Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[WilbyInebriated]

still here with your personal vendetta fuzzy? why am i not surprised...

i see you going on aand on and on about PROVE in a "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"...  you don't seem to be aware of what can and cannot be "proven".

some salient quotes from some "authorities". i know how y'all love your appeals to authority.

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."  --  Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953  (emphasis mine)


"If you thought that science was certain â€" well, that is just an error on your part."  -- Richard Feynman.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required â€" not proven."  --  Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941. (emphasis mine)



in truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. all scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey)... 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

It would have been very different if you had made a self-runner.  though I do agree with you it's very sad for all those concerned.

No cat.  We claim we do have a self runner.  But our proof is nowhere near as elegant as Romero's.

regards,
Rosemary

[fuzzytomcat]

still here with your personal vendetta fuzzy? why am i not surprised...

i see you going on aand on and on about PROVE in a "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"...  you don't seem to be aware of what can and cannot be "proven".

some salient quotes from some "authorities". i know how y'all love your appeals to authority.

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."  --  Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953  (emphasis mine)


"If you thought that science was certain â€" well, that is just an error on your part."  -- Richard Feynman.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required â€" not proven."  --  Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941. (emphasis mine)



in truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. all scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey)... 

Oh Willy,

The only "LP" collaborator of erroneous remarks .....

First you of all people should know that "PROVE" refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently on the device.

There are many missing items that have not been addressed by Rosemary .... by design.


The accurate complete circuit of the COP> INFINITY device

The complete parts list including part numbers of the COP>  INFINITY device

The complete list of settings ( knob positions ) of all the testing equipment and probe locations used during all testing of the COP> INFINITY device


Go away .... I will not answer you again because of you obvious distractions and "HARASSMENT"


Fuzzy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks for the reminder Wilby. 



Check your PM's.

[hartiberlin]

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .



To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots
from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,
which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release all
data in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up
and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there were
measurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagramm, etc, etc....

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document
it the way shown above very exactly.....?

Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community...

Regards, Stefan.