Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Paul  - nice to see you're there.

Sorry about that error.  I'm afraid if there's a wrong interpretation available on most facts then I plumb for it with the unerring instinct of the dim witted.   Bear with me.  And you're quite right.  But I had a sneaking suspicion I'd got that point wrong.  Let me know your thoughts on the other points.

And Art - if you're reading here - please comment on the one atom as opposed to two.

Kindest regards to you both.  I'm SO chuffed that we're talking physics.
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Loner, 

I just need to first reference this first  statement

PS to Rose, Magnet on Magnet movement does produce an electrical effect, and has been measured.  Technically, this is how generators operate, but for a simple test, a coil, embedded in ferrite, can be used.  There are MANY examples right in this forum, but I couldn't remember the specific posts, as I have enough trouble just remembering the information.  It's just the way I remember things, as data with probability of accuracy.  Date, time and location usually eludes me.

An induced magnetic field can - in turn - induce current flow.  But a magnet on magnet interaction - just that - does NOT induce an electric field.  This point has been tested.  I've found one paper on this - way back - and don't know where to look for it again.  Here the thesis was tested and the results ambivalent.  Here's the uncomfortable truth.  A changing electric field induces a magnetic field - at right angles - and so on.  A changing magnetic field induces an electric field - also at right angles - and also as you so eloquently put it 'blah blah'  LOL.   

BUT you can change the position of one magnet against another - in an almost and theoretical infinite variety of ways - without inducing ANY measurable electric field.  For some reason - God alone knows what - our Great's entirely missed this point.  The only way to get an electric current induced from moving magnetic fields - is to induce it through some sort of 'carrier' medium - as, for example, in circuit wire and sundry components.  Else magnets interact with magnets really energetically.  They produce measurable interactions.  Measurable samples of work done.  And absolutely NO measurable electric field.

TO Rose, the One atom Vs Two.

Tough one.  I would have to accept several things to even contemplate this.  1)  IS there more "Energy" in the two.  2) Are the two "Bonded"?  3) Type of bonding (I'd accept classical examples, as in ionic or covalent.)  4) what type of energy form are we discussing?

So as to not look like a "Creep", I'll offer an "Opinion" and you may take this for what it's worth. 
1) Yes.  2)Yes.  3) Determines the added energy level.  4) MANY!

Describing the bond in classical terms, which I don't agree with, by the way, would indicate that the orbital paths would be "Greater".  Seeing that equal energy would alter the external structure, then force levels must change in order to preserve the basic structure.  I would have to then describe how "Heat" works to alter states of mass.  Not a simple situation, eh?

Right on Art.  You can burn down your house and thereby rather radically change it's 'bound' appearance - without altering any single atom or molecule in that entire structure.  Effectively you just change the locale of some of that material and rather radically alter it's overall bound appearance.  LOL. 

Were I to describe this from the wave point of view, it would be simpler, but I won't blab about that for a few more decades of research, as I don't like to look the fool, all the time.

Here's what I want to say about this.  For some reason our learned and revered need to be RIGHT.  What a horrible burden.  It denies them the enjoyment of exploring the very questions that we're doing here.  The fun of it is in the questions.  NOT in the grandiose grandstanding nonsense of being impeccably exact.  And may I say that it's such a refreshing PLEASURE to find the likes of both you and Paul - who both risk those questions.  If this thereby makes you or any of us fools - then that's a very flattering title - devoutly to be wished - so to speak. 

For a "Quick" wave def.  (I don't do this, but...)   Aether, Consists of dark "Matter", wave intersect is "Particle" of "Mass", ALL interactions definable, unification simple.  Not my theory, but I accept the possibility as the math and equations work better than classical, in ALL areas.  What do I know?  Just a real description is about 30 pages, but that's the concept, sorta.  Crazy, right?  We exist in this "Sea" of energy, so it both is and isn't intrinsic to mass as that's what mass is.  Is that a useful clue?  Again, Sorry.

I'm absolutely with you here.  Very exciting stuff.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited

[pauldude000]

The "Heat" in the wire is FROM the source of the electricity, not from the wire.

Interesting, and very precise. Some ideas require painting a full verbal picture, others a few well applied brush strokes.

The "source" of the electricity is not a capacitor or a battery either, they are merely storage containers, as is a "magnet". Actually, I doubt that a "storage container" is really accurate either from my own understanding, I suspect it is but a handy vehicle. However, the "source" would include breaking things down on the quantum level. The question is, is it really worth traveling into the world of pure speculation? 

Don't get me wrong... I can speculate. I just wonder if it is worth diving into quantum mechanics. Bad as chaos theory concerning the employment of circular logic as far as I have seen. :-)

Ohhhh Heisenberg......  If my mother hadn't taught me politeness......

Science is all too often like computer programming... GIGO

Sorry. (Some of the concepts in QM are astoundingly applicable.. others.......)

By the way Loner, as it applies.... mass IS energy..... :-)

Can you tell I am getting tired? (3:15 in the ole AM here)

I think I will shut up now, and get some sleep, so I may demonstrate the actual ability to connect logically 2 + 2 as equalling 4, and not viewing it as a mere equivalency.

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

Paul, I am with you 100% on all of that.  (especially that &$#& Heisenberg!)

As a professor at MIT once said:  "After so many decimal places, nobody gives a damm."   I think that could apply here, too.   

Do you think that, Maybe, there is such a thing as "Too" critical in the thinking?  Maybe there is even a line where it crosses into skepticism, even if trying to not be a skeptic?  I'm not usually into flights of fancy, but this was quite a trip.

Here's hoping to enjoy further discussions, even if about mundane topics, as the intellectual stimulation was/is very enjoyable.

Art.

Sorry about the lateness of the reply, but between a cold, a mild case of bronchitis, and a trip to the doctor over a strep infection in my foot (fun day I tell you), I have been rather occupied.

As to "too critical" in the thinking... absolutely yes when you consider critical, as used in "critical thinking" does not refer to the usual use of the word: "disapproval" or "Negative".

Being "critical" of someone or their ideas is NOT employing "critical thinking".

"Critical" in the term "critical thinking" refers to the absolute necessity, importance, or centrality of logical thought, as used in "it is not merely necessary, it is critical".

Paul Andrulis

EDIT ADDED:

Do not feel too bad. Too many time where I examine my own statements, I find the circular logic which is indicative of an illogical statement. Critical thinking when applied is the serious attempt to check your concepts, as well as the obvious checking of facts and relevant data.

Skepticism can have is logical counterpoint as well, which is blind acceptance. Neither are balanced, nor particularly constructive. A good balance of both acceptance and positive skepticism are required for true logical thought.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Just a couple of point here Art,

First, Magnetism can exist in a vacuum, which kinda pulls the base force involved out of the "Mass required" bin.  All I mean to say by this is that, while Mass can hold magnetism, it can't be considered the "Source".  I hope this points to a few "Hard Learned" clues about the reality of the situation.  A "CAP" can be charged, but is not a source....  Mass can be "Charged", but, also, is not a source....  (Battery would be a chemical magnet and I haven't heard of mixing things to make one, yet.  I know of no "True" exceptions to that one yet, either.)

Not sure what you mean by 'mass'.  In any event what we measure in material mass - is certainly a response to a magnetic field.  I understand that a DMM puts out a small current and the resistance being measured is against that current flow.  That current, in turn, extrudes a magnetic field in that resistive material.  And that magnetic field comes from where?  Surely it must be sourced from inside the material structure?  Or is it assumed that current flow somehow halves itself so that some of it flows and the rest of it becomes an extruded orbiting magnetic field?  So.  If current flow results in extruded magnetic field - then where did those fields come from?   Frankly - this question applies whether the assumption is that current flow comprises 'charge' - whatever that means - or whether it comprises 'electrons'.  I wonder if the more appropriate question would be to ask whether magnetic fields themselves have mass.  You see - it would otherwise be a miracle of some extraordinary proportions - if we assume that the extruded magnetic field comes from nothing other than the flow of electrons - as is classically assumed.  That would be energy from nothing.  A whole 'field' emanating from nowhere - yet with measurable voltage - measurable potential difference -  and, capable, in and of itself - of inducing yet further current flow.  And all this from the arbitrary directional flow or movement of electrons - always assuming that electrons can even move in the same direction - which they can't.

And then - dare it say it, yet again - if magnetic fields comprise mass - then why can we not find a particle but are only able to measure the field?  My own reasons for this based on the thought that - just maybe - those particles in the field are too fast to be either seen or measured.  And the only thing that is too fast to be measured would be something that exceeds light speed.  You mention that 'dark energy' is something that is outside this topic.  I'm not sure why.  But I would put it to you that it is 'critically required' and this thread is about critical thinking. 

Here's where I goofed up with my "Current" question.  I didn't make it clear what I was asking.  To gather ALL information is the important part, as you say.  This is what I was saying as well.  The "Heat" in the wire is FROM the source of the electricity, not from the wire.

And then this point.  I'm not sure what you mean.  If the heat is from the source of electricity then it's from the battery.  But the battery can deliver current without - itself - getting hot.  I would propose that the heat is indeed, from inside the wire of the resistor.  One can induce heat inside a resistor which is placed inside a coil - from pure induction - no actual direct exposure to the material flow of current - no matter whether current flow comprises charge or electrons. 

Actually Loner - every time one tries to define magnetic fields or current flow - or energy itself - we're left with the sad reality that we need to 'speculate' on its material properties precisely because we cannot see the 'thing' itself.  It's essentially dark which has an uncomfortable correspondence to 'dark matter' - and 'dark energies' and I do, indeed, think that these things should be considered - in my humble opinion.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary