--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Phil Karn <yahoo1@k...> wrote:
> Sorry, but this statement doesn't parse, much less make logical sense.
It does when you want to claim what's right or wrong.
> up. Furthermore, with the exception of Naudin's output current figures,
> his observations closely match those predicted by modeling based on
> standard, accepted physical principles.
how closely and where are the pictures?
> So which of the following conclusions do you think more likely:
> Conclusion 1: The MEG outputs substantially more energy than it
> consumes, contrary to fundamental physical principles based on hundreds
> of years of experimental verification by literally millions of people
> and devices, and contrary to the personal experience of many experienced
> electronics engineers and technicians (including myself) that feeding 35
> watts to a 5 watt air cooled carbon composition resistor would quickly
> produce smoke.
> Conclusion 2: Naudin is simply mistaken in his output current
> measurements. The MEG is just an ordinary transformer.
> To anyone with even a modicum of logical reasoning ability, conclusion
> #2 is the only responsible choice.
Yes, and those with greater logical reasoning ability realise that likelihood, or
probability, is indeterminate when the scenario has any number of conditions,
known and unknown which are not controlled by said experiments. The only
responsible choice is to not arrive at a conclusion until Naudin actually
measures for any extra energy from the resistor. In RoTL I even point out the
important fact that determinism renders statistical conclusions irrelevant and
false, so oft-invoked guidelines like Occam's Razor based on such subjective
likelihood don't work.