Has anyone else noticed this : In most fields / sectors, the critic is someone who first tries out the thing in question for himself/herself, and then makes his/her jugements. A food critic will actually bother to eat at the restaurant first; a movie critic will actually go watch that movie first. And then they let loose.
But in the realm of free energy technologies, the critics seem to feel no need to oblige for any honest first-hand experience. You won't see them actually visiting or inspecting those labs.
They'll just use the standard textbook theories to dismiss any new thing straight from their armchairs. At best they drill into the sentences the inventors SAY and nit-pick them as if it's a capital crime to be not fully explanatory or fluent or miss out some detail or make an error.
Get off your butt, critics.
Open challenge to actually go visit one of these experiments, scout the area, video/photo your evidence, take the trouble of doing measurements etc and THEN publish your dismissal of said technology.
And since we know how one movie is different from the other even if both have the same director and so need to be seen and evaluated separately, you're going to have to repeat that process for the next experiment too; no laziness of dismissing all future experiments based on the failure of one. Every inventor makes failed outputs first, in case you didn't know that.
No comments:
Post a Comment