Re: Ping Qi-on: Tiller on Art Bell

Jan Panteltje wrote: 
On a sunny day (Wed, 08 Jun 2005 04:19:17 -0700) it happened Mark
Fergerson <nunya@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
<NuApe.4739$6s.1864@fed1read02>:

In case you're wondering why I'm "wasting my time" on this at all, I direct you to:

http://www.svpvril.com/Hier.html 

Ok I have read it, something anybody could write, no diagrams, no
math, no pictures, just babble.

Hey, at least you bothered to read it before dismissing it. I'm slightly amazed.

As for no diagrams etc, perhaps I'm just better at interpreting
verbal descriptions into pictures, but then one of my hobbies is cooking. Seemed adequately explicit to me. To quote:

* I made eight small boxes: two-by-two-by-four inches long, without
* tops or bottoms. Before tacking on the base, I put in pieces of
* aluminum foil slightly larger than the bottom and did the same
* for the top, except that the lid was raised about a half inch
* above the box. The top and bottom on the inside was covered by
* aluminum foil. In my basement workshop, which was lightproofed, I
* connected the bottom plate to a water pipe with copper wire and
* ran another wire from the top plate to the outside of the
* basement where I'd built two shelves. Seven of the boxes were
* wired to metal plates outside in the sunlight -- also on shelves
* built onto the house. The eighth was a control, not connected to
* anything. On the first wire I soldered a plate two-by-two inches,
* the second to a metal plate four-by-four inches, the next to a
* plate eight-by-eight inches, and another one to a plate sixteen
* inches square. To the next three grounded wires I soldered
* two-by-two, four-by-four and eight-by-eight inch copper screening
* -- to see whether there'd be any difference in the results from
* the solid plates than from the screen mesh . . .

  and so forth.

Mind you, I deviated from the further description in that I didn't use oat seeds, but rather what I had on hand, namely seeds of Cannabis Indica. This was some decades ago.

which among other things describes a way to grow plants in
total darkness using copper wire to bring some kind of energy
other than easily identifiable EM from the sun to the plants.


Well, he says: it is no photons. So, take a photocell, make
electrictity on roof, use light bulb in cellar. I dunno if an
electrified plant will grow, some mushrooms grow in dark places
only. Without a proper description of the setup, and REPEATABLE
experimental data, all this babble on this page means nothing. I
have seen this kind of 'reporting' before, it has ALWAYS been
fake. If EEPROMS changed all by themselves, Intel will want to
talk to you.

Well, I have to ask you how you know they're all fake if you didn't at least try to repeat any of them? Merely running them through one's "knowledge base" to check for agreement with the current paradigm (sorry to use that word; don't know another applicable one) isn't adequate and can lead one to make the wrong connections, like your statement about photocells etc. Did you simply trust the pronouncements of "experts"? For me, this isn't about belief or appeal to authority, but results.

And I certainly concur about the possibility of EEPROMs doing strange things, which is why I wondered aloud if it had been checked for. I strongly suspect not.

That in fact is one of the main things that bother me about people like Tiller; they'll go to extremes to develop what seems on the surface to be rigorous testing protocols, then completely fail to investigate what appear to me to be blatantly obvious "details". They either don't even consider such things, or attempt to hide this failure by presenting pages and pages of brilliant statistical analysis and so forth, but never mention the possibility that their hardware may be experiencing a perfectly mundane failure mode that doesn't fit within _their_ paradigm. Remember the fiasco about military-grade memory chips made with radioactive ceramic? I wonder how old his hardware was...

When one baffles oneself with one's own bull***, one needn't worry about one's brilliance. I do try to avoid that.

I know, it sounds totally loopy, but in my younger, less
critical days I actually tried it and it _worked_ (though I
never did get the more complex device described in his infamous
patent to work as advertised). Since then, I'm not as quick to
dismiss loopy ideas as most others here might be.


I do not either, but this is so vague it does not even qualify as
an idea. Even the perpetual motion machine designers AT LEAST had
a drawing!

So? As I said, some of us have better visualization skills. No big deal.

Loopy ideas come and go in a constant parade, but I find the
few that feature replicable, otherwise unexplainable,
_physical_ effects impossible to ridicule or ignore.

OK, I am open, let's hear them :-)

Oh, they indeed are far and few between, but I gave you _one_. Got a basement?

  Mark L. Fergerson

.

Quantcast