Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site aum.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!well!ptsfa!aum!freed From: freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: Joseph Newman's Energy Machine Message-ID: <390@aum.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-Oct-85 11:09:35 EDT Article-I.D.: aum.390 Posted: Wed Oct 23 11:09:35 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 04:32:53 EDT References: <173@tulane.UUCP> <174@tulane.UUCP> <330@bcsaic.UUCP> <387@aum.UUCP> <1453@teddy.UUCP> Organization: The Aurora Systems Bunch Lines: 42 > In article <387@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes: > >It seems to me that in the interest of *real* scientific objectivity that > >anyone who claims it to be a hoax should be able to back that claim up with > >scientific evidence. It seems reasonable that Mr Newman want the protection > >of a patent before subjecting his invention to detailed public scrutiny. > >I am kind of ashamed of the lack of *open-minded* scientific curiosity dis- > >played on this net over a fairly interesting phenomona. *WHETHER OR NOT* it > >is a hoax. Flames on everyone! > >-- > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The burden of proof does not lie on the world to prove Mr. Newman wrong, > it lies on Mr. Newman and his supporters to prove themselves right. > Similarily, I could claim that I saw a flotilla of flying saucers land > and disperse millions of aliens, which I single handedly killed and disposed > of the bodies. Now, who needs to prove what? Do you need to prove me wrong > or do I need to prove my ridiculous story is correct before you prove it > wrong. > > Let's see what Mr. Newman has to say, sure. But his mere statement nor > its description in the press is insufficient proof of anything. If what he > is stating is true (800 percent efficiency), then the entire foundation > of physics is in serious jeoporady. Note that this violates, very clearly > the law of conservation of energy. > > Who his is director of engineering, Emanuel Velikovsky? :-) You will notice that according to him he does not violate the conservation laws, he derives energy from the mass of copper... My point is, however, that the tenor of the articles has been ridicule based on very unscientific and highly emotional prejudices; *NOT* understanding of the concepts involved. I still hold that the reactions have been childish much like the emotional reactions frontier scientists/inventors like Edison had to deal with. If people want to say there is *NO* chance he is right I think they should have a lot more evidence at their disposal! I am myself very sceptical, but I think that it is *possible* if not likely. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed