Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[pauldude000]

Hi Paul, Hope you're still here.  I saw Art's comment regarding dark energy which may be the aether as proposed.  Here's my question.  Let's assume that there's a field of particles that belong to a permanent magnet - and that these particles literally form up in into those 'lines of force' that Faraday proposed.  In other words - the fields themselves belong to the structure of the magnet but they do not belong to the atoms in that structure. 

Leaving alone the actual arrangement of those proposed bipolar particles - which admittedly are only 'speculated' here - the question then is - why do we not see them?  And what I propose is this.  We depend on light to expose the existence of any particles.  Effectively light would need to bounce off a particle to determine it's existence at all.  If such a particle existed it would need to be too small and too fast for light to ever find it.  And in theory this particle has already been proposed - in a tachyon.  Therefore?  Surely?  Our 'field' may comprise tachyons that exceed light speed and therefore remain 'dark'.  Just possibly?

Anyway.  That's the question that I'm throwing out there.  I sort of get it that neither of you are actually that keen on getting into a discussion of fields.  It's a branch of theory that is very seldom referenced.  But my own take here is that its properties can be very readily deduced from even a superficial study of a magnetic field.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary, I am not critical of either your or Mark's insightful concepts. The dipole concept I often drift back to on many logical inquiries. Since you propose this as a question, I shall answer in two specific manners to suit the purpose of this thread. 1. Critical thought examining the evidential basis for various viewpoints, and 2. Critical thought applied speculatively.

1. Since all evidence outside the existence of many fields (we see demonstrable affects which tells us something is happening) or particles proving the various specifics behind such fields or particles are only secondarily inferred, and not considerable as truly evidentially demonstrable, merely evidentially hypothesized, we can truthfully state nothing as absolute, definitive, or "true".

Any statement made by any persona (including myself) concerning these two subjects is to a large degree unfalsifiable by very nature of the evidence measurable or quantifiable by any scientific means. Application of critical though yields that all concepts concerning such are largely speculation, and therefore the entire field is still largely hypothetical in nature.

If such is true, then my concepts take no precedence in my own mind over any others, unless observable evidence demonstrates one concept more accurately then the other.

2. Speculatively speaking, I truly have not yet heard even one hypothesis that truly ounds like a logical "bulsleye", so to speak.... INCLUDING my own. If this were the game of darts, I would say many are hitting the board, as this or that aspect adds qualification of any particular theory, nut none has any particularly high score. Some though have particularly low score, like many of Heisenburg's notions. They explain away (logical diversion) instead of quantify.

I have seen some awesome proposed mathematical and/or logical explanations, yet when examined closely, one datum might qualify the concept, and the next datum deny it.

Accepting the fact that we lack critical data necessary for en exact statement of qualification, we must also then logically assume our concepts as at BEST a working hypothesis.

Neither the particle Aether, or the "as definitively described" (not "as claimed") fluid space/time models are backed up by all data...... That is why I state, in essence, "take your pick".

The hypothetical model I build in my minds eye, is one of a literal "sea" of energy occupying all of space, from which "matter" itself, and all known forms of "energy" both emerge and return to after a given amount of entropy has occurred. I perceive a universe where the concept of "matter" is somewhat of a misnomer, as I perceive what we designate "matter" as being confined discreet packets of energy. Loner stated a "standing wave"... I guess suitable for conceptual understanding though something doesn't seem quite right. My perception is of moving flowing energy fields, whose angles/vectors of flow combined with quantity/specific frequency determine the various observable field effects. It is constantly both creating and absorbing matter.

Consider a bathtub full of water in which a little quantity of dye is added, also in which you swirl your hand through the water. You then observe static areas, areas of definite rhythm (oscillation), areas of complex motional interaction (swirls, eddies, etc.), and areas of constant flow (linear). All these effects are visible from just ONE substance, with but a simple action applied.

If NO dye is added, you see but the obvious surface effects or strong effects. You could logically state that these are the ONLY evidential effects. In this scenario, the dye provides the ability to observe and quantify that which is hidden from observation. 

The "dye" in science is the ability to measure. Yet our measuring instruments for the extremely small have resolutions that are relatively large, or in certain cases even dubious. I cannot remember who it was, but one scientists working with a particle accelerator gave essentially this description "It is similar to dropping a watch from the top of the empire building, then guessing at what function the pieces you find at the bottom performed." Concerning our best microscope, how many electrons must be reflected before a picture can even be displayed? (IE what is the resolution)

Yet we speak with confident certainty of sizes we cannot measure, of conceptual objects far too small for even our artificial senses let alone our gross senses to even detect with absolute certainty. We, as a being, tend to speak confidently out of arrogance and not definitive knowledge or QUALIFIABLE proof. Let alone FALSIFIABLE proof when considering the micro or the macro scales of reference.

Understand that until evidence to the contrary is provided or discovered, I consider our viewpoint qualifiably equal and therefore equal in possibility or probability.

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

TING......Ting....ting...ting..ting.ting.............. dead silence

The sound of a pin dropping.

Paul Andrulis

[truthbeknown]

TING......Ting....ting...ting..ting.ting.............. dead silence

The sound of a pin dropping.

Paul Andrulis

Someone will be back...they won't leave you on needles and pins.


J.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

  great posts guys.  Something to get the teeth into - so to speak.  I've got a lot to do this morning.  Hopefully I'll get time to read these in depth - later this afternoon. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[exnihiloest]

If you want to avoid personal attacks then you should try and make your observations less personal.
...

What was "personal" in what I said:
"Critical thinking is gone away from this thread initially dedicated to FE methodology and now turning in vague digressions, pompous blah blah blah and incantations for free energy."?
Nothing!

But you replied:
"I'm afraid exnihiloest that your own critical faculties are entirely tainted by your evident desire to believe..."
I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread..."

Personal attacks and psychological digressions are only from you, Rosemary Ainslie.
Rosemary Ainslie, please stop flooding posts for threads domination and stop insulting who are skeptical about your not proved claims.

Your attitude is unworthy and dishonest.