You miss the point of my arguement completely. I know John Searl has a
theory, I know he has been talking about his ideas for decades now and I
know he has a huge group of faithful followers.
I believe I have a right to question all and everything in my world, Searl
is no exception. We involved the F/E search have been host to countless
individual's claims and theories over the years. I have investigated many
of these claims as part of my own search for answers. John Searl has been
making claims in this area for longer than most. He has even inspired many
to search for answers to these energy problems. But the fact remains that
he has never come forward with a single demonstration of his proof of
principal. All the theories in the world and all the talk in the world mean
nothing (in this instance) compared to one single physical demonstration of
the principal involved. A theory that can not be applied, no matter how
beautiful it may appear, is of no practical importance to those involved
with an applied physics. This is my point entirely, and this is my
arguement against John Searl - nothing more or less - it has not and it
will not, it seems, be addressed by Searl or his supporters. Why?
You say that John Searl has been granted a professorship by a university.
Which one and for what? I do not consider this a rude question, I have
friends and aquaintances that are academics and they never take offence to
questions of where and for what they received their qualifications. Would
you agree?
If we can not question those that require our efforts and/or support (as
John Searl certainly does) then we are being asked to make blind decisions
based on faith and trust. I prefer to retain responsibility for my life and
actions (as I believe we all should) and I question the motives of anyone
attempting to undermine that personal responsibility in any way. I believe
everyone has the right to question, particularly when another is asking
them for trust and faith. Questions make us strong, and allow us to make
informed decisions. Blind faith places our life and future and
responsibilities in grave jeopardy.
Just as I invited Dennis to substantiate his support for Searl, I also
invite you to question and substantiate your support for Searl's vision
with something more than theoretical meanderings. It may be enough for you
to have a 'good feeling' about Searl's claims, but unsubstantiated
feel-good claims are not enough for me, I'm afraid.
As I have said before, Searl has had decades to back up his claims with
some small physical proof. You would'nt nessessarily believe me if I made
great claims with no proof - would you? It's not hard to do, you know.
Beautiful theories grow on tree's <g>.
Regards, Bill.
P.S. If you are a supporter of John Searl, which is of course your absolute
right, I ask only that you question and understand your faith and trust -
in the absence of any physical evidence.
At 21:39 24/09/98 +0100, Tayfun KOCAK wrote:
>As someone who personally know Prof. Searl it amazes me to hear so much
>rubbish about him and his work. If only 1000 of you gave as much as he has
>done then the world would be a different place to live for the better.
>
>Most people are totally unable to grasp the theory of the SEG technology
>which is based on the squares and does not have a bloody clue to their
>significance. He has given you the public this knowledge, the theory and
>the way he used to build the power generator, through his books. How many
>of you read the books? How many of you have the scientific background to
>understand what he is talking about? Most people want everything on a plate
>- and they still fail to see it when it is given to them!
>
>If he was a fraudster then how the hell does a University give him the
>title of Professor? Does any of you know the procedure for getting it?
>
>I have a few simple questions to ask. What right or justification do you
>people think you have in knowing what Prof. Searl is doing? What
>contribution have you made to humanity or the SEG? What is it to you?
>
>T. Kocak
>
>PS. If you are a supporter of Prof. Searl please excuse the tone of my
>e-mail.