...
Of course, one can use any rationale for considering or rejecting an idea, and to me that is perfectly legitimate.
...
Hi Orthofield,
I think I understand the method you use and agree with it. I don't think we disagree much, except on the thresholds of credibility that are placed to decide whether something is worthy or not.
But the three points you mention are oversimplified. Here, revised, is my proposal for a rejection (it is not exhaustive, there are many other cases):
1) the theory is completely conventional (no measurement results or theoretical points of the inventor specify how it would deviate from it, example: Jensen).
2) the theory is unconventional and the author does not propose any experiment that would have results different from those predicted by conventional theories (therefore useless theory)
3) There is an observation of results, but they can also be explained by conventional theories (this is the case of almost all experiments claimed to show new phenomena, generally because their authors are incompetent in the theoretical field of which they speak)
Concerning Jensen's editing, I don't understand why you put him in the "possible" to try. The use of magnetic fluxes does not introduce anything new, it is even already practiced in industry, and primary/secondary coupling remains. The way it works is perfectly clear, where would be a shadow of a beginning of a challenge to the laws of physics or engineering, nor any supporting data? Case 1.
Concerning UFOs, it's very different, there we don't have any experiment or verified theory, so the first point of your reasoning is correct:
"1) the film is fuzzy so there is nothing that can be concluded from it"
But the second point and the third point are unrelated to the OU subject.
"2) the film is clear, so it must be a fake
3) I'm not looking at the film, because the subject doesn't exist"
Any curious and critical mind will watch the film, and if it is clear, will suspect a fake, but will not affirm that it is one, unless after investigation.
I've often wondered why we always see distant and fuzzy things when it comes to UFO, and why today, when everyone has a smartphone capable of taking pictures, we still don't have clear and sharp pictures of UFO, it's like in the 60s. For me the answer is the following: what is filmed from afar can be confused with a UFO because it is fuzzy, but when it is close you see what it is, it is not a UFO, so you don't take a picture of it.
Remember that only those who make the positive statement ("it is a UFO"), have the burden of proof.
The fact that you mix free energy and UFO as a method concerns me a little bit.
Unlike the case of UFOs, in the electromagnetic domain we know how build setups because we have a theory that is more than a century old, verified by all electrical technology.
Why should Jensen's montage work differently from what the theory predicts, or why would it bring something paradoxical? This is where we wait for the idea or principle, and there is nothing but an error, the one that opposing flows would cancel the reaction on the primary, which is a false intuition.
If you don't have sufficient theoretical skills in electromagnetism, how would you know that this setup is not in conformity with it? And if you have them, then it will be necessary to explain the question of its extent of divergence from classical theories, and in a strong formalism, equal to the claim. If you can't, it's better to study electromagnetism than to experiment to finally see that there's nothing new about it, and to repeat the mistake at the next crazy patent.
Author
Topic: The Unidirectional Transformer of Jensen (Read 9166 times)
