ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[nelsonrochaa]

wise and thoughtful comment

[MarkE]

@Mark E



If we look back in history certain individuals or at best small groups defied the logic and understanding of everyone else present. I understand many may say it was a large group effort however this only occurred after the fact and initially all change was opposed. The Down Wind faster than the wind technology is a perfect example of how everyone used their common sense and assumptions to completely undermine real science. It was an example of how far technology has come and how little our way of thinking has changed.

The DWFTW device is an example of where specialized expertise trumped intuition.  The proponent is a specialist in aerodynamics.  He had a novel and unintuitive idea, and proved that idea first on paper and then in real life.  I don't know anyone who has examined the math presented or the demonstrations and claimed that they were wrong.  In terms of the Wright brothers there was a lot of other simultaneous effort in both the USA and Europe.  The Wright brothers managed to succeed first and rightly get the credit for their achievement. 

I would agree however how do we know we are being objective and how do we know what we are seeing?.

As individuals we don't.  By following the scientific method, as a community overall we will tend to be objective.

We may think we are being objective but that is simply an opinion because fundamentally we oppose all change. To be honest I always thought I was rational, objective and open minded then I used critical thinking to take a third person perspective and examine my thoughts and found I was not so much. I understand everyone else in the world may believe they are objective and open minded however on examination I have come to understand I am not. I hope to change that and we should be honest with ourselves first.

No one operates without bias.  That's why the scientific method is so important.

That line of reason holds until we understand all the most important stuff is hidden from us. You will never observe a field fundamentally and yet we know something is present. You will never observe the smallest most fundamental particles nor the end of the universe. We have literally no real insight into the infinitely small or large and yet we feel we do understand them. So yes I do make arguments from ignorance because I understand in many ways I am ignorant. The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one.

Personal bias is distinct from what is and is not observable.  Personal bias makes transparency and careful design and execution of null experiments important checks.  The argument from ignorance is that because we don't know many things we should distrust that for which we have accumulated good evidence.  It is a logical fallacy.

To be honest I agree with what you have said however as I said we can prove something by experiment and still be completely wrong.

Philosophers can argue about ultimate truth.  Science is the expression of our best understanding of our surroundings at the time of the expression.

I think the most fundamental mistake relates to common sense which is so strange I'm not even sure I agree with myself,lol. For instance I drop a ball and I observe it fall, then I conclude all things heavier than air must fall then common sense tells me nothing heavier than air could possibly fly.

Well then you would have drawn a generalization based on ignoring those winged things chirping outside the window.

This is the process our mind uses to rationalize things, this is how our mind works. We make observations then try to rationalize how the observation relates to everything else. Generally speaking the observation is biased because it is based on relationships which may or may not exist derived from common sense. Then we see John Hutchison's floating bowling ball and all hell breaks loose.

Please don't tell me you take John Hutchison for anything other than the cheap faker that he has proven himself to be.

Common sense tells us no, no,no this cannot be because I dropped a ball and it fell, we all dropped a ball and it fell.

John Hutchison has used a series of cheap, and I emphasize cheap photographic tricks, up to and including suspending props with threads.  Ed Wood would have loved him.

In any case you are perfectly correct and everything you have said is reasonable and logical. It all works perfectly well right up to that single moment when it doesn't... that's the part I'm interested in.

That's great.  Now all you have to do is get to that moment.  Professor Sheehan who pursues the thankless task of looking for exceptions to the Second Law rightly says that the Second Law always works ... until it doesn't.  Until and if such a moment occurs, it remains a law.

AC

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

The DWFTW device is an example of where specialized expertise trumped intuition.  The proponent is a specialist in aerodynamics.  He had a novel and unintuitive idea, and proved that idea first on paper and then in real life.  I don't know anyone who has examined the math presented or the demonstrations and claimed that they were wrong.

I would agree however you missed my point and it should be noted that the inventors were attacked and condemned on a scale few can even imagine. The video's went viral overnight and most all the supposed experts claimed it was a fake and the inventors frauds. In fact it was noted by many students that their professor's refused to even look at the technology. I found the psychology of the responses much more interesting than the actual technology. I have to wonder how many here claimed they were frauds?.

No one operates without bias.  That's why the scientific method is so important.

I hope you do not mean the scientific method where a recent study found 47% of scientists admitted to altering or knowing someone who altered their data to suit their own best interests.To be honest even I was shocked at the magnitude of the problem. You see science always involves people and as much as some would have us believe science can stand on it's own we know it cannot. Science is biased because people are biased, they are inseparable.

Please don't tell me you take John Hutchison for anything other than the cheap faker that he has proven himself to be.

To be honest I do not know however I do know myself and another person once observed an unidentified flying object do impossible things. A massive object hovered in place making no sound and another smaller object left the first making a wide sweeping 90 Deg turn then accelerated to astronomical speeds leaving earths atmosphere, no sound, no plume from the rear and no vapor trail. As such John Hutchison levitating a bowling ball would seem rather trivial don't you think?.
You see once a person has seen the impossible first hand as a fact which defies all known science the standard scientific diatribe regurgitated by most becomes a mute point. It becomes almost comical that there could be such a complete disconnect between an observed fact and others opinions.


I thought about my observation a great deal and came to the conclusion much of science is about opinions not facts. You see I know what I observed however I have no proof thus my claim must automatically be rejected by everyone else. So what were really saying is the facts in themselves do not matter in any way unless I can prove them to you personally. You cannot and will not believe a word I have to say regardless of the real facts I know until you personally have the proof you need in hand. So we should be clear that science and facts are always relative to the observer.


It is a strange thing is it not?, why I could have a free energy device operating right in front of me as I type this response to you and you being many hundreds of miles away may have the opinion that the very thing operating right in front of me is in fact impossible. Which raises the question, do your personal opinions make my reality any less true or factual?, well of course not that's just silly.


AC

[a.king21]

....

[MarkE]

@Mark E

I would agree however you missed my point and it should be noted that the inventors were attacked and condemned on a scale few can even imagine. The video's went viral overnight and most all the supposed experts claimed it was a fake and the inventors frauds.

I saw discussion of this several places and I know that I didn't see how it could work at first either. I think I read an article on it before they ran their trials. In some matters the truth is not intuitive.

In fact it was noted by many students that their professor's refused to even look at the technology.

I would say claims and not technology at the time as the dispute was whether the claims were correct or not.  When I first heard about this thing it was from an article where the proponents made it very clear that it works because the wheels drive the prop. Shame on professors who didn't pay attention to that.  Maybe it gave them a dose of humility.

I found the psychology of the responses much more interesting than the actual technology. I have to wonder how many here claimed they were frauds?.

Can't you search and find out?

I hope you do not mean the scientific method where a recent study found 47% of scientists admitted to altering or knowing someone who altered their data to suit their own best interests.

Someone's title does not define how they actually conduct themselves.  If nearly half of scientists are committing academic fraud, then that is a big problem.

To be honest even I was shocked at the magnitude of the problem. You see science always involves people and as much as some would have us believe science can stand on it's own we know it cannot.

Science does stand on its own.  It is science embodied by exercise of the scientific method that has outed academic frauds that I know about.

Science is biased because people are biased, they are inseparable.

Individual claims and reports are biased.  The scientific method does a very remarkable job of eliminating bias.

To be honest I do not know however I do know myself and another person once observed an unidentified flying object do impossible things. A massive object hovered in place making no sound and another smaller object left the first making a wide sweeping 90 Deg turn then accelerated to astronomical speeds leaving earths atmosphere, no sound, no plume from the rear and no vapor trail. As such John Hutchison levitating a bowling ball would seem rather trivial don't you think?.

Our senses are very flawed.  We are easily fooled.  John Hutchison has never conducted a clean experiment.  He is no representation of legitimate science or engineering.  He is an example of the kind of deliberate fraud that clean experiments expose.

You see once a person has seen the impossible first hand as a fact which defies all known science the standard scientific diatribe regurgitated by most becomes a mute point. It becomes almost comical that there could be such a complete disconnect between an observed fact and others opinions.

Once again, as you note any individual carries their own biases and limited perceptions.  If one wants to get to the truth one needs to design experiments that are immune to those biases and limited perceptions.

I thought about my observation a great deal and came to the conclusion much of science is about opinions not facts.

No, many people do not follow the scientific method, and/or commit fallacies such as asserting authority.  Reliably obtained data always tells the real story.

You see I know what I observed however I have no proof thus my claim must automatically be rejected by everyone else.

Not really.  The problem is that you report a set of observations that are extraordinary and cannot be tested.  As such, at best they can be noted.  They lack foundation for acceptance.

So what were really saying is the facts in themselves do not matter in any way unless I can prove them to you personally.

The problem here is that you are assuming that what you perceived is fact when you know:  1) Perceptions are not reliable, and 2) Your perceptions require extraordinary conclusions that contradict present understanding.  That makes the chances of your perceptions being correct quite low.  In order to pursue the matter a means of gathering defining data reliably would have to be devised.

You cannot and will not believe a word I have to say regardless of the real facts I know until you personally have the proof you need in hand.

I go with what the evidence says.  If you or anyone else reports something extraordinary then the only way to validate such an observation is with reliable data.

So we should be clear that science and facts are always relative to the observer.

Absolutely not for the reasons explained above.  The scientific method among other things takes the singular out of observer.

It is a strange thing is it not?, why I could have a free energy device operating right in front of me as I type this response to you and you being many hundreds of miles away may have the opinion that the very thing operating right in front of me is in fact impossible.

Your ability to convince rational people of an extraordinary claim comes down to your ability to produce reliable evidence for that claim.

Which raises the question, do your personal opinions make my reality any less true or factual?, well of course not that's just silly.

Opinion does not define reality.  That is one of the reasons I chuckle every time some promoter of magic says the magic won't work because of skepticism.

AC