Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?  (Read 16344 times)

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2014, 07:25:52 AM »
...as long as the outcome is likely.  If the outcome is not likely (or exceptionally unlikely) then you are always wasting your time.  Your "learning about mistakes" argument is a) moving the goalposts somewhat and b) has exactly the same decision making flaw as the idea that every idea from someone who meets your criteria for "brightness" and "diligence" absolutely necessitates attention.
Are you conflating:  The chances of free energy are about as low as FTL travel with results that are carefully checked and do not make sense warrant further investigation?    You might note that the incredibly improbable was perceived by some very bright, well-trained, and diligent scientists.  Even though based on likelihoods they rightfully distrusted their incorrect observations of apparent FTL they did the right thing scientifically by both pursuing their own verifications and calling upon colleagues to perform their own.  They did not callously declare that because the odds that their observations were somehow faulty were high to just ignore them.  They did not declare getting to the bottom of things was just a waste of time.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2014, 09:36:06 AM »
My argument never said  wealthy labs are exclusive privy to 2lot violations @sarkeizen,my argument implied that the probabilities for finding and researching and expanding on 2lot violations goes up a lot vs peasants who stumble onto 2lot violations.thus markdansie's 90% will be mostly wealthy government labs yes.

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2014, 09:52:34 AM »
We can even include 1lot violations in my argument.virtualy nil peasants will be able to detect a 1lot violation but a government lab will have the machines to be able to do this.government labs can go very very far with theses freaky phenomena.they're licenced to play with shit that you and me will be thrown in jail for being in posession thererof

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2014, 07:58:31 PM »
The chances of free energy are about as low as FTL travel with results that are carefully checked and do not make sense warrant further investigation?
You're adding too many vague terms to the argument and changing it yet again.  Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable.   
Quote
You might note that the incredibly improbable was perceived by some very bright, well-trained, and diligent scientists.  Even though based on likelihoods they rightfully distrusted their incorrect observations of apparent FTL they did the right thing scientifically by both pursuing their own verifications and calling upon colleagues to perform their own.  They did not callously declare that because the odds that their observations were somehow faulty were high to just ignore them.  They did not declare getting to the bottom of things was just a waste of time.
One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c.  Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all.   So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result.  Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.

Perhaps this is simply my limited sampling of the world but here most people are not employed in an a experiment to determine if 2LOT can be violated. By contrast more people are asked to spend some of their time examining CLAIMS of OU from various people.  Several orders of magnitude more by my estimation but again that just might be with whom I associate.   So your attempt to use this to argue a general principle is invalid.

Next?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2014, 09:16:41 PM »
my argument implied that the probabilities for finding and researching and expanding on 2lot violations goes up a lot
Yay you are learning to actually make an argument.  Too bad you have already asserted that people on their own are almost there.  You claim that anyone can easily demonstrate an entirely unambiguous 2LOT violation.  If true then these labs have all already found them.  However this leads to a problem of zero published research.  The amount of money fed into research also increases the number papers produced.  No 2LOT violation papers.  So under your assumptions we need to at least slightly discredit the idea that 2LOT violations are as easy as you say.

:)

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2014, 01:27:22 AM »
You're adding too many vague terms to the argument and changing it yet again.
No, I have held my end of the discussion constant.  You objected to "taking a closer look" were an honest and talented researcher to report an extraordinary observation of apparent free energy.  As I have read your argument it is:  The likelihood of an apparent free energy observation being correct is so low that it is a waste of time to pay any attention to such observations.  I have stated reasons why we should pay attention to such observations especially because they represent something that is almost guaranteed to be false.  There is nothing vague about those reasons:  Experiment practice is a very imperfect thing.  The better we understand how we get results that are wrong, or almost certainly wrong, the better equipped we are to reduce experiment errors.  In the very exceptional case we also come upon a discovery.  The OPERA experiment exemplifies how something as simple as a poor cable connection can foul-up very expensive and time consuming experiments.

