PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-20, 23:11:45
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Ricks best video's  (Read 11447 times)
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Brad,
I didn't ignore anything. That was a private thread and I didn't know you were applying that across the whole forum. While it is definitely a step in the right direction it needs to apply to ALL CLAIMS. Positive and negative. See my last post. There is no reason to single out "extraordinary" over any claims. The point is anyone can make a claim and there is nothing wrong with claims. The thing to do is instruct people to be rational and not believe any claim. You all make many claims that conflict with each other, so this is just selective. Who defines what is extraordinary? Is anything not mainstream extraordinary? I'm not sure if this is some basic idea you guys have or if you have more detail about this. Sounds like some unspoken rules going on here. But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims. And any claim then. You have to be consistent right? I mean isn't the law of conservation a fairly extra ordinary claim? Who can prove that? And what about the claims against people's characters? Those are extraordinary are they not? Why is there no moderation there? People should be polite at all times. There is no hope if you guys continue this practice. You are just going to create a closed camp that goes nowhere unless you fix these matters. I really don't have time for this drama. You guys need to figure out how to do science here and not play highshool forum games with people. I know you can do real science as I have seen some of your works. But such forums are very limited and you just can't confuse the real world science with this chit chat online. Idk, maybe some of you work together in the real world. That is what is needed here. But don't think you can prove or disprove anything through a forum. Making a claim is not the problem, but believing that a claim can be proven or disproven over the forum is not science and it is something else.

The difference here Rick is we do not claim to have an OU device without providing proof of having such.
I did state this in my first post in the thread we opened for you.
But it seems that was simply ignored.

So when making extraordinary claims without proof,you can expect a few stern words from the few here well versed in EE.


Brad
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
Grumage:  I've just come across this video and must be suffering from amnesia. It's yours from 5 years ago. Time flies.  Any conclusion?  ie how much power input?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNBuUvHDe1kn


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:35:15 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
Well pardon me Mr. Expert Popularity. Thank you for greeting me with such warm welcomes while making such a buzz for yourself.

I don't claim to have decided on my wording of all these things or that I am some expert. I am merely a servant to help others.
...

blah blah blah

Hell is paved with good intentions, and others much less good. I am not here to listen to the psychological digressions of people who feel so uncomfortable that they have to make their apology, having a high opinion of themselves although they do not produce anything useful.

The only thing I'm saying is that Rick Friedrich regularly tells us nonsense and that he can't prove what he's saying. This is what makes him stand out from the anonymity and we understand why he wants all claims to be accepted, whether or not their justifications are provided, and those who criticize them to be censored.

His demand that it be up to us to provide proof that what he says is false ("But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims) is found in all sectarian gurus and charlatans who try to manipulate their audience: it is to reverse the burden of proof while their non-sense are not falsifiable in Popper's sense, so their demand is a logical impossibility.
Should we justify that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, if he ever claimed otherwise?! Of course not. What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof.  We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable. We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
It's called capacitive coupling,and the two plates of the capacitor are the two wires running through the mains lead along side each other..


Brad
By amnesia I meant I didn't remember ever seeing the video although a dim memory is coming back. I wondered if there were any conclusions. After all I am mentioned in the vid.


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
blah blah blah

Hell is paved with good intentions, and others much less good. I am not here to listen to the psychological digressions of people who feel so uncomfortable that they have to make their apology, having a high opinion of themselves although they do not produce anything useful.

The only thing I'm saying is that Rick Friedrich regularly tells us nonsense and that he can't prove what he's saying. This is what makes him stand out from the anonymity and we understand why he wants all claims to be accepted, whether or not their justifications are provided, and those who criticize them to be censored.

His demand that it be up to us to provide proof that what he says is false ("But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims) is found in all sectarian gurus and charlatans who try to manipulate their audience: it is to reverse the burden of proof while their non-sense are not falsifiable in Popper's sense, so their demand is a logical impossibility.
Should we justify that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, if he ever claimed otherwise?! Of course not. What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof.  We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable. We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets.

King Shit of Turd Island has spoken!

Welcome to the list Rick, good to see you posting here. My only complaint is the length of your videos... they exceed my attention span... but then that is a common failing with several others who regularly put up long YouTube vids.

