John Cuthber

"We are 25 comments into this and you don't seem to have a clue as to how it "allegedly" operates." Because I watched the video you cited. This one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bomq8S0ynQ Did you forget that you posted it? So, as I said, you seem to be deliberately missing the point. That video, which you cited as evidence in support is produced by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Do you think that you should have not posted it? You say "I listened to it all, and watched most of it, and I do not recognize anything like what your position states." well, others can listen too and we can see what they say but I heard this: At 5 min 25 sec he says "we have demonstrated reproducible heat bursts of a very high magnitude" At 5:44 he says "it's of very large magnitude" And what I said was "they show that they don't know what they are talking about because they claim the heat production "of a very large magnitude"." Once again,did you actually watch the video you cited?

What?

"but I do not see how you think temperature or heat have anything to do with the power they are generating." you seem to be deliberately missing the point. In the video which you present as evidence that others have independently validated this stuff, they say that they are getting "heat production of a very large magnitude". They are not. So they do not know what they are talking about. So you can not rely on them for evidence concerning the validity of the whole showboat. The only thing that people in the video tested was the emission of heat. If you say that the process is something else then you are refuting the assertion that the video validates their claim. If I have no idea how it operates then I'm not the only one. Nor do the people who made the video. Have you actually watched it?

Utter bollocks; they clearly say in the video that they are measuring heat output. nothing about light.

Sat navs don't send anything

"red is weak" No it is not. But thanks for making it plain that you do not understand, you just think you do.

I wonder if he knows that the biggest single Christian group accepts evolution as fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Relative, Why not learn what the right words are? For example, in a rainbow, what distinguishes the colours you see is not viscosity, but wavelength. In the opening post you talk nonsense about viscosity. What actually causes the effects you see is reflection of light from glass. That in turn depends on something called the refractive index. It has, of course, nothing to do with viscosity. In effect what you have said is "everything in the universe has a mother-in-law and I will choose to redefine what that phrase means each time I use it and I don't intend it to mean what everyone else uses it for." How can you imagine that such behaviour will help? So. where you say "I have looked at your science" OK, you looked. Did you understand it all? If not, there's no way you can validly comment on it.

FFS! the "independent" replication video starts with a plug from the guy who is accused of fraud. They then have a bloke who says "I know about photovoltaics etc" (i.e. he's a physicist) and then says "based on the chemistry involved..." So, he may have a PhD, but it's not in the subject he is talking about. That's not a good sign They say they regularly produce over a megajoule of energy. Woot! Sounds impressive. Except that it's roughly the energy content of a mars bar. Now, they are getting that energy from some "magic" stuff supplied to them by BL. But they are using about a kilogram of the stuff at a time. (It says so at 01:55 in the video) So, what they can do with a kilo of "magic stuff" is store the same energy as a candy bar that weighs 17 times less. All that demonstration shows is that a chemical reaction can generate heat. Well, that has been known since man discovered fire. So what? at about 5 mins they say they can't work out what the chemistry is. Well, that may be because they are not chemists. Also, they show that they don';t know what they are talking about because they claim the heat production if "of a very large magnitude". Well, clearly, it isn't. You are not going to run a power station on something with an energy density that's roughly 20 times less than that of coal.

The local vibration does not cease at 0K. There is still vibration there. For it to stop vibrating would require its position (wrt the lattice) to be known exactly and that's a breach of the uncertainty principle. And experimentally, we can look at the energy levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration#mediaviewer/File:Anharmonic_oscillator.gif Eo is not zero.

If their circumstances are so bad that voting for Hamas looks like a good idea to them, perhaps we should look at who is enforcing those circumstances with a great big steel and concrete wall. You may be unable to comment on the situation, but others have for example, http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/gaza-chronic-shortages-drugs-and-medical-supplies and they also comment on the reasons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid http://revivers.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/gazaunderattack-egypt-turns-back-tunisian-plane-loaded-with-medical-supplies-for-gaza/ As for the money, presumably for much the same reasons that our "leaders" are all very rich and getting richer at our expense. That's not unique to Gaza and so it's not the same issue.

My contention is that he likes making money. It's also entirely possible that he is deluded rather than dishonest, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he has been rubbished on the web consistently for years.

