Quote from: LarryC on May 08, 2008, 08:16:46 PM

I really don't understand why they are so ignorant as to attempt to slow down this research process.
Larry

Larry, the research process is accelerated, not slowed down, when knowledge is added that allows the researcher to avoid blind alleys and to learn by others' previous mistakes. De Palma's didn't work. Tewari's didn't work. Adams' didn't work, etc etc. So the rational scientific approach is to learn from their failures and to use that knowledge to speed up the current work. Do you not agree?

Quote from: OUman on May 08, 2008, 10:31:45 PM

Quote from: LarryC on May 08, 2008, 08:16:46 PM

I really don't understand why they are so ignorant as to attempt to slow down this research process.
Larry

Larry, the research process is accelerated, not slowed down, when knowledge is added that allows the researcher to avoid blind alleys and to learn by others' previous mistakes. De Palma's didn't work. Tewari's didn't work. Adams' didn't work, etc etc. So the rational scientific approach is to learn from their failures and to use that knowledge to speed up the current work. Do you not agree?

The problem is with your definition of didn't work, which is something like A: 'Hey, I've got something that works',  B:  No, what you are trying to do is impossible because I said so and therefore was a failure regardless of your test results!

There is a Chinese proverb that covers this nicely, ?The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it?.

Note: Removed a crude Joke I made.

@aether22,

Really enjoyed your crude joke before removal, but your points left are well made.


@All,

I'm very inspired to write a curriculum called Spook Detection 101. I would like to present a range from the helpful skeptic to the professional Spook. I'm sure my narrow experience would only fill part of this course, so any private emails of previous experiences would be helpful

In the meantime, please keep in mind that the professional Spook is paid an amount(?) for each response that it provokes. I know it is very difficult to resist, the questions are so tantalizing, so easy to take issue. When it is obvious easy, beware of Spook traps, especially when you have to spend time to rip its ignorant ass apart.

Regards,
Larry

OUman,

You are the epitome of the cliche--

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ...."

As Aether 22 so correctly pointed out (first, I might add ... because I had a serious reality conflict in my "relativity-driven" PC ...)--

General and Special Relativity have NOTHING to do with "quantum mechanics!" 

In fact, they are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED versions of "reality."

Further ... Relativity (in general ...) has NOTHING to do with your home electronics, quite apart from its total lack of compatability with quantum mechanics; your HDTV ... your Blackberry and your toaster (unless, perhaps, you are trying to keep up with Mark -- who admits to "using a particle accelerator to REALLY burn toast," when the power company doesn't catch him ...) have NO relationship to Einstein's relativity theories.         

If you doubt any of this (which, of course, in your ignorance you will ...), Einstein himself had MANY highly negative things to say about the relationship between "relativity theory" and "quantum mechanics" in the course of his career -- including this, in 1954, where he doubted the ultimate reality of his own "relativity theories"--


" ... I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air [Relativity], gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics [emphasis and editorial clarification added] ...."

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantum-theory-albert-einstein-quotes.htm


RCH

P.S.  Larry, didn't see your post until after I made mine, and I agree.  But really -- for OUman to implode so publicly ...I guess its hard to get competent help all over these days ....     

Quote from: OilBarren on May 08, 2008, 08:15:42 PM
@ ULI


@ HIS EXCELLENCY - SIR RON OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC

RON CAN YOU OUTLINE YOUR PROCESS - I.E.
FULL SPEED TEST (120 V IN)?
OR 65 V IN - WHICH I LIKE TO DO DEMOS WITH.
(ALSO SEE BELOW)...

[
CHEERS
Thane

Mein Freund,

I hesitated to mention my rather unscientific test.... I don't have a tack, my device differed in several
respects to yours in that I used a solid disc, that is no spokes and thus no openings in the disc,
no cups for the magnets, and an aluminum base plate.

The completed disc would turn up it's rated 3K with no balance problems but I had it on a control,
as seen in the photo, and ran it at "half speed" and closer to full speed as well as low speed.

So was looking for the controlling factor that caused my experiment to differ from yours?
I had one result as matched yours.... it got hot, lol, I've been called Sir Ron before... but they
usually spell 'sir' with a "Cu* "

Ron