Ron
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
This is the email I got this morning about this F6FLT person:
"Sorry about F6FLT.
The forum was really much happier before this toxic personality started strutting around and marking his territory.
If you scroll back in time you'll find things were much more sane and productive beforehand."

I guess that's what others have also observed about you. It is you who has a high opinion of yourself. And did you produce anything useful? As I said, there are thousands of chargers that have been useful enough to restore hundreds of thousands of batteries all around the world. I think that says a lot. And there are thousands of others that would say the opposite of what you say. But for some reason you have an axe to grind. Why don't you tell me how useful you are here on this forum? With all your toxic strutting what have you to show anyone? Mere criticisms of others? And why resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than decent dialogue with someone you have never met before? Are you that afraid of me that you have rail on me to try and scare people away? Are you that immature that you have to resort to such insults rather than with science. If you have the corner on truth, then by all means shows us the way. Or is this other member right that you are just a "toxic personality strutting around and marking your territory"?
You have made the claim that I "do not produce anything useful." I doubt that you even know what I have produced. But that is a claim that needs proof. It is a slander. Who made you the judge? Are you the gatekeeper here?
No I don't claim to prove what I am saying to people over the internet. Some people here are my customers and have the proof for themselves. If that wasn't the case I wouldn't have been invited Mr. Toxic. Did I say I want "all claims to be accepted"? No. On the contrary. No one should accept any claims from anyone. It appears that you guys were trying to move in the right direction but you really didn't think this whole thing through properly. You only took the idea to a certain level. It is not the making of a claim that is wrong, but it is the believing of claims that is the mistake. You all are making claims that you do this or that or that such and such is true or false. This is exactly what you are doing about me here. You say I "do not produce anything useful." Yet I produce battery chargers that at the very least charge up batteries. That is useful so your claim is manifestly false. But you don't see the OUR police silencing you on that slander claim. Claims here are mere opinions and people should not be so uptight about what people say. It's fine to encourage people to share their claims as mere hypothesis or suggestions, but you really need to be consistent with such things across the board. Mr. Toxic wants to be exempt from this. He expects to be believed in his claims without reason. He then claims that I expect to be believed when I don't ever say that. He expects me to prove things that are impossible to prove over the internet. That's really twisting things up. I never wrote that people need to prove that claims are false through a forum. More twisting. I wrote that positive and negative claims are actually the same. Just as you can't prove an OU claim over the internet, even with third party claims over the internet (I don't know if you guys do anything more here in the real world or if this is just over the internet), in the same way you can't disprove an OU claim over the internet. That is the big fallacy of all these forums. So this is the big fallacy people have been fooled by these forums for years. So much time wasted in thinking that things are proven and disproven when it is not rational to make such conclusion without real-world testing by yourself. No one should be your judge and master. I would expect these things to make sense to at least some of you people. I mean, aren't you people made up of your dissatisfaction about other forums that play such games? Well here is a toxic personality who is playing the same games here. Coming on strong as if some kind of authority, trying to intimidate me right off the bat so that his game will not be exposed here. Just look at the seething rage coming off of his keyboard. He is desperate and has to resort to fallacy and twisting of words. He makes me say just the opposite because he is in such a rush to crush me at all costs. Well it just proves my point. You see I can prove such things because you all personally can see these words if you bother to read them honestly.
I really don't understand how I have regularly told you guys anything. I have only posted a few times here. So what is that about? It is ironic that Mr. Toxic claims the opposite of what I said while doing the very thing he accuses me of. He actually wants all claims accepted, when I don't, and also provided no justification for that claim while attacking me for his claim that I was providing no justification for something I didn't claim. Wow! Talk about a confused guy. So quick to accuse that he has to do the very thing he is accusing me of, which is the very thing I am denying. All right, now that we have that cleared up can we be friends ;)

Anyway, the idea of counter-claims needing justification is self-evident. What makes positive claims so different than negative ones? Who decides the context here? Is mainstream theory just accepted by everyone here to be gospel truth? Is the arrogance of the history of science, which is one long chain of assuming everything is known that can be known, the standard of truth? Is there nothing yet to be discovered? Can anyone prove the conservation of energy law to be universal? Now I didn't say counter-claims needed to be proven over the forum, as neither positive or counter-claims can be so proven. But I did say they are the same thing. Every truth of demonstration needs to be properly demonstrated. And a video cannot do that. Nor can testimonies, however many, over the internet. Is that so hard to understand?

