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

Plug Heater

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: 509688
  • *Total Topics: 15191
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 6
  • *Total: 8

Author Topic: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics  (Read 40709 times)

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« on: October 13, 2010, 06:35:16 AM »
First, a question: When did the "Skeptic" cult club start? With Galileo? Perhaps before?

The notion that "scientific skepticism" is new... is flawed.

Scientific skeptics of the day laughed at the possibility that the earth was not at the center of the universe, and that said earth was not flat. To them, anyone whom accepted such notions was a heretic and zealously ridiculed them or worse. All this while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, standing upon their credentials and laurels to irrationally justify their inherently unjustifiable attitudes. These unpopular and heretical notions put in question the very fabric of the accepted scientific and religious standpoints of the time.

I would bet, though I have no proof, that they would have aligned themselves intellectually as "modern critical thinkers", had the term existed at the time.

Just, I point out, as they still DO to this day. Nothing has changed, the earth might as well be thought of as flat. Circular logic, religious zeal, and deep rooted bias still herald the basis for modern day skepticism. By definition a demonstrable lack of the ability or usage of true critical thought for every case I have examined. (By no means just a "few" skeptics or skeptical organizations.) Bold and bald empty assertions invariably litter their "about us" pages.

Truthfully, most "skepticism" stems from fear.

Skepticism when closely examined is based upon personal bias. In other words preconceived notions. 

Science itself could care less about such spiritual realms as astrology, religion, and such concepts as 'ufo's being extraterrestrial'. These things in great part fall completely out of the realm of the study of the natural universe, and the ones that do tend to be possible both scientifically and logically speaking.

Considering the last.. logical application towards "ufo's" leads to the large and scientifically accepted possibility of life elsewhere. This would logically yield the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, the fact that they may be far advanced in technology in comparison to us, and therefore may possess knowledge we do not which allows them to travel despite our current constraints in understanding.....

Most of these self proclaimed skeptics are stepping OUT of science speaking about the truth/untruth concerning completely non-scientific matters such as spirituality, religion,  and faith, or in relatively unstudied areas such as alternative medicine/therapy. Amazingly enough, they boldly speak about areas OUTSIDE of their frame of expertise, as if they, themselves, are an expert in the field whom has done actual personal research on the topic..... And they still call themselves scientists versed in critical thinking.

Wake up call.... "Critical" as used in the term "Critical Thinking" has nothing to do with either "disapproval", "dislike", or "negative". Critical Thinking is the ability to apply logical, ordered, and rational thought towards a subject or issue, NOT to be critical in the negative sense towards an issue..... Sorry to disabuse those who have forgotten this. (Or perhaps never knew.) Critical thinking starts with a desire for truth, and culminates with an acceptance and disregard of personal biases and accepting a possible flaw in our own understanding when rationally examining a concept... not pandering to our inherent flaws and irrationally defending any specific possibility due to personal opinion or outlook.

Those that do such may claim to be critical thinkers, but they demonstrate the truth of the matter...... It is just a personal salve to their own minds. In reality an example of gratuitous self justification, a means to assume that they are more rational than the subjects of their scorn.

To quote an old saying... "Sarcasm is the refuge of a weak mind."

If you must resort to sarcasm as a means of rational discourse, you already lost whatever argument you probably started, as your logical defense completely evaporated.

This designates a simple and provable truth. To achieve a definitive conclusion to either a negative OR positive without substantive data equally are an abject demonstration of the absence of critical thought methods and processes.

Skeptics... on the whole you are NO DIFFERENT than your protagonists. In fact, you may actually be demonstrating LESS capability of rational thought than they, on a case by case basis depending upon their own capabilities.

Open-mindedness is a REQUIREMENT of ones truly rational thought capability when applied to critical thinking.

With all these things in mind, let us examine such thoughts as overunity (COP>1), Free Energy, and their basis... the notion of perpetual motion.

First, let us postulate that the realm of possibility is limited only by the constraints of the universe itself.  Therefore, "nature" itself should give evidence of the actuality or at least a hint of possibility of a potential concept.

Well, are there examples in nature of perpetual motion? (Do I even have to ask?)

The answer is that nature EVERYWHERE demonstrates them.

From the tireless and ever-present fridge magnet dutifully holding papers, potentially for hundreds of years against the relentless pull of gravity inexorably trying to pull both said papers and the mass of the magnet itself out of place to the ground.

To the lowly electron screaming in a race against itself around the nucleus of its parent atom. 

Etc...

Etc...

Etc...

I would really like to know whom invented the negative notion according to perpetual motion anyway... A complete lack of rational thought DESPITE evidential datum readily apparent to all with just a small amount of applied critical thought..

All things considered, I have found that relatively complex questions tend to have relatively simple answers. Occam's logical razor does have merit.

"Free Energy" is simply getting out more energy than YOU put in, which is a no brainer when considering the fact that the amount of energy derived from either a fission ir fusion device is MUCH more than the energy used to cause the effect....

If a storage of any form of natural energy exists, the required amount of energy to release it is OFTEN minuscule compared to the output.

Concerning COP>1, or Overunity...... This is another matter entirely. Wherever COP>1 is demonstrated, it is not a violation of thermodynamics, it is simply the utilization of an undetermined stored energy source.   There are such things as free energy and perpetual motion, but NOT such a thing as overunity (COP>1).

The Coefficient of Power in such cases was calculated, as necessary datum was not evident in it's original calculation. Energy was neither created nor destroyed, but was transformed from some source in some manner into a usable format.

 Therefore, when someone discovers COP>1... don't shout overunity, shout KEWL as right now the concept of COP<1.

You have simply approached one step further towards COP=1.

Paul Andrulis
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 06:55:33 AM by pauldude000 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2010, 12:19:09 PM »
Skepticism is doubt. It is the only way to challenge conventional wisdom accepted as true by the public, the experts or the believers. If you have no doubt, why would you challenge the human knowledge of the world? In this sense Galileo or Kepler were skeptics. When you are skeptic, you have always doubts, not only about OU claims, but also about academic science. Skepticism is not domain dependent.

The academic scientific knowledge was founded by people having a high intellectual level (Newton is credited with an IQ of 160). The academic scientific knowledge is also founded on a solid background: the laws and models of physics are internally consistent from a mathematical and logical viewpoint, and the millions of products of the technology based on it, prove this knowledge is right (not complete but right). Therefore in order to challenge conventional science, it is needed to know it, to have an intellectual rigor at least equal to this of conventional scientists, and to give evidence of what is asserted beyond any doubt.

We see clearly it is not the case today. There are hundreds of OU claims but not one that I can duplicate. If there are here tens of threads about miraculous devices that some of us try to duplicate, it is because nobody yet succeeded in building one that works. As the most of OU claims are not more complicated than the Naudin's lifter (which was astounding but conventional and working, and has been duplicated many times), we have no other reason to fail in trying duplicating OU devices than the fact that these devices are completely bogus.

Thus, critical minds provide doubts. Even though some of them are ironic, they are not negative. But those to whom they are addressed prefer choosing this easy way of "negativity" for avoiding to give real answers with rational arguments and experimental proofs that they know they have not. It is just for them a question of lack of intellectual honesty and rigor, they prefer to dream and believe instead of to work and verify.
The field of "over unity" is becoming a new religion with gurus like Bearden or Bedini and hundreds of followers chanting their new gospel truth while trusting intellectual swindlers. They have even hijacked the work of the great inventor Tesla to make him one of them, who he is not.

The method of these followers is based on:
- ignorance and innate science (these know-it-all don't know and don't understand conventional science).
- "Coué method" (to repeat always the same thing to convince themselves)
- fallacy of argument from ignorance (reversing the burden of proof)
- theories of conspiracy
- rejection of objections as being negative blasphemies
- exploitation of the real science only for points giving credit to their allegations, rejection in the other cases
- denigration of conventional scientists and science, without facts, logic or more consistent theories.

