On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Carey Fisher wro= te: > =A0On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Yigit Turgut wrot= e: > >> >> He had built around 30~ prototypes in 10~ years and there is -serious >> evidence- that the effect exists. > > > "serious evidence" is not science unless it's published for peer review. > Peer review means others with expertise in the field must have enough > information to duplicate any experiments =A0and the experiments must have= the > ability to falsify or disprove the results obtained by the claimant. Unfortunately it's not that simple. I don't know if you had gone through the process to submit-publish a paper but believe me things are sneaky on that frontage. Most of the journals are not evaluating based on pure scientific content of the paper, there are other stuff going on. I encountered a very bad experience after submitting one of my researches to world's leading top-notch science journal. I had contributions to papers and I don't even include them in my resume because it actually means nothing to -me-. I am not trying to project an expression that the peer-reviewed papers are not valuable, in fact I think quite the opposite but those "peers" you mention, most percentage of them consists of people who want to move to an upper position in their universities or institutes. That is an academic requirement to have at least a couple of published in an international journal. Also impact factor of that journal plays a significant role (when you are in front of the jury). There are parameters other than the scientific content and passion that pushes one to publish a paper. Spare an hour or so and do a literature scan and you will see that most of the published papers lack genuity. An invention will be patented and published -only if- there is a commercial end to it. For example there are no patents regarding intergalactic communications but this doesn't indicate that there are no achievements on that topic. I am not saying John is one of those inventors but I know more than a dozen cases where inventor doesn't want to patent and disclose the details of his work due to obvious reasons. John doesn't have that much scientific background and it's even funny that he assumes himself a Prof. An educated reader can easily spot that he lacks some fundamental scientific knowledge but this doesn't mean that he is fraud, and it also doesn't mean that he is not. What I share here is that I saw one of the prototypes weighted approximately 3.6~kg and after the device is on it's weight reduced to 2~kg without any vector against gravity. This was all in room temperature and there was a 11~ degrees of temperature decrease at the rolling discs, which is a behavior tended toward superconductivity. There is something at his work that doesn't fit our current understanding and thats what I am after. Maybe the effect is just like a logical threshold level, it's either going full speed up or stays still ; can't comment on that. But this wouldn't explain why the weight of the discs have reduced so it seems to be a linear effect. We will get chance to build and test one in 2012. > There are other parties that proved >> the SEG operation. We will also be building a modified version in >> 2012. >> > > Uh-huh. Who are they? =A0Where have they published? =A0Who is "We"? Check out the site there is information regarding to it. Who are we ? We are the shadows in the night, saver of mankind.. Or a private research lab.. (: > SEG is documented in detail and except some key tricks and stuff - >> some of the design details are published publicly. >> > > Independent verification by disinterested parties must occur before a > discovery can be considered to be verified. =A0"Key tricks and stuff" are= the > province of con men or self-delusionists. It is always safer to take your place among crowded part of the discussion, that is a very basic tendency in human beings. You rely on the scientific knowledge that we gained in the last 300K years and I can say that you got a full house in your hand (but not a straight flush). Just remind yourself that that full house left us in the lurch more than a couple of times in the past. I am not defending John or etc, I am defending what I saw and it is much more valuable to me than a peer-reviewed journal. --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .