Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[markzpeiverson]

He makes a bold statement, right at the outset: that "Einstein's theory is of no practical use in technology". If he is so ignorant as to be unaware of the vast number of applications of relativity in actual daily use (already in 1998 of course) then one must certainly question his authority to declare that "there HAS to be an aether". Perhaps he also believes that the world is flat or that the sun orbits the earth?

Can't think of any practical, daily applications...

So you haven't come across nuclear power yet then?

Of course, the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc^2)... like, DUH! 

Okay, that's ONE element of RT that has produced something of practical use, but its a FAR CRY from, to quote you, "...a vast number of applications...".  If you're a scientist, shame on you!  A true scientist is VERY careful about throwing around adjectives like that...

-Mark

Nice of you to admit to that one little detail but it goes much further, Mark. It really is a vast number of everyday applications. You could not build most of today's integrated circuits without knowledge of quantum mechanics. You would not have a computer, we could not be having this conversation...

Who's gonna be the first to say it? I thought your argument was about Relativity, mainly SR.
But Quantum mechanics is a totally different animal, one Einstein did not believe in, one which contradicts SR.

Hi Aether22, you beat me to it!  Your statements are dead on!

Yes, OUman just attempted to prop up his failing position by trying to change it from Relativity to QM, because QM does have numerous apps.  OUman, you're an amateur, go play somewhere else.  You're not going to get away with such feeble attempts to sway reader opinion on this board.  Truth will prevail here. 

I also find it ironic that QM and Relativity are the major reasons that we don't have a Unified Field theory!  More Kultural Karma?

From what I've seen so far, OUman, or should I say, OUchild, is either a Spook who hasn't made it to the point of taking off the 'training wheels', or is a Pathological Skeptic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism.  There's a great presentation done by a Nobel Laureate on just this topic, but its way too large a file to post here.  OUman, you might want to read it...

Thane, Luc, Aether22, LarryC and all the others who have that true drive to really understand things, keep working to discover what, if anything, is really going on! Most of us are anxious to learn...

-Mark

[markzpeiverson]

First, to all those who are here for some real news, I apologize for taking up your download bandwidth...

For all those Pathological Skeptics (PS), please take some time to read thru the material on the following site, http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html.  For the Spooks, newbies or experienced, this probably won't make any diff since you get paid to do what you do, but my hope for the PSes is that the material on this site might raise your level of self-awareness and help to moderate your skepticism to a healthy level...

OUman, what a coincidence, this site also has that presentation by the Nobel Laureate, Brian Josephson at Cambridge http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/.  Here's the link for it, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf.

-M

[OUman]

... OUman, you're an amateur, go play somewhere else.  You're not going to get away with such feeble attempts to sway reader opinion on this board...

-Mark

What makes you think I'm trying to sway opinion? That clearly would be a waste of time since it's crystal clear that you, for example, have no intention of listening to ideas that are in disagreement with your own. No, I'm asking questions because I'm in search of actual data in order to advance my own learning and understanding of this phenomenon. So far, I have seen no data, none at all, that supports the OU hypothesis and I find this frustrating. I also find it hard to comprehend because according to his video Thane has been working on this since a couple of weeks after 9/11. One would have thought at least some supportive data would have been forthcoming in the nearly 7 years since then.

[JustMe]

No, I'm asking questions because I'm in search of actual data in order to advance my own learning and understanding of this phenomenon.

Oh what a pile of poo. 

[LarryC]

@markzpeiverson 

Thanks for the articles. Interesting and funny.

For those of you that don't have much time, just check out the Characteristics of pseudoskeptics in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism.
How many characteristics are familiar? Does a spook seem more like a Pseudoskeptic?


@JustMe,

LOL.That last one was priceless.


Regards,
Larry