Safire eyes commercialization within 5 years, with launch of new company Aureon Energy!

Quote from Alan Smith

Professor Dave has tipped over into comparing Safire to 'con-men' now.

I don't think so. He seems to believe that the Thunderbolts crew are the conmen and the the SAFIRE technical people are sincere but deluded.

The only place in the video where Childs is accused of doing anything fraudulent is in a quote from ex-SAFIRE member Lowell Morgan who actually says "Monty and others are making fraudulent statements about their results". That is a pretty serious charge by someone in a position to know. I recommend that people here talk about this point.

Quote from Curbina

The fact is that Morgan does not agree with the findings, because they can’t be reconciled with what he knows. He can’t just claim fraud because the theory he learnt is experimentally proven to be insufficient.

That is not a fact. That is a surmise.

My impression from watching the video is that he has at least one specific instance in mind regarding data he worked on. It doesn't seem to be a general dispute about interpretations. At least that is my surmise.

Does anyone know anything more about this?

Professor Dave gets debunked.

Dave’s a good at the Piano.

Maybe Rossi could have him

play a tune at his SKL presentation.

Quote from Bruce__H

As a sanity check here ... I hope everyone realizes that many of the most prominent players on this forum sound to outsiders like Dr Dave sounds to you.

I'm not sure what this post means. Dr. Dave is a condescending jerk who quickly gets down in the mud and has no problem slinging it in every direction. Every time I read one of his comments starting with "Hate to break it to you, champ," I can't help but feel for those students who've been unlucky enough to have this pretentious a-hole in their classroom.

Are there people here who resort to profanity five words into their retort? Maybe. But this is a forum, not a public YouTube page that professes to be, um, professorial. I can tell you that every person who applies to our business gets the Facebook/YouTube/Instagram litmus test before we even consider them for a position.

I hope every time Prof Dave applies for a substitute teacher job, his prospective employer takes a look at how quickly he degenerates into vitriol on his public page. Imagine how vile he must be in private life.

Quote from sam12

Professor Dave gets debunked.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Hadn't seen that video yet. Thank goodness somebody did it. Sadly, though, "Professor" Dave's followers are highly unlikely to watch it.

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-…stars-magnetic-field.html

Gravity plus magnetism required for baby stars..

"Stars typically have magnetic fields—those of our Sun,

for instance,

regularly accelerate electrically charged particles in our direction,

leading to the phenomenon of Northern or Southern lights.

In what has become known as magnetospheric accretion,

the magnetic fields of the young stellar object

guide gas from the inner rim of the circumstellar disk

to the surface in distinct column-like flows,

helping them to shed angular momentum in a way

that allows the gas to flow onto the star.

Quote from Alan Smith

So, it's fine for a man to give himself the fraudulent title of Professor and then call out other people as frauds? Look at the screenshots Bruce__H and it is clear he includes everyone involved, At least he doesn't discriminate.

I don't see anything about SAFIRE or Electric Universe in the screenshots. I have no idea who he is talking about there.

In any case, in the video this Dave character does discriminate. Throughout the video he maintains a distinction between the people behind Thunderbolts, who he regards as con men, and the SAFIRE technical crew. He is precise and consistent in portraying SAFIRE as cat's paws of Thunderbolts. At 19:15 of the video, Dave says "As for Montgomery Childs, it seems plausible that he is not specifically a fraud, but rather someone who has deluded himself into thinking that he understands physics."

Quote from Shane D.

II thought what Lowell had to say was much too personal. Especially so considering it was said publicly, and it was directed at his former Safire team members. That old saying "praise in public, criticize in private" comes to mind.

Yes. All true. On the other hand, this doesn't make anything he said wrong. Lowell is well placed to evaluate the capabilities of the SAFIRE research group and his opinion shouldn't just be erased. Childs seems to be an experienced mechanical engineer and project manager, but without scientific training. I am surprised that his Linkedin profile, in the Education section, is vague and just says "various" followed by a statement that a classical education is best. Childs is not a registered professional engineer in Ontario (Canada).

Overall, I think that Lowell's criticisms should be treated seriously.

Quote from Shane D.

IMO, this is 2 issues; what Lowell said in the video, and what Prof Dave has said afterwards. I thought what Lowell had to say was much too personal. Especially so considering it was said publicly, and it was directed at his former Safire team members. That old saying "praise in public, criticize in private" comes to mind.

Had he stuck to the science, that would have been fine as that is what science is all about. But he went beyond that and made it personal with insults that called into question the professionalism, and integrity of his old friends. No need for that.

Anyone who has worked in, or headed up a team, knows that personality clashes are par for the course. That is as true in business, as in science. It is the nature of the beast when you bring people together to accomplish a task. Some people though, just do not work well with others, and that seems to be the case here.

What this Prof Dave has had to say since the video, in response to the criticisms, is not making matters any better. He comes across as petulant, and because he has backed himself into a corner by saying some regretful things, and resorting to censoring to give himself the edge, he seems to think his way out is to be more insulting, and petulant.

The Aureon Energy group has decided to do the right thing...take the high road. They will not get in a public spat with a bitter former colleague. And contrary to the ad hominems in the video, they are a very well qualified team, and have only good intent. They are all well up in the years, and each without a blemish to their credentials....that alone tells you what you need to know about their integrity. Their high level of science/engineering speaks for itself.

Display More

If you parse what Lowell says, you'll find nothing specific regarding the rest of the Safire team's alleged errors. Lowell's letter is merely thinly veiled insults and the tried-and-true logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule (or ab absurdo). In other words, it uses phrases such as "planets bouncing around like billiard balls" to attempt negate Safire's true scientific pursuits. It relies on the reader already believing that the EU is absurd on its face.

No wonder Prof Dave included it: it's exactly how he seeks to debunk. This is how pseudo-skeptics operate.

A real skeptic ignores the most "fringe-y" aspects of a model and focuses on the hardest-to-disprove aspects. Lowell's lengthy career in plasma physics was likely a hindrance to Safire's progress. Because, after all, if you've become an expert in the field throughout the "big bang" era, which insists plasma has virtually no role in cosmology, you're probably going to find yourself saying "but that's impossible" more than you're going to be uttering, "hey, you may have something there!"

Quote from LenrdSkynrd

A real skeptic ignores the most "fringe-y" aspects of a model and focuses on the hardest-to-disprove aspects.

I think this is bang on with the proviso that the hardest-to-disprove aspects need be, in principle, highly disprovable if they are wrong. That is the Popperian demarcation between science and non-science.

Quote from LenrdSkynrd

If you parse what Lowell says, you'll find nothing specific regarding the rest of the Safire team's alleged errors. Lowell's letter is merely thinly veiled insults and the tried-and-true logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule (or ab absurdo). In other words, it uses phrases such as "planets bouncing around like billiard balls" to attempt negate Safire's true scientific pursuits. It relies on the reader already believing that the EU is absurd on its face.

For me, there are 2 good points that "Professor" Dave made in his video. Neither has anything to do with the Electric Universe as such. First, Dave mentions that SAFIRE has no publications regarding its most distinctive claims. I believe that everyone here agrees with this although some think it doesn't matter. Dave thinks it is a problem and I agree. Second is Lowell Morgan's comment about the SAFIRE team ..."Monty and others are making fraudulent statements about their measurements". That isn't a thinly veiled insult, or an appeal to ridicule, nor does it require any prior belief level regarding the Electric Universe. It sounds to me like Morgan has something specific in mind. I see people trying to sweep it under the rug here and that is not the right way to proceed..

Quote from Curbina

The SAFIRE team has openly acknowledged they know the observations have not any theoretical support, and they are exploring potential theoretical explanations but, as Alan Smith already commented, based in a strict protocol of experimental design and control tools called Design of Experiments (DOE). They will let the experiments solve the unknowns and not let the shortcomings of our theoretical knowledge stop them from doing the experiments.

Is DOE some package of procedures along the lines of 6 sigma? Or is basically what wikipedia describes? here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments

Quote from Curbina

I think that this is a personally biased accusation from Morgan. AFAIK He disagreed on the interpretation of the data because it was impossible within his frame of educational induced beliefs. He can’t accept that a transmutation can happen in these conditions because no theory he knows of predicts it. So, within his mind, the data must be wrong, or have any other explanation but can’t be real.

I notice that Alan Smith said the same thing. This is a story that fits with your worldview. It may be right and it may be wrong. Where does it come from?

Quote from Curbina

In my case, it comes from the understanding that this kind of looking the world through a theory, and discarding everything that doesn’t fit into it as impossible, has happened many times before and has been happening for at least the past 31 years with regards to LENR.

What you have is guesswork. Lowell Morgan has said something that doesn't seem to fit with your preconceptions, so you now assert that he doesn't really mean what he said. Sounds me like the type of activity you are deploring.

I think Morgan's statement should be treated seriously. That means not trying to sweep it away. Maybe everything is just as you say ... or maybe not. At least I am keeping an open mind on the subject.