Question |
Asked by: |
Gardner Martin |
Subject: |
Foolish Fiala |
Question: |
Has everybody seen this ridiculously arrogant video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy8znYK8EXg
Did you think that this, and his patent, constituted evidence for inertial propulsion? Or did you correctly conclude that NASA often employs incompetents? Or did you simply conclude that he was senile. This is a vox pop exercise for a publication, so please avoid knee-jerk responses. |
Date: |
30 April 2021
|
report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
Answer: |
Harry K. - 01/05/2021 11:09:33
|
| Being omniscient is not easy but it is getting easier for me.
|
Report Abuse |
Answer: |
Sandy - 01/05/2021 16:13:53
|
| Good Harald.
.
Harvey Fiala's device was genuine irrespective of what our science critic says.
It may not operate in a gravity free zone but work it would.
.
|
Report Abuse |
Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 01/05/2021 16:54:38
|
| It works due to stiction ... which will do, until they invent the wheel LOL.
|
Report Abuse |
Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 01/05/2021 18:54:39
|
| I view Harvey Fiala as rather a sad creator of adventures like Forest Gump. In the fantasy of his reported life, he was important and admired. He did every extraordinary thing imaginable and met every important person of prominence. He also had a family with beautiful children. He created a life worth living out of need and perhaps loneliness and failure, and then begins to believe his fantasy. None of us ask to have flaws in our psychological and physical makeup. It just happens. He is a sad case and in no way a threat of being believed.
As for I.P., I believe in Newton completely and not in inertial propulsion but I will say this, the word impossible is not suitable in science. It has been nullified countless times in our history of invention and discovery.
|
Report Abuse |
Answer: |
Gardner Martin - 01/05/2021 21:03:00
|
| If one insists that scientists not term certain things 'impossible', they are then forced to pay lip-service to some ideas that it would embarrass a child to express. Scientists love mysteries ... but only until they destroy them. This then speeds progress because dead-ends can be immediately ruled out. At the same time, there are always disputes in science; but outsiders have no business discussing them because they are simply not equipped to judge. Some silly ideas (cold fusion, polywater, etc.) leak out, but those are mistakes made by a few incompetents. Science itself has cleaved to only a handful of ideas which later proved to be wrong: e.g. aether-theory, vitalism, phlogiston ...
|
Report Abuse |
Answer: |
Sandy - 03/05/2021 12:16:32
|
| Fisher /Gardner whatever?
My last and subsequently wasted posting to you.
You said ”Science itself has cleaved to only a handful of ideas which later proved to be wrong: e.g. aether-theory, vitalism, phlogiston”
The aether- theory.is noticeable by its absence from any proposals by Einstein
That said, it seems that most of his stuff has now gone the way of the Dodo.
You are obviously another educated fool who thinks electromagnetic waves propagate through space using magic.
You should really.have a look at the “Electric Universe”and learn something.
Consequently I really cannot see any useful purpose of being taught about them, because as far as I am concerned both Newton and Einstein are now surplus to requirements.
Great, clever guys, served their purpose, till they got found out.
Somebody recently remarked that a paradigm.shift in physics was about to take place.
That could very well be.
What can you do then?
|
Report Abuse |
Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/05/2021 20:56:53
|
| Hello Sandy.
I believe you figured out Fisher, Gardner, and maybe other nasty antagonists who visit are the same.
I suspect he’s either been kick off the site or the credit company has confiscated his laptop and the internet has canceled him for non-payment. There is just no way to make a living for anyone silly enough to major in history.
I too expect a paradigm shift in physics, if not, there should be.
I see your weather is a bit cool. It is the same here.
Glenn,
|
Report Abuse |
Add an Answer >> |