TOPIC:

Ben V:
Andrew - I don't expect to see a comment like that from you again. If you can't defend the science, do not attack the person.

Maybe you should try to take him on on his own terms? i.e. using facts and figures to support your argument?

I should warn you, Sophie comes out of this conversation as looking a lot more reasonable than you.

B.C,
Andrew,
Perhaps you would like to answer the same question you asked of sophiecentaur.

What have you actually achieved? I mean real achievemnets rather than hypotheses that are not well supported by evidence, so nothing that isn't going to be written off as a coincidence.
(I'm not, BTW, claiming that my epitaph will be anything special, but since Andrew asked...)

Ben V:
BC, I understand the retort - it was an offensive and inflammatory thing for Andrew to have said - but I don't feel this line of conversation will benefit the forum. All it will lead to is hurt feelings and this thread being locked.

@ Ben V
I don't see anything wrong with my comment. It was written to point out that to be remembered it is not enough to cross the T's and dot the I's. Original thinking is what counts!

B.C. I will be remembered for my contribution to understanding circulation in trees and plants, but also for relating the same principles to circulation in animals and humans.

I will also be remembered for my experiments with water filled tubes at Brixham and for applying a great deal of common sense to how correct posture over long periods can beneficially influence the body.

My question still stands. How many gravestones have you found with a list of qualifications etched into them?

Ben V:
Andrew, the problem is not that you do not have certificates to say you can do something, the problem is that you are not qualified because you do not tackle the hard facts of the issue, i.e. the energy calculations etc, in short, the maths.

At present, you may be remembered by people here as finding something interesting, but then sticking arrogantly to a hypothesis that does not add up. Not a grand achievement. Wouldn't it be better to be thought of as someone who developed a hypothesis that added to science? Or someone who took criticism well and thoroughly answered the questions of all his critics, collaborating and working well with people?

Does it not concern you that many people here do not think you are correct? Even after years? If you are correct, you should be able to prove it to them, in their language, using a full understanding of the science involved. You have either chosen not to bother, or you can't do so and refuse to ask for help, or you know that your hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny. Which one is it, Andrew?

The one that it is is not listed there. It is test the experiments for yourself and see for yourselves how a tiny amount of salt can move many times it's own volume around simple tubular experiments.

My critics can't be bothered to repeat these simple experiments and would rather believe that leaves on trees can somehow suck water up to well over a hundred metres vertically. The trees can't do this any more than a powerful pump could do it, so why do we keep churning out this garbage when it is unsupported? This is what led me to question the literature and quite rightly so!

BenV
So it's everyone else's fault?

They do not have time, enthusiasm or facilities to do your experiments - it is your responsibility to put it in a language that they can understand and either accept or further question.

You've also missed the point again - it's not the results that cause controversy, it's the explanation and extension to plants and animals.

THIS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY ANDREW - DO THE REAL SCIENCE AND EITHER YOUR CRITICS, OR YOUR HYPOTHESIS, WILL FALL. REFUSE TO DO THE REAL SCIENCE AND YOU FAIL YOURSELF AT THE FIRST HURDLE.

Remember Ben,
I read the GCSE Biology book by D.G. Mackean to find an answer to what trees were doing with salts, approaching the question of fluid transport in plants and trees with an open mind, a mind that vaguely remembered the biology lessons from many years ago “too many years ago”.

None of it made sense to either me or Don Mackean who wrote the book.

This led to the hypothesis about a density flow rather than the pathetic explanations, which incidentally are still adhered to even though no one has demonstrated any working model. The experiments followed after the hypothesis, not to add credence but to test the density flow and to test the 10 meter limit also referred to inside the same text book.

The initial experiments, the ones before the Brixham experiment were attended by a very proficient physicist and dear friend “Adrian Van Sweden” who gave me lot’s of reasons why the experiment would fail and then lot’s of questions about why it did not fail together with sitting on a step with his hands over his eyes shaking his head saying repeatedly “this is not possible” “Why was this never mentioned in the literature?” “Why do I find it so hard to accept?” Adrian also helped with the Brixham Experiments. He was also a former engineer for South West Water and a person who found a great deal of benefit from sleeping inclined, recovering circulation to his feet, toes, hands, fingers, lips, nose which were blue due to a heart defect and metal valve which incidentally could be heard missing beats at night while sleeping flat and should, according to a doctor we met have fibrillation, adding all metal valves have fibrillation, yet Adrian’s didn’t any more!

Most of my time over the years has been spent helping people to recover from a range of illnesses. I have found it both rewarding and intriguing and far more useful than trying to convince some people who obviously do not want to be convinced of anything outside of the convenient box.

given the fact that most schools and colleges have a budget that could easily afford a bit of plastic tubing, a length of strong string to pull the experiment up, a pinch of salt and a couple of empty bottles, it is hardly a question of resources now is it?

BenV:

Then what are you doing still here? If your science is accurate, it's already inside the box. If you can't be bothered, then why are you still here?

If you are right, you WILL be able to convince everyone here. If you can't be arsed, then you must accept that people will assume you are wrong - and they are right to do so.

Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher on 07/07/2009 16:41:31

The experiments came after the hypothesis not the other way around

I know, you have said before. If I hypothesised that there are tiny monkeys in the soil, and they they love my shoes so much that will attract my shoes towards them, I could then do the experiment of moving my shoes away from the soil and seeing in which direction they fall. My experiment would prove that the soil monkeys love my shoes.

Clearly, I'm being ridiculous.

Only you can explain this and have it accepted. On this board you have several intelligent people with sceptical attitudes who would be able to help you. If you answered each and every one of their questions with the relevant data or calculations, you would either find that your hypothesis is flawed, or that their scepticism would pass.

You chose not to do so. You chose to be offended by their (perfectly understandable) attitude instead. If this were a game, you lose.

Andrew, the current explanation may be wrong. That's fine. Your explanation may well be correct, but is not strong enough to take it's place. If you make it strong enough, it will become accepted, and perhaps that is how people will teach this in the future.

You refuse to make it strong enough.

Rosy:
Andrew

WE DO NOT QUESTION YOUR PHYSICAL, EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, SO WHY SHOULD WE ATTEMPT TO REPLICATE THEM?

WE CAN EXPLAIN THEM USING THE CONVENTIONAL THEORY

YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT YOUR NEW THEORY EXPLAINS *ANYTHING* BETTER THAN THE CURRENT ONE

YOU WILL HAVE TO DO SOME ******* MATHS

BC:
Re. "B.C. I will be remembered for my contribution to understanding circulation in trees and plants, but also for relating the same principles to circulation in animals and humans."
I wouldn't bet on it.
For example the stuff you posted about the kidney here
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17612.0
is not consistent with observations of the densities of the fluids involved.
The experiments you did show nothing that cannot be explained in terms of the established models of physics and nothing that you have done is backed up by maths or double-blind trials as apropriate.

BC don't make me laugh. Please my ribs are aching as it is. Double blind study? Who is going to do this when it flies in the face of the literature they depend upon so much.

BenV:
Don't use this as an excuse for not doing the science you could otherwise do.

Lyner:
AKF. You are tilting at windmills here. No one on any of these threads seems to have doubted your experimental results so why should we need to repeat your experiments? What everyone is disagreeing with is your nonsense explanations. This forum is blind to qualifications and past achievements. You might be surprised to hear what some of us HAVE actually achieved. We mostly comment on the sense of what we read in these posts. There is no place for inverted technical snobbery. Your claim to being RIGHT just because of your lack of 'qualifications' makes no sense at all.
You quote GCSE level as if that is the sum total of human knowledge. That's plain daft. There are more shortcomings to the School Science curriculum than you've had hot dinners but that is irrelevant to the sense or otherwise of your ideas.
It is also strange that you use the opinions of your own 'expert' to support your ideas but reject the opinions of other experts. That's all a bit selective, isn't it?