When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[hung]

Strike one.

CERN has just discovered that one type of neutrino CAN indeed travel faster than light.
This hit the news yesterday.
As I already stated many times, ordinary physics will have to revaluate and update a lot of WRONG beliefs.
Einstein was wrong.
So was science to date believeing him right.

This is just a sample of the SEVERAL wrong concepts science has yet to revise.

This is going to be fun.

When ordinary science fails to explain...
Now talk to me about skep's current science knowledge.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[werleibr]

Strike one.

CERN has just discovered that one type of neutrino CAN indeed travel faster than light.
This hit the news yesterday.
As I already stated many times, ordinary physics will have to revaluate and update a lot of WRONG beliefs.
Einstein was wrong.
So was science to date believeing him right.

This is just a sample of the SEVERAL wrong concepts science has yet to revise.

This is going to be fun.

When ordinary science fails to explain...
Now talk to me about skep's current science knowledge.

Word of caution, They are currently verifying this. If it is verified it will be a great discovery!

 

[EE THr]

Strike one.

CERN has just discovered that one type of neutrino CAN indeed travel faster than light.
This hit the news yesterday.
As I already stated many times, ordinary physics will have to revaluate and update a lot of WRONG beliefs.
Einstein was wrong.
So was science to date believeing him right.

This is just a sample of the SEVERAL wrong concepts science has yet to revise.

This is going to be fun.

When ordinary science fails to explain...
Now talk to me about skep's current science knowledge.

I'd rather you talk about the LRL promoters' failure to ever prove that they work.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

I'd rather you talk about the LRL promoters' failure to ever prove that they work.

Thousands of LRL users have proved that they work...Just because you can not believe your eye is not our problem...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

I'd rather you talk about the LRL promoters' failure to ever prove that they work.

Thousands of LRL users have proved that they work...Just because you can not believe your eye is not our problem...Art

Wrong....Not one single LRLer has ever provided valid proof that LRLs actually work.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Wrong....Not one single LRLer has ever provided valid proof that LRLs actually work.

Sorry that testimonials, movies and photo’s of finds are not enough proof for you..Still looks like it is your problem and not ours..
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

 

[etowah]

Hey fenixdigger, will you please email me I need some advice.
etowah ( Glenn) at [email protected]

 

[hung]

Though this is a treasure hunting forum and not a high physics discussion blog I couldn't help to post as I find peculiar that CERN is arriving at some answers (again) in the neverending wrong way (again) and finding answers for the wrong standard model through its mistaken assumptions (again).

So neutrinos faster than light could finally prove Einstein's GRT wrong, since it's already wrong from the start only admiting linear space and facing SERIOUS trouble to keep the falacy of constant 'm' in a curved space?

Electron and photon masses are not constant. This old and wrong Einstein-De Broglie concept is replaced by scalar curvature. No Higgs bosom. Mass is dependent (always) from frequencies.
As Dr. Evans states in this paper http://aias.us/documents/uft/a194thpaper.pdf , GRT is not valid for a precession elliptical orbit. So it only admits a linear light path since it fails in describe light bending by gravitation.
And now the CERN wizards notice that those damn neutrinos are messing with their light speed comprehension??

As I said, this is going to be fun to watch. Besides admiting they have not found the 'particle of God' as they thought they would in the near future, they will keep discovering more 'strange' things. And physics and ordinary science will start SHOUTING at the deaf remained.

But skeptics, don't get discouraged in miserably confronting LRL working principles with current high school physics point of view.
Well the show here has been going on several years and it was so amusing. It must go on, right?

 

[Saturna]

Though this is a treasure hunting forum ...

Good thing for Art & Hung this isn't a treasure finding forum.

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Wrong....Not one single LRLer has ever provided valid proof that LRLs actually work.

Sorry that testimonials, movies and photo’s of finds are not enough proof for you..Still looks like it is your problem and not ours..
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

Only proof is proof.

 

[EE THr]

Well the show here has been going on several years and it was so amusing.

What's really amusing is your lame attempt to relate the accuracy of a dead guy's theories to nonexistant proof that LRLs work.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Only proof is proof.

We have put 60 plus testimonials and the links to 100’s more. We have put photos and the links to 100’s of others. We have put movies of how our devices work and links to many more..That is what we call proof...You have put exactly nothing on here that proves that LRL’s do not work..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Only proof is proof.

We have put 60 plus testimonials and the links to 100’s more. We have put photos and the links to 100’s of others. We have put movies of how our devices work and links to many more..That is what we call proof...You have put exactly nothing on here that proves that LRL’s do not work..Art

If LRLs worked, somebody would have stepped forward and proven it to the World by now.

 

[woof!]

Art, of those two principles, which do you suppose the Thomas Gravitator works on?

Puff, can you explain what principle LRL advertising works on?

Hung, if neutrinos do something unexpected, does that prove that pigs fly?

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

If LRLs worked, somebody would have stepped forward and proven it to the World by now.

We have people from all over the world here on T-Net..

