Mary stated: "I'd love to see those "supporting references and calculations" you advocated. If you don't know of exceptions, you should regard such claims as highly suspicious and rather than accepting them at face value when someone makes the claims, you should insist that they be particularly cautiously and thoroughly evaluated."
Can you read English? Please show me where I was advocating one of those dubious breakthroughs! I wasn't advocating anything. How you got that notion from my posting is a mystery to me! You also haven't responded to my statement that just because most of those breakthroughs have been proven false/fraud, doesn't mean that you can just label all such claims the same. Each has to be proven on its own - we do agree on that. You seem to have too strong a reliance on the theory side. theory is only a guideline. There have been numerous instances where the "well established and proven natural laws" HAVE INDEED BEEN BROKEN OR SERIOUSLY REVISED! How the hell do you think science has advanced? Do NOT make the mistake of falling in love with theories. they are destined for eventual overthrow. Gotta Git. got a date with some turkey's breasts, prime cow ribs, bourbon sweet potatoes and fermented grapejuice! -m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: It is SELDOM a black or white situation. just because past claims of magnet motors and water cars have been shown to be mistaken or fraudulent, doesn't mean that ALL such claims can be concluded to be the same. IF you think that, then you have no idea how science operates. Magnet motors that claim "overunity" (Goldes, Steorn, Aviso, Dennis Lee, Bedini and who knows how many more?) and running a car purely on ordinary water (HHO scams and the like) would break well established and proven natural laws. In addition to that fact, most such claims in the past have turned out to be mistakes, self deceptions and/or rank criminal deception for profit (scams). A few have not yet been resolved as to their nature. And ALL are unproven, as far as I can determine. If you know of any exceptions, I'd love to see those "supporting references and calculations" you advocated. If you don't know of exceptions, you should regard such claims as highly suspicious and rather than accepting them at face value when someone makes the claims, you should insist that they be particularly cautiously and thoroughly evaluated. That is what Sagan meant when he said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
