Think about what "squaring the circle" did for math theories - it blew the field wide open!
My brother Tom's response:
This guy doesn't display much scientific curiosity, lets dissect!
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is investing close to a million dollars in an obscure Russian scientist's antigravity machine, although it has failed every test and would violate the most fundamental laws of nature
I've heard of this one but its a little iffy. One thing is for sure is you cannot dismiss experimental results because it contradicts someone's theory i.e. 'the most fundamental laws of nature'
The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent 6,362,718 for a physically impossible motionless electromagnetic generator, which is supposed to snatch free energy from a vacuum.
I think this one works but only one person has reproduced it so far. The Patent and Trademark Office requires a working prototype so he is actually is accusing Berdin of magician like fraud.
MEG
reproduction
And major power companies have sunk tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to produce energy by putting hydrogen atoms into a state below their ground state, a feat equivalent to mounting an expedition to explore the region south of the South Pole.
This one is interesting it appeared in the 80,s and has seemed to have no reproducibility. When I was working at a bindery in Sedona I met this guys ex-partner, he was taking UFO photos and selling them to the publisher. They looked like somebody waving a cigarette which didn't inspire my already dubious belief in the Hydrino theory. Then recently I read a new article and I'm beginning to wonder.
article
the article goes well until I get to this statement
I have identified seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse.
This statement is gibberish, there is no claim that lies outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse by definition.
The rest of the article I tend to agree with.
Now I'll rate his article as if it were a scientific claim using his own criteria.
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
That's a yes.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
This is a no, but he does say
Before 1993, court cases that hinged on the validity of scientific claims were usually decided simply by which expert witness the jury found more credible. Expert testimony often consisted of tortured theoretical speculation with little or no supporting evidence. Jurors were bamboozled by technical gibberish they could not hope to follow, delivered by experts whose credentials they could not evaluate.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Of course, they are only warning signs -- even a claim with several of the signs could be legitimate.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
In 1993, however, with the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. the situation began to change.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
This is a no
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
That's a yes. No co-writer
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
That's a yes there called
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science.
5 to 7 says he's wrong.
Tom
