[witsend (OP)]

nixietube - I've now reported you to a monitor.  If this is the best you can come up with in lieu of discussion then what are you doing on this forum? 

[glovesforfoxes]

What did he do wrong, exactly? It seems you're being a bit over sensitive. []

[JimBob]

I would agree - Over-sensitivity is rampant in these last few posts.

[Bored chemist]

I just about laughed my socks off when I saw that cartoon freshly published this morning (at least from my time zone's point of view). I guess it's a coincidence, but I do wonder if XKCD's author gets inspiration from threads like this. In any event the timing was near perfect.

BTW, Witsend, did you report me too?
Will you if I cite this page
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
and say that I think you tick boxes 1,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13?

BTW, this, "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "
in any context, still makes no sense.
What I did was ask you to clarify you paper and to check on whether one aspect of it might derive from using a meter outside it's range of aplication, rather than from a breakdown of the laws of physics as we know them.

Seriously, which do you think is more likely and do you think that asking such question is unscientific?
I have reviewed enough papers, and had enough of my own reviewed, to know that those are exactly the sort of questions that get asked.
It's not a matter of "does your explanation fit the observed data?" it's a matter of " does your explanation fit all the observed data, including that published before and does it, in some sense, add to that?"

There's also the logical glitch (no matter what the context) that "the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation" doesn't make sense because that never could have been a scientific observation.

[Madidus_Scientia]

LOL @ the xkcd cartoon

Guess you'll have to report me too witsend

[witsend (OP)]

Bored chemist, Mididus_Scientia, glovesforfoxes and JimBbob.  Have reported you all.  Not that it makes a blind bit of difference.  Seems like I need to fight my corner here.  And patently I'm on my own.  LOL

Here's the link.  Read the paper and come up with some constructive criticism - if you can.  We'd all be much obliged.  I'd love to know which, if any of you, actually understand the writing.  And I'm prepared to put money on it that none of you have read it.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Have fun guys. 

 []  []

By the way - sorry to read that you've got health issues JB. Hopefully they're abating.

second edit.  Bored chemist - I'd answer your post if it were half way relevant. 

[BenV]

Witsend - having read through the more recent posts on this thread, it certainly seems that you're giving as good as you get.  I appreciate that you feel attacked, but if you respond with ad hominem attacks then you don't really have a leg to stand on when reporting people.

[witsend (OP)]

Hi BenV.  I never really expected you to rally.  But it would have been a nice ?  []

Truth is I don't really mind. It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive.  And as for Nixietube?  I've composed my own little exercise in doggerel to give him his dues.  But keep it coming guys.  You know what they say about advertising?  I thought we could seriously discuss the inadequacies of review process to represent mainstream - but it seems that serious discussion is definitely not topical.  Relevance to science has nothing to do with relevance to this forum.

And far be it from me to question the authority of JimBoy and Madidus_Scientia.  That's some serious weight in posting numbers guys.  Am deeply impressed.

 [] [] 

Here's my tribute to Nixietube in case anyone missed it.

This master of science and such
Has a brain that's in need of a crutch
He buries his qualms
In a waving of arms
Because his logic's just not up to much.

[BenV]

It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive. 

But perhaps he feels that you're not answering his questions - hence why it's repetitive.  I doubt he's overwhelmed by it either.

And as for Nixietube?  I've composed my own little exercise in doggerel to give him his dues. 

...

Here's my tribute to Nixietube in case anyone missed it.

This master of science and such
Has a brain that's in need of a crutch
He buries his qualms
In a waving of arms
Because his logic's just not up to much.

You don't think that this is hurtful and unneccesary?  Why should I rally round and support you doing things like that?

[witsend (OP)]

Hi again BenV

I thought I'd let Nixitube get a feel for wit.  His own is so seriously lacking.  But if you'd prefer it that I desist I will.  If you need a guage as to 'hurt feelings? consider his own contributions.  Or is it only required that I modify my own while he's freed from any required constraints?  That's not fair.

But I hear you.  It's not constructive.  Sorry guys.  I'll hold back.

 [] [:X]

[Bored chemist]

It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive. 

But perhaps he feels that you're not answering his questions - hence why it's repetitive.  I doubt he's overwhelmed by it either.

Got it in one.

[glovesforfoxes]

Look witsend. I'm all for minority views. I'm a vegan & polyamorist (search google if you want definitions) in a Western society. If you take a look at my recent posts you'll see I argue passionately for veganism. I understand the cases are somewhat different, but you can have constructive conversations about unpopular opinions & viewpoints if you wish on this forum.

There is a certain way to go about expressing them. Your attitude does not encourage debate - it encourages flaming. You do not go into debates with compassion & understanding in your mind, & it is to your, your argument, & other people's detriment. People won't respect your point of view, no matter how logical, clever, or consistant it is if you express it with a flavouring of insults. So even if you're not fussed about being polite for the sake of it, you're still not impressing anyone by reporting slight slights against you. You gotta take it with a pinch of salt. If you want a productive conversation about the disadvantages of the method of submission of papers, then talk about that. Even your very title is automatically putting people on the defensive: "WHEN SCIENCE LOSES IT'S AUTHORITY"

You're automatically starting witht the assumption scientists here (or anywhere in the world) assume they are authorities, & but the very spirit of science is to reject arguments from authority. I would argue that any scientist that says "I'm an authority on X therefore I am right about X" solely on the basis that they are an authority has gone astray from the main purpose of science. You're not looking for the truth when you do that.

Now, if you desist from doing stuff like this & try to cultivate a more civilised attitude, I'm sure people better qualified to understand what you're saying will listen to you.

