Carte Blanche 29 July 2007

gboy said:
I see he developed a program, that works on a laptop, that interfaces with the quantum relm, I would love to know Witch language he programed it in. and what interface he used.
Click to expand...

The "quantum realm" deals with a different set of the laws of physics on an atomic level. Due to the large distance usually involved, I highly doubt that it's quantum anything - seems to me as though the word is just loosely used to try and make it seem authentic.
 
Highflyer_GP said:
The "quantum realm" deals with a different set of the laws of physics on an atomic level. Due to the large distance usually involved, I highly doubt that it's quantum anything - seems to me as though the word is just loosely used to try and make it seem authentic.
Click to expand...


Yeah, much like all those vacuum cleaners and toasters that were all of a sudden "Y2K compliant"

:) :)
 
JayM said:
A) The fact that there is no scientific basis for it to function as claimed.
B) Common sense.
Click to expand...

Apply the same scientific reason to your claim that it is bogus and you get another assumption. If you have proof, then fine, if not, well you can't really say it doesnt work.
 
Bradbowlllama said:
Apply the same scientific reason to your claim that it is bogus and you get another assumption. If you have proof, then fine, if not, well you can't really say it doesnt work.
Click to expand...
Of course I can. I'll say it again: it doesn't work. The burden of proof is NOT on me, as I'm not making the extraordinary claim - it's on him, and so far, he's produced absolutely nothing even vaguely conclusive.

I can also say that pink unicorns don't exist - even though I have no proof. It is still a reasonable statement to make. You obviously believe in pink unicorns going by your logic.
 
JayM said:
Of course I can. I'll say it again: it doesn't work. The burden of proof is NOT on me, as I'm not making the extraordinary claim - it's on him, and so far, he's produced absolutely nothing even vaguely conclusive.

I can also say that pink unicorns don't exist - even though I have no proof. It is still a reasonable statement to make. You obviously believe in pink unicorns going by your logic.
Click to expand...
No you can't say pink unicorns don't exist if you can't prove it. You can say that it is assumed that they don't exist, or the probablility is slim, but not NO, they dont exist...!
 
Bradbowlllama said:
No you can't say pink unicorns don't exist if you can't prove it. You can say that it is assumed that they don't exist, or the probablility is slim, but not NO, they dont exist...!
Click to expand...

A) So you agree there's an equal chance that pink unicorns exist and this bloke's device works?

B) Pink unicorns don't exist. I just said it (out loud too in fact). Hence your statement that I cannot say it is patently incorrect.
 
I agree wit JayM

I can say there is no life without water. This is only a statement right ?
However it is fact till you prove me wrong. It works both ways ;)
 
Bradbowlllama said:
No you can't say pink unicorns don't exist if you can't prove it. You can say that it is assumed that they don't exist, or the probablility is slim, but not NO, they dont exist...!
Click to expand...

The onus of proof is on the one making the claim, not on those who are sceptical to disprove a claim. This is how science works, if you can't then it's either pseudo-science or just a bogus claim.

If that's the way the world works, then I could say:
I have gnomes in my garden, disprove that I don't.
I found a cure for cancer via meditation, disprove that I didn't.

Kind of a weird way of thinking isn't it?
 
Highflyer_GP said:
The onus of proof is on the one making the claim, not on those who are sceptical to disprove a claim. This is how science works, if you can't then it's either pseudo-science or just a bogus claim.

If that's the way the world works, then I could say:
I have gnomes in my garden, disprove that I don't.
I found a cure for cancer via meditation, disprove that I didn't.

Kind of a weird way of thinking isn't it?
Click to expand...

I agree with you also.

However have you seen how many claims are currently reserved as fact which has never been proven or proven wrong ?
 
yes. ones making claims are both the inventor and detractors. hence the onus is equally on both to prove their pov's! not so?
 
Um no.

I'm not making any claims - he's come along and said my fantastic machine does suchandsuch using the power of [-]magic[/-] quantum physics. I'm saying I don't believe it.
 
chiskop said:
Um no.

I'm not making any claims - he's come along and said my fantastic machine does suchandsuch using the power of [-]magic[/-] quantum physics. I'm saying I don't believe it.
Click to expand...

My point was when you were making claims that it DOESN'T WORK.
I see you changed that to it probably doesn't work, which I agree with.

My last post was aimed at this:
Originally Posted by Highflyer_GP View Post
The onus of proof is on the one making the claim, not on those who are sceptical to disprove a claim. This is how science works, if you can't then it's either pseudo-science or just a bogus claim.

If that's the way the world works, then I could say:
I have gnomes in my garden, disprove that I don't.
I found a cure for cancer via meditation, disprove that I didn't.

Kind of a weird way of thinking isn't it?
Click to expand...

And my point is quite simple and clear - if anyone claims it DOES NOT WORK, they are in the same boat as those that claim IT DOES WORK. They both have the onus to prove their own theory if they want others to accept it as fact. However, there is no onus on anyone to disprove anything.

And BTW, I don't agree with this:
A) So you agree there's an equal chance that pink unicorns exist and this bloke's device works?
Click to expand...
My gut feel is not that there is an equal chance... simply because there is alot more evidence that pink unicorns don't exist... based on the fact that 1) much of our planet has been populated and explored, 2) pink unicorns were deliberately invented by man.
There has been alot... ALOT less time and opportunity for any progress on proof/disproof of this invention... so it would be difficult to prove/disprove given the current status quo.
I do think it's unlikely, but that's based on my limited knowlege of the device, science etc. etc. and some sceptescism thrown in... I and so far everyone else here AFAIK have our own reasonable doubt, thats it.

Unless someone has had time to investigate and study it, proof that it doesn't work doesn't exist.
I'm not trying to run anyone down or call them stupid... just clarify my POV.
 
Bradbowlllama said:
And my point is quite simple and clear - if anyone claims it DOES NOT WORK, they are in the same boat as those that claim IT DOES WORK. They both have the onus to prove their own theory if they want others to accept it as fact. However, there is no onus on anyone to disprove anything.
Click to expand...

He who alleges, must supply proof... until that state, IT DOES NOT WORK. Its not up to the people to supply the proof that this crackpot is conning people out of cash.
You supply proof to me that the Speed of Darkness is faster than the speed of light? I cant disprove it - hence it must be true.

On the MOS fiasco, he has not submitted ONE shred of evidence that this magical gizmo works! the McCann family no longer want his services... and if his gizmo really worked - why are there still criminals running about? this is the same argument as why cant clairvoyants predict the right LOTTO numbers, or tell you who is going to win the horse races.

There are so many cons ... The Resin Diamond that disapeared, The magical Aids vacinne, this MOS device.... I am sorry to say, Saffers and the media are so Gullable. Until this man comes up with ONE concrete case, then its a HOAX!
 
Last edited:
And my point is quite simple and clear - if anyone claims it DOES NOT WORK, they are in the same boat as those that claim IT DOES WORK. They both have the onus to prove their own theory if they want others to accept it as fact.
Click to expand...
Err, nonsense.
 
Bradbowlllama said:
The problem is that it is not proven fact that it does not work now is it, so why waste your breath preaching it?
Click to expand...

Can you prove that the LochNess monster does not exist? or does exist for that matter? Many people claim to have seen Nessie, but there isnt one shred of proof to back it up.

Mr X alleges it works, then he must prove it. Its not up to the people to disprove him...

No-One is saying it doesnt work - what they are saying is that the evidence he supplied is total horse-poo, and until he supplies real evidence, then it will remain at the lunatic fringes.
No-one independent has had their hands on the MOS device - so how are the Gurus in the field supposed to disprove him? No-one has been in the room when he was working with the gizmo... never mind got a result.

He must supply proof, beyond reasonable doubt that it works! A standard principle in South African Law is "He who alleges, has the burden of proof"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X