Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 514794
  • *Total Topics: 15356
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 7

Author Topic: The paradox of overunity  (Read 75065 times)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #150 on: May 14, 2011, 12:33:49 PM »
I do not know what caused the first dense kernel of matter to exist. Applying occam's razor (using the simplest possible explanation) it always existed.

If we don't apply occam's razor, we end up hunting for what 'caused' the first particles to exist, and then what 'caused' the things that caused the things that caused the first particles to exist etc.

A never ending logical regression (as is all causality if one overlooks the fact there has only ever been one event which began 13.7 billion years ago and is still happening).

Logically the simplest explanation is best.

1. The simplest explanation is that matter and energy always existed.

2. For reasons unknown to me, in the first few moments of what became the universe, density and thus magnetic field strengths were enormous. Perhaps trillions of Tesla.

3. These unimaginably powerful magnetic fields may have converted 'no thing' or void into matter and energy. Which is to say magnetic forces may have drawn particles from other dimensions into existence. Both Cern and Fermilab are now investigating this possibility.

4. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The particles that came from 'no thing' (from another dimension) could be disappearing, perhaps going back from whence they came. That may be why the books don't balance.

It is interesting to speculate. More interesting than arguing (unless you have been paid in advance).
thanks for attempting to answer my direct questions.

first off, lets clear up your misconceptions about 'occam's razor'... it IS NOT "using the simplest possible explanation". occam's razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. for instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place... which big bang does not do. nor do any of the other THEORIES for that matter.

now to your second paragraph, please refer to the actual definition and note that PROPER application of 'the razor' is something you have not done.

the "fact" you talk about being overlooked is not a fact. it is an assumption.

logically the simplest explanation is not categorically "the best", you are still thinking occam's razor means something other that what it actually means.
1. incorrect. that may be the simplest assumption...
2. you have no evidence of this.
3. now you're getting the idea... using words like may, or in my opinion, etc. is the correct way to go about discussing these matters (matters of inference). i'm well aware of what cern and fermilab are wasting funding on. ;)
4. are you claiming to have knowledge of every action? maybe they do and maybe they don't. my personal opinion is that this existence is teaching us lessons in duality. but it's just an opinion.

sure it's interesting to speculate, just don't play off your speculations as facts or 'laws'. now, you can learn from that or if you have been "paid in advance", you can continue to offer up assumptions, speculations and conjecture as factual .  ;)

edit: spelling.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 02:39:11 PM by WilbyInebriated »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #150 on: May 14, 2011, 12:33:49 PM »

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #151 on: May 14, 2011, 03:04:34 PM »
@WilbyInebriated
Quote
first off, lets clear up your misconceptions about 'occam's razor'... it IS NOT "using the simplest possible explanation". occam's razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. for instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place... which big bang does not do. nor do any of the other THEORIES for that matter.
I would agree, when I first learned of "occam's razor" because it was being quoted so much I did some research and was not surprised that most everyone had taken the initial statement completely out of context. What does this mean--the simplest explanation is the best one?, to me it implies that we can just throw our facts out the window and logic with it and rely on simplicity which is a little disturbing. As well we could say selecting a hypothesis with the fewest "assumptions"-- ie..(A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof) implies we are selecting a hypothesis with the greatest proof, proof relating directly to facts.
I think some also make the mistake of thinking that a lack of facts is proof of something such as in the case of OU. That is some claim that they have never seen a working, proven, OU device and this is proof that it is impossible. Well no, I do not think so because a lack of proof is not proof of anything other than we have no facts or proof. This does not prove it is impossible it only proves they have no facts or proof and I'm not sure how anyone could jump to the conclusion that a lack of facts is a fact of anything as none are present, lol, it is all very confusing at times.
Regards
AC

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #152 on: May 14, 2011, 03:32:25 PM »
@WilbyInebriated I would agree, when I first learned of "occam's razor" because it was being quoted so much I did some research and was not surprised that most everyone had taken the initial statement completely out of context. What does this mean--the simplest explanation is the best one?, to me it implies that we can just throw our facts out the window and logic with it and rely on simplicity which is a little disturbing. As well we could say selecting a hypothesis with the fewest "assumptions"-- ie..(A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof) implies we are selecting a hypothesis with the greatest proof, proof relating directly to facts.
I think some also make the mistake of thinking that a lack of facts is proof of something such as in the case of OU. That is some claim that they have never seen a working, proven, OU device and this is proof that it is impossible. Well no, I do not think so because a lack of proof is not proof of anything other than we have no facts or proof. This does not prove it is impossible it only proves they have no facts or proof and I'm not sure how anyone could jump to the conclusion that a lack of facts is a fact of anything as none are present, lol, it is all very confusing at times.
Regards
AC
as usual, well said. :) i too see it misused so much, it gets under my skin. kind of like that flawed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument. ::) or people using one theory to invalidate another, ala milehigh, when he's not just making outright assumptions ;)

i know this is 'preaching to the choir' for you but for the rest, a few salient quotes from the wiki:

"Even if Occam's razor is empirically justified, so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in Science. Such other scientific methods are what support the razor's validity as a tool in the first place. This is because measuring the razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories requires the use of different, reliable "theory selecting" methods for corroboration."

"In the history of competing explanations this is certainly not the case. At least, not generally (some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary), and so there remains a justified general bias towards the simpler of two competing explanations. To understand why, consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad-hoc hypotheses. Ad-hoc hypotheses are justifications which prevent theories from being falsified. Even other empirical criteria like consilience can never truly eliminate such explanations as competition. Each true explanation, then, may have had many alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an infinite number of alternatives that were more complex and false."

"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models." (emphasis mine)

"In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available. Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles."

"When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it only has meaning in a very specific context of inquiry. A number of background assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem. The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter."

"As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology." (emphasis mine)

"The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.”"



to be quite honest, human knowledge is eyeballs deep in muddy water.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #152 on: May 14, 2011, 03:32:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #153 on: May 15, 2011, 12:24:20 AM »
@WilbyInebriated
Quote
kind of like that flawed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument.  or people using one theory to invalidate another, ala milehigh, when he's not just making outright assumptions

I guess this would depend on what we consider extraordinary, at one point in time the claim that the world was round or that man could fly in a machine was considered extraordinary but this changed as time passed. I find everything concerning nature extraordinary as well as what we call "life" in every form it may take however I find nothing extraordinary about Free Energy as it is obvious we are literally swimming in a sea of energy. That is we know for certain that there is a huge amount of energy bound in matter and in transition through any given space.
I think part of the issue with the critics of free energy is that they are stuck in the past, that is they are still tring to relate everything to Thermodynamics and Entropy which is misleading. For them everything is dead or dying as Entropy dictates and they have essentially ignored the process of life or Syntropy whereby things concentrate energy and grow. Imagine that a process which concentrates energy and grows which in turn concentrates even more energy, it should be no surprise that they literally are what they call impossible which is priceless.
Regards
AC

Offline onthecuttingedge2010

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #154 on: May 15, 2011, 11:42:39 PM »
All we have is 'observed' evidence of a known classical system, we know little about the quantum mechanical world and we may never know all that there is to know about the 'observed' Universe.

Jerry 8)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #154 on: May 15, 2011, 11:42:39 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #155 on: May 16, 2011, 06:36:34 AM »
there was a man who sat each day looking out through a narrow vertical opening where a single board had been removed from a wooden fence. each day a wild ass of the desert passed outside the fence and across the narrow opening — first the nose, then the head, the forelegs, the long brown back, the hind-legs, and lastly the tail. one day the man leaped to his feet with a light of discovery in his eyes and he shouted for all who could hear him: "it is obvious! the nose causes the tail!"

    * stories of the hidden wisdom from the oral history of rakis

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #156 on: May 18, 2011, 04:28:32 AM »
For clarification concerning my assertion (ex nihilo totem fit...from nothing everything comes) it just so happens that a BBC program entitled "Everything and Nothing" by Professor Jim Al-Khalili was broadcast on the BBC today, and it is available on BBC iplayer.

Splendid timing.....rather like God actually making an appearance to settle an argument.

The link is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/

It will only be on BBC iplayer for a few days before they remove it.

Your response (wilbyinebriated) may or may not be interesting. I expect it will be argumentative rather than explanatory.

It must be difficult for you to see the big picture if you fixate on pixels.

Try zooming out now and again. You will see a lot more.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 05:27:40 AM by quantumtangles »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #156 on: May 18, 2011, 04:28:32 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline onthecuttingedge2010

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #157 on: May 18, 2011, 06:06:44 AM »
the link you gave appears to be missing, here it is on you-tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ15kFvUyJg

As I stated, virtual particles can not escape a magnetic field of 1,016 Tesla, Magnastars are on average 1,011 Tesla magnetic field strength, I would speculate that at the center cluster of every galaxy that the magnetic field strength far exceeds the needed magnetic field strength and that every galaxy is expanding because it is making virtual particles become real particles by binding them to reality.

it is also well known that black holes have now been theorized to make anti-matter and that anti-matter to matter reactions are the cause of Gamma-Ray jets that spew from these heavenly bodies(Kerr black holes).

The simplest black hole has no spin and no magnetic field. This is called a Schwarzschild black hole. A black hole that has a field but no spin is called a Reissner-Nordstrøm black hole. One that has both a magnetic field and spin is called a Kerr black hole.

also, just to be clear about the expansion of the known universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1UC6HpxY28

there is a center of the universe, every single body in the known universe is its own center of the universe. this also means, you are also the center of the known universe just as the speck of dust on your living room furniture or the little microscopic mite crawling on the sidewalk that you payed no attention to.

Jerry 8)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 06:41:42 AM by onthecuttingedge2010 »

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #158 on: May 18, 2011, 08:23:28 PM »
For clarification concerning my assertion (ex nihilo totem fit...from nothing everything comes) it just so happens that a BBC program entitled "Everything and Nothing" by Professor Jim Al-Khalili was broadcast on the BBC today, and it is available on BBC iplayer.

Splendid timing.....rather like God actually making an appearance to settle an argument.

The link is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/

It will only be on BBC iplayer for a few days before they remove it.

Your response (wilbyinebriated) may or may not be interesting. I expect it will be argumentative rather than explanatory.

It must be difficult for you to see the big picture if you fixate on pixels.

Try zooming out now and again. You will see a lot more.
was there some specific point of evidence? i saw none.

look, quantum, theories ARE THEORIES... i don't know why you can't comprehend that. assumptions are assumption and assertion are assertions... i don't know why you can't comprehend that either. this is the point i have been making. i'm not the one stating assumptions, speculations and non sequitur assertions as factual... you are. and yet you will still find my response as argumentative... ::) what i will guarantee, is that you won't find an explanation from me. unlike you, i am quite aware of the limitations of human knowledge, so i will pass on telling others just how things came into being.

speaking of imaginary godfairies, you get him to come settle this and i will believe your account. ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #158 on: May 18, 2011, 08:23:28 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #159 on: May 18, 2011, 10:20:38 PM »
Forget petty arguments. Go invent something useful or say something original.

Mediocre scholars have always enjoyed nit picking.

They become furious when confronted with originality, invariably reacting with lists of 'mistakes' so as to demonstrate their superiority in boolean algebraic logic... binary logic... the true or false of the ape.

Imagining this limited limiting 'topos' to be the very height of intellectual sophistication.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #160 on: May 18, 2011, 11:03:38 PM »
so that's a no then? there was no specific point of evidence... imagine that... ::)

Forget petty arguments. Go invent something useful or say something original.
that's rich coming from the guy who is parroting someone else's theory... ::)

Mediocre scholars have always enjoyed nit picking.

They become furious when confronted with originality, invariably reacting with lists of 'mistakes' so as to demonstrate their superiority in boolean algebraic logic... binary logic... the true or false of the ape.
is that why you are now engaging in logical fallacies as a response? denigrating me does not lend your position any credence, it merely serves to demonstrate your inability to respond with a cogent rebuttal.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #160 on: May 18, 2011, 11:03:38 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #161 on: May 19, 2011, 01:13:31 AM »
Never get involved in a mud wrestling competition with a pig. You will both get dirty...but the pig will enjoy it.

Offline onthecuttingedge2010

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #162 on: May 19, 2011, 01:21:07 AM »
I am not and I will not point fingers at anyone here including myself, there are lots of logical and or imaginary arguments that take place on this forum, both exist in the same boat, this forum, there is a problem with that, when one person is more imaginary than logical and when one is more logical than imaginary a conflict of interest takes place. this is where the argument subsides.

the Human brain uses the imaginary part of its brain to invent a conception through imaginary perception, the logical side of the brain determines if it is possible, one hand washes the other here.

never let your imagination get the best of you without proving it to be true in the logical side of the brain that it is true, this is why you were born with a bilobal brain. to test it logically.

the logical side of the brain can not tell a lie to itself, only the creative side of the brain can tell a lie to itself and 'believe' it. the logical side will always know you are lying.

the logical lobe of the brain was built for one purpose, to keep the creative side of the brain in check and the creative lobe of the brain to keep the logical lobe of the brain in check. at some point one of those sides decide to brush off all the pieces of the chess board because they get frustrated and decide to quit.

the imagination is a good thing, it really is but would mean nothing if you did not have the logic to explain it correctly and verifiable(repeatable).

"imagination(creativity) without logic is incomprehensible and logic without imagination is unimaginable". this is the truth. this is my quote and belonged to no one else but I in recorded history, pass it down through history so there may be an understanding.

Jerry 8)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 02:34:16 AM by onthecuttingedge2010 »

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #163 on: May 20, 2011, 11:39:22 PM »
Never get involved in a mud wrestling competition with a pig. You will both get dirty...but the pig will enjoy it.
is that your idea of a cogent rebuttal? ::)

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #164 on: May 21, 2011, 12:20:05 AM »
@Onthecuttingedge2010
Quote
the imagination is a good thing, it really is but would mean nothing if you did not have the logic to explain it correctly and verifiable(repeatable).
I'm not sure I would agree simply because a very long time ago logic would suggest the Earth was flat, that is as far as one could see the Earth was flat therefore as far as the facts and logic were concerned the Earth was flat. You see there is no such thing as "Logic" without people and people interpret the facts as they see fit therefore what we are really saying is that Logic is our interpretation or perspective of the facts we have but not facts of anything in themselves because we do not know.
I mention this because I see many critics using "Logic" to justify their "opinions" and make the deluded assumption that because logic is supposedly infallible so must their opinions be infallible, lol, I hope you can appreciate how insane this is. The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, ;D.
In some sense we can replace logic with perspective, If we understand logic is simply a perspective then we can view a problem from many perspectives in order to get a more logical however it should be obvious that more people believing something does not make an answer more right only more popular as history has proven time and time again.
In essence it is a mistake to use logic as a crutch to justify our opinions because we know as a fact it is unreliable due to our history, we and logic are not perfect.
Regards
AC

 

OneLink