A disproof claim is no different than a positive claim. Both can only be sufficient when the fulfill the conditions of rational conviction, something Mr. Toxic has no interest in learning about. Apparently, according to members here he is more interested in "strutting around and marking his territory." There can be no rational conviction about any truths of demonstration over the internet. They have to be experienced in the real world where people can really monitor all the environmental conditions and verify every part and relationship. But why would this only apply to positive claims? The disproof claim is no different. And it is actually much harder to do because you actually have to know exactly what the positive claim is and ensure that you have replicated it exactly. It is very easy to mischaracterize someone else as we see Mr. Toxic do even with my words. Or are you guys promoting a double standard here?

Again, I am not saying claims should be believed, or that people should even bother with all the many claims that are made. I am not demanding that claims be disproved at all. Only that the burden of proof is on the claim whether it be positive or negative. And there is no proof through the internet in matters that need demonstration.

Anyway, anything less than this is folly and this is an example of a toxic personality "who try to manipulate their audience" into just believing their slander claims without "justification."

So how is it that you bring up what is falsifiable? Can you falsify anything like this over the internet? You have a double standard here because you haven't even thought this through and do not understand basic logic or the nature of proof. What you are demonstrating is like someone thinking that reality TV is the real world when it is only seen through a screen. How can you falsify a counter-claim that is not observable in the real world and only through the internet and/or with more testimonies given over the internet. The claim is unfalsifiable. You have really put your foot in your big mouth my toxic friend.

"Should we justify" new forms of energy harvesting "doesn't exist"? You are just using diverting fallacies and they are only exposing your ignorance Mr. Know-it-all-double-standard. You beg the question. And I have to ask, what is the purpose of such a forum if it is so presumptuous as to ridicule people claiming to develop new forms of energy harvesting? Mr. Toxic is just here to brand whatever he doesn't believe as a pink unicorn. He has actually made the claim that needs proving as he so expects from me. He is expecting others to believe his claims without justification. He uses fallacies of authoritarianism as if he is some authority that just should be believed in his claims. He uses ad baculum fallacies, and threatens you with verbal abuse if you disbelieve or challenge his claims. Almost every fallacy in the book in just a few posts. It was so bad I got this email today apologizing for the rest of you people here.

Again, he doesn't understand basic logic and has not looked in the mirror to realize that he is doing the very thing he is wrongly accusing me of. It's really sad people do this.

"What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof." The denial is a claim in itself. This is not accurate. What is claimed without proof may be disregarded without proof. We do not have the ability to know that something is not true just because it is presented without proof. Think about that for a minute. What makes anyone certain that a claim is false just because it is not proven? All you would have to do is state a claim and people could be justified in claiming it was not true merely because they didn't properly prove it. And this happens all the time and the truth is maligned by those who misrepresent it. Kind of like what Mr. Toxic is doing here when you tries to sound like he knows something about logic or proof or even science. It's really sad.

The truth is that anything claimed is merely a hypothesis verbalized. We usually need some justification for considering it. There are some inconsistent rules here on this forum that try to address that. Very good. So we can ignore any claim that doesn't warrant investigation or our attention. But that is not the same thing as having a license to claim that it is therefore false. This is what Mr. Toxic thinks he has the liberty to do. He is thus encouraging both credulity and incredulity at the same time. He has watered a circle around this forum as his territory to enforce his prejudice upon all of you. And this is the very reason why this forum will go nowhere as you participate in this double standard illogical hypocrisy. So in his own words: "We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable." Was anything he said verifiable? Did it even make sense? No. No. But can we really deny what someone says even if it is not verified or seems to make sense to us? Sounds more like saying if we don't understand what people are saying then we just can't affirm it. But to deny something is to make a claim about it. He just doesn't get how he overreaches in his argumentation. He is so aggressive that he has to try and prove more than he can or ought to in an argument. He is attacking at any cost by any means to the point that he does the very things he accuses me of, and that illogically.

There is no mention of even what "things" don't "make sense" so therefore, by his own standard, there is no "justification" for such claims. This is just one big ad hominem fallacy.

"We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets."
"We save time that we can devote to the search for" things considered impossible and are claimed by people as real, "it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed" authoritarians that exemplify a double standard. What justification do you even have for searching for OU when most of the world argues exactly like you do and dismisses it as believing in "pink unicorns"? You mock people in the same way. Can you even tell us one reason why you are justified in this pursuit? That would be the first place to start. Here we have the expert recommending you all to search for OU. Will you insist that he justify that? He is recommending the belief in something the world thinks is crazy nonsense (all the language he uses against me here). If he has a reason I think you would all be benefitted by this. Usually such loudmouths, as we see on OU.com right now, are unwilling to tell us the basis for belief in OU pursuits. And hiding this from others is not helpful. If they have any rational reason then it would be very useful for people to consider such things and build upon it. But instead they usually sit back in an authority chair and poke at others and waiting for someone to do the real work for them. Hopefully that is not the case here. Well anyway, we can see who the "self-proclaimed prophet" is here.

Claims in matters of demonstration are not bad things to be afraid of.
Positive claims are really the same as negative claims.
This forum and the whole internet cannot prove or disprove a claim that is a matter of demonstration.
Deal with that politely and rationally!

blah blah blah
Hell is paved with good intentions, and others much less good. I am not here to listen to the psychological digressions of people who feel so uncomfortable that they have to make their apology, having a high opinion of themselves although they do not produce anything useful.
The only thing I'm saying is that Rick Friedrich regularly tells us nonsense and that he can't prove what he's saying. This is what makes him stand out from the anonymity and we understand why he wants all claims to be accepted, whether or not their justifications are provided, and those who criticize them to be censored.
His demand that it be up to us to provide proof that what he says is false ("But you have to apply the same rule for counter claims) is found in all sectarian gurus and charlatans who try to manipulate their audience: it is to reverse the burden of proof while their non-sense are not falsifiable in Popper's sense, so their demand is a logical impossibility.
Should we justify that the Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, if he ever claimed otherwise?! Of course not. What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof.  We can therefore deny what he is telling us as long as he is unable to formulate things that make sense and are verifiable. We save time that we can devote to the search for overunity, it is always better to rely on ourselves than on self-proclaimed prophets.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
...
« Last Edit: 2019-07-15, 03:28:44 by partzman »
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Ron,
So I guess the claim I got in email about Mr. Toxic has been "confirmed" and "proven true" by you. That is fairly extreme. Must be worse than even I experienced so far. Well I don't think he'll want to show his face around here after making a fool of himself as I showed. Yes it was long, but I am thorough. If people want to play games then I'll call their bluff and turn self-defeating statements upon themselves. How can you recover from that. Hopefully a sorry will appear one day.

The long videos are not a failure. They are not for the general public but for my customers who request them to be the length they are because I am addressing questions they have and sharing things they can try. They are not attempts to prove OU as I even titled one of the last videos. The videos are poor quality because I really don't have the time to put into youtube what is necessary to try and impress the average person that only wants a flashy 5 minute video. If I did short videos then I would have thousands of videos and people would just get lost in them. I'll be organizing them this weekend for the new website.

King S... of Turd Island has spoken!
Welcome to the list Rick, good to see you posting here. My only complaint is the length of your videos... they exceed my attention span... but then that is a common failing with several others who regularly put up long YouTube vids.
Ron
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Here we try to respect these rules when it comes to claims.
Administrators Peterae and Poynt's guidelines for claims at this open source venue .

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.0

To be used more as guidelines ,but the theme reads through strongly  .

Chet K



   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1834
RFQ,

Although I have disagreed with F6FLT in certain areas and discussions on this forum, I totally agree with his assessment of your OU claims.  I have no problem with you reaching out to others through your videos and seminars with your OU beliefs and claims, but in this forum, you will be challenged.  Why?  Simply because we are not that gullible!

I personally am tired of all this nonsense!

Regards,
Pm


Partzman,

well spoken, i could not agree more,  short and clear.

F6FLT is surely an asset here or anywhere else, so if you can't stand the heat, go out of the kitchen.



all,

I see a wedge being driven between members of this forum, so be aware of this practice.

