I thought this was a classic and comical case of the bias against anything having to do with free energy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
QuotePerpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever in an unperturbed system. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate either the first or second law of thermodynamics or both.
Note they only mention the actual topic of "perpetual motion" in a one sentence blurb. They cannot even finish the line without then jumping right into an embarrassing muti-page diatribe on perpetual motion machines. I wonder where all the content on the actual subject of perpetual motion went?.
Yet this is the same kind of sheer nonsense we see everywhere equating "perpetual motion" with a supposed magical machine. We could also note how these buffoons also chose the worst possible examples of perpetual motion machines which clearly could not work. This is the kind of bias and propaganda the FE community is up against.
I have to wonder if the critics cannot understand plain English?. Perpetual (carries on forever, never ending) + Motion(changing position or place) = motion which never ends. We should recognize this because the Conservation Of Energy demands energy/motion cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. By transformed we mean act on or through another level ie. the motion of an object is transformed into the jiggling motion of atoms as heat. There can be no more or less energy as motion and it can only transform thus the COE demands everything must be in perpetual motion.
Can anyone name anything in the universe which not in perpetual motion?... no, they cannot.
This is true because even though tangible matter may appear immobile intelligent people understand all it's atoms/particles and associated EM fields are in perpetual motion. The conservation of matter and energy demand they remain in motion perpetually.
In my opinion this nonsense on wikipedia is perfect example of this bias and propaganda towards FE. As well, if we view the editing history on the wikipedia page we can see it's only a few individuals who are editing out all the more relevant information. Which is often the case with bots and paid shills abusing all forms of media.
AC
I agree with the wiki perspective as they are addressing the idea that machines can be made to work forever just by their design and on that score free energy is a myth.
They also point out that all sources of energy that we know of regardless of whether we can tap them or not will expire ..even in a billion years .
I get why some would think that they are biased but its all about context and there is no doubt about their context as they mention sources that are being successfully used and they are not free energy They just seem so if the source is not yet well documented.
When science uncovers new things there are many interests that do not benefit from new understandings ...this story will go on forever ...oops ...until we are all dead.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.01.31, 01:04:08
Can anyone name anything in the universe which not in perpetual motion?... no, they cannot.
Energy changes form all the time. We can't see the edge of the universe, but perhaps energy is still being created...
Everyone understands that by "perpetual motion machine", we mean a motion that not only compensates its losses but is also able to provide energy. It is not by twisting the definition and by diverting the subject on the constancy of movements in the universe that we will be made to believe in the possibility of free energy.
Those who talk about free energy being unable to demonstrate it, unable to produce any technology that can compete with conventional systems, unable to produce refutable theories since there is nothing to theorize about, until proven otherwise, everything Wikipedia says is right.
There is no propaganda against the Free Energy "community" but mainly from the Free Energy "community". It is propaganda because we don't see the reality of what is being claimed but are told about it as if it were.
The use of the term "community" is significant in this respect, it is a confinement in rules, rites, and a belief system. The fact that we seek free energy does not make us a "community" but independent individuals in relation with each other through their technical interests.
Those who do not understand the laws of nature or want to replace them with what they dream of, I invite them to turn to religion rather than transforming our movement of technically curious, tinkerers, technicians or engineers, into a sectarian movement based on faith, and not on scientific and technical research.
.
3D magnetics
QuoteI agree with the wiki perspective as they are addressing the idea that machines can be made to work forever just by their design and on that score free energy is a myth.
I disagree with the wiki because it shows a clear bias by equating the physics of perpetual motion with a hypothetical machine nobody believes. A form of psychological manipulation relating to word associations. Similar to you saying I saw a strange light in the sky and other people saying you mean little green men?. It's an attempt to de-legitimize a subject by associating something confusing or contradictory with it. As we can see the effect can be so subtle most people have little idea they are even being manipulated.
QuoteThey also point out that all sources of energy that we know of regardless of whether we can tap them or not will expire ..even in a billion years .
What your suggesting cannot be true if you believe in the conservation of matter and energy. Were told energy cannot be created or destroyed, period. Then people start using terms like consumed, expired, dissipated or used up in direct contradiction to the law of conservation.
I found many like to talk about the conservation of energy but few if any actually believe it. Here's a clue, all the greatest FE inventors claimed there devices harnessed radiant/cosmic energy. They claimed the universe was a sea of energy which was endless and perpetual. Ergo the energy was always conserved and could never be created or destroyed only transformed. Maybe these FE inventors were the only ones who actually understood the conservation of energy.
Personally I find perpetual motion machines absurd. It's a joke, a parlor trick meant to distract people from understanding that all energy and motion is perpetual. The conservation of energy and matter demands it's perpetual. What do people think "CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED" means?, lol.
AC
@Renaissance Rising
To reproach criticism is clearly to take a stand on the principle of faith. Criticism is absolutely necessary for the search for truth.
As for "cynicism", it is a biased interpretation as those whose objects of faith are criticized have.
It is time to get out of this infernal loop of inventing conspiracy theories to explain the past failure of the "free energy community" and find scapegoats or excuses for its incompetence.
Being one of these "free energy researchers", but independent and I do not consider that any "community" would represent me, the only excuse I see for us is the extreme scientific and technical difficulty compared to our presumption to do better than the scientists, who are also looking for the same thing with a mind as open, even often much more, than ours.
The "free energy community", which unlike the scientific community has not yet produced anything for mankind, should be more modest and do its introspection.
Another bias I found is the objection to FE based on entropy.
Entropy only applies to closed systems but then many took it out of context and mistakenly applied it to everything. Entropy was also based on the primitive concept of thermodynamics ie. thermo-heat/dynamic-motion, the motion relating to atoms jiggling or heat.
For example, many claim since energy radiates the universe must tend towards dissipation and chaos. However this narrow minded view ignores the basic premise of the conservation of matter and energy.
Some energy may radiate as smaller packets of energy but they cannot be created/destroyed and must eventually be absorbed by something else. Thus the laws of conservation demand what radiates in one place must eventually concentrate in another, equal and opposite. What radiates must also gravitate somewhere else otherwise we fall into the rabbit hole of creation/destruction or something from nothing.
So of course the bias is quite obvious and many only looked at half the equation. They only considered the force of expansion/radiation and ignored the equal and opposite force of concentration/gravitation. Which may also explain why so few have any idea how to concentrate energy in a FE device.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.01, 16:25:51
...For example, many claim since energy radiates the universe must tend towards dissipation and chaos. However this narrow minded view ignores the basic premise of the conservation of matter and energy.
...
This is false.
Energy/mass is conserved, but the universe is expanding. So the density of energy reduces, and if the expansion continues indefinitely, the density of energy in this universe tends towards zero!
When the universe is only filled with one photon per cubic light year, won't it be "dissipation and chaos"?
And the question is much worse. Because the expansion of the universe makes galaxies disappear every day, not that they are anihilated, but that they disappear from our observable universe because the regions of distant space are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. So these areas can no longer have any connection with us. Even by moving at the speed of light, we could not reach them, the energy there is no longer accessible.
But why don't we see you educate yourself on scientific subjects before talking about them?! And why project your own misunderstandings onto scientists? The funny thing is that you reproach them for neglecting the "conservation of matter and energy", whereas the principle of conservation of energy is also reproached to scientists by the FE community. In short, it's blaming them for one thing and its opposite, it's really nonsense. Ask yourself which of the two really shows the "narrow minded view".
F6FLT
QuoteEnergy/mass is conserved, but the universe is expanding. So the density of energy reduces, and if the expansion continues indefinitely, the density of energy in this universe tends towards zero!
When the universe is only filled with one photon per cubic light year, won't it be "dissipation and chaos"?
Logically we know this cannot be true in a greater sense.
If the universe were expanding then at some point it must have also been contracting which then allowed for the expansion. To claim the universe simply expanded from a point is to claim something was created from nothing and must have violated the conservation of matter and energy. Are you claiming the COE was violated then?.
QuoteAnd the question is much worse. Because the expansion of the universe makes galaxies disappear every day, not that they are anihilated, but that they disappear from our observable universe because the regions of distant space are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. So these areas can no longer have any connection with us. Even by moving at the speed of light, we could not reach them, the energy there is no longer accessible.
I disagree with the point and all we really know as a fact is that some astronomers seem to have measured a slight red shift in astronomical bodies. From this measurement everything else was then theorized, key word theory. ie. Expansion theory of the universe.
Occam's razor implies the answer which relies on the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one.
Which sounds more probable...
1) The measured red shift is not accurate and probably an artifact of the way we measured it or some other unknown effect.
2)The universe was created from nothing as condensed energy/matter in violation of the conservation of energy and matter. It then proceeded to expand outward perpetually, supposedly into nothing perpetually.
No my friend, I could never believe such nonsense because your flawed reasoning is no different than what your accusing others here of. We cannot get something from nothing and the conservation of matter and energy must hold. Ergo, there must be a more reasonable explanation.
AC
F6FLT
I should thank you, working through the problem of a supposed expanding universe I just discovered where the astronomers made some critical errors in judgement. It was your description and perspective of what you think is happening that made me think. As I explained prior what your suggesting cannot be true therefore it must be something else and I may have just found it.
I just did some preliminary sketches and basic calculations and my theory seems to work. Does anyone know of some good motion physics simulation software?.
AC
AC
Message broli ..he may help a bit ?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.01, 18:13:41
Which sounds more probable...
1) The measured red shift is not accurate and probably an artifact of the way we measured it or some other unknown effect.
2)The universe was created from nothing as condensed energy/matter in violation of the conservation of energy and matter. It then proceeded to expand outward perpetually, supposedly into nothing perpetually.
You have missed one!
3)At distant regions of the universe atomic oscillators oscillate at a different rate due to inertial mass differing from gravitational mass there.
Smudge
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.01, 19:08:55
...the astronomers made some critical errors in judgement...
C.C
When one is not competent in a field and when, in addition, one does not know how to bring the least contradiction in scientific terms, to seize the questions of research at the limits of our knowledge to incriminate the scientists whereas all that you know of the universe comes from them, is of a ridiculous incoherence.
These questions are hypotheses of research, they are part of the method but are not yet science, since they are not verified and there is no consensus, unlike Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics or relativity...
In science, it is not like in free energy: scientists do not agree with the last person who spoke on Youtube, they evolve their knowledge with their discoveries, their observations, their measurements and it is not because they question the best models they had until now, that Newton's laws would not be valid tomorrow.
Modified my post to stay on topic...
Did a little more digging and things are much worse than I imagined. Apparently perpetual motion does not mean motion which lasts forever according to the English language but an imaginary perpetual motion machine. There is no term to describe continuous motion defined by the conservation of energy. The moment perpetual motion is mentioned most devolve into a primitive diatribe about the 2nd law and heat.
Of course they like to talk about the conservation of energy but then then use terms and concepts which clearly must violate it. It's the damnedest thing.
They also seem to have no problem with a universe created from nothing and apparently expanding into nothing. Let me repeat that, they believe the universe will keep expanding but have literally no idea what it could expand into. They also seem to believe the universe is finite but can expand infinitely. However they certainly do seem to have an infatuation with black holes. Which they believe are sucking up the universe but again have no idea where all the matter and energy could go.
I'm starting to think the scientific community is nuts.
@AC
Not one of your statements is consistent with reality. They are all based on biased interpretations and straw man fallacies.
Why do you say "They also seem to have no problem with a universe created from nothing" when it is totally false? Where is your scientific references that would claim a creation ex nihilo?
Is your nonsense stories because you don't understand the big bang theory or is it because of a complex against scientists?
When will you finally study science before talking about it and producing false and iniquitous arguments against scientists?
The resentment of part of the "FE community" against scientists is beginning to remind me of the Inquisition's trials against Gallileo.
The propaganda of their obscurantism, which has never produced anything for mankind, and which pretends to deny the scientific knowledge that has, is not at all in the right direction.
Quote from: Renaissance Rising on 2023.01.31, 19:17:46
Criticism & Cynicism.
IME - the former is great when presented in a suggestive, practical manner.
The latter, rarely beneficial for either party.
I strive to occupy the former, especially when no one has a useful OU device in constant looped operation, yet (afaik)
I'm glad others recognize that this sort of disinformation - (Mythbusters Bedini ep. is my go to example) - may well be the crux upon which suppressions are achieved.
The expanding dissemination of legible, correct information & replicable tutorials, relevant to these experiments, that one may find online in various places, is paramount to what I believe will be a long overdue electrical renaissance. The biggest challenge to overcome is the concretely planted notion that -
"ThErE iS No SuCh tHiNg aS FrEe eNeRgY DeViCe!11!! As so confidently stated by Electro-boom..
Countless others do the same and denounce that which they can't verify
I grant that Mythbusters was focused more on entertainment then science, which explains the unfaithful methodology they used to debunk.
One doesn't have to be a Bedini fan to immediately realize that the motor presented in the show had no resemblance to the designs and publications from Bedini of the last 30yrs.
* No HV impulses or feedback
* No tuning or coil sizing/balancing
* No ferromagnetic core material
* Arbitrary choice of magnets
* Arbitrary # of magnets
* Arbitrary velocity
* Single strand magnet wire
* No variation on spacing or timing or input power
* Motor was in repulsion rather than attraction mode
One could 'debunk' all manner of things by using that same half-assed standard of experimentation.
Attempt to build a Class-E MOSFET amplifier but use an arbitrary sized inductor so it doesn't work?
"Class E Amplifier Myth: BUSTED"
Attempt to build a VHF filter but use electrolytic caps instead of RF/mica?
"Bessler Bandpass Filter Myth: BUSTED"
I'd love to see a parody where they disprove the myth of the internal combustion engine by using a 4-stroke lawnmower and just alter the timing by 30deg. Or cut the spark voltage in half. Or dilute the gas with 50% water (it should still run with 50% of the power, right?)
"Myth of the Internal Combustion Engine: BUSTED" ;D ;D ;D
As for Electroboom, it was hilarious watching him build a "Tesla Coil" without knowing how critically important dielectric field management is in these systems. He coated the secondary coil in copious amounts of high-loss epoxy! ;D No wonder it melted down so fast C.C
Hakasays
QuoteI'd love to see a parody where they disprove the myth of the internal combustion engine by using a 4-stroke lawnmower and just alter the timing by 30deg. Or cut the spark voltage in half. Or dilute the gas with 50% water (it should still run with 50% of the power, right?)
"Myth of the Internal Combustion Engine: BUSTED"
I think you nailed it and different people are laughing for different reasons. Most laugh because they think a myth has been busted but I generally laugh at the myth busters incompetence. It's as if they don't even try to make a real effort or understand anything which I admit is kind of funny. It's funny in the same way as watching a 1 year old learning to walk and falling all over themselves.
I also like Electroboom for similar reasons. He's an electrical engineer but seems to have little grasp of electrodynamics or working theory. For example, like most he claimed he had no idea how a self-oscillating tesla coil could possibly work because the base/gate trigger was open circuit. So once again we see the closed circuit/closed system brainwashing is alive and well in academia.
I helped develop and popularize open circuit switching along with another researcher I knew named Dr. Stiffler about 15 years ago. It was obvious to me from simple experiments that a mosfet gate could be triggered by an open circuit electric field. The next step was using signal transistors or fets in darligton arrays to amplify extremely small E fields. I built a small open circuit detector which could detect the E field generated from a person walking in another room 40 feet away on the other side of my house. It's really interesting stuff and I'm not sure what the outer limit is regarding sensitivity and range.
It's strange, I want to stay open minded but the more supposedly scientific people I interact with the more I realize how biased they are. They appear to have no interest in learning anything outside the context of what they have memorized or been told. It seems to relate to a lack of imagination and curiosity in my opinion. In effect they seem to have forgotten how to learn...
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.03, 17:05