I still don’t know what you use a Hieronymous machine for.
OK, suppose it DOES detect “eloptic” radiation-does that mean that you can use one to prospect ofr gold?
I read the patent description-it wasn’t clear (to me) jsut what you do with a HM, once you build it.
I quite agree, and I believe Wendell Wagner in the second post in this thread was unjust in his mild chastisement of the OP (“You know, you could have looked this up yourself.”)
Most GQs could be googled and researched online, but that’s not the point. The point of asking the question here is to draw on the collective wisdom of the Dope, which will often bring forth the most arcane and surprising facts about almost anything under the sun.
My thanks to the OP for bringing this up, this particular piece of Campbellana is new to me.
I believe that before anyone posts a question, they should make a reasonable effort to answer it themselves. What we’re learnng here on the SDMB is how to learn about things for ourselves. I would have no objection to someone saying “Well, I’ve looked this topic up in Wikipedia and I’ve Googled on it, but I don’t understand what it is. What can you tell me about it?” There are several longtime posters who never check Wikipedia or Google or the IMDb before they ask a question. They seem to think that it’s beyond them (or an utter waste of their time, but not an utter waste of other posters’ time) to learn even the most basic ideas of research.
I found out what eloptic energy can do. It makes Miracle Soap!
BTW, I’ve checked and can’t find any other mention of the insane claims for Hieronymus made on the site Xema linked to, like this one:
That must be some major conspiracy on the part of the world to hide that amazing feat so thoroughly.
Nobody has mentioned this bit from RevSteve.
Absolutely wrong. This experiment proves that time moves differently in different reference frames. It has nothing to do with time travel, let alone proves it. If you can’t understand standard science you’ll be even less likely to be believed when you make claims about non-standard science.
I also don’t understand why you seem to imply that you are the only person who builds “true” machines yet you expect others to do the research for you, although you don’t say anything about making the machines available to others.
And just to dispose of one other claim, no inventor ever does “demonstrations for the patent offices.” The patent office doesn’t have the time to check on whether anything works or not. It just takes a claim and sees if it is novel and not perpetual motion. Many, many patents are for things that don’t and can’t work.
And Exapno comes in trying to turn this into the kind of dick thread he’d like it to be.
Try something different, Exapno.
P.S. Time travel into the future is obviously possible.
If by “the kind of dick thread he’d like it to be”, you mean “a GQ thread that addresses factual information and tries to find the truth of it”, then I say we could use a lot more “dick threads” like that.
Let’s not make it personal. No warning issued.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
What kind of thread would you like? One where we just listen to RevSteve and uncritically accept what he says? That isn’t how progress is made and, more importantly, it just isn’t very interesting. I think it’s a pretty widely-held opinion that sermons tend towards the boring.
Yes, not interesting. Much more fun to round up the gang for the usual 'keptic lynchin. :rolleyes: That’s not boring or repetitive at all.
I for one would rather stay polite and civil. For a change. Especially after seeing RevSteve do such a good job of it. Plus, maybe, eventually, the OP will be answered.
To pick up one more of RevSteve’s points:
Not as far as I know! Can we have some evidence of this?
Oh, so that’s why heavier-than-air flight technology never got developed in the United States! Because SciAm ‘ignored it to death’.
:rolleyes:
Right. Let’s keep to non-skeptical responses, like this one.
There is a Radionics Association of the UK. Of course, there is also a British Homeopathic Association, because homeopathy is also much much accepted in the UK than in the US. So definitely we should take our cues from them.
That just isn’t true, it’s no more respected here in the UK than the other crackbrain pseudosciences.
RevSteve, if you are convinced your machine works, you could post the schematics for others to build their own machines.
If you don’t want to release that information, there must be a physics or engineering professor locally that would be very interested to see your machine work as you claim. That professor has professor friends he/she would be very willing to call, given a convincing demonstration. I bet within a few degrees of separation, someone knows a staff member at a major publication, which would be more than happy to publish an article on this topic.
If it actually works.
Heck, I’d be blown away to see this output signal you mention, the one that happens without a power input.
This is of course all predicated on your willingness to do more than post about it on a relatively obscure internet message board.
You’re thinking of the wrong flights. The Wrights’ development flights in Dayton in 1904 are the subject of the article; the flights at Kitty Hawk were nearly a year earlier. The skepticism is not for the flights themselves, but their length and distance, which were simply unbelievable based on previous flights.
See, that’s the problem. You equate skepticism with derision and assholeness.
Do you detect in my post that I believe some outlandish claim? Is a machine that detects solvents outlandish? Is a machine that works by some non-obvious mechanism outlandish? No, but that won’t bother you. I was spot on about you. Skeptics 4 eva! Fuckin ho’s and smackin po’s.
Moderator Warning
Given that Gfactor has already cautioned you to refrain from making this personal, I am making this a formal warning. Tone down your language, or refrain posting in this thread.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
“They see me thinkin’
They hatin’
On the website they see I’m a skeptic.”
(What does “smackin po’s” mean? Assaulting police officers? That’s not gangsta, that’s suicidal.)
Nametag writes:
> You’re thinking of the wrong flights. The Wrights’ development flights in Dayton
> in 1904 are the subject of the article; the flights at Kitty Hawk were nearly a
> year earlier. The skepticism is not for the flights themselves, but their length
> and distance, which were simply unbelievable based on previous flights.
If that’s true, it’s an even clearer debunking of the story that the Scientific American thought that the Wright brothers’ first flight was a hoax. The editors, if what you say is the case, has no trouble believing that the flights in 1903 in Kitty Hawk were real. They only had trouble with the much greater distances that they achieved in 1904.
Furthermore, certainly the people at Scientific American would have no problem with the general idea of powered flight. A number of inventors were working on it at the time. Various of those inventors had come more or less close to achieving it. Some people still claim that certain other inventors ought rightly to be crediting with the invention of the airplane. It just wasn’t true that the scientific community in 1903 laughed at the idea of powered flight.
Tell this to a person with two different colored eyes. Then duck.
Chimeras do exist, both naturally (same species), and artificial (same or different species). The entire business plan of my last employer involved the creation of chimeric mice which we designed and churned out on a regular basis. Granted, there’s no griffins and centaurs out there yet, but we have glow in the dark fish
I believe that people who object to the existence or topic of a thread should not participate.
Seriously though, plenty of interesting threads get started this way, and the poster might not be the only one with the question so I personally don’t have any objection to it. If the person really would be helped by just a simple wikipedia search they would do it as it’d take less time then waiting for an answer here.