 
Itsu
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
PM,
Good to see you here too. So is everyone on both the forums?
You have no problem with all the contradictory statements he just gave as I just explained? Maybe you can explain all how all of his twisted logic is true.
I don't have any problems with people not believing anything I claim. People ask questions and I am free to respond right? And do you have a double standard here? Will the attempted disproves also be challenged in the same way, or do they get a free pass to be free to conclude on with confirmation bias as F6FLT did? Are you saying with him that anything you deem a "pink unicorn", which would be any OU claim to most people, gives you free license to just disregard as unverifiable and unjustifiable? And is your methodology subject to investigation and needing to be consistent or is this just another place to try and disprove OU and attack people's names? I think it is on the contrary, people are sick of all the nonsense chatter based upon this double standard authoritarian popularity contests where people deceive themselves into thinking they can prove or disprove anything over the internet. Now that is gullible. Just because everyone on a forum is gullible, doesn't mean they will know it. They will even think they are not gullible when they readily believe negative claims without sufficient reason as an example of confirmation bias. What you say here seems to suggest all of this. Is this what you mean or do you want to correct your words here?
There is nothing to challenge me on because I am not pushing any claim. It's like me saying I'm Canadian. That is a claim. I may make that kind of claim not because I am expecting you to believe it or am pushing it on someone, but because it is just part of the conversation. You don't have to be so hostile. Some of you guys are really on edge. Obviously have serious baggage. All of these forums are no more than a sharing of ideas. They are not places where you can prove anything. So don't be so uptight about all this. Do what you want with the information people share, but don't assume it is true or false without fulfilling the conditions of rational conviction. We just can't do science here people. We can only share ideas and help each other with more content. There is no way to verify the real world through the internet. So there is no reason to get so upset about claims and counterclaims. Maybe for you OU is the same as pink unicorns. Or maybe some specific claims are that way to you, as I just gave an example of with Gerard M. But F6FLT categorically claimed that everything I do is useless. You don't think that is even a little overreaching?

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what the proper language is here. I can see that certain words will not even be allowed, while rudeness and foul language is. Are all claims of demonstration forbidden, or just positive OU claims? Obviously slander claims are allowed. Obviously disproof claims are allowed without any shred of evidence. So is this the double standard you guys adhere to here? Is there even a rule book? Who is the king who made the rule or rules? You can see how bewildered I am coming here. It's almost like a little cult that allows for attacking everyone else but doesn't apply the same standard for the attacking itself. In cults they control the information and use the same contradictory lack of logic and reasoning that F6FLT used. Maybe some intervention is needed here. Maybe people need to learn a thing or two about confirmation bias, logic, and manners. I'm just saying...

RFQ,
Although I have disagreed with F6FLT in certain areas and discussions on this forum, I totally agree with his assessment of your OU claims.  I have no problem with you reaching out to others through your videos and seminars with your OU beliefs and claims, but in this forum, you will be challenged.  Why?  Simply because we are not that gullible!
I personally am tired of all this nonsense!
Regards,
Pm
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Itsu,
I don't care about any heat, it doesn't bother me. Actually the heat just proves the points as you can now see. But you have said you never read anything I write anyway, so you wouldn't even know.
You guys don't get it. I am always interested in criticisms. I am not expecting anyone to believe a claim, especially Itsu's claims when they are over videos and pictures and not in the real world where we can actually see everything and do real science. You are still making your own positive claims Itsu, in every video even with every thing you say and do. These are claims just as much as another other videos for or against OU. So I guess I would have to figure out what constitutes "extraordinary" in your videos. Are there any extraordinary claims in your videos or on this forum? I can see a few threads where someone must have made such a claim somewhere.
Exactly how was F6FLT's posts to me an asset when he completely contradicted himself in every sentence? Of course you will not even read this post and will just believe what he wrote without bothering to consider his contradictions. So now we have merely a popularity clique going on here. All these added posts with no useful content in it. For it to be useful you would have had to give some reason why F6FLT was an asset when so far he has shown himself to be completely contradictory and counterproductive to scientific research. At least Brad gave some reason for his claim about him.

Itsu, a wedge already exists between members. You have issues with A.King. These other guys with F6FLT, and this has nothing to do with me. I just was invited to this mess you guys created. You don't have the right structure here people. You need a little tweaking to make this work properly so that you can avoid this tension.

