Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [free_energy] Re: Randi and Scientific Advancement

Expand Messages
  • Dick Seegers
    This is leading nowhere, what is scientific advancement and what is achieved by science. I ll gladly pay Buddy Ray the $ 5,00 because Tesla comes to mind here.
    Message 1 of 7 , May 30, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      This is leading nowhere, what is scientific advancement and what is achieved by science.
      I'll gladly pay Buddy Ray the $ 5,00 because Tesla comes to mind here.

      Warren Stutt <wstutt@...> wrote:
      I emailed James Randi about this. Here is my message and his response.

      Warren.

      James Randi wrote:
      > Mr. Stutt: by definition, a "scientific advancement" is a proven fact
      > achieved by science – thus not a paranormal or supernatural claim.
      In any
      > case, all the would-be applicant would have to do, is provide a
      working
      > model...
      >
      > James Randi.
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: jrefmail@gmail. com [mailto:jrefmail@gmail. com] On Behalf Of Jeff
      Wagg,
      > James Randi Educational Foundation
      > Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 9:32 PM
      > To: James Randi
      > Subject: Fwd: Question for The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal
      Challenge FAQ
      >
      > Hmm... - Jeff
      >
      > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      > From: Alison Smith <alison@randi. org>
      > Date: May 27, 2007 6:43 PM
      > Subject: Fwd: Question for The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal
      Challenge FAQ
      > To: jeff@...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      > From: Warren Stutt <wstutt@xtra. co.nz>
      > Date: May 27, 2007 1:12 AM
      > Subject: Question for The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
      FAQ
      > To: challenge@randi. org
      >
      > Hi,
      >
      > Here is a question that you may like to include in the updated JREF
      > Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge "FAQ":
      >
      > I have read a report on the internet that James Randi has personally
      > deemed challenge claims that are "scientific advancements" ineligible
      > for The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. This report involved
      a
      > device that was claimed to break an accepted law of physics and the
      > report claimed that James Randi himself deemed the challenge claim
      > ineligible even after other staff had deemed the challenge claim
      eligible.
      >
      > The report I am referring to is at
      > http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ free_energy/ message/21027
      >
      > Could this report be true? Is this James Randi's general position on
      > challenge claims that would break the accepted laws of physics like
      > perpetual motion machines would?
      >
      > If so then IF (big if) any perpetual motion machine could conclusively
      > be demonstrated to work, would it not therefore by its very nature be
      a
      > "scientific advancement" and therefore ineligible for The JREF Million
      > Dollar Paranormal Challenge?
      >
      > Regards,
      > Warren Stutt.
      >
      >
      >
      >

      --- In free_energy@ yahoogroups. com, rleshuk@... wrote:
      >
      > Question for Dave Howe and velakand: Do you believe Randi's position
      on the
      > eligibility of science-based work has changed since the correspondence
      > described by Eric (ubavontuba) on this list 18 months ago?
      > On 19 Dec 2005, "Eric" _ubavontuba@ ..._ (mailto:ubavontuba@ ...)
      > wrote - Subject: Re: a million from Randi:
      >
      > Group,
      >
      > Take it from a guy with experience. Randi won't pay for
      > a "scientific advancement" even if it flies in the face of
      > the "Standard Model."
      >
      > How do I know? I've tried applying for the prize with a 1st Newton
      > law violator and was told via e-mail (written by James Randi
      > himself) that it would not be applicable (even though his office
      > staff at first said it would be!).
      >
      > He stated that the concept must be paranormal in nature and not a
      > scientific advancement (even though any verifiable experiment is by
      > definition a scientific advancement! ). My feeling is that he is
      > determined not to part with the prize under any circumstances.
      >
      > Although my challenge wasn't an FE device, it is supposedly just as
      > (if not more so) impossible to achieve, according to the standard
      model.
      >
      > You can try for it, but I highly doubt that Randi will let it get
      > past the negotiation phase. If he does, I have grounds for a lawsuit!
      >
      > Eric
      >
      >
      >
      > ************ ********* ********* ******** See what's free at
      http://www.aol. com.
      >



      Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
      always stay connected to friends.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.