Their result is:
- not one working machine
- misinterpretation of conventional effects reinterpreted as OU
- as many fuzzy theories as guys, no general consensus
- sources of wasting time for open mind scientists and real experimenters
- no hope of progress because they are always satisfied of themselves and deny objections

The question is less to challenge the academic science (the scientists do it themselves, see arXiv) than to debunk too many over-unity nonsenses in order to find out the rare but hidden valuable pearl.



Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2010, 12:53:53 PM »
I 'am sceptic but a "good sceptic": I 'am open minded with OU devices, but If OU exist you may able to close the loop and selfrunning, I have never saw this kind of device: A cloosed loop device work like this:
!--------------->OU device---------->Load (excess energy)
!                                            !
!                               Regulator/Inverter(fractional portion of the output)
!--<-------------<---------------!

The problem of failing the replication of OU devices is the lack of information and plan, only a brief description and sometimes only a couple of photo... It's nearly impossible to replicate correctly in these condition a device...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2010, 12:53:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2010, 09:35:46 PM »
Your post is so large, I shall have to address it piecemeal by necessity to logically address the various points and maintain a semblance of order.

Skepticism is doubt. It is the only way to challenge conventional wisdom accepted as true by the public, the experts or the believers. If you have no doubt, why would you challenge the human knowledge of the world?

In the true application of the term yes, you are correct. However, in today's usage a skeptic is the self imposed "defender of the faith" so to speak, whom labels anyone whom transgresses the boundaries of said faith as a "pseudoscientist". Galileo et al by current terms would be labeled as such, when as you say, they are in fact the true skeptics.

The academic scientific knowledge was founded by people having a high intellectual level (Newton is credited with an IQ of 160).

I am sorry to have to say this, but this is pure egotism speaking. Unfortunately we are trained to think in this manner these days. More knowledged yes, more intelligent no. Desire plays a large part in a person's chosen field. A certifiable genius might well choose to be a farmer... because said person enjoys growing plants. You compare apples to oranges with this assertion.

The academic scientific knowledge is also founded on a solid background: the laws and models of physics are internally consistent from a mathematical and logical viewpoint, and the millions of products of the technology based on it, prove this knowledge is right (not complete but right). Therefore in order to challenge conventional science, it is needed to know it, to have an intellectual rigor at least equal to this of conventional scientists, and to give evidence of what is asserted beyond any doubt.

Is this critical thinking? If anyone requires extraordinary evidence, then they demonstrate extraordinary bias. All scientific claims requires the same levels of evidence and methods of proof. This is called the scientific method, anything else is non-scientific. In accusation, the burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused.

The concept you propose, though a common one, is translated as "guilty until proven innocent".

We see clearly it is not the case today. There are hundreds of OU claims but not one that I can duplicate. If there are here tens of threads about miraculous devices that some of us try to duplicate, it is because nobody yet succeeded in building one that works. As the most of OU claims are not more complicated than the Naudin's lifter (which was astounding but conventional and working, and has been duplicated many times), we have no other reason to fail in trying duplicating OU devices than the fact that these devices are completely bogus.

This is a massive assertion with no evidential nor logical base. It is comparable to saying in medieval times "Man had fire for X thousands of years, therefore gunpowder cannot exist as we should have easily discovered it." 

Gunpowder is a substance that burns and is composed of three common substances. However, unless combined in the proper proportions, then apply fire, you will not "discover" gunpowder. Like many truly "new" concepts, was probably discovered not by purpose by instead by accident, and refined over a long period of time to the substance we have today, yet every caveman living in or passing through a volcanically active area had easy access to all three. "Breakthroughs" tend to be by nature accidental, and not purposeful, a "what would happen if I did this?" scenario.

Concerning an OU device, what are the odds statistically of stumbling across a set of frequencies which combined cause a special effect in a specially wound coil, when the effect was found by sheer accident. Especially if the inventor did not himself truly understand why the effect was happening and could not therefore easily re-duplicate the event?

The truth is, if you had nothing but a grainy black and white video showing gunpowder being made by hand with no explanations, you would still not be able to make gunpowder. Trying to say you could do so with something potentially more complex is staggering. It would be somewhat of an educated accident if accomplished.

Device duplication therefore is reasonably not impossible, but instead extremely improbable.

Thus, critical minds provide doubts. Even though some of them are ironic, they are not negative. But those to whom they are addressed prefer choosing this easy way of "negativity" for avoiding to give real answers with rational arguments and experimental proofs that they know they have not.

So, you then state that outright insults, implied derogation, statements of "pseudoscience", "Ignorance","scams", etc., etc., etc., are somehow "not negative"?

Do we live in the same universe?


It is just for them a question of lack of intellectual honesty and rigor, they prefer to dream and believe instead of to work and verify.

Highly self serving considering the same skeptics I refer to boldly state that THEY have no obligation to examine the evidence. Circular reasoning and deflection. By doing so in the name of science, they demonstrate scientific dishonesty and lack of rigor and refuse to do their chosen jobs and actually examine evidence. To be closed minded is exactly no different in demonstrable effect than to be too open minded.

The latter gets lost, and the former never leaves the security of the porch.

Neither locate or approach the desired goal.

The field of "over unity" is becoming a new religion with gurus like Bearden or Bedini and hundreds of followers chanting their new gospel truth while trusting intellectual swindlers. They have even hijacked the work of the great inventor Tesla to make him one of them, who he is not.

Tesla was a disciple of eastern mysticism, and it greatly affected his thought processes towards the structure of the universe. By both modern and previous definition he was heretic concerning his beliefs. Tesla himself admitted this. He was also a proponent of the Aether, and was derogatory towards the notion of relativity. Also self pronounced.

You choose a funny example to bring forward as a example of "scientific purity".

The method of these followers is based on:
- ignorance and innate science (these know-it-all don't know and don't understand conventional science).
- "Coué method" (to repeat always the same thing to convince themselves)
- fallacy of argument from ignorance (reversing the burden of proof)
- theories of conspiracy
- rejection of objections as being negative blasphemies
- exploitation of the real science only for points giving credit to their allegations, rejection in the other cases
- denigration of conventional scientists and science, without facts, logic or more consistent theories.

Their result is:
- not one working machine
- misinterpretation of conventional effects reinterpreted as OU
- as many fuzzy theories as guys, no general consensus
- sources of wasting time for open mind scientists and real experimenters
- no hope of progress because they are always satisfied of themselves and deny objections

My purpose with this post is not to insult you, perceived or otherwise. I could point by point demonstrate how each of these is emulated by the self-described critics. "Critic" being the more accurate term than the self description of skeptic.

I am by nature a skeptic. However, I am NOT a modern skeptic in the usage of the term. I try not make absurd assertions about concepts I have not researched or heavily investigated temporarily setting aside personal bias in the study.


The question is less to challenge the academic science (the scientists do it themselves, see arXiv) than to debunk too many over-unity nonsenses in order to find out the rare but hidden valuable pearl.

If your purpose is to "debunk", then I outrightly question your motive, as science is the business of discovery, evaluation, and quantification of evidence towards natural processes not the business of "debunking" various claims. That makes the desire personal and not professional.

Science does not need defenders, as truth by definition does not change. If something is true, then it will be true tomorrow, no matter what false claims are made. Ten million people can suddenly claim there is no such thing as gravity, yet not one will suddenly float off into space due solely from the claim.

Sagan may have started a cult with CSICOP, but it is amazing how many "believers" he has accumulated over the years. Everything they accuse others of, they themselves are also guilty.

When did truth so lose its immutability that  it requires defense? Of what egotism does it require to make of oneself a self imposed policeman of one's own conception of what is or is not truth?

If someone is scamming for money, they will go to jail as the drama unfolds. If someone makes a bold claim, their own words combined with evidence over time will either vindicate them, or expose them as liers as the case may be. These things have been true since the beginning.

I truly do not understand this illogically burning need in some persons minds to defend that which can more than defend itself.

Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2010, 10:01:42 PM »
I 'am sceptic but a "good sceptic": I 'am open minded with OU devices, but If OU exist you may able to close the loop and selfrunning, I have never saw this kind of device: A cloosed loop device work like this:
!--------------->OU device---------->Load (excess energy)
!                                            !
!                               Regulator/Inverter(fractional portion of the output)
!--<-------------<---------------!

The problem of failing the replication of OU devices is the lack of information and plan, only a brief description and sometimes only a couple of photo... It's nearly impossible to replicate correctly in these condition a device...

I hope I can emulate you properly on this, as I too am a skeptic whom makes the attempt to apply critical thinking. At times my better nature, then my attempt fails which I then regret. :-)

If all possible energy sources influincing an effect are considered (including the notorious ZPE) then COP=1.

However, we deal with a science based upon a deceptive view of open and closed systems, of which I have yet to find a completely closed system. The closest attempt I know of to this date towards a truly closed system found and could not eliminate ZPE. In truth, a conceptual closed system breaks down to the concept of "I". "I" apply X voltage or X force and Y is the "known" potential so Z should be the resultant output.

If in applying X.. additional indeterminate energy Y1 acts upon the system increasing the Z output, then I fool myself into thinking I have achieved overunity, when in reality what I assumed as COP=1 was in fact COP<1.

A self running machine is drawing upon some form of energy storage source, whether particulate or field. The storage source in question was always present, but some trigger allowed its usage in the particular device in question. Since it was not included in the original calculation of COP, then the concept of COP was not at fault, but the calculation of COP was incorrect.

As to the replication.... I have to agree with you 100%.  Finding the proverbial needle in a haystack probably has better statistical odds.

Paul Andrulis

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2010, 10:01:42 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2010, 11:11:07 AM »
Your post is so large...

but by far not as large as your first post and not as large as your reply.

SchubertReijiMaigo's reply is better than mine and much shorter. I agree with him. Instead of long speeches, the "OU makers" should present working and duplicable machines according to SchubertReijiMaigo's diagram.
In other cases, doubts and even rejections should be the reply to their not proved and not provable claims.


Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2010, 02:17:00 PM »
I'am currently save some money and (try to trade the financial market) to invest in my own labo because I 'am student, 23 years old and no revenue...
I want to replicate some devices that they have a solid background theory  not some delirious and exotic theory... Thane Heinz Transformer should be a good candidate and compatible with my diagram... The main theory is separation of the magnetic field path and avoid secondary back emf draw more current in primary... This device is not OU device but a converter of so called "reactive power" in "real power", so you don't create or destroy energy you convert it.
Even if you tap into a unlimted source you create nothing, you convert a portion of the infinity only... Remenber:  Infinity/2=Infinity... Better: Infinity/Infinity=Infinity...
Energy is closely linked with time, Energy is movement, Energy is dynamic, Potential is static ( Ying-Yang) LOL, so that's what a magnet glued to a fridge is not a work but a stored energy, this is potential energy against the gravity. The energy is dissipated when the magnet droop on the ground. A good proof of this is the electrical mesurement: for example the KiloWatt/Hour. That's mean you dissipated one Kilowatt in one hour, energy and time is very close like space and time. So voltage is potential and current is a certain quantity of electron flow against the time (Amper/hour)...
Some invention have great chance of OU AND SELFRUNNING, the Bitoroid, the Rotoverter, eventually the TPU (but this device suffer of lack of information and have numerous exotic theory around it...) Rosemary Ainsly, may be a good stuff to ( it collect some inductive spike and convert in heat ) but I'am a little scetic here because coils storage some energy and does'nt create/destroy anything or they must be interact with the environment (ZPE ?)...
Sorry fot this huge message and my poor "Frenchy" English, but this is my view of OU phemnoma and OU device.
PS: I'am not here to discredit OU devices but I have a more the Scientific approach in the research, I don't tell OU is impossible and perpetual motion is an heresy, but if a OU device exist, once again you may able to close the loop and run it for the "infinity and beyond"... :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2010, 02:17:00 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2010, 07:25:44 PM »
@Schubert

Concerning various devices .. precisely.

I have worked on the TPU issue for awhile, and some of the hydrogen production techniques show promise from what I have seen. Consider the TPU for example. The build, though somewhat cryptic in it's description has far more information available than most any other device I have encountered, and yes theories about it's workings abound by the same amount as researchers.

Truthfully, that is a good thing.

To replicate a thing, you have to form a hypothesis as to why it might work, then apply said hypothesis to your build to test. Positive results lead to the formulation of a tentative working theory from the original hypothesis.

I know just enough about the TPU after what... two years or so... to know that it's operation is PROBABLY frequency dependent, but that it is also MOST PROBABLY a combination of frequencies (complex waveform).

Stumbling onto the exact waveform will be next to impossible. Comparable to shooting ten 12ga shells into the air to hit a single airborne virus particle. Not gonna happen unless you get lucky.

As a hobby therefore.... fine.. Kewl. As an valid avenue of research for ME? Not any more, as I too want an actual replication, not to spend the rest of my life hoping to get lucky.

Were the two years spent wasted? OH HECK NO!!!! I have come across so much interesting stuff on my scope, and have personally witnessed through my own search so many interesting , though not necessarily useful or practical field phenomena. Some which I cannot easily explain through my previous knowledge base. I intend to examine each of these in close detail, to see if anything about them has worthwhile merit.

Big statements? Not really. I suppose anyone serious about the TPU and similar devices can make similar statements. The caveman digging the pit in the yellow dirt, making a fire, then using old dry buffalo manure to start a new fire the next morning... Jumping back and yelling "What the heck" when the sparks fly. Happy accidents.

New to science? Possibly not.
Unexplainable in the long run? Definitely not.
New to me? Absolutely.

The search can truly be worth the effort expended.


Now, the cute little magnet is a different story... :-)

Stored energy or "potential" energy is by definition not doing any work.

A magnet however is continuously doing work. That little fridge magnet is constantly expending a precisely measurable amount of energy for every second it sticks to a vertical surface to overcome the downward acceleration imposed upon it by gravity.

That energy has to come from somewhere, and has to be considered as expended, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics are being violated, just like ANY other object doing the same thing.

I chose the magnet example quite purposefully, as it is NOT easily just "explained away", and anyone whom has a physics background readily understands the implication.

By the very definition of perpetual motion, it qualifies.  :-)

The simple permanent magnet is truly an awesome potential power source when the magnitude of it's stored energy is considered. To put this into perspective, how many watt hours of power would be required to hold the same mass against gravity for the same energy expended by that....

cute...

elegant...

magnet?

 
Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2010, 10:26:57 PM »
If anyone ever meet an "OU maker", let me know as I have not. There is no such thing as "OU". Meeting someone whom can accomplish the impossible would be interesting.

So far, I have never seen a "long speech" here, which is by definition 6 pages or more. This is a forum. Forums are by nature for "discussion", while labs are for "work", so do not be surprised if I discuss things. :-)

@all

Proven... Provable.

Proven... to whom... YOU? What pray tell IS "proof". What constitutes "evidence"? These questions on the surface sound stupid and deflective, but are not. They are in fact questions which science has very strict concepts for.... which if you cannot answer, then nobody CAN prove anything to you which you do not already want to accept.

This needs to be addressed, as too many abuse these concepts, especially those whom claim to understand them. Fpr the average man to whom this is not a chosen vocation slips in vocabulary, term mis-usage, or other minor faux-pas are easily forgiven, but to those whom take upon themselves the credibility and authority that comes with the position of scientist, there is little excuse as they have been trained to understand these things.

The same Baccalaureate or Phd., which they wield as a sword is their own accuser so to speak. They are held to a different standard or degree* towards precision of thought. (* Pardon the pun. :-) ) 

1. A "Claim" is an assertion.... a statement made concerning something. (As a "claim" can be quite literally be about anything, therefore the definition is quite loose.) A scientific claim is a claim concerning the nature, processes, or fabric of the natural universe.

