So WORK is basically movement, and Ã,‘energyÃ,’ is the amount of detectable movement that occurs when compared with another moving thing, which we use to calculate time.
I am told the universe is expanding so it is doing work as it is moving.
Energies can change names like mechanical into heat, potential into kinetic, light into chemical and so on.
So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um Ã,‘free energyÃ,’?
What the experimenters of this site are trying to do is find a device or method that acts similar to the way a transistor works, where a small amount of current acts like a switch and lets a large amount of current flow. However in this case we want to convert the energy that makes the universe move to humanities benefit.
PolyMatrix,
Your points are ones of semantics.
- So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ?free energy??
I wouldn't matter what you'd want to call the energy in the expansion. How do you propose to make use of it? If you have no idea then you might as well use solar panels. We at least know how to use that energy.
If you're transistor analogy means to tweak the base while the transistor is biased by the power stretching out the universe I'd have to see the wiring diagram. What do you have in mind?
Bessler007
mib HQ
;D ;D ;D (I am the first to admit I know very little and think the brain just creates theories to understand the environment it is in)
"Semantics" a nice repost but effectively just the same as saying that light energy is turned into chemical energy is 'semantics'. Are we truly in a position to say we have understanding of all the ways one moving thing transfers its movement to another moving thing. We use 'semantics' to describe experiments and how we think things work.
There are clues in many experiments to indicate that 'something' is impacting its movement on the material within these experiments and seemingly make it appear that there is more measurable movement coming out than went in, especially when it comes to experiments that involve vibrations and/or pulse movements.
If we are to be scientific about this, repeatable experiments with repeatable results and observations should be the standard way of accepting that this is the way our environment works no matter what great theories have been proposed previously.
If something comes along to disrupt the accepted viewpoint which path is wiser?Ã, 1) To encourage investigation with help, OR, 2) To call it a hoax, a lie and then persecute the experimenter and theory maker of an alternate view? Although there is always that odd thought that the last words yet to be recorded on a dying planet is 'oops'!
The transistor analogy is my first attempt at using an already acceptable concept to help the awful, for the 'normal' scientific minds, take a curious look at 'free energy' dispite its semantic implications.
Solar panels, excuse my stupidity, but I better cut down the trees blocking the sunlight from my roof. That apple tree of my neighbour is also blocking the light!
>'What do you have in mind?'
Clearly not a lot! Just transferring chemical energy(fingers) to mechanical (Keyboard) and allowing electrical current to flow across the world. See! I am mad, and will insist on helping the earth to die by using a computer!
Quote from: PolyMatrix on January 19, 2008, 01:43:52 AM
. . .
There are clues in many experiments to indicate that 'something' is impacting its movement on the material within these experiments and
seemingly make it appear that there is more measurable movement coming out than went in, especially when it comes to experiments that involve vibrations and/or pulse movements.
If we are to be scientific about this, repeatable experiments with repeatable results and observations should be the standard way of accepting that this is the way our environment works no matter what great theories have been proposed previously.
. . .
Then be scientific and build it.
Bessler007
I might add this idea of how you could solve your energy problems:
- Solar panels, excuse my stupidity, but I better cut down the trees blocking the sunlight from my roof. That apple tree of my neighbour is also blocking the light!
has little to do with a skeptics view of overunity. That point's classified as a personal problem. In this case your request to have your stupidity excused is denied. You were asking weren't you?
Bessler007
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 19, 2008, 02:42:05 AM
...
has little to do with a skeptics view of overunity. That point's classified as a personal problem. In this case your request to have your stupidity excused is denied. You were asking weren't you?
Bessler007
Yep it would be thought that, or it could be thought of as wondering if some known solutions might actually cause more social problems than it cures.
As to whether my stupidity is excused or not that is an SEP. (Somebody else's problem ;D ) I is what I is. ::)
Build it? Now why did I not think of doing that! - hmmm - did I mention I know nothing? ;)
I think I got this from a Tesla you-tube video. He was working I think at his Colorado facility and in an experiment blew out the generators of the local power supplier. They refused to sell him any power until he went and repaired their generators.
