Youre sorta right about the coverage thing actually, i meant irrelevant to why theres no video.Farrowlesparrow said:Reaktor, the quote did have relevance, but perhaps not the most obvious that you were thinking of. I was quoting him, and suggesting that perhaps people's unwillingness to move from the norm has meant that ideas such as what clarky is suggesting, get little coverage.
Its probably more to do with there being no evidence at all of this working. If something like this is proven to work then it will get more coverage than britney spears stripping naked on tv would.The distinct lack of information on this is what strikes me as odd, but in a different way. Usually you would hear a lot more about stuff like this, but because there are those who simply cannot accept that it is possible, they don't want to hear about it...largely because it contradicts what they are saying.
The rules and theories we have to describe how the universe works, may seem closer to the real deal and the Theory of Everything than they ever have before, but just because they give a more accurate description of events, doesn't mean they are true.
In this case there has been more than long enough for some sort of evidence, especially when there was apparently a working model made. Simply demonstrating the effect to the jref testers would win the prize and prove science wrong. Why has this not already been done?Now we so far haven't really seen much in the way of evidence of these claims, but why should we simply shun the ideas so harshly?
That is true but usually with things like this the 'inventor' makes some fake product and a shitload of money conning people out of it.Surely, their experimentation is not harming us in any way, and the possible benefits are astounding.