Why we fail to replicate OU devices?

[Allcanadian]

@velacreations

each claim is different, but in many cases, we do have evidence that contradicts the claim. So believing in such a claim would not be good science, as there exists evidence to the contrary and no evidence to support.

I think were on the same page however I may have a more universal sense of objectivity. You see if there is any evidence which contradicts a claim then this evidence must be examined as well. For instance if a person says this device cannot work because it goes against the laws of induction then the device and the laws of induction are now in question.
This is just good science as science must always be objective and open minded and we have seen many contradictions to many laws in the past.

Should a person just take it on "faith" that we will never learn anything new which may contradict what we thought was true despite the fact that this has been a common occurrence throughout our history?.

The other side of this is that skeptics or criticisms of methods or measurements are attacked, rather than considered. Time and time again, even on this forum, "nonbelievers" are ridiculed for suggesting that evidence should accompany an extraordinary claim. That is bad science, and helps to propel the illusion that the original claim has validity, even without supporting evidence.

I would agree and this works both ways. The "Down Wind Faster than the wind" fiasco was a good example as the engineers were basically attacked and called liar's and cheat's by many supposedly credible scientists. In the end not only was the claim proven to be true but it was so easy even a child could understand it.
So both sides are equally guilty and this is why I mentioned that this sense of extremism was never about science nor new technology but people and their ego's who believe their personal opinion must always be the right one.

We could say it is the least understood nor applied field of science which is psychology. This is why the most intelligent people say I do not know, I do not have enough facts say whether it is true or not as such any opinion I give would simply be speculation at this point.
This is why I place both scientists and crackpots in the same group when both have such extreme and biased views, anything less would be unscientific.

AC

[Ein~+ein]

Sometimes measurements requested may seem irrelevant but when the claimant refuses to provide such data, my BS detector needle starts to move.

[Michelinho]

Hi Vela,

maybe you should do a little proof reading and specifically the first phrase.

Right, you can believe whatever you want, but no amount of belief makes something true. To position something as the truth when no evidence has been provided is a great disservice, and relating to this thread, it is one of the reasons why so many replications fail. They are following beliefs and treating them as fact.

As my old teacher would say: "You generalize a specific".

Right, you can believe whatever you want, but no amount of belief makes something true.

I don't know in what you believe but whatever it is it can't be true according to what you wrote.

They are following beliefs and treating them as fact.

They are freely choosing to believe the claim that is presented to them, do you want to force them to choose otherwise? To go against their beliefs?

If scientists did not have belief, they would not be able to do research because any belief of success they might have would have to be treated as "no need to research" because it has to be false.

Take care,

Michel

[Farmhand]

@velacreations


No, Extraordinary claims require evidence to support them but there in no requirement that the evidence be extraordinary in any way, evidence is evidence --period.

Then there is the silly notion that a lack of evidence must mean something cannot be true. Well no that is absurd because what you are really saying is it cannot be true because you personally have no understanding of it. If this is the case then anything you personally cannot understand must not exist or cannot be true, I hope you can appreciate how completely absurd this line of reasoning is.

I mean no offense but generally this flawed line of reasoning is used by people who have no real understanding of science nor what it stands for.
let me enlighten you, Science is the study of natural phenomena and when we have no proof of something one way or the other this means we do not fully understand it. It is not true or false and the data is inconclusive one way or the other --- we do not know.

I know many scientists and consider myself to be a scientific person and generally we refer to people making statements such as you have as an extremist and to be honest I do find your posts a bit fanatical.

Slow down, take a deep breath, the world is not coming to an end if some people exaggerate a bit to make a point.

AC

Any evidence fully proving an "extraordinary claim" would automatically be
"extraordinary evidence", just like any evidence fully proving an "anti gravity claim"
would be "anti gravity evidence".

It all depends on how you look at it. People who are incapable of seeing
things from another's point of view are often intolerant because of it.

Cheers

[RAMSET]

Cold Hard Facts

Black or White
No "grey"!

My self "The faster then Wind" Scenario and the madness
it manifested in the mind and eyes of "men that knew better"
towards the "claiments".

Well

We play in Grey,

Regarding "Claims",some things take time ,but sooner or later

The Evidence will be Self evident!

Thx
Chet
PS

And Of Course "All things are possible"

[velacreations]

I don't know in what you believe but whatever it is it can't be true according to what you wrote.

It may be true, but the act of believing does not make something true. Belief is not the reason something is true, plain and simple.

They are freely choosing to believe the claim that is presented to them, do you want to force them to choose otherwise? To go against their beliefs?

