Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Steorn Corp This represents a significant challenge to our current understanding of the universe and clearly such claims require independent validation from credible third parties. During 2005 Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. The vast majority of these institutions refused to even look at the technology, however several did. Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record. |
This is from the first page. If you go to their forum you will find an interesting thread where a forum member insults a Melbourne acedemic for disagreeing and advocates mail (and Phone) box bombing!
Interestingly Barry Williams from the Australian Skeptic is also quoted and all the claims made by the actual acedemics seem reasonable and not one of them support the claims of the company (I am most surprised that the forum actually still had such damaging material still up).
Let me paraphrase the company:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by a bunch of bozos I've got something for nothing.
Nobody will believe me when I say so.
When I showed someone exactly how I did it they agreed that I could get something for nothing, but won't let me tell you who they are or how I did it.
Because none of the people who beleive me work for a peer reviewed journal I'm advertising for experts in the economist (Curdis ! Scientific American would accept such an advertisment, as would Nature). |
Now I've got as open a mind as anybody, but really this is just more junk and rubbish. When you read on the internet that you can "!!!1!!!Get richh quikk !!!1!!!" do you fall for it? This is just the same thing in a fancy web design.
The law of conservation of energy (while not final and still subject to the test of falsifiability) has stood since it was first framed and is as close to a statement of common sense as you will find in hard science.
Sorry but the claims are rot -
Curdis !