Split Thread Mainstream vs. fringe science

theprestige said:
All the time. The claims of hot fusion researchers are public knowledge. Their plans methods, and setbacks are openly discussed. The scientific basis for their work is no secret. The technical challenges they must overcome are well understood.

Hot fusion researchers operate in a spirit of transparency that puts Mills and his supporters to shame. Or would, if Mills and his supporters were capable of shame.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to accomplish nothing with an unbelievable amount of money spent as long as you make no claims? Someone unwilling to even make claims should be a monumental red flag.
 
Argumemnon said:
If you don't understand what they're talking about, how can you tell?
Click to expand...

Because their outlandish extrapolations never lead to anything tangible. I said before it seems to me people thought they could be Einstein too because he also made outlandish extrapolations. But in his case he had talent/genius and was accurate.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
We don't know. The entire model could be completely wrong and both the mainstream and Mills could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Everything might be wrong. So what?

And the fact that mainstream theoretical physics is incredibly stagnant and continues to not lead to any major new discoveries or confirmation.
Click to expand...

Fact? It's not even true at all. There are major discoveries all the time.

You might not know about them or be able to recognise them as such, but they are there.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Because their outlandish extrapolations never lead to anything tangible.
Click to expand...

That's absolute nonsense.

If you lived in the 1920s and talking about quantum mechanics you'd say the exact same thing, and here we are in the next century using the fruits of that theory every day.

You are simply, fundamentally ignorant about science.
 
The Man said:
The pattern of people telling you that science is not only fallible but explicitly recognizes that fallibility and aims to correct it. As you repeatedly asserted they thought otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yet how much is spent on these projects that bring little results based on theories that never produce anything?

Nice try sneaking that one on there...
 
Argumemnon said:
That's absolute nonsense.

If you lived in the 1920s and talking about quantum mechanics you'd say the exact same thing, and here we are in the next century using the fruits of that theory every day.

You are simply, fundamentally ignorant about science.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assertion that all of quantum mechanics is responsible for advances in science.

We don't know what we might have accomplished if other theories had been allowed to prosper. You assume what was done is all that could have been done. We will never know because the system prevented that.
 
Aber said:
Can you explain why not?

You appear to be heading into trolling territory now.
Click to expand...

How is it trolling to ask for an explanation?

I have already explained why I haven't. There are many factors here you aren't aware of.

There is key information in the information I am revealing that if I reveal it here and it begins to spread could prevent people from accepting my info widely when I release it on a wide scale.

It would be like a screenwriter giving away an incredible twist ending to a movie he was writing then trying to make the movie when people would already know the twist.

If many people on the internet start giving this info out as their own then I have a more difficult time trying to get attention later. There would be nothing special about what I represent.

That is because much of the info I am trying to convey is already out there. It's how the pieces fit together and key elements that people don't realize.

Plus many other factors related to this.

If i don't give away key information here to you all it actually allows me to explain my position to you more than if I gave it away. Being vague about the info allows me to give you more info.
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
I disagree with your assertion that all of quantum mechanics is responsible for advances in science.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

We don't know what we might have accomplished if other theories had been allowed to prosper. You assume what was done is all that could have been done. We will never know because the system prevented that.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about? The fact that we have technology right now that works only because we used the principles of QM to make it work shows that QM works. There might be a better theory out there that can replace it but the fact remains that QM works in the real world.

The point, of course, is that you might not have seen the crucial use of QM back in the 20s.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Some words...

There is key information in the information I am revealing that if I reveal it here and it begins to spread could prevent people from accepting my info widely when I release it in a wide scale.

Some more words...


If i don't give away key information it actually allows me to explain my position more than if I gave it away.
Click to expand...

Er hahahahahaha?...
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I disagree with your assertion that all of quantum mechanics is responsible for advances in science.