I can claim I like hot dogs, but that has nothing to do with science.

2. "Evidence" is any repeatable and demonstrable datum. Evidence often precludes a claim, and is often confused with "proof".  Evidence does not have to even be associated with any particular claim.

One does not have to know that there even is such a thing as gravity to see it's evidence. Merely drop a rock, and the evidence is there. Thousands of years of drooped rocks precluded scientific claims of the existence of a "force" called gravity.

3. "Proof" is a demonstration of the validity of the claim through providing evidence.

Proof does not have to be "extravagant", at least according to scientific method that is, just repeatable. Cumulative evidence is also proof, as multiple evidence of a thing does not have to come from one source. It can be physical evidence of any sort. Photographs, video, public demonstration ALL count as proof.

Hearsay, anecdotal evidence, assertion, or the actual claim itself is NOT a proof.

4. "Falsifiability" determines whether the proof is indeed valid ACCORDING TO THE CLAIM IT SUPPORTS. THROUGH the actual falsification process, it may be determined as a true/false according to the claim, but only THROUGH SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Falsification is not someone saying it is false... that is merely another empty assertion. :-)   
-----------------

Let me give an example of falsification, and the describe an assertion IN science.

5.4857990943(23)×10−4 u is the measured mass of an electron with the precision of 2.1 X
10-9. ( http://www.physik.uni-mainz.de/werth/g_fak/publication/16%20-%20New%20determination%20of%20the...%20-%20Haeffner.pdf )

If I boldly that an electron's mass is exactly  5.4857990943(23)×10−4 u... then I am almost certainly wrong.

The precision factor means that it is between +/- .0000000021 from that number. Let's put this in perspective. .00054857990943 may vary from 0.00054858200943 (5.4858200943 X 10-4) to 0.00054857780943 (5.4857780943 X 10-4), and that is the closest to which it can be measured. In actuality that is a very wide variance.

I can state it is approximately 5.486 X10-4u without it being a hollow assertion, but to state exactly any number as certainty is but a guess as it is not falsifiable. The measuring means will not allow for accurate falsification of such a claim.

To make ANY claim scientifically without evidence is non-falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific claim.
-----------

Science is not in the business of dealing with non-scientific issues, therefore someone making a bald claim, or a claim outside the boundaries thereof, should not be either outraged or emotionally wounded if they make an assertion without evidence and are therefore ignored.

Science is also not the process of becoming emotionally attached to a scientific concept, therefore a professing scientist should not become outraged or emotionally wounded if a favorite notion is challenged.

By very nature of science, ANY idea or concept as proposed by ANYONE is fair game for open debate, discussion, and the process of falsification. In science, there is no such notion as "taboo" or "sacrosanct", unless science has transformed into a religion. (A chastisement.)

If you cannot approach a given topic with cold hard logic, instead of illogical emotion based opinion, then I seriously ask you why you even bother pondering? You already know that you cannot solve any logical problem without logical thought.

If you refuse to use logic, can I suggest a vocation change, as you have chosen incorrectly?

(IE Skeptics.... do your job and quit whining about it. YOU chose to investigate these claims, so INVESTIGATE them using science. Notice the acid? )

Paul Andrulis

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2010, 10:26:57 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2010, 05:46:17 AM »
Guys,  it's an interesting thread you've got going here.  I hope it doesn't just die.  I wonder if the truth of the matter is that we all acknowledge 'dark energy'?  On some deep subliminal level.  And this reach of ours to exceed those energy barriers is to somehow bring this force into wider consciousness.  It amazes me that a whole branch of physics has actually proved that there's this force - and like all forces - it then needs its own 'particle' - which they've yet to find.  And yet a far larger branch of physics absolutely dismiss this evidence.   In effect, our theorists are at war - in a kind of polite scientific sense. 