Tesla had pretty good money connections. He also had the personal means to accomplish quite a lot. If he could actually produce power the way he claimed, what was he buying power from a utility for? I just searched and I think it was this link or part 2 of that series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTiiblwwLPk&feature=related
If you want to know the skeptics point of view it's this. If there is Over Unity then demonstrate it. If all you have is a theory based on the relativistic speeds of the cosmos or quantum physics for a model of OU then what you really have is intellectual masturbation. You have nothing until you actual make a model that works.
The principle of seeing energy and thinking you'll tap into it isn't a working principle for OU. A viable principle is in the form of the first law (energy can't be created or destroyed). It could be like this:
It is possible to harvest energy between two frames of reference and deliver it between two future frames over less time providing more power in the future than you initially harvested.
The principle or hypothesis should lead to some manner to test it. The most powerful point the skeptic makes is, "where is this model of your theory?" When you consider all the testing that has been done with no results you have to give the skeptic that point. Intellectual integrity demands it.
Bessler007
mib HQ
I am quite happy to encourage skeptics to argue their views as balance is vital.
Theory and model is tricky as all that is available, as far as I have so far determined, are hints.
So far the following are bits and pieces that have caught my attention.
------
Tom Valone ? Lecture http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5738531568036565057&q=zero+point+energy&total=921&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Tom Bearden ? Nuclear Physicist - http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm
John Bedini - http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/ - inventor
Daniel D demo of car running on water http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j7d-FJ7TQk&feature=user
Top Gear Water Car - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKExuHlQMQ - note the comment could run the whole street off the power generated by this car.
Joe?s Cell - ??? ? Great deal of discussion on this.
Developing and making a Joe Cell by Joe http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5838886797220015378
2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2878952337946217454
Note Joe thinks of this as a frequency.
Hamish Robertson site - http://www.thejoecell.com/
We've got the charging of the water down to a science thanks to
Bernie and some others. I'm now using a 4.5" tall three plate Joe
Cell with a .25" gap to charge my water. The outer cylinder is 4";
the neutral cylinder is 3.5", and the negative cylinder is 3". It
works great and works very fast. The gap made all the difference in
the world.
Related discussion group http://www.byronnewenergy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
----------------------------------------------
An experiment that I would like to see done is to use the Stan Meyers HHO production method then take say a tungsten steel rod with cold water flowing through it. Then with an HHO torch heat the rod and do all the measurement possible to capture the rise in water temperature, air temp, etc and have the energy equations summed up.
Whoa dude. I'm so confused. First you say you don't know nothing then you deluge me with more links than you can shake a stick at. Which is it? Do you know something or do you think you know something?
Take another hint. Here are a couple of facts you might slip into your knowledge base. For all the claims of over unity there exists not one single example of a model. Not one.
It is so kind of you to allow the skeptic to argue their case. Dude, you're so generous. It doesn't provide balance though when the skeptic argues. Reality argues with the skeptic. That's the 2nd fact.
If you have some experiment you'd like to see happen then make it happen. That's what I'm doing. I'm no skeptic but I do see their point of view.
Bessler007
mib HQ
Had to get some sleep.
Tom Valones Lecture actually gives an example of a model. If that is what a skeptic is looking for.
There is a phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. Well my brain just collects bits and peices and makes associations between bits of 'junk' it has picked up. However I make no claim to understanding how true or false the bits of 'junk' are. So effectivly this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.
'Reality argues with the skeptic' = Repeatable experiments.
'Scientists', should be doing the experiment otherwise they just complain about how the figures were obtained. Meanwhile inventors will continue to ignore 'Physics' and have fun making things without understanding why they are doing what they do.
Quote from: PolyMatrix on January 19, 2008, 08:36:00 AM
. . .
- a. Tom Valones Lecture actually gives an example of a model. If that is what a skeptic is looking for.
- b, There is a phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. Well my brain just collects bits and peices and makes associations between bits of 'junk' it has picked up. However I make no claim to understanding how true or false the bits of 'junk' are. So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.
- c. 'Reality argues with the skeptic' = Repeatable experiments. 'Scientists', should be doing the experiment otherwise they just complain about how the figures were obtained. Meanwhile inventors will continue to ignore 'Physics' and have fun making things without understanding why they are doing what they do
a. Yes, there is Tom's lecture of a model. Reminds me of my grandfather's attempt to get one of his roosters to mate with one of his pigs. He did have his successes. There was that litter of stillborns. So cute with their little appendages of wings on their backs but unfortunately dead as they could be. No flying pig.
b. What you'd express and a jack of all trades, etc. I'd reword as having a shallow understanding of a lot of things. Not that I'm attempting to manage you but you might consider getting a little depth of understanding or perhaps coming out of your pocket and hiring someone having that talent.
Your point:
- So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.
is one I agree with.
c. So your only skill is an ability to manage the resources and talents of other people. hehehe Ever hear of the terrible two's? Most two year olds have that ability also.
All this is a little fun with the manner you reason but in it all you've failed to come to the point. I'll restate it:
- In reality the proponents of FE and OU have yet to produce one single solitary example of the reason for their faith and belief in FE/OU. Not one. Not just the talk of a model with the vague hints of how to replicate it. An actual model that has left the mind and talk of the believers and has been transported into reality. Reality, what an idea.
Bessler007
mib HQ
Nikola Tesla had another theory regarding energy and humanity.....basically it involved the need to increase the energy available to mankind to advance ourselves .....the industrial age advanced rapidly with new sources of energy and resulted in a population boom .We are now faced with energy constraints and the task of overcoming these....these same problems were the driving force of his endeavours....
"People believe what they fear to be true or what they want to be true"
Quote
In reality the proponents of FE and OU have yet to produce one single solitary example of the reason for their faith and belief in FE/OU. Not one. Not just the talk of a model with the vague hints of how to replicate it. An actual model that has left the mind and talk of the believers and has been transported into reality. Reality, what an idea.
So you are dismissing patents 4704622 and 3890161 as not ZPE being transported into reality, as mentioned in his lecture?
More of a similar conversation that is occuring on this thread between Tom Valone and Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA here (http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2598)
What hasn't happened from the believers in free energy (
FE) or those of over unity (
OU) is not relevant to a discussion about zero point energy (
ZPE). I'm not sure why you'd want to change the subject to that. Maybe your grasping at straws.
- " Zero point energy is the energy that remains after a substance is cooled to absolute zero. " Dr. Hal Puthoff
I'd submit to you the energy required to attain those temperatures puts any application of ZPE well outside any practical application of FE or OU.
If you're aware of any OU/FE application from a patent filed 07/16/
1973 (patent #3890161) for a diode array that rectifies
minuscule thermal electrical noise or one filed 11/27/
1985 (patent #4704622) for a transistor having negative transconductance that
can perform the functions of a complementary device analogous to a
p-channel transistor in silicon
CMOS technology...
then by all means share some circuit with an analysis.
Those are old technologies.
If Tom or Dennis are discussing some idea for FE/OU then they are right at home with the community. All talk. Would you care to make a point from their discussion? Maybe post some actual physical model that could (1) exist in reality and (2) work?
I doubt it.
Bessler007
mib HQ
Quote from: PolyMatrix on January 20, 2008, 02:25:29 AM
. . .
So you are dismissing patents 4704622 and 3890161 as
not ZPE being transported into reality, as mentioned in his lecture?
More of a similar conversation that is occuring on this thread between Tom Valone and Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA here (http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2598)
. . .
Your topic:
- My question for detractors of overunity
was followed by a post with one quesiton in it:
- So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ?free energy??
Your answer is that you can consider using any energy that exists and also you can call it what ever you want.
My question is, "when are you planning on doing that?"
Bessler007
mib HQ
Get the oddest feeling that you did not listen carefully to the lecture by Tom Valone and try to comprehend what he was doing in that lecture and your last reply tends to confirm the this. [Edit -one before last]
I am aware of the saying 'a person convinced against their will remains unconvinced still.'
Again I begin to think that the line of your posts are tending to follow this latter notion.
Your ability to remain focused on facts is admirable. I however tend to look at things in an associative way and so see a relationship between my origional question and ZPE.
QuoteSubstantive Experiments
I should also list the following US patents as the most significant in ZPE research: "Rectifying Thermal Electric Noise" by Charles Brown #3890161, and #4704622 by Capasso, which actually acknowledge ZPE for their functional nature. Capasso is an IBM engineer and indicates that his tunneling device only works if ZPE is present, much like what Planck discovered and Koch recently detected in the lab. I tend to recommend metal-metal nanodiodes probably will be a popular brand for ZPE usage with millipore sheet assembly. I also cite the work of Yasamoto, et. Al. (2004, Science, 304:1944) covering peptide molecular photodiodes just 1 nm across -- another example of a molecular tool for studying this zero point energy that shows up on the molecular level.
*Now to answer your question:* YES, these diodes demonstrate substantive, greater than uncertainty generation of energy from ZPE. In fact, simple coils do as well! Don't believe me? Check out the frenzy of activity that I cite concerning Puthoff's right hand man, Dr. Eric Davis, as well as Prof. Christian Beck overseas. Both of them finally woke up to the multiple papers that Koch published years ago
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 20, 2008, 04:24:40 AM
Your topic:
- My question for detractors of overunity
was followed by a post with one quesiton in it:
- So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ââ,¬Ëœfree energyââ,¬â,,¢?
Your answer is that you can consider using any energy that exists and also you can call it what ever you want.
My question is, "when are you planning on doing that?"
Bessler007
mib HQ
Answer: Already do call energy whatever I want. As you can see from my origional post energy is not defined by the name we give it but by the observations on the way things move.
[Edit]After thought - I should also like to thank you for taking the time to discus this with me.
Hey Bess, this guy is just messin with your head, the best way to stop overunity projects is not co convince people they can't, it is to convince youthat they are on your side then add heaps more confusing rubbish to the mix, talk of universe expansion and like rubbish is for philosophers of what if, not science or engineers.
For the loop who started this thread, I will give you all the energy in action you need from the universe to start your hypothetical experiment.
A stick/pole facing vertical
two ring magnets
place the two magnets on the pole north facing north.
you can now sit and watch the gravity of the planet try to pull the top ring down, whilst the magnetic field of the lower repells against the planet itself and wins.
There is an exchange of energy that is constant and free, Sit and watch until either the magnet or planet dies, or until you work out how to harness that simple energy right in front of you.
Call us when your done.
@Eskimo
Sure can try do that if you can tell me how to measure the WORK that set up is doing.
In other words Eskimo in order to harness energy not only must one object be moving relative to another but they must also transfer some of their source of movement to another object. If that can be observed and measured with or without affecting the transfer of movement of the two objects then we (in theory!) can harness that movement.
Oh look I just restated the electromagnetic 'left hand rule' and the notion that we live in a relativistic universe.
[Edit - and Heisenberg uncertainty principle as the taking of measurement has to account for how that measurement affects what is being measured]
If you don't comprehend that there is work going on, you have 1 no concept of science or energy, and 2, the Einstein remark is moot, i defeated Einstein 4 years ago when i published.
POC2 =POC2 not E
PO being the mass - Photon Particle
Theoretical science has rules, and these rules include that each component of the theory must be real or accepted, if a componenet is generic, EG the mass, then the theory must apply to all mass, if the generic is gravity, it must apply to all gravity and so on. Albert's theory was flawed as he used a generic term in mass, which was hilariously the greatest argument for him was particle speed in an accelerator.
This being formed when the average laymen would say that no ship could travel at such speeds to ever achieve this, nor any object , molecule or particle. The proponents such as yourself for Einstein used a particle accelerator to prove a small component of speed, although nowhere near light speed squared, as the proof he was correct.
I used PO as the mass to prove him wrong, as at C2, PO remains PO and does not become E, being as PO is a particle of light.
So spare me the relative universe remarks, and if you were not some skeptic trying to debunk the work of people on the site (with very little knowledge of science) you would know in the very least the pounds per square inch pressure from the gravitational pull against the upper magnet, the pounds per square inch for the magnet is measured in labs every day.
