Gordon Novel's RAM

The ones that didn't get away

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 12, 2010 11:21 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:I could reference a man by the name of Marcus Hollingshead but considering he never proved his claims you would likely just dismiss the story without investigating it. To keep it short he had 3 pairs of spinning rings with toroidal coils built around each ring wired up independently and he had a capacitor in the very center. He claimed that if he charged up the capacitor, spun up the rings, powered on all the coils, and then turned the power off on one coil that the device would move in the direction of the powered off coil. The device is not all that different from the ARV when you really think about it, spinning ring above ring spinning in opposite direction with coil turned on with capacitor in the center.


I tend to agree with Ryan's assessment of this...it sounds a bit like a Rube Goldberg device whose fundamental basis is induction. But here is a question that anyone reading a "story" like this should ask:

Did Mr. Hollinghead EVER produce a Free Body Diagram wherein he showed all the "known forces" and then the kinematic analyses (using the known principles of induction) to account for all the forces in the FBD? Because if he did not, then this amounts to nothing more than a story and CERTAINTLY DOES NOT rise to the level to be called "engineering."

I am truly a hardass about this because I teach undergrad engineers their craft. I teach engineers that whenever they hear fantastic stories just like this, they should ask the people telling their stories for their FBDs and analysis. Because if all you do is hook-up a bunch of contraptions, turn them on, and then say "see there! It moved!" and then try to make a claim WHY it moved, and you have NO kinematic analysis to back those claims, then you really do not have any clue whatsoever how you created that motion. Period.

In your reply to Ryan you brought up the concept of the hypothesis and testing said hypotheses. However, the part you did not discuss is how we use existing knowledge, and analytical engineering techniques, to predict what should happen with a given device, using only the known laws of physics. This is a part of the scientific method that many crank pseudoscientists always seem to forget. And this is what I am getting at above. When you actually run the device and then you see anomalous results (i.e. those not predicted by your analysis), then you have two potential results: (1) Your initial analysis missed something, and you should get another set of eyes on it to see if that is the case, or (2) You actually have some anomalous results, not predicted by current physics, and now you are at the start of a potential groundbreaking discovery. Not before.

Here is the deal: Lots of people love putting together contraptions in their garage. Lots of these people think they are doing "important experimental work that could lead to breakthrus." However, that likelihood is very, very, very low if they are not doing (or not capable of doing) the analytical engineering work that predicts how their contraption SHOULD WORK. I realize that not everyone is an engineer and not everyone can do this. But those who tinker in their garages and ignore this important aspect are fooling themselves (and others) when they attempt to make claims about what they are seeing in their devices as long as they do not have an analysis of what it should do, given known physics.

The ARV story and Hollingshead's story are so great, on another level actually, because mockups of these devices can be built and tested by people in their garages. A small scale mockup of the ARV with spinning disc above electromagent above capacitor can be built and tested. A mockup of the Hollingshead device with spinning ring pairs, their toroidal coils, around a capacitor can be built and tested. Any serious thorough investigation requires that.


See above. Such garage shop experiments are useless without the predictions of current physics for what SHOULD happen. What they need to show is not merely "look I made something move/hover", but rather "here is what the analysis says should happen with this device, and here is what it is actually doing." That is the forefront of breakthrough discoveries.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Thu May 13, 2010 2:18 am

@ You Can Call Me Ray

You make a valid point in that if one is to truly do their due diligence they should calculate what the device they built should do under the currently accepted model of physics. That is a very good point. I would not say skipping this part makes one a crank pseudo-scientist though. Skipping ahead is not always the best thing to do but not everyone can be patient.

To my knowledge Hollingshead, if his story is even real, never did a Free Body Diagram.

He did claim though that his first prototype weighed 160 kg and was capable of lifting 2040 Kg of weight while utilizing 4.1 kVA of power (about 5.6 horsepower). I have not done the math but to my knowledge there are no lifters or other devices that ionize air that can lift 20X their own weight.

He also claimed that the device would lift or become heavier depending on the polarity of the capacitor and that he had accidentally collapsed his Black and Decker Workmate table before he realized this, again something that ionized air or magnetic induction is just not capable of.

His initial intent was to try and model the geomagnetic forces of the earth, or so he claimed. He had no theoretical idea on why it worked, he guessed at torsion physics, a mostly Russian physics theory about fast rotating mass.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 13, 2010 2:50 am

Bobbox1980 wrote: I would not say skipping this part makes one a crank pseudo-scientist though.


It most certainly does! Applying science is doing exactly what I stated above. Science builds on prior knowledge, and uses it to leverage the way to new knowledge. Therefore, if you cannot show what current, accepted science predicts should be observed by a given system (the engineering analysis based on current science), then you have absolutely no way to be able to discern anomalous behavior in the results of running that system. You have misapplied the scientific method by skipping a step. Ergo, you are not practicing science, you are practicing pseudo-science...by definition!

Skipping ahead is not always the best thing to do but not everyone can be patient.


If one is not patient enough to practice science (and engineering) properly, then one should not be so quick to make wild-ass claims. I mean honestly...can you possibly appreciate that there are whole helluva lot of people like me (disciplined engineers) who read such claims and see not a stitch of engineering analysis to go with them? Engineers and scientists know b.s. when we see it, and that kind of stuff is it. And this is also why we are all too willing to dismiss such b.s. and will not waste time investigating it. Here is the bottom line, using Gordon Novel as an example: If Gordon really did have a handle on the technology he claims to, then there should be PAGES and PAGES of engineering analysis that not only explains it such that someone like me could undersand it, but also explain where current physics, as known and practiced, are anomalous. The fact that no such analysis exists to back-up his ARV/RAM claims means there is nothing there. Trust me, if I actually had the technology he claims, the ENGINEERING BASIS OF ANALYSIS would be the very FIRST thing I put in front of investors... because I know that such investors would hire their own, competent, experienced engineers to go over my analysis before they gave me dollar 1. That is just how the real world works, and that is how we prevent crackpots from taking people's money. Ask Sarfatti about how he warned Joe Firmage, and how Joe got taken for a lot of money by shucksters.

As to claims:

He did claim though that his first prototype weighed 160 kg and was capable of lifting 2040 Kg of weight while utilizing 4.1 kVA of power (about 5.6 horsepower). I have not done the math but to my knowledge there are no lifters or other devices that ionize air that can lift 20X their own weight.

He also claimed that the device would lift or become heavier depending on the polarity of the capacitor and that he had accidentally collapsed his Black and Decker Workmate table before he realized this, again something that ionized air or magnetic induction is just not capable of.

His initial intent was to try and model the geomagnetic forces of the earth, or so he claimed. He had no theoretical idea on why it worked, he guessed at torsion physics, a mostly Russian physics theory about fast rotating mass.


All the above are just that: claims. If Hollingshead, himself, was not able to "do the analysis" for what current physics would predict such that he could show the precise anomaly, it is not like there is no one else in the world who could do it! If he had enough $ to put together such a device and convince himself it worked, and he HONESTLY BELIEVED it was revolutionary and would earn him boatloads more money, isn't it a logical step to hire an engineer, get him to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and then show the engineer the device and have that engineer develop the basis of analysis? The fact that he did NOT do this, and has absolutely nothing as far an basic analysis is quite telling indeed. Without it, one MUST ASSUME that the person knows they don't really have anything and are therefore just attempting to make as much money off a sucker as they can clear. Because it is quite clear that if you REALLY DID have such technology, the potential value is in the BILLIONS. What is $20K-$30K (max) to pay for an engineer's time to quantify your device with respect to conventional physics if you stand to profit that handsomely???? That is not a rhetorical question.

This is merely reality. This is the way the REAL WORLD works when it comes to extraordinary claims. It is not like the scientific method and acceptable analysis are something new. These standards have been around a long, long time and have protected people from scammers. Indeed, this very explanation is THE REASON why there are so many scientists and engineers who are all too eager to blow off such claims-sans-evidence. We are all too aware that scammers will always try to make claims and not have engineering analytical basis to back it up. When you see it, you SHOULD scorn it... until such time as the people making the claims stop acting like pseudo-scientists and start acting like actual scientists.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Thu May 13, 2010 8:35 am

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on the acceptability of shortcuts. I just can't imagine your average garage tinker trying to build a mockup of the ARV or Hollingshead device who finishes the engineering analysis or free body diagram before he flips on the switch but I guess that's just me. There are over 5000 patents held by garage inventors that are locked up for reasons of National Security, something tells me many of them did not wait to flip the switch.

I mean honestly...can you possibly appreciate that there are whole helluva lot of people like me (disciplined engineers) who read such claims and see not a stitch of engineering analysis to go with them?


One who does not professionally work as a scientist or engineer likely does not know all the accepted methods used like engineering analyses and free body diagrams, I have never heard of either of them but then again I am a Computer Scientist. The first thing running through my mind if I was a garage inventor would not be to write up such analyses before I started telling people on the internet about my discovery.

Here is the bottom line, using Gordon Novel as an example: If Gordon really did have a handle on the technology he claims to, then there should be PAGES and PAGES of engineering analysis that not only explains it such that someone like me could undersand it, but also explain where current physics, as known and practiced, are anomalous. The fact that no such analysis exists to back-up his ARV/RAM claims means there is nothing there.


I don't think that Gordon Novel has a handle on the technology though I haven't come across the investor packet he was putting out, I wish Reality Uncovered would release the packet they were sent. I read Novel's book and his first proposed prototype in that book excluded the spinning disc which I think based on EHT is vital to the operation of the device. As I said before, the ARV != RAM != for you non CS people is does not equal.

All the above are just that: claims. If Hollingshead, himself, was not able to "do the analysis" for what current physics would predict such that he could show the precise anomaly, it is not like there is no one else in the world who could do it!


I may not have accurately represented Hollingshead, he may have gotten an analysis, if he did it was never released on the internet in any of the stories about his device. He did claim to be working with a group of engineers and now had $50 million in investment money. He has been quiet on the subject ever since 2004 or 2005. (He lived in the U.K., just an fyi)

it is quite clear that if you REALLY DID have such technology, the potential value is in the BILLIONS


I don't know about that, such a propulsion technology, if a patent was applied for it in the U.S., would almost certainly disappear into the National Security apparatus along with the other 5000 garage inventor patents. You could never make a dime off of the device from a patent aspect. If you open sourced the technology, the largest manufacturers in society, GM, Chrysler, Mitsubishi, etc, they could all outproduce a startup flying car company that doesn't have a patent and they'd have no real desire to hire you on since you already open sourced it all. I don't think this technology will amount to any money for any inventors at all unless the government chooses to throw inventors a bone for defense contracts which by law it does not have to do.

This is the way the REAL WORLD works when it comes to extraordinary claims. It is not like the scientific method and acceptable analysis are something new. These standards have been around a long, long time and have protected people from scammers. Indeed, this very explanation is THE REASON why there are so many scientists and engineers who are all too eager to blow off such claims-sans-evidence. We are all too aware that scammers will always try to make claims and not have engineering analytical basis to back it up.


Imagine for a second that the tech is real though (entirely unproven I know). That would pretty much mean your adherence to specific rules and systems designed to prevent you from being scammed ended up preventing you from making a discovery. I would say that shows a flaw in these rules and systems.

I can see from your explanation why these rules and systems exist, and they do make sense, it makes sense to be cautious. It also makes sense to take risks though, especially on something like this, where very few supposed UFO propulsion systems have been seen and told to others. I can only think of: Bob Lazar which is out if for no other reason than we have no Element 115; Edgar Fouche which is out because spinning a mercury plasma in a toroid at 60,000 rpm is not a feat any garage inventor could achieve; Mark McCandlish and Brad Sorenson and the ARV. This isn't like free energy where you have a million claims by a million different people which makes sorting through the BS next to impossible. You've only got 3 claims of people who supposedly saw or worked on government reverse engineered alien craft and only one is doable if you are well off financially, maybe 2 if you are made of money.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Thu May 13, 2010 4:12 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:
Little do people know that they are simply conducting grammar-school science experiments involving electromagnetic and inductive forces...modern physics not only explains all of this but we put it into practice every day in electrical engineering.


I beg to differ, no one has done these experiments and published the results. If you truly want to understand these hypotheses like EHT or the alcubierre warp drive you have to read them at their source. We can BS on a forum all day long but you would be far better off reading and studying the source materials than reading my interpretation of them. If you want to truly prove them false or true you have to conduct the experiments.


What?? Here's a grammar school science experiment - if you think no one has ever conducted these experiments, then you don't really understand the underlying principles. I also don't appreciate your assumption that all of us are a bunch of amateurs who have never conducted such experiments or that we're some sort of garage-device-building enthusiasts who play around with this stuff on the weekend.

Many of us here work with these physics principles on a daily basis - so your patronizing comment above that we're "BS'ing" on this forum makes two mistaken assumptions. (1) that we weren't already familiar with the hypothesis you're mentioning, and (2) that we're doing this stuff in our spare time and as a hobby. You'll notice from Ray and AD's posts that we take this stuff very seriously and work with these principles professionally and in practical real-world applications.

Perhaps bringing this up on this forum was a bad idea and theparacast forums or somewhere else would have been better. Afterall this forum is dedicated to exposing hoaxers and fraudsters, not on uncovering something new and unknown.


Nice pot-shot, but 100% off base.

Uncovering reality requires an open mind, one that doesn't immediately shout pseudo-science at anything not currently accepted by the mainstream scientific community, it requires a willingness to spend long hours reading and long hours experimenting.


You will find that most folks here have spent long hours reading and experimenting, but what you won't find are minds that are so open that they entertain ridiculous hypothesis which includes unproven and unlikely principles grounded on nothing more than empty quantum physics rhetoric (and not even very good quantum physics for that matter.)