That facts are that if and when this 'force' or this particle - eventually intrudes into our text books it will - first and foremost - deny every constraint imposed in those earlier chapters - relating to thermodynamic laws.  I foresee the time when people will look back on this history as a kind of muddled interlude where this 'dark force' was simply giving us all occassional glimpses of its actual potential.  And that potential seems to be infinite.  It's exciting times.  My only concern is that the 'dark force' as named - is unfortunate.  It holds really unhappy connotations relating as it does to all kinds of 'evil'.  Better to call it what it is.  Aether energy. 

But I do see this as a kind of 'birth pang' - and I  do think that we all rather obsessively sharing our understandings of this - on these kinds of forums - precisely because we're sort of playing the role of 'mid wife' - and sort of helping it along.  Certainly it's got enormous resistance in those upper echelons of theory and theorists.  And this keeps it away from the lay public who'd otherwise find it enormously comforting.  Especially in view of the sad condition of our poor planet which is sytematically being poisoned.  It's that lack of knowing about these theoretical discoveries which I feel is unfortunate.  Since when have we ever been so reluctant to take new concepts on board?  Historically that has always been mankind's redemption.  We just need to open the mind better and maybe get a new perspective on this.  And then.  In God's name, let's use all that energy.  It's theoretically and practically required. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2010, 08:13:44 AM »
 
To pauldude000........yes, I believe that "skepticism" has been around since the beginning of time....

 ;)

J.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2010, 08:13:44 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2010, 08:25:20 AM »

To pauldude000........yes, I believe that "skepticism" has been around since the beginning of time....

 ;)

J.

And what exactly is the advantage of this comment?  You presumably know that the title question is rhetorical?  I notice truthbeknown - that your cryptic one liners add very little to the general discussion and detract somewhat from the sense of what is written.  It has the further disadvantage for us poor members of disguising your actual stance on anything at all.  Yet you manage to impose a kind of running commentary that seems to imply you know whereof you speak - while leaving you with the very real license of hiding what you probably don't know.  I would appeal to you to show your cards better or to make comments that are more appropriate.  With or without respect.  And I find your tedious one-liners a death knell to most of these threads.  Speak up - for God's sake.  Let us know a little more of what we're dealing with.  Or get on topic.  This comment of yours is rather hungry for some qualification to give it some kind of sense.  And may I add.  Should you try and get me banned - AGAIN - for speaking my mind - then, in this instance it will be entirely inappropriate.  I share this opinion with many others.

Rosemary

And may I add.  Your name is a gross misnomer.  Far from wanting the truth to be known - so to speak - you even seem to find it objectinable when a poster does a generic sketch of a troll and a self portarait.  I would suggest you'd be better to call yourself 'NEVER LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN'.  It would be more appropriate.

ADDED
« Last Edit: October 15, 2010, 08:57:55 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2010, 08:57:56 AM »

To pauldude000,

Feel free to have admins delete any of my posts you feel are off topic.

J.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2010, 09:03:59 AM »
To pauldude000,

Feel free to have admins delete any of my posts you feel are off topic.

J.

I am reasonably satisfied that the only person on this forum who 'cries' to admin to delete posts is you - in your obvious anxiety to not let the truth be known.  With your name one would assume that you would advance the freedom of expressions rather than otherwise.  But it seems that your own freedoms are restricted to one or two sentences at best.  You may prefer it that we all 'straight jacket' our ideas.  But you are most definitely in a minority.  And that minority is about the same measure as the lengths of your posts and your obvious hope that we don't find the truth that you pretend to care about.  There is very little more pretentious than a one liner.  What a bore.  In my humble opinion.

Edited.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2010, 10:03:01 AM »
Interesting post Loner.  It wasn't addressed to me but I'd be glad to comment if I may.  I would have thought that a permanent magnet is a source of a magnetic field and I also understand that a magnetic field is acknowledged as a force.  As as a force it definitely both can and does do work.   And for the most part the amount of work that it performs is measurable.  Which is not to detract from the electric force or even the electromagnetic force which we use more widely.  But unlike the electric force, the magnetic force seems to be there in a permanent magnet without the need of an electric field.  Whereas an electric field is never manifest without a measurable magnetic field.  To me that points to the possibility that the magnetic field may be primary force.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

 

OneLink