Who is forcing anyone to do anything? The issue is not believing in extraordinary claims, it is presenting those claims as fact. That is the issue. There is no war against belief, here, rather, it is a quest for people to be accurate in their claims.

Like I said before, you can believe in whatever you want, but when you start presenting that belief as fact (without evidence to support it), and especially in the realm of replicating a device, that can lead to a lot of problems with other people replicating the device. They wonder why their replication failed, and this is one of the reasons. Because belief is presented as fact or truth, when in reality, it is at best, unproven.

[Michelinho]

Hi vela,

Like I said before, you can believe in whatever you want, but when you start presenting that belief as fact (without evidence to support it), and especially in the realm of replicating a device, that can lead to a lot of problems with other people replicating the device. They wonder why their replication failed, and this is one of the reasons. Because belief is presented as fact or truth, when in reality, it is at best, unproven.

Research nowadays are based on PROBABILITY mathematics, the results only say that there is a very high or very low PROBABILITY that what they research is valid or not. Theories and hypothesis are based on PROBABILITIES, not on CERTAINTIES.

I am still not sure that the motor is OU or not, I am not 100% sure, I believe that the motor in question is not of a conventional design and for that I cannot say it is not OU. Even the laws of physics that are today true may be false someday. Super conductors are an example, they can do what conventional wires cannot so the laws of Physics had to be modified to account for their properties. Many astronomy hypothesis believed to be facts will have to be dropped or modified to account for the Electric Universe hypothesis or they will lose credibility. Only greed and pride prevent the Electric Universe to be an accepted hypothesis because it makes more sense than what is today given as facts, lab experiments by Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén plasma physics will have to be accounted for.

The OU claim is as you say unproven, meaning it can be OU or not so persisting in telling them the motor is not worth their time and money is counterproductive. Waiting for the proof is the right attitude to adopt. I don't say that you are wrong but I am not saying either that your claim is true because for now we have to rely on incomplete testing of the motor.

especially in the realm of replicating a device, that can lead to a lot of problems with other people replicating the device.

They are replicating the device, this means they believe that there is a very high PROBABILITY it can give more than it takes and only replication can be the final proof, ending the PROBABILITY and making it a CERTAINTY or NOT.

All I say is that in persisting with the affirmation that the claim is a fraud, when as you said it is still UNPROVEN, you are trying (maybe not voluntarily) to tell them that replication is not needed to verify the claim because it is false (according to your beliefs of what you have been taught).

Hope this clarify the meaning of my previous posts.

Take care,

Michel

[zapzap]

"Extraordinary evidence"... Really?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As an apparent farewell present noted researcher GSM recently posted (in Wardenclyffe...) a link to an 83 page PDF wherein it mentioned that Dr. Nikola Tesla was rumored to have a very large sex organ and that Dr. Tesla's co-assassin (during the assassin's deathbed confession) confirmed this.

Note: On January 7, 1943, Dr. Tesla was found dead on his bed with his pants around his knees tending to confirm the co-assassin's confession. (Also in same 83 page PDF)

Could it be that this "symptom" is one piece of "extraordinary evidence" to confirm exposure with real overunity? Should it be demanded that all that claim overunity need to drop their pants as part of a criteria to prove it?

Why don't some of you look at who you really are; some of you believe hook, line and sinker all the news of scientific wonders and yet where is your much vaunted "extraordinary evidence" furnished? Hmm? Why don't some of you go and challenge those news stories demanding "extraordinary evidence" regarding the various extraordinary claims?

You know why. Some of you are meaningless in the “real world” and your demands for "extraordinary evidence" would be totally ignored. So instead you come here where you can repeatedly bleat your pathetic tunes and at least get some attention, right?

Here, taste some of your own medicine, I demand strict proof that some of you demand here being demanded in the "real world". Prove it or shut up, please?

[velacreations]

I am still not sure that the motor is OU or not, I am not 100% sure, I believe that the motor in question is not of a conventional design and for that I cannot say it is not OU.

what motor are you talking about? I wasn't talking about any one device, really, just the general attitude in a lot of the threads on this forum, and others like it.

Waiting for the proof is the right attitude to adopt.

I agree, waiting for evidence is all we have. In the meantime, however, requests for data should not be regarded as attacks or suggestions that something doesn't work. We are just merely asking for clarification of extraordinary claims that have yet to show significant evidence to support those claims.

[velacreations]

Here, taste some of your own medicine, I demand strict proof that some of you demand here being demanded in the "real world". Prove it or shut up, please?

Show me where I am making a claim, and I will show you evidence to support that claim.