What are you afraid of Itsu? What practice are you afraid of here? Someone who will challenge you to justify YOUR CLAIMS? Someone who is looking for people to be accountable?  "all, I see a wedge being driven between members of this forum", who are engaging in confirmation bias, and every fallacy in the book, and those who are sick of that and exposing that, "so be aware of this" rational truthful "practice" that threatens our fantasy world existence. I think rather the kitchen is too hot for you guys that desperately want to preserve the double standards while priding yourselves as being superior and doing something useful. But there comes a time when you just have to get on with life if you can't ever find OU.

Partzman,
well spoken, i could not agree more,  short and clear. F6FLT is surely an asset here or anywhere else, so if you can't stand the heat, go out of the kitchen. all, I see a wedge being driven between members of this forum, so be aware of this practice.
Itsu
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 140

......................Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what the proper language is here. I can see that certain words will not even be allowed, while rudeness and foul language is. Are all claims of demonstration forbidden, or just positive OU claims? Obviously slander claims are allowed. Obviously disproof claims are allowed without any shred of evidence. So is this the double standard you guys adhere to here? Is there even a rule book? Who is the king who made the rule or rules? You can see how bewildered I am coming here. It's almost like a little cult that allows for attacking everyone else but doesn't apply the same standard for the attacking itself. In cults they control the information and use the same contradictory lack of logic and reasoning that F6FLT used. Maybe some intervention is needed here. Maybe people need to learn a thing or two about confirmation bias, logic, and manners. I'm just saying...

Good day All:

I seem to remember from my undergrad days at the university that Replication is the backbone of the Scientific Method. 
Replication of an experiment is not a "double-standard", it is the de facto Standard of the Scientific Method.

"Replication
If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results might have been in error. As a result, it is common for a single experiment to be performed multiple times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also attempt to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results would be important to their own work.[50]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

This forum has always operated under this premise, as this is NOT something new (as of this thread) imposed to discriminate nor intimidate, especially on a personal level.

If information cannot or will not be share such as to facilitate proper scientific methodology (ie; replication of said experiment), then it becomes impossible to validate the experiment and advance the claim.

Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs.

take care, peace
lost_bro
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
Good day All:.....................................


Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs.

take care, peace
lost_bro
This is one of the saddest quotes you can ever read.
Why?

Because it is relative.

I have seen cold electricity.   have held cold electricity in my hands at  HV.  So when Rick states that in a particular circuit there is cold electricity - my ears prick up. I am looking to see if there is something else for me to learn.  So it is not an extraordinary claim to me.

When Rich states that a circuit can charge 2 batteries from one input I feel bored. Been there  done that. So I look on to see if he does it a different way to me and if there is anything else I can pick up on.
So when Rick says he has replicated Don Smith -  now that is interesting. That is a new field to me. (ie the FULL replication not the part replication.)

So here's some proof of what I mean.  The enclosed photograph is of me holding a live spark plug with HV with my bare fingers. It had been on for several weeks.  I was testing the longevity of the spark gap viz a viz cold electricity. And yes they do corrode after 3 to 4 months of continuous use.
And yes you can punch a hole through paper with cold electricity.  For your info it was powered by a 5 volt plasma ball with a crown and resonant capacitor through an Avramenko plug.  So only one connection was made to the plasma ball "COIL crown" (As Don Smith suggests). ie an open loop.  The input power was 1.2 watts.The photo is almost TEN YEARS OLD people.


---------------------------
VAR is just an angle on a scope. Nothing to see here -  move on.
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Chet,
Thank you for inviting me to this forum and for showing this link. I have read it and appreciate the intention.

Power is not the same thing as energy. The document makes them equal to each other. This will definitely cause confusion and is one of the surest ways to disprove OU. Many people understand power measurements to be the rate that the source charge is dissipating while work can be done, or loads driven without draining the source charge at the same rate or at all. Energy is too broad a word to equate with power. Power measurements are limited in OU systems. Placing power meters in certain places will show no reading and thus give false negatives. This has lead many an engineer to ignore real loads running when little or now power measurements are taken before such loads. What it actually shows is that power measurements are merely the measurement of positive current and the rate of dissipating a particular source charge in a closed loop.