The specific statement I made that you have argued against is: 
Quote
Quote
Russ is an honest and talented guy.  If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.

  Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable.   One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c.  Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all.   So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result.  Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.

Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.
Quote

Perhaps this is simply my limited sampling of the world but here most people are not employed in an a experiment to determine if 2LOT can be violated. By contrast more people are asked to spend some of their time examining CLAIMS of OU from various people.  Several orders of magnitude more by my estimation but again that just might be with whom I associate.   So your attempt to use this to argue a general principle is invalid.

Next?
These are all extraneous issues that you have introduced.  Kindly take the statement I made and only that statement as the issue under discussion.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2014, 03:22:46 AM »
The specific statement I made that you have argued against is: 
Quote from: Magical Me
  Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable.   One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c.  Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all.   So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result.  Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.
Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.
Then you are trying very hard to misunderstand or your argument is poorly phrased. Your argument appears to be that it is GENERALLY (or perhaps universally but I try to make the argument harder for me rather than easy) the right thing for anyone to do is spend time/money examining any claim to free energy so long as the person meets whatever you deign as "brilliant and diligent".  It is generally the right thing to do because it will significantly improve future experiments.

Does this reasonably approximate your position?

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2014, 04:06:58 AM »
Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.

Then you are trying very hard to misunderstand or your argument is poorly phrased. Your argument appears to be that it is GENERALLY (or perhaps universally but I try to make the argument harder for me rather than easy) the right thing for anyone to do is spend time/money examining any claim to free energy so long as the person meets whatever you deign as "brilliant and diligent".  It is generally the right thing to do because it will significantly improve future experiments.

Does this reasonably approximate your position?
My statement repeated once again was very simple:

Quote
Quote
Russ is an honest and talented guy.  If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.

Note the predicates:  honest and talented.
Note the conditional:  thinks
Note the proposed action:  look

I have explained why I find such activity worthwhile even if what Russ or someone suitably honest and talented like Russ reports would still be almost certainly wrong:  There is either something to learn about how they went wrong, or in the case of great exceptions learn of a discovery. 

CANGAS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2014, 09:05:20 AM »
The only living human that I am sure that I can trust is ME.

Having had a long old man's lifetime to notice every which way that I have ever lied or been deceptive in any way, in all the excitement I lost count myself, I know that I can trust myself completely in respect to OU (should I somehow ever  ;)  accidently stumble across such a device).

I know every way, and for what all reasons, I have ever lied. Mostly out of cowardice.

I know that I would never lie to anyone about any OU device. Unless you are a MIB and I needed to lie to to you to keep from you slitting my throat. Then I will tell you that up is down and right is left. I can't devote all the profits to help the poor of the Earth unless I am alive to do it.

Everybody else is a liar until they are proved honest beyond any doubt.

A real OU device would only be worth USD 200 Trillion added over a 20 year patent lifetime.


CANGAS 108


forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2014, 10:06:43 AM »
It's simply a matter of choice. You don't know if OU exists but two facts makes a bet fruitful .
First, we are already discussing OU and history proved that mny such things being disputed were in fact lost reality. Second we have a resonable amount of patented and documented devices. I don't care if most of them are hoaxes.
Based on two above facts I can say :
" it is wise to BET that free energy is real thing, rather then unresonably state it doesn't exists"
In the first case we have a hope which leads us to work in this direction, while in other case ..why have you ever been on this forum ?




sorry, I'm the man who never learned how to speak well in english

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2014, 05:43:54 PM »
No published papers on 2lot violations @sarkeizen?you've got to be kidding.there's plenty despite most labs unwillingness to throw such research into public arena.ie throw it away

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: So, which OU gurus research do you trust ?
« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2015, 02:30:44 AM »
There is either something to learn about how they went wrong, or in the case of great exceptions learn of a discovery.
False dichotomy (and/or you're kind of shifting the subject of who learns what or perhaps you're using the word "learn" in some idiosyncratic sense).  :)  Try again.