Roll on the 20th June

[mango tarbash]

I'm here to learn.

Scientists here to learn also?? What are you saying - I thought you were the authority? You set our mental barriers and tell us what can and can't be done!!  So get lost! If there's friction to ovecome with O.U. - it's you gutter-snipe gnats. Get off your freakin' high-horse you chumps. Regurgitating Newton over and over like some brain-dead Muslim with his Koran isn't going to get anybody thinking outside of the box.

I want to know what a Free Radical thinks - now there's real learning. If I want to be conditioned into accepting barriers like a good little n*b gnosher of approved scientific orthodoxy I'll go out and buy myself a long white coat and start boring everyone with how smart I am and how stupid they are.

Archer is on to something and you schmucks hate it.

[itanimuLLi]

Hey Archer
keep up the good work ,
don`t let them dicurrage you. i`m waiting for the
20th of june and your site is on my  favorites

[sevich]

Hey Archer!

Your writing style kind of reminds me of  "asthweth_nilisti" (also from Australia) are you him/he  ...LOL   

[Earl]

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

If Archer claims that his wheel perpetually rotates in a clockwise direction, this has nothing to do with science.

If he publishes his completed experiment on OU.com such that some of his peers can replicate it, this is the start.  An idea, a claim is not enough, there must be an experiment that others can attempt to replicate, such as the experiment of Pons and Fleischman.

When the peer review is finished and 8 out of 10 peers say the wheel does indeed perpetually rotate, but only in a counter-clockwise direction, this is science.  Then more experiments will be formulated, built and tested and peer reviewed.  This is how science works.

As the brilliant Richard Feynman once said:
"It does not matter how beautiful your theory is,
it does not matter how smart you are.
If it does not agree with experiment, it's wrong."

If you do not build, experiment, and/or take part in peer review, you are maybe a mathematician, an engineer, or physicist, a PC Hero, or something else, but not a scientist. This does not mean you have to peer-review everything that comes along, but it does mean that if peers do not review a validly constructed experiment of Archer, then it does not exist.  This means that Archer is obliged to construct his experiment and take measurements with a certain quality level to be considered for peer review.  The higher the quality of his construction and of his measurements, the more likely peers will consider reviewing his finished experiment.

Notice that I said finished experiment because until it is finished and measured, there really is not much to talk about.  Only when all is finished and measured and documented with quality can one START to confirm the measurements as being valid, rigorous, correct, etc.

Until Archer publishes his experimental results with quality measurements and documentation there is very little to talk about until June or July/August.

Earl

[fastbreeder]

Personally, I don't care if Archer ruffles a few of the Newtonian's feathers, he has afterall not shyed away from saying that he believes Newton is wrong.

Yes, I'm quite clear that he believes Newton is wrong.  However, he hasn't shown that he understands Newtonian mechanics well enough to be able to make that claim.  Instead, he just says to ignore equations and try experiments personally, apparently ignoring that I've already validated many of the equations by personal experiments.  That's why I'd like him to point out exactly where he thinks his device's over-unity behaviour will come from, in terms that don't include 'bullshit' and 'fuck' and 'stupid' and ''.  It's called 'peer review', and it's an essential part of all science, not just Newtonian mechanics.

Cold fusion is an excellent example.  I was studying fusion plasma physics ('hot fusion') at the time, and when Pons and Fleischman laid out the basics of what they thought was happening (deuterium-deuterium fusion in the presence of a palladium matrix, in a test tube filled with heavy water), my professor devised a way to test their basic premise by subjecting a palladium wafer to a deuterium plasma.  If they were correct, he should have seen a thousand times the reaction rate they did.  But instead - nothing.  That's how scientists react to an idea that promises a new set of rules - skepticism combined with an open mind.  If you lack either one, you're not a scientist.

And I do believe in over-unity devices; I have one as my user name - a nuclear reactor that produces more fuel than it consumes.  It would be neat if someone built a simpler OU device in their back yard out of easily-obtainable parts, but I haven't seen where that's going to come out of this device.