As for no energy without movement???? Wow you really have no concept of science, gee energy from chemicval heat???? ever heard of a peltier??? they use Peltiers in reverse to get power from the temperature differential with not one moving part, or solar???
For an intellectual battle, you appear to have arrived unarmed
Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on January 20, 2008, 06:26:41 AM
As for no energy without movement???? Wow you really have no concept of science, gee energy from chemicval heat???? ever heard of a peltier??? they use Peltiers in reverse to get power from the temperature differential with not one moving part, or solar???
Incorrect. Heat = molecular hysteresis = movement
Only because there is no gross mechanical movement does not mean movement is not there. The same is true of Peltier and Solar.
Movement everywhere, hence energy.
Hans von Lieven
In response to no energy without movement?
I sometimes wonder if physicists really understand what theyÃ, are saying.
1) How do we measure time? By remembering that there was a previous state and counting the number of times an event occurs. (Show me another way of calculating time)
2) Why complicate the notion of energy by giving it many different types when all you are doing is recording the amount of distance travelled by all the objects affected by an objects movement. This is surely what is meant by the phrase "Energy is the ability to do work". Has 'Heat' become defined as something different other than increased vibration activity? Is vibration nothing more than measuring the distance travelled on a wobbly path? (yes I know I am not mentioning a load of other factors that happen with vibration, I am just focusing on simplifying the basic fundamentals of the meaning of theories and how that meaning is obtained)
3) Theoretical science has rules. So this type of science 'assumes' it knows all the rules or can only work within the rules that have been observed.
4) Yes light does have problems concerning mass or no mass, though I am curious how the Michelson-Morley experiment is explained along with light having mass. As this experiment is also backed up by the light from binary stars.
5) Peltiers and 'no moving parts': By no moving parts I take it that you are referring to mechanical movement but still consider the effect to work as molecules are being affected by the transference of 'the excitement' referred to as heat into an electromagnetic 'push'.
Please do try and remove yourself from all the facts you have learned for a moment and consider the real meaning of the concepts in what I am actually writing rather than letting your trained mind quickly come to conclusions based on your own word associations and interests in this subject.
Simple example: Brownian motion in a jar that cannot lose heat or photons and is not influenced by any nearby gravity or magnetic influences. Then by CoE that Brownian motion will continue for all time as also suggested by NewtonÃ,’s laws. Another way of saying CoE would be that the total amount of 'movement' within a system over a period of 'time' remains the same for each similar period of time. Effectively CoE is perpetual motion within a closed system since the only way we can measure energy is by movement. So while the movement can be transferred from atom to atom as they 'bump' into one another the total amount of movement is neither lost or gained. Since things can be 'bumped' around in a circular fashion on a universal scale energy is 'free' if you claim CoE must be maintained.
In addition to this how about applying Pressure, Volume, Temprature law on a universal scale. The universe is expanding is it not? How can that not affect all the molecules contained within the universe?
Still if you must keep the things you have learned in separate boxes then it is not surprising that you do not care to take the time to comprehend how everything you say is true, is exactly the same as I have said in these posts only I am stating it in such a simple way it seems to be outside your ability to comprehend that it is the same.
[Edit - What is it that Occam's Razor says?]
Hans, he said.
In other words Eskimo in order to harness energy not only must one object be moving relative to another but they must also transfer some of their source of movement to another object
That was a mechanical statement, and the secondary part of the statement about transfer is more what you are referring to.
I do not subscribe to bu11sh!t science myself, and resent the use of molecular movement as a description of movement, that is for clowns to be pedantic.
For those who don't understand the argument: molecular movement occurs in all objects in electrons every second of life whether creating or transferring energy or not, and the movement of electrons in the atoms of a wooden fuck1ng chair are not measurable.
Quote from: PolyMatrix on January 20, 2008, 04:32:28 AM
. . .
Your ability to remain
focused
on facts is admirable. I however tend to look at things in an associative way and so see a relationship between my origional question and ZPE.
. . .
PolyMatrix,
I think this is the single biggest problem among FE/OU seekers today and it's very counterproductive. When you say, "I however tend to look ..." what I suspect is you'd like to induce your ADD method of a look at reality into me. That's not happening.
Your self-styled Socrates sophistry of rhetoric is evident from your claim, "
So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing." then you want to expound on the nature of reality from your perspective. You punctuate your high opinion of yourself with this comment, "I sometimes wonder if physicists really understand what they are saying." Aren't you the arrogant one?
If you think physicists have some misunderstanding of reality why don't you clearly state what that misunderstanding is? Publish your ideas. In the meantime physicists are the ones that have developed the language of mathematics that allow us to analyze reality and additionally have mapped vast areas of it (reality).
You further describe yourself by giving me reading assignments so that if I follow your instruction I might some how grok your point. lol. Make your point and support it from the vast dialog you cite. You care to take on the mantle of ?professor? presuming to teach me or anyone else? Well then use this style, Doctor. Delve into that vast store of knowledge you have and...
FE/OU believers are like kids in an energy candy store seeing motion at the quantum or cosmic level and deciding, "I'll have some of that energy to power my contraption!" Sure you will. My question remains:
The model building I'm speaking about is one that actually works. I know there's been talk of building and a frenzy of building. What I'm wondering is when will something viable happen?
Until that does the skeptic has the
reality of it not happening arguing on their side. Do you get the point, professor of sophistry?
Bessler007
mib HQ
Don't worry about this guy Bess, my first post proved correct in his last statement, he quoted Newton.
You can't believe in overunity or perpetual motion if you to the laws of thermodynamics or Newton, the object of this site is to prove him wrong, not to use him to the contrary.
If you believe Newton is correct, then you will never achieve overunity, because part of your equations will always point you in the wrong direction regarding an outcome.
I knew Newton was wrong when I was 12. You see if an object is propelled and will continue unless interferred with another (Galileo originally stolen by Newton the fraud) I realised that all had forgotten that many interactions and interferences transfer energy, as is the general argument, however no one considered the transfer may be to the moving object. thus propelling it. Many had considered this as additional power, however no one considered that it may be a constant force such as gravity or another universal factor that does not loose power itself by such a transfer, such as the earth does not loose power because it holds us on it or assist an object to fall.
Gravity is proof of perpetual or accelerated motion past the initial point of propullsion. The other constant is permanent magnets, whilst they die eventually, they do not die faster from use, the life span of the magnet is not sped up by the number of objects it repells.
To quote Newton on this site is proof of non belief in perpetual motion or overunity. Motive busted.
Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on January 20, 2008, 03:03:07 PM
For those who don't understand the argument: molecular movement occurs in all objects in electrons every second of life whether creating or transferring energy or not, and the movement of electrons in the atoms of a wooden fuck1ng chair are not measurable.
But that is not what we are talking about when we look at heat etc. There we are talking about forced molecular movement by an outside force. Totally different kettle of fish. Because here we have movement relative to the outside force.
Hans von Lieven
Hello Eskimo Quinn,
I don't disagree. Just looking at the initial post is very telling to me.
I'll close with this. If the leaders of OU/FE had substance in their claims they would accomplish something. They would make a practical model. As it is they are gathering flocks in what I see as an attempt to remain relevant so that if someone actually could create a working model they could chime in and say, "see, didn't we say that?"
I see this attempt by the leadership as an attempt to create a structure so that everyone that wants to come to OU/FE will have to pass by the gates they're standing at and and pay toll.
I am not paying toll to these trolls and I have no problem exposing them for the trolls they are. If they weren't they'd make a viable model and sell it rather than selling vague ideas or dreams of what might be.
I got their toll. :)
Bessler007
mib HQ
@Bessler007.
What have I said in my statements about CoE that is incorrect?
What have I said about how we measure things to determine a value for energy is incorrect?
Physics people say they have this theory and these are the experiments they have used to prove the theory.
So I look at what they actually did to prove the theory try to simplify the meaning so that I can understand exactly what physics people are saying. If you disagree with my translation and it is wrong point out the error please.
Yes I grok exactly all that you say in a psychological, semantic, Null-A, predicate logic way, and make some theoretical propositions of some of the implications intended behind the way the words have been presented.
However even with all these words the probabilistic wave of understanding has not collapsed to anywhere near certainty. So therefore I still know nothing.
The skeptics answer to my question seems to be "I won't believe that which contradicts what I want to believe until I see it working and confirmed by somebody I personally trust to make that judgment and will sit on the sidelines look down on anybody who does not speak in the technical language of the science and say that they are really stupid people wasting so much effort on what is clearly impossible".
Have I missed anything?
Not sure who is being arrogant here. Is the knowledge of physics meant to be kept secret and tied up in technical words or is the desire to help stupid people and teach the principles reflected in what has been said in this discussion?
Given my understanding of how time is measured and that physicist?s talk of time being variable what is it in terms of how it has been decided to define a time period is actually being said?
All I am doing as far as I can tell is changing words like time, CoE, Energy into the terms from which these ideas were measured. Yet for some reason the skeptic does not appear like this!
Hmmm - Physicist have developed the language of mathematics. By using all the allowable rules for normal fractions it is possible to prove 1= (-1) no that can not be right lets just say there is an operation you can do for fractions that you can not do with imaginary numbers. How about showing 0 = 1 but wait that proof is wrong, as you cannot divide by 0. I know lets use integral calculus so that as this distance between two points gets smaller and tends to zero we can work out a function that enables us to calculate the area between two points under a curve. However we cannot use the same technique to calculate say the length of the hypotenuse on a triangle as dividing by 2 is infinitely possible.
So from these examples I would say you really need to understand what is physically happening when manipulating equations to be sure of its accuracy.
I did not say physicists have a misunderstanding, I am saying that they are not looking at what they are saying in terms of the way they **measure** their experiments.
I did make my point, you did not attempt to grok it or correct it. I have made the attempt to understand why you state the obvious 'make it happen' and when shown that it has happened you refuse to believe it as proof.
So who is being scientific in this conversation, one ready and willing to accept that what we have observed can with one repeatable experiment change the way we understand this reality or someone who must wait until peer pressure says that what they don?t want to believe is true?
Professor Sophistry,
You wouldn't know a cogent argument comprised of salient facts if it bit you on the arse. lol
hummm. lol.
Bessler007
mib, HQ
PolyPoint,
What ever works for you but I'd guess this approach isn't working well. If it were you'd recognize that when you perceive contradiction in reality, the contradiction is really in your perception; not reality. You could
get beyond your misconceptions and actually build something viable.
Put in other words your perceptions can accommodate contradictions of reality but what ever they are, reality isn't a contradiction. It's more productive to change your view than it is to insist reality accommodate it.
Put further into other words the skeptic isn't going to exchange their perception of reality based on actual measurements and experiments over hundreds of years until you can actually produce some real proof of your theory(ies) what ever they are.
You act as if you're presenting some original idea when you talk about the expansion of the universe as being OU. Physicists recognize it is. That isn't the question. The question is ?can that expansion be used to cause OU in our laps?? There are thought experiments that explain how it might happen but they have no practical use. They're impossible to construct.
If you have any original idea to present by all means do. When you present the ideas of others and expect that to be evidence of your argument all you're doing is further substantiating your point, ?by my way of thinkin' I really don't know nothin' ?. I've already agreed with that point.
Bessler007
mib HQ
Quote from: PolyMatrix on January 20, 2008, 05:42:59 PM
. . .
Yes I grok exactly all that you say in a psychological, semantic,
Null-A,
. . .
edit: some of your misconception might be an understanding the skeptical physicist denies over unity. They don't. What they do say is any practical example of that in the real world is not economically feasible. That's where you come in, Oh great one. Prove them wrong. The energy of all this talk should be able to be harnessed some how....
Quote from: Bessler007 on January 20, 2008, 06:20:01 PM
Professor Sophistry,
You wouldn't know a cogent argument comprised of salient facts if it bit you on the arse. lol
hummm. lol.
Bessler007
mib, HQ
{Deep sigh} ^^^ True as I know nothing!
However this answers my questions how? Is it useful in showing how the delightful concepts that have been considered here accurate or incorrect in what way exactly?
Is pointing out someone?s deficiencies and using childish words like ?arse? helpful to your cause or do they just make you feel superior?
Is this post an indication of the same arrogance that I was accused of?
This is the only coherent responsible caring adult scientific reply you can be bothered to come up with?
What would we do without such beautiful and comprehensive methods of expression?
What would the world be like without this brilliance?
Oh well, it seems to be true, but I cannot be truly sure, that courtesy and respect of another?s opinions mean nothing to the person who has been given that courtesy.
You have your answer but you want to dismiss it. Take your brilliant understanding of measurements of reality and what actually is in this reality and produce something that works according to your theory.
Until you do (although the physicists recognizes OU is a fact) all you have are idle meaningless words strewn together like some wisdom you've extracted from your arse. You might say they look at it as asshattery. I don't disagree with the skeptic.
Again, your question has been answered. You will persuade the skeptic that you know what you're talking about the day you can
present a practical application of it.
Quote from: PolyMatrix on January 20, 2008, 07:10:58 PM
. . .
However this answers my questions how? Is it useful in showing how the delightful concepts that have been considered here accurate or incorrect in what way exactly?
Is pointing out someone?s deficiencies and using childish words like ?arse? helpful to your cause or do they just make you feel superior?
. . .
This has been a wonderful conversation and many thanks for participating and making this thread possible goes to Bessler007 and lets not forget the useful and helpful teaching comments from 'The Eskimo Quinn'. A special mention goes to 'hansvonlieven' for his guest appearance, timely comment and good sense.
It is possible that this thread has shown in a microcosmic way all the problems that the people who attempt to show a paradigm in possibilities. Hopefully physics will never have to face the problem of a proof only working if someone believes that proof is present as it would never be proved in front of a skeptic. (The observer affecting the observed)
Terminology
grok: Used in Robert Heinlein's first book of the 1960s 'Stranger in a Strange land' and is mostly used to mean the drinking of environment and ideas to achieve full comprehension through meditative contemplation.
Null-A: From A whimsical series of 3 books written by A.E Van Vogt with the meaning of non-Aristotelian and is loosely based on the ideas proposed in General Semantics. created by Alfred Korzybski
Any offence anger or other concomitant emotions felt at any of the opinions expressed in this thread are entirely your own responsibility as none of the contributors have any knowledge of the belief system that maintains the readers personal ego.
May you all have many hours of happy hunting and playing within your lifetime(s?)
:D ;D :D
Quote from: The Eskimo Quinn on January 20, 2008, 05:12:08 AMI will give you all the energy in action you need from the universe to start your hypothetical experiment.
A stick/pole facing vertical
two ring magnets
place the two magnets on the pole north facing north.
you can now sit and watch the gravity of the planet try to pull the top ring down, whilst the magnetic field of the lower repells against the planet itself and wins.
There is an exchange of energy that is constant and free, Sit and watch until either the magnet or planet dies, or until you work out how to harness that simple energy right in front of you.
Call us when your done.
Your kidding right?, you do know what relativistic forces are right?
Both gravity and magnetism are relativistic forces, the top magnet is repulsed until an equilibrium is reached with the force of gravity, once that equilibrium is reached no work is being done.
Now if you want to go to the atomic level and say things are moving, then yes I would agree, but since all materials exhibit this trait at the atomic level with temperatures above absolute zero, then you might as well say a piece of wood is doing work.
One of my own experiments with magnetic levitation (with a twist)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFtq6STpvw
And before anyone points it out, I know it is not diamagnetism, that would require a material that exhibits repulsion from north or south such as bismuth.
Axiom 0. This Universe Exists.
Axiom 1. The Universe is Made of Energy.
If energy isn't free, then to whom does this universe owe a debt?
Q: If the universe is made of energy, how are differentiable characteristics of it localized and perpetuated? Why doesn't it all fly off uniformly at the speed of light in every direction?
A: Matter. We witness specific constructs which entangle the underlying fabric of the universe; matter is knotted space.
Q: So how can we localize and perpetuate this universal energy on a grand scale?
A: Emulate the behavior of matter, on a grand scale.
Electrons have mastered this.
So can we.
Here's a hint:
spin = revolution + involution