What is a the difference between an open and closed system? While it is useful to contrast these, the reality is that there is no truly closed system. The researcher should be awakened to the fact that they are in a sort of organic environment at all times in everything they do. When you begin to work with OU systems and even conventional technology, you have to be aware of this because you have to protect your parts. And this relates to the fundamental question of where the energy ultimately comes from. There is an over simplistic view of electrical processes which ends up preventing people from discovering the things we wish to exploit in this research. For example, people assume that the Kirchhoff loop rule holds true with a DC input. Measurements are made and the same old conclusions are made. But the fact is the DC measurements and total readings are only made after it is turned on and before it is turned off. If the entire time of switch on and off were included then it would be at least be slightly different. We just choose to ignore the switching. It is a pest to be suppressed and disregarded. My point is that even in such a closed loop circuit we have additional environmental effects coming into play and resulting that are not part of the regularly accepted environmental effects of heat produced. The loop is never completely in a closed environment. The closed loop is not really about closed and open environment but about discharging the source charge.

As for the guidelines I see that some people do not follow them. And the major problem with the part about OU claims is that it would have to equally apply to OU disproof claims. Failure to do that automatically creates a hostile environment against OU BECAUSE it allows everyone and anyone to have a double standard and claim a disproof of something without the same standard of proving that in the same way. But I am not sure any claim has been allowed here yet.??

Have you ever had an OU claim be concluded as proven here? Would people be expected to believe that as proven?

Here we try to respect these rules when it comes to claims.
Administrators Peterae and Poynt's guidelines for claims at this open source venue .
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.0
To be used more as guidelines ,but the theme reads through strongly  .
Chet K
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 610
Dear Rick and Aking,

  I'm not sure if you know, but F6 is new here too just like you two, only been here a couple months and all of us here are getting to know him.  Just as we are getting to know you, time will tell if any of you will be around for any length of time. Right now I can say I personally am very displeased with F6's behavior in the last couple months.  Normally this site for years has run very smoothly for the most part, we have a few confrontations now and then, usually nothing major. F6, since he's been here, has made everything confrontational, it's his MO, he's torn apart other sites he's been at as well, please don't join him and help him do that to this site too, I understand the man brings out the confrontational feelings in most of us, but probably the best thing you can do is ignore him as much as possible and hope he moves on to destroy some other unwary site.  I hope I don't end up feeling the same way about you two in a couple of months,  I think what we all want here is to be and look professional and competent at what we are doing so lets all strive to make that happen and everbody will be happy except perhaps F6.

Regards
Room


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
L,
Well that is exactly what I am saying, so thank you for sharing that. All but the last line that contradicted that btw.
I didn't say replication is a double standard, but that it is a double standard to make a replication, additional claim, and not have the same requirements. I'm not sure how you could read the opposite from me unless you are just glossing over what I wrote.
Anyway, that should be added to the pdf file for this forum. Any replication claim needs to meet the same requirements.
But no, this forum has people that are free to make dismissive claims against other claims without such requirements and without even mentioning why. That is a double standard. You are not allowed to make an OU claim but you are allowed to slander people and make sweeping disproving claims against people and their OU research. Obviously such statements were written against the rules and to boost ego. They were said to intimidate and insult. There was nothing professional or even logical about what F wrote in that respect.
The second last point is also important. It shows you have to have the right information in order to replicate. But here we have seen that someone has rejected a claim before it was even presented by making sweeping claims.

Good day All:
I seem to remember from my undergrad days at the university that Replication is the backbone of the Scientific Method. 
Replication of an experiment is not a "double-standard", it is the de facto Standard of the Scientific Method.
"Replication
If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results might have been in error. As a result, it is common for a single experiment to be performed multiple times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also attempt to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results would be important to their own work.[50]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This forum has always operated under this premise, as this is NOT something new (as of this thread) imposed to discriminate nor intimidate, especially on a personal level.
If information cannot or will not be share such as to facilitate proper scientific methodology (ie; replication of said experiment), then it becomes impossible to validate the experiment and advance the claim.
Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs.
take care, peace
lost_bro
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
R,
Well that is good to hear from you even if it is bad news. I didn't realize that, and but I got the same kind of private statement from others.

As for me, I came here I peace and two times now got really attacked right away. I am a thorough person and I respond to people as you can see. I am not confrontational, and am calling for honesty, peace, logic and science. I don't have time for the drama but I decided to address all the questions on these two forums so that my students can learn what games are being played on the forums and how to deal with such people. Now I hold nothing against people but their own words. If they want to be civil I will meet them there immediately. Otherwise I will just jest with them and show them their folly as with F6. I don't think he can recover from that. I haven't seen it that bad even with the characters on OU.com But there you can see that if these guys who insult me behave I will still work with them politely.

Anyway, I'll be interested to learn more about you less hostile people here. I'm not sure if you have the right system here for success, but I'll consider it. I'm not looking for validation however. I don't need that as I am too busy with people wanting more and actually developing real products. These forums are generally old news with regards to trying to prove OU. I have come a long way in all this as one who has owned many forums over the years. I realized that it is more important to teach all the principles of free energy than anything else. So that is what I'm working on. Not sure if it will work with what you people are doing here or not. But that goal is not to learn how to do one extra ordinary circuit but rather how to make most OU systems with whatever parts you have available. This is a completely different level and has not been done before. You guys have the first point implied in your pdf already so that is good. I'm not sure it is fully appreciated.

Once I am done with the new website I can consider doing here or on OU.com the simplest system. I have already done that in video, but since it is old news no one wants to address it.

Thank you,
Rick

Dear Rick and Aking,

  I'm not sure if you know, but F6 is new here too just like you two, only been here a couple months and all of us here are getting to know him.  Just as we are getting to know you, time will tell if any of you will be around for any length of time. Right now I can say I personally am very displeased with F6's behavior in the last couple months.  Normally this site for years has run very smoothly for the most part, we have a few confrontations now and then, usually nothing major. F6, since he's been here, has made everything confrontational, it's his MO, he's torn apart other sites he's been at as well, please don't join him and help him do that to this site too, I understand the man brings out the confrontational feelings in most of us, but probably the best thing you can do is ignore him as much as possible and hope he moves on to destroy some other unwary site.  I hope I don't end up feeling the same way about you two in a couple of months,  I think what we all want here is to be and look professional and competent at what we are doing so lets all strive to make that happen and everbody will be happy except perhaps F6.

Regards
Room
   
Group: Renaissance Man
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
No, it is simply because proof is not any different from one thing to another so long as it is in the same category. There are different kinds of truths like truths of reason, and truths of demonstration. That is the only kind of distinction between proofs. But proofs for truths of demonstration are the same. Proof is not more or less than evidence amounting to rational conviction. Evidence is not proof. Only that degree which warrants rational conviction. It is at that point where the onus changes from the claimant to the denier. Using the word extraordinary is just a trick to make a special pleading fallacy. It becomes an excuse to disbelieve something we don't want to believe because we are in a state of confirmation bias and/or cognitive dissonance.

A claim is a claim. Whether it is popular or hard for us to accept. It is either verifiable and sufficiently demonstrated or elucidated to the level of warranting rational conviction, or it is not. There is nothing extraordinary about such process or conviction.

"Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proofs. take care, peace lost_bro"

This is one of the saddest quotes you can ever read.
Why?
Because it is relative.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
...
« Last Edit: 2019-07-15, 03:29:16 by partzman »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:35:51 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.

« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:36:10 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
.
« Last Edit: 2019-07-22, 08:36:36 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
Dear Rick and Aking,

  I'm not sure if you know, but F6 is new here too just like you two, only been here a couple months and all of us here are getting to know him.  Just as we are getting to know you, time will tell if any of you will be around for any length of time. Right now I can say I personally am very displeased with F6's behavior in the last couple months.  Normally this site for years has run very smoothly for the most part, we have a few confrontations now and then, usually nothing major. F6, since he's been here, has made everything confrontational, it's his MO, he's torn apart other sites he's been at as well, please don't join him and help him do that to this site too, I understand the man brings out the confrontational feelings in most of us, but probably the best thing you can do is ignore him as much as possible and hope he moves on to destroy some other unwary site.  I hope I don't end up feeling the same way about you two in a couple of months,  I think what we all want here is to be and look professional and competent at what we are doing so lets all strive to make that happen and everybody will be happy except perhaps F6.

Regards
Room

I second that, well spoken.

Ron


   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-20, 23:11:45