Belief in alien visits to Earth is spiralling out of control – here’s why that’s so dangerous

[DaveC426913]

I have. Just doing for my own amusement now.

And this is "enlightened"? Can't even troll with originality.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

And this is "enlightened"? Can't even troll with originality.

When one meets up with the likes of you, amusement is very enlightening.
I am so much more original than you will ever be with your attitudes.

 

[James R]

You can never prove anything impossible.

You are incorrect about that.

Cold fusion has been demonstrated but reproducibility is still too low.

I am aware of no demonstration of cold fusion. Maybe start a thread on it and tell us all where it was demonstrated and by whom.

Why isn't this massive news? Free energy to solve global warming etc.? Who wouldn't want that? (Apart from Big Oil etc.) Is there a conspiracy to suppress the information? If so, how do you know all about it?

Same with free energy but even lower reproducibility.

So, you're making all these claims, but not producing the goods, so far. Can you do better?

Fundamental laws can be superceeded by new developments or at least modified to allow the new developments.

Yes, in very rare cases where there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that there is a problem with fundamental laws as they are currently understood.

Zero point in the free energy community has a different meaning.

That figures. Pseudoscience does that all the time: dressing up nonsense with language borrowed from real science, to try to sound legitimate.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

You are incorrect about that.

I am aware of no demonstration of cold fusion. Maybe start a thread on it and tell us all where it was demonstrated and by whom.

Why isn't this massive news? Free energy to solve global warming etc.? Who wouldn't want that? (Apart from Big Oil etc.) Is there a conspiracy to suppress the information? If so, how do you know all about it?

So, you're making all these claims, but not producing the goods, so far. Can you do better?

Yes, in very rare cases where there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that there is a problem with fundamental laws as they are currently understood.

That figures. Pseudoscience does that all the time: dressing up nonsense with language borrowed from real science, to try to sound legitimate.

You can only prove it doesn't fit your present paradigm.
From what I've read the conspiracy is real but information still gets out.
I'm telling you what I have read. If you don't believe it I don't really care.
Certain laws are only fundamental until new ones arise. T

In this case it's only pseudoscience to you and yours.

 

[James R]

You can only prove it doesn't fit your present paradigm.

My present paradigm is reality-based. How about yours?

From what I've read the conspiracy is real but information still gets out.

You've been reading the wrong sources, obviously. Probably you got sucked into the internet cesspool of conspiracy theories, where literally everything can be explained with reference to an imagined conspiracy. If we don't know it, it's because it has been covered up by the conspiracists. If there's no good evidence for it, it's because there's a conspiracy to suppress the evidence. If there's no evidence that there actually are any conspiracists, it's because they have such a large amount of control and they are so good at hiding themselves. It's the shadow government. It's the Illuminati. It's the Lizard People. We know they are there - somehow! - but we can never find them.

I'm telling you what I have read. If you don't believe it I don't really care.

This is the problem with many Americans these days. They don't care about what is true. All that matters is what feels good and what they'd like to be true.

Certain laws are only fundamental until new ones arise.

If you say so.

In this case it's only pseudoscience to you and yours.

No. The reality-based community, of which I am a proud member, is much larger than you seem to think it is.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

My present paradigm is reality-based. How about yours?

You've been reading the wrong sources, obviously. Probably you got sucked into the internet cesspool of conspiracy theories, where literally everything can be explained with reference to an imagined conspiracy. If we don't know it, it's because it has been covered up by the conspiracists. If there's no good evidence for it, it's because there's a conspiracy to suppress the evidence. If there's no evidence that there actually are any conspiracists, it's because they have such a large amount of control and they are so good at hiding themselves. It's the shadow government. It's the Illuminati. It's the Lizard People. We know they are there - somehow! - but we can never find them.

This is the problem with many Americans these days. They don't care about what is true. All that matters is what feels good and what they'd like to be true.

If you say so.

No. The reality-based community, of which I am a proud member, is much larger than you seem to think it is.

My present paradigm is based on a reality which is much larger than most others reality.
Everyone has their own reality that is objective to them and produces their own truths. Where they intersect you can have communication, but they are still distinct and different.

 

[exchemist]

Show me scientists in the mainstream willing to accept the possibility of cold fusion, free energy, energy from the vacuum, zero point energy, etc, Much of these have been observed, but repeatability is low.

That means a few people think, or claim, to have observed them. But individuals are frequently mistaken, or may even lie. That’s why reproducibility is so important in science. And so is scepticism.

As a matter of fact many attempts have been made to replicate cold fusion without success, which fits with theory.

No free energy has ever been obtained in a reproducible manner, which again fits with theory.

Zero point energy, on the other hand, is both predicted by quantum mechanics (because of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) and observed, indirectly, e.g. via things like ionisation energies, which also fit with the value calculated from theory.

 

[(Q)]

My present paradigm is based on a reality which is much larger than most others reality.
Everyone has their own reality that is objective to them and produces their own truths. Where they intersect you can have communication, but they are still distinct and different.

There is but one reality and we all share it. Some will create "Alternative" realities for themselves living out their lives in a bubble pretending they are right and everyone else living in reality is wrong. Sound like someone you know?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

That means a few people think, or claim, to have observed them. But individuals are frequently mistaken, or may even lie. That’s why reproducibility is so important in science. And so is scepticism.

As a matter of fact many attempts have been made to replicate cold fusion without success, which fits with theory.

No free energy has ever been obtained in a reproducible manner, which again fits with theory.

Zero point energy, on the other hand, is both predicted by quantum mechanics (because of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) and observed, indirectly, e.g. via things like ionisation energies, which also fit with the value calculated from theory.

So you are accusing people of being fools and liars.

Reproducibility is low, not non-existent.

Energy from cohered vacuum fluctuations was one of the areas at least being looked at.

Just because you haven't read or heard about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[TheVat]

My present paradigm is based on a reality which is much larger than most others reality.
Everyone has their own reality that is objective to them and produces their own truths. Where they intersect you can have communication, but they are still distinct and different.

That's not what "objective" means. Objective means it's about an external reality we all agree on because our observations match. There's just one reality - what is out there, outside our noggins. Where people differ is how they may interpret whatever impressions they gather of that external world.

Similarly, truth is a word which refers to statements that correspond to the real world, so you don't really have people with "their own truth." Truth is what's true in the world, not something you can have all to yourself. All you can have are things that seem true to you, and that's your belief. But sometimes the real world can come along and vividly demonstrate that your belief is wrong. Truth is what's tested by that contact with reality and still holds up. Between 0 and 100 C., at sea level, water is wet.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

That's not what "objective" means. Objective means it's about an external reality we all agree on because our observations match. There's just one reality - what is out there, outside our noggins. Where people differ is how they may interpret whatever impressions they gather of that external world.

Similarly, truth is a word which refers to statements that correspond to the real world, so you don't really have people with "their own truth." Truth is what's true in the world, not something you can have all to yourself. All you can have are things that seem true to you, and that's your belief. But sometimes the real world can come along and vividly demonstrate that your belief is wrong. Truth is what's tested by that contact with reality and still holds up. Between 0 and 100 C., at sea level, water is wet.

No, objective is what's observed, experienced,and collated. Truth is what this points to.

 

[billvon]

Cold fusion has been demonstrated but reproducibility is still too low.

Reproducibility is zero. The only one who CLAIMS they could do it is Rossi - who, as mentioned, is a fraud.

Same with free energy but even lower reproducibility.

Well, the same, at least.

Fundamental laws can be superceeded by new developments or at least modified to allow the new developments.

Of course! But you do that by proposing new laws and then testing them; once you have enough (successful) experimental tests the new law is accepted.

Zero point in the free energy community has a different meaning.

Most people I have talked to in that community don't know what it means, other than "something free that the government doesn't want me to have."

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Reproducibility is zero. The only one who CLAIMS they could do it is Rossi - who, as mentioned, is a fraud.



Well, the same, at least.



Of course! But you do that by proposing new laws and then testing them; once you have enough (successful) experimental tests the new law is accepted.



Most people I have talked to in that community don't know what it means, other than "something free that the government doesn't want me to have."

Reproducibilities are not zero. You either reject them out of hand or don't know of them.

How much is enough, and how can one get the resources when the mainstream gets all the money and grants.

Free energy basically means over-unity, more out than in.

 

[billvon]

Reproducibilities are not zero. You either reject them out of hand or don't know of them.

I have seen none. Feel free to point out any you have seen.

How much is enough, and how can one get the resources when the mainstream gets all the money and grants.

Every significant scientific discovery, ever, has started out "not mainstream." Still works. You can get money for almost anything if you can show it has a chance of working. (Well, you used to be able to.)

Free energy basically means over-unity, more out than in.

If you define free energy as something that violates the laws of thermodynamics, then you by definition have set yourself up for failure.

However, there are a lot of "free energy" systems that use ambient energy and work quite well (solar, wind, hydro.)

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I have seen none. Feel free to point out any you have seen.

Every significant scientific discovery, ever, has started out "not mainstream." Still works. You can get money for almost anything if you can show it has a chance of working. (Well, you used to be able to.)

If you define free energy as something that violates the laws of thermodynamics, then you by definition have set yourself up for failure.

However, there are a lot of "free energy" systems that use ambient energy and work quite well (solar, wind, hydro.)

Physical laws (thermodynamics, etc.) are not absolute. They can and will be superseded or modified.

 

[billvon]

Physical laws (thermodynamics, etc.) are not absolute. They can and will be superseded or modified.

Then prove that happens and win a Nobel prize, guaranteed!

 

[exchemist]

So you are accusing people of being fools and liars.

Reproducibility is low, not non-existent.

Energy from cohered vacuum fluctuations was one of the areas at least being looked at.

Just because you haven't read or heard about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never said anything of the kind. But it is a fact that individuals can make mistakes, or construct experiments that have flaws in their design, or sometimes even cheat by inventing data points in order to meet their quota of published papers. That’s why reproducibility is essential in science. It is just a matter of quality assurance.

P.s. energy extraction from zero point energy is bullshit. Zero point energy is the residual energy of the ground state. Ground state means there is no energy level below it. Therefore no energy can be extracted.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Then prove that happens and win a Nobel prize, guaranteed!

Einstein and QM pioneers did just that.

 

[Pinball1970]

Einstein and QM pioneers did just that.

Einstein has been getting a lot of mention from posters lately.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I never said anything of the kind. But it is a fact that individuals can make mistakes, or construct experiments that have flaws in their design, or sometimes even cheat by inventing data points in order to meet their quota of published papers. That’s why reproducibility is essential in science. It is just a matter of quality assurance.

P.s. energy extraction from zero point energy is bullshit. Zero point energy is the residual energy of the ground state. Ground state means there is no energy level below it. Therefore no energy can be extracted.

Actually you said they may even lie and implied it again here.

How much reproduction is enough and by whom.

Zero point means this and other things in the over-unity community.