Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: pauldude000 on October 13, 2010, 06:35:16 AM

Title: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest 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.


Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo 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...
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest 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.

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo 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"... :)
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 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 (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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: truthbeknown on October 15, 2010, 08:13:44 AM
 
To pauldude000........yes, I believe that "skepticism" has been around since the beginning of time....

 ;)

J.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: truthbeknown 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.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie 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   
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on October 16, 2010, 12:21:26 AM
A magnet doesn't create energy... A static force doesn't produce energy, energy is movement... If you place a magnet before a coil and you don't move the magnet you have no energy, a static field doesn't produce any energy, you need to moove the magnet before the coil to produce EMF and electricity, the big problem is the lenz law that oppose your input. To produce energy you need movement, a force is static, for exemple a voltage mean nothing without amperage, even with "static electricty" you have micro or even nano Ampers of current...
To simplify: take a transformer.
1) Feed it with DC current (static field like a PM) --> try to measure the voltage at the secondary...
2) Feed it with AC current  (dynamic field) --> measure the output voltage...
The magnet on the fridge don't move, yes you are right, it work against gravity, you can do the same thing with a regular metal (or any other object) and glue it with your glue stick on the fridge.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: TinselKoala on October 16, 2010, 02:33:21 AM
Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:

When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.

Is that right?
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 16, 2010, 03:03:05 AM
@loner

Always a pleasure to hear from you Art. Your comments and insights are always welcome, whether in disagreement or agreement alike.

@all

Indeed, in physics a magnet is indeed moving, whether or not it moves. :-)

Considering a fridge magnet, the two masses are under constant acceleration towards each other. (The fridge, and the magnet). Since the magnet does not have the force to overcome the inertial resistance of the mass of the refrigerator, the tiny mass of the magnet itself is forced to move.

Now, in this manner a magnet is just like gravity, in that the mass is continually falling towards the fridge with X force dependent upon the energy of the magnetic field, and that is what holds the nonmagnetic papers in place.  If the motion were not constant, or the field was truly static,  the magnet would instantly be overcome by the force of gravity as there is no other force holding it in place.

EXACTLY like gravity is holding you to the earth despite the centrifugal effect which would otherwise throw you off of the earth due to it's rotation.

It is a force being actively employed to overcome a different force acting against it, so yes work is being done.

Glues do not generally work by energy transference, but mechanical bonding . IE the material penetrates the surface of both items to some extent, then hardens. In this case, the glue actually COMBINES the two objects, making then logically one object. Gravity in this case does not have to overcome a general force, but cause a material failure or breakage.

This perpetual magnet (choke) problem is not as easy to dismiss as it first appears. :-)

The concept of a static but active field is somewhat of a conceptual case of circular logic. A static field is neither interacting nor in motion itself, nor causing motion.. It is static, and no energy is either moving, being gained nor expended.

A magnetic field is only truly static if it is not causing motion, yet anytime a force is overcome, we see the effects of acceleration, even if the distance traveled over time is zero.

Therefore, by our terms static, we mean a lack of acceleration, not of motion. Motion is actually therefore a relative term with little meaning, only gaining meaning when applied towards an observers frame of reference.

Acceleration however is ONLY applicable to an object in motion. If acceleration is present, work is being done. Therefore, though the magnet appears stationary, it's constant state of acceleration denies lack of work.

:-)

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 04:17:28 AM
Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:

When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.

Is that right?

Hello TK.  I'm afraid this is entirely off topic in this thread and will take the trouble to answer it on my own.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 05:31:16 AM
(I'm cringing slightly from the expected torrent of logic I'm about to get hit with.)

 ;D

Art

You won't get that torrent from me Art.  I wholeheartedly agree with what you've written.  Very well put.  But I DO however think that the stationery magnet is - nonetheless - working.  It's defying the gravitational pull. 

Nice subject.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 06:13:58 AM
;D   Rose, that statement hits the nail on the head!

What is the "Definition" of "Work"!

I agree, that from a normal humans point of view, work is being done.

As far as physics, no work is being done.  Tough situation, but timely.

For the "Physics" definition, try this link....   
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

This definition has nothing to do  with "Real World" working, but defines what physics calls the value "Work", just like volts, ohms, joules, amps, teslas, etc.  Just a defined value.

I'm sure I nit-picking, as I said, but it's a good exercise in critical thinking because both views are correct, depending on the type of "Work" you are referencing.  I guess it really is all relative.....

It's all very interesting Loner.  But I suspect there's not that much interest generally.  Which is why I'm delighted to see the thinking that the PaulDude and others - are showing us here.  Love it. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest on October 16, 2010, 04:51:06 PM
Hello TK.  I'm afraid this is entirely off topic in this thread and will take the trouble to answer it on my own.

Regards,
Rosemary

I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: truthbeknown on October 16, 2010, 08:23:32 PM
I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.

Yes, I agree that the QUESTION is on topic for this thread.

 8)
J.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 08:50:42 PM
I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.

Exnihiloest - I think you'd do well to read this post very closely.

Under normal circumstances people are slow to point a finger at anyone at all to accuse them of fraud.  BUT, if you have proof of fraud then I seriously propose that you go the usual route and resolve this in Court - either in your individual capacity - or simply by reporting it to the CID or to any office that protects the public from internet scams.  But you would be well advised to be in a position to substantiate that claim.   

This is no IDLE allegation.  FRAUD is a criminal offense and it carries very serious consequences not least of which is jail.  And you, unlike TK - have breached a barrier here by actually stating your suspicion of fraud.  You have openly and publicly accused me of this.  Fortunately justice is a two way street.  Under usual circumstances I would be in the happy position to defend myself against both the allegation and the accuser.  And, because I know it's a load of crap I would immediately counter sue you for the slander.  That would carry a penalty that I hope would impoverish you.

I think you assume that you can dodge these consequences.  You can slander me to your heart's content and not be accountable.  This because you hide behind a forum identity.  We only know you as exnihiloest.  Who is he?  Just a sad spiteful little poster who tries to make everyone's life hell.  But you have forgotten exnihiloest - that my counter claim - which is more than justifiable - would be to those same parties that not only protect the innocent from fraudulent consequences but also protect the innocent from rampant slander.  And as I am, indeed, an innocent party as there is not a shred of evidence in support of your claim,  then as of now, I'm in a reallly strong a position to take action against you.  I doubt that your identity would be protected against a court order demanding disclosure.  In the face of a Court Order I very much doubt that any confidential information will remain confidential.  It may very well be that you'll need to duck for cover.

I promise you that if you do not retract that statement and if you insist that I have been culpable of fraud - or if you do not withdraw your 'suspicions' relating to this - then I will report you.  It's not the first time I've gone this route.  And clearly it won't be the last.

How dare you.  I would add that I delight in referencing the fact that the paper has never been published.  And if I have ever misrepresented the fact, even unintentionally - then it would be counter productive rather than otherwise.  It is the theme of this forum that the most of academia are entirely unaware of the progress made in these forums and it is my complaint that this is the consequence of the IEEE, TIE and IET not allowing the evidence to come forward.

Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 09:01:57 PM
Yes, I agree that the question is on topic for this thread.

 8)
J.

And I would assure you too, truthbeknown - that if you are publicly sharing these suspicions then you too must give some substantial proof of the allegation and I reserve my rights.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: truthbeknown on October 16, 2010, 09:10:35 PM
I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.


Hmmmmmm. To those who read here....Am I missing something in the translation? I didn't think exnihiloest accused anybody of anything..It was just stated that Tinselkoala's comment was on topic for this thread....

Oh my my my.....I guess we can get SUED from asking a question? Oh the futility of it all.

 :o
J.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 09:11:07 PM
And may I add - for the benefit of both exnihiloest and truthbeknown - that I have an enormous appetite for litigation.  I see this as a desirable forum for bringing the facts of ours and other experimental evidence that the public can be alerted to it.  If I am defending my good name or defending myself against allegations of fraud - in both instances I will be in the happy and rather public position of referring to all that experimental evidence.  It will be a means of getting the 'truth known'.

Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 09:13:46 PM
now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.

There is NOTHING ambivalent in that statement.

EDITED  Paul, abject apologies that this subject has been intruded on your own excellent thread.  I have no option but to deal with this and hope you understand.  Hopefully - somehow - this matter is now dealt with.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: spinn_MP on October 16, 2010, 09:38:17 PM
I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.
Yep.

What, "Miss MosFet" is already threatening people with the legal ("I'll sue u!") stuff?
ROTFLMAO!!

Financed with a "17*ou" project, probably...
What a joke...
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 09:58:25 PM
Yep.

What, "Miss MosFet" is already threatening people with the legal ("I'll sue u!") stuff?
ROTFLMAO!!

Financed with a "17*ou" project, probably...
What a joke...

Hello Spin.  I took the trouble to read all your posts - just to see what I'm up against here.  I must hand it to you.  You're ALWAYS objectionable.  At least I had a laugh and at least I'm now in a better mood.  I actually enjoyed the miss mosfet thread.  LOL.  Quite witty - here and there in a sort of old men giggling and being disgusting sort of way. 

I don't need to finance anything if I'm defending.  That's always a comfort.  But if I did need to I would certainly NOT use any money from COP>17 technology.  There simply isn't any.  No.  I've been in endless conversation with CID - when our technology was being snaffled by some trolls from another forum.  So I know I little whereof I speak.  And I assure you they're more active than we probably realise.  But mostly against internet  p*** at this stage.

You're dislike of us all is so COMPREHENSIVE.  I suspect if you ever got religion you'd be even more insufferable.  LOL.  But be careful here.  You're siding with Omnibus - in a sort of vicarious way.  I think he'll be the next to add some comment.  But always nice to see your own.  It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form.  You've been practising - clearly.

Regards,
Rosemary

Golly.  That was edited?
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: spinn_MP on October 16, 2010, 10:33:08 PM
Heh, I'm siding with OmniBot? Thanks for a good lough...

"It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form."
You think so?  :D

Guess what... You do the "17*ou" miracle, clearly.. Even with the Fet's (they used to do it with the bipolar transistors like 2955/3055... In the old days. Surely, with a help of a "555"...) ...

And, I'll change my mind.
Fair?

Nevermind...
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 10:37:40 PM
Heh, I'm siding with OmniBot? Thanks for a good lough...

"It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form."
You think so?  :D

Guess what... You do the "17*ou" miracle, clearly.. Even with the Fet's (they used to do it with the bipolar transistors like 2955/3055... In the old days. Surely, with a help of a "555"...) ...

And, I'll change my mind.
Fair?

Nevermind...

LOL.  It has been done VERY clearly.  But you're on Spinn.  We're getting this done on campus - so this time there'll hopefully - be ready acceptance.  God know's it's needed.

But I'm definitely on for it.  Just hope you'll tame that malice when we show all that evidence.    ;D 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: truthbeknown on October 16, 2010, 10:46:52 PM
Heh, I'm siding with OmniBot? Thanks for a good lough...

"It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form."
You think so?  :D

Guess what... You do the "17*ou" miracle, clearly.. Even with the Fet's (they used to do it with the bipolar transistors like 2955/3055... In the old days. Surely, with a help of a "555"...) ...

And, I'll change my mind.
Fair?

Nevermind...


Yep  Yep........Promises Promises... no proof..then no point....It has been a good laugh....

Cough syrup for all?

 ;D
J.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: spinn_MP on October 16, 2010, 10:47:32 PM
LOL.  It has been done VERY clearly.  But you're on Spinn.  We're getting this done on campus - so this time there'll hopefully - be ready acceptance.  God know's it's needed.

But I'm definitely on for it.  Just hope you'll tame that malice when we show all that evidence.    ;D 

Regards,
Rosemary

Ok, ok... Just show your "all that evidence" of yours...

Regards and Cheers,

spinner
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 16, 2010, 11:17:12 PM
Paul, in the hopes of getting this back on topic and abject apologies for that absurd diversion.

I get it that you consider a kind of 'motion' of the magnetic field - whether the magnet itself is moving or not.  Presumably then the flux is in motion?  I agree.  And I also agree that in as much as a magnet resists 'falling' from a fridge door - then it's definitely resisting the gravitational pull.  Since the gravitational pull is quantifiable, then presumably the amount of energy expended in resisting that pull equals or exceeds the force of gravity. That's surely quantifiable?

But when you talk about centrifugal force being the same as gravity - then I'm frankly lost.  I thought the centrifugal force inclines bodies to move outwards and away.  Where gravity - in contrast - pulls one inwards and towards.  What really puzzles me is that a rotating platform is proposed to be a possible 'artifiicial gravitational field' that would compensate for the required gravity on a space ship.  I can't get my head around it.  Unless the rotation is at some exotic axis to that artificial sense of 'ground' that's required.  In any event.  It's just one of many blind spots. 

I must say I've got my own take on the casimir effect which I also agree is a kind of magnetic flux - extraneous to the atom - that bonds atoms.  So.  I'm with you when you talk about atomic bonding.  It's just that I'm a bit pedantic and horribly simplistic.  So I actually envisage a kind of one on one field of flux particles that bind atoms together.  So.  Yes.  On this point I'm in absolute agreement - always assuming that we're talking about the same thing.  In effect the field would be actively holding or bonding with extraneous material - which is a kind of work.

And I'm not sure if we need acceleration to prove that work is being done.  Surely there's work in any self sustained orbit - such as our spin - or our orbit around the sun - or in the orbit of an electron - that you mentioned in your earlier post?  If it's moving surely that's proof of energy? - is what I think I'm trying to say.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 06:31:26 AM
@all

Have not fallen off of the edge of the world.. yet. :-) Just absent from my compy all day......

(Paul pulls out a radiation meter and checks the RADS.)

Nope, not WWIII yet, but you sure couldn't tell here.

--------------

I take it then Rosemary that you have achieved closer to COP=1 then was thought possible? KEWL.

Holding the data back for a patent or are you sharing? (If so, point the way towards more info. I'm interested. I only bite on odd Tuesdays.)

----------------

@ the "others" (don't have a clue whom all)

Have you tried replicating yet? This is a yes or no answer by the way.

If the answer is no, then I point out my first an second main posts on this topic. Critical thinking at this point would state that you object irrationally, and in an unscientific manner.

If yes, then did it work? Have you asked for comparison of the original circuit? Have you tried to simulate the environmental situation? All yes or no answers.....

These things are what a -->real<-- scientist would do.

If you have done them, then maybe whatever is behind your arguments, whatever they are have merit. If not, then you have no more room to claim science than some dude with a beer in his hand at a trailer park claiming to have talked with Elvis.

---------------------

@all

If this argument is to persist, please create a separate thread for it.

---------------------

@Loner

I really hope that I am not that bad... :-( I do like to discuss things in depth, and everyone that knows me would admit that I am not the greatest with tact. All too many time other presume I argue when in fact I am having in my mind an awesome and enjoyable conversation.....

Am I too blunt? I cannot work on what is not self-evident. If it is the manner in which my brain processes data, this I may have a hard time with. I am serious, be truthful, accurate, and verbose. I am not made of glass, and my skin is calloused.

I am not attempting to browbeat anyone with logic. Such is irrational, and illogical.

By the way, definitions are in part the problem. You are sharp as a carpet tack.

----------------

@all concerning the magnet....... :-)

Loner, I hate to drop this one on you, but I knew someone would post it. It was a setup from point one.

MECHANICAL work involves motion (as described by physics)

WORK as described by thermodynamics (the subset of physics whom is extremely relevant here), however, is the energy transferred from one system to another, and is characterized by external mechanical constraints. 

It was a setup as I knew it would be associated with Newtonian physical principles, as soon as "motion" was brought in.

By physics (thermodynamics), a magnet indeed does work, as defined by the pressure applied to the surface of either the papers ot the fridge itself by the magnetic energy applied.

(Loner, I feel sorrow as I already know you knew this, but it was slipping your mind. I apologize again.)

Look up "Work Thermodynamics" for those interested in more info.

--------------

@Loner

Considering the relativistic aspects, you are right as this was a slam dunk no matter which angle I intended to come from, but though I was tempted, I am glad I passed up said temptation. You could have then added jack to a well chosen three letter designation for what I would have qualified for as an appellation then.

I intended thermodynamic application as the violation of energy laws are from thermodynamics anyway, and it leaves less room for valid argument.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 06:55:43 AM
I just thought of a loophole, and I am going to close that logical door before any purists get up in arms.

I am basing the "pressure" off of equivalence.

To measure the exact difference, set up an experiment where air is compressed, in such a manner that the magnetic field of the magnet presses upon a non-magnetic piston in a device of known initial volume/pressure. Such device must allow the magnet to approach the fridge to such a degree that the magnet holds its own weight against gravity, due to the geometric strength reducetion with distance of a magnetic field.

THEN you see the exact amount of work done by a particular magnet against a fringe using the formula:

dW = - pdV

The classic differential equation.

The same equation equivalence would describe the amount of work applied to a proverbial immovable object, where work (as energy) is transferred, but no motion is present, merely the transference of pressure.

I posted this as I realized that without the proof, I would have made an empty claim.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 08:36:34 AM
Paul, in the hopes of getting this back on topic and abject apologies for that absurd diversion.

I get it that you consider a kind of 'motion' of the magnetic field - whether the magnet itself is moving or not.  Presumably then the flux is in motion?  I agree.  And I also agree that in as much as a magnet resists 'falling' from a fridge door - then it's definitely resisting the gravitational pull.  Since the gravitational pull is quantifiable, then presumably the amount of energy expended in resisting that pull equals or exceeds the force of gravity. That's surely quantifiable?

But when you talk about centrifugal force being the same as gravity - then I'm frankly lost.  I thought the centrifugal force inclines bodies to move outwards and away.  Where gravity - in contrast - pulls one inwards and towards.  What really puzzles me is that a rotating platform is proposed to be a possible 'artifiicial gravitational field' that would compensate for the required gravity on a space ship.  I can't get my head around it.  Unless the rotation is at some exotic axis to that artificial sense of 'ground' that's required.  In any event.  It's just one of many blind spots. 

I must say I've got my own take on the casimir effect which I also agree is a kind of magnetic flux - extraneous to the atom - that bonds atoms.  So.  I'm with you when you talk about atomic bonding.  It's just that I'm a bit pedantic and horribly simplistic.  So I actually envisage a kind of one on one field of flux particles that bind atoms together.  So.  Yes.  On this point I'm in absolute agreement - always assuming that we're talking about the same thing.  In effect the field would be actively holding or bonding with extraneous material - which is a kind of work.

And I'm not sure if we need acceleration to prove that work is being done.  Surely there's work in any self sustained orbit - such as our spin - or our orbit around the sun - or in the orbit of an electron - that you mentioned in your earlier post?  If it's moving surely that's proof of energy? - is what I think I'm trying to say.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Yes Rosemary, as Loner pointed out relativistically the magnet IS moving even though it is stationary in a particular frame of reference. "Frames of reference" are highly subjective in reality. I won't go too deep into this, but I shall think outside the box with you for a few minutes on this.

First of all forces are equivalent. Inertia and gravity for instance are considered "equivalent" as the differences between the two are indistinct and non-measurable. An object can be referred to as applying "pressure", when in fact it is applying "Negative pressure" or "pull". Yes, I was getting somewhat of loose with terms, but I was not desiring to appear anal, and the terns still apply.... practically speaking.

As far as the field itself "flowing", that should be self evident due to comparison to similar phenomena.

The main inexplicable (as in difficult to explain, not impossible) effect is that it chooses the path of least resistance in the exact same manner that electricity does while in motion. Most everything else has somewhat of a simple relegation towards a lack of flow as a static field. A static field is not moving or "flowing" therefore needs NO path whatsoever. More on this later.

Gravity, as a for instance does not care whether you are outside of a plane, or inside. It permeates and affects all things equally. When a plane is occupied, or a building, vehicle, or anything else, such concepts as resistance hold little meaning. The people in the plane experience the force of 1G  (equivalent inertial mass acceleration of 9.18 meters per sec  per sec).

Though you are sitting in the seat on said plane, you are experiencing the same acceleration applied by gravity, therefore you are compressing the seat material by the same equivalent force as acceleration. Applied force is the most basic possible definition of "work", which would be applicably definitive for all branches of science equally.

If the Newtonian ONLY definition of work were allowed, then heat would not do "work" by definition, nor would any pure energy concept of work be allowable under the constraints. Therefore, thermodynamics allows for the definition of work to be defined upon energy transference in a system. Otherwise, how would you determine the amount of work by say a light bulb? How about a laser beam? Strong or weak forces?

All these things do work, and it is amazing how selective people can be about to WHAT a definition is allowed to be applied based solely upon inference of the meaning of the outcome if permitted.

Such is the case of the magnet. If the rules allowed for other forms of energy are applied equally, then the magnet qualifies as doing work due to energy transferrence in the system.

ONLY if bias is shown, then a magnet does no work. Many may not like the statement or it's inherent implications, but it is true. Energy IS being transferred by a magnet attached to any magnetic material, or in the close presence of another magnet. The external effects ARE measurable not as POTENTIAL force or energy, but APPLIED force or energy. (In Newtonian terms kinetic energy not potential energy.)

A magnetic field is not potential or static unless it is isolated and not transferring energy to something else..   

This has no bearing upon the argument, as I do not include this as a postulate, and here is where I wander from the pack. I truly do not think a magnetic field IS static at all, but in in constant state of flow both within the magnet, and in space outside of the physical magnet body. Two possibilities come to mind, either a flow of photons or phonons, or a peculiar warpage of space. I state the second possibility as the formula for the strength of a "magnetic field" over distance share striking similarities with that for the strength of gravity.

Just a thought to make you go hmmmmm, but pure speculation and I put it forth as such...


Paul  Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest on October 17, 2010, 12:09:37 PM
Yep.

What, "Miss MosFet" is already threatening people with the legal ("I'll sue u!") stuff?
ROTFLMAO!!
...

At least the interest will be that she will have to prove she has a working device. Against her, the IEEE. Hard work for her.

When I asked on the dedicated thread if someone built successfully her device, no one replied but she. In flooding replies it was said that I had not to ask this because she had links to the web that would prove third party replications. The question was over :).

Then I received two private emails from two experimenters who failed in duplicating her device. One of them is very very well documented, with detailed diagrams, measurements... His author added that he had difficulties in publishing his results on the dedicated thread. It is not very surprising for the following reason.

Very incredible: there is a thread on this forum where the moderator is the author whose the device is discussed!

Can we seriously expect for the truth when someone is both judge and party?
With this case, we are fully in the debat on critical thinking.
An analysis of the situation with this method shows us that most of the symptoms of a scam are together in the case in question. It may also be the result of psychological problems, like denial (refusal to accept external reality) or distortion (a gross reshaping of external reality) or delusional projection...

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 17, 2010, 02:28:56 PM
Paul - I'm afraid that exnihiloest and others will continue to hijack your thread no matter your request that they desist.  Certainly as long as I post here. Your options are limited.  Either we need to ignore their posts.  I'm game if you are.  Or I'll retire and just enjoy reading your posts from a distance - so to speak.  Take your pick.

The unfortunate truth is that he and truthtotell are the worst kind of troll.  Unlike TK or even / spinn - the two of them are somewhat intellectually challenged.  So.  To ask them to post elsewhere carries the inevitable consequence of either not being able to read it or not being able to understand it.  And this last post of his seems to show a total inability to put a logical sentence together.  It seems that what he's tried to gain in innuendo and implication - he's rather lost in simply making any kind of sense at all.  Extraordinary.  The one is as verbose and obtuse as the other is terse and obtuse.  Either way?   

Anyway let me know what you want me to do.  I'll fall in.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 ;D

May I add - and since you asked.  The fact is that there is, indeed, a thesis that required OU - the experiment that proved the thesis - and finally a full blown replication that proved the experiment.

But inevitably with that much familiarity with the experiment - the replicator was duly tempted by it's desirability.  He, the replicator tried to snaffle claim to the experiment as his own discovery but to do this he needed to deny the existence of the thesis.  So.  It became an attempt at internet theft which was duly quashed by sundry checks and balances available within the internet itself.

But the trolls follow my every post - which makes it difficult for me.  They really need to interrupt me.  The more so as they need to silence any reference I may make to advance an understanding of my thesis.  This would be counter their very best interests to keep the facts from the reading public here.  The thesis may prove too powerful.  Certainly the results from the experiment fly in the face of standard theory.  Fortunately Harti knows this and has offered me moderator status on my own thread to prevent it being unduly 'clogged' with their nonsense.  But I have no protection outside that thread.  And these interruptions are the consequence. 

Not a happy situation.

Kindest again,
Rosemary   



Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on October 17, 2010, 04:54:31 PM
LOL, once again this is very simple to test a OU device: In the Rosemary Ainslie device: I think you can use it to boil water with the resistor, if you have a COP up to 17 you can run a steam engine (efficacity of 50%) and run an alternator and feed the boiler circuit... Like this:

!---->"Rosmary Boiler COP 17"-->Steam engine-->Alternator-->Load...
!                                                                        !                 
!---<---------------Regulator/UnitControl<-----------!                       
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 17, 2010, 07:38:41 PM
Loner,  Just a quick point here

Prime example, does Gravity do work to a non-moving object?  I can answer that one without a doubt.  Of course not.....  (Motion being defined here as relative to the center of gravity of the implied object/field.  I don't think I need to say more.)

If gravity is holding an object in a state of rest on the ground - surely that's work?  One has to apply energy to get the object to move.  And that applied energy needs to defeat that gravitational pull.  So technically?  An object at rest is still interacting - rather energetically - with the gravitational pull. 

Of course, I agree that a mag field is "Flowing", but until someone comes up with a "Magnetically Resistive" material, a magnet not in motion will not do "Work".

Your average fridge magnet must be continually interacting with the material in the fridge door - else it would fall.  Yet the magnet itself is NOT moving.  Surely?  And that interaction is either equal to the gravitational pull or greater - again, else it would fall.  If gravity exerts a continual force on all materials and that force can be used - as your example of a water tower - then by the same token - when materials are able to resist that force they must be working against that gravitational pull.  Technically the tower that holds up the water tank is also working against a gravitational pull.  It also is working.   

One last thing, before I go educate myself further so I can be a little more logical, If the magnet were transferring energy, wouldn't that require the magnet to weaken over time?  Many commercial magnets are even shipped with "Keepers" to prevent such loss by completing the flow circuit.  If the "Flow" were to cause "Transfer", or in this case "Loss" then the addition of the keeper would make the magnet lose More strength, rather than "Keep" the force within the magnet.  All I'm saying there is, the "Keeper" would or should be caller a "Loser", as continual flow would reduce it's energy content.
Good point Loner.  Effectively - whatever flux comprises - on your standard permanent magnet the amount of energy used in keeping it bound to a fridge door is - potentially - infinite.  Very interesting point.  Effectively a standard bar magnet is also a source of perpetual energy.  We're sort of flirting with some rather politically incorrect terminology here.  LOL

It's refreshing to be able to have such a conversation, without flames or malice.  This is the type of thing that makes for good science.

I realize this is "Off Topic",  as in it's discussing magnets, but I'm hoping the method of discussion is in line with the topic.  Let me know as I'll follow the lead wherever it goes....
I second this. 

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 17, 2010, 08:01:11 PM
To me, the "Device" would be using some method for converting "Energy" (I won't define type, that's up to the inventor....) in to standard "Heat".  As most of us know, a standard heat pump has a COP of around 3-5, but no-one tries to say that's OU.  The important part of this device is What/Where is the "Energy" coming from, as "Heat" is not the only form that could be obtained...

So as to not sound to much like the complete skeptic, your setup WOULD prove that there was an external energy source being used, and is actually the most important part of the "Discovery" process.

Loner - consider this.  One isolated atom of iron - say - would have an energy potential that relates to it's mass.  Now.  Would two atoms have more energy together than one atom alone?  Theoretically the answer is no.  But in fact the answer is yes.  For example.  Assume that we have a single hydrogen atom - which like an iron atom - has certain valence imbalances.  Try and put two hydrogen atoms together and they'll repel each other.   Try and join two iron atoms and you'd have the same problem.  Iron filings do not naturally 'bond' with each other - any more than simple hydrogen atoms will share the same space.  In effect to get all that hydrogen into our early suns - and to get all those filings into an indentifiable shape requires energy.  And, if you took each atom apart again - step by step - you'd effectively require more energy again.   But in both instances - either in assembling them or in disassembling them - you do not actually change the atom itself.  You may, under chemical interactions - change some of the molecules in a given material - or even change their valence condition.  But the addition or substraction of more or less atoms or molecules - does not change the material.  It does not change the constituent parts of the atom.  It only changes the bound condition of the atom.  I propose that the bound condition of material is the result of hidden fields of energy.  And I propose that this is the dark matter that our astrophysicists are looking for.  In other words it is extraneous to the atom and present in all bound material.  It's just that when that material is conductive or inductive - then it can be exploited as current flow.  So.  Effectively the energy is, indeed, inside the material of the wire itself.  It is a hidden source of energy that has been widely exploited without ever being actually identified.

Regards
Rosemary.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 08:31:58 PM
@Loner

As far as I see it loner, we are APPLYING critical thought to this subject, so therefore I deem it "on topic". A  practical demonstration of the principles involved.

I really did miss these conversations with you and others Art, while I was away from the forum. You have the habit of conceptually keeping me honest, as well as addressing highly relevant issues with the topics themselves.

The definitions for work are semi-usable (adequate). Where I find the lack of logic is the concept that the definition is allowable here, but not there, when the observable demonstrable effects are similar if not the same.  If the definitions are allowable for one system, they are allowable for all similar systems. Error in definition seems to hinge upon a notion for "useful work", and not "work" itself. Wasted work is still work.

The water in the water tower required X energy to lift it from point A to vertical point B. Work was done to lift it. Yet, energy is constantly being transferred from the water to the tower itself, then applied to the ground below actively and constantly compressing the dirt. Geologically speaking this pressure would technically cause the tower to bury itself in the ground, as geology shows that due to the pressure the tower is constantly moving vertically downward. I bring up this point as a concept which is denied in one subset of science actively often has a necessary proponent in another area of study. However, the tower in physics SEEMS to not be moving, solely as the TIME SCALES upon which measurements are made are far too small.

If the concept is incorrect as applied towards physics, then it is untrue for geology as well. (I think the geologists would tell the stuffed shirts at this point to stuff it. :-) )

Resistance to a magnetic field is called reluctance. If a magnetic field encountered no resistance, the concept of "the path of least resistance" would be moot.

I will probably post again on reply, as I am going solely from memory Art, and I know I forgot to address some of the points you made.

-----------

@Rosemary

The qualifications of your speaking shall be determined solely upon the logic employed. Please feel free to contribute despite troll interruption.

I have to deal with autism on a daily basis, as my son is autistic. It is amazing how his fits resemble the attitudes of many supposedly intelligent individuals. If anyone is trying to start a fight (flame you), then follow my dear departed mothers advice..... Let them stick their heads up their proverbial rears and fight for air. :-)

If any flaming becomes a problem, I will approach Harti myself about it, as no-one deserves to live under a state of constant attack, verbal or otherwise.

Paul Andrulis


Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 17, 2010, 08:33:55 PM
I take it then Rosemary that you have achieved closer to COP=1 then was thought possible? KEWL.

Holding the data back for a patent or are you sharing? (If so, point the way towards more info. I'm interested. I only bite on odd Tuesdays.)

The data's freely available - all over the place Paul.  Here's the link that I gave to Loner.  Nothing's been patented.  On the contrary - we all went to some trouble to ensure that it wasn't.  Be rather difficult even if I'd wanted to.  The fact is that we simply use a switching circuit and return rather more energy back to the battery than was dissipated at the load.  Right now we're developing an application on higher wattages. 

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Edited to amend the 'quote'
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 17, 2010, 08:38:11 PM
The qualifications of your speaking shall be determined solely upon the logic employed. Please feel free to contribute despite troll interruption.

I have to deal with autism on a daily basis, as my son is autistic. It is amazing how his fits resemble the attitudes of many supposedly intelligent individuals. If anyone is trying to start a fight (flame you), then follow my dear departed mothers advice..... Let them stick their heads up their proverbial rears and fight for air. :-)

If any flaming becomes a problem, I will approach Harti myself about it, as no-one deserves to live under a state of constant attack, verbal or otherwise.

Paul Andrulis
LOL  I approve your mother's sentiments and rather expected this would be your overall response.  Thanks Paul.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 10:20:28 PM

----
(1)

If you wish to use the thermodynamic principle of work, then you need a "Transfer" of energy.  To go simple, I ask this question.  "Does a wire carrying current do work?" or magnetically speaking, does the core of a transformer do work?

See where I am having trouble?  IF the answer is "Yes", then the definition of work becomes useless for certain applications.  I'm NOT talking about the heat from the wire, here, as that IS a transfer, but to just basic flow with no resistance, like gravity!  This is where my problem comes in.  The resistance of the wire is what produces the work, and this is also where "Power" is lost in the Transfer.  There are better ways to say this, but I'm giving a basic try before gathering too much data.

--------
(2)

 (There's a can of worms for you.  Is the creation of a negative gravity field opposing, say, the earth's, the same as no gravity at all, or would the atheric density be affected?  For later discussion.  Just a thought provoker...)

----------
(3)

One last thing, before I go educate myself further so I can be a little more logical, If the magnet were transferring energy, wouldn't that require the magnet to weaken over time?  Many commercial magnets are even shipped with "Keepers" to prevent such loss by completing the flow circuit.  If the "Flow" were to cause "Transfer", or in this case "Loss" then the addition of the keeper would make the magnet lose More strength, rather than "Keep" the force within the magnet.  All I'm saying there is, the "Keeper" would or should be caller a "Loser", as continual flow would reduce it's energy content.


I had to break these down into point to keep everything straight in my own mind.

Point 1.

"Does a wire carrying current or the core of a transformer do work?"

"Losses", or non-useful work are still work. I2R loss in a conductor and hysteresis loss in a transformer core DO count as work, and produce specific and measurable amount of heat. The problem comes when trying to judge a system component outside of the system.

Let us apply this logically towards figuring COP for a simple electrical system. An oscillating RF signal of known power is applied across a circuit containing a mosfet and a step up transformer. The experimenter measures the power across the output leads of the transformer and then figures COP, of say .2.

Is COP truly .2?

Or, in disregarding the fact that the heat-sink for the mosfet is capable of boiling water. The fact that his shoddy transformer is hot enough to burn windings and the lead wires are starting to smoke, by the laws of thermodynamics does he not have to include the excess heat for a true measurement of COP?

How about the RF signal which the lossy transformer is dumping out into the environment which is making his wife's radio scream 25 feet away?

TRUE COP requires the accurate measurement of ALL power exiting a system, not merely the "usable" part.

Does not stating otherwise claim energy is being destroyed? (When in facts it is actively being transformed?)

You see the problem here.

-----------

Point 2....

You really tempt me Loner.... Tempting tempting but no go! :-)

For cryptic reasons you well understand, I think I will refrain from letting gravity/magnetism enter too deep into this conversation. To say interesting is an understatement though.

--------------

Point 3.

All permanent magnets DO weaken over time. Some a short time span in relation to a human life, others NOT so short of a time span. However, yes they do lose magnetic strength over time (entropy does apply.).

This is a very interesting point though. You ask a VERY good question on why a magnet retains the field using "keepers" longer than without. Very good point indeed.

I am going to speculate a little "working hypothesis" here.

Magnetism has its version of "resistance", which is reluctance. It has it's own version of impedance, capacitance, and conductance (magnetic permeability). It shares so many similarities with electricity that I think sometimes we assume it IS electricity subconsciously, in that we assume in all ways that it would react with said similarity.

Please bear with me a moment.

If a battery is connected across a dead short, the energy is quickly used up and the charge usage/time ratio is high. The battery then quickly uses up its stored potential, and the charge is neutralized.

If a battery is connected across a resistor, current flow is impeded, slowing down the rate at which the charge can flow from the area of high potential to low. The charge usage/time ratio is comparatively low.

YET, in a magnet we see the EXACT opposite if the magnet is considered as a "battery". Where "charge" is resisted, energy ratio is highest as the magnet loses magnetic potential rapidly.  (Magnet without keepers).

In a magnet with "conductors" placed upon both ends reluctance (resistance) is drastically reduced, giving us for all practicality a theoretical "short", yet it acts like an effective resistor is employed in the circuit as it reduces the power expenditure over time.

What it breaks down to is logically simple.... A magnet is simply not an electrical battery, and assuming it to react like one is illogical. Magnetism is NOT electricity, though they share some traits and often tend to be found together, and can be directly transformed as types of energy back and forth.

This is pure speculation but it could well be that magnetism is a localized environmental warping caused by the alignment of atoms by the direction of rotation of said atomes electron shells. An "excess" of the total number of electrons rotating in a general vector within the material. (I do know how nasty the implications of this could be if true.)

We assume and assert much concerning magnetism, but what we really know is quite little and tends to be logical speculation anyway as to it's root cause.

Now, if a magnetic field is viewed of as a substance in motion, and not at static charge at rest like a battery, then the "keeper" problem resolves itself.  Frictional resistance applied to motion uses MORE energy to sustain a particular motion than when friction is reduced.
 
What we are seeing with the keeper problem is then viewable as an electric charge in motion, with open air losses being equivalent in concept to I2R losses, or pwoer wasted due to the conductance of the conductible material.

There is actually a simple test logically. A magnet on the face of the fridge defying the force of gravity should therefore lose its charge more rapidly than one with keepers, or than one in open air. The question is therefore upon what time scale would such need to be measured?

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 10:24:05 PM
The data's freely available - all over the place Paul.  Here's the link that I gave to Loner.  Nothing's been patented.  On the contrary - we all went to some trouble to ensure that it wasn't.  Be rather difficult even if I'd wanted to.  The fact is that we simply use a switching circuit and return rather more energy back to the battery than was dissipated at the load.  Right now we're developing an application on higher wattages. 

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Edited to amend the 'quote'

Thank you Rosemary. I have tons of mosfets gathering dust, and a scope I am willing to use.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 10:49:38 PM
LOL  I approve your mother's sentiments and rather expected this would be your overall response.  Thanks Paul.  Much appreciated.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I learned a long time ago not to follow others mistakes..... The people performing the tests "messed up".

Bear with me, please, as this is not negative.

I read the paper with a quick once over, then noted the tests they were using trying to achieve a known "effect" of a specified waveform. These boys aren't too bright.

If you know the waveform, you no longer need to reproduce an "effect", you INDUCE the effect.

Basically inject the waveform as the control for the mosfet to force the effect, not meddle constantly to try to enable the effect into being.

Let me put this as an analogy. I could ring the liberty bell by tapping it over and over with a pencil hoping to find the right frequency of taps to provide it's self resonant Q frequency.... or I can hit it with a tuning fork of that particular frequency an let the bell do the rest.

I might have to reproduce this test myself. It would help to know what "waveform" they speak of, as a graphic is not included.

Edit ADDED:

Before I make this sound overly simplistic, let me clarify.

One of the various harmonics is liable to induce the rest. Inject single or double harmonics until you know the exact combination of this particular lock. Reproduction after that point is quite simple, as you know both the necessary components and the stimulative resonant frequencies..

The fact that they were searching for a "harmonic" automatically means resonance was involved. Q will quite liably destroy coimponents, but slightly off Q should give results.

For others reading, I have not enough data to automatically state that the paper or theory is correct.... NEITHER do I have enough data to state it as incorrect. One witness FOR the concept is that some authors of said paper are electrical engineers, and members of IEEE.

IEEE refusing the paper is a matter of peer review, and any notion of perpetual motion kills papers. IE personal preference could have played a large role, not relevance or accuracy.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 17, 2010, 11:22:13 PM
Paul - I'd be sorry if this thread simply regressed to discussing the paper.  It's copiously discussed elsewhere.  But your analogy is good.  What we know is only that at certain frequencies one can get that required 'preferred oscillation' - or self resonance.  It's an intriguing waveform - sort of imposes itself on a background of chaotic oscillations which I believe is referred to as a parasitic oscillation.

The point is - if you read the introduction - that the 'effect' was required to prove a thesis.  The proposal is that current comprises magnetic flux and flux, in turn, comprises particles.  My own thesis on this proposes that these particles are magnetic dipoles - and they move to a condition of best balance.  The reason they remain hidden is based on this question.  How would we be able to find a particle if that particle were both smaller and faster than light?  In effect it would stay 'dark'.  I then propose that there can only be 3 dimensions of this - but that they share our own dimensions but not our own time frame.

But the point is that if, indeed, this current comes from the supply source AND from the circuit material - then it would be impossible NOT to exceed 1.  The surprise was to find that - in this rather exotic state of resonance - that one could actually return more energy to the battery than was initially supplied.  If you look towards the end of the paper you'll see that the waveform is, indeed, there. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 17, 2010, 11:52:12 PM
Paul - I'd be sorry if this thread simply regressed to discussing the paper.  It's copiously discussed elsewhere.  But your analogy is good.  What we know is only that at certain frequencies one can get that required 'preferred oscillation' - or self resonance.  It's an intriguing waveform - sort of imposes itself on a background of chaotic oscillations which I believe is referred to as a parasitic oscillation.

The point is - if you read the introduction - that the 'effect' was required to prove a thesis.  The proposal is that current comprises magnetic flux and flux, in turn, comprises particles.  My own thesis on this proposes that these particles are magnetic dipoles - and they move to a condition of best balance.  The reason they remain hidden is based on this question.  How would we be able to find a particle if that particle were both smaller and faster than light?  In effect it would stay 'dark'.  I then propose that there can only be 3 dimensions of this - but that they share our own dimensions but not our own time frame.

But the point is that if, indeed, this current comes from the supply source AND from the circuit material - then it would be impossible NOT to exceed 1.  The surprise was to find that - in this rather exotic state of resonance - that one could actually return more energy to the battery than was initially supplied.  If you look towards the end of the paper you'll see that the waveform is, indeed, there. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

A post or two on the subject will not hurt.

That is just it.... Page 14 of 16 does show what they refer to as "sub harmonic modulation", but it really shows nothing. The harmonics in question are far from the 425.2 khz drive frequency. Unless the scope range is adjusted, no details about the individual harmonics in play are evident.

To determine the main resonates, the scope should be cycled upwards slowly, noting the frequency of each STRONG resonant as it comes into range, then look for a pattern.

If you have a scope and a working circuit, by all means try this. All things assumed actual, the resonation is PROBABLY the cause of the energy transformation. (note this is an educated guess) It is not an "effect", but a catalyst.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 18, 2010, 01:11:46 AM
There is actually a simple test logically. A magnet on the face of the fridge defying the force of gravity should therefore lose its charge more rapidly than one with keepers, or than one in open air. The question is therefore upon what time scale would such need to be measured?
interesting. is a hall effect magnetometer going to be sensitive enough to 'match' the magnets?
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 18, 2010, 01:55:22 AM
interesting. is a hall effect magnetometer going to be sensitive enough to 'match' the magnets?

Unless someone has the budget for a SQUID or SERF it would have to do. :-)

Truthfully, it would (should) be sensitive enough with strong magnets to demonstrate the principle.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 18, 2010, 06:17:32 AM
Paul, You're right to reference the various types of 'work' and that it all needs to be quantified.  And certainly it includes heat.  And I never realised that magnets lose their strength over time.   

Regarding this statement
I am going to speculate a little "working hypothesis" here.

Magnetism has its version of "resistance", which is reluctance. It has it's own version of impedance, capacitance, and conductance (magnetic permeability). It shares so many similarities with electricity that I think sometimes we assume it IS electricity subconsciously, in that we assume in all ways that it would react with said similarity.

And then this
If a battery is connected across a dead short, the energy is quickly used up and the charge usage/time ratio is high. The battery then quickly uses up its stored potential, and the charge is neutralized.

If a battery is connected across a resistor, current flow is impeded, slowing down the rate at which the charge can flow from the area of high potential to low. The charge usage/time ratio is comparatively low.

YET, in a magnet we see the EXACT opposite if the magnet is considered as a "battery". Where "charge" is resisted, energy ratio is highest as the magnet loses magnetic potential rapidly.  (Magnet without keepers).
I find these points intriguing.  I actually tried to measure the Ohmage of a permanent bar magnet and could not find any resistance.  I was told that the DMM that I was using applies a small fixed current flow to materials and the meaure of the resistance or Ohmage is the measure of that rate of current flow.  This means, presumably, that if a magnet has zero resistance then it would not impede the flow of current.  So.  A magnet at either side of a resistor in series with a battery supply - would also offer no added restriction to the rate of discharge from the battery - other than that offered from the resistor itself.

In a magnet with "conductors" placed upon both ends reluctance (resistance) is drastically reduced, giving us for all practicality a theoretical "short", yet it acts like an effective resistor is employed in the circuit as it reduces the power expenditure over time.
I never knew this.  Is it known that using magnets in this configuration actually increases the efficiency of a system?  Or have I misunderstood you?

What it breaks down to is logically simple.... A magnet is simply not an electrical battery, and assuming it to react like one is illogical. Magnetism is NOT electricity, though they share some traits and often tend to be found together, and can be directly transformed as types of energy back and forth.
Here I am not sure that your proof justifies this conclusion.  But I must say I agree with you in general.  The fact is that magnetism is not electricity.  But current flow definitely induces a magnetic field and that measure of that extruded field is, in turn, determined by the rate of current flow.   I think that they must, therefore, be related.  Perhaps it's in the angle of interaction.  Bear in mind if current actually flows from one terminal of a battery to another then it's still interacting at 180 degrees as does a magnet on magnet interaction.     

This is pure speculation but it could well be that magnetism is a localized environmental warping caused by the alignment of atoms by the direction of rotation of said atomes electron shells. An "excess" of the total number of electrons rotating in a general vector within the material. (I do know how nasty the implications of this could be if true.)
Indeed.  I absolutely agree that the valence condition of the atoms and the number of atoms inside that circuit material - determines the rate at which current can flow.  But this still does not therefore deny that current flow could still comprise magnetic flux or - as I propose - 'particulate matter' if indeed, flux itself comprises particles.

And theoretically - if flux did comprise particles and if these were being transferred through the circuit then there would be a far stronger case for total conservation of energy than is presently argued by our theorists.  I would have thought?

Just one point that may be relevant.  Just think about it.  An electric field invariably induces a magnetic field.  But a magnet on magnet interaction does NOT produce an electric field.  I was told - by one academic theorist that there is probably some electric interaction inside the body of the magnet itself.  But that's assumption.  It has NEVER been measured.  I see this as evidence that a magnetic field may be a primary field.  And, correspondingly then, the electromagnetic interaction is a secondary event.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 18, 2010, 07:56:48 AM
@Rosemary

I chose the words I used in those examples to demonstrate the similarity in concept between magnetism and electricity. Notice where I used "conductors" placed upon the ends of the magnets, I referred not to electrical conductors, but good conductors of magnetism.

I should have worded it differently I suppose.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 18, 2010, 08:01:35 AM
Hello Paul  - nice to see you're there.

Sorry about that error.  I'm afraid if there's a wrong interpretation available on most facts then I plumb for it with the unerring instinct of the dim witted.   Bear with me.  And you're quite right.  But I had a sneaking suspicion I'd got that point wrong.  Let me know your thoughts on the other points.

And Art - if you're reading here - please comment on the one atom as opposed to two.

Kindest regards to you both.  I'm SO chuffed that we're talking physics.
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 18, 2010, 09:11:39 AM
Hi Loner, 

I just need to first reference this first  statement
PS to Rose, Magnet on Magnet movement does produce an electrical effect, and has been measured.  Technically, this is how generators operate, but for a simple test, a coil, embedded in ferrite, can be used.  There are MANY examples right in this forum, but I couldn't remember the specific posts, as I have enough trouble just remembering the information.  It's just the way I remember things, as data with probability of accuracy.  Date, time and location usually eludes me.
An induced magnetic field can - in turn - induce current flow.  But a magnet on magnet interaction - just that - does NOT induce an electric field.  This point has been tested.  I've found one paper on this - way back - and don't know where to look for it again.  Here the thesis was tested and the results ambivalent.  Here's the uncomfortable truth.  A changing electric field induces a magnetic field - at right angles - and so on.  A changing magnetic field induces an electric field - also at right angles - and also as you so eloquently put it 'blah blah'  LOL.   ;D

BUT you can change the position of one magnet against another - in an almost and theoretical infinite variety of ways - without inducing ANY measurable electric field.  For some reason - God alone knows what - our Great's entirely missed this point.  The only way to get an electric current induced from moving magnetic fields - is to induce it through some sort of 'carrier' medium - as, for example, in circuit wire and sundry components.  Else magnets interact with magnets really energetically.  They produce measurable interactions.  Measurable samples of work done.  And absolutely NO measurable electric field.

TO Rose, the One atom Vs Two.

Tough one.  I would have to accept several things to even contemplate this.  1)  IS there more "Energy" in the two.  2) Are the two "Bonded"?  3) Type of bonding (I'd accept classical examples, as in ionic or covalent.)  4) what type of energy form are we discussing?

So as to not look like a "Creep", I'll offer an "Opinion" and you may take this for what it's worth. 
1) Yes.  2)Yes.  3) Determines the added energy level.  4) MANY!

Describing the bond in classical terms, which I don't agree with, by the way, would indicate that the orbital paths would be "Greater".  Seeing that equal energy would alter the external structure, then force levels must change in order to preserve the basic structure.  I would have to then describe how "Heat" works to alter states of mass.  Not a simple situation, eh?
Right on Art.  You can burn down your house and thereby rather radically change it's 'bound' appearance - without altering any single atom or molecule in that entire structure.  Effectively you just change the locale of some of that material and rather radically alter it's overall bound appearance.  LOL. 

Were I to describe this from the wave point of view, it would be simpler, but I won't blab about that for a few more decades of research, as I don't like to look the fool, all the time.
Here's what I want to say about this.  For some reason our learned and revered need to be RIGHT.  What a horrible burden.  It denies them the enjoyment of exploring the very questions that we're doing here.  The fun of it is in the questions.  NOT in the grandiose grandstanding nonsense of being impeccably exact.  And may I say that it's such a refreshing PLEASURE to find the likes of both you and Paul - who both risk those questions.  If this thereby makes you or any of us fools - then that's a very flattering title - devoutly to be wished - so to speak. 

For a "Quick" wave def.  (I don't do this, but...)   Aether, Consists of dark "Matter", wave intersect is "Particle" of "Mass", ALL interactions definable, unification simple.  Not my theory, but I accept the possibility as the math and equations work better than classical, in ALL areas.  What do I know?  Just a real description is about 30 pages, but that's the concept, sorta.  Crazy, right?  We exist in this "Sea" of energy, so it both is and isn't intrinsic to mass as that's what mass is.  Is that a useful clue?  Again, Sorry.
I'm absolutely with you here.  Very exciting stuff.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 18, 2010, 10:18:36 AM
The "Heat" in the wire is FROM the source of the electricity, not from the wire.

Interesting, and very precise. Some ideas require painting a full verbal picture, others a few well applied brush strokes.

The "source" of the electricity is not a capacitor or a battery either, they are merely storage containers, as is a "magnet". Actually, I doubt that a "storage container" is really accurate either from my own understanding, I suspect it is but a handy vehicle. However, the "source" would include breaking things down on the quantum level. The question is, is it really worth traveling into the world of pure speculation?  ???

Don't get me wrong... I can speculate. I just wonder if it is worth diving into quantum mechanics. Bad as chaos theory concerning the employment of circular logic as far as I have seen. :-)

Ohhhh Heisenberg......  If my mother hadn't taught me politeness......

Science is all too often like computer programming... GIGO

Sorry. (Some of the concepts in QM are astoundingly applicable.. others.......)

By the way Loner, as it applies.... mass IS energy..... :-)

Can you tell I am getting tired? (3:15 in the ole AM here)

I think I will shut up now, and get some sleep, so I may demonstrate the actual ability to connect logically 2 + 2 as equalling 4, and not viewing it as a mere equivalency.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 20, 2010, 01:25:03 AM
Paul, I am with you 100% on all of that.  (especially that &$#& Heisenberg!)

As a professor at MIT once said:  "After so many decimal places, nobody gives a damm."   I think that could apply here, too.   ;D

Do you think that, Maybe, there is such a thing as "Too" critical in the thinking?  Maybe there is even a line where it crosses into skepticism, even if trying to not be a skeptic?  I'm not usually into flights of fancy, but this was quite a trip.

Here's hoping to enjoy further discussions, even if about mundane topics, as the intellectual stimulation was/is very enjoyable.

Art.

Sorry about the lateness of the reply, but between a cold, a mild case of bronchitis, and a trip to the doctor over a strep infection in my foot (fun day I tell you), I have been rather occupied.

As to "too critical" in the thinking... absolutely yes when you consider critical, as used in "critical thinking" does not refer to the usual use of the word: "disapproval" or "Negative".

Being "critical" of someone or their ideas is NOT employing "critical thinking".

"Critical" in the term "critical thinking" refers to the absolute necessity, importance, or centrality of logical thought, as used in "it is not merely necessary, it is critical".

Paul Andrulis

EDIT ADDED:

Do not feel too bad. Too many time where I examine my own statements, I find the circular logic which is indicative of an illogical statement. Critical thinking when applied is the serious attempt to check your concepts, as well as the obvious checking of facts and relevant data.

Skepticism can have is logical counterpoint as well, which is blind acceptance. Neither are balanced, nor particularly constructive. A good balance of both acceptance and positive skepticism are required for true logical thought.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 01:52:01 AM
Just a couple of point here Art,

First, Magnetism can exist in a vacuum, which kinda pulls the base force involved out of the "Mass required" bin.  All I mean to say by this is that, while Mass can hold magnetism, it can't be considered the "Source".  I hope this points to a few "Hard Learned" clues about the reality of the situation.  A "CAP" can be charged, but is not a source....  Mass can be "Charged", but, also, is not a source....  (Battery would be a chemical magnet and I haven't heard of mixing things to make one, yet.  I know of no "True" exceptions to that one yet, either.)

Not sure what you mean by 'mass'.  In any event what we measure in material mass - is certainly a response to a magnetic field.  I understand that a DMM puts out a small current and the resistance being measured is against that current flow.  That current, in turn, extrudes a magnetic field in that resistive material.  And that magnetic field comes from where?  Surely it must be sourced from inside the material structure?  Or is it assumed that current flow somehow halves itself so that some of it flows and the rest of it becomes an extruded orbiting magnetic field?  So.  If current flow results in extruded magnetic field - then where did those fields come from?   Frankly - this question applies whether the assumption is that current flow comprises 'charge' - whatever that means - or whether it comprises 'electrons'.  I wonder if the more appropriate question would be to ask whether magnetic fields themselves have mass.  You see - it would otherwise be a miracle of some extraordinary proportions - if we assume that the extruded magnetic field comes from nothing other than the flow of electrons - as is classically assumed.  That would be energy from nothing.  A whole 'field' emanating from nowhere - yet with measurable voltage - measurable potential difference -  and, capable, in and of itself - of inducing yet further current flow.  And all this from the arbitrary directional flow or movement of electrons - always assuming that electrons can even move in the same direction - which they can't.

And then - dare it say it, yet again - if magnetic fields comprise mass - then why can we not find a particle but are only able to measure the field?  My own reasons for this based on the thought that - just maybe - those particles in the field are too fast to be either seen or measured.  And the only thing that is too fast to be measured would be something that exceeds light speed.  You mention that 'dark energy' is something that is outside this topic.  I'm not sure why.  But I would put it to you that it is 'critically required' and this thread is about critical thinking. 

Here's where I goofed up with my "Current" question.  I didn't make it clear what I was asking.  To gather ALL information is the important part, as you say.  This is what I was saying as well.  The "Heat" in the wire is FROM the source of the electricity, not from the wire.
And then this point.  I'm not sure what you mean.  If the heat is from the source of electricity then it's from the battery.  But the battery can deliver current without - itself - getting hot.  I would propose that the heat is indeed, from inside the wire of the resistor.  One can induce heat inside a resistor which is placed inside a coil - from pure induction - no actual direct exposure to the material flow of current - no matter whether current flow comprises charge or electrons. 

Actually Loner - every time one tries to define magnetic fields or current flow - or energy itself - we're left with the sad reality that we need to 'speculate' on its material properties precisely because we cannot see the 'thing' itself.  It's essentially dark which has an uncomfortable correspondence to 'dark matter' - and 'dark energies' and I do, indeed, think that these things should be considered - in my humble opinion.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 02:04:23 AM

The "source" of the electricity is not a capacitor or a battery either, they are merely storage containers, as is a "magnet". Actually, I doubt that a "storage container" is really accurate either from my own understanding, I suspect it is but a handy vehicle. However, the "source" would include breaking things down on the quantum level. The question is, is it really worth traveling into the world of pure speculation?  ???

You made this post on late - and you then talked about circular logic.  My quarrel with Heisenberg and Bohr - is that they justified the use of measurement - rather than delving into the understanding of the things measured.  I think Pauli went so far as to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to conceptually understand the properties of an atom.  I share your distaste here.  Our quantum theorists put paid to the promotion of concept.  And, as they did away with the need for aether almost at the same time - then they found themselves in the happy position of not needing to analyse the 'field'.  Which, when you think about it, was in itself a gross 'over simplification'.  All acknowledge that energy is sourced from gravity or electromagnetic or nuclear energy - but none of them studied those forces - just their effect on measurable matter.  That's only one half of the equation. 

And, if aether energies are, somehow, the same thing as 'dark energies' then - surely the time is long overdue to start studying those invisible forces.  I would have thought?

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 08:30:50 AM
"Magnetism can exist in a vacuum", I think is what I stated.  I'll rephrase this to "A magnetic Field can exist in a vacuum".  This was, I had thought, an accepted belief that "Radio Waves", or EM Radiation (Electro-Magnetic) were something that existed.  If such things do exist, and can propagate through a vacuum, then they can exist without the requirement of standard matter, or "Mass" as I was describing matter.
Art.  Electromagnetic radiation is just that.  A combination of electricity and magnetism.  This, more or less, was the interaction that Maxwell used to describe a photon's path through the vacuum.  I know you know these things.  I'm not presuming to teach you.  I'm just trying to highlight a point.  But I get it here then - that mass is what's proposed to be missing in the vacuum.

I used the word
I was in no way attempting to describe the "Effects" of Magnetic fields on anything, as that is not within the realm of possibilities, if thinking critically and using "accepted" science.  (At this time and using "Classical" definitions...)  Many like to think they 'have a clue', but I have yet to see someone in the mainstream really put forth the "real" information.  (I am not saying I know anything, either!:)  One can only observe the effects, and make theory based of those observations.  Of course, if the theory bases magnetism in matter ("Mass" as described!), the the theory may hold true in matter, but cannot be accurate for the reality of magnetism.
I'm also not talking about their 'effects'.  I'm proposing that these fields may be material in their essence.  Mainly because if they are not material then their energy is manifest from 'nothing' - which rather defeats thermodynamic principles at the get go.  If you recall - I showed that the manifest voltage across a resistor as the result of current flow - shows that 'something' resulted from that flow - and it is only indirectly associated with the flow of current. Did it come out of nothing?  Is that even reasonable?  Does it simply imprint 'space' with a kind of 'shape' which then serves to collapse and generate another current flow?  Or does it halve itself so that one half goes 'up' and one goes 'on' - so to speak.  The one half extrudes as a magnetic field - the other half flows on as charge or whatever.  If this last proposal of mine is NOT seriously considered then - the simple fact is that current flow - be it electrons or charge or whatever - is able to produce something from nothing.  And whether you give it mass - or wether you see it as a ghost shape that somehow imprints itself on space - it is still something from nothing. 

So.  The fact that magnetism can exist in matter - in no way refutes that magnetism itself may comprise matter - in a really subtle and elusive sense.

So, all I AM saying is that, if a magnetic field can exist, in a location where there is no matter (Use "mass" as above, for clarity...), then the matter obviously cannot be "required" for the field's existence.  That is just standard logic.
Here it seems as if we're arguing the same point.  But I'm not sure.  If magnetism does not require matter - then by the same token does an electron require matter or does the existence of any particle depend on the existence of other particles to manifest and stay manifest?  I doubt it.  No matter essentially requires other matter.  It's just with the proximity to both other matter and other fields - one can generate a certain predictable movement in those particles.  And I would propose that the same is true about magnetic fields.  The difference is that the 'field' moves as a whole, where the particles can be isolated from each other. 

If one actually carries this simple piece of data into the field of "Electrical" data (Which, by the way, requires acceptance of "Classical" electron theory, or you really shouldn't use the word Electrical because the word electron is part of that word, but I digress...)
Art?  That's not fair.  The term 'electric' was used on the assumption that the electron is the particle.  And the term electric was actually based on Electra - a Greek Goddess - I think.  (Just looked it up and it gives endless reference to Carmen Electra - not the same thing.)

(As an important "Critical Thinking" note:  A Magnetic field IS NOT produced by "Moving Electrons", as I hope is obvious, IF you can accept any of the above.  There is more/other things going on...   If you DO move "Electrons", or conduct "Classical" current, you WILL find a Magnetic field.  The first is observed fact.  The second is a "Classical" defined action.  Does that help, or make it worse?   And this is just barely touching the subject of one sentence...)
I wholly agree with this statement.  But that means that the magnetic field is somehow 'exposed' by that current flow - at best.  So.  Here's what I'm hoping can be discussed.  Can it be that a magnetic field comprises particles?  Just that?  If this simple point were ever acceded - then we could all move on.  It's really, really important.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 09:01:57 AM
Guys, Paul, Loner - all.  I know I'm picking holes in some points that are self-evident to you all.  But it's not self-evident to me.  I have NEVER been able to find a justifiable reason for current flow to generate a magnetic field unless that field was substantive - or particulate.  Even if it's conceptually understood as a kind of ghost shadow then it must, in itself, have properties of energy.  Else how could it transfer that measurable potential difference as current when those fields or that 'shadow' collapses.  That's a measurably energetic interaction - those collapsing fields.  I know this well.  We use it extensively in our research. 

So.  I just don't know how mainstream view this.  It seems that a magnetic field is the CONSEQUENCE of an electric field and this is widely understood.  But based on WHAT?  In my simplistic understanding of the thing - I see that magnetic fields must be disturbed inside the material of the circuit - to extrude anywhere at all.  And having been extruded, then they've simply been 'rehoused' so to speak - in an extruded plane - where previously they were 'inside there' - somewhere?  And since the extrusion of the fields make not an iota of difference to the material structure of the atoms inside that wire - then they were NOT inside the atoms. 

We all know about the casimir effect.  But for readers who may not be that familiar - it's the experimental evidence of atoms 'bonding' on a very small scale - without any material difference to their atomic structure.  This effect was first predicted and then proven.  And I wonder if the casimir effect is dependent on magnetic fields.  We know that magnets 'stick' and - if one imposes a one dimensional orbiting field of magnetic type particles to the exterior of atoms they would be able to orbit - either in the figure 8 or as a complete circle - and thereby neutralise the valence condition of any atom to enable a bonding.  It's speculative but has the very real merit of locating what may be the source of all that magnetism that's measured across a coil - or wire - or resistors - or inductive resistors - whatever.

And as a reminder to you both.  A magnetic field extruded or otherwise - makes no material difference to the atoms - not even when the material gets hot.  The only difference is to the bound condition of that material which may then weaken or degrade over time.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Mk1 on October 21, 2010, 09:17:40 AM
@all

All energies were dark at some point , lucky for us we found those we could touch and see .

What is energy ? Most of the time we don't see it ! why ?

A bucket of water can't show its energy , if no one kicks it .

Like a magnets need to be moved , to create energy in a coil .

A core need to be kicked to output anything , the concept is there .

I worked on making some JT circuit and tried to make it into a step down transformer , it never worked i always got more then the input voltage .

I bet you need to take specific measures to build step down transformer like a really bad core .

But the answer is more in the fixed 60 h freq , hiding the forest .

Loud music doesn't break glass , but a specific freq will break any particular glass , because of the resonance freq (the speed the glass vibrates naturally at ) .

Now if the same freq is played in load speakers the glass will react in synchronicity with the sound even at real low levels , higher levels breaks the glass .Any other freq will leave the glass intact even at greater input or any for that mater.

This approach yield , greater response at a lower input , a suspect that if you are careless about freq , you will have about what you put in ( text book ).

There is gravity in every thing it is a force , its in everything , that is water the electricity and magnetic current are like rock dropped in the water releasing some of the water out of the bucket , but you only see what has been released and is equal to the mass of the rock .

I hope most will see that saying there is a better way to do things , it is logical too , what you guys have against logic , a see Bayer's .

Mark
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 09:31:56 AM
Hello Mark.  Who's arguing?  And where are we being illogical?  I actually don't know that resonance is the only proof of 'more out than in' but it's a good example.  And I think we all concur that energy is in mass.  What we're trying to do here is find the constituent properties of that energy.

I am very impressed by your coils, by the way.  Very artistic.  But our essential 'drive' here is to see if we can get to a better understanding of the properties of the 'field' - or that's my interest, in any event.  You see, you guys, with respect, are exploring this potential 'dark' energy source - on a purely empirical level.  I think there's more than enough justification to try and establish some conceptual understanding of this.  Even if it's to enable some better control of it - and certainly to enhance it's predictive values which is essential if we're to put it to good use.  But let's first establish that it's both theoretically and logically required.  God knows.  We'd do well to get logic back into theory.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 21, 2010, 09:45:41 AM
@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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 09:51:30 AM
@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. 

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Mk1 on October 21, 2010, 09:54:14 AM
@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 .
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 10:05:03 AM
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. 

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Mk1 on October 21, 2010, 10:21:23 AM
@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 .
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 01:24:57 PM
Art, sorry you're not well.  And sorry you're having trouble with your pc.  And I do hope that it's not all because of the unduly sensitive nature of the discussion here.  I'll also try and get back here later on today.  Right now things pragmatic are intruding all over the place.  We're in the process of rebuilding our fish pond so that it can take Koi.  Quite exciting.  But the dirt and rubble and rain and God knows what else - is making even this little task somewhat fraught. 

Regards,
Rosemary

ABJECT APOLOGIES.  I had to delete a huge part of that post.  Forgot what thread I was on.  Sorry.   ::)
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 03:41:06 PM
Mark - to get back to your point that 2 atoms do not have more energy than 1.  Picture this.  One has a pile of atoms - let's say iron - that are all disassociated - in a puddle - if that were possible.  Then.  The only way to get those atoms to 'join' up in an indentifiable lump - would be to add energy.  And what we use - everywhere - is heat.  When we add heat we actually promote the bonding of that material.  Yet we do NOTHING to change the actual atom itself.  So.  From a disassociated state to a bound state - unquestionably required energy.  Now.  Let's say we want to return that amalgam to a discontinuous or 'broken' state.  We'd need to file it and sieve it and grind it and sieve it and on and on.  Until we get it into that disassociated powder form.  What we've done here is again added more energy - this time in the form of pressure.  So we applied energy - first to bind it and then again applied energy - this time to unbind it.  And in neither instance did we alter any single atom in that mix.  We simply changed its bound state. 

If we imagine a fire burning down a grass hut - we're also left with the basic atoms that first made up the structure of the grass.  Some of those atoms may have stayed as molecules - others may have become molecular as they combined in that heated atmosphere - others may have simply drifted off with the wind.  But the residue - all that carbon - is the unbound state of those atoms that were first held bound inside that grass.  These and stray gasses that may have been in the grass - and sundry bits of iron or metals - or even oxygen - ALL.  Their atoms are essentially as they were prior to them being bound into that grass then then subsequently bound together into the structure of the hut.  Energy from the fire is NOT enough to alter the atom itself - except perhaps to assemble the odd molecule - here and there.  The atom is essentially fire proof.  And it survives the fire.  What does not survive is the bound state.

Now.  Imagine, as proposed that all those atoms are actually joined by one dimensional fields of orbiting dipoles.  And let's give these particles a property.  They are small and fast and invisible.  But - if their orbits are interrupted - then they unravel and become proportionately big and slow and visible.  Let's say, for the purpose of this argument that they're the 'spark' that we see that grows into a 'flame'.  Then let's change the picture - just marginally.

We've now got wood underneath a ceramic pot which, in turn, has iron filings in its base.  So.  We start the fire by breaking the symmetries in the sticks.  This releases flames as the bound condition of the atoms get compromised and these fields unravel.  The stick gets burned.  Then the flame reaches the pot.  The flame is big but its parts are as small or smaller than atoms.  They interact with those fields that are holding the ceramic material together and systematically move through the material of the pot.  But they can't settle there because the the material in the pot is strong enough to resist the heat that's available from the burning stick.  No place to settle - so to speak.  But eventually the flame - or the heat - reaches into the iron filings.  Here nothing can resist their efforts becuase nothing is 'bound' - or it's so loosely bound as to not count.  So What these little fields are looking for is somewhere to settle.  An atomic abode.  It finds it in the filings.  Then it systematically starts joining all those atoms together in a very exact and profound way.  Until all the fields from the stick have unravelled and no more of these fields are being transferred through space.  Then that hot liquid cools down.  The fields again become small and fast and invisible.  And what's left is the bound condition of atoms that were previously unbound.  And the amount of energy transferred?  It relates precisely to the mass of the material that these fields have now formed into a 'bound' amalgam. 

And what we're left with is the unbound condition of the sticks - now ash - having forfeited or transferred it's bound condition to those filings.  And that way we get a  perfect equivalence in the transfer of energy.  But using this argument one can then give a material property to that energy.  It's here proposed to be one dimensional fields of little dipoles - that enjoy two states.  The one is fast and small and invisible - in direct proportion to the other which is slow and big and visible. 

I know it offends everything that every mainstream scientist knows about 'fire' - but it's certainly a more logical explanation.  And I also think it makes much better sense.  It's just that it's way too SIMPLE to be readily accepted by a school of thinkers who delight in complication.  LOL.

Regards,
Rosemary





Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: BobTEW on October 21, 2010, 04:18:24 PM
Great thread!  I will put my two bits in. "They" forgot too include repel in their equations.  Bring four iron rods to the table, two of them magnets. Take note of the two iron rods have no attraction or repel force of note. Flat line of power. Bring in one magnet and one rod, attraction- a new force 90 degree differents. Now for two magnets have both attraction and repelling forces 90 degrees out. Here is a picture of a electromagnetic field scan.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 21, 2010, 04:41:12 PM
Great thread!  I will put my two bits in. "They" forgot too include repel in their equations.  Bring four iron rods to the table, two of them magnets. Take note of the two iron rods have no attraction or repel force of note. Flat line of power. Bring in one magnet and one rod, attraction- a new force 90 degree differents. Now for two magnets have both attraction and repelling forces 90 degrees out. Here is a picture of a electromagnetic field scan.

Hello BobTEW.  That's an amazing picture.  Thanks for that and for your contribution.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 21, 2010, 08:54:34 PM

I believe, subject to better data, that Mass IS energy, in a standing wave pattern.  That is WHY frequency is important.  If the "Standing Wave" is not standing, there is NO MASS, but the existence is the same.  (Getting too deep?)  This def allows full unification of certain field equations and accounts for static fields in the three basic forms we experience as gravitational, magnetic, and electric.  (NOT referencing the electron.  This is where a LOT of confusion has been programmed in.)  Using this as a possible base, ALL mass has the same base energy form as the fields, therefore ...   I'm sure I need not go on, as this is not new info.  I know of a few quantum people that reference this to verify QED.  It's simpler than it sounds, but interactions are not always as predicted as far as "electrical" flows because of those same "Confusions".  (I can't say this correctly.  Sorry.)  So, if you wish to describe "Dark Matter" you could, I suppose, use the original name, aether, in an unmodulated state, relative to the observer's dimension.  At that point, I get very lost with language as I am not quite up to the task of fully grasping how that works, so explaining it would be a gross approximation.  I can think it internally, but have not yet the words to apply.  The brain is useless on this one....   I have always thought it interesting that as the aether concept goes in and out of vogue, as it were, they seem to find a new way to describe it so they can call the information a "Discovery"....

I wouldn't attempt to try to prove any of this, as the consequences would be more drastic than I would want to be responsible for.  Really.  It is nice to talk about it though, at least once in a while.  Makes certain "Unproven" devices easily explainable.  (But not always the way they are described by the designer...)  If only I could think of "New" things, instead of being an assembler of others individual ideas....


An "assembler of others individual ideas"..... ????

Loner, truthfully... I include myself in the following statement when I say, "If even half of the people here had one quarter of your knowledge, life experiences, and ability then potentially speaking they would gain by a factor of at least two."

I can remember a time in my own life when I thought I had a unshakable handle upon reality. I then woke up.

You are again right as rain. Conceptions come and go. Are stated at one point in time as inviolable law, then later given exceptions. 

Using the simplified "at rest" version of the equation: E=mC^2 denotes the mass energy equivalency, yet it is not a mere equivalency. Einstein married electromagnetic phenomena with the use of the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum with mass, itself a measurement aspect designated only towards matter. Yet the true brilliance of the equation was not in the formulation of the equation, but in the stated base meaning, that matter itself IS energy.

Let us tie together some logical notions. String theory... Matter is energy therefore should have similar properties to those packets which are considered "pure" energy, such as the photon. Have a base "frequency" or modulation of energy. Etc., Etc., Etc.,

Correspondingly other supposed "pure energy" packets should demonstrate aspects of matter. Like the photon demonstrating supposed "virtual" or "effective" mass. (It is neither "virtual" nor "effective", it is quite real and should have been expected logically. It merley combined the concept of the four states of matter, and takes it a bit further to "Energy".... and VICE-VERSA.)

I could go down this logical interstate for hours, investigating the sights.

What is interesting is that, as you said Loner, it quite accurately reflects demonstrable reality. The DATA backs up this view, if the popular acceptance of the notion is unpopular.

I also know the Einstein was no dummy. He knew full well the implications of the equation, as well as the blatant statement it placed before all. Makes a person ponder what personal notions he dared not put before the community, lest they turn and rend even him.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 21, 2010, 09:32:31 PM
Hello Mark.  Who's arguing?  And where are we being illogical?  I actually don't know that resonance is the only proof of 'more out than in' but it's a good example.  And I think we all concur that energy is in mass.  What we're trying to do here is find the constituent properties of that energy.

I am very impressed by your coils, by the way.  Very artistic.  But our essential 'drive' here is to see if we can get to a better understanding of the properties of the 'field' - or that's my interest, in any event.  You see, you guys, with respect, are exploring this potential 'dark' energy source - on a purely empirical level.  I think there's more than enough justification to try and establish some conceptual understanding of this.  Even if it's to enable some better control of it - and certainly to enhance it's predictive values which is essential if we're to put it to good use.  But let's first establish that it's both theoretically and logically required.  God knows.  We'd do well to get logic back into theory.

Regards,
Rosemary

@Rosemary

It's the logical GIGO factor Rosemary.

Mark's brain (which all of our brains work more like a computer than we even wish to admit) has come across illogical conflictions, even if his conscious awareness is unable to define any specific particulars. Therefore he has to some degree found error in base logic and has rebelled against common terminology, not wanting to pollute his thought processes. For terms which do not accurately apply in his mind-view, he invents or applies new terms to better suit his conceptions.

In doing so, he forgets the purpose of language, and finds himself often in conceptual conflict even when in actual mental agreement with others.

No word has any meaning to anyone else, unless it's meaning as put forth agrees with a common definition.

Language in any form can really suck at it's stated purpose, which is to accurately convey ideas and concepts from one individual to another.   

@Mark

I tend to analyze everything to death, and emotionally imply nothing by the outcome. The former reply to Rosemary was not meant or applied as an insult in any situation.

Emotionally, it is comparable to "This person has a specific hair color because of measurable melanin content." My statements are often emotionally confused as a verbal attack due to the "coldness" of pure logic.

Your statements I can mentally translate somewhat, and your views are interesting.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Mk1 on October 21, 2010, 10:34:13 PM
@all

Well , i do not get insulted , but tent to insult other without noticing, i needed to make sure , i did not do it again .

Loner got most of what i was trying to explain .

It is harder for me to get my point across clearly , first because i am french second , because i did not study all of this , i never did hard maths , or physic . I have no clue of the specific terms for atom , proton and co.
But the knowledge is all around us .

I also try to explain so that everyone regardless of there education could understand , so it is harder for me to post .

I also try not to sound big brain geek , scary to some people .

Yes i did forget repulsion but everyone know how it goes .

All i am saying is you can extract more energy from mater at specific freq .

Or the same energy at lower input .

I will make video soon on how i came to this conclusion .

I also usually forget to put in details , i should star making list before posting.


Mark






   
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Mk1 on October 22, 2010, 12:38:14 AM
@all

I believe that its all vibration , let me try to explain my self .

We can all agree that most levels of reality  , galaxies , solar system , atom , etc , share behavior and content mostly void .

I state that for those system to exist they have to be harmonious , first freq root (the galaxy )makes the law for all sub system (solar,planets, atom) must operate under it since it is responsible for physical property .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2236988281579535067#

This is a demonstration , where you can clearly see my point .

We also vibrate in harmony with earth , because we are the salt , living in a world of salt .

earth is in tune with the solar system etc , harmony at each levels , god made a sound first .

Once that is in place , we see that we are sub system's living on the edge of planet system , and composed infinite sub system living in a infinite system world .

The vacuum , like in this demonstration   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6B8eK68AIg

The bottle is filled with water on the first try he did not succeed in creating a air pocket at the both of the bottle , once he did the bottle breaks apart , because of the void at the bottom is not coming from the top and has no air (vacuum) bang . To me this is analog to bemf , reaction from creating a void in a existing stationary field creating energy .


Next root of sub systems ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tqXgvCN0E

Exposing a glass to its own roots freq , releases the energy ..


I hope this time i made more sense , i did not take physics but my model is sound ,  ;D.

Mark
 
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 22, 2010, 06:46:13 AM
Hello Mark, 

May I say - at the outset - that I'm blown away by the fact that you speak French and yet can write English.  It's the kind of language skill that I envy.  I live in a multi-lingual country and have only ever managed to speak and write in english.  It seems to be a flair that you share with many Europeans.  Like you I have also never 'done' physics - in the sense that I never had a formal training in it.  And no doubt it shows and shows.  I'm sure that the likes of Paul and Loner - wince through the most of my posts. 

Your illustrations of sound impacting materials are very interesting.  The thing about sound is this.  It does not propogate in a vacuum.  However matter first 'happened' it must, therefore, have preceded sound - because without matter - then sound waves are impossible.  I think we may be rather grateful for this fact because if our exploding suns and colliding galaxies could be heard - then our little world may well have disintegrated - very much as that exploding glass disintegrated.  At the very least we'd have been deafened.

I agree with you about the extraordinary energy available in 'resonating' frequencies - the precise pitch being able to explode that glass with the efficiency of a bullet.  And you then, very appropriately, show us the picture of those patterns created by the varying pitch.  Very elegantly illustrated.  I wonder if those patterns that are generated at those varying pitches - also somehow match the cyrstalline structure of the materials exposed to it.  So that, every so often, when there's a precise synchronicity - or enough synchronicity - that the material can no longer hold that synchronous pattern.  It sort of 'marries' and then needs to incorporate the new pattern and 'expand'.  And it cannot - so it breaks through the bonding barriers.  That's how I see it, in any event.

And at the risk of going on and on - and I realise I'm probably stressing everyone's patience, in the event that this is even being read - then I would also propose this.  The atoms in glass are very symmetrically arranged - very precise crystals.  If those atoms are held in place by those very small 'fields' of invisible particles - then it is they that would have first determined the 'crystalline pattern'.  And the consequence is that they would 'unravel' and then redistribute themselves through space.  But first they would need to break away from the 'bonding' of those atoms.  And this maybe is the cause of that exploding glass?  Just a thought.

In principle I absolutely agree that sudden changes in voltages, heat, pressure, whatever, seems to be the key to exposing this energy - whether we think of it as dark energy or aether energy or simply confirmation of classical concepts of energy.  The difference is that careful measurement actually exposes the fact that it exceeds classical expectations.  The results are not that easily resolved in terms of what is understood as the equivalence principle.  Classicists deny this and claim that all is measurement error - or poor observation.  But my own experience here is that it is the classicists themselves who are obliged to keep changing their goal post - because the evidence definitely speaks to a breach. 

And again.  I am blown away by the vast variety of shapes that you explore in your coils.  VERY artistic and very NICE.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Mk1 on October 22, 2010, 07:05:42 AM
@Rosemary

I did it again , to me sound is freq , like it could me light for someone else .

The way a learned it was trough music , and yes its a good thing our ears aren't that good .

Like the light spectrum is divided by colors (if like music 12) coming from its root color 1 , the music scale is the same divided in 12 notes coming from one root note. Actually the scale is divided in 8 notes 8 and 1 being the same but 12 half steps ...

The light spectrum is divided in 8 only


It's the system of life ,from seemingly random number/freq/vibration/sounds create melodies . And more important recognizable patterns out of nothing.
The beauty is that there is no way change it or modify the interpretation it just is .

Mark

How different would the world be if you could see infrared of ultraviolet ...
 

 
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 22, 2010, 07:16:02 AM
@Rosemary

I did it again , to me sound is freq , like it could me light for someone else .

The way a learned it was trough music , and yes its a good thing our ears aren't that good .

Like the light spectrum is divided by colors (if like music 12) coming from its root color 1 , the music scale is the same divided in 12 notes coming from one root note.


It's the system of life ,from seemingly random number/freq/vibration/sounds create melodies . And more important recognizable patterns out of nothing.

Mark

Hi Mark - nice to see we're on line at the same time.  Must be 'European' and must be your early morning.  I always get here at 'wake up' and then buzz out on the forum.

Yes.  I absolutely agree.  At a very profound level there's a geometry - a pattern - or a whole series of patterns that all speak way more eloquently than language or even mathematics.  And I think you're very in tune - as I've said.  It shows up in your extraordinary designs of your coils. 

Interestingly, Bell (mathematician) proved that if the 'structure' of everything was not symmetrical - then we would have absolute chaos everywhere.  Not those words - but that was his sense.  And I agree.  We all share this understanding on a very, very, very deep level.  I think even insects respond to it.  I ABSOLUTELY agree with you.  It's just that I personally think that this pattern is first presented to us in a magnetic field.  And again, as a purely subjective observation - I don't need to go much further than a binary system which is best evident in a magnetic field.  Somehow most of what I write is entirely incomprehensible.  And it's rather lonely - looking at this without being able to persuade others to share the view, so to speak.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Mk1 on October 22, 2010, 07:32:13 AM
@Rosemary

We all share about the same views , but can't agree on the words . ;)

Of course its binary other wise it would not vibrate .

I go to bed really really late ...

Most of the arguing in the world is language based . ::)

Mark



Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 22, 2010, 07:47:19 AM
@Rosemary

We all share about the same views , but can't agree on the words . ;)

Of course its binary other wise it would not vibrate .

I go to bed really really late ...

Most of the arguing in the world is language based . ::)

Mark

 ;D We're definitely on the same page here Mark - if not on the same time line.  LOL.  Just on a personal note - I often think that the kind of work you do is also a kind of vocation - like a mission.  I think what I'm trying to say is that you're somehow 'driven'.  Certainly that's what I see in your design reach.  It's extraordinary.  I'm rather expecting much more to follow.  Very intriguing.

But I think we're both drifting off topic.

Again - all the best. 
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 23, 2010, 10:08:56 PM
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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 24, 2010, 05:57:12 AM
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

Let us put this into perspective. There exists a small particle/packet we call an electron which from the manner in which it be4haves leads us to believe it is particulate matter. However, this object is SO small it has never been seen, nor CAN it be examined with the instruments we have now. The electron microscope is the device we currently use to view extremely tiny particles, yet it's greatest resolution, which is unattainable is only one electron wide.

A photon is much larger in "size" than an electron.

When you examine particulate theory, much of the "hard data" we have is extrapolated, NONE is from first hand witness. This problem leaves the entire area rife with speculation. Much of what is put forth as fact, truthfully only qualifies as either assertion or hypothesis, as secondhand data is not really "hard evidence" by definition.

As for fields? Depends upon whom you ask. A relativist would equate them with a type of warped space/time. An Aetherist would equate them with flows of the basic aetheric particles. Personally, I couldn't care less which view a person holds, as they are logically the same thing, just some of the effects differ.

In this case, as a for instance, the former view has the substance making up what we call "space" bending, the other states space flows, but both refer to a substance which has characteristics combinative of both energy and matter.  It can "bend", or "move", develop "holes" or "bubbles". Characteristics of matter. Yet both are stated to be energy at the source from which particles are derived.

You then have the classic notion of the Aether, and it's new face lift of space-time. You can take a corvette, change the paint, dashboard, and some of the suspension, yet it is STILL a corvette, and in fact is still the same car.

You might say concerning these two views of thought that although neither side claims the other, close examination of the car shows the serial numbers match. :-)

In science, you can now call me a heretic of the first order, the type nobody is happy with.  ;D

Now, I am sorry I have not responded sooner, and have not posted. Life has dealt me somewhat of a punch to the solar plexus.

My strep infection in my foot..... is not strep. The initial diagnoses was wrong, and I was notified Friday it is in fact MRSA.

Yay!    :(

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 24, 2010, 06:47:46 AM
Paul.  That's a nasty number you've got.  I've just looked it up. You'll need some expert treatment there I think.

From one heretic to another - I'm not sure that describing the field as 'flowing' or 'bending' is really sufficient.  As I understand it - mainstream ALL consider that there's a 'carrier' particle for all the forces.  Something that interacts with the forces on a profound level - that then determines the particle's behaviour.  The forces themselves are in the field.  So.  The field 'force' has a sympathetic particle - such as the electron for electrical fields - and so on.  Then.  While the field itself is not explained - the behaviour on the particle is.  But the downside is that there are no gravitons found for gravity nor darkons for dark energy - and so on.  However, they have found the electron.  This is absolutely not speculated as they have also photographed it.  I've seen the photographs.  It looks something like this '*****'.  A discontinuous series of lights.  It's that 'discontinuous' nature that surprised the theorists - I think.  As this implies that it also decays and then restructures so to speak.  Not unlike a virtual particle - that can first come from particle interactions and then they disappear or  decay back into the void or the vacuum.  Who knows?

I think, by the way, that our string theorists propose that the vacuum of space comprises strings arranged in a kind of 'scaffolding' - but like our classicists, they also propose that this field is steady.  The only ones proposing that it's massively energetic are the aether theorists.  But as they variously describe the field being filled with virtual photons or even electrons - then they're imposing a field condition on particles that - in their essential nature - are not able to generate fields.  Electrons are negatively charged - and would not be able to amass in any kind of coherent structure.  And photons only irridate outwards in straight lines.  My own preference is close to Ed Leedskalnin's proposal which is that the 'carrier' particles are monopoles - except that, here too, monopoles would not be able to amass as a field.  But dipoles would.  Therefore do I think that the quintessential construct is a dipole - which would give it the precise properties of a standard permanent bar magnet - both individually and 'en masse'. 

My own proposal suggests that particles, such as the photon and the electron all have a moment where they 'decay' into the field.  That's when they're 're-energised' in a sort of way - and then they come back out of the field - decay - and so it goes.  Essentially the energy in the particle would be almost nothing.  The energy would be the result of the movement of the field that supports it.  And, therefore, in effect the actual energy that we see in the movement of particles - essentially relies on a continual interaction with the field that surrounds it and, in it's way, supports it.  That would certainly account for the 'discontinous' nature of the particle. 

But I do see a difference in the time line between manifest and hidden states of that particle.  Here's why.  If the field stays hidden as a result of it's velocity and mass - then, by contrast - what's visible is also the result of it's velocity and mass.  By this I mean that if small and fast and cold - is invisible - then big and slow and hot - is visible.  We CAN see the big and slow and hot - even if that big, slow, hot is still relatively too quick for our eyes.  It can, at least, be seen by photons.

By the way, I believe that the particulate nature of photons has also be proved.  I think it's to do with shining focused light beams on the blade of a rotor that is then able to turn that rotor.  But I'm open to correction here.  I just seem to recall reading an experiment related to this - some time back. 

You might think of taking copious quantities of vitamine C to supplement any medication.  It may help. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 24, 2010, 10:27:56 AM
Hello Loner,  I've just got back in and have also just seen your post.  It's likely this reply will reach you - your tomorrow.  In any event.

I have no quarrel with the term particle.  It's the part of the whole.  And essentially the smallest part that has - thus far been seen.  I saw your comments regarding a potential reconciliation of everything through standing waves.  Not sure how this is managed.  But quantum and classical physics requires both - and I see no essential difference.  Except obviously that the particle is never stationery unless it's held - suspended - in a bubble chamber or somesuch.  And when it's stationery it has no relevance to it's 'wave state' - or none that can be entirely determined.  Isn't that the basis of Heisenberg's imponderable?  In any event.  The fact is that the particle can be shown as as both but measured against different evident parameters. 

I depend on the wave manifestation to prove the interactive moment with the field.  It's the only way one can reach any kind of time constant.  But it'll take a while to explain.  I'll try it later on today and would love the opportunity.  So Art.  You guys must be patient.

Kind regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest on October 24, 2010, 12:32:54 PM

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.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.
 ;D

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 24, 2010, 02:12:57 PM
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.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.
 ;D

This is rich.  This from a man whose own critical faculties incline him to  use wild allegation as proof of fraudulent culpability.  Whose only contribution to critical thinking is a poor unsubstantiated essay related to some wild claim that our classicists base all theory on proven evidence.  LOL. 

I'm afraid exnihiloest that your own critical faculties are entirely tainted by your evident desire to believe that all OU claims are false.  You can uphold this opinion but only against the evidence.  But indeed, it's your right to do so.  It is, unhappily however, NOT proof of critical thinking.  Nor is it the topic of this thread.  It's only proof of YET more of your own unsubstantiated OPINION - and that seems to be the limit of your intellectual reach.  But more to the point.  There is not ONE CONTRIBUTOR to this thread - who has ARGUED FE or OU or any other term related to challenging thermodynamics.  Perhaps, before you give us your OPINIONS you could take the trouble to read the text.  It usually better qualifies those opinions which you share so gratuitously and which are so embarrassingly inappropriate.

I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread.  It's always your option.  And it will CERTAINLY continue to offend you.  But not because it's BLAH BLAH.  But because you, yourself, have entirely MISSED THE POINT.  LOL

Rosemary

I've just re-read this post and I realise now that I need to make it simpler for you so that you can understand it.  This thread was NEVER 'initially dedicated to FE methodology' as you put it.  What class idiocy did you use to assume this?  Actually, why am I even asking? 
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest on October 24, 2010, 04:30:00 PM
...This from a man whose own critical faculties incline him to  use wild allegation as proof of fraudulent culpability...
...NOT...YET...ONE CONTRIBUTOR...ARGUED FE or OU...MISSED THE POINT...
...
I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread
...

Please avoid personnal attacks. My point was general and about what is said and not about people who said it. You should leave your ego at the door of the forum (as well as your capital letters) when you come here. If you really believe that your ad hominem attacks against skeptics will give credibility to your not proved claims of FE, you are wrong.

Visibly you make a personal matter and confuse methodology and opinion. Even if you think sincerely there is FE in your simple circuit, and I agree that you are probably sincere, from a scientific viewpoint the sincerity proves nothing at all.
Therefore to elaborate fuzzy theories about not proved facts and not confirmed observations is what I said: blah blah blah, the same as theorizing about angels to know if they are male or female without having seen one.

About the methodology - Note that I only affirm there is no OU in FE claims (like yours) until proof of the contrary, i.e OU is only a hypothetis not a fact, both options being not yet definitive. Consequently I'm waiting for further duplications, and trying myself, because skepticism implies also open mind. It is the second time you demand me for leaving a thread; an open mind prevents such an attitude, so if you have one, you should exert it. If you are afraid by free speech, you should stay on your own site with your only own version, and censoring objections from others. What fun it would be for you, Rosemary, to deal only with followers having your opinion. Delightful, isn't it?   ;)


Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 24, 2010, 04:54:36 PM
If you want to avoid personal attacks then you should try and make your observations less personal.  I take it very personally when people accuse me of fraud.  I also take extreme exception to claims that FE is being discussed when it is absolutely NOT the subject under discussion.  And to then pass an opinion on that discussion is entirely void of sense if it also bears no relation to the subject under discussion - which is the case here.

Your point - as you put it - was actually NEVER made.  All you did was make a generic dismissal of  our dialogue which you described so eloquently in the use of the words BLAH BLAH.  I have a four year old granddaughter who's got a better vocabulary.  Your assumption was that we were talking FE or OU.  THAT was an assuption.  In fact the subject is and was entirely irrelevant to this discussion. 

I suffer from many things exnihiloest but 'too much ego' as you put it,  is certainly not one of them.  Else I would certainly NOT persist in posting on any forum at all.  And when my attacks become ad hominem - as you put it - then you are really well justified in your comments.  My attack in this instance is against the substance of your posts.  And I have absolutely NEVER claimed FE - anywhere - EVER.

We have detailed our experimental evidence in two papers both of which are widely referenced.  The last paper has the experimental evidence of COP>7 and it's unarguable.  But I grant you that the text of the paper would be as obscure to you as the theme of this thread.  You would not be able to understand it if it was translated into words of one syllable.  But.  My thesis - as it relates to that paper is NOT the subject under discussion.  And again.  You would not be able to realise this without first reading the context in this thread and then, which is probably more demanding, understand what's written here.  And that's not because any of us are inarticulate.  And frankly Exnihiloest - there is absolutely no gratification in dealing with 'like minds'.  Else there would be no discussion.  But I do, indeed, prefer thinking about a subject then passing an opinion on it.  That's your particular brand of genius.

I have also not presumed to DEMAND you stay away.  I simply strongly recommend it.  When and if I demand it then please point me to that post.  I'll gladly edit it out.

Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: spinn_MP on October 24, 2010, 09:21:30 PM
Mary, you're still kicking around??

Uauu...?


Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 24, 2010, 09:47:30 PM
Mary, you're still kicking around??

Uauu...?

Spinn?  Is that really a question?  I think I'll pass.

R
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 25, 2010, 06:16:43 AM
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.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.
 ;D

Critical thinking IS the methodology of this thread dedicated to the topics of "free energy", "critical thinking", and "skeptics".....

Using critical thought, I deduce you have made many assertions.

1. critical thinking is "gone away" from this thread
2. this thread is somehow "dedicated" to FE methodology
3. the thread is turning into "vague digressions"
4. as well as "pompous blah blah"
5. as well as "incantations for free energy"
6. you have some sort of bullshmeter
7. it is malfunctioning in some manner

1.

First of all, critical thinking has neither "left", "ceased", nor "departed" in any appreciable manner. I myself do not agree with many oof the concepts proposed, yet it is a complete untruth to state critical thinking was not employed or demonstrated by the various posters. Your statement is based upon emotion and personal opinion, not science nor scientific methodology.

2.

I started this thread, and nowhere did I "dedicate" this thread as you have asserted to "FE Methodology". Blatantly a falsified statement.

3.

As for the entire thread turning into indefinite, indistinct, or "not clear" deviations (vague digressions)....  Some of the ideas are not definitively established, confirmed, or "known"... But that is the nature of working with concepts which can not be proven by firsthand witness, and I apologize for the introduction of QM into the mix, as well as relativity due to their vague nature..

Yet I think critical thinking can still apply even to those aforementioned unpopular and often unfalsifiable topics.

4.

I offer several online dictionaries and thesaurus to help your inability to express yourself due to this self admitted personal problem. Ego can be overcome, and such is necessary to critical logical thought. However, I must point out your post has been the only recent one demonstrating such, so I think your estimation of it applying to the "entire thread" is an unreasonable conclusion..

5.

As to "incantations to free energy"......? I remember quite little about any free energy posts, except where I asked Mary for more info, or a few brief mentions. Now exactly what an "incantation to free energy" is, is any-ones guess. Incantations are religious chants used to conjure in magic. I have heard no one anywhere chanting to make something appear, either in this thread or in science, except maybe Heisenberg.. This is not a place for discussion of scientology, or other "science" based religions.  If you are looking for incantations I suggest you look elsewhere. say a google or yahoo search.

6.

You make it unclear what this bullshmeter of yours is. I suspect this is a personal problem which you need to address. Otherwise I would have to state it unbased and biased sarcasm, which is the refuge of a weak mind incapable of a particular logical argument. Therefore, both an illogical and unfalsifiable empty assertion for the obvious purpose of enjoining the readers negative emotions.

This concept deserves further examination in concept though. You make two assertions in one.
A. a supposed BS meter exists, and
B. you have one.

Noting that the mere existence of such a things "mere existence" is more than in doubt: Do you claim to be the inventor? How was such a device built? How do you measure it's accuracy? How was it calibrated? By what measure does it work?

I state this as conjecture, but I suspect it is, just as you implied, a malfunctioning internal device.

7.

Advice for a personal problem:

Remove it, or get it fixed. I suspect it may have been malfunctioning to some degree, as is usually true with any device, for possibly a very long time before it "broke". Some devices come from the factory flawed, a simple fact of life I am afraid.

-------------------

Now that you have gotten this load off of your chest and all have had time to logically examine your concepts, please remember the purpose of the thread. Critical Logical Thought.

If you make an assumption, please be clear in your stating in some manner. Also, make sure it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you must make an assertion, give the base logic by which it may be logically examined, as otherwise needless misunderstandings may result.

Valid topics for this thread:

Free energy concepts examined with critical thought

Critical thinking, examples of its use, or demonstrative usage thereof

True skepticism and the demonstrable difference from most self proclaimed "scientific skeptics" and equally towards self proclaimed "believers".

Therefore, most anything anyone here would be interested in is truly fair game, AS LONG as critical thought is the basis for both conceptual explanation and concurrent examination.

Such things as insults, sarcasm, vague inuendo, and rhetoric, combined with inferred reference demonstrates (equates or =) ZERO critical thought, and is therefore not a suitable subject for discussion.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 25, 2010, 06:54:55 AM
Critical thinking IS the methodology of this thread dedicated to the topics of "free energy", "critical thinking", and "skeptics".....

Using critical thought, I deduce you have made many assertions.

1. critical thinking is "gone away" from this thread
2. this thread is somehow "dedicated" to FE methodology
3. the thread is turning into "vague digressions"
4. as well as "pompous blah blah"
5. as well as "incantations for free energy"
6. you have some sort of bullshmeter
7. it is malfunctioning in some manner

1.

First of all, critical thinking has neither "left", "ceased", nor "departed" in any appreciable manner. I myself do not agree with many oof the concepts proposed, yet it is a complete untruth to state critical thinking was not employed or demonstrated by the various posters. Your statement is based upon emotion and personal opinion, not science nor scientific methodology.

2.

I started this thread, and nowhere did I "dedicate" this thread as you have asserted to "FE Methodology". Blatantly a falsified statement.

3.

As for the entire thread turning into indefinite, indistinct, or "not clear" deviations (vague digressions)....  Some of the ideas are not definitively established, confirmed, or "known"... But that is the nature of working with concepts which can not be proven by firsthand witness, and I apologize for the introduction of QM into the mix, as well as relativity due to their vague nature..

Yet I think critical thinking can still apply even to those aforementioned unpopular and often unfalsifiable topics.

4.

I offer several online dictionaries and thesaurus to help your inability to express yourself due to this self admitted personal problem. Ego can be overcome, and such is necessary to critical logical thought. However, I must point out your post has been the only recent one demonstrating such, so I think your estimation of it applying to the "entire thread" is an unreasonable conclusion..

5.

As to "incantations to free energy"......? I remember quite little about any free energy posts, except where I asked Mary for more info, or a few brief mentions. Now exactly what an "incantation to free energy" is, is any-ones guess. Incantations are religious chants used to conjure in magic. I have heard no one anywhere chanting to make something appear, either in this thread or in science, except maybe Heisenberg.. This is not a place for discussion of scientology, or other "science" based religions.  If you are looking for incantations I suggest you look elsewhere. say a google or yahoo search.

6.

You make it unclear what this bullshmeter of yours is. I suspect this is a personal problem which you need to address. Otherwise I would have to state it unbased and biased sarcasm, which is the refuge of a weak mind incapable of a particular logical argument. Therefore, both an illogical and unfalsifiable empty assertion for the obvious purpose of enjoining the readers negative emotions.

This concept deserves further examination in concept though. You make two assertions in one.
A. a supposed BS meter exists, and
B. you have one.

Noting that the mere existence of such a things "mere existence" is more than in doubt: Do you claim to be the inventor? How was such a device built? How do you measure it's accuracy? How was it calibrated? By what measure does it work?

I state this as conjecture, but I suspect it is, just as you implied, a malfunctioning internal device.

7.

Advice for a personal problem:

Remove it, or get it fixed. I suspect it may have been malfunctioning to some degree, as is usually true with any device, for possibly a very long time before it "broke". Some devices come from the factory flawed, a simple fact of life I am afraid.

-------------------

Now that you have gotten this load off of your chest and all have had time to logically examine your concepts, please remember the purpose of the thread. Critical Logical Thought.

If you make an assumption, please be clear in your stating in some manner. Also, make sure it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you must make an assertion, give the base logic by which it may be logically examined, as otherwise needless misunderstandings may result.

Valid topics for this thread:

Free energy concepts examined with critical thought

Critical thinking, examples of its use, or demonstrative usage thereof

True skepticism and the demonstrable difference from most self proclaimed "scientific skeptics" and equally towards self proclaimed "believers".

Therefore, most anything anyone here would be interested in is truly fair game, AS LONG as critical thought is the basis for both conceptual explanation and concurrent examination.

Such things as insults, sarcasm, vague inuendo, and rhetoric, combined with inferred reference demonstrates (equates or =) ZERO critical thought, and is therefore not a suitable subject for discussion.

Paul Andrulis
;D As ever Paul.  Very well said. Definitely deserves repetition in a copied post.  LOL
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 25, 2010, 08:23:11 AM
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
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 26, 2010, 01:49:52 AM
TING......Ting....ting...ting..ting.ting.............. dead silence

The sound of a pin dropping.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: truthbeknown on October 26, 2010, 02:10:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 26, 2010, 06:39:36 AM
 ;D 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

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest on October 26, 2010, 09:01:46 AM
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.

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: WilbyInebriated on October 26, 2010, 09:08:25 AM
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.
what? no response from you to pauldude000's reply to your post ???  you're a cherrypicker who stands upon one theory to discredit another... and you talk about other people's attitudes. ::)
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 26, 2010, 10:15:52 PM
Paul, very nice...

The "Sea" of energy, as you described it, pretty much exactly coincides with how I look at that situation.  (Difficult to explain, isn't it.)  I noticed you used my "Standing Wave" as an example that doesn't seem quite right, and I Agree, 100%.

============

If such a concept were true, I can easily understand the reasoning for suppression.  Following any of this to real-world applications offers the possibility for mistakes (or intentional misuse?) that could be quite dangerous, beyond little things like nukes.  Would forming a small "Singularity" cause much damage?  I have thought this through for too long, and am obviously biased, so a little input would be greatly appreciated.  Especially some "Critical" input, just to ease my mind...

Thanks

Art

I am a critic and a skeptic of the worst kind concerning my own theories and hypothesis, holding myself to logical standards I cannot even hope to achieve. Yet, bias always tries to work it's way in. The more one invests time and effort logically pondering, the more vested they tend to become, cherishing this idea or that concept. All are guilty to some degree.

Many aspects of reality qualify the concept, very true.

However, the "surface skin effect" is where everything seems to break down, and the same problem plagues many of the various theories out there, including aether and relativistic space/time. The illogical concept of wave effects or warpage upon the SURFACE of a medium. These logical concrete effects which require a liquids property of the "skin effect", when all said concepts we reference are immersed, or completely enveloped within the medium in all 360 degrees. There is no logical "surface", excepting the possible boundary of logical displacement..

There is no ease for your troubled mind I am afraid. I have gotten night sweats and many sleepless nights from some of the implied and probable possibilities. From the "sea" base energy concept, many things otherwise impossible become not only possible but probable. Through such a concept all manifestations and fields become logically linked together, and therefore manipulable by secondary influence.

A wormhole, or "small singularity" as you put it, is only the tip of that nasty iceberg so to speak. In ways, I truly hope I am wrong concerning the conception, and that much time has been wasted building an elaborate logical abstract fairytale.

One thing I abjectly cannot trust is human nature, as concrete data provided throughout history demonstrates the logical conclusion of the matter.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 26, 2010, 11:05:56 PM
Just a quick "thought to make you go hmmmm..."

As soon as humanity self-adopted the term towards themselves of  "homo sapiens sapiens", they in fact became...

homo arrogantia arrogantia

Edit ADDED:

Or more precisely:

Homo debilitatus arrogantia

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 26, 2010, 11:56:39 PM
@Loner

Something I forgot to add into my previous reply. A qualification with inherent far reaching implications. A logical chain.

A gravitic field interacts with a photon. From this it can directly be deduced that gravity interacts with electromagnetism. Therefore a magnetic field is affected by gravity. No interaction is strictly "one way" (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).

You can take it from there, and probably had already made the logical connection yourself.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: exnihiloest on October 27, 2010, 02:15:03 PM

Science knows how to convince skeptics.
If you don't, your OU claims are delusions, change occupation.

Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on October 27, 2010, 06:13:12 PM
Hi Paul. I grant you that the dipole is purely hypothesised.  What's not theory is that there are charge properties to the electron and proton.  None to the photon and the neutron.  That does not make the proton or the neutron a dipole - nor does it necessarily make the proton and the electron a monopole.  But that they've got this property is unarguable.  My question is this.  IF a particle had zero charge, or neutral, - would that not be similar in nature to a magnet?  A magnet has NO charge but inherently has two distinct charges.  And then consider this.  If the charge in the magnet is defined by Faraday's Lines of Force - then the north is distinct from the south - only in relation to whether the force is extruding or intruding the material of the magnet - respectively.  Effectively it's monodirectional - or, to put it another way - it has a single justification.  But that's a 'field effect'.  How does one then isolate a single charge in a particle?  Or does it simply have a predominantly negative charge? And somehow then all such particles are composites of multiple charges - rather like a boson?  Or.  Is an electron or even a proton - a kind of isolated monopole?  Even if we were to establish this much it would be pure speculation.

This is why I feel that an analysis of the actual properties of the 'field' needs to first be made to determine what, if anything, would be the nature of the particle.  That way - instead of wildly pointing to surface skin effects, or longitudinal waves or not - we've at least got the substance of the the field established. 

There's lots can be shown in a field - that's empirically evident.  To claim the same properties of the field in each and every particle is then quite easy.  For instance.  A field appears to orbit, it appears to belong to the material body of the magnet itself.  It appears to have a defined space in which is can operate.  It appears to have a finite and quantifiable force.  It's north pole repels other north poles and it's south repels other souths.  Likewise - the north and south of magnets attract.  Provided nothing physically prevents them - and provided these magnets are close enough - they'll attach - one magnet to another.

Everything I've written here - then substitute the field for the particle.  The particle would orbit and appears to belong to the magnet itself.  It orbits in a defined space.  It's charge properties also appear to obey the laws of charge.  In as much as they appear to join up rather than remain at rest or apart - the implication is that the particle would prefer to amalgamate in a field. Therefore, being magnetic dipoles the attachement would north to south or head to toe.  That would result in a string which would then align in terms of Faraday's Lines of Force.  And so on.  Boring simple obvious facts.  It doesn't need a rocket scientist to wrap his mind around that lot.  And it may be right?  At least, if it's pure speculation - it's also based on what is macroscopically verifiable.   

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.
There's nothing wrong here Paul.  Nice stuff.  But why should matter be discreet - and what is energy?  And flowing fields of WHAT?  Your vision begs more questions.  Nothing wrong - but we could skirt this forever - first proposing this and then proposing the next thing.  Surely it needs to be based on something that - in its essense is, at least, verifiable.

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.

Can't quarrel with the last part of this post Paul.  But that deduction by inference.  I do beg to propose that it's reasonable to infer the microscopic from the macroscopic - as I've referenced with the magnetic field.

Anyway.  It's all food for thought.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 27, 2010, 10:02:50 PM
"There's nothing wrong here Paul.  Nice stuff.  But why should matter be discreet - and what is energy?  And flowing fields of WHAT?  Your vision begs more questions.  Nothing wrong - but we could skirt this forever - first proposing this and then proposing the next thing.  Surely it needs to be based on something that - in its essense is, at least, verifiable."

Typo.... discrete, and not discreet, as in "individually distinct"... Good catch, I completely missed that one.

Good questions:

The term "Energy" is used with the same abstract meaning as is used to describe a photon as a discrete packet of "energy". I know the term as used is vague at best, but it cannot be helped. Energy is used in my post to refer to individual quantized packets of the ultimately basic building blocks of both what we determine as "particles", as "photons"  and also as "fields". Therefore when referencing any measurable effect, you can look at the super-macro, macro, micro, or sub-micro, and ultimately be referencing the same "stuff" as being the material connecting all visible and measurable effects. Technically, due to scale of reference, both my conception and yours could be true at the same time, as I am looking at the problem using a different scale of reference.

The verification statement you made is absolutely true. But as you said, the macro tends to describes the micro.... which is evidence by inference. Beyond a certain point where accurate measurement fails, and direct observation is impossible, inference is the only tool available. Either by studying the comparably quite large and applying the concepts gleaned to the quite small, or through logical chains (if this is true then this HAS to be true as well).

Yet, considering this, no theory about such is directly verifiable, and all utilize inference as both a base for logical discernment and for evidential qualification. Not one person has ever directly measured an electron. Not for mass, volume, or any other base physical aspect as every single aspect you can mention is far too small to be detected on an individual level. Inference however allows the conceptual method for measurement, measuring these things through secondary means. Even the charge value of an electron is assumed, as it was given an arbitrary charge quantity initially to create a base for comparison.

The question naturally follows, as you quite well asked, "where do we stop"?

Well, if direct measurement is the criteria, then truthfully we all must throw away the proverbial notebooks and go back to Newton for a refresher.

If direct inference is the criteria, then we can ride this logical train to the last stop.

If indirect inference is allowed, then we can all go to Escher land. (Personally I'll get off the train at this point.)

A logical chain is direct inference.... so therefore how much of your own theory infers logically from the action, interaction, and behavior of something else?

The fact that I put it forth as mere speculation or at best a working hypothesis is due to the fact that the concept was derived logically by inference, as was yours.

That is also why I referred earlier to the fact that I consider both of our concepts as being equal in both possibility and probability, simply because neither concept can provide or be proven by direct measurable reference.

EDIT ADDED:

By "indirect inference" I refer to things which infer another, but not considerable as directly.

Pure abstract mathematics not actively measuring or quantifying real but instead imagined effects (speculative mathematics) for example can infer the existence of a thing that does not exist, as the mathematical outcome may be real, but has to be interpretively applied to reality by the mathematician and can therefore easily be a misinterpretation.

Philosophical, religious, and personal bias based inferences are all examples of what I mean as "indirect inference". There are no measurable or quantifiable reference basis for logical physical assumptions to be made.

Yet many choose pick and choose what defines "inference" often classifying "indirect inference" as "inference", and vice-versa. If quantification and qualification by inference is disallowed, then science itself would in effect be "knocked back to the stone age".

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
Post by: pauldude000 on October 27, 2010, 11:58:29 PM
Refresher for us science geeks:  ;D

The progression of logical thought starts with the lowly observation, either concrete or abstract.

Said observers knowledge leads to applicable sets of base postulates.

Speculation and contemplation combine with the postulates to form a conditional hypothesis.

The hypothesis is then tentatively measured by the observer and otherwise tested against the evidence to become a theory.

Said theory undergoes exhaustive peer testing against known reality, and if it works in all cases or it works without fail in certain cases, it assumes the mantle of either Law or Conditional Law respectively.

Sounds good doesn't it? Logical, tidy, effective.

How guaranteed is a law?

It is not logically any better than the base postulates, which HAVE to be true for anything based upon them to be true.

A postulate by definition is an assumption or claim (IE an assertion also by definition.)

Ouch.

Paul Andrulis