From:
Fred Mitchell <fred@mitchellware.com>
Sun
20:21
Subject:
Where is the patent?
To:
Evan Soule <josephnewman@earthlink.net>
CC:
Eric Krieg <eric@voicenet.com>, "dlee-list@eskimo.com"
<dlee-list@eskimo.com>
Evan Soule wrote:
> ...No Fred, my above statement is not "specious." But your statement
indicates
> that you do not understand the subjective nature of knowledge.
Actually, you are indicating that you don't understand the nature of the
Scientific
Method.
> All knowledge is subjective.
Measurements made by mechanical instruments are NOT Pure Mathematics
also is
NOT
subjective. 1+1=2 is NOT a subjective statement.
What IS subjective is our interpretation of their meaning. The
Scientific
Method
is
the most reliable means by which we eliminate the subjective component
in our
otherwise hopelessly "subjective" reasoning. If we, at each point on the
way
of
our
thinking make sure that the conclusions stand on firm Mathematical and
Scientific
grounds, and make sure that our SUBJECTIVE interpretations match up with
the
OBJECTIVE measurements our mechanical instruments can make, then we can
say
that
we
have a high degree of CONFIDENCE that our thinking does not solely
reside in
the
realm of subjective fantasy.
> ... is that there are TWO types of "subjective knowledge" --
> ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE and RELATIVE SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE. I
wish to
pay
> gratitude to Arthur Eddington who first pointed out this important
> epistemological distinction.
What has that to do with measuring with MECHANICAL instruments the rate
at
which
an
apple falls? In fact, we can have computers deduce the law of
gravitation.
Would
you
call computers "subjective"?
> When you repeat the falling apple test the results are STILL
subjective to
> YOU. If I repeat the falling apple test then the results are STILL
> subjective to ME. etc, etc..... But IF these tests are repeatable
(for
> the exact same conditions, etc.) with NO EXCEPTION -- NO FAILURE
TOLERATED
> -- then it can be said the knowledge involved is ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVE
> KNOWLEDGE rather than relative subjective knowledge.
This is so much double-speak. And I see what you are up to. So let me
cut to
the
chase here. You are attempting to assert that ALL OBJECTIVITY is suspect
(so
you'll
have some wiggle room for your favorite pet theory) simply because an
organic
brain,
hopelessly flawed in its functioning, is involved in the process. You
are
trying
desperately to wiggle out of the austere and unshakable body of
scientific and
mathematical and metrical knowledge that we have spent centuries
accumulating,
testing, thinking about, retesting, betting our lives on, and so on. You
hope
by
sheer force of pseudo-intellectualism to cut through the unbreakable
wall of
logic
that says your pet theory is most likely full of hot air.
And all we need really to settle the whole issue is to subject your pet
theory
to
the same rigors of logic and science and mathematics that EVERY
successful
theory
had to go through.
Sorry, there is no wiggle room around the Scientific Method, and if you
are to
shake
loose the pillars of the sound Scientific Knowledge that has been
gathered and
tested true over time, you MUST produce extraordinary results, just like
every
other
successful "opinion" that has manage to challenge and change the
mainstream of
scientific thought.
In this vein, not only is the Scientific Method your ally (if you are
right),
it
is
the ONLY way you will be taken seriously by OTHERS.
You can spew forth all the stuff you like about the basis of
epistemology.
Much
of
what you say in that vein is correct. It still does not exempt you per
se from
the
Scientific Method!
So let's put aside the flowery words, bring your device and your "pet"
theories
into
the light, and let us test them together. If you are right, we all stand
corrected,
and there are many physics textbooks that will have to be rewritten. If
you
are
wrong, then perhaps you can control your hubris, see why you are wrong,
and
come
back again with something that will REALLY stand the world on ear!
Otherwise
you
are
wasting your valuable and precious time, let alone tarnishing your
reputation
even
before it becomes established!
> ..."Puzzle" is a useful metaphor in terms of expressing the point.
To a layman, not to a seasoned expert.
> The "edges" of the ENTIRE standard puzzle bear a operationally
similiar
> relationship to the "deeply intertwined and interacting" nature of
right
> scientific theories.
