The Solution vs Hoax equation

[audiomaker]

More aliens?!

Where are my pills?...

[TinselKoala]

@Tusk: I'll ignore for the moment your dismissal of my  knowledge and my analysis of your little thought experiment, and tell you this: Either you have missed the point or I have not made myself clear. Neither I nor the people I sometimes work with care _one whit_ about theoretical explanations or predictions of unusual behaviour. We want only --at this stage-- to "see the sausages". That is, if you are making some extraordinary claim of unusual behaviour of a prototype system, fine. Who cares whether you are doing it by merging Newton with Einstein and throwing in a dash of Tesla and Bedini, or whether you have made a pact with Lucifer himself and forfeited your immortal soul in exchange for a lifetime of Free Energy. I DON'T CARE. And, until you have demonstrated your _real_ anomaly and shown that it cannot be understood by "normal" physics, the issue of the viability of any theory that is non-standard is moot. Show me the sausages. I don't need to know your theory about how Ethiopian spices are better than Eritrean spices for your particular sausage because the moon is brighter on that side of Africa..... I just need to see, and taste, the sausages. If they blow my mind with their incredible, unobtainable elsewhere flavor, THEN we can talk about constructing testable hypotheses from your overarching theoretical framework and see what we can rule out.
No sausages.... no recipe required, not interested in hypotheticals. This is where, for example, Mister Wayne breaks down. He will not show sausages, only projections of future sausages, and he continues to improve his sausage machine... but as long as it makes no sausages, it's a waste of my time.

If you can point me in the direction of that representative of the establishment who deals with impossible discoveries which by their very nature call into question even the most fundamental tenets of that vast and seemingly most propitious body of scientific knowledge, I shall indeed be very obliged to you for your assistance.

Check your PMs.

[Tusk]

Neither I nor the people I sometimes work with care _one whit_ about theoretical explanations or predictions of unusual behaviour.

I was genuinely not aware of this TK. Your response (and that of others) left me with the impression that it was otherwise.

So perhaps we now have a mutual understanding of the basic requirements; is this thread the place to advance the investigation, or would it be more acceptable to discuss the matter either in private or elsewhere on this forum? Or have I misunderstood your level of interest?

And btw, what probably appeared as my 'dismissal' of your  knowledge and your analysis earlier was in fact the exact opposite. Anyone familiar with classical physics would likely not see the paradox, which is neither an accusation or condemnation. I would be surprised if you believed your own experience with the education system to have been completely without fault. Knowledge is everything, as they say, but there is an occasional benefit to being in a position to disregard convention. 

[TinselKoala]

I was genuinely not aware of this TK. Your response (and that of others) left me with the impression that it was otherwise.

Sorry if I misled in any way. And perhaps the statement was a bit too strong anyway. Several of the people I mentioned to you in the PM are strong theorists after all and would be interested in any _coherent_ theory that is also consistent with what is known. But theory is nothing without experimentation, and there's a quote from Richard Feynman, the theorist heavily responsible for the most accurate theory of reality that we know, quantum electrodynamics.

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

So perhaps we now have a mutual understanding of the basic requirements; is this thread the place to advance the investigation, or would it be more acceptable to discuss the matter either in private or elsewhere on this forum? Or have I misunderstood your level of interest?

I am against "private" discussions in the context of this forum. Either you want to discuss things fully and openly on this "opensource" forum.... or you want to keep things private. I don't think you can do both. If you are investigating something and you want lots of help-- and criticism both constructive and destructive-- then this is one place you can do that. If you have an agenda to push and a point to prove, but don't really have something you need help developing, well, there are plenty of those people around too.
This thread, I thought, was about winnowing out hoaxes from probable solutions. Does your device/program fit into either of those categories? If it's a solution, then open a thread and show us how it is. If it's the other.... well, you could be hoaxing yourself, stranger things have happened.
I'm interested in many things, mostly things I can touch and feel. Right now, my machine tools and much of my mechanical test equipment is unavailable to me, since it's in Canada and I'm in south Texas. So I'm devoting most of my personal interest to the electronic gadgets. I don't really know how to gauge my level of interest appropriately without knowing just what it is you are claiming, in a paragraph or less, and what the numbers are, the data, that support your claims, in a couple of graphs or a nice YT video of it doing whatever it is it does that nothing else does.

And btw, what probably appeared as my 'dismissal' of your  knowledge and your analysis earlier was in fact the exact opposite. Anyone familiar with classical physics would likely not see the paradox, which is neither an accusation or condemnation.

I think several people who had quite good familiarity with classical physics, the mechanics of materials and statics and dynamics from an engineering perspective have told you that there is no paradox in what you showed.

I would be surprised if you believed your own experience with the education system to have been completely without fault.

By and large I submitted to the knowledge of those who taught me. There have been one or two incompetents or persons whose knowledge of their subject clearly was inferior to my own. I have trained in a Japanese martial art for over 20 years and I know what it is to have knowledgeable teachers and what it means to submit to instruction. I also know what can happen when you question your teachers... and you turn out to be wrong.

Knowledge is everything, as they say, but there is an occasional benefit to being in a position to disregard convention.

Just make sure of your position, before you yank on that lever. Convention just might be sturdier than you think and your position could crumble under your feet.
For your viewing pleasure, please look up and watch "The Way of All Flesh", an excellent documentary by Adam Curtis, telling the story of HeLa tissue culture cells and cancer research in the last decades of the 20th century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0lMrp_ySg8

The system won't let me send another PM right now, but in answer to your question.... look at the "about" tab, I would suggest that you send a fax with a good "hook" and your contact info.

[audiomaker]

...and while my thread becomes the inevitable sausage swinging contest....

quick, yet unrelated observations....

1.  I am not 100% convinced this forum is completely open source at this point.

2. What I am getting from Tusk (correct me if I'm wrong), is simply that he doubts others will understand the phenomena he is describing, therefore not validate it based on misunderstanding, not because it isn't there or until now discovered (is that close?).

3. TK, paraphrasing your "show me the sausage and we'll figure it out later" is not fundamentally unlike my presentation of "show me it works and we'll do the math and data later".

4. I feel my desire to improve the mechanism with which this community winnows the wheat was mostly ignored here, so I'm going to pout like a little girl

Cheers!