Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

@ Omnibus,

I made a clear distinction between the forces involved in the Tri-Force system we were observing, and the independent Energy values represented at the begining and end of the cycle.,

Your limited understanding of this ( despite my best efforts to drill it into your head) are what cause your confusion. Attempting to discredit me based on your own misunderstandings is futile. (as if anyone takes you seriously at this point anyways...)

anyone with a basic understanding of physics should be able to understand exactly what i laid out, and replicate the results themselves. Those with a deeper understanding of physics should clearly see the implications that arise here.

and someone with YOUR level of understanding SHOULD BE able to distinguish between the gravitational potential at height x INSIDE a magnetic field, compared to that at height x OUTSIDE of the field.

the fact that you are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS is what cause you and I do undure a 9-page argument over the fact. and why you KEEP persisting on some error, wen the only Error that occured is the Conceptual Error in your own head. (if you take your meds like the doctor told you, you may be able to clear this kind of thing up )

[Yadaraf]

@Yadaraf,

These quotations do not prove that science is irrational. The process of discovery, as any creative process, may have an irrational element in it but when the discovery is made, the fact, the phenomenon is rational. A scientific fact in this sense differs from a creation in poetry, music or fiction. In poetry, for instance,  unlike the outcome of a scientific endeavor, most of the time the result is an emanation of the irrational. That's why poetry isn't science. The closest a rational outcome can be to poetry one finds in abstract mathematics. However, when mathematics is to describe physical phenomena it is rational by its very nature because physics is rational as such. It may sound cute and amusing for the general public to compare science with art. After all public has to be won for the cause of science, especially when it pertains to convincing the Congress that more money has to be voted for it. In a serious discussion, however, no scientist worth his salt will succumb to populism and allow for the rationality of science to be substituted by the irrationality of art..

Omni,

Carlos Rubbia makes the point that "Scientific discovery is an irrational act."  In other words, there IS room for irrational thinking in the discovery process.  You criticized my thinking as being "irrational" and claimed there was no basis for my "intuitions".  Like Rubbia, I am simply pointing out that irrationality and intuition have a place in the discovery process.  It's a very simple concept -- key to 21st century thinking.


=======
[Note:  Again ... the grammar in your replies is horrid.  My replies are not perfect, but at least they are readable.  Although you appear to be a capable writer, you are lackadaisical in the proper use of grammar -- especially pronoun references.  In the future I won't have time to parse your syntax and "interpret" your poorly worded replies.  If English is not your native language, then I apologize and will make an allowance.

E.G.  "On the contrary, we can, at that very precisely."   

E.G.  "The closest a rational outcome can be to poetry (??) one finds in abstract mathematics. However, when mathematics is (??) to describe physical phenomena it is rational by its very nature because physics is rational as such."  ]

Cheers

Yada..
.

[Omnibus]

@ Omnibus,

I made a clear distinction between the forces involved in the Tri-Force system we were observing, and the independent Energy values represented at the begining and end of the cycle.,

Your limited understanding of this ( despite my best efforts to drill it into your head) are what cause your confusion. Attempting to discredit me based on your own misunderstandings is futile. (as if anyone takes you seriously at this point anyways...)

anyone with a basic understanding of physics should be able to understand exactly what i laid out, and replicate the results themselves. Those with a deeper understanding of physics should clearly see the implications that arise here.

and someone with YOUR level of understanding SHOULD BE able to distinguish between the gravitational potential at height x INSIDE a magnetic field, compared to that at height x OUTSIDE of the field.

the fact that you are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS is what cause you and I do undure a 9-page argument over the fact. and why you KEEP persisting on some error, wen the only Error that occured is the Conceptual Error in your own head. (if you take your meds like the doctor told you, you may be able to clear this kind of thing up )

This is a useless exchange. Whoever wants to check this out may go several pages back and see who's wrong and who's right. The gaps you have will hurt you, not me and especially, as I said, the way you handle the situation when you see you're in error. Anyone can go back and see what you did.

Anyway, the more important fact is that this whole approach discussed here led us to another dead end with respect to constructing a self-sustaining device. This you can't deny. Unless you come out suddenly with a working self-sustaining device based on this design and then I will not only eat my words but also my hat.

[sm0ky2]

Yade and Omni are both right, in their own ways..

The process of scientific discovery IS irrational, and much like art.

the final result - the scientific fact is a sound, rational, thing. As is the final painting of an artist.

I would say you are both right.

[Omnibus]

@Yadaraf,

The difference is that you may claim that intuition played a role in a discovery only after you?ve made a legitimate discovery, not before that. Free reign of imagination is appropriate only in areas such as poetry where the reality of the outcome doesn?t matter (except for the fact that it?s written on tangible carrier). That?s the point I?m making.

In science, to claim intuition had any role in a discovery can only make sense after the fact. In poetry fantasy governs altogether. In science it is a rare occurrence to have intuition lead to anything worth noticing. In poetry it?s almost always the case.

The remarks on style will remain unnoticed as usual. This is not a writing contest.