kpc@tulane.UUCP (Kevin Centanni) (10/17/85)
Since my initial posting of a message entitled "The Energy Machine of
Joseph Newman", I have received over 30 messages regarding this energy
machine. Most of these were along the lines of "a sucker born every
minute"... there were some replies from people with an open mind who
were at least willing to listen to the facts concerning this machine...
those are the ones with true scientific minds. I, too, when first hearing
about this man in the backwoods of Mississippi who had invented "some sort
of perpetual motion machine", gawked at the idea. But then I learned some
of the more truthful ideas and principles behind this man and his energy
machine. First, this is NOT a perpetual motion machine... the output
cannot be re-directed into the input and the machine run iteslf! Clearly,
anyone who knows about Newton's laws of conservation of energy will realize
that things like that are just not possible. In reality, the machine does
produce "greater external energy output than external energy input." A
simple equation that can explain the machine is:
Small, Catalytic, Electrical, EXTERNAL Energy Input (from batteries)
+
Very Large INTERNAL Energy (released via a conversion of matter to energy
in accordance with Einstein's equation of E=MC^2)
=
EXTERNAL ENERGY OUTPUT (electrical and/or mechnical)
I may have been incorrect in some of the assumptions that I made in regard
to how much power it takes to light florescent tubes... here is some more
factual data that was found in Newman's book:
"On September 19, 1985 the motor was operated at 1,000 and 2,000 volts
battery input, with output powers of 50 and 200 Watts respectively. Input
power in these tests were 7 and 14 Watts, yielding efficiencies of
700% and 1,400% respectively."
It should be noted that at this demonstration of Newman's energy machine,
there WERE oscilliscopes and multimeters hooked up to the machine... they
WERE confirming the earlier reports that Newman had released. To this day,
every scientist who has actually has an open enough mind to independently
test Newman's machine has come to the conclusion that, yes, the machine does
indeed work. Many (including myself) do not understand exactly HOW the
machine works... I'm desperately trying to figure that out now. But, I can
pretty much assume that, in 1985, in front of 100's of cameras and video
equipment, and in a room with 1000's of scientists and other skeptics, Mr.
Newman couldn't merely hide an AC outlet under the platform and expect to
get away with it.
For those interested, Joseph Newman's book information is:
"The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman"
ISBN : 0-9613835-1-8
Library of Congress Catalogue Card No.: 84-90652
The Joseph Newman Publishing Company
Route 1, Box 52
Lucedale, Mississippi 39452
8 1/2" x 11", 287 pages, 167 illustrations, 15 photographs
$34.95 + 3.50 Shipping and Handling
I have no ties with the above company... these views are my own and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the university.
Kevin P. Centanni
{akgua,ulysses,ihnp4}!tulane!kpc
" Either I'm a fool...
or all of you are. "tmb@talcott.UUCP (Thomas M. Breuel) (10/20/85)
FLAME ON I am getting tired of seeing this. Either explain how the machine works or stop posting this garbage. This is not net.fairy.tale, net.astrology, or net.grandmothers.recipies. A great invention is worth nothing unless it is reproducible. This means revealing how it works. If you don't reveal, you don't get credit, it's that simple. It doesn't suffice for 1000 experts to look over your shoulder while you perform your trick, the 1000 experts have to be able to do it themselves. If you don't understand that, you are not a scientist. FLAME OFF Below you will find some comments about your most recent posting and some of your ideas about physics. Without knowing the principle by which that machine is supposed to operate, it is, of course, hard to assess its usefulness. It seems to me, though, that either: -- the machine is a hoax -- the machine is nothing more than a conventional chemical battery -- the machine is a nuclear reactor (in principle you could indeed get more than just chemical energy out of copper by a nuclear process, under conditions, however, that probably require slightly more than a coil of wire). -- the machine operates by a different principle (e.g. pair annihilation). Given the kind and amounts of energy released in such processes, or the setups to prevent such releases, this is ridiculously unlikely. Call me old-fashioned and simple-minded, but so far, the machine sounds like a hoax to me. In any event, everything that you have described does not sound any more revolutionary than a (rather bulky and unwieldy) battery to me. Thomas. ----------- In article <175@tulane.UUCP>, kpc@tulane.UUCP (Kevin Centanni) writes: > machine. First, this is NOT a perpetual motion machine... the output > cannot be re-directed into the input and the machine run iteslf! Clearly, > anyone who knows about Newton's laws of conservation of energy will realize > that things like that are just not possible. In reality, the machine does This is pure non-sense. There is absolutely no reason why the output could not be used to power the input. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with it since, you claim, the energy comes from the conversion of copper into energy. > Very Large INTERNAL Energy (released via a conversion of matter to energy > in accordance with Einstein's equation of E=MC^2) All batteries work that way. I can see absolutely nothing revolutionary about that, unless your inventor has found a way to convert whole copper atoms into energy. Please note also that making copper metal requires a large amount of energy. If your inventor only uses the chemical energy (loosely speaking) stored in the copper, then you end up putting in more energy than you are getting out, as it is true for any flashlight battery (and in fact for any other generator in general). > here is some more facutal data that was found in Newman's book: > "On September 19, 1985 the motor was operated at 1,000 and 2,000 volts > battery input, with output powers of 50 and 200 Watts respectively. Input > power in these tests were 7 and 14 Watts, yielding efficiencies of > 700% and 1,400% respectively." Wow. The batteries in my WalkMan are infinitely efficient by that argument. I put nothing in and I get out some power. Clearly there is something revolutionary going on here :-). Altogether: any generator, any battery are nothing but energy conversion machines. If the law of conservation of energy is correct, no machine can be more than this. Joseph Newman's machine would only be revolutionary if it implemented a more efficient or an entirely novel conversion process. From your description there is no reason to believe that it does either.
xxajtxx@hou2d.UUCP (A.THANGARAJ) (10/22/85)
<<<<<<<%%%%%%%######|||||$$$$!!!&&(line^eater)&&!!!$$$$|||||######%%%%%%%>>>>>>>
After reading Kevin Santini's re-posting, it is plain that he is serious on the
matter. This discussion is taking up too much time and space on this newsgroup.
There have been ample explanations offered for the phenomenon in question.
Therefore,
1. Could we please send our opinions, in large numbers, directly to Mr. Santini.
2. Could postings on this matter please refrain from lengthy, multi-line quotes.
3. Could the physicists and engineers at Tulane please discuss the matter with
Mr. Santini and find out what he actually saw? Their views on the matter
would be appreciated. Surely you must be reading this newsgroup.
....arun.
_______ _______
Suite HR1K228 / * \ _ / * \ all views are
| * | / \ | * |
480 Red Hill Rd |* * H * *| <(GSP)> |* * R * *| my own, etc...
| * | \_/ | * |
Middletown NJ 07748 | * |Garden State | * |
+-------------+ Parkway +-------------+
hou2d!xxajtxx | R E D |Exit 114 | H I L L | ..the future
+-------------------------------------------+
201-949-9127 |R E Q U I E M B Y T H E P A R K W A Y| lies in PC's
+-------------------------------------------+ gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (10/22/85)
This is a response to a recent posting by K. Centanni concerning the
responses he received about an original submission dealing with an energy
conversion machine. It is unfortunate to note the cynicism that has become
rampant in our culture ("...a sucker is born..."), but I would like to
restrict myself to several technical points concerning this recent article.
To retract a previous submission of mine, my first exposure to Newman's
machine was an article in a recent SCIENCE DIGEST magazine, not SCIENCE NEWS.
I am somewhat suspect of SCIENCE DIGEST as a reliable source due to their
emphasis on the sensational and lack of critical review.
> Clearly,
> anyone who knows about Newton's laws of conservation of energy will realize
> that things like that are just not possible.
Unfortunately, the present concept of conservation of energy was formulated
about one hundred years after I. Newton. A statement about the conservation
of energy gradually evolved and many individuals contributed to its
understanding, but the individual attributed with formulating the statement
was J. Joule in 1853. Newton had a concept of energy conservation but it
applied only to dynamics (particle motion).
> In reality, the machine does
> produce "greater external energy output than external energy input."
A good operational definition for a perpetual motion machine is a device
that has greater energy output than energy input. It remains unclear what
prevents the output of Newman's machine from being connected to the input to
the machine for some truly spectacular energy amplification (several orders of
magnitude). Perhaps a better explanation why the machine cannot be looped
back on itself lies somewhere in Newman's book.
The description that the energy source for the Newman machine is mass
conversion appears to me to be fraught with pitfalls. As someone in this
group has already pointed out, only a small amount of mass needs to be
converted to energy in order to realize the gains claimed for the machine (c^2
is a big number). A direct weighing measurement to check this hypothesis
would not seem very practical. However, mass conversion is accompanied by a
characteristic electromagnetic spectrum mostly in the gamma ray region.
Evidently, no one has bothered to measure the electromagnetic radiation that
might be emitted from Newman's machine to check for this sign of mass
conversion. In terms of radiation and heat, a practical Newman machine may
compare to a nuclear reactor (note how much shielding is required to operate a
reactor safely). I would not sleep peacefully with such a device in my
basement.
> .... the motor was operated at 1,000 and 2,000 volts
> battery input, with output powers of 50 and 200 Watts respectively. Input
> power in these tests were 7 and 14 Watts, yielding efficiencies of
> 700% and 1,400% respectively."
While the description provided here is understandably incomplete, it it not
clear what restricts the batteries from providing more than 7 milliamps. I
had thought that most batteries (including dry cells) were capable of greater
currents than this. Also, at 1 or 2 kilovolts, a regulated power supply is a
more reliable source for voltage and current than a battery of batteries. Is
there some reason that the batteries cannot be replaced by a power supply?
For this demonstration, it does not appear to me sufficient to measure only
the voltages involved. Voltage, current, and the phase between them should
all be measured in order to accurately monitor the power going in and coming
out. Phase measurements can be omitted if the electrical power is guaranteed
to be DC.
> ....in a room with 1000's of scientists and other skeptics,...
It must be a very large room indeed to hold thousands of people, scientists
or otherwise. And as for careful observers, scientists are poorly qualified
to detect fraud or subterfuge. They accept that nature is "...subtle, but not
malicious..." and expect nature to be comprehensible and reliable. Magicians
are better qualified to first review psychics and complicated machinery which
are accompanied by claims sounding too good to be true. A recent PBS program
showed a British physicist and amateur magician who enjoys challenging other
scientists to discover how his "gadgets" operate. The particular instance I
recall is how the freshman physics majors at Caltech failed to correctly
describe the operation of a model ferris wheel. They were allowed to make any
external observations and measurements they wanted, but could not disassemble
the machine.
To be charitable, it is not clear that J. Newman understands the operation
of his machine. With the sensitivity of the detection equipment and the
prominent position played by electromagneticism in contemporary physics, it is
unlikely, though not impossible, that an interaction between magnetic fields
and matter that can annihilate mass would be overlooked. Does the text by
Newman include photographs of the interior of his machine? Are there
instructions for building one so that I might test his machine out for myself?
Where must a detailed description of a device or machine stop in order to
still be able to patent it?
These are the questions that trouble one's soul...
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihwld!gjphwkinne@asgb.UUCP (Robert W Kinne) (10/25/85)
> > those are the ones with true scientific minds. I, too, when first hearing > about this man in the backwoods of Mississippi who had invented "some sort > of perpetual motion machine", gawked at the idea. But then I learned some > of the more truthful ideas and principles behind this man and his energy > machine. First, this is NOT a perpetual motion machine... the output > cannot be re-directed into the input and the machine run iteslf! Clearly, > anyone who knows about Newton's laws of conservation of energy will realize > that things like that are just not possible. In reality, the machine does > produce "greater external energy output than external energy input." A I assume that the author is the proud owner of land in Arizona and a bridge over the East River. One of the easiest fools to trick is a half-educated fool who thinks that knowledge in one field makes him expert in other fields. And people enjoy being fooled. That explains the continuing popularity of magic and illusion as entertainment. To the author: at least admit that you don't know what you are talking about and that you could have been deceived. Bob Kinne Burroughs Distributed Systems Group
tmb@talcott.UUCP (Thomas M. Breuel) (10/25/85)
In article <471@iham1.UUCP>, gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) writes: | The description that the energy source for the Newman machine is mass |conversion appears to me to be fraught with pitfalls. As someone in this |group has already pointed out, only a small amount of mass needs to be |converted to energy in order to realize the gains claimed for the machine (c^2 |is a big number). A direct weighing measurement to check this hypothesis |would not seem very practical. However, mass conversion is accompanied by a NO, NO, NO. A direct weighing measurement would give the same result for *any* energy delivering device, since the potential energy stored in something CONTRIBUTES TO ITS RESTMASS. Whatever the machine does, if it delivers energy, it MUST convert *mass* into energy (if you want to call it a conversion at all). Whether it converts *matter* (i.e. whole copper atoms) into (electrical) energy is an entirely different question that cannot be determined by weighing. |characteristic electromagnetic spectrum mostly in the gamma ray region. |Evidently, no one has bothered to measure the electromagnetic radiation that |might be emitted from Newman's machine to check for this sign of mass |conversion. In terms of radiation and heat, a practical Newman machine may |compare to a nuclear reactor (note how much shielding is required to operate a |reactor safely). I would not sleep peacefully with such a device in my |basement. You are evidently thinking of the annihilation of electrons, protons, and neutrons by antimatter. There is no *known* reason why conversion of matter into energy *must* be accompanied by gamma radiation. Thomas.
gv@hou2e.UUCP (A.VANNUCCI) (10/26/85)
Given the recent flood of postings about Newman's machine,
it seems appropriate to reproduce here an editorial from the
latest issue of SCIENCE magazine (N.B. *not* SCIENCE DIGEST),
25 October 1985.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCIENTIFIC LITERACY
It is time to consider the problem of biconceptual education.
The world today is divided into two conceptual groups, the
scientist and the nonscientist, and the communication gap
between them is wide and serious. It is not a problem of
respect for scientists. We scientists get all the respect
we need -- any more is likely to make us candidates for
television commercials. I am not saying that lawyers should
start reading the "Physical Review Letters" or mayors the
"Journal of the American Chemical Society". What concerns me
is that some of the fundamental concepts and methodologies of
science are outside the understanding of the vast majority of
the population, including its opinion-makers.
For example, scientists in every discipline understand that
certain decisions that must be made are associated with some level
of risk, but we watch with consternation as society acts as if zero
risk could be achieved. The same parents, for instance, who drive
their children to school without seat belts demand a flat statement
of certainty about the risk posed to their children by being in
school with a child with AIDS. The ever-rising levels of
malpractice awards are based on the premise that if doctors are
punished enough they will become perfect, but ignore the possible
outcome that the consequent fee increases will inhibit those with
marginal incomes from going to the doctor. Living near a nuclear
power plant may be safer than attending a rock concert, but what
television viewer would believe that?
A second example is the methodology of "the control." When
Pasteur was ready to test his anthrax vaccine he infected both
the previously immunized sheep and some nonimmunized controls.
The fact that the former lived and the latter died showed that he
had made an effective vaccine. Political and civic decisions are
frequently made, however, with no attempt to obtain a control
sample, which would help determine the efficacy of a course of
action. I attended a school board meeting at which a new math
program was proposed. A board member suggested that students be
divided by lot into two groups, one group to be taught by the new
math and one by the old math, with some evaluation at the end of
the year. He was denounced by almost everyone at the meeting
because one should not conduct "a lottery with students' lives."
Prison programs on rehabilitation, medicare programs to balance
costs, bilingual education programs, and many other worthy
enterprises might be better handled, and more readily improved,
if the initial experiments had appropriate controls.
These two examples of scientific concepts are directly transferable
to public policy and should be taught to students at the elementary,
high school, and college levels. They should be part of a screening
test for television anchors, judges, and gubernatorial candidates.
Instead, most schools today are diminishing science requirements.
Even at the college level, the few universities that have general
education requirements allow them to be satisfied by tourist-bus
surveys of the wonders of astronomy or the marvels of the body,
rather than by a more demanding course in the simple logic of
science. Judges and legislators with little or no scientific
training are making sweeping decisions on risks to the environment
and from nuclear war and industrial accidents. Common sense would
argue that an organization such as the Environmental Protection
Agency should list the major hazards to health and evaluate them
systematically, taking the most important first instead of the most
recent headline case.
Scientists will be denounced for trying to introduce cold-blooded
reason into an area in which warm-blooded humanity is supposed to
reign supreme. But warm emotion frequently gives way to hot-headed
anger and even bigotry. The scientific method has been the most
effective means of overcoming poverty, starvation, and disease.
Even those who are not professional scientists can understand its
fundamental concepts, which will aid their decision-making in an
incrasingly difficult and technological world. It is time to
bridge the "concept gap" by improving scientific literacy.
Daniel E. Koshland, Jr.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judging by what one reads in netnews, Mr. Koshland has underestimated
the pervasiveness of the problem !
By the way, SCIENCE magazine is published by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and, next to NATURE, is probably
the best magazine in the world dealing with science in general. Many of
its articles may often be difficult for the non-specialist; however,
AAAS also publishes another magazine intended for a wider audience:
SCIENCE 85. Its style is more similar to that of SCIENCE DIGEST and
OMNI, but without the inaccuracies and pseudo science. If you like
SCIENCE DIGEST and OMNI, you'll like SCIENCE 85 a lot better and you
will get much more accurate information.
Giovanni Vannucci
AT&T Bell Laboratories HOH R-207
Holmdel, NJ 07733
hou2e!gvrich@aoa.UUCP (Rich Snow) (10/27/85)
Distribution:na In article <534@talcott.UUCP> tmb@talcott.UUCP (Thomas M. Breuel) writes: >FLAME ON and I am getting tired of seeing this. rich snow ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!rich
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (11/04/85)
> Since my initial posting of a message entitled "The Energy Machine of > Joseph Newman", I have received over 30 messages regarding this energy > machine. Most of these were along the lines of "a sucker born every > minute"... there were some replies from people with an open mind who > were at least willing to listen to the facts concerning this machine... > ... > For those interested, Joseph Newman's book information is: > "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" > ISBN : 0-9613835-1-8 > Library of Congress Catalogue Card No.: 84-90652 > The Joseph Newman Publishing Company > Route 1, Box 52 > Lucedale, Mississippi 39452 > 8 1/2" x 11", 287 pages, 167 illustrations, 15 photographs > $34.95 + 3.50 Shipping and Handling ^^^^^^ So THAT'S how Newman is making money... === Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York === === UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry === === VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice,shell}!baylor!/ === === FAX 716/741-9635 {AT&T 3510D} ihnp4!/ === === === === "Have you hugged your cat today?" ===
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (11/05/85)
Since this seems to be a juicy new topic, I will go ahead and bite. > .... since the potential energy stored > in something CONTRIBUTES TO ITS RESTMASS. It is unclear to me how potential energy contributes to an object's rest mass. All of the cases known to me, small though that may be, show that mechanical potential energy is due solely to the location of an object within some force field. Potential energy is due to location and not the mass of an object. Examples include gravitational potential energy (an object above some reference level within a gravitational field), electrostatic potential energy (a charged object in an electric field), and harmonic or spring potential energy (an object away from the equilibrium position of a spring). Since the potential energy, compared to some reference, is due to location, there would seem to be no necessity to treat it as part of the rest mass. This also violates my naive concept that the rest mass, like electric charge, is a constant property of an object independent of location and velocity. Some of the rest mass of the (atomic) nucleus is stored as binding energy to overcome the electrostatic or coulomb repulsion. But this reduces the rest mass of the nucleus from its component parts, not increases it. I remain confused... > You are evidently thinking of the annihilation of electrons, protons, > and neutrons by antimatter. Being a mere mortal, I am not knowledgeable of many other mechanisms for mass to energy conversion except by mass annihilation (however, if you consider potential energy to be stored as part of the rest mass, then other means of mass conversion do suggest themselves). However, you may wish to argue either that I am simply unaware of other known mechanisms for mass conversion (certainly possible) or that Mr. Newman has discovered a different mechanism (which is not yet recognized). Another mechanism for converting mass into energy is nuclear fusion, but that was not mentioned as being utilized in the Newman machine (and the device was primarily composed of copper). Fusion is also accompanied by some energetic radiation. Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!ihwld!gjphw
sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (11/06/85)
In article <474@iham1.UUCP> gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) writes: > Some of the rest mass of the (atomic) nucleus is stored as binding energy > to overcome the electrostatic or coulomb repulsion. But this reduces the rest > mass of the nucleus from its component parts, not increases it. I remain > confused... If the nuclei are infinitely far apart, then there is no interaction between them, and all that is measured is sum of their rest masses. When they are brought (not too) close together to form the nucleus, there is an attractive interaction between them. This is the same as saying that the potential energy of the system has been *reduced*. Therefore, the total energy of the nucleus (rest mass + potential energy) has been reduced. Because of the equivalence of mass and energy, this total energy is the apparent mass of the nucleus. -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/06/85)
> Since this seems to be a juicy new topic, I will go ahead and bite. > > > .... since the potential energy stored > > in something CONTRIBUTES TO ITS RESTMASS. > > It is unclear to me how potential energy contributes to an object's rest > mass. All of the cases known to me, small though that may be, show that > mechanical potential energy is due solely to the location of an object within > some force field. I believe they meant to say "...since the potential energy stored in A SYSTEM contributes to its rest mass". If the system is the earth & a ball, then moving the ball further away would increase the mass of the system some small amount. Be a bit hard to measure, though. Of course this is based on a straightforward interpretation of relativity, and I could be full of it. If you think about taking that ball and dropping it, then letting the system return to equilibrium, you have to explain where the "extra" thermal energy (that would also increase the mass) came from. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
kscott@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Kevin Scott%Kuntz) (11/07/85)
In article <474@iham1.UUCP> gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) writes: > Some of the rest mass of the (atomic) nucleus is stored as binding energy >to overcome the electrostatic or coulomb repulsion. But this reduces the rest > mass of the nucleus from its component parts, not increases it. I remain > confused... In article <1037@oddjob.UUCP> sra@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) writes: >If the nuclei are infinitely far apart, then there is no interaction between >them, and all that is measured is sum of their rest masses. When they are >brought (not too) close together to form the nucleus, there is an attractive >interaction between them. This is the same as saying that the potential >energy of the system has been *reduced*. Therefore, the total energy of >the nucleus (rest mass + potential energy) has been reduced. Because >of the equivalence of mass and energy, this total energy is the apparent >mass of the nucleus. The mass of the nucleus and electron does not change, interchange between the two of them, or any such thing. And an electron cannot exactly be brought too close to the nucleus. The physical ramifications of what happens if the two peices exist in the same space are beyond me, but the electron need not exactly be described as a particle, and as a wave can be thought of as being able to pass through the nucleus (and need not exist in nodes to pass through them either). The electron is described as a wave function around the nucleus which is a proportional to the square root of where the exact particle would exist if you were to force the electron into particle charachteristics by observing it. The electron can move further and closer to the nucleus, exchanging its potential energy for kinetic energy and vice versa. If the electron is excited, it is more likely to exist further away from the nucleus, moving into a higher energy level. As an electron moves to a nucleus from infinite separation, it will gain kinetic energy. If it is slowed down and trapped by the nucleus it will radiate energy, proportional to what it needs to step down to the kinetic energy for the new spot it inhabits, and it will continue to cycle around. My eloquence may not do this explanation justice, it is a slightly advanced topic. For a much better discussion from someone who is more eloquent than I and has written down everything in full (I do not have the time or inclination to type more) see J.P. Lowe's Quantum Chemistry or or any quantum physics or quantum chemistry book. I don't profess to be an absolute authority or be up to date, feel free to send me e-mail criticisms, with all the physicists out there I'll probably learn something. This might be best moved to net.physics if it starts to tie up net.misc. -- two to the power of five thousand against and falling ...
overlord@nmtvax.UUCP (11/19/85)
>> > Scientists may be trained to make close observations of nature, >> > but they don't normally work under the assumption that there's a >> > deception to be detected. > >Hmmm .. . Particle physicists may want to hear about this. > > You don't suppose the BIG GUY is deceiving us??? > > Twinkle twinkle little. ... > Actually, what was probably meant by the first article is: scientist don't expect data to LIE to them. One of the things that was taught in a parapsycology class here at New Mexico Tech (note: a REAL class as opposed to some of the trash that is taught at some places), is that scientists are VERY easy to fool. Most of the time, physicists are the easiest to fool. If the deception is presented in a "logical" manner, most knowledgable people follow right along and will miss some important falacy on which the deception depends. For example, most of you are probably familiar with vonDanagon(sp?) the author of Chariots of the Gods (CotG) and other such trash..... Well, it seems that there was a faculty meeting at a college. During a coffee break in the meeting, some of the professors began to discuss CotG. One of the astronomy/astrophysics professors said that he was rather impressed by vonDanagon's research in geological dating of events but that his astromony was all screwed up (he had neglected to account for the shifting of the stars over the eons) but a geology/paleontology professor said "gee, I always thought that his astronomy was pretty neat, but his geology is all screwed up." (he had shifted some geological ages around and moved the time for some prehistoric animals to different time periods). Apparently, no one at the meeting thought vonDanagon knew what he was talking about if it was in his or her field but most thought that the material that wasn't in their field sounded logical (or at least until a fellow professor pointed out the falacies.) So basically what happens is: someone says "look, it follows these principles". a demomstration is performed. a scientists says "look, the effect seems to be following the principles that he said it would.... he must be right." Remember! When observing "cause and effect", just because the "effect" happened you must test to prove that it was due to that "cause". I should know!! As a semi-professional magician, I get paid to show people just how easy it is to be deceived. Alan Kerr Chemistry/Computer Science/Math major New Mexico Tech -- ...{convex,ucbvax,gatech,csu-cs,anl-mcs}!unmvax!nmtvax!overlord ...{purdue,cmc12}!lanl!nmtvax!overlord