jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 12 15:44:13 EST 2002
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan at gmx.de> wrote in message news:<6vk9ta.9lc.ln at miriam.mikron.de>...
> jmdrake wrote:
> Furthermore, mammals were night-living creatures for quite a long time, and
> there the advantage of the squid eye also pays off.
But not any longer.
> > You're going off of the misconception that squid eyes
> > are somehow "better". They might be "better" for their enviornment
> > but they'd be a disaster on land. Nice try though.
> You are obviously completely locked in to that crazy idea. First, people
> like you claim that the eye is perfect; if you are confronted with evidence
> that it is not perfect, you resort to "degeneration". Now confronted with
> an explanation why this can't have degenerated that way, you revert back to
> "it's perfect" (which was bullshit the first time, and still is). We don't
> play ping pong here.
People like me? I've never made any claim about the eye being perfect.
I'm still not saying it's perfect. I'm saying the celephod eye isn't
perfect either. Unless you can provide some evidence of a land
creature with such an eye you are the one who is full of BS. I
suspect that some mad scientist will try to "geneticlly engineer"
one at some point. Until then you're blowing smoke. (Or rather
smoking something). I don't think that man is perfect at this
point and I've already explained that. This is a "perfect" example
of a "straw man" argument and proof that you have lost sight
(pardon the pun) of all logic. A "straw man" argument is where you
put words in your opponents mouth and then try to argue against
those words. It's a deceitful practice, but one that I would expect
from "people like you".
> > My response is that just because you think something is stupid doesn't
> > make it so. As far as the patent office accepting things that aren't
> > yet fully understood that's basically what all genetic patents boil
> > down to.
> They are even worse, because no man has ever invented a genome. These are
> definitely discoveries.
I didn't say it was worse or better, just fact. That's the current fact
of patent law like it or not. Filing for a patent is a business/legal
decision more than a scientific one. Your argument here is silly.
> > Naw. Ion wind is more plausible. At least that's been demonstrated. So
> > far you haven't given any reference to any demonstration of your theory
> > beyond your own mind. Any papers on walls as capacitors Bernd?
> When there's time, I'll write one. No serious research is going on here,
> because it's not worth the time, nor can you get glory from debunking crazy
> ideas. You just get to argue with crackpots, which is depressing.
In other words you pulled it out your arse. And somehow you think this
is more scientific then simply describing it as an electronic phenomenom
that you don't yet understand? The "stupid" (according to you) scientists
at NASA and the army research labs that are looking at this are actually
doing experiments to tests their hypothesis. Unlike you they haven't
made any definite claims on what it "is" yet, just what it isn't. (Not
antigravity and not ion wind). They've put forth a theory, but they're
much more resevered than you on their certainty about it. How
utterly "unscientific" of them.
> > How far
> > away must the wall be before you can dismiss it? Just saying "the force
> > is bouncing off the wall somewhere" is quite suspect.
> Nah. I did not utter such nonsense. I said the ground (and walls if they are
> nearby) must be treated as capacitor plates, tied to ground voltage (which
> they are, walls are usually sufficiently conductive). The photo in the
> paper you pointed me to shows a wall about one meter from the turned
> lifter, which is quite close.
> Just do the simple math: You have two plates with different distance/force
> curves, one (plate A) flat (nearly no dependency nearby), one (plate B) as
> cable (1/r dependency nearby). The forces between them are equal (actio est
> reactio), they are attracting each other. Now put a third, ground-level
> plate. The forces between ground and A have a different distance/force
> curve than the ones between ground and B. Do you fail to see how this can
> give a lifting effect? Have you ever seen a charged high-voltage capacitor
> bouncing a ping-pong ball in between? Electrostatic charges are powerful.
You haven't defined what "nearby" is yet. One foot? Two feet? Ten feet?
By not giving any definition you can continue to espouse your theory
without any means of testing to disprove it.
John M. Drake
More information about the Neur-sci