[witsend (OP)]

Glovesforfoxes - Arguing for proclivities or food preferences is hardly the same thing as arguing the foundational constructs of physics.  And I am entirely satisfied that any challenge of the latter brings out the beast in the man. Here's my proof.  A thread was started on overunity.com titled 'claimed overunity device of Rosemary Ainslie'. I did not know of this thread and my name, my character, the published Quantum paper, my family - ALL - came under the most vicious attack that has ever been known in the history of that forum.  And I neither contributed nor knew of this happening.  In fact - I subsequently applied for membership and now hold the curious distinction of being the first person in the history of these forums - to have been banned without ever contributing.  It was EXTRAORDINARY.  Nothing to do with me. Nothing to do with my attitude.  I simply had the temerity of posting the Quantum article and my magnetic field model on the internet.  So don't tell me what attitude to take.  I've been obsequeious, tactful, apologetic, polite, defensive, name it.  I've tried it.  There is nothing about about my attitude that ignites this anger.  It is the claim itself.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have become a belief system rather than a reasoned argument - and it is defended by mainstream with the vim and vigour that is usually attributed to fanatics. 

So.  Get it that the antagonism here is simply to do with the fact that I'm challenging a belief structure that is as profound as a religious conviction.  But that's usually how new ideas begin.  I'm in good company.  And I really don't mind that there's this constant attack.  It's only on this thread.  Overunity.com eventually accepted me as a member - and I now hold the curious disctinction of also being a monitor.  Attitudes change.  And if I need to endure the rather toothless criticisms of some mindless contributors to get there - that's fine.  There's a reading public who are more measured and discerning than most of us who write here.  And truth will out.  Reason will prevail.  That's just the way of things.

   

[Geezer]

Witsend,

Might I suggest you read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

I believe you would find it helpful.

[nixietube]

witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?

[glovesforfoxes]

Glovesforfoxes - Arguing for proclivities or food preferences is hardly the same thing as arguing the foundational constructs of physics.

It's not the same, but it is not just about mere preference. It is an issue of social justice, which is far more important than understanding the fundamental laws of physics. There are things more important than learning more truth when the things you already know point to something in desperate need of change - I'm sure you can appreciate that [] both are concerned with challenging commonly held beliefs - in fact, eating meat is such a big part of some people's fundamental identity to them that families have excluded members.

Your claim itself might not incite anger. People might be attached to the idea if it's seen as a fundamental part of physics, in the same way evolutionary fact is seen as to biology. That means they take the claim as an almost personal attack on science, but.. Even so, I cannot see which other attitudes you have taken. Only your attitude here. Your attitude earlier is understandable, but wrong because it's rude & as a consequence of that automatically making that about the people rather than the evidence you have. Checking back through this thread, it's certainly you who has thrown around the first insults this time 'round.

No doubt truth will out in the end. I lean towards the established laws of Thermodynamics, since it is a law, & scientists don't make laws lightly. There are also many people who study the subject who are fairly intelligent & question in their own right. None of that means you are wrong - if I don't understand something, I agree with what the most people agree with simply because it's very hard to fool a lot of people (as in, millions) at once without someone noticing. Maybe you are that someone that noticed, maybe you aren't. No doubt we will see over the next 50 years time.

This is continuing to detract from the science. I will not respond any more about your conduct - I have said all I need to. If you feel I'm wrong in some way, state it here where & why I am & people can make their own minds up about it. Hopefully you can have a productive discussion with the physicists here now []

[BenV]

witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?

Now now, can we all be a little more civil please?

[nixietube]

witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?

Now now, can we all be a little more civil please?

Please remove my posts if you feel they are inappropriate.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg290920#msg290920

[witsend (OP)]

Hi Glovesforfoxes,

What is rude about questioning the authority of those scientists who claim the importance and significance of experimental proof - yet will not look at an experiment that disproves their own theories?  I am not talking lightly.  In 10 years despite application by myself, my co-authors - industry, including names such as ABB Research, North Carolina, BP South Africa, Sasol South Africa, and many, many others, they refuse to acknowledge the carefully collated data from numerous experiments that categorically prove a breach of thermodynamic laws?  It gets worse.  Sasol offered our local university a bursary award to take the study further.  It was politely refused.  And these learned and revered have flatly refused to attend a demonstration that gives this evidence.

These are the expert academicians who determine the acceptability or otherwise of papers for publication in the reviewed journals that they own. They nominate the required measurement protocols.  We use those protocols.  Yet they will not evaluate the paper?  Do you seriously propose that there is some way that one can discuss the merits of the case when the case is not heard?  Is there  a court in any democratic country that prejudges a case prior to trial?  Is there any blueprint for such prejudicial actions that can be sanctioned by any moral authority anywhere in the world?  Personally I doubt it.  Yet these electrical engineers flatly refuse to evaluate the experiment. Nor will they take it publication to allow mainstream to evaluate for themselves.  Don't tell me what is wrong with my attitude.  Look rather to what is right in their attitude.

 

[witsend (OP)]

Witsend,

Might I suggest you read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

I believe you would find it helpful.

Hello geezer.  I have many many friends. Just check out energeticforum.com.  I have a host of friends on the internet that I haven't even met but have much to say about both me and my experiemnt.  I also have friends on overunity.com.  I have a full social life - but spend way too much time on this thread and, possibly at my keyboard.  I do not want to earn such friendship on the basis of some articifical manipulative learned skill - but on the basis of mutual respect and enjoyment of each others point of view.  This thread is different.  It is designed to challenge and invite comment on the extraordinary mindset of our bigotted academic electrical engineers.  If I bump into more bigots here then - indeed - they are part of that criticism.  Definitely requires discussion. 

edit  []