ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

The more unusual the claim the stronger the evidence that is required.  If a very unusual claim is made with weak evidence or no evidence at all then it should be rejected.

Imagine we were standing in a field talking 200 years ago at a time when it was known and proven beyond all doubt that nothing heavier than air could possibly fly. What if you told me man cannot fly and the reasons are obvious and based in science and my extraordinary claim that man could fly is false and would require extraordinary proof.


My solution would be to say we require no proof because you already have it and know the solution but cannot put it into perspective. You see you know that bird that just flew over your head is heavier than air and you know that if we placed it on a scale it would be heavier than air and yet it can fly, you already know the answer but are unwilling to accept it.


So we can see there is no amount of evidence that can prove anything to anyone if they are unwilling to accept the truth which in some sense they already know. We know this because we see it everywhere every day and people tend to believe whatever gets them through another day.


On a brighter note, if we were to apply a little critical thinking we might understand that the example above may give us some insight into the obvious just beyond our grasp. Fundamentally a magnetic field has two directions, expansion and contraction, and moving the field source is simply another way of saying the field expands into one region while contracting from another. All our systems operate in the same way we simply see them as being different. A magnetic field is like a balloon and we expand it by blowing it up then contract it by releasing the pressure. We inflate one balloon to act against another balloon which opposes it's change and we call this work.


However nobody seems to have considered what might happen if we were to pop the balloon or pull on it from two directions simultaneously then release it to oscillate on it's own or stretch it to the point of breaking. We continue to do the same thing over and over bound to a normalcy we alone have created then condemn those who may step outside the box. In any case the truth is always obvious, that damn bird is circling overhead just waiting to be seen but we have to look up and know what we are seeing and accept it for what it is.


AC

[MarkE]

@Mark E

Imagine we were standing in a field talking 200 years ago at a time when it was known and proven beyond all doubt that nothing heavier than air could possibly fly.

You mean like birds???

What if you told me man cannot fly and the reasons are obvious and based in science and my extraordinary claim that man could fly is false and would require extraordinary proof.

At the time manned HTA flight didn't exist and no one knew a way to do it.  Some concluded that a solution could not be found.  But then people had for centuries watched those HTA birds do it.

My solution would be to say we require no proof because you already have it and know the solution but cannot put it into perspective. You see you know that bird that just flew over your head is heavier than air and you know that if we placed it on a scale it would be heavier than air and yet it can fly, you already know the answer but are unwilling to accept it.

This sounds like you are creating a straw man where you require that I ignore observable fact so that you can show me that I ignore observable fact.  I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me at all.

So we can see there is no amount of evidence that can prove anything to anyone if they are unwilling to accept the truth which in some sense they already know. We know this because we see it everywhere every day and people tend to believe whatever gets them through another day.

Err no.  You established circularly that if someone ignores observable facts that they are ignoring observable facts.

On a brighter note, if we were to apply a little critical thinking we might understand that the example above may give us some insight into the obvious just beyond our grasp.

If something is "just beyond our grasp" then it can hardly be obvious can it? That which is obvious is already within our grasp.

Fundamentally a magnetic field has two directions, expansion and contraction, and moving the field source is simply another way of saying the field expands into one region while contracting from another. All our systems operate in the same way we simply see them as being different. A magnetic field is like a balloon and we expand it by blowing it up then contract it by releasing the pressure. We inflate one balloon to act against another balloon which opposes it's change and we call this work.

I'm sorry but we have very well developed vector math that describes magnetic fields very precisely in three Cartesian directions and time.  The balloon analogy may help you to understand some circumstances intuitively but it is not at all rigorous.

However nobody seems to have considered what might happen if we were to pop the balloon or pull on it from two directions simultaneously then release it to oscillate on it's own or stretch it to the point of breaking. We continue to do the same thing over and over bound to a normalcy we alone have created then condemn those who may step outside the box. In any case the truth is always obvious, that damn bird is circling overhead just waiting to be seen but we have to look up and know what we are seeing and accept it for what it is.

I see another straw man here.  If someone has a novel idea they are free to develop evidence that supports their idea.  If they don't come up with evidence then there is little reason to consider the idea correct.  Birds are HTA.  Birds can fly.  Does that mean anything HTA can fly?  If not, why not?  Can "very small rocks" fly?  When it comes to the First Principles they are First Principles because when we observe to the best of our ability they appear inviolate.  IOW there are no free energy birds fluttering about directly contradicting conservation of: momentum or energy.  If such birds were to appear many people in science would start chasing them ferociously.

AC

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

This sounds like you are creating a straw man where you require that I ignore observable fact so that you can show me that I ignore observable fact.  I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me at all.

I was simply pointing out by example that our history is pretty much defined by faulty logic which we thought was beyond question. The fact remains most all believed something which was proven not to be true and to make matters worse they tried to reinforce their false beliefs with logic and science. We know this don't we?, I mean we have all read the history books and evolved our understanding since then. It was simply my way of saying were not always right even when we think we have undeniable proof.

If something is "just beyond our grasp" then it can hardly be obvious can it? That which is obvious is already within our grasp.

Your logic seems sound however it relies on a first person perspective ie. if I cannot understand it then it cannot be true while a third person perspective may assume the solution is obvious and right in front of us however we cannot see it because our mind will not allow us to accept it ie. psychology. The mistake is in thinking we can trust out thinking hence the need for critical thinking and reflection on our thought process. It assumes we and our thinking are an integral part of the problem versus trying to distance ourselves from our own beliefs to try and reinforce them in others.

I'm sorry but we have very well developed vector math that describes magnetic fields very precisely in three Cartesian directions and time.  The balloon analogy may help you to understand some circumstances intuitively but it is not at all rigorous.

I believe you, math describes magnetic fields very precisely however it does not describe what a magnetic field is nor why it is. So the question we should ask is how can we build a foundation on something which has no real foundation?. That is like saying the math describes how an apple falls very precisely we just don't know why it falls because we do not know what Gravity is. I understand you are trying to imply understanding however if we start asking the right questions the whole thing degenerates into more and more unanswered questions.

When it comes to the First Principles they are First Principles because when we observe to the best of our ability they appear inviolate.

Now were getting somewhere, A first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. However we have a problem because we assume we know what a magnetic field may do in every case based on observation and calculation but we don't know what it is nor why it is. Wait a minute I thought we said this was a foundation, I thought we said it is the most basic most fundamental understanding we have and yet we do not know what it is nor why it is. Now I could be wrong but it would seem to me knowing what the magnetic field is and why it exists would be a first principal and not simple observations of something we don't understand and what it appears to do most of the time.


You make some very good points and your reasoning is very sound however when we apply critical thinking and psychology I have found things tend to go all to hell in a big hurry. I hope I am not being to critical and I really had to think about your responses to my post and my responses to you, I think I may have leaned something in the process, lol.


AC















[size=78%] [/size]

[MarkE]

@Mark E

I was simply pointing out by example that our history is pretty much defined by faulty logic which we thought was beyond question. The fact remains most all believed something which was proven not to be true and to make matters worse they tried to reinforce their false beliefs with logic and science. We know this don't we?, I mean we have all read the history books and evolved our understanding since then. It was simply my way of saying were not always right even when we think we have undeniable proof.

By "most all" do you mean the uneducated general public?  Do you mean the certain prominent individuals?  You certainly don't mean all the people who had been working to solve the engineering problems of the day.

Your logic seems sound however it relies on a first person perspective ie. if I cannot understand it then it cannot be true

Kindly show me where I said such a thing.  Either an unusual claim has supporting evidence or it doesn't.

while a third person perspective may assume the solution is obvious and right in front of us however we cannot see it because our mind will not allow us to accept it ie. psychology. The mistake is in thinking we can trust out thinking hence the need for critical thinking and reflection on our thought process. It assumes we and our thinking are an integral part of the problem versus trying to distance ourselves from our own beliefs to try and reinforce them in others.

There's a whole lot of assumptions in there.  It is pretty simple:  Rational people evaluate evidence as objectively as possible.  Claims don't make evidence.  Evidence comes from repeatable observations.

I believe you, math describes magnetic fields very precisely however it does not describe what a magnetic field is nor why it is.

Neither does the balloon analogy.

So the question we should ask is how can we build a foundation on something which has no real foundation?.

We build our foundations of understanding on that which we can observe.  We extend our chance observations by designing experiments that test our ideas.

That is like saying the math describes how an apple falls very precisely we just don't know why it falls because we do not know what Gravity is. I understand you are trying to imply understanding however if we start asking the right questions the whole thing degenerates into more and more unanswered questions.

You are descending into argument from ignorance.  What we observe is unchanged by that which we have yet to understand.  We learn more by being careful about our observations.

Now were getting somewhere, A first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. However we have a problem because we assume we know what a magnetic field may do in every case based on observation and calculation but we don't know what it is nor why it is. Wait a minute I thought we said this was a foundation, I thought we said it is the most basic most fundamental understanding we have and yet we do not know what it is nor why it is. Now I could be wrong but it would seem to me knowing what the magnetic field is and why it exists would be a first principal and not simple observations of something we don't understand appears to do most of the time.

You making an argument from ignorance.  A First Principle like any other principle holds until observation disproves it.  The First Principles we have so far have held up quite well.  If one wishes to challenge their validity then one needs to start with a contradictory observation.

You make some very good points and your reasoning is very sound however when we apply critical thinking and psychology I have found things tend to go all to hell in a big hurry. I hope I am not being to critical and I really had to think about your responses to my post and my responses to you, I think I may have leaned something in the process, lol.


AC















[size=78%] [/size]

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

By "most all" do you mean the uneducated general public?  Do you mean the certain prominent individuals?  You certainly don't mean all the people who had been working to solve the engineering problems of the day.

If we look back in history certain individuals or at best small groups defied the logic and understanding of everyone else present. I understand many may say it was a large group effort however this only occurred after the fact and initially all change was opposed. The Down Wind faster than the wind technology is a perfect example of how everyone used their common sense and assumptions to completely undermine real science. It was an example of how far technology has come and how little our way of thinking has changed.

There's a whole lot of assumptions in there.  It is pretty simple:  Rational people evaluate evidence as objectively as possible.  Claims don't make evidence.  Evidence comes from repeatable observations.

I would agree however how do we know we are being objective and how do we know what we are seeing?. We may think we are being objective but that is simply an opinion because fundamentally we oppose all change. To be honest I always thought I was rational, objective and open minded then I used critical thinking to take a third person perspective and examine my thoughts and found I was not so much. I understand everyone else in the world may believe they are objective and open minded however on examination I have come to understand I am not. I hope to change that and we should be honest with ourselves first.

You making an argument from ignorance.  A First Principle like any other principle holds until observation disproves it.  The First Principles we have so far have held up quite well.  If one wishes to challenge their validity then one needs to start with a contradictory observation.

That line of reason holds until we understand all the most important stuff is hidden from us. You will never observe a field fundamentally and yet we know something is present. You will never observe the smallest most fundamental particles nor the end of the universe. We have literally no real insight into the infinitely small or large and yet we feel we do understand them. So yes I do make arguments from ignorance because I understand in many ways I am ignorant. The first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one.

We build our foundations of understanding on that which we can observe.  We extend our chance observations by designing experiments that test our ideas.

To be honest I agree with what you have said however as I said we can prove something by experiment and still be completely wrong. I think the most fundamental mistake relates to common sense which is so strange I'm not even sure I agree with myself,lol. For instance I drop a ball and I observe it fall, then I conclude all things heavier than air must fall then common sense tells me nothing heavier than air could possibly fly. This is the process our mind uses to rationalize things, this is how our mind works. We make observations then try to rationalize how the observation relates to everything else. Generally speaking the observation is biased because it is based on relationships which may or may not exist derived from common sense. Then we see John Hutchison's floating bowling ball and all hell breaks loose. Common sense tells us no, no,no this cannot be because I dropped a ball and it fell, we all dropped a ball and it fell.


In any case you are perfectly correct and everything you have said is reasonable and logical. It all works perfectly well right up to that single moment when it doesn't... that's the part I'm interested in.


AC