Free Energy prize money

[sarkeizen]

OU is exceptionally easy for scientists and for children to validate as I've shown elsewhere on this website.

Yawn.  Take a stats class.

OU is not easy to shove into public domains as it incurs loss of valuable I.P.

Only to the IP holders which is, by your claim millions if not billions of times smaller than those capable of validating OU.  Again your own ideas do not predict the outcome.  So your presuppositions are more likely wrong than right.

[profitis]

Who in their right mind would want to validate ou to public @sarkeizen? What's in it for them?your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is pointless.

[sarkeizen]

Who in their right mind would want to validate ou to public @sarkeizen?

Same thing for any technological advances.  If you actually read science journals (and not just pretend to and then regurgitate titles which you claim support your theories) you would see an amazingly wide range of ideas.  For example time machines have been published in the speculative "D"  branch of the famous physics journal: Physical Review.

What's in it for them?

Wrong question idiot.  It's what's in it for them in NOT publishing.  For the vast majority of people - absolutely nothing.  On the other hand for most people publishing something that violates a known law of physics in a way that is utterly and completely undeniable is likely to advance their career and would be a good candidate for a Nobel.  I hear those net you a million dollars.

your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is

A good use of statistics.  I agree.  You have repeatedly stated that everyone is capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way.  If that's true then the number of potential validations is pretty close to the global population.  Now you claim that there are people who are against this because of IP.  However the people who make money off energy IP is orders and order and orders of magnitude smaller by comparison.

Add to that most people on earth don't have a million dollars or a career in the sciences.  Hence the expectation is we would see a publication.  We do not, so the likely case is that OU isn't as easy or clear as you keep insisting.  QED.

[profitis]

 Quote from sarkeizn:
'Same thing for any technological advances.  If you actually read science journals (and not just pretend to and then regurgitate titles which you claim support your theories) you would see an amazingly wide range of ideas.  For example time machines have been published in the speculative "D"  branch of the famous physics journal: Physical Review.'

End quote

I've seen some good shit in those journals.doesn't mean anybody will take it seriously eg cold fusion.


--- Quote fom profitis ---What's in it for them?
--- End quote ---
Wrong question idiot.  It's what's in it for them in NOT publishing.  For the vast majority of people - absolutely nothing.  On the other hand for most people publishing something that violates a known law of physics in a way that is utterly and completely undeniable is likely to advance their career and would be a good candidate for a Nobel.  I hear those net you a million dollars.'

End quote
This is not a certainty.plenty geniuses in history came up with good shit and got no nominations eg.the guy who discovered/createdthe prototype lithium ion battery.
 
--- Quote ---your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is

--- End quote ---
A good use of statistics.  I agree.  You have repeatedly stated that everyone is capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way.  If that's true then the number of potential validations is pretty close to the global population.  Now you claim that there are people who are against this because of IP.  However the people who make money off energy IP is orders and order and orders of magnitude smaller by comparison.

Add to that most people on earth don't have a million dollars or a career in the sciences.  Hence the expectation is we would see a publication.  We do not, so the likely case is that OU isn't as easy or clear as you keep insisting.  QED.'

End quote

Or the case is that ou is somewhat ignored by the mainstream media for a number of reasons eg not to fuck up the status quo

[sarkeizen]

I've seen some good shit in those journals.doesn't mean anybody will take it seriously eg cold fusion.

The question was "Why would you publish" and the answer is "because it is far more valuable to you to publish than to not publish".  Not publishing gives you absolutely nothing for the vast majority of people.  Publishing gives you a pretty good chance at a million dollars and a career in science.  That is better than most peoples prospects.  So the advantage is there and nothing is stopping them (because according to you ANYONE can do it and make it absolutely perfectly clear that they had accomplished this).

So again the expectation is to see journal articles published specifically validating OU but we don't and Bayes rule tells us that the unmet expectation must reduce the likelihood of either our presuppositions or our outcome. 

So you can either believe that OU doesn't exist OR that you've been lying to us about the complexity in demonstrating it (or both).