bernd.paysan at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 12:09:47 EST 2002
> Now THIS is truly crackpot! First there's a huge difference between an
> organism not having the "perfect" metal in its eye and eyes turning
> "inside out".
If you are free to arrange veins, neutrons and sensitive cells as you want,
arranging them as they are (veins in front, sensitive cells in the back),
this is "inside out". No sane engineer would do it like that if there are
no obvious reasons. Example for an obvious reason: CCD sensors. The active
material (silicon) is the substrate, so all the other stuff (power supply,
sense lines) has to be put on top of it.
> Second the record is full of instances of "bad mutations"
> that have been passed on from generation to generation.
Sure. But having a complete line of life evolving their eyes "inside out" is
pretty beyond what I can accept as "bad mutation". The eye must have
started the wrong way, at a time they were generally that bad that this
small "mistake" didn't really matter.
And it's not just crippling: It's turning a complicated structure inside out
while keeping it working. If you believe that's possible, you give more
power to evolution than I do.
>> Science requires a critical mind, and I still fail to see how lots of
>> faith does not contradict that.
> Well Bernd you seem to have a lot of "faith" in your own theories,
> even though you haven't tested them and they seem to contridict the
> NASA scientists who have. But hey, maybe they'll give you a job.
Just because someone at NASA does patent stupid things does not make him an
authority, nor puts down the rest of NASA. Big organizations have their
crackpots somewhere. One of the antigravity crackpots worked for Boeing,
and was fired later. If the patent office accepts a patent without physical
explanation, there is some trouble, too - they should not. If you don't
understand it, it's not an innovation, but a discovery.
My theory is just one possible explanation I found after thinking about the
problem for a moment (it really springs up immediately). I do not insist in
it being the one true answer, but I insist that these people are not doing
serious research, because if they did, this would have crossed their minds,
too. And it's much closer than ion wind.
And if the lifter just lifts outside, it's still the ground that lifts it.
No distant trees or mountains necessary (and they won't work, either). You
just claimed that this effect also generates a horizontal force, and the
article that supports your claim had a photo showing that *they* had walls
in their lab.
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
More information about the Neur-sci