We don't know what we might have accomplished if other theories had been allowed to prosper. You assume what was done is all that could have been done. We will never know because the system prevented that.
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about moving the goalposts. You start by posting that theoretical physics has never led to anything tangible (scroll up and read where you said it before you post the knee-jerk denial) on the Internet, for crying out loud, which is carried over devices designed using the predictions of theoretical physics (I know this, I design them). As soon as you're pulled up on that self-refuting statement, you immediately retreat to the unfalsifiable position that there might be some other unspecified theory that might have done better. If you're so damned clever, tell us what that theory is, and take the Nobel prize that's on offer, as anyone who could have thought of one in the last century or so would inevitably have done. And if you don't know of a better 'ole, stop whingeing about the one you're in.

Science doesn't suppress better theories, it embraces them. Rather, it supersedes worthless theories; you know, the ones that don't lead to, for example, the greatest communications system in history.

Dave
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I disagree with your assertion that all of quantum mechanics is responsible for advances in science.
Click to expand...
That isn't what he said.

SkepticalTheorist said:
We don't know what we might have accomplished if other theories had been allowed to prosper. You assume what was done is all that could have been done. We will never know because the system prevented that.
Click to expand...
Who knows what wonders dowsing/tarot/astrology/ouija boards/seances/remote viewing/PSI/ESP/telekinesis/homeopathy/kundalini and so forth might have achieved by now?

Everybody knows. The answer is nothing. And I speak from long experience of exploration of so-called "alternative" disciplines. Without exception, every single one turns out to be as useful as a chocolate crash helmet.

What you seem to be proposing is that every claim is deserving of equal status and funding. If you really believe that, then where is the research funding for flat earth?

Or, I claim that 14 billion years ago the universe popped into being thanks to the presence of universe forming pixies. Sadly, the pixies died in the effort. Good luck proving me wrong.

Or, I claim that Santa is real. Millions of people worldwide believe in him, every year tangible evidence in the form of presents show up, NORAD tracks his progress around the world by RADAR. Even God does not have such actual evidence.

Or, I could claim hollow earth whereby we all live on the inner surface of a sphere, prove me wrong.

Are you getting the picture? The burden of proof rests with the affirmative claimant.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Wow, talk about moving the goalposts. You start by posting that theoretical physics has never led to anything tangible (scroll up and read where you said it before
Click to expand...

I am talking about the Solvay conference - quantum mechanics specifically and the same mentality that has continued since.

Human nature is try to control everything. I think that is why we see such a backlash against Mills.
 
abaddon said:
That isn't what he said.
Click to expand...

It would have to be for him to be against my position.

What you seem to be proposing is that every claim is deserving of equal status and funding. If you really believe that, then where is the research funding for flat earth?
Click to expand...

This is a strawman. It doesn't have to be to that extreme. Just as it doesn't have to be to the extreme it is right now the other way.

Or, I claim that 14 billion years ago the universe popped into being thanks to the presence of universe forming pixies. Sadly, the pixies died in the effort. Good luck proving me wrong.
Click to expand...

How are many current quantum theories different now?
 
fagin said:
Anything that works is 'allowed to prosper'. No one can stop it.

Some absolute garbage allows snake oil salesmen to prosper too, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Not everything works immediately.

The system now seems to be designed so that only the things that work mathematically prosper. Even if it works in the real world but not mathematically it can't be real.
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
Can you explain why?
Click to expand...
Because you are wasting your time and our time. Nothing substantive can come of your absurd non-reveal, because, well, you're not actually saying anything. So you asked what you should do - either tell us what your big idea is or shut up.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I am talking about the Solvay conference - quantum mechanics specifically and the same mentality that has continued since.

Human nature is try to control everything. I think that is why we see such a backlash against Mills.
Click to expand...

This isn't the Mills thread but I'll answer anyway. The reason we see opposition to Mills is because his ideas are theoretically, empirically and practically rubbish, he has promised much and done nothing for 30 years apart from fraudulently relieving his investors of 10s of millions of dollars. That's why. [/derail]
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Not everything works immediately.

The system now seemed to be designed so that only the things that work mathematically prosper. Even if it works in the real world but not mathematically it can't be real.
Click to expand...
Can you give us one example of something that works in the real world but not mathematically. Just one thing.
 
hecd2 said:
Because you are wasting your time and our time. Nothing substantive can come of your absurd non-reveal, because, well, you're not actually saying anything. So you asked what you should do - either tell us what your big idea is or shut up.
Click to expand...

How do you know nothing substantive can come of it? I am saying something. I am telling my position.

If you had world changing information that you needed to get out to a wide scale but no one in the media would listen to you what would you do?

Telling people here could damage my chances of getting this info out on a wide scale.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
How do you know nothing substantive can come of it? I am saying something. I am telling my position.
Click to expand...
No you're not. You're hinting that you have a big secret but you won't tell us anything about it. It's utterly childish.
If you had world changing information that you needed to get out to a wide scale but no one in the media would listen to you what would you do?
Click to expand...
put up or shut up.
Telling people here could damage my chances of getting this info out on a wide scale.
Click to expand...
Then you should shut up.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hecd2 said:
Can you give us one example of something that works in the real world but not mathematically. Just one thing.
Click to expand...

Cold fusion and Mills' tech. Also, inventors who produced
"free energy tech" and died or disappeared.

I know of at least 3 other instances tied to the info I have.
 
hecd2 said:
No you're not. You're hinting that you have a big secret but you won't tell us anything about it. It's utterly childish.
.
Click to expand...

You have no reasoning behind what you are saying. People like you telling people to shut up is why I can't post here.. and you wonder why.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
How do you know nothing substantive can come of it? I am saying something. I am telling my position.

If you had world changing information that you needed to get out to a wide scale but no one in the media would listen to you what would you do?

Telling people here could damage my chances of getting this info out on a wide scale.
Click to expand...

Since you are refusing to offer any evidence to back up your claims, your opinion means nothing.

Meaningless.

Incapable of swaying anyone.

You are going in circles of rhetorical wankery. You make unsupported assertions and then ask questions, rejecting the answers people give as "too lawyerly." What are you hoping to achieve with this behavior?
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Cold fusion and Mills' tech. Also, inventors who produced
"free energy tech" and died or disappeared.

I know of at least 3 other instances tied to the info I have.
Click to expand...
No.
I said one example of something that works in the real world but not mathematically. Neither of those examples work in the real world so they don't count. So far zero examples.
 
halleyscomet said:
Since you are refusing to offer any evidence to back up your claims, your opinion means nothing.

Meaningless.

Incapable of swaying anyone.

You are going in circles of rhetorical wankery. You make unsupported assertions and then ask questions, rejecting the answers people give as "too lawyerly." What are you hoping to achieve with this behavior?
Click to expand...

That's a vast over simplification. I have a very strong curiosity. I am trying to see how people here think. I am trying to convey my position and how I see things here with my insight.

Why is it necessary to reveal ALL my information? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

I am giving a vague sense of the info i have and a detailed explanation of the position I am in. It relates to Mills as well. it relates to skeptics.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
abaddon said:
That isn't what he said.
Click to expand...

It would have to be for him to be against my position.
Click to expand...
WOW, now you are not only going to tell Argumemnon what he said (despite the evidence in this very thread), you are also going to tell him what he thinks.

SkepticalTheorist said:
What you seem to be proposing is that every claim is deserving of equal status and funding. If you really believe that, then where is the research funding for flat earth?
Click to expand...

This is a strawman. It doesn't have to be to that extreme. Just as it doesn't have to be to the extreme it is right now the other way.
Click to expand...
Clearly, you have an issue understanding what a strawman is or is not. Let me reframe. Do you believe that flat earth researchers (and there are many) should be funded? Why or why not?


SkepticalTheorist said:
Or, I claim that 14 billion years ago the universe popped into being thanks to the presence of universe forming pixies. Sadly, the pixies died in the effort. Good luck proving me wrong.
Click to expand...

How are many current quantum theories different now?
Click to expand...
Have you counted the pixies?

Seriously, you claim to have a theory of something you decline to identify. Since that is an absence of a claim, according to your rules of engagement, I am free to insert whatever I like into that gap. It is therefore my claim that your hypothesis depends on pixies. Prove me wrong.

Since you are unable to prove me wrong, we can assume that you accept the universe creating pixies are fundamental to your hypothesis. You agree the universe creating pixies are real, created the universe and died in the effort. My evidence? How many pixies have you seen lately? That's right, extinct. They died giving birth to you.

All of that is complete and utter bollocks, but you see how easy it is? No?
 
hecd2 said:
No.
I said one example of something that works in the real world but not mathematically. Neither of those examples work in the real world so they don't count. So far zero examples.
Click to expand...

Mills tech and cold fusion do work. It takes time to develop technology. Why wouldn't you explore that other than it not working mathematically?
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
You have no reasoning behind what you are saying. People like you telling people to shut up is why I can't post here.. and you wonder why.
Click to expand...
But you are posting here. In a few days you have written half as many posts than I have in several years. The difference is that your posts are entirely content-free.

I have explained the reason why you should put up or shut up. The fact that you ignore that reason doesn't mean that I haven't given you one.
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
Mills tech and cold fusion do work. It takes time to develop technology. Why would you explore that other than it not working mathematically?
Click to expand...
In order to persuade us here that those are examples of things that work in the real world but not mathematically, you'd have to 1) persuade us that they do work and 2) show how they fail to work mathematically. Good luck with that.
 
hecd2 said:
But you are posting here. In a few days you have written half as many posts than I have in several years. The difference is that your posts are entirely content-free.
Click to expand...

You think asking questions isn't worthwhile content? I think you need to re-evaluate your life.

I have explained the reason why you should put up or shut up. The fact that you ignore that reason doesn't mean that I haven't given you one.
Click to expand...

No, you really haven't.
 
Last edited:
hecd2 said:
In order to persuade us here that those are examples of things that work in the real world but not mathematically, you'd have to 1) persuade us that they do work and 2) show how they fail to work mathematically. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

People have been convinced cold fusion works even though it isn't consistent. Not being consistent doesn't mean they don't work. Mills tech works it just isn't commercializable. That doesn't mean it doesn't work...

All critics talk about here is that they don't work mathematically which is what current theory is based on.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
People have been convinced cold fusion works even though it isn't consistent. Not being consistent doesn't mean they don't work. Mills tech works it just isn't commercializable. That doesn't mean it doesn't work...

All critics talk about here is that they don't work mathematically which is what current theory is based on.
Click to expand...

If those things actually work, there IS math to describe how they work, even if it hasn't been discovered yet.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
All critics talk about here is that they don't work mathematically which is what current theory is based on.
Click to expand...


Try that line of argument with the IRS sometime. "The only arguments you make that I owe this tax are mathematical ones. You're using sums and products and percentages. But it's all just numbers on paper. How can we be sure any of that mathematics is valid in the real world?"

That might not be a fair comparison though. Reality is far stricter and far less forgiving than the IRS.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I disagree with your assertion that all of quantum mechanics is responsible for advances in science.

We don't know what we might have accomplished if other theories had been allowed to prosper. You assume what was done is all that could have been done. We will never know because the system prevented that.
Click to expand...

Without quantum mechanics, we couldn't explain how semiconductors work, so the theoretical basis for developing the transistor wouldn't exist, so there would be no development of the microchip, so no computers or mobile phones, to take a couple of very obvious examples.

All you need to do to improve on quantum mechanics is to produce a theory that can predict better than quantum mechanics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom