Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[pauldude000]

@Rosemary

Better be careful. The pond you start to wade is deep and full of sharks whom violently defend their territory.

What is energy? What is mass? what is work? What is magnetism? Etc., etc., etc., all stem from a basic question.. What DOES the "book" say they are?

Many can quote the book but can go no deeper. A few however  try.

A rare few examine critically the base definitions which are the building blocks of science. An extremely rare few acknowledge problems in them when found, even though said problems are blatant.

These rare few are either famous, infamous, or relegated.

Famous, as the likes of Newton. Infamous as was Tesla, or both famous and relegated as stupid having your work hacked to unrecognizable bits like Maxwell. (Heaviside NEUTERED Maxwell's field equations, not merely "simplified them".)

Here is a very nasty circle of thought.... what if a base definition  of a critical principle such as "work", "mass", or "energy" was WRONG? What if a LAW was wrong? Ask yourself what equations would be affected? What theories? How many ideas and cherished notions would have to be scrapped outright? 

Do not be surprised that when someone gets a whiff of evidential provable logical trouble, that said person is faced with the fight or flight response. They either subconsciously feel the need to attack the harbinger, or deny the reality at this point. Few DARE examine the problem logically, as this can lead to a frightfully interesting life. :-)

Seriously, the subconscious rebels at the notion, as a persons view of reality must change. At this point, either emotional vestment or INvestment comes into play. Emotional vestment is readily seen by chosen profession or thought. Geology VS Archaeology as an example. Geology has demonstrated water weathering on the Egyptian pyramids, which if true destroyed a long held cherished theory of archaeology, as a for instance.  Emotional investment is when a life's work, or a lifetime of belief is challenged.

With either, the argument becomes personal and logic is merely a weapon. Truth has no place and is given no quarter.

Here is a logical critical thought problem.

In your mind's eye, assume that Einstein actually was right on the money. Assume for the sake of argument that mass IS energy. That mass is not merely an aspect of matter, but an aspect of energy as the equations demonstrate. What would that imply? Where does the logic lead? YOU ARE CAPABLE of understanding these things, everyone is unless physically damaged.

Answer this question upon completion: Does the result accurately describe demonstrable evidential reality?

(WARNING: Follow all the logical trails in order, but keep the main trail in sight or you will become conceptually lost.)

The value of any concept is its applicability towards reality, and not its popularity.

You will understand that things are FAR more complex than they seem, yet still inherently simple in nature.

Paul Andrulis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@Rosemary

Better be careful. The pond you start to wade is deep and full of sharks whom violently defend their territory.

What is energy? What is mass? what is work? What is magnetism? Etc., etc., etc., all stem from a basic question.. What DOES the "book" say they are?

Many can quote the book but can go no deeper. A few however  try.

A rare few examine critically the base definitions which are the building blocks of science. An extremely rare few acknowledge problems in them when found, even though said problems are blatant.

These rare few are either famous, infamous, or relegated.

Famous, as the likes of Newton. Infamous as was Tesla, or both famous and relegated as stupid having your work hacked to unrecognizable bits like Maxwell. (Heaviside NEUTERED Maxwell's field equations, not merely "simplified them".)

Here is a very nasty circle of thought.... what if a base definition  of a critical principle such as "work", "mass", or "energy" was WRONG? What if a LAW was wrong? Ask yourself what equations would be affected? What theories? How many ideas and cherished notions would have to be scrapped outright? 

Do not be surprised that when someone gets a whiff of evidential provable logical trouble, that said person is faced with the fight or flight response. They either subconsciously feel the need to attack the harbinger, or deny the reality at this point. Few DARE examine the problem logically, as this can lead to a frightfully interesting life. :-)

Seriously, the subconscious rebels at the notion, as a persons view of reality must change. At this point, either emotional vestment or INvestment comes into play. Emotional vestment is readily seen by chosen profession or thought. Geology VS Archaeology as an example. Geology has demonstrated water weathering on the Egyptian pyramids, which if true destroyed a long held cherished theory of archaeology, as a for instance.  Emotional investment is when a life's work, or a lifetime of belief is challenged.

With either, the argument becomes personal and logic is merely a weapon. Truth has no place and is given no quarter.

Here is a logical critical thought problem.

In your mind's eye, assume that Einstein actually was right on the money. Assume for the sake of argument that mass IS energy. That mass is not merely an aspect of matter, but an aspect of energy as the equations demonstrate. What would that imply? Where does the logic lead? YOU ARE CAPABLE of understanding these things, everyone is unless physically damaged.

Answer this question upon completion: Does the result accurately describe demonstrable evidential reality?

(WARNING: Follow all the logical trails in order, but keep the main trail in sight or you will become conceptually lost.)

The value of any concept is its applicability towards reality, and not its popularity.

You will understand that things are FAR more complex than they seem, yet still inherently simple in nature.

Paul Andrulis

Paul.  That post was SO GOOD I simply copied it.  I can't add to it's value.  VERY WELL SAID.  But I still want to 'drive on'.  Popular or not.  Outside of these forums there's NEVER any discussion on the subject.  And it's crying out for recognition.  And personally, I'm well used to being out there - with my neck available to all and sundry.  Frankly I prefer it.  It means that we're sniffing out some basic truths that - for whatever reason - people prefer to ignore. 



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Mk1]

@Rosemary

Please , do not get offended by my rant .

It is not my purpose to disturb anyone .


I believe the over looked part is freq , why do 2 particles associate with each other , i think it because they are of the same freq .

We can't see infrared , of ultraviolet rays , but there are there just the same , life exist also at those freq .

We need to ring the material literally .

The only true value in life are numbers , those number associated to the same freq will reveal the pattern , its the same pattern music scales are build on , and a easy was of understanding quantum physics .

Dark energy means only unknown , and not in the magical esoteric sense .

We use it in all transformers , but only see the reaction , not the action .

We don't see it , it then don't exist , the answer is already in what we know ...

Sorry again !

Mark
 

Some edit .

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly Mark - there's NOTHING to apologise about.  We're discussing things.  And Paul is hardly likely to mind.  Certainly I don't.  I'm MOST anxious to explore the properties of this dark energy as I see it as our salvation - a ready made recipe to address our energy crisis.  But to get there I think we need to discuss it at length.  It needs to be widely understood.  And one way to promote this is on a one on one discussion as we do here.  Most valuable.  Many 'drips' can still cause a flood.  So.  I'll drip on as long as required.  LOL.

Your conclusion that two atoms have more energy than one?  I'm not sure that it's to do with their frequency.  It's almost IMPOSSIBLE in a natural environment to keep two hydrogen atoms in the same locale unless they adjust their valence condition.  Yet we have suns that are pure hydrogen.  How do all those atoms get together in a shared space?  And how do they 'burn' and yet NEVER change their essential atomic state - except obviously in more complex suns where they transmute into more complex atoms.  There are many questions out there Mark.  And my proposal is that our classicists already have the answer - as Paul as pointed out.  It's just that they're so in love with the equivalence principle that they dare not look further - irrespective of the glaring contradiction that their equivalence is actually NOT that equivalent.

So.  Please don't think I'm objecting to your post.  I love new ideas and new perspectives.  It's just that I don't know where you saw us as being 'illogical'.  As Paul said.  There's way too much emotion in physics.  We need to get back to pure 'argument'.  So much healthier.  And so much more demanding - somehow. 



Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited

[Mk1]

@Rosemary

I am sorry i do not think that 2 atom have more energy then one , i have edited the text some more , i must be crazy because i feel like someone is changing , my post .

I forgot that using specific term carry its load of baggage. I travel light .

I mean how mater is created , association of particles , in my conclusions i don't see any need for them to move or carry any energy , the only energy is what holds them together (sympathic vibrations) and the surrounding magnetic and gravitational field .

Not everyone gets my gibberish ,this is my Achilles heel .

Mark

Edit there are also many states of mater , my explanation concerns the physical one .