Indian researcher challenges Newton's law

[V3]

I'm just saying it received a patent for a supposedly greater than 100% efficiency device were all others have failed he should atleast get credit for that.

Credit for fooling monkeys in the patent office ?

 

[indio]

I'm just saying it received a patent for a supposedly greater than 100% efficiency device were all others have failed he should atleast get credit for that.

Credit for fooling monkeys in the patent office ?

einstein was a patent clerk.........

 

[RussSchultz]

I'm just saying it received a patent for a supposedly greater than 100% efficiency device were all others have failed he should atleast get credit for that.

Credit for fooling monkeys in the patent office ?

einstein was a patent clerk.........

And a notoriously bad student, too.

 

[Basic]

So your argument against someone saying that current intelligence state at American patent offices isn't that good, is that there existed a smart patent clerk 100 years ago in Germany.

Yep, that's a good argument.

 

[Xmas]

So your argument against someone saying that current intelligence state at American patent offices isn't that good, is that there existed a smart patent clerk 100 years ago in Germany.

Actually, that was in Bern, Switzerland

 

[Basic]

Ouch

 

[Sage]

how can you make a reasonable argument against an opinion which is offered without any references or facts to back it up?

 

[RussSchultz]

how can you make a reasonable argument against an opinion which is offered without any references or facts to back it up?

By stating your own opinion over and over again, of course.

At least that's how it works on the internet.

 

[indio]

So your argument against someone saying that current intelligence state at American patent offices isn't that good, is that there existed a smart patent clerk 100 years ago in Germany.

Yep, that's a good argument.

making blanket statement s about the current intelligence state at American patent offices with zero evidence to substantiate such a claim is equally ridiculous . If everyone else can play in the realm of the obsurd why can't I?

 

[Vince]

Ouch

Ouch? Just because you messed up a town doesn't negate your comment in the least. Infact, his comment is outrageous.

It's like saying that because Srinivasa Ramanujan was perhaps the greatest mathematician of modern time and *happened* to have worked as a clerk in India - that Ramanujan's unfathomable mathematical abilities are in some way indicative of *all* low-level clerks. It's insane.

Or, it's like saying that because Witten once worked in McGovern's presidential campaign (IIRC) and wrote for the New Republic, all campaign workers and columnists are endowed with the title of "neo-Einstein" and are perhaps the most brilliant individuals ever seen. (Thinks of Jayson Blair)


As for the present USPO, even the USPO itself acknowledges that they’re “Understaffedâ€￾ - why this is even being debated is beyond me.

 

[kid_crisis]

'there is ample history illustrating the "mainstream " getting it completely wrong '
Example please.

1) The world is flat (and resting on a turtles back).
2) The planets and the sun are affixed to large crystal spheres that are centered about the earth (Aristotelian model)
3) Eyeglasses will help make your vision better (instead of dependant on glasses)
4) The U.S. had a manned landing on the moon in '69.
5) Light is a "particle" that can travel through a vacuum and yet also show wave cancellation effects.
6) Gravity "waves" travel at the speed of light.
7) The Federal Reserve Bank is a federal agency.

 

[notAFanB]

whats wrong with 4 and 5?

note: not a physics major here

 

[DemoCoder]

'there is ample history illustrating the "mainstream " getting it completely wrong '
Example please.

1) The world is flat (and resting on a turtles back).

Urban Myth. Earth was known to be round by several cultures in antiquity.

4) The U.S. had a manned landing on the moon in '69.

Proven fact. By even citing this, you've discredited yourself off the planet.

5) Light is a "particle" that can travel through a vacuum and yet also show wave cancellation effects.

This is the mainstream and it is correct.

6) Gravity "waves" travel at the speed of light.

Also proven true by recent observations.

7) The Federal Reserve Bank is a federal agency.

Non sequitur.

 

[Xmas]

3) Eyeglasses will help make your vision better (instead of dependant on glasses)

Why "instead of"? The former is definitely true, the latter, well, maybe...

 

[Sage]

4) The U.S. had a manned landing on the moon in '69.

Proven fact. By even citing this, you've discredited yourself off the planet.

Actually, I've seen some very compelling evidnce against the "facts" that could be considered to be proof to the contrary of what the mainstream believes. However, I've also seen many of those arguments proved to be in error. The real fact is that both sides are constantly disproving and then being disproved. So, as I see it, the topic is still open to discussion and so neither side can be discredited based on their beliefs.

 

[Fred]

/boggle

 

[notAFanB]

6) Gravity "waves" travel at the speed of light.

Also proven true by recent observations.

while I understand that there are no simultaneouse nteractions in nature which lead to the above statement. are they really 'waves' the the general sense?

 

[RussSchultz]

4) The U.S. had a manned landing on the moon in '69.

Proven fact. By even citing this, you've discredited yourself off the planet.

Actually, I've seen some very compelling evidnce against the "facts" that could be considered to be proof to the contrary of what the mainstream believes. However, I've also seen many of those arguments proved to be in error. The real fact is that both sides are constantly disproving and then being disproved. So, as I see it, the topic is still open to discussion and so neither side can be discredited based on their beliefs.

The only side being disproved are the ones who are cooking up the farce that it was faked.

I started off writing a long diatribe here, but it all boiled down to me calling people stupid, so I'll keep it short.

If you espouse these theories, you must be stupid or ignorant.

 

[Fred]

'while I understand that there are no simultaneouse nteractions in nature which lead to the above statement. are they really 'waves' the the general sense?'

Yes and no. Gravitational waves are 2nd order perturbations in spacetime. Neutron stars for instance emit them as they wiggle. They do not necessarily propogate at 'c' in vacuo.

Gravitons, the mediators of the gravitational force (also kinda sorta a wave.. more accurately known as a field), are thought to move at 'c'.

 

[Paul]

Actually, I've seen some very compelling evidnce against the "facts" that could be considered to be proof to the contrary of what the mainstream believes.

What these people systematically fail to mention is what about the moon rocks collected? Don't say they are from earth because several independant scientists have studied them and there are characteristics in them not seen of earth rocks.