There are over 5000 patents held by garage inventors that are locked up for reasons of National Security, something tells me many of them did not wait to flip the switch.


If they are locked up for reasons of National Security, then how do you know the claim above is even true?

I don't think that Gordon Novel has a handle on the technology though I haven't come across the investor packet he was putting out, I wish Reality Uncovered would release the packet they were sent. I read Novel's book and his first proposed prototype in that book excluded the spinning disc which I think based on EHT is vital to the operation of the device. As I said before, the ARV != RAM != for you non CS people is does not equal.


I'll give you a hint - just watch the movie series Back to the Future. The juvenile descriptions in the business plan even reference the flux capacitor...a fictional device thought up as the engine for the time machine. None of the "science" in the business docs have any basis in science - they are drawn up from sci-fi movies and gibberish pulled out of quantum physics online discussions, with little to no understanding what the words actually mean. So - the fact that you recognized some of the EHT in his docs is not very surprising.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go install my negative energy gravitophoton reverse-osmosis transducer positronic warp drive into my new time machine.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Thu May 13, 2010 6:03 pm

@ ryguy

You are twisting my words. I know countless people have done grammar school science experiments. Are you telling me you have spun a disc with an outer surface speed of 250 meters/sec over a magnetic coil with a strength of 20 tesla? And what does spinning the disc over a magnetic coil have to do with an electric motor?

I never assumed you guys were garage-device building enthusiasts, I assumed you were part-time reporters who focused mostly on determining who in the ufology community was lying about their stories, which as I pointed out earlier is not the way to crack open the mystery of UFOs, the technology is.

Many of us here work with these physics principles on a daily basis - so your patronizing comment above that we're "BS'ing" on this forum makes two mistaken assumptions. (1) that we weren't already familiar with the hypothesis you're mentioning, and (2) that we're doing this stuff in our spare time and as a hobby.

Are you honestly telling me you are familiar with Extended Heim Theory? If so why have you never heard of the gravitophoton? Are you honestly telling me you are familiar with the alcubierre warp drive? If so why were you unfamiliar with negative energy density particles?

I don't think my pot-shot was off base. If you bring an extraordinary claim to James Randi he is gonna say prove it, he is not gonna say, hmm I got a few extra bucks, I'll try building a mockup to see if there is anything there.

How do I know about the claim on patents prevented from being released for National Security? I read a lot, when I say read a lot a I mean spend most of my day every day doing google searches and researching these topics (I've been unemployed for a year, one can pick up a lot of new material with a 130 IQ and a lot of free time on their hands.) Here is the newscientist.com article on it, the government releases the data:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... numbe.html
I was wrong on the number of garage inventor patents being 5000, it is around 5000 total patents that have been denied for reasons of National Security, the percentage of those that were from garage inventors isn't stated but it does say 22 out of 68 patents denied in 2008 were for garage inventors and in 2007 it was 53 out of 128.

So - the fact that you recognized some of the EHT in his (Novel's) docs is not very surprising.

You are putting words in my mouth again. I never recognized EHT in Gordon Novel's book, in point of fact I noticed an absence of it, like the spinning disc in his initial prototype. You have mocked the heck out of this investor packet would RU mind releasing the docs so your audience can read and judge it for themselves?

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go install my negative energy gravitophoton reverse-osmosis transducer positronic warp drive into my new time machine.

Mockery is hardly new and is a very effective strategy to get others who might be viewing the discussion to dismiss what I am saying. You clearly do not want to have an honest debate on the topic, if you did you wouldn't keep putting words in my mouth and referring to Gordon Novel's explanations for the inner workings of the ARV when the only time I reference his explanations is to point out he is missing the high speed rotating disc. This conversation is pointless.

Will RU release the RAM investor packet so your audience can read and judge it for themselves? I'm not big on trust, I like to turn Reagan's adage upside down, verify then trust.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Thu May 13, 2010 8:13 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:@ ryguy

You are twisting my words. I know countless people have done grammar school science experiments. Are you telling me you have spun a disc with an outer surface speed of 250 meters/sec over a magnetic coil with a strength of 20 tesla? And what does spinning the disc over a magnetic coil have to do with an electric motor?


I am telling you that I've spun many different discs with various outer surface speeds over and/or near magnetic coils with varying strengths - the principles are the same and that's what I'm trying to point out. You can have an IQ as high as you like and you can read as many websites as you can find about various hypothesis that interest you, but unless you've studied the basic fundamentals of electromagnetism and Power Systems then you're only fooling yourself into thinking that you really understand the physics and the electrical principles involved.

I don't say any of this to be mean -- but you're not the first guy who I've met that has pointed to his IQ in order to prove his comprehension of fringe ideas - Bill Ryan of Project Camelot comes to mind. A high IQ doesn't seem proportional with logic and reason, apparently. The basic forces and energies involved in the described experiments are not cutting edge physics, they are basic forces and energies of electrical induction.

I never assumed you guys were garage-device building enthusiasts, I assumed you were part-time reporters who focused mostly on determining who in the ufology community was lying about their stories, which as I pointed out earlier is not the way to crack open the mystery of UFOs, the technology is.


And...you'd be wrong. Another guy I spoke with on the phone not very long ago made the same assumption about us - and he was incorrect, although I failed to correct him (but I should have). The principles of RU-truth apply not only to scam/stories, but also to false/incorrect applications of science, sham demonstrations of 'advanced' technologies, and many other topics. Fraud knows no boundaries.

Technology is most certainly not the way to crack open the mystery of UFOs - because how do you even know any such technology exists? Because you have witnesses who see objects flying through the sky at enormous speeds? So, how are you going to identify the technology associated with a meteorite, or a spiritual experience? In assuming that there is even a technology to be had - you're putting the cart far ahead of the horse.

This is the mistake investors have made when presented with tales of alien technologies and told that the answer to the alien question lies in understanding the technology. Maybe these investors are their own worst enemy, because with their inflated egos and belief that their IQ is high enough - they make the faulty conclusion that they understand the proposed scientific principles enough to make a sound financial investment. 10 times out of 10 they lose their shirts. The term "snake oil" comes to mind.

Are you honestly telling me you are familiar with Extended Heim Theory? If so why have you never heard of the gravitophoton? Are you honestly telling me you are familiar with the alcubierre warp drive? If so why were you unfamiliar with negative energy density particles?


I was being facetious...I'm "familiar" (as are most other readers/members here at RU) with numerous proposed theories of quantum physics that borders on philosophy, not science. You are using unproven and unaccepted scientific terms like gravitophoton in a discussion about how practical science experiments can be done, and you wonder why those of us who work with these laws of physics in practical ways, every single day in our professional careers, question your logic?

I don't think my pot-shot was off base. If you bring an extraordinary claim to James Randi he is gonna say prove it, he is not gonna say, hmm I got a few extra bucks, I'll try building a mockup to see if there is anything there.


Probably because he's intelligent enough to recognize that there isn't anything there to begin with, so why throw away a few extra bucks when you could instead invest that hard-earned money into solid scientific theories that are based on the peer-reviewed and accepted building blocks of physics?

Here is the newscientist.com article on it, the government releases the data:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/short ... numbe.html
I was wrong on the number of garage inventor patents being 5000, it is around 5000 total patents that have been denied for reasons of National Security, the percentage of those that were from garage inventors isn't stated but it does say 22 out of 68 patents denied in 2008 were for garage inventors and in 2007 it was 53 out of 128.


How do you know what the specific reasons were...maybe those patents were for new methods to fly airplanes into buildings....or how to build a better pipe-bomb. You've taken quite a leap to go from the fact that 5000 patents are denied for reasons of National Security, to say that the reasons are related to cutting-edge scientists being denied their right to valid and progressive patents...you have nothing to back up that assumption whatsoever.

This is a perfect example of the mind-so-open-that-your-brain-may-fall-out....connecting dots that don't exist because they fit a preconceived notion...I am sensing the belief system that there's some government cabal squelching progressive fringe scientists and holding back the scientific advancement of the human race. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one. :)

So - the fact that you recognized some of the EHT in his (Novel's) docs is not very surprising.

You are putting words in my mouth again. I never recognized EHT in Gordon Novel's book, in point of fact I noticed an absence of it, like the spinning disc in his initial prototype. You have mocked the heck out of this investor packet would RU mind releasing the docs so your audience can read and judge it for themselves?


You're right - I read your sentence too quickly, you did say the EHT wasn't in there. We aren't releasing it yet because it names names - and we're working on interviewing those names first, before we release the evidence of their affiliation with Gordon Novel. Basically giving them a chance to defend themselves before the storm hits.

Will RU release the RAM investor packet so your audience can read and judge it for themselves? I'm not big on trust, I like to turn Reagan's adage upside down, verify then trust.


Soon. We're still verifying.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 13, 2010 8:52 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on the acceptability of shortcuts.


That would be fine if it were just you and me. But if you accept a "shortcut" of not developing predictions based on known science so you know when an anomaly shows up, then you are also disagreeing with the scientific method. I know you have expressed a disdain for Wikipedia, but you can find the same codification of the scientific method in many other places. It just so happens Wikipedia is easy to find and does a good job of laying out the methodology in a quantum :) manner:

Elements of scientific method
3.1 Characterizations
3.2 Hypothesis development
3.3 Predictions from the hypothesis
3.4 Experiments
3.5 Evaluation and improvement
3.6 Confirmation


3.3 (Predictions) is the key one I have been discussing here. Whether you are trying to verify a new hypothesis you have come up with, or falsify an existing hypothesis of accepted science (clearly that of electromagnetism in the case of Hollingshead), you need the predictions to act as the "control" in any proper experimental formulation. If you do not have any predictions at all (and I shall next deal with any implied order for these elements of methodology) then you are simply not following the scientific method, and therefore it is de facto pseudoscience. But realize that not all pseudoscience is created equally. The problem is that scam artists have succeeded in turning this term into a perjorative one. Taken in its proper context it does not pass that judgment. It only means you are not fully adhering to the scientific method.

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.


That does not imply a negative judgment (which would be that it could never be turned into "good science"). It only labels it according to an accepted standard or norm.

I just can't imagine your average garage tinker trying to build a mockup of the ARV or Hollingshead device who finishes the engineering analysis or free body diagram before he flips on the switch but I guess that's just me.


Now it seems as if you are the one putting words in my mouth, which is what you accuse Ryan of doing. I did not imply or state an ordering of the methodology that you imply here (keyword: "before"). Nor would any reasonable practitioner of science restrict the order of the elements of the methodology. They only want to ensure that all the elements are there. And the predictions is an important one. So contrary to what you say, if someone wants to build something in their garage and "flip the switch", that is fine. But you had better do the follow-up, and in the case of Hollingshead it is clear that one can (and should!) use known and accepted principles of physics to predict what should have been exhibited by this configuration as predicted by standard e/m theory. The fact that Hollingshead did not do this, but instead started making claims about his results (that have never been verified independently) means he is not practicing science, but rather pseudo-science. If you wish to change the definition of pseudo-science to fit your own meaning, that is fine but do not hide from it, and admit it is your own interpretation and not that of the scientific community.

I will have more to say on the Hollingshead case after I get home from work, and over my long weekend. But as a preview of that, for now, let me just quote a pertinent part of one of the websites that reports on Hollingsheads case and claims:

A number of incidents have allegedly taken place that cast further doubt on Hollingshead's claims. Paul Horwood (moderator of Antigravity_open-source group), one of the original few to discuss the invention with Marcus on the BBC boards and to create their own Yahoo group, says: "On all the times I saw him, I did not see the device (and I saw him 3 times and spoke to him on those occasions). The only time that looked promising, I went to Marcus's house and waited outside for him all day (8 hours in all!) and he did not turn up, or return home."

There was to have been a demonstration in early 2003 at Chepstow racecourse, a large building for internal practice of horse jumping. But the demo was cancelled at the last minute as many uninvited "guests" turned up with cameras. Writer Nick Cook of Jane's Defence Weekly (JDW) indicated that he'd dropped by unannouced to get some footage after Marcus had cancelled his first public demonstration (to which Cook had been invited). Cook reported that Marcus relayed a story about "the government confiscating his work" and turned Cook away at the door.

Later that Spring demonstration versions of the device were to have been sent to test areas in Europe and North America. Photos of the device were also to have been sent, but neither devices nor photos were received.

On several occasions, Marcus claimed that it was a hoax. However, he later recanted both that it was a hoax and that the government had confiscated his work, saying that he did it to avoid the intense scrutiny he was receiving (which included receiving several thousand emails a day, according to Tim Ventura of American Antigravity).


More later...
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Fri May 14, 2010 12:13 am

@ ryguy

I am telling you that I've spun many different discs with various outer surface speeds over and/or near magnetic coils with varying strengths - the principles are the same and that's what I'm trying to point out.


Do you know that for sure though? Did you ever spin a disc at 250 meters/sec outer surface speed or create a coil that could at least pulse a 20 Tesla field (a static 20 tesla field would consume megawatts of electricity judging from the FSU maglab)? I'm hammering on this because we know in quantum physics that certain decay routes like Beta+ decays do not happen unless the energy level is high enough, you only end up with electron capture. Is it not then conceivable that unless the disc is spun fast enough and the magnetic field is strong enough you will not get the propulsive effect from forces other than those known in conventional physics?

Just to give an example from a flywheel calculator, a 12" disc spinning at 10,000 rpm would only have an outer surface speed of 159meters/sec or a 24" disc spinning at 5,000 rpm would only have an outer surface speed of 159meters/sec.

I don't suppose you have data from these tests you have done that you could send me because I would be interested in reading the data, the coil strengths, the rotating speeds, the materials used, etc.

I only brought up my IQ and the amount of time I spend reading because I wanted you to realize I am not some average intelligence person who read one or two articles and is now convinced. I've probably spent over 1000 man-hours reading and thinking about these theories and reported cases and I am still not convinced. I do however think there might be something there and it is worth investigating through experimentation.

The basic forces and energies involved in the described experiments are not cutting edge physics, they are basic forces and energies of electrical induction.


Then why don't we all have flying cars by now? I'm not being facetious, the Moller car was in developement using traditional jet engines for over a decade and they still don't have a flyable car. If one can accelerate a 2000kg object to 9.8meters/sec2 with only 5.4 hp so it lifts off the ground, why don't we see this tech in use already? Even if it does have nothing to do with gravity manipulation and is just electrical induction as you say, why wouldn't we see this tech in use?

Technology is most certainly not the way to crack open the mystery of UFOs - because how do you even know any such technology exists? Because you have witnesses who see objects flying through the sky at enormous speeds?


What about the Belgium Incident in 1989-1990?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/8154187.html
The Belgium Airforce is on record stating they saw on their radars the triangular craft accelerate at up to 46g. No human being could survive that unless the craft was immune from the inertial forces (The alcubierre warp drive concept predicts such an immunity). The triangular craft could have been a top secret UAV with unprecedented strength to withstand such g-forces but it seems like an awful big waste of space for a craft that size and there is no proof it was a UAV.

The ufology community cannot crack the case in any way other than technology. Claims made by people as to the nature of the UFO phenomenon, whether they be former government insiders, military personnel, or defense contractors can always be denied by the government. Without government corroboration you have no proof that the claims are true. It is only with technology that the ufology community can conduct experiments and prove true or false claims made about UFO technologies. If the UFO community was able to prove a claimed ufo propulsion technology to exist all the government denials in the world wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it.

Probably because he's (Randi) intelligent enough to recognize that there isn't anything there to begin with

I figured it was because he has the world view that anything not already known and accepted is more than likely BS.

You've taken quite a leap to go from the fact that 5000 patents are denied for reasons of National Security, to say that the reasons are related to cutting-edge scientists being denied their right to valid and progressive patents

I am not saying all of those patents are related to cutting-edge technology or even most of those patents, it only takes 1 patent. I do think it is beyond naive to think the government would not deny a patent on FTL propulsion technology for reasons of National Security. The types of inventions classified under the Invention Secrecy Act is itself a secret.

I am sensing the belief system that there's some government cabal squelching progressive fringe scientists and holding back the scientific advancement of the human race. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one.

Again with the mockery, we've been lied into just about every war since WW2 resulting in the deaths of millions of people around the world, if you trust the U.S. government you have not been paying attention. Let me put this another way, if such propulsion technologies did exist, do you think the government would classify them for reasons of National Security? If not, you are beyond naive. If having this belief means my brain has fallen out then get the ice cream scoop.


@ You Can Call Me Ray

I have no problem with Wikipedia in general, I use it all the time. However if you are looking for answers that are outside the mainstream you are probably out of luck there. Heck, the article on William Colby doesn't even mention the house was left open, the computer was on, the coffee maker was on, that Greer (everyone's favorite ufologist) claims he was supposed to meet with Colby later that week and allegedly Colby was supposed to leak him top secret documents or technology related to the ufo phenomenon. Numerous people have added the info in the past but it repeatedly gets deleted. I don't even think you need a conspiracy for that, mainstream minds will take care of that all on their own.

3.3 (Predictions) is the key one I have been discussing here. Whether you are trying to verify a new hypothesis you have come up with, or falsify an existing hypothesis of accepted science (clearly that of electromagnetism in the case of Hollingshead), you need the predictions to act as the "control" in any proper experimental formulation.


Extended Heim Theory has specific predictions for the amount of force in Newtons that should be experienced if EHT is correct depending on magnetic field strength and outer surface speed of the rotating disc as well as the mass of the rotating disc, it's in their papers.

I know Hollingshead's case is pretty sketchy, I only brought it up because of its similarities to the ARV case.
Last edited by Bobbox1980 on Fri May 14, 2010 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Access Denied » Fri May 14, 2010 5:27 am

Excellent posts Ryan and Ray! It would appear Bobbox has unwittingly allowed the claimants to place the burden of proof on him rather than where it belongs.

[sigh]

I’ll be back… :D
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Fri May 14, 2010 3:19 pm

Access Denied wrote:Excellent posts Ryan and Ray! It would appear Bobbox has unwittingly allowed the claimants to place the burden of proof on him rather than where it belongs.


Ugh....good point.

I’ll be back… :D


I'll be looking forward to it. :)
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Fri May 14, 2010 4:41 pm

@ Access Denied and ryguy

Excellent posts Ryan and Ray! It would appear Bobbox has unwittingly allowed the claimants to place the burden of proof on him rather than where it belongs.


I would like nothing more than for the EHT guys to get their funding and conduct their experiments and report the results. Their paper was released 6 years ago and it has yet to happen. I was merely arguing that the proverbial ball has been dropped and someone should pick it up, someone should conduct the experiments.

I can see you guys are unpersuaded. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the value of performing these experiments.


This all got started from one long weekend where I hadn't returned my X-Files dvds to Netflix in time and didn't have new ones to watch over the weekend. I ended up browsing the web for X-Files-esq stories about aliens, ufos, and conspiracies.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Fri May 14, 2010 7:08 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:This all got started from one long weekend where I hadn't returned my X-Files dvds to Netflix in time and didn't have new ones to watch over the weekend. I ended up browsing the web for X-Files-esq stories about aliens, ufos, and conspiracies.


lol...that's always how it happens - then you fall down the rabbit hole and there's no return. :)

Don't let the debate make you feel disenchanted with the whole thing - this is part of the process. It's no fun when you've got everyone sitting around going "woah...that's wicked cool." It's a lot more fun when you've got a few folks that take a good hard look at the claim (scientific or not) and ask hard questions. I hope you stick around and help us explore other topics as well.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Did Richard C. Doty smear Brad Sorenson of the ARV?

Postby Bobbox1980 » Sat May 15, 2010 8:23 am

@ RU3

I listened to Zep Tepi's interview on the Paracast about the SERPO hoax and how you guys figured out Richard C. Doty was behind the hoax.

There is one more thing regarding the ARV that you guys might not be aware of. The only site other than this one I have seen that pooh poohed the ARV story and Brad Sorenson was on ufoconspiracy.com

This site has an ad on the homepage for the book Robert M Collins co-authored with Richard C Doty called UFOs Exempt From Disclosure The Black World of UFOs (Hal Puthoff also contributed to this book). There are numerous pages on this site that speak of SERPO and Doty as legit.

On this site there is a page titled "Alien Reproduction Vehicles (ARVs) & Groom Lake?":
http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/arv.htm

On this page is a link to a website called surfingtheapocalypse.net

Supposedly a member of this site named dixiemason (Matt) wrote about Brad Sorenson on 08-20-06:
My intention is not to sling mud about Brad, but to expose the fact that he has been caught lying on more than one occasion. He does have a brilliant, and creative mind. However, it is better utilized in fantasy and science fiction. As a real life engineer, he is not very competent, and extremely ill-focused (I have worked with him, and know this first hand).

The lies he was caught in were pertaining to his qualifications, and experience. He wasn't fired by ABC. Actually, he was rejected, and never hired by them. He sought out another product development team that was hired by ABC, and lied his way into a job with them. When they (ABC) found out he somehow still found a way to get involved, they were very disappointed.

There were dozens of lies he told, and I can only recall a few, but he told everyone he had over 840 patents. Well, that is not difficult to research. Look for his name as the inventor on the USPTO website, and you'll find a few, but certainly no where close to 840. Then he changed the number to 420. Still very far from truth. He also said he invented packaging on a Listerine product, but no one at Pfizer has ever heard of him. There were many other similar stories where Brad lost all credibility.

He never mentioned UFO's or ARVs, or anything like that. He was rejected because he lied about things people could prove he was lying about. Seeing some top secret craft, or a sighting of an alien ship or something that would be hard to argue wasn't a factor. He lied about things that are not difficult to prove with certainty. It was the opinion of the design team that he was a pathological liar, therefore, we did not, and do not believe anything he says.

I can give you names and contact details of another engineer, and a Ph.D. who were on the same team, and will tell you the same thing.

Matt," Engineer, Atlanta Georgia.


I was unable to find any member on surfingtheapocalypse.net named dixiemason nor have I been able to find the quoted text anywhere else on the internet. No posts on 08/20/2006 were made by a Matt or dixiemason.

Further down the page is a quote from Collins where he comes to the conclusion:
So it seems unfortunately or not, there are no government ARVs abducting people creating the idea of evil aliens. It maybe a long road ahead before any type of stable-functioning anti-gravity device is realized....Rmc


Considering former AFOSI agent Richard C. Doty is known to have put out disinformation and perpetuated hoaxes which you guys yourselves exposed don't you find it odd that his co-author partner is smearing Brad Sorenson with what appears to be a fictitious person (dixiemason) whose alleged forum post can't be found anywhere on the forum or anywhere else on the internet for that matter, except on the ufoconspiracy.com site?

Considering Hal Puthoff's involvement in SERPO and the Collins-Doty book, could he be involved in the RAM project to push disinformation on the RAM project's fellow members?

P.S. I take back my statement that exposing the hoaxers is marginally useful. If Doty or his co-author partner Collins are saying 'there is no smoke over there', considering their lack of credibility, it does beg the question 'is there in fact fire over there'. Food for thought anyway.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Access Denied » Tue May 18, 2010 8:40 am

I second Ry's comments above...

Bobbox1980 wrote:I was unable to find any member on surfingtheapocalypse.net named dixiemason nor have I been able to find the quoted text anywhere else on the internet. No posts on 08/20/2006 were made by a Matt or dixiemason.

That’s easily explained… the MIB took it down.

Good work, but you need to continue applying those same critical thinking skills and see if there’s any merit to the allegations like how many patents does he actually have and what’s up the ABC deal? Although using socks (anonymous sources) is the primary technique Scammers Inc. uses to reinforce the myth, it’s also a technique they use to “blow cover” on those that turn on them or are no longer useful… sometimes they even use it to attack themselves. Nothing like knocking down a straw man of your own creation to try and make yourself look better.

Anyway, as you’ll see later in this post, apparently Sorenson makes lots of claims with very little to show for it…

Bobbox1980 wrote:Considering Hal Puthoff's involvement in SERPO and the Collins-Doty book, could he be involved in the RAM project to push disinformation on the RAM project's fellow members?

You’re getting warmer but you’re not quite there yet. One thing you’ll find if you research this stuff long enough is all roads lead to Scammers Inc. eventually…

Bobbox1980 wrote:The Belgium Airforce is on record stating they saw on their radars the triangular craft accelerate at up to 46g.

You would do well not to take everything you read on UFO sites at face value. For example, I suggest you read Tim Printy’s take on this…

BELGIUM 1990: A CASE FOR RADAR-VISUAL UFOS?
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm

What really happened that night was examined by Auguste Meessen over the 1990s and by the BAF. Initially the data from the F-16s appeared promising and exciting. However, after examining the data carefully, it was determined that all the contacts could be explained. What produced the contacts? According to Auguste Meessen, he feels that cells of warm humid air produced these false echoes. He suggests that these convection cells were the source of all the false echoes seen by the ground stations. The F-16 data indicates that the contacts they recorded were also of this nature. The phenomenal speeds were simply problems with the doppler radar interpreting the speeds relative to the F-16s own motion. In some of the instances of lock-ons, the radar tapes showed the contacts at a NEGATIVE ALTITUDE. Meessen wrote, "It was evidently impossible that an object could penetrate the ground, but it was possible that the ground could act as a mirror." (Berlinner, Galbraith, and Huneeus 141-2)

Do any of the UFO sites mention these negative altitude contacts? I’m guessing not…

ryguy wrote:You've taken quite a leap to go from the fact that 5000 patents are denied for reasons of National Security, to say that the reasons are related to cutting-edge scientists being denied their right to valid and progressive patents...you have nothing to back up that assumption whatsoever.

Apparently Bobbox has never heard of ITAR…

The Secrecy Order Program in the United States Patent & Trademark Office
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/program.html

”A type 1 secrecy order applies to patent applications containing unclassified subject matter that cannot be lawfully exported under existing U.S. export control laws without government approval.”

Not surprisingly, the number of patents affected by this have increased lately thanks to 9/11.

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:In your reply to Ryan you brought up the concept of the hypothesis and testing said hypotheses. However, the part you did not discuss is how we use existing knowledge, and analytical engineering techniques, to predict what should happen with a given device, using only the known laws of physics. This is a part of the scientific method that many crank pseudoscientists always seem to forget. And this is what I am getting at above. When you actually run the device and then you see anomalous results (i.e. those not predicted by your analysis), then you have two potential results: (1) Your initial analysis missed something, and you should get another set of eyes on it to see if that is the case, or (2) You actually have some anomalous results, not predicted by current physics, and now you are at the start of a potential groundbreaking discovery. Not before.

Pure poetry.

Now on to my response to your earlier post…

[no need to respond by the way, I’m posting this primarily for the benefit of others]

Bobbox1980 wrote:This will probably be an exercise in futility.

Depends on what your agenda is. If it’s to try and convince us we haven’t done our homework then you’re probably right, this will end badly. On the other hand, if it’s answers you seek, we might be able to help point you in the right direction…

Bobbox1980 wrote:Even the most basic of statements you baselessly challenge to try to weaken my arguments. You know exactly what I was talking about when I said "secret" in the Child Brides from Outer Space article, the UFO secret, the nature as to what is really going on there.

You said…

“Why is it alarmist and ridiculous to think rich and powerful people keeping a secret would be willing to kill to keep that secret?”

Because people like Greer and Novel who claim to know the “UFO secret” are still alive.

And…

“Why is it ridiculous to think the CIA would want and might have a variety of ways to covertly murder someone when we know they already admitted to having one way, the heart attack weapon?”

Because the CIA is charged with collecting intelligence about foreign governments, corporations, and individuals and has no law enforcement powers or security functions inside the Untied States.

Now, if you want to speculate that some other agency is in charge of keeping the “UFO secret” then I suggest you consider this…

Spy agency worker accused of leaking documents to reporter
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -reporter/

A former employee of the secretive National Security Agency has been indicted in connection with the leak to a reporter of classified information about the agency's electronic intelligence programs, the Justice Department announced Thursday.

[snip]

Drake was a senior NSA employee who held a top-secret security clearance at the time, according to the charges against him. His security clearance was suspended in 2007 and he resigned from the agency in 2008.

People who leak classified information aren’t simply ignored for “fear” of confirming the leak as naïve conspiracy theorists would like you to believe… they’re prosecuted to the full extent of law, up to and including death depending on the circumstances. If they weren’t, there would no incentive for anyone to keep a secret.

Everyone who’s granted access to classified information is required to sign a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (SF 312)…

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf

The penalty for releasing classified information is normally limited to a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years but take a look at Title 18 of the United States Code…

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/s ... rm-312.pdf

Section 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force in a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

So why kill US citizens “covertly” if “they” can do so legally? To do so would risk exposing an illegal operation to public outrage… all it takes is one mistake and one good journalist. Ever heard of Watergate?

Bobbox1980 wrote:There are different types of evidence, hearsay (McCandlish being told about the ARV by Sorenson) is not proof and would not be accepted in a court of law as testimony but police investigating a crime will use hearsay as a lead to further investigate.

True but in this case there’s no credible evidence a “crime” has been committed in the first place and a good detective doesn’t blindly follow every lead they get…

Bobbox1980 wrote:You call the ARV a hoax yet you have no proof of that, not a single shred of hard proof, yet turn around and state McCandlish's story is evidence of nothing. His story is a lead, a lead that you seem completely unwilling to investigate.

The burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on those who made the claim and those who believe it without any evidence. Where’s your proof that Santa Claus doesn’t exist?

Bobbox1980 wrote:Where is your proof McCandlish has a history of lying? I stated he did not have a history of lying because there is no proof that he does.

Irrelevant. Where’s your proof he and his “sources” are telling the truth?

Let’s take Brad Sorenson for example who claims here…

http://www.designdirectory.com/public/c ... m_id=14767

“400 companies have used my designs of over 750 vehicles, products and packages which have resulted in over 300 patents, trademarks and copyrights to achieve worldwide sales of over $300,000,000,000.00”

And gives his office address as…

515 13th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

With the following contact info…

Brad Sorensen
sorensen.design@gte.net
phone: 310-802-8082
fax: 310-802-8082

Which Google Maps shows is a house that is also home to “Geobuilders Toys” with the same phone number…

http://maps.google.com/places/us/ca/man ... l=en&gl=us

And talks here about trying to sell his “Wind-Win” wind turbine design to China…

http://www.verdexchange.org/node/48

And runs this “WindJet” website with a silly NDA you have to “sign” to enter…

http://www.wind2win.com/

Looks like the “free energy” stuff didn’t pan out.

Also, Sorenson claims in this American Somoa (?) “press release” to have designed the 1986–1992 Mazda RX-7 (one of my favorite cars, I owned two of them) here….

http://www.eventpolynesia.com/newsroom/ ... m09039.htm

However, this book says all five of the designers were from Japan…

RX-7: Mazda's Rotary Engine Sportscar - Revised 2nd Edition By Brian Long
http://books.google.com/books?id=UDHl8k ... &q&f=false

What’s up with that?

Bobbox1980 wrote:I brought up McCandlish's background at Popular Science and Mechanics because unlike individuals like Bob Lazar, no one can offer a shred of hard proof that McCandlish has lied about his background.

Well, that web page you pointed us to says “Mr. Mark McCandlish – United States Air Force” and he claims “In 1967 when I was at Westover Air Force Base…” he saw a UFO however on his own website he says he joined the Air Force in the “early 1970's” and talks about going to art school “Upon leaving the Air Force in 1974…” so his claims have nothing to do with his alleged service over 35 years ago so I wouldn’t be too sure about that…

Bobbox1980 wrote:Yes he lacks hard proof to back up his story. That is not a reason to completely dismiss it, considering the lack of hard proof that he is a liar I think it means his story should be rigorously investigated.

Seems totally bass ackwards to me, why should you be the one who has to do all the work to find any evidence to back up his claims?

Bobbox1980 wrote:I didn't think it was necessary to bring up my knowledge on Biefeld Brown. If you read McCandlish's interview carefully you will realize that the story Sorenson told McCandlish did not include Biefeld Brown. Biefeld Brown was McCandlish's interpretation as to how the ARV worked based on Sorenson's story.

Sorry but that’s no excuse for not pointing out you already knew his “interpretation” was bunk… seems more than a little disingenuous to me.

Bobbox1980 wrote:You seem to have difficulty in separating McCandlish's attempts to uncover the science of the ARV with Sorenson's story on the ARV. Sorenson did not provide any scientific explanations as to the nature of the ARV.

No doubt that’s because it’s a hoax and any explanation given could be easily debunked.

Bobbox1980 wrote:You can make all the claims you want as to the ridiculous look of the cutaway sketch but your opinion is just that, an opinion and has no basis in fact or science.

It’s not just my opinion and it sure does. Show me one credible scientist who doesn’t think it’s laughable.

Bobbox1980 wrote:Modern accepted science cannot produce a craft that can go anywhere near the speed of light yet the ARV supposedly could go faster than light.

Which makes it even more ridiculous.

Bobbox1980 wrote:How do you know what a faster than light capable craft would look like?

Easy, I watched Star Trek…

Image

Bobbox1980 wrote:The AIAA is a highly accredited organization composed of engineers from all the major aeronautic and aerospace companies. They give college grants to prospective engineers in those fields. I would hardly say anything goes in their Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion group.

Do you know who accepted their paper for presentation at the conference and why? I do.

Bobbox1980 wrote:Furthermore considering modern physics cannot explain how to travel faster than light it is precisely fringe or lesser known physics theories that we need to be looking at.

Why the need to go FTL anyway? Any civilization capable of building a spaceship that can travel at only 10% the speed of light could theoretically colonize the entire galaxy in as little as 5 million years. In that case, they wouldn’t need to travel very long distances.

Bobbox1980 wrote:The status quo does not have an answer.

Nor does the fringe… the first problem is you need an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light, never mind going any faster, and not to mention all the paradoxes and causality violations backwards time travel would create.

Now modern physics does suggest a CTC (closed time-like curve) may be theoretically possible but even then you’d only be able to travel back to the point in spacetime where you first invented your time machine.

Think about that for a minute…

[and don’t get me started on wormholes]

Bobbox1980 wrote:Extended Heim Theory is absolutely not pseudoscience. That is a completely baseless accusation.

Prove it. I called for papers published in reputable journals, where are they? Also, for future reference, keep this handy list in mind that includes these familiar favorites…

Category:Fringe physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fringe_physics

Anti-gravity
Bernard Haisch [“UFO Skeptic”]
Dean drive
Die Glocke [Nazi “bell”]
Gravitational shielding
Heim theory
Burkhard Heim
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Ning Li
Eugene Podkletnov
Polarizable vacuum
Harold E. Puthoff
Jack Sarfatti
Searl Effect Generator
John Searl
Stochastic electrodynamics
Martin Tajmar
United States gravity control propulsion research (1955–1974)
Zero-point energy


Bobbox1980 wrote:The fact remains that EHT's proposed experiment has never been done by anyone, not Tajmar, not Podkletnov.

For good reason… why bother to scale it up when no valid theoretical basis has been established and the effect hasn’t been conclusively demonstrated at a smaller scale yet?

Also, do you have any idea how expensive, large and heavy the 20 T magnetic field 3 meters in diameter (!) Dröscher and Hauser say they need just to demonstrate the “predicted” propulsive effect and how much energy it would take to run it? I do…

The 14.5 Tesla FT-ICR Magnet
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/mediacenter/f ... fticr.html

Strength: 14.5 tesla
Type: Superconducting
Bore size: 104 mm (about 4 inches)
Cost: $2 million
Weight: 7,600 kg (8.4 tons)

A “flying saucer” would need one MUCH larger than that…

Bobbox1980 wrote:The last place I am going to go for cutting edge news on science is wikipedia.

Suit yourself. The last place I would go is UFO and fringe sites. I mentioned it because it’s a good place to start for someone who doesn’t understand the basics and most, if not all, outstanding problems with “cutting edge” science and “bleeding edge” pseudoscience are reasonably well summarized there.

[snip naïve speculation regarding the method of propulsion of the alleged ARV]

Bobbox1980 wrote:If one is familiar with the idea of the alcubierre warp drive…

It appears you’re the one who isn’t familiar with the Alcubierre drive. If you were, you would know there are numerous problems that none of your speculation even begins to address and make it most likely impossible…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre ... fficulties

My favorite…

Coule has argued that schemes such as the one proposed by Alcubierre are not feasible because the matter to be placed on the road beforehand has to be placed at superluminal speed. Thus, according to Coule, an Alcubierre Drive is required in order to build an Alcubierre Drive. Since none have been proven to exist already then the drive is impossible to construct, even if the metric is physically meaningful. Coule argues that an analogous objection will apply to any proposed method of constructing an Alcubierre Drive.

Talk about a paradox. Also, it’s recently been argued the crew would be fried by Hawking radiation anyway.

Bobbox1980 wrote:Ufology does not seem to understand that stories that involve science and verifiability are on a completely different level than government insiders telling their story, or defense insiders telling their story, or ufo abductees telling their story, or (I hate to break it to you) debunking those hoaxers and fraudsters who are selling their stories.

You don’t seem to understand (or maybe you do now considering your most recent posts) that you’re wasting your time trying to “verify” things that haven’t been proven to exist in the first place… it’s all based on hearsay and conjecture. There’s no evidence UFOs are alien spaceships and there’s no evidence the government ever “captured” one to “reverse engineer” to begin with. In fact a number of formerly classified documents confirm this. For example…

The Twining Memo (1947)
http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/twining.htm

“Due consideration must be given” […] ”The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these subjects.”

This was after the alleged “Roswell Incident” where the alleged technology for the alleged ARV came from. Now I’ve heard the ridiculous conspiracy “theory” that since this document was “only” classified SECRET it was a “cover up” because the “real” documents would be classified “above” TOP SECRET and where else would they get the idea of a crashed alien spaceship from if one didn’t crash? What that ignores however is there’s no such thing as “above” TOP SECRET and that is how Air Intelligence usually got their hands on foreign technology (recovering crashed aircraft) and that’s what they were concerned UFOs might be at the time.

So, the question remains, why would they still be talking about the lack of evidence in secret?

Bobbox1980 wrote:There is no way to verify those insider or abductee stories without the government coming clean.

BS, there’s no evidence the government knows anything in the first place and there’s no reason you or anybody else couldn’t prove we are being visited by ET if we actually were. That’s just an excuse UFOlogists came up with to explain the lack of any evidence…

Bobbox1980 wrote:Such stories encourage learned helplessness because it leaves the ufology community dependent on the government for solid proof. Debunking hoaxer and fraudster stories can be slightly helpful assuming you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater but still not on the same level as one involving science and verifiability.

Normally I would agree with you’re going about it the wrong way…

Bobbox1980 wrote:Simple denunciations of the stories do not cut it when the stories can be scientifically verified or proven false by building mockups and conducting tests.

Don’t listen to me and knock yourself out then… keep an eye on your wallet and let us know how that works out for you.

Bobbox1980 wrote:P.S. EHT makes no claims about free energy, just the propulsion.

P.S. Your ARV isn’t going anywhere without it!

Where’s the power supply?

What you don’t understand (and haven’t been told) is even if you were able to create some kind of “anti-gravity” drive using some hypothetical form of “field propulsion” you still need an astronomically HUGE amount of energy to power it. Now you claim that “science and verifiability” can lead us to the “truth” about the ARV so show me your calculations of how much energy would be required to accelerate it to the speed of light and how much that power supply would weigh and how large it would be.

[I won’t be holding my breath]

You might as well propose some form of “pixie dust” or some type of “reactionless drive” that violates the laws of conservation of momentum and energy…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

Oh look, guess who’s name is there…

Hal Puthoff coined the term "metric engineering" for reactionless drives. The idea is direct control of the gravity field through its coupling to the electromagnetic field. Jack Sarfatti has taken Hal Puthoff's suggestion to the next step noting that Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" claims to increase the coupling between electromagnetic microwaves and gravity microwaves by about 42 powers of ten in a thin film Type 1 superconductor. Chiao is testing his theory at the University of California Merced. The equivalence principle says that there is zero g-force on timelike geodesics. The idea is to electromagnetically control the shape of the timelike geodesic that the ship freely-floats on (e.g. Alcubierre's toy model of warp drive). If there is an effective amplification of the gravity field coupling large enough, then the power requirements go down significantly.

Talk about word salad.

[note the debunking of “high frequency gravity waves” and my debunking of Chiao’s “gravity radio” in the thread Pelican 2, Bluejay & Owl 0 here at RU]

Like I said, all roads lead to Scammers Inc. eventually…

AD
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Famous Hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron