Go get a supercooled magnet, set it on another one, and gaze in wild wonder as it "just floats there". This is the same concept, he's just trying to apply it to any material, not just "magnetic" ones.
Go get a supercooled magnet, set it on a table, and gaze in wild wonder as it "just floats there". This is the same concept as your magnetic levitation. There's something exerting a downward force (gravity) and something exerting an upward force (magnet or table). Just because you can see the table, and you can't see the magnetic field, doesn't mean squat.
Real anti-gravity research (if such a thing existed) would try to eliminate the downward force of gravity, not provide one of many possible upward forces.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I'm not proposing. Give lawyers more knobs to twiddle and, of course, you give lawyers more knobs to twiddle for pure adversarial purpose. I propose giving lawyers one less knob to twiddle i.e. make the mere filing of a suit the trigger for judicial scrutiny of the grounds for the suit. No motions, no harassment.
As another large thread here has mentioned, many of our current problems stem from the fact that under the adversarial system, a lawyer can be positively rewarded for nonsense (e.g. bogus claims) and negatively rewarded for sense. Short of revising/replacing the adversarial system (way too big a change) we have got to get some feedback mechanisms into place that change this reward structure.
One possible modification of the system (and one that resembles some UK law) is to make lawyers personally responsible for penalties when a judge determines that their plaintiff/client is bringing a suit with no possible grounds. This would be an additional finding in the case; that is the judge could rule against the plaintiff without finding that the suit was "stupid", but if the judge did rule the suit "stupid" the lawyer would pay.
I believe this might be a good weapon against SLAPP lawsuits.
It's been more than 10 years since the original Pons and Fleischmann anouncement of [sic] cold fusion. These guys (Blacklight) are one of the myriad branches from that bizarre root. Personally I find it amusing that they deny a relationship with cold fusion, while the cold fusion advocates point to them as a success story.
Yes indeed. I've already posted my comments under the "known kook" thread, but I'll support the "science editor" proposal.
Look at it this way: an informed skepticism is like an immune system for your mind. It's worth some effort to develop it.
On a Kook List? Sure triggers *my* bogometer.
on
Time Doesn't Exist
·
· Score: 1
I'm not a sufficiently avid reader of sci.physics to know whether this guy's a known kook, but a couple of things trigger my "Bogus" reaction.
The minor one's been mentioned already - independent theoretical physicist - but let's give the benefit of the doubt here. Not being employed might be a choice.
But the major trigger is the following: he spends most of the press release explaining configuration space, yet the stunning claim is about time or its absence. Configuration space is standard stuff. Physicists use it all over the place. They use it with time; they use it without time. The use of configuration space, alone, doesn't explain anything towards getting rid of the time dimension.
Conclusion: he's obfuscating the question. He has an idea, perhaps, but he doesn't want it examined too closely.
Slashdot Mirror
Real anti-gravity research (if such a thing existed) would try to eliminate the downward force of gravity, not provide one of many possible upward forces.
As another large thread here has mentioned, many of our current problems stem from the fact that under the adversarial system, a lawyer can be positively rewarded for nonsense (e.g. bogus claims) and negatively rewarded for sense. Short of revising/replacing the adversarial system (way too big a change) we have got to get some feedback mechanisms into place that change this reward structure.
I believe this might be a good weapon against SLAPP lawsuits.
It's been more than 10 years since the original Pons and Fleischmann anouncement of [sic] cold fusion. These guys (Blacklight) are one of the myriad branches from that bizarre root. Personally I find it amusing that they deny a relationship with cold fusion, while the cold fusion advocates point to them as a success story.
Look at it this way: an informed skepticism is like an immune system for your mind. It's worth some effort to develop it.
The minor one's been mentioned already - independent theoretical physicist - but let's give the benefit of the doubt here. Not being employed might be a choice.
But the major trigger is the following: he spends most of the press release explaining configuration space, yet the stunning claim is about time or its absence. Configuration space is standard stuff. Physicists use it all over the place. They use it with time; they use it without time. The use of configuration space, alone, doesn't explain anything towards getting rid of the time dimension.
Conclusion: he's obfuscating the question. He has an idea, perhaps, but he doesn't want it examined too closely.