Ainslie is crippled by her mental models of electricity and current flow. As Donovan Martin said in the June 29 demo, "it is all about her Thesis". Ainslie has her non-physical set of delusions involving "zipons" and "truants" and other things and has no conception of the realities of electromagnetism or Quantum Electrodynamics. All her "experimental" work has been designed, constructed and performed in an effort to _prove her thesis_. She states this overtly many times in her various emissions. She has no idea of the true nature of the Scientific Method. She is convinced from the outset that her jumbled set of incoherent delusional fantasies about "zipons" and the rest is the Absolute Truth. She thinks her "thesis" is superior to and should replace QED! I am not kidding, her hubris and arrogant ignorance actually extend that far.

Her blinders therefore prevent her from seeing experimental evidence and reasoning logically about what she has seen. Further, she has no idea of the complexities of instrumental measurements of electrical parameters, nor is she able to deal with the simple mathematics involved, as we have seen many times in her botched arithmetic. Her idea of math is to multiply together everything in sight, and if a calculator says it, it must be right. Several times she has emitted statements that would seem to indicate that she believes "positive current" and "negative current" are different things and travel differently in circuit elements. Her cartoons in the second daft manuscript, for example, illustrate some of her misconceptions with respect to current flow. I am afraid there is no way that Ainslie will educate herself or allow herself to be educated, as she already "knows" the Truth.

MarkE, you are right about her data selection and cherry-picking. I have previously illustrated how she does this, and I've even posted her admission of ignoring and not reporting data that she didn't like or "understand". She will also attempt to "reinterpret" data in ways that are plainly incorrect and contradicted by the data themselves, such as her bogus Figure 3 scopeshot, where she insists it is giving a correct representation of the current in the circuit, when it plainly isn't and her own demonstrations proved it isn't. There is no hope that Ainslie herself will ever change. She will continue being an object of ridicule, putting forth her insults, false claims and stupid assertions, for as long as she has access to the internet.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 28, 2014, 02:18:50 AM
Ainslie is crippled by her mental models of electricity and current flow. As Donovan Martin said in the June 29 demo, "it is all about her Thesis". Ainslie has her non-physical set of delusions involving "zipons" and "truants" and other things and has no conception of the realities of electromagnetism or Quantum Electrodynamics. All her "experimental" work has been designed, constructed and performed in an effort to _prove her thesis_. She states this overtly many times in her various emissions. She has no idea of the true nature of the Scientific Method. She is convinced from the outset that her jumbled set of incoherent delusional fantasies about "zipons" and the rest is the Absolute Truth. She thinks her "thesis" is superior to and should replace QED! I am not kidding, her hubris and arrogant ignorance actually extend that far.

Her blinders therefore prevent her from seeing experimental evidence and reasoning logically about what she has seen. Further, she has no idea of the complexities of instrumental measurements of electrical parameters, nor is she able to deal with the simple mathematics involved, as we have seen many times in her botched arithmetic. Her idea of math is to multiply together everything in sight, and if a calculator says it, it must be right. Several times she has emitted statements that would seem to indicate that she believes "positive current" and "negative current" are different things and travel differently in circuit elements. Her cartoons in the second daft manuscript, for example, illustrate some of her misconceptions with respect to current flow. I am afraid there is no way that Ainslie will educate herself or allow herself to be educated, as she already "knows" the Truth.

MarkE, you are right about her data selection and cherry-picking. I have previously illustrated how she does this, and I've even posted her admission of ignoring and not reporting data that she didn't like or "understand". She will also attempt to "reinterpret" data in ways that are plainly incorrect and contradicted by the data themselves, such as her bogus Figure 3 scopeshot, where she insists it is giving a correct representation of the current in the circuit, when it plainly isn't and her own demonstrations proved it isn't. There is no hope that Ainslie herself will ever change. She will continue being an object of ridicule, putting forth her insults, false claims and stupid assertions, for as long as she has access to the internet.

It is an interesting position that she has put herself into.  She obviously wants qualified people to take her unique ideas seriously.  That simply can't happen the way that she seems to be going about things.

That's right. The only way she can get any attention is to misrepresent, exaggerate, and lie about what she has or has not done. If she told the truth she would have faded away long ago.

Look at what she has to say about QED! She cannot even attempt to understand what it means for a theory to make accurate predictions of many different quantities, accurate and precise to many decimal places. She pretends QED is some little set of inconsequential postulates, her being utterly incapable of comprehending what it actually is.

Consulting the Wiki:

QuoteIn particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where FULL AGREEMENT between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes ALL PHENOMENA involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a COMPLETE ACCOUNT of matter and light interaction.
In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Richard Feynman called it "the jewel of physics" for its EXTREMELY ACCURATE PREDICTIONS of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.[1]

(emphasis mine)

To tell Ainslie that QED makes predictions that are precise to thirteen significant digits is a waste of breath .... she has no clue what is meant by accuracy, precision, significant digits, or theoretical predictions. Nor does she realize that any "thesis" that pretends to be better than QED has to make all the same correct predictions, and more, to greater accuracy and precision. Her utter arrogance and hubris prevent her from thinking, at all, about these issues. She has not the prerequisites for understanding!

Not only that, but she has also failed utterly in connecting her "experiments" with her "thesis". Her "predictions" are nothing more than flails. She cannot even state a testable hypothesis properly... and we know she cannot test hypotheses experimentally, due to her utter incompetence and lack of education. The best she can do is to try to demonstrate some phenomenon which she believes supports her "thesis".... and when the demonstrations are properly done, without misdirection, fidgeting, fabricated data or lies.... her own demonstrations soundly falsify her claims.

And.... where in my statements above does one find me referring to Ainslie's delusions as a "THEORY"? Ainslie's deluded conjectures do not rise to the level of Theory and never have. Ainslie has no clue as to what a scientific THEORY really is. Her reading comprehension is as usual: she responds not to what people actually SAY but rather to her own distortions and mendacities. I doubt if I have ever referred to her delusional "thesis" as a "theory" just as I refuse to refer to her daft manuscripts as "papers".  Where are the testable predictions, the formal hypotheses, the experimental confirmations, in any of Ainslie's emissions? Nowhere. Her own demonstrations show that she cannot support her conjectures with actual data. Yet QED provides a precise predictive framework that allows scientists and engineers to do things like design and build high-density large scale integrated circuits that behave just as QED -- NOT Ainslie's "zipon" nonsense -- predict they will. She types her words on a computer that could not exist without the understanding of nature and predictive ability of QED!

In the August 11 demonstration she learned all too well that a function generator most definitely passes current.  Whether she has retained that lesson, I cannot say.

And she could have learned it much before that, simply by trying for herself the simple demonstrations I have provided. But that's not really the important point of the quote. Here is the part that is much more significant:

QuoteSince I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your "lessons".

(sic)

Ainslie is unteachable. She already knows everything there is to know, and she knows that everything she knows is right.
It's just too bad she is utterly wrong, over and over again.

There is more in that post that illustrates her overweening arrogance and utter unwillingness to learn from _professionals_ who are more educated than she, by far,  and who actually work for a living in the electronics industry. She is talking to picowatt! 

The last line is another hoot:

QuoteAnd now you are compounding the felony of slander to include allegations of 'lunacy'.

She doesn't even know the difference between libel and slander. Yet she accuses picowatt of "felony", which is of course a libellous statement. It is to laugh out loud !!