Lord Garth said:
VonHelton, one warning for spamming.
Cary L. Brown said:
Tell you what... let's put all our cards on the table here. You know what I do for a living (it's right there in my profile). So, what are your personal qualifications re: discussing these matters? Other than seeming to believe that there's a huge conspiracy between MIT and the Patent Office to suppress a technology that is supposely "cheap and clean," and an annoying tendency to try to "strengthen your arguments" through the use of silly personal snipes, you've failed to demonstrate that you have any actual knowledge of science. That's not to say that you don't have any... but if you do... I'd say it's time to put up or shut up.
Also... how many patents do you have your name on? Just out of curiousity?
VonHelton said:
Lord Garth said:
VonHelton, one warning for spamming.
Backing up my statements with links is NOT SPAMMING, and sneaking in here after I've left for the day & BANNING ME was uncalled for!
![]()
![]()
![]()
Of course, I said nothing of the sort, and you know it. You're using a cheap trick to make it look like you're answering when you're not.VonHelton said:I see, so unless I'm related to Einstein or Edison, or someone of that caliber, I have no place in the debate. Well, I'm glad we cleared that up!
Translation - you have no formal education in the sciences. Correct?You know, I've never been fond of hanging a piece of toilet paper on my wall, telling people how great I am, from some communist indocrination camp, jokingly referred to as "schools of higher learning".
And I can provide you with exact measurements of the levels of oxygen you can expect to see at any altitude. I know that because I've been to school to study those things.I've been told that if you go too high, you'll run out of oxygen.
See, that's one of those utter misconceptions that I was talking about, that anyone who has even a basic foundation in science would never dream of saying.As for science, it runs on theories, not facts. The "theory of relativity & theory of evolution" just to name a few.
It is relevant if you are making references to the patent office somehow suppressing technology (a claim that you DID make, after all!) The USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) isn't even particularly effective at keeping one company from swiping another company's supposedly "protected" technologies. All the USPTO does is provides a forum for creating legally-recognized documentation to support potential future lawsuits. And everything at the USPTO, and every patent-related lawsuit, is considered entirely public. In fact, in order to keep something truly secret, you CANNOT patent it. I've been involved in several instances of Patent litigation. And FYI, I was just awarded another patent today. So, yeah I know a fair amount of how this stuff works.As for patents, I may have a few, but I don't see how that's relavant.
A suggestion to avoid violating the "no spamming" rule...VonHelton said:
Lord Garth said:
VonHelton, one warning for spamming.
Backing up my statements with links is NOT SPAMMING, and sneaking in here after I've left for the day & BANNING ME was uncalled for!
![]()
![]()
![]()
cardinal biggles said:
Tri as we might, even with the wisdom of Solomon, I don't think any of us will convince VonHelton that there isn't a conspiracy to suppress cold fusion.
Cary L. Brown said:
See, that's one of those utter misconceptions that I was talking about, that anyone who has even a basic foundation in science would never dream of saying.
Believe it or not, that's the single most scientifically-sound thing you've said so far in this conversation. And I agree nearly completely, though with some caviots.VonHelton said:Great! When you find the missing link, and can fill the holes in relativity, and other questionable aspects of science, get back to me. Until then, I remain skeptical.Cary L. Brown said:See, that's one of those utter misconceptions that I was talking about, that anyone who has even a basic foundation in science would never dream of saying.
Our perceptions of science are mostly based on observations we got here on Earth. Hence the term "earth centric". There is NO reason to believe our perceptions will remain the same once we leave the protective magnetosphere that surrounds the Earth & Moon.
NONE.
![]()
Cary L. Brown said:
Believe it or not, that's the single most scientifically-sound thing you've said so far in this conversation. And I agree nearly completely, though with some caviots.
On May 11, beginning at 9 AM, the physics students of Bexley High School got a historic opportunity to be the first to learn of the development of a prototype for warp drive technology
Wow. They made a minivan "warp" two miles per hour faster than it was supposed to be going. How big was the electromagnetic device they had to strap to the van to get it to do this? The press release doesn't say.VonHelton said:
Good! Here's something to chew on:
http://press.xtvworld.com/article11448.htmlOn May 11, beginning at 9 AM, the physics students of Bexley High School got a historic opportunity to be the first to learn of the development of a prototype for warp drive technology
A better link (with less clicking going on):
http://www.1888pressrelease.com/bexley-p...-uy9341t6z.html
![]()
But hey, maybe if they use some of that cold fusion stuff, they can make the van go bitchin' fast.No breakthroughs appear imminent. This is a nascent field where a variety of concepts and issues are being explored in the scientific literature, beginning since about the early 1990s. The collective status is still at step 1 and 2 of the scientific method, "defining the problem" and "collecting data," but a small number of approaches are already at step 4, "testing hypotheses;" with experiments underway.
Cautionary note: On a topic this visionary and whose implications are profound, there is a risk of encountering, premature conclusions in the literature, driven by overzealous enthusiasts as well as pedantic pessimists. The most productive path is to seek out and build upon publications that focus on the critical make-break issues and lingering unknowns, both from the innovators' perspective and their skeptical challengers. Avoid works with broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claims, either supportive or dismissive.
I'm sure the black Oil aliens are behind this wacky conspiracy?VonHelton said:
cardinal biggles said:
Tri as we might, even with the wisdom of Solomon, I don't think any of us will convince VonHelton that there isn't a conspiracy to suppress cold fusion.
Ok, here's a test for you:
Go to the patent office, and say you'd like to take out a patent of ANYTHING dealing with cold fusion. A reacor, an engine, a static display, ANYTHING.
....See what happens.
![]()
Woulfe said:
^ Time to put on a tin foil hat, eh ?
- W -
* I should sell tin foil hats, I'd make a mint*
cardinal biggles said:
Wow. They made a minivan "warp" two miles per hour faster than it was supposed to be going. How big was the electromagnetic device they had to strap to the van to get it to do this? The press release doesn't say.VonHelton said:
Good! Here's something to chew on:
http://press.xtvworld.com/article11448.htmlOn May 11, beginning at 9 AM, the physics students of Bexley High School got a historic opportunity to be the first to learn of the development of a prototype for warp drive technology
A better link (with less clicking going on):
http://www.1888pressrelease.com/bexley-p...-uy9341t6z.html
![]()
What I thought was more interesting was one of the NASA sites mentioned in that article. Breakthrough Propulsion Physics certainly has a much more rational take on the progress of this research:
But hey, maybe if they use some of that cold fusion stuff, they can make the van go bitchin' fast.No breakthroughs appear imminent. This is a nascent field where a variety of concepts and issues are being explored in the scientific literature, beginning since about the early 1990s. The collective status is still at step 1 and 2 of the scientific method, "defining the problem" and "collecting data," but a small number of approaches are already at step 4, "testing hypotheses;" with experiments underway.
Cautionary note: On a topic this visionary and whose implications are profound, there is a risk of encountering, premature conclusions in the literature, driven by overzealous enthusiasts as well as pedantic pessimists. The most productive path is to seek out and build upon publications that focus on the critical make-break issues and lingering unknowns, both from the innovators' perspective and their skeptical challengers. Avoid works with broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claims, either supportive or dismissive.
I also found it interesting that of the two groups jointly presenting these results, one had its funding cut (BPP was funded from 1996-2002; since then, all funding for advanced research has been deferred, with no outside research taking place), and the other will be shutting down in the near future (NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts). I guess it's all a big conspiracy. Maybe the Man is just trying to keep us down. Fortunately, he hasn't outlawed tinfoil for us to line our hats with.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.