Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:08:59PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
>
>> So should we only be interested in this kind of stuff if it comes from a
>> reputable mega corporation
>>
>
> No. But this provides some insight in why you want to believe
> this: because it's not coming from that angle but 'alternative'.
> In both cases you just blindly believe on 'authority'. Which is
> of course very comforting if you desperately want something to
> believe in this bad world, and it's why many people are religious.
>
>
No. I just don't believe that all scientific breakthroughs have to be
discovered by someone with a university or mega corp backing them. In
much the same way that I don't think all useful software has to be
developed in the same circumstances.
>> or institute of higher learning
>>
>
> In that case you're never asked to believe something on
> the basis of some video, or on authority. If it's science,
> it will build on previous results that have been verified,
> usually over and over, and that are logically consistent.
> You can, with some effort, learn these things and verify
> them for yourself. Science was 'open source' before the
> term existed - it's the essence of it.
>
>
>> affiliated and funded by said reputable mega corp?
>>
>
> Private funding of scientific research is a problem, but
> does not invalidate it as long as it follows the rules
> of science.
>
>
>> If you don't watch the videos then you should not comment
>> on the validity of the results.
>>
>
> Why not ? The accumulated body of knowledge of physics,
> of which I know some parts, and some others on this list
> probably a lot more, weights in much more heavy than a
> video. If I send you a video on which you see my head
> turning 720 degrees while my shoulders remain fixed,
> would you believe it ? Maybe you would, starting from
> the idea that anatomy and medical science must be evil,
> since the latter is funded by some large private firms ?
>
Well if you said that your head could spin and you stayed alive it would
take a bit of convincing but if many people all over the world said the
same thing and had video evidence for it then we would have something to
look into.
> Anyway, nobody is contesting the videos. You can make
> water explode (done it myself), as you can make explode
> anything you want, by putting enough energy in it.
> That doesn't mean the water provides any energy. In
> other words these videos are completely irrelevant.
>
> Is there any of them in which the experimenters
> provide a calculated or measured balance of the
> energy they put in and what comes out ? If not
> they are just amusement.
>
> Ciao,
>
>
They are measuring the amount of energy that is required and reporting
back significant results that go against conventional understanding. As
in it is possible to get the explosion using just a standard car battery
with this specific circuit. Hence there are some people who are
reporting that they are already driving around in cars that run on water
and other people are in the process of validating the claims themselves.
Perhaps it is all a hoax though. That would be quite clever to get so
many people involved.
If you seriously believe that the current knowledge base of accepted
science within the energy industry doesn't include suppressing
information for political and financial gain then I would have to
question your sanity as much as you question mine.
-- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Tue Aug 5 20:15:17 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 05 2008 - 20:15:17 EEST