But once you get beyond the surfacy level of layman understanding, the
metaphor
quickly falls apart.
> >Today, we have the ability to make extremely precise measurements,
down to
> >several
> >decimal places. We can measure the difference in the passage of time
of a
> >clock in
> >orbit vs. one that is on the ground. Shortly we will be able to
measure
> >gravitational waves, also predicted by GR, for instruments that have
> >accuracy on the
> >order of 15 decimal places are on the horizon.
> >
> >The abilitiy to make such precise measurements adds much weight to
> >objectivity. If
> >GR is correct to 15 decimal places, that's a heavy statement for GR.
>
> Agreed .... with the comment that I would phrase it as, "The abilitiy
to
> make such precise measurements adds much weight to abosoute
subjectivity."
How does "absolute subjectivity" differ from OBJECTIVITY? Besides,
"absolute
subjectivity" sounds too much like an oxymoron.
> >This is how Science works. We test our "opinions" - our hypotheses
and see
what
> >happens. Just the same, we'd like to test your opinions. But if you
are to
> >shoot down those who look to verify your claims, what does that say
about
you?
>
> Fred, I'm not "shooting down" anyone. In fact, this entire thread
began
> with "pot-shots" being initiated in my direction. I did not initiate
this
> discourse, nor its adversarial theme.
Well, not "shooting down", but certainly trying to discredit the basis
of all
scientific knowledge, no? Which has the effect of "shooting down" or
"silencing"
those who are skeptical of your claims. Of course, a single simple
rigorous
test
would do more than a hundred times all your flowery philosophical words
to
show
you're onto something.
> >Rather, I urge everyone to get out your apples and drop them! See if
they
> >indeed do
> >fall at 9.8 meters per second per second everywhere on the surface of
the
> >earth. Or
> >would you consider us all delusional who came up with that
measurement?
>
> I would do BOTH. Read the book AND drop the apple. Or, if you want
to
> 'Occum Razor' it: just drop the book! :-)
Well, now that you brought up Occam's Razor, the obvious and simplest
approach
is
to
test your pet theory.
> ...>Fine. Let us TEST these "extensions" and see if they can stand up
under
> >the scrutiny
> >of the Scientific Method, just like every other successful "opinion",
such
> >as air
> >flight, telephony, space flight, television and radio, nuclear
energy, etc.
>
> Look Fred: Over 30 scientists have tested Joseph Newman's prototypes
and
> have signed legal Affidavits attesting to the operability of his
> technology.
Provide a list please. And are these scientists recognized by the rest
of the
scientific community? Or are the all considered crackpots? The list
would be
enough
-- we can go and do our own investigation on the reputations of these 30
scientists.
And on top of that, just what is wrong with more scientists and others
getting
in
on
this? If you have the patent -- indeed, even if you've already applied
for the
patent, you're protected. If anyone violates your patent (and makes a
lot of
money
off of it) I'm sure you can find tons of lawyers lining up around the
corner
to
take
your case pro-bono.
> Moreover, the former U.S. Commissioner of the Patent Office --
> William Schuyler (with "superb technical credentials" according to PTO
> representatives who nominated Schuyler to his position of Special
Master to
> evalute the Newman Motor/Generator) explicitly wrote:
>
> "Evidence before the Patent and Trademark Office and this Court is
> OVERWHELMING that Newman has built and tested a prototype of his
invention
> in which the energy output exceeds the external input energy; there is
NO
> contradictory factual evidence." [emphasis added]
>
> For Joseph Newman, personally, he is over the "testing phase" in this
> context. He is now focused on commercial production. If YOU want to
> convince him that YOU want to test his technology, then YOU can
contact him
> directly at (303) 814-3403. Or, one can also build the technology for
> themselves and test it to their heart's content.
What's the patent number of the invention? That's all I need. I'll know
from
that
alone whether or not it's worth my precious time to pursue.
> >> Moreover, Joseph Newman IS
> >> open with his designs and methodology --- he has published his work
for
> >> anyone to read (as books are available via the library system).
SIDEBAR
> >> COMMENT: actually it was Semmelweis's and the Wright Brother's
(and I
> >> suspect Goddard as well) very OPENNESS which got them into trouble
with
> >> those who were intellectually dishonest and/or intellectual thiefs.
> >
> >This is why God gave us the PATENT OFFICE! Does he have a patent? If
so,
> >give me the
> >patent number so I can pull it up for myself from the patent
database.
>
> Fred <grinning!> --- you REALLY don't want to go here..... <big
grinning!!>
>
> This statement demonstrates that you are totally unaware of the long
> history of this case. I'm not blaming you, BTW, since a "absence of
> knowledge" (or ignorance) is not an "accusation." We all participate
in
> the process of ignorance --- a perfectly normal and acceptable
process.
> [and I am not being sarcastic here (I say this because of the
> 'uni-dimensional' nature of ascii text)] I could occupy this post and
> space of perhaps hundreds of similar posts with a LONG, LONG
discussion of
> the patent office and its demonstrated foibles as well as the
documented
> and proven incompetent(s) patent examiner(s) who have worked for the
patent
> office.
I know that getting a patent can be a bear, one of my friends with a
number of
patented inventions have told me all about it. It took six years on one
of his
inventions. It just takes perseverance, always. Has the patent been
granted? I
still
want the number.
> No, Fred, to prevent Eric or anyone from tearing at their hair over
the
> sheer possible volume of my reponse to your above statement (which I
know
> is an honest and well-meaning one), I will say that there are those
who are
> working on a long-term, durable, and stable alternative to the
> dissemination of primary property --- one that will not contribute to
> volitional entropy.
Of course, I could just simply search for Joseph Newman's name.
Actually, I
just
did and here's what I came up with:
Search Results
Query: (Joseph Newman)
1 out of 2313129 patents matched your query. The 1 most relevant
ones are
displayed below.
Click on a patent number to view the details of a patent. Select
the
check
boxes of patents you
wish to order by fax or mail and then click on the Order button at
the
bottom.
4930436
Selectively positionable weather vane and display for
vertical
post
This is not the same Joseph Newman of which you speak, I don't think,
and this
is
the only one that came up with his name. Go search for yourself:
http://www.patents.ibm.com/ibm.html
You can pull up entire patents for free. Their database goes all the way
back
to
1971. So what gives? Was he issued a patent or not?
Well, I think the discussion will have to hold until we get this small
point
resolved.
Anyway,...
> >So let us know when you are ready to release the details to Eric
and/or I,
> >so we can
> >try to duplicate your results. As I stated before, I'm willing to
sign an
> >NDA, and
> >I'm sure Eric would be as well.
> >
> >-Fred
>
> Here's another 'pandora's box' comment [:-)]:
>
> A Non-Disclosure-Agreement is only as good as the Integrity of the
> individual signing it.
You can be assured of the integrity of Eric and I. We have signed NDAs
before
in
the
past.
> In Joseph Newman's newest 8th Edition, he includes the explicit
evidence
> relating to Non-Disclosure Agreements signed by Dr. Roger Hastings who
has
> since violated his NDAs and disclosed proprietary information to a
company
> with which Dr. Hastings has been a private consultant.
>
> [If you wish these extensive and fully documented details, read the
book.]
I don't have the luxury of time of reading an entire book right now. And
of
course,
there will probably not be enough details in his book to really give us
anything
substantive to work with. The patent would be the best place to start.
But
since
he
failed the patent search, either he was not granted the patent or the
patent
is
not
listed under his name. If you have the patent number, give it to us.
--======================================================================Fred Mitchell http://www.mitchellware.com/mitchell/home/170000+ hits <<<< Andromeda Web Site >>>> 150+ pages----------------------------------------------------------------------"Trying to tell what's going on in the world by reading the dailynewspapers is like trying to tell what time it is by looking at thesecond hand of a clock." -- an old saying======================================================================
-- best wishes, Eric Kriegfax (215) 654-0651 eric@phact.orghttp://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product orservice. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visithttp://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.