It appears that the involvement of so many highly skilled and knowledgeable people who reject Rosemary's claim of having achieved overunity and a COP = infinity result, is now being accepted as proof that those same people are attempting to suppress a significant technology. This leaves me not only speechless, but without option.
From this point on I will not waste a single second of my time on Rosemary Ainslie or her fraudulent claims regarding overunity energy generation. I wish it to be noted that the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide said proof in support of any claims made, this has not been forthcoming at a level of quality compliant with the scientific method or independent reproducibility, but has actually been deliberately avoided at all costs by the RATS, hence the caveats on providing said proof. The game cannot continue if the proof is presented!
So all you “believers†have my blessing to attempt to replicate the RATS results, go on try it. Invest your time and money into this project, your knowledge and expertise, and you will get out exactly what you put in. I am confident in stating this.
Before you dive headlong into this “technology†have a read through these links and then objectively assess how this information is relevant or not, to Rosemary Ainslie, her circuit and her claims, so that you can make an informed decision.
When every single one of you who invests in this, years down the line, breaks down and starts crying in frustration, go crying to Rosemary, not me or any of the others who have tried to help you understand what has gone on. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_proof Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to
evidence which serves to either support or counter a
scientific theory or
hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be
empirical and properly documented in accordance with
scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the
natural sciences or
social sciences (see
qualitative research and
intersubjectivity). Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and
statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence Scientific method refers to a body of
techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new
knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering
empirical and
measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
[2] The
Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of
hypotheses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility Reproducibility is the degree of agreement between measurements or observations conducted on
replicate specimens in different locations by different people. Reproducibility is part of the
precision of a
test method.
[1]Reproducibility also refers to the ability of an entire
experiment or study to be reproduced, or by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the
scientific method. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure. The basic idea can be seen in
Aristotle's dictum that there is no scientific knowledge of the individual, where the word used for individual in Greek had the connotation of the idiosyncratic, or wholly isolated occurrence. Thus all knowledge, all science, necessarily involves the formation of general concepts and the invocation of their corresponding symbols in language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction#Retraction_in_scienceRetractionIn science, a retraction of a published
scientific article indicates that the original article should not have been published and that its data and conclusions should not be used as part of the foundation for future
research. The common reasons for the retraction of articles are
scientific misconduct including plagiarism, serious errors, and duplicate/concurrent publishing (self-plagiarism). The retraction may be initiated by the editors of the journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). A lesser withdrawal of content than a full retraction may be labelled a correction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as
scientific, but does not adhere to a
valid scientific method, lacks supporting
evidence or plausibility, cannot be
reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or
unprovable claims, an over-reliance on
confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the
norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
[2] Science is also distinguishable from
revelation,
theology, or
spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by
empirical research and testing.
[3] Commonly held beliefs in
popular science may not meet the criteria of science.
[4] "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve
science fiction.
[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters
Good luck to all you believer's... I hope you find what you are looking for.
RM
