Re: Electrostatic Induction

"Don Kelly" <dhky@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Hu58j.4135$ox1.3507@xxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4760bf32$0$29339$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[snip]
Very good point. One complements the other, no doubt about it.
The point I was trying to make, and apparently missed, is that if an
observation seems to defy an existing widely held and apparently valid
theory then the observation should not be ignored. The theory may not
be
brocken, it may simply be in need of further refinement.

We have flight today because there were men about the earth who did not
trust the views of highly respected scientific authorities of the time.
When I was a boy I visited a technology museum in Sydney Australia.
There
before me in a glass case was correspondence between Lawrance Hargrave
and
the Wright brothers, prior to the advent of the Kityhawk, some of which
I
read. Hargraves was by all intents a scientist and inventor who did
publish. It was he who devised the curved leading edge, and his
invention
of the box kite arrangement was utilised in the earliest aircraft,
almost
exclusively. However, it took bicycle builders to build a working
device.
The pursuit was achieved by men who believed it could be done. Hargrave
would not be convinced otherwise. We are more sophisticated today
however
and we know there won't be anymore Wright brothers, or another Hargrave.
Or
will there?


----------------
Flight was seen as something that was possible and there was irrefutable
evidence that it was possible- birds. So first attempts were made to come
up

Yes, I have to agree. There are no organisms (that I know of) that derive
their energy from an unknown source. So with regard to the topic at hand
there is no corresponding natural process that indicates such a possibility.
Very good point.
And it was not a sudden "discovery" and your point is well made.
That was a very bad analogy, in fact it simply wasn't.

Now, if an observation "appears" to lead to a conclusion that is
unsupported, then your point that it should be investigated is correct. If
it is true, you are also right that the theory has failed and there is a
need to know "why?" This will require, at a minimum a change in the
theory.
This process of testing a theory is something that goes on all the time.
No
scientist writes a theory in stone (in the late 1800's and early 1900's
there was this tendency to assume that "all is known" ).

Yes, that was the period that I find most interesting when it comes to the
notion of "absolute" knowledge.

However, there are caveats: "appearing" is just that. Too often the
"appearing" is hype or press conferences, dramatic videos, or even
patents
that somehow get by scrutiny of the relatively unsophisticated and
overworked patent clerks, or, as is often the case,inappropriate
metering-often done with great sincerity but inadequate skills and
equipment. Along with this is a great deal of paranoia and unwillingness
to
have proper tests made. Do you wonder why there is a great deal of
skepticism, particularly when the weight of evidence is otherwise?

Not at all. Science is a discipline, and as such one should carry it out
accordingly. I beleive that scientific laws help prevent the beating of
paths that lead where a well paved road already goes. They present clear
and concise direction to those wishing to learn science. They not only have
a rightfull place in science, but they are in fact very powerfull tools.

However, I could name a couple of devices/machines that not only appear to
break at least one of these rules, but at the same time seem to offer the
science required to understand them, and yet there appears to be no interest
in them. I can give specific examples, but as silly as it might sound, I'm
a little reluctant to do so here. Call me just a "tad" paranoid.

I did describe an invention here in this topic, with some reluctance,
expecting who knows what. However, I have been quite surprised no has
commented on it.

To me, "appearing" involves some actual testing that gives solid evidence
that something unexplainable by present knowledge is going on. Anything
less
is fluff. Look at what a good magician or hawker at a fair can do.
Appearances are their stock in trade.

I agree, and anything less would be raw naivety. To consider something
real, the above must apply. And I know this is a difficult topic, moreso
because of the idiocy of some claims and supposed discoveries. It is a field
ripe for harvest by those who see an easy profit in the gullible. However,
I can't agree that all is well in this regard. In fact, I know it's not,
but will not elaborate for my own reasons. And that is most certainly not
meant to cast the "conspiracy" shadow over my statement or others. In a
world at peace with itself, devoid of those hungering for power and control
and the means to impose their own will on the rest of us it realy would be a
simple matter. But, that is not the world we live in Don. It realy isn't.
If it were we could all confidently ask "Where is it then?" and that alone
would suffice.

Solid evidence may not be so readily available as you, and I both, would
like it to be. However, a previous poster has mentioned his own experience,
and I have seen almost exactly what he described before. So the reasons for
a lack of evidence, may, just may, be as has been previously suggested here.

The number of visits I have done to the patent office, prior to being able
to access them online, is not a few. It is true that if you are looking
into certain areas you can be assured of being offered help by an examiner.
This I have experienced often enough. Ordinary topics of little
sociopolitical impact do not attract such "assistance" in my limited
experience. The last one I was involved with was an improved intake design
for a scram jet. The attorney advised us just prior to formulating the
claim, that if the military thought it was of national interest to keep same
secret it would virtualy be confiscated, and perhaps without compensation.
He then took us to the very next room and showed us a safe, it was where
they kept these documents for the military. This was in Sydney Australia,
and I could name the attorney. The application was not pursued for reasons
not related to any of this.

Highest regards,
Vince




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> But some reasons for rejecting evolution ARE unscientific. ... >>> scientists like that is a disservice to science. ... >>> by evidence, it's very difficult to build a consensus. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... >>> very good reasons for arriving at this conclusion. ... >>> evolution are unscientific. ... >> interpeting the evidence than others. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, ... very good reasons for arriving at this conclusion. ... perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, ... Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... > You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... let's hear your "very good reasons". ... > evolution are unscientific. ... interpeting the evidence than others. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... It is the definition of science as it ... ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence. ... If it can be shown that evolution *cannot* ... Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading