Possibility of PNN replies

That's the whole problem. any scientist needs to be continuously alet to the possibility of alternative explanations for the effects that they are seeing. Popper claimed the any real scientific explanation had to be falsifiable.

The desire to be able to see that the claimed results can be shown to fit theory that claims to explain them is perfectly natural, but leads to bad science if it leads you to ignore more prosaic explanations;

You don't seem to be a professional experimental scientist - or a least not a very competent one.

So you are a gullible twit. If you can't reproduce the effects they probably aren't real, and you don't have any rational reason to promote them as real.

The proposition that effects that you can't reproduce are violations of Newton's principle of action and reaction is pure wishful thinking.

The environment gets hotter and the convection currents that I hypothesise to be creating the observed effect would get stronger.

A zero second discharge would be catastrophic if it actually happened;

Nobody has demonstrated that the effect exists in an evacuated test space, let alone outer space.

The scientific method was developed after their civilisation had fallen apart. It's a scheme that lets you avoid a lot of false starts. You need to learn about it.

Modern astronautics is very much about finding out more about the more convenient parts of the solar system. Colonising them is strictly science fiction - we don't know enough about the possible destinations to make any even faintly realistic plans to colonise any of them.

The Romans didn't know enough to risk making their bridges as cheaply as they could have done.

The testing of your imagined reactionless parodies empirical physical procedures. You leave out any sort of control of whether the effects you are seeing might come from any effects other than the ones you are looking for.

I'm not in a position to repeat your experiments, let alone set up variants which might provide useful information - which would take even more money and time.

If your experiments had been rather better designed, there are people like me who might have been motivated to get together to refine them, but the nonsense you are peddling pretty much rules out any such effort.

I'm not fond of Popper's theory of science - Polyani comes closer to the mark - but Popper does emphasise one aspect of science which is important here, and you clearly haven't grasped.

The fact that you speaks out against the PNN and fails my PNN tests is because you does not want your assumptions to be disproved. You hates simple experimental evidence and wants it to be complicated (the usual costly vacuum chamber, completely useless for PNN thrust) just because in the complication she finds elements to say that my PNN tests are fake. No one has been able to explain these basic PNN tests on a scale (PNN prototypes with batteries and remote control), and so to defend yourselves you use tricks like forgers. Or more simply, you run away or are deaf. In fact, you yourself does not even talk about it. I repeat what has already been said and has received no response.

PNN once with upward thrust

And why doesn't he talk about it? Because it shows how, by running away, he sticks to generic criticism. These are tests that can be translated into English.

To anyone who makes a criticism due to thermal effects or wind or ghosts favorable to PNN (upward thrust and downward thrust with the prototype rotated 180 degrees), I suggest putting a small battery-powered heater on the scale at 30 amperes, turning it on and off (for about 2 minutes) with a remote, and seeing if the heater behaves like the F432BA prototype in upward thrust and downward thrust. :-) I repeat that, like others, you don't want to see the PNN tests that prove you wrong.

In article <10jtdai$33pqc$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, Bill Sloman snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: <SNIP>

Right on! Popper considers experiments in isolation. In my view that is metaphysical thinking.

The scientific view is that the combination of all possible probabilities (read "certainties") of outcome of all observations leads to the most probable correct worldview. First law of dialectical realism, the world is a whole, and is to be considered as a whole.

For example. Before discovering the neutrino leak, astrophysics were confronted with a most unprobable outcome. No physicist was inclined to tear down quantum mechanics or astronomy, however. They sought (and found) an explanation in the existing frame work.

And, dear Popper, how do you do repeatable experiments in astrophysics?

His requirement that any scientific theory must be falsifiable weeds out a hell of a lot of dross. N-rays spring to mind as an example.

Sheldrake had an amusing take on it with morphic resonance :

Every now and then it is necessary to do a complete paradigm shift and a full reset. Typically when a really cunning experiment does not give the expected result that prevailing theory predicts.

Classical Newtonian dynamics are a weak field limit of special and general relativity. ISTR a world famous physicist claiming in an after dinner speech that physics would a completely solved problem just prior to natural radioactivity first being observed. Quantum mechanics and QCD and higher order HEP theories remain impossible to reconcile with GR at present so sooner or later a new GUT will probably be found.

You can't change what it out there. But you can build similar telescopes and obtain reproducible results by studying the same object(s) (or not).

Famously in the Hoyle vs Ryle debacle the early radio astronomers initially were seeing way more radio galaxies than were actually there because they hadn't allowed for the extremely bright ones sitting in antenna sidelobes. It was fairly rapidly sorted out though.

You can only observe what is there from a distance and from where the Earth happens to be at the time of observation, but astrophysicists are well aware of that and have learned to live within those limitations. We live in a golden age of observational astronomy where there is practically no wavelength that we cannot obtain detailed high resolution images (although terahertz stuff seems to stay classified).

This is a hypothesis. I'd argue that my objections are to the obvious defects of the PNN tests, which you refuse to address.

They aren't even fake. If they were intended to be deceptive they'd look neater. They just look inept.

What you mean is that nobody has been able to shake your certainty that you have demonstrated a real effect. The likeliest explanation of that is that you aren't much good at experimental science.

You keep on making the same assertions, and don't seem to realise that they aren't convincing.

It's your experiment. You need to demonstrate that isn't being corrupted by convection currents circulating in your test space.

You can't be bothered to present tests that prove you right.

What you have presented doesn't strike me as convincing. In fact it doesn't even look as if it was intended to convince anybody wasn't already a convert.