Device to defy gravity. A hoax or the real deal? (1 Viewer)

[Steve Enemark]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

-Carl Sagan

 

[Adil M]

BUt I believe... what about DBT... but I hear it.... placebo... but I hear it... psychoaccoustics... lol

 

[Moe Maishlish]

I subscribe to the "burden of proof" persective... i.e. Prove it.

Having said that,

"Anything is possible..." -Multiple Sources

Moe.

 

[Julie K]

Come on people! Where's your sense of wonder? This is potentially the greatest scientific discovery in seventy years! But if it's never given a chance to prove itself, it'll become the greatest scientific non-discovery.

Ok, I have a great idea for perpetual energy. I've performed the experiment for myself in my garage and I'm sure that on a large scale it will work and be the wonder of the ages. Please give me all your money and I'll be able to build a prototype.

So, does your mindset change towards the skeptical now? Come on, I'm waiting for your check.

You don't need to worry that important discoveries will be missed. If something is real, then it will be found and reproduced. That is all we ask of those with unusual claims: prove your claims or shut up.

Your analogies to flying or going to the moon are way off the base. The very fact of the existance of birds and other flying creatures indicates that flight was possible for heaver-than-air objects. People got a bit too hung up on the idea of flapping wings, but nevertheless, once the necessary technology was in place, flight really took off. So to speak.

Oh, and it is a myth that supersonic flight was thought impossible. What was a very real engineering concern was if the airplane controls could still operate. It was well known that objects could indeed travel faster than sound, but how does one control the flight of such an object? There was a lot of work done, and a lot of planes crashed or nearly crashed, figuring out that one.

As for interplanetary travel, people were right to consider it beyond their current capability when all they had were air-breathing engines. Rockets changed all that and were most definitely a repeatable phenomenon.

Is this "anti-gravity" the next great discovery? Or is it more of a perpetual energy devices? Or is it like cold fusion?

I think it would be great if this were a real effect. You seem to think that skeptics don't want it to be real. We do, but while you list off advances once thought, or popularly known to be thought, of as hoaxes, we skeptics have an even larger list of hoaxes (or simply honest mistakes) than were once touted as great advances. Cold fusion, anyone?

You seem to think that we will don't want to accept this guy's claims. We will, once they are repeated by someone else under controlled conditions. All the best to Boeing if they can repeat it, but their name for the project seems to indicate what chance they think they've got. (grasp at straws indeed!) But if they do repeat them, then I am positive that every one of us nasty ol' skeptics in this thread will be jumping for joy.

The path of science and technology is littered with hoaxes, mistakes, and dead ends. Yes, we must continue to expand our knowledge but we cannot forget the principles of the scientific method or we'll blind ourselves with uncritical optimism and waste our time and energy chasing shadows.

 

[Jack Briggs]

And, as Julie eloquently demonstrates above, skepticism does not indicate an absence of a sense of wonder. No matter what dreams or "visions" one may have, the laws of physics will always prevail. Science and scientists prefer to work with reality, not wishful thinking and flights of fancy.

 

[MickeS]

Of course Boeing is grasping at straws here, hence the project name. But they wouldn't spend money on it if their scientists didn't see at least SOMETHING there that intrigues them. There must be something else to this than just the ramblings of a scientist (I'm sure it doesn't help that he's not american either), and Julie's garage example was just as poor of an analogy as Shayne's fission example.

I for one am not willing to dismiss or believe in this until it's been thoroughly tested.



Unless you figure out a way to "cheat" those laws. I'm sure we don't know all there is to know about physics yet.

/Mike

 

[Julie K]

Ok Mike, perhaps a better analogy would be a garage cold fusion setup.

How about some of that cash now?

 

[Jack Briggs]

I'm sure we don't know all there is to know about physics yet.

True. But what we do know is pretty damn all-encompassing; science and technology and all their applications pretty much confirm what we understand about the physical universe.
Look, you want "anti-gravity." We want our anti-gravity without the ambiguity of non-repeatable, non-demonstrable claims. Why is this so hard to get through to people?
If you prefer wishful thinking and unproven claims, go on preferring them. But posting such in a public forum will only invite the occasional skeptical comment. Pure and simple.
Like so many previous After Hours threads about flying saucers and ghosts, this one is already moving in a futilely circular motion. Ha! Julie, this thread is the perpetual-motion machine you've been seeking. The check's in the mail!

 

[Julie K]

Yes, it goes round and round forever! I'll be rich, rich, rich!!!

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Ok then, How much longer until I can get a 1080p tv made from Dark Matter?

 

[Lars Larsen]

Very interesting posts everybody! I knew this topic would get some attention. I think Shayne nailed the key point in the article. The fact that big companies are even willing to consider the possibility makes this interesting!

BTW, I'm not sure why some people got so fired up on this discussion. Obviously this claimed discovery is in the process of being verified or dismissed by other scientists, as it happens with all new discoveries! Ok, people want to see proof, but I just think the tone can get a little harsh from the sceptics at times. Especially if the effect can't be reproduced. We don't need the "Haha, I told you so!" attitude. We need encouragement, otherwise the really good scientist will be afraid of exploring wild ideas because of the possibility of losing credibilty.

 

[Julie K]

otherwise the really good scientist will be afraid of exploring wild ideas because of the possibility of losing credibilty.

The really good scientist gets plenty of data and backing and examines all other alternatives before publishing.

 

[RobertR]

The really good scientist gets plenty of data and backing and examines all other alternatives before publishing

Yes, and if he fails to do so, then he DESERVES to lose credibility.

It always amazes me how eager some people are to accept "wild ideas" without good solid backing for them.

 

[Julie K]

Yes, and if he fails to do so, then he DESERVES to lose credibility.

Quite right.
Far from having a smug "I told you so!" attitude towards cold fusion, I'm really very sad that it didn't work. It would have solved so many problems and revolutionized our world. It's quite a shame it wasn't real.
However, Pons and Fleischmann certainly deserve to lose credibility for allowing themselves to be pushed into going public before confirming the effect.
Being skeptical of a new claim is not the same as hoping it won't work or be a real effect. Or being happy if it's proved false.
Oh, BTW, here's a very interesting claim. I believe every word....

 

[MickeS]

Who here accept this "wild idea" as it is? We just accept that this guy claims it worked, but nobody else has been able to reproduce it. That doesn't mean it won't ever be reproduced. It also doesn't mean it WAS ever true. It always amazes me how eager some people are to dismiss "wild ideas" without thoroughly investigating them.

 

[Jack Briggs]

It always amazes me how eager some people are to dismiss "wild ideas" without thoroughly investigating them.

We've made another circuit!

When you've been around long enough and have read enough, some of these flights of fancy take on a dull similarity.

I'm just surprised there have been no posts about crop circles since that Mel Gibson movie opened last Friday.

 

[Julie K]

Jack,

I hope I don't lose my skeptic's standing here, but I recently saw strange circles. They weren't in crop cereals, true, but matted grass patches. There were several of them. They were oval in shape, small - about 4' by 2', and all oriented the same way. That's the really weird thing - why would they be pointed the same way? It's just got to be the result of some non-human intelligence and logic.

I know, just know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these were made by non-human creatures with large dark staring eyes.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Tell 'em, Julie, tell 'em more about these mysterious nonhuman entities!

 

[Julie K]

Ohhh---duplicate post! Must be the HTF ghosts!

 

[Julie K]

tell 'em more about these mysterious nonhuman entities!

They're very different from us.

I've actually seen some of them. Oh, what a thing for a skeptic to admit to!

Besides the big, staring dark eyes some of them also have these strange, almost antenna-like, bone-like spikes coming out of the top of their heads.

I know it was them who made the grass ovals. They left behind these small black pellets that I've come to associate with them. I dunno, maybe fuel pellets? I'm sure they must be important somehow.