Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
367 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1 (3 members, 364 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,616 Year: 20,652/19,786 Month: 1,049/2,023 Week: 557/392 Day: 101/72 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Alternate Creation Theory: Genic Energy
JonF
Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 76 of 181 (672640)
09-10-2012 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by TheRestOfUs
09-09-2012 6:57 PM


Re: Not enough.
"Nucleon Core Field - prevailing concept (1978): The electric field in the core of a nucleon is assumed to be aperiodic and to rise to a sharp cusp at the particle's center."

"Prediction No.1 (1973 - 1978): Subquantum kinetics predicted that the electric potential field
in the core of a subatomic particle should be Gaussian-shaped and should continue outward as a periodic field pattern of diminishing amplitude having a radial wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength, further that this field pattern should be positively biased in positively charged particles. Prediction published in: 1985 (IJGS), 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics), and 1995 (Beyond the Big Bang)."

"Verification (2002) Particle scattering form factor data for the proton and neutron is found to be best fit by a model in which the nucleon core electric charge density distribution has characteristics similar to those that subquantum kinetics had predicted. Energy boosting during collision, however, did cause the target nucleons to exhibit a wavelength slightly shorter than had been predicted."

"2. Gravatational Repulsion - Prevailing concept (1985): Electrons are assumed to produce matter attracting fields just like protons. Gravatational Repulsion is considered a speculative idea."

"Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)."

"Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass."

"Concept No. 3 : Energy Conservation and Photon Reshifting - prevailing concept (1978): The cosmological redshift is conventionally attributed to the assumed expansion of space. Photon energy is assumed to be perfectly conserved."

"Prediction No. 3 (1978: As a basic requirement of the validity of its methodology, subquantum kinetics predicted that photons should gradually redshift with time when passing through regions of low (less negative) gravatational field potential, e.g. intergalactic space. It predicted a "tired light effect," that distant galaxies should appear redshifted without the need of postulating recessional motion."

"Verification (1979- 1986): I check this photon redshifting prediction by comparing the tired light non-expanding universe model and the expanding universe model (standard Friedman cosmology) to observational data on four different cosmology tests (AP.J., 1986). The tired light model is found to make a closer fit to observational data on all tests confirming subquantum kinetics tired-light prediction and the notion that the universe is cosmologically stationary. These findings at the same time undermine a key support of the big bang theory. An update of this evidence is presented in Chapter 7 of Subquantum Kinetics (2003)."

I see a lot of claims, and claims about claims, but no math and no verifiable tests

Want more? He's got 9 in this book alone.

We want to see the math and the details of the tests that he claims to have caried out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-09-2012 6:57 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:30 PM JonF has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 77 of 181 (672648)
09-10-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by JonF
09-10-2012 9:18 AM


Quote from JonF:

Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please.

Hint: tain't so.

"Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion.

Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343).

Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic plates. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction."

Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:18 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2012 12:19 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:28 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 09-10-2012 2:24 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 78 of 181 (672651)
09-10-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
09-10-2012 2:40 AM


Re: Not enough.
Quote from JonF:

I find that claimed predictions re not always as good as they appear.
So I did a little research, choosing this one:
quote:

"Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)."

"Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass."


It turns out that Podkletnov's work sounds very dubious, and hasn't been replicated. Eugene Podkletnov

It's not a good sign that this should be mentioned high up the list, without mentioning the questionable nature of the alleged verification.

End of Quote from JonF

LaViolette writes; "...In his article in Janes Defense Weekly, Nick Cook reports that a laboratory installation in Russia has demonstrated that this beam is able to repel objects one kilometer away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200 kilometers!"*

"Podkletnov and Modanese acknowledge that conventional theories of gravity fail to explain the action of their gravity impulse beam."

"* Cook writes that Boeing Aerospace Corporation was actively interested in investigating this beam technology with the aim of developing it into an R&D project named GRASP (Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion). A GRASP briefing document states "If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire areospace business." Other interested areospace companies included BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. He reported, however, that the Russian government had resisted allowing this gravity research beam technology to be exported."

Everything above in quotation marks are from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) pp. 126-127. Below are the references in the notes section.

"Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Impulse gravity generator based on charged YBa2 CU3 O7-y Superconductor with composite crystal structure." August 2001, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0108005.

"Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes." September 2002, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0209051

"*Cook, N. "Antigravity propulsion comes out of the closet." Janes Defense Weekly, July 31, 2002"

"*Cook, N. "Airpower Electric." Janes Defense Weekly, July 24, 2002"

Trou.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2012 2:40 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 12:23 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 84 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:38 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:38 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2012 1:00 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 181 (672652)
09-10-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 11:32 AM


Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985):

Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.1298v2.pdf

The prediction was wrong. Although SN1987 did form from a blue supergiant, the prediction that only blue super giants can form super novas is definitely wrong.

Here is a paper. You may recognize one of the authors, Dr. Filippenko, whose Cal Berkeley based team has discovered more recent supernovas than any other group.

"Peculiar Type II Supernovae from Blue Supergiants" [2011]

Io K. W. Kleiser, Dovi Poznanski, Daniel Kasen, Timothy R. Young, Ryan Chornock, Alexei V. Filippenko, Peter Challis, Mohan Ganeshalingam, Robert P. Kirshner, Weidong Li, Thomas Matheson, Peter E. Nugent, Jeffrey M. Silverman

quote:
The vast majority of Type II supernovae (SNe) are produced by red supergiants (RSGs), but SN 1987A revealed that blue supergiants (BSGs) can produce members of this class as well, albeit with some peculiar properties.....

Adding a similar object to the sample, SN 2005ci, we derive a rate of about 2% of the core-collapse rate for this loosely defined class of BSG explosions.


quote:
Over the past decade,  20 pre-explosion locations of SNe II-P have been directly imaged with the Hubble Space Telescope or deep ground-based images, yielding fi ve detections of progenitor stars, all of which were red supergiants (RSGs)

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 11:32 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 2:19 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 115 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 8:04 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2029 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 80 of 181 (672655)
09-10-2012 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Not enough.
[qs]...quote...[/qs]

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:12 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 181 (672656)
09-10-2012 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by JonF
09-10-2012 9:18 AM


Yup (except perhaps for the surprise part, I find no trace of that). So what?

Apparently it was a surprise to many that a blue super giant would explode as a Type II supernova. But Blue super giant is only a temporary stage. Blue super giants become red super giants. It is thought that such a thing happened to Betelgeuese.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:18 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 82 of 181 (672657)
09-10-2012 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 11:32 AM


Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please.

Hint: tain't so.

"Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion.

Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343).

Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic pltes. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction."

Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272

Repeating a bare assertion isn't a reference for your claim. Peer-reviewed literature, please, from this century if possible.

And "the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy" was correct in 1987 but is no longer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 11:32 AM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:43 PM JonF has responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 83 of 181 (672658)
09-10-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by JonF
09-10-2012 9:22 AM


Re: Not enough.
Quote from JonF:

I see a lot of claims, and claims about claims, but no math and no verifiable tests

We want to see the math and the details of the tests that he claims to have caried out.

Because of your overwhelming charm I am willing to oblige your requests. But what math specifically do you want me to laboriously copy from Subquantum Kinetics JonF? If you can't be more specifc in your questions I politely suggest you read the book yourself.

Trou

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 9:22 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:49 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 91 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 1:12 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 84 of 181 (672659)
09-10-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Not enough.
Quote from JonF:

I find that claimed predictions re not always as good as they appear.
So I did a little research, choosing this one:
quote:

"Prediction No. 2 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicted that gravity should have two polarities correlated with charge and that the electron should produce a matter-repelling gravity field. Furthermore it predicted that monopolar electric discharges should produce longitudinal electric potential waves accompanied by a gravity potential component. Published in: 1985 (IJGS), and 1994 (Subquantum Kinetics)."

"Verification (2001): Podkletnov and Modanese discover that an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravatational force on a distant test mass."

It turns out that Podkletnov's work sounds very dubious, and hasn't been replicated. Eugene Podkletnov

It's not a good sign that this should be mentioned high up the list, without mentioning the questionable nature of the alleged verification.

End of Quote from JonF

LaViolette writes; "...In his article in Janes Defense Weekly, Nick Cook reports that a laboratory installation in Russia has demonstrated that this beam is able to repel objects one kilometer away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200 kilometers!"*

"Podkletnov and Modanese acknowledge that conventional theories of gravity fail to explain the action of their gravity impulse beam."

"* Cook writes that Boeing Aerospace Corporation was actively interested in investigating this beam technology with the aim of developing it into an R&D project named GRASP (Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion). A GRASP briefing document states "If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire areospace business." Other interested areospace companies included BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin. He reported, however, that the Russian government had resisted allowing this gravity research beam technology to be exported."

Everything above in quotation marks are from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) pp. 126-127. Below are the references in the notes section.

"Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Impulse gravity generator based on charged YBa2 CU3 O7-y Superconductor with composite crystal structure." August 2001, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0108005.

"Podkletnov, E. and G., Modanese, "Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes." September 2002, Eprint: arXiv.org/abs/ physics/ 0209051

"*Cook, N. "Antigravity propulsion comes out of the closet." Janes Defense Weekly, July 31, 2002"

"*Cook, N. "Airpower Electric." Janes Defense Weekly, July 24, 2002"

The quote isn't from me, and you need a [/qs] instead of a [qs] at the end of the quote.

So, his work hasn't been replicated (as PaulK noted) and is suspect (as PaulK noted). I see that Boeing's involvement is also suspect.

Repeating claims isn't a useful debate tactic. You are being challenged to support your claims,m which means amplifying on them and providing references, especially references other than LaViolette. The Podkletnov references are good, but his work isn't very convincing without replication.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:12 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 85 of 181 (672660)
09-10-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Not enough.
Dupe.

Edited by JonF, : Duplicate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:12 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:49 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 86 of 181 (672661)
09-10-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by JonF
09-10-2012 12:28 PM


Repeating a bare assertion isn't a reference for your claim. Peer-reviewed literature, please, from this century if possible.

And "the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy" was correct in 1987 but is no longer.

What? The International Journal of General Systems isn't a peer reviewed publication? I think you are wrong about that. And LaViolette has a PHD in Systems Science.

And I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to say to your second sentence.

Trou.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote codes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:28 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 1:00 PM TheRestOfUs has responded
 Message 92 by Panda, posted 09-10-2012 1:13 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
TheRestOfUs
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 56
Joined: 09-08-2012


Message 87 of 181 (672662)
09-10-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by JonF
09-10-2012 12:38 PM


Re: Not enough.
LOL!

I would like to reply in the manner you deserve but I have already been suspended once for defending myself from loutish behavior. However if you continue to make snide remarks and demand I (a non-scientist) jump through your hoops I will respond as I see fit and suspension be damned.

Sincerely

Trou

Edited by TheRestOfUs, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 09-10-2012 12:38 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 88 of 181 (672663)
09-10-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:30 PM


Re: Not enough.
Let's see the math for the existence and characteristics of the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is notable by its exclusion from your list of claims.


The power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature anisotropy in terms of the angular scale (or multipole moment).


E polarization measurements as of March 2008 in terms of angular scale (or multipole moment).

You don't need to laboriously copy the math. Assuming you are using a PC, press Alt-PrtSc to copy the current window to the clipboard as a picture. You can then use any of many programs (Windows includes paint.exe) to paste that and save it as an image (usually .PNG format is best for equations and line work). Then upload to any of the many free photo sharing sites (I use photobucket.com, which will do the [img]...[/img] tags for you) and paste it in your message.


An example of the process I described. Click Peek to see the coding.

I might read the book if you can convince me that LaViolette isn't an ignorant crank. You're not doing a great job of that thus far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:30 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 1:55 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 89 of 181 (672664)
09-10-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:43 PM


What? The International Journal of General Systems isn't a peer reviewed publication? I think you are wrong about that

Restoring the context:

Really? Reference for that claim about red supergiants please.

Hint: tain't so.

"Concept 9. Supernova Precursor Stars - prevailing concept (1985): It is conventionally believed that supernovae are produced by red giant stars which have exhausted their supply of nuclear fuel. It is presumed that once the red giant's nuclear reactions subside, the star collapses and subsequently rebounds as a supernova explosion.

Prediction No. 9 (1985): Subquantum kinetics predicts that supernovae are produced not by red giant stars, but by blue supergiant stars, that is, by stars that are exceedingly luminous and hence energetically unstable. It predicts that, rather than collapsing, the star undergoes a nonlinear increase in its production of genic energy which leads to a stellar explosion. This prediction was published in 1985 (IJGS, pp. 342-343).

Verification (1987): Supernova 1987A is observed in the Large Magellenic Cloud. This is the closest supernova in the history of modern astronomy. Astronomers locate its percursor star on old photographic pltes. Surprisingly, they find that this precursor was a blue supergiant star contradicting established theory and confirming the subquantum kinetics prediction."

Above from Subquantum Kinetics (2003) p. 272

I don't see any reference to International Journal of General Systems saying that conventional wisdom was that only red supergiants go supernova, and given the subject classifications at that link I'd be very surprised if a relevant paper were to be found there.

And LaViolette has a PHD in Systems Science.

Ah, so there's no reason to assume he has relevant expertise.

And I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to say to your second sentence.

Well, I suggest "Thank you for pointing out my error in saying that SN1987A is the closest supernova in modern times". See http://bit.ly/S41CkJ. It's not a major error, but it does confirm that you are unfamiliar with the field you claim to be evaluation.

Edited by JonF, : Clzarify reference to IJGS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:43 PM TheRestOfUs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 3:15 PM JonF has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 90 of 181 (672665)
09-10-2012 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheRestOfUs
09-10-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Not enough.
In other words, the papers are on arxiv with nothing to suggest that they have been published or even accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

There are no replications, and no evidence that the Boeing involvement got so far as a speculative punt on a project that just might pay off.

And now - ten years later - we still have practically nothing.

So, the second "verification" on the list is so sketchy that it's barely worth mentioning. Normally you lead with the strongest points, saving poor quality points like this for the end. For the second item to be so weak is a red flag in itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheRestOfUs, posted 09-10-2012 12:12 PM TheRestOfUs has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019