Date: Saturday, August 07, 2004 @ 12:21:20 GMT
From: adrian To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Re: IF YOU Develope
Partly correct. The solution to the overunity thing needs inventive, creative types. If standard science could have solved the problem then since about mid thirties is enough time to have solved it. Creativity does not have a psychology recipe - one wonders why - and usually looks at all the possibilities and then uses problem solving, which tackles the possibilities one by one to eliminate. Insight and intuition also does not have a known recipe and is ignored by intellect, which only know how to repeat use a fixed method.
Brainstorming lists all the possibilities, even crazy ones and does not reject any which is does after the list is made up. Synectics uses natural and mechanical analogs as metaphor. There's four other such approaches too. Neil Boyd developed one that works too for anybody since the creative ability is built in but suppressed by education.
And since this list is into "free energy" the types that can think outside the box, flattening their attempts by telling us what standard science says won't work, for whatever the reason, only tells the creatives what they have already decided. Science and its so called laws were originated by wealthy amateurs when there was still no such thing as formalized science, which is not much over 2 Centuries old and was not taught generally until after the Universal Education Act of 1850 AD. The use of math only arrived after the quantifying neurosis developed some time later. Michelangelo invented the submarine and a few other things and that took 3 Centuries before the technology to build one arrived mid 19Th Century. Babbage invented the PC chip calculator which had to wait until we got digitalized electronics. in BOTH cases that took 100s of innovations and patents. And if you want other methods than the ones you were taught read up on the dozens of new theories of thought. Besides the scientific methods is little else than a medley of different tactics anyhow. Did you know that the modern claw hammer includes well over a 100 patents innovating its use. Try a wooden handle and you'll get a sore wrist; try a claw hammer and you won't and it drives nails in better too.
If you put a bee or a rat in a cage they go through the entire cage looking for escape holes. I once put my cat in a box and she chewed her way out and it took weeks for her mouth to heal. If you put a baby in a box they just sit there a while and then look for the latch and simply undo it. Chimpanzees invented sticks to catch ants with. There are dozens of such examples of tool use by animals. Creativity begins very simply with asking "What else might works" and followed up that leads to learning all of the known ways to do things and NOT using them. But that overstuffs the mind to get intuition going. I don't USE or apply theories I collect theories. Never ask a question to which you don't know the answer is lawyers advice and telling people what YOU know only helps when one is already creative and understands what happens instead of rattling of words from books. What keeps science FIXED is its fixed method, insistence on proof and sticking to THE well-defined word.
Take one example, searching on Google, that ignores place and time binders called conjunctives and precisely that is both its handicap and advantage since then one can think of the many other meanings of words and use that. I found out that if one uses non-standard words, not already pre-empted by the Establishment, there's some very interesting stuff to find. Try "archetypes". Try mysticism, the three major and academic lists into consciousness have so far not solved the problem Q raised and mysticism finds you several theories that do - to some degree - work. So creativity is quite simple, think of any other alternative but what's on standard and average offer and follow that up. Doing that gives one's mind data to dream with and from there on creativity begins to emerge as something you too can do. So you are using a fixed idea of who and what you are, which is not necessarily the case. I'm not only creative I've thought about how it works. That works with words and denies the well defined word, Neil has another tactic that works directly on attitudes and emotions. And if you Google "consciousness" you'll find dozens of others. If you start by *knowing* you're not the inventive type you'll stay stuck there.
QUOTE from you "If they do not have math creating abilities then someone else has to attempt". In Anthropology that's called cargo cultism where primitives expect god, the aliens or the first world to solve their problems. What happens is that the Establishment moves in and rips them off some more, making sweat factories and removing their resources; good fun. Right now for us the Establishment provides us with disinformation to stop us even trying and you don't have to do their work for them. Just look for the money trail.
MINE "To find the truth in anything alien, first dispense with your most preciously held beliefs": Leonard Cohen. That's another recipe into creativity and finding your attitudes and assumptions is not that hard. You may start with any hard core definition and find other meanings. The secret is that our unconscious sector stops the conscious sector or functions of our mind from getting active. That is because when the conscious mind uses OR the unconscious mind relies on AND, enantiodromia, paradiorthosis by stealing ideas from others as William Alek did with NASA and in general stirring up one's own mind instead of stifling other people. So it is not that you cannot, you don't even try.
End of blog
>-- Original Message --
From: Josh8103579212 To: email@example.com
Subject: IF YOU Develope
In a message dated 8/5/2004 2:41:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ubavontuba (Eric) writes:
What proof do you desire? You wanna maybe come over for tea, cookies and a demonstration? How would you know that my demonstration isn't rigged?
I provided for a cheap experiment so that people can independently verify my results. That is how it is done in all the "normal" scientific communities.
For instance, the flak over cold fusion didn't occur when it was first publicly presented. The flak occurred when other scientists, following the instructions of the originators, could not duplicate and therefore could not verify their claims.
Perhaps you don't understand how "real" science is supposed to happen?
REPLY Now lets quantify your statement and examine the actual product side. If you develope a physical operational viable device and you disclose how to reproduce the device to others and they have money and you do not. What is the next logical step? Are they possibly going to RIP you off? Yes in A New York minute.
If you disclose how to reproduce an experiment which has no commerical value then no one can gain in that sense from the experiment. But if there is possible commerical value then someone would be a total fool for disclosing. In order to figure out the agenda behind the duplication/verification game does not require rocket science thinking. There has to be some reason when individuals attempt that ploy. My experience has been ones that display that posture become very combative when you do not fall for that approach.
>-- Original Message --
From: adrian To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: IF YOU Develope
ADRIAN: We all know the standard routines we're taught.
JOSH: And 99% use those standard routines as the first step.
ADRIAN: Now tell us how innovation and invention takes place in science or anywhere else for that matter.?
JOSH: I'm not an inventive type but My personal experience with inventive types is they do not use standard routines as the first step. They first have an idea then they attempt to create a physical device from that idea. The last step they look at is possible math explanations for the physically situated they created. If none exist and they have math creating abilities then an explanation in that sense can be tendered. Case in Point a new equation was created for the devices I have on Posted video's. ""Electron flow without creating an EMF"
But not until 25 years after the device was perfected. And only then because a Co. which would Manuf. the creation was and is still in the process of being created. Why did he wait for that period of time? Because once the device is perfected the math is immaterial. Provided the device functions as intended. My experience has been 99% that only think in standard routine modes cannot relate to ones who do not.
That equation totally violates vast aspects of current understanding. If they do not have math creating abilities then someone else has to attempt. The prime last one that did was Maxwell. There is only one problem he lacked Mech.abilities. Because if the one I just tendered is factual vast aspects of his are incomplete. Ponder That. Science associates idea/theory/math as one entity. Idea/theory is the first step then device then math. End result An Invention MR. Cohen below was a very wise individual. Thank you for the platform.
ADRIAN: There's also anything up to half a hundred reasons why experiments fail when done by others. When puzzled people rummage through their hobby horses and that's not *thinking*, is it?
"To find the truth in anything alien, first dispense with your most preciously held beliefs": Leonard Cohen
Now please tell us a cheap and easy way to test the veridicity of nuclear tests. And while you're at it please explain gravity in words of one syllable. If it were all so *simple* why cannot it be solved?
JOSH: Because 99% attempt to look at gravity using a standard routine thinking process. I suggest you follow Mr. Cohen's advice.