It is about as i see it, i don't claim it to be necessarily true, thus if some have different opinions, one is welcome to write them here.

It is all because of the assumption that it should be everything or it is nothing. This is not true at all, every experiment enables to understand more and further the research.

This started from Michelson–Morley and such, every negative result is interpreted as confirming that established in science at the time. Not necessarily true at all, but it is an aggressive view pushing the established view in science.

Of course the other thing is, even who may get that everything, a real overunity, most likely will get no benefit of it. In addition, it will not be widely known and in time may be just forgotten and ignored. I think many understand it and do less research in overunity, because there is no benefit of it. This is why it is not a surprise that not much is achieved when these doing research have no motivation. This surprisingly further amplifies the everything or nothing view. Only everything may give some benefit, if nothing even once, drop it off.

Seeing it in such an extreme way causes mental disruption, rather one should abandon that view in the beginning, and not have that everything as an aim. Certainly not many are then motivated to do any research at all, some though find it interesting because of the process of doing it itself. But this view is mentally damaging, it is not optimistic as it used to be presented, it is damaging mind by forcing a faulty assumption.

F6FLT

Either we are searching for something we have lost, and then we know what to look for, or we are trying to understand the reasons for what we are observing, in order to discover principles that can be useful to us, that is what science does, and then we don't know what we are searching for.

Science is not something in itself but a method of deduction and reasoning which should give us the most accurate answers. Not always but in a majority of cases it works.

A "mental disturbance" is the search for something you imagine, without having observed anything to suggest that it might exist. It's a matter of irrational faith.

Quote: a mental or personality disturbance not attributable to any known neurological or organic dysfunction. dissociative disorder. dissociation so severe that the usually integrated functions of consciousness and perception of self break down.

The search for overunity is an intellectual absurdity of this kind. But what is not is to identify where the unknown still nests, to try to understand it, to test unexplored paths, with the idea that we could find useful things for cheap energy, eventually overunity, while knowing that we can also find something else, useful or useless, we do not know in advance.

I would agree and many have sought out the impossible only to find other opportunities which were possible. We could say it was not the end which mattered but the journey towards an end.

The motivation is to discover unknown things, especially with the idea of catching an interesting one for energy, it is intellectual curiosity. This is my extended vision of overunity.

I would agree over-unity is basically declaring that one can get something from nothing which is unreasonable. However is relies on the false premise that there can be nothing which begs the question... can you give me an example of any space which contains absolutely nothing?. You cannot so we move to the next question...if every space contains something can you give me an example of something which is not in perpetual motion?. You cannot thus we can conclude that because energy is motion and everything is in motion in every space then Energy is everywhere in everything we know of.

At which point the notion of over-unity becomes a mute point because we are swimming in a sea of energy, a sea of stuff in motion which constitutes all the energy we could ever want. It then becomes a matter of how to interact with this energy and transform it into a more practical form we can utilize.

F6FLT

Science is knowledge, and this knowledge must be used to find a way to provide useful and cheap energy from the energy that is obviously everywhere. Everyone understands that.

I prefer this definition...Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

I understand your line of reason however mine is different and I don't like using generalizations. As such knowledge which is considered to be facts and information is not the same as science which is a method to predict and test whether the knowledge we have is valid or not. In this case science is not knowledge in itself but a method to test our knowledge... do you see the difference?.

We could also apply this philosophy to energy, what is Energy?. The standard definition is the ability or capacity to do work and work is a force causing something to move over a distance. This is where the kind of reasoning we apply becomes important. Logically anything that "moves" must change position through a distance so were just stating the obvious. Logically if something "moves" then a force must have caused it to move so again were simply stating the obvious. The key word here is "move" and all energy on every scale always relates directly to the motion of something. All energy also relates to the transfer or transformation of motion from one thing to another thus all Energy is motion and the form of energy relates to the kind of motion.

For instance a rock can be thrown and have a velocity however this velocity is not seen as heat. Now if the rock hits a wall all the particles in it become compressed causing the rate of oscillation to increase which we measure as an increase in average temperature or heat. However the only condition which has really changed is that the forward "motion" of the rock has been converted to an oscillatory "motion" of the particles within the rock. Thus the supposed form of energy simply relates to the form or kind of motion.

My point is that we tend to use misleading terms and gross generalization which never seem to describe what is actually happening nor why it is happening. It is no wonder nothing seems to make sense because the terms and definitions we use to describe how things interact makes no sense.

As is clearly not the case at the moment, it is that our knowledge is not sufficient, so we must explore what is still unknown to us, and this exploration requires intellectual curiosity. I didn't say anything else.

I would disagree and we have more than enough knowledge (facts and information) to achieve our goals however what we lack is a comprehensive and practical understanding of how to apply this knowledge. Understanding implies abilities with respect to knowledge that are sufficient to support intelligent behavior which is not true of knowledge.

Ayeaye

There we see that science has three meanings. The scientific research, that is applying scientific method to increase knowledge by experiments and developing theory, scientific knowledge, and scientific enterprise, the organized system of researchers to do the scientific research. Science is often meant to mean all of these three, which is wrong.

In many respects, when I think of the extremes of science or religion I think of addiction.

Did you know addiction is not so much a chemical process but a psychological process?. Millions take supposedly addictive drugs and never become addicted but some do. Think about that, millions of happy and content people take drugs for various medical reasons but never become addicted... why?. As it turns out almost all those who become addicted have underlying mental issues relating to their relationships, experiences or their environment. Addiction is there means of dealing with the reality of the circumstances they find themselves in which they cannot accept or reconcile.

The extremes of science and religion are similar forms of addiction in my opinion. With science we move towards pure logic, reason and demand absolute proof because we fear the unknown and things we cannot explain. We reject everything we cannot explain and use denial as a means to deal with our innate fear of the unknown. With Religion we fear our eventual death and a lack of purpose in our lives. So we create imaginary circumstances so that we never die and always have a sense of importance and purpose.

So what is the answer?... there is no all encompassing right answer in my opinion. We do what we can when we can and deal with what we perceive as happening all around us in the best way we can. For some it is science and for others religion and unfortunately for others it is substance abuse. If we are truly happy and content and have a constructive sense of meaning and purpose in our life then that's our right answer regardless of what others believe.

...
I would disagree and we have more than enough knowledge (facts and information) to achieve our goals however what we lack is a comprehensive and practical understanding of how to apply this knowledge.
...

The "understanding of how to apply" is itself knowledge!
We don't have it.