There is some hope that rationalism is on the rise. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10626076/Is-America-losing-faith-Atheism-on-the-rise-but-still-in-the-shadows.html

Logically, you have a point. Once you can buy pretty much anything, there's no genuine point to wishing to earn more. Yet people do. People who have a lot more than 10 million still strive to make more money. Anyone with 11 million or more could have stopped at 10- they didn't. The point I was making was that he certainly didn't make any sacrifice to pursue this line and he has a very big incentive to cheat. The point that the investors can check the books is beside the point for two reasons. Firstly, his results are fraudulent so how good do you think his books are? Secondly, anyone with an ounce of sense would check the physics before they invested and realise this is all woo woo. (Those who don't have the background to check it themselves could get a physics student from the local university to check it over on their behalf. Any competent student would realise it's bollocks.) And you seem to have rather missed the point about research. The idea is that you do it to gather data so, when you say "I could claim any current research is bogus, or why bother with research at all if they can simply look things up in textbooks." you fail to spot the difference. One side has repeatable results and the other side has smoke and mirrors.

We currently have a health minister and a science minister who believe in homoeopathy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hunt_(politician) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Clark

Firstly, nobody is censoring your posts . I suspect that what happened was that it got moved to the right part of the site. Secondly, Let me sumarise what you have said. "HE IS A REAL MEDICAL DOCTOR (Not just PhD) and can easily earn $100-$400k per year just being a Doctor" "He then stopped being a Medical Doctor and has spent the past 25 years trying to make his Theory into a working energy source." OK, so, if he had carried on at 400K per year for 25 years he would have raised ten million. By changing his career "He has raised and spent 60-80 million USD". Sounds like a very sensible career decision- even if he knows the product is bogus. But the real problem is that there's no evidence for this working. There never was. There never will be.

They never will, unless forced to. What concrete differences are there?

". If you 'forcefully' take their religion from those people (majority) they will not suddenly become independent thinkers. Instead they will start wandering and will eventually reach Scientology or whatever" So, the problem is that, without religion, people drift towards religion. Why not herd them in the direction of rational thought?

Wow, you think that food is the only thing that matters! How about freedom to travel, freedom to find work, proper medical care etc?

They would contend that their actions (terrorist or not, depending on your point of view) are the only option they have because someone denied them their basic human rights.

"reflect the mores and customs of some pristine society." Their views may have been, in some sense "pristine" but they were barbaric. I can reflect perfectly well on that without needing to believe in a sky fairy. "meeting in a common forum has unquestionable social benefits" And my friends and I enjoy those benefits without any need of religion. "it develops the habit of reading" Well,, for most of history, the majority of people were religious, but couldn't read so that's just plain wrong. What promoted literacy was the removal of debarments to social mobility. Many of those, such as the denigration of women and the caste system are maintained by religion. The less literate parts of the world are still the more religious ones so you assertion's simply not true. "it promotes equanimity if read in the right spirit" No, equanimity may promote reading it that way but the texts still say you should stone people to death for being different. "- it cuts across age groups and is cross demographic - religious texts are read by a wide range of the population with basic reading skills. It does not require specific skills, say scientific or actuarial, to grasp the basic ideas" Not really. It's education which allows people to grasp basic ideas and religion is noted for prevention of education. People are perfectly capable of grasping many ideas without religion. religion, on the other hand, tells them what ideas are forbidden. That's not a recipe for progress. All in all, you have not put forward a single idea that can not be done at least as well,and generally better, without religion.

Given the opportunity, humans have an innate tendency to eat a varied diet- a trip to the local supermarket will prove this. I have eaten bark- specifically the variety called cinnamon and, while I have't had pine needle tea, I have drunk enough retsina to prove that people will consume these products readily, even when other foodstuffs are present. IIRC the original "chewing gum" was beech bark. So, all the claims about bark are an irrelevance- people eat it anyway. It wouldn't take people long to discover that these materials (and some others) ward off scurvy, even though they wouldn't understand why. So people are intrinsically well adapted to survive in a variety of environments. On the other hand, there are no plants growing in my house, nor are there any suitable prey animals. I am, it seems, not biologically adapted to live in my house.

As far as I am aware there is no known material which is a superconductor at (or anywhere near) 50C. So your statement is not a fact at all, unless you are about to announce a Nobel Prize winning discovery. Incidentally, even if it were superconductive, it wouldn't make any real difference to the experiment. You could just as well use soot.

"Light and higher energy are particle and not induction effects." but I can show the photoelectric effect with energy that's not light. In particular, I can use infra red light. And I can do diffraction experiments with xrays so they are just as much waves as radio waves are. Are you actually able to come up with any real differences? "Also, just out of curiosity do you believe heat and sound are electromagnetic phenomena to?" No. " Is everything EM? No, of course not. Please don't waste any more time with strawmen. "In addition, can a position probability form a negataive value?" Who cares? It has nothing to do with the issues.

Copernicus, Just out of idle curiosity, could you let me know where in the em spectrum from radio waves (all the way down to ELF radiation) through microwaves, into the millimetre waves, through the infra red and into the realm of visible light you imagine there is some "cut off" between the sort of things that Ampere and Hertz did and the behaviour of light?