When Ordinary Science Fails to Explain

[EE THr]

EE, sigh, I am disappointed in you. Back to the point that was asked of me, and answered many times, we are discusing 'theories'. By it's very nature in normal definition, theories do not mean factual proof, but mental efforts to attempt to do so. As a matter of fact most science is based upon theories rather than flat, true proof.

We just don't know, but have come up with a series of theories that work well enough to do scientific and practical physical work even if eventually they may be proven to be completely incorrect.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Since you admit that there is no proof that any LRLs work, and that they actually do not work, that is no reason to try and rebut evidence of fraud with your "theories."

The trouble with theories is when you have only ideas. A theory is a proposition of something which you think will work when tested. You then stipulate a test of the theory, and do the test, and see what happens. Then your theory is either proven or disproven.

You instead try to say you have a theory, then base another theory upon that theory, but leave out the proof in between. Has that gotten you anywhere? Do you have a working LRL now? Didn't think so.

Have you done any tests at all? Didn't think so.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[EddieR]

EE, sigh, I am disappointed in you. Back to the point that was asked of me, and answered many times, we are discusing 'theories'. By it's very nature in normal definition, theories do not mean factual proof, but mental efforts to attempt to do so. As a matter of fact most science is based upon theories rather than flat, true proof.

We just don't know, but have come up with a series of theories that work well enough to do scientific and practical physical work even if eventually they may be proven to be completely incorrect.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Since you admit that there is no proof that any LRLs work, and that they actually do not work, that is no reason to try and rebut evidence of fraud with your "theories."

The trouble with theories is when you have only ideas. A theory is a proposition of something which you think will work when tested. You then stipulate a test of the theory, and do the test, and see what happens. Then your theory is either proven or disproven.

You instead try to say you have a theory, then base another theory upon that theory, but leave out the proof in between. Has that gotten you anywhere? Do you have a working LRL now? Didn't think so.

Have you done any tests at all? Didn't think so.

Which LRL's have you personally tested? I'm not talking about lazily looking at schematics. I mean actually using in the field.

 

[EE THr]

EE, sigh, I am disappointed in you. Back to the point that was asked of me, and answered many times, we are discusing 'theories'. By it's very nature in normal definition, theories do not mean factual proof, but mental efforts to attempt to do so. As a matter of fact most science is based upon theories rather than flat, true proof.

We just don't know, but have come up with a series of theories that work well enough to do scientific and practical physical work even if eventually they may be proven to be completely incorrect.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Since you admit that there is no proof that any LRLs work, and that they actually do not work, that is no reason to try and rebut evidence of fraud with your "theories."

The trouble with theories is when you have only ideas. A theory is a proposition of something which you think will work when tested. You then stipulate a test of the theory, and do the test, and see what happens. Then your theory is either proven or disproven.

You instead try to say you have a theory, then base another theory upon that theory, but leave out the proof in between. Has that gotten you anywhere? Do you have a working LRL now? Didn't think so.

Have you done any tests at all? Didn't think so.

Which LRL's have you personally tested? I'm not talking about lazily looking at schematics. I mean actually using in the field.

It's impossible to "use" an LRL, because they don't work. Everyone knows that by now, I hope.

Are you now claiming that you have one that works?

 

[EddieR]

EE, sigh, I am disappointed in you. Back to the point that was asked of me, and answered many times, we are discusing 'theories'. By it's very nature in normal definition, theories do not mean factual proof, but mental efforts to attempt to do so. As a matter of fact most science is based upon theories rather than flat, true proof.

We just don't know, but have come up with a series of theories that work well enough to do scientific and practical physical work even if eventually they may be proven to be completely incorrect.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Since you admit that there is no proof that any LRLs work, and that they actually do not work, that is no reason to try and rebut evidence of fraud with your "theories."

The trouble with theories is when you have only ideas. A theory is a proposition of something which you think will work when tested. You then stipulate a test of the theory, and do the test, and see what happens. Then your theory is either proven or disproven.

You instead try to say you have a theory, then base another theory upon that theory, but leave out the proof in between. Has that gotten you anywhere? Do you have a working LRL now? Didn't think so.

Have you done any tests at all? Didn't think so.

Which LRL's have you personally tested? I'm not talking about lazily looking at schematics. I mean actually using in the field.

It's impossible to "use" an LRL, because they don't work. Everyone knows that by now, I hope.

Are you now claiming that you have one that works?

Good Lord.... Was that question too hard for you to answer? I didn't make ANY claim in that post. I asked you a SIMPLE question. Quit with the straw man fallacy junk and simply answer the question.

I'll rephrase it: Which LRL's have you personally tested? Not basing your conclusions on schematics, I mean actually taking it into the outdoors and subjecting it to scientific tests.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

EE, give me the 'proven fact' on electricity, not just a workable theory, and how it was supposedly proven?
Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

EE, give me the 'proven fact' on electricity, not just a workable theory, and how it was supposedly proven?
Don Jose de La Mancha

You can prove that electricity exists---just stick your finger into a light bulb socket and turn the switch on.

Write when you wake up.

 

[EE THr]

Which LRL's have you personally tested? Not basing your conclusions on schematics, I mean actually taking it into the outdoors and subjecting it to scientific tests.

How do you imagine that my, or anyone's, personal experiences are going to make your fake LRLs work?

 

[EddieR]

Which LRL's have you personally tested? Not basing your conclusions on schematics, I mean actually taking it into the outdoors and subjecting it to scientific tests.

How do you imagine that my, or anyone's, personal experiences are going to make your fake LRLs work?

Why are you afraid to answer the question? Don't you realize that by running from questions, you destroy any credibility that you have built for yourself?

 

[werleibr]

Looks like Real you are getting the meaning of theory mixed up and it is getting bad.

The theory everyone is trying to state they are using is called Scientific Theory. Scientific theory isa collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. Now the big defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that Scientific Theory makes falsifiable or testable predictions

The theory everyone is using is this:a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation or an unproved assumption/conjecture, abstract thought : speculation

Now Real and everyone else to talk about theory we need to define theory so Here I am defining it. If you are going to use the word Theory we are going to talk about Scientific Theory. If you want to talk about speculation or Ideas that cannot be tested for use Idea or Hypothisis.

Now to use Theory as Scientific Theory you must meet the following criteria set up by Karl Popper:

• It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
  
• Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
  
• Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
  
• A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
  
• Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
  
• Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)
  
• Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (described as rescuing a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem".)

if that is to much wording you can summerize it up into this:the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability


Now if we can meet those guidelines, lets talk theory.[/list]

 

[aarthrj3811]

~werleibr~

Now if we can meet those guidelines, lets talk theory

OK..Now give us the theory you want to discuss...Art

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hi werlieber, thanks for confirming what I have been saying, although it could have been said in one or two sentences.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Why are you afraid to answer the question? Don't you realize that by running from questions, you destroy any credibility that you have built for yourself?

Why would I need credibility? I'm not the topic.

Everything I post can be checked on the Internet and other sources, and should be. I don't make any unsubstantiated claims, or demand that people simply "believe" me.

Sorry, Eddie, no matter how hard you try, you can't fight the truth with falsehoods.

And you are still your own best debunker!

 

[EddieR]

Why are you afraid to answer the question? Don't you realize that by running from questions, you destroy any credibility that you have built for yourself?

Why would I need credibility? I'm not the topic.

Everything I post can be checked on the Internet and other sources, and should be. I don't make any unsubstantiated claims, or demand that people simply "believe" me.

Sorry, Eddie, no matter how hard you try, you can't fight the truth with falsehoods.

And you are still your own best debunker!

You won't answer my question because you have no experience with LRL's. You are just looking for a niche to troll in. You have no experience with electronics, other than looking things up on the internet...you have no hands on experience with LRL's, so you are not qualified to pass judgement on fact or fake.

There. I've debunked YOU.

All this is easily deduced by your posts and lack of answers to simple questions that were asked of you.

Yes, the topic is LRL's, but in order to have an intelligent conversation/debate concerning them, you should have experience testing them. You have none. So you, once again, are nothing.

BTW, answering questions with a question only shows that you fear the fallout of telling the truth, so you therefore stall the question with one of your own. That's so childish.

 

[EE THr]

You won't answer my question because you have no experience with LRL's. You are just looking for a niche to troll in. You have no experience with electronics, other than looking things up on the internet...you have no hands on experience with LRL's, so you are not qualified to pass judgement on fact or fake.

There. I've debunked YOU.

All this is easily deduced by your posts and lack of answers to simple questions that were asked of you.

Yes, the topic is LRL's, but in order to have an intelligent conversation/debate concerning them, you should have experience testing them. You have none. So you, once again, are nothing.

BTW, answering questions with a question only shows that you fear the fallout of telling the truth, so you therefore stall the question with one of your own. That's so childish.

You are correct---I am absolutely nothing. But I am not the topic.

I prefer that any interested party check my statements about LRLs, using their own preferred sources. I have no desire, or need, to try to rely on my "credibility."

Credibility is not a part of the Scientific Method. But proof is.



ref: A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[EE THr]

Hi werlieber, thanks for confirming what I have been saying, although it could have been said in one or two sentences.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Actually, you have been saying, by inference of your statements, just the opposite.

You have continually made statements based upon mere ideas, which were in turn based upon hunches, and on and on. You seem to have no regard for proof or testing of these previous concepts on which you base your conclusions of possibilities. You also try to disjointedly connect some successful experiments with other unrelated suppositions, trying to make it sound like supporting evidence. In doing this, you have extended your vague guesswork far out of range of any actually known facts, making your suggestions flakey, and realistically useless.

And your complaint about werleibr's information being too wordy, is a common one for you. His was a good post, but you used your comment as merely a "parting shot" insult. Tisk-tisk.



P.S. If you could have said it in fewer words, then why haven't you before now?

 

[EE THr]

~werleibr~

Now if we can meet those guidelines, lets talk theory

OK..Now give us the theory you want to discuss...Art

Art---

Let me explain it all to you.

...Oh, jeeze. Never mind.

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Everything I post can be checked on the Internet and other sources, and should be. I don't make any unsubstantiated claims, or demand that people simply "believe" me.

If you would post where on the internet that it can be found we could do that..You have been asked may times to prove your claims.

I prefer that any interested party check my statements about LRLs, using their own preferred sources. I have no desire, or need, to try to rely on my "credibility."

We have checked our preferred sources and find that you have nothing...
~werleibr~

Now if we can meet those guidelines, lets talk theory

~Art~

OK..Now give us the theory you want to discuss...Art

~EE~

Art---

Let me explain it all to you.

...Oh, jeeze. Never mind.

Isn't it great to know that you have no Theories?...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Everything I post can be checked on the Internet and other sources, and should be. I don't make any unsubstantiated claims, or demand that people simply "believe" me.

If you would post where on the internet that it can be found we could do that..You have been asked may times to prove your claims.

Actually, I think I have posted more reference links than any of the LRL promoters here.

But even posting links can lead to "selective" references, like you always do with your definitions of "double-blind."

Everyone interested should use their own methods of checking information.

Try Google or Bing, for starters. These are called "Search Engines." You can type-in words or terms to search for. Try it sometime.

I prefer that any interested party check my statements about LRLs, using their own preferred sources. I have no desire, or need, to try to rely on my "credibility."

We have checked our preferred sources and find that you have nothing...

Unfortunately, your preferred sources are only other LRL promoters, and manufacturers. Typical for a "believer,"who regards facts and reality as mere nuisances.


~werleibr~

Now if we can meet those guidelines, lets talk theory

~Art~

OK..Now give us the theory you want to discuss...Art

~EE~

Art---

Let me explain it all to you.

...Oh, jeeze. Never mind.

Isn't it great to know that you have no Theories?...Art

That's right. I have no theories regarding LRLs. And neither does anyone else with a unit on the market, nor does anyone who promotes them.

Thanks for your help, again!

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~

Actually, I think I have posted more reference links than any of the LRL promoters here.

Yes..to your own personal opinion threads

But even posting links can lead to "selective" references, like you always do with your definitions of "double-blind."

I have posted 4 definitions of Double Blind Testing..Sorry..Apparently you can not comprehend them http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,411065.0.html

Everyone interested should use their own methods of checking information.

We have

Try Google or Bing, for starters. These are called "Search Engines." You can type-in words or terms to search for. Try it sometime.

Thank You but we already us them

Unfortunately, your preferred sources are only other LRL promoters, and manufacturers. Typical for a "believer," who regards facts and reality as mere nuisances.

Who else knows more about LRL’s?

That's right. I have no theories regarding LRLs. And neither does anyone else with a unit on the market, nor does anyone who promotes them.

Have you ask any of the Manufacturers what their theories are? Who else do you think would know or have that information?..
Isn't it great to know that you have no Theories?...Art

 

[EE THr]

~EE~

Actually, I think I have posted more reference links than any of the LRL promoters here.

Yes..to your own personal opinion threads

But even posting links can lead to "selective" references, like you always do with your definitions of "double-blind."

I have posted 4 definitions of Double Blind Testing..Sorry..Apparently you can not comprehend them http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,411065.0.html

Everyone interested should use their own methods of checking information.

We have

Try Google or Bing, for starters. These are called "Search Engines." You can type-in words or terms to search for. Try it sometime.

Thank You but we already us them

Unfortunately, your preferred sources are only other LRL promoters, and manufacturers. Typical for a "believer," who regards facts and reality as mere nuisances.

Who else knows more about LRL’s?

That's right. I have no theories regarding LRLs. And neither does anyone else with a unit on the market, nor does anyone who promotes them.

Have you ask any of the Manufacturers what their theories are? Who else do you think would know or have that information?..
Isn't it great to know that you have no Theories?...Art

Yes, it is great to know that I have no theories about LRLs. Only the factual knowledge that they don't work.



Definitions of Double-Blind