Your attitude is because we don't question every single creation we ever see, our requests here are invalid. This is another example of bad science, attacking the credibility of those requesting additional evidence.

It seems that the real conspiracy here is to squash peer review or clarification.

Don't ask questions, get back in line!

[Allcanadian]

@Farmhand

Any evidence fully proving an "extraordinary claim" would automatically be
"extraordinary evidence", just like any evidence fully proving an "anti gravity claim"
would be "anti gravity evidence".

It all depends on how you look at it. People who are incapable of seeing
things from another's point of view are often intolerant because of it.

I would agree, it depends on our perception or how we look at things. For instance you may say an anti-gravity device is extraordinary where I may say it is not. Gravity is a force thus anti-gravity would simply be the counterforce to it, I see nothing extraordinary about this nor any evidence to support it. The real issue here is that few actually understand what Gravity is thus to them it is extraordinary.


Another example may be OU, many find it extraordinary however I believe it is just another form of free energy not unlike solar power only we have yet to fully understand what and where the source is. I imagine many primitive cultures find solar power extraordinary only because they cannot make the simple connection between the solar panel in front of them and the Sun above.
Should we find solar power extraordinary because of their lack of understanding?, well no that's silly because the perspectives are completely different.

In the end I think there are two primary perspectives, one understands that change is constant and inevitable while the other perspective rejects change and believes everything will remain the same. I happen to believe our technology will change drastically in the future and the proof is the last 200 years of our history.

AC

[Michelinho]

Vela,

I think that you are too emotional for a normal discussion, you are entrenched in a position that is defeatist and that goes against the forum rules.

You should go discuss your beliefs at overunity.com, TK and many others will corroborate your say and you will finally attain BLISS.

Take care and ADIOS AMIGO,

Michel

P.S.: Build a UFO motor, test it the way you want it to be tested then come back or even better don't come back to disturb the threads you think are a fraud.

[velacreations]

Vela,

I think that you are too emotional for a normal discussion, you are entrenched in a position that is defeatist and that goes against the forum rules.

You should go discuss your beliefs at overunity.com, TK and many others will corroborate your say and you will finally attain BLISS.

Take care and ADIOS AMIGO,

Michel

P.S.: Build a UFO motor, test it the way you want it to be tested then come back or even better don't come back to disturb the threads you think are a fraud.

wow, talk about emotional...

Where have I said anything is a fraud?

And show me where asking for evidence is against the forum rules.

[Allcanadian]

@velacreations

Who is forcing anyone to do anything? The issue is not believing in extraordinary claims, it is presenting those claims as fact. That is the issue. There is no war against belief, here, rather, it is a quest for people to be accurate in their claims.

I would agree and there is no reason to start dragging personal beliefs into the equation. We tend to see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe however at the end of the day there must be some basis in reality.

Like I said before, you can believe in whatever you want, but when you start presenting that belief as fact (without evidence to support it), and especially in the realm of replicating a device, that can lead to a lot of problems with other people replicating the device. They wonder why their replication failed, and this is one of the reasons. Because belief is presented as fact or truth, when in reality, it is at best, unproven.

Well said and many get discouraged because of a lack of information concerning any given technology. Personally I would like to see a basic breakdown, 1)here is the device and technical information, 2)this is how it should work, 3)this is what I think may be happening, 4)this is what I have measured.

There should always be debate however healthy debate is always the better option in my opinion. For instance if a person says this is OU I would ask them why they believe it is OU, what things have led them to believe it is OU and how have they measured these things. In this respect I think how we ask is just as important as what we ask.

AC

[velacreations]

Well said and many get discouraged because of a lack of information concerning any given technology. Personally I would like to see a basic breakdown, 1)here is the device and technical information, 2)this is how it should work, 3)this is what I think may be happening, 4)this is what I have measured.

I like that breakdown, and I think a lot of misunderstanding and failed replications would benefit from a information like that. Too often, people only focus on #3.

There should always be debate however healthy debate is always the better option in my opinion. For instance if a person says this is OU I would ask them why they believe it is OU, what things have led them to believe it is OU and how have they measured these things. In this respect I think how we ask is just as important as what we ask.

The problem is that a lot of people see debate or criticism as a threat. While requests could definitely be worded differently, I am surprised at how defensive a lot of people get on these forums when someone asks for clarification or data. And then the "believers" jump in and a full-on bombardment happens against the critic. It is really unprofessional, and ultimately leads to people not wanting to contribute for fear of attack (as has happened in countless threads right here in this forum).

This sort of "cult mentality" has no place in a scientific discussion, IMO.