You are correct David...there is so much stuff that we still do not understand that LRL’s are not a high priority to the Scientific community..Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

If LRLs worked, somebody would have stepped forward and proven it to the World by now.

We have people from all over the world here on T-Net..

You are correct David...there is so much stuff that we still do not understand that LRL’s are not a high priority to the Scientific community..Art

Art---

All your lines of BS are only lame attempts at excuses for the ever-obvious lack of real proof.

 

[EE THr]

Gravity,as well as Anti-Gravity,can be simulated,using ElectroMagnetism.

Wrong, Puffy. Gravity and magnetism are two completely different forces.

That would be like saying you can simulate magnetism with a vacuum cleaner. They both suck things toward them, but one is not a simulation of the other.

And whatever similarities they may have, have no bearing on whether LRLs work, that's for sure!

The remainder of your statements are even more nonsensical, and totally irrelevant, anyway.

 

[woof!]

"read the advertisement" then you know, the LRL proponents provide the proof

~EE~

If LRLs worked, somebody would have stepped forward and proven it to the World by now.

We have people from all over the world here on T-Net..

You are correct David...there is so much stuff that we still do not understand that LRL’s are not a high priority to the Scientific community..Art

Now, that's funny, Art!

We have people from all over the world here on the Big T, and not one is willing to go through the following steps:
1. make a claim regarding an LRL which is both interesting, and something that can't be done with coat hangers;
2. demonstrate it in public under conditions which preclude the possibility of fraud or dumb luck, to a degree that the result is afforded credibility without the need for gullibility.

Two simple steps that not one LRL proponent is willing to do, even though the opportunity for vindication and wealth awaits....... which means that the LRL Doodlebuggers and the Dreaded Skeptics are in solid agreement about the crux of the matter-- that the things don't do what the proponents say they will.

To Deekle Incorporated's credit, they at least sent a guy to Sandia Labs to try to perform according to criteria of that same sort. Their performance sucked, but at least they took a shot at it in an attempt to save face. The rest of the LRL industry has no face to save. It was for good reason that I named the Gravitator (the Deekle's alter ego) in my previous post: the print media ads tell the truth about it, and therefore the claims in the print media ads require no "demo" for vindication. I myself have been praising the Gravitator print media advertisement for nearly a decade. Read the advertisement!


* * * * *

Artie, the scientific community hasn't taken a whole lot of interest in LRL's, for a rather obvious reason: LRL proponents haven't demonstrated anything more interesting than gullibility, delusion, and/or fraud. No new scientific principles have been revealed, not even in the patents (!) which afford great case studies in how patent fraud is committed. If Buddy Hung wants to be taken seriously, all he has to do is to get off the flashbulb eyeballs kick and demo an apparatus that does something that's more interesting from a scientific perspective than from a fraud perspective.

And here's how afraid I am of that happening: I understand how LRL's work, I have the engineering capability to design a very good LRL (as I have repeatedly demonstrated on this forum), I work for a company which has the capability of marketing an LRL, and....... not once have I ever told the boss that we should work on an LRL. There's a very good reason for that-- the damn things are frauds.

I have suggested to the boss that we get into the dowsing rod business (I could design a darn good dowsing rod, and it wouldn't even have to be fraudulent), but dowsers themselves have given dowsing such a bad rep that he's not interested, besides which you can get a fairly good (if not Toto quality) commercial dowsing rod for a lot less than $100. Try that with an LRL!

A dowsing rod is a swingy thingy. An LRL is a swingy thingy with bogus electronic stuff attached, or worse yet with claims of bogus electronic stuff attached that either does nothing electronic or is not even there!

--Toto

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning:

A partial answer as to why scentists are not working on lrl's lies in the peer rejection of status because of an ancient stigma attached to the 'former ' para normal classification, and the capital needed. Adjusting the level of auto rejection and with capital it would soon be a practicality since it is so obviously possible.

However, indirect steps ARE being made by EE's favorites -->



Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~
All your lines of BS are only lame attempts at excuses for the ever-obvious lack of real proof.
Sorry that you feel that way as that is all the proof you have is..You have been told how to prove they work to yourself..
~woof!~

We have people from all over the world here on the Big T, and not one is willing to go through the following steps:
1. make a claim regarding an LRL which is both interesting, and something that can't be done with coat hangers;

I have stated many times that I can locate treasure with a set of Dowsing Rods...I also have stated that I prefer using my LRL because it will provide me with more information than a set of dowsing rods...And yes..Using a LRL is very interesting...

2. demonstrate it in public under conditions which preclude the possibility of fraud or dumb luck, to a degree that the result is afforded credibility without the need for gullibility.

Has been done
Read the advertisement seems to be your only proof.

Artie, the scientific community hasn't taken a whole lot of interest in LRL's

You are correct as using a LRL is simple to understand and there are no big bucks available to them

Tropical Tramp

A partial answer as to why scentists are not working on lrl's lies in the peer rejection of status because of an ancient stigma attached to the 'former ' para normal classification, and the capital needed. Adjusting the level of auto rejection and with capital it would soon be a practicality since it is so obviously possible.

Correct as usual....Art