics and engineering who is discussing/considering the possibility within science but outside the science paradigm.

'raising' red flags? emotionally charged words? are we bulls or something?

Hardly, but thanks for reducing my point to a neat talking point devoid of its original substance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "science paradigm", as "science" refers to many things, but I'll assume you mean "conventional scientific knowledge." As I pointed out, scientific knowledge is an ever-evolving, ever-changing body of knowledge supported by an excellent method by which to investigate whether or not something occurs in reality or not. To say that scientists adhere to the current body of knowledge to the exclusion of all new knowledge (which, by implication, is why they can't understand the possibilities of perpetual motion) is a simplistic over-generalization.

And, as you are hopefully aware, the phrase "raise red flags" has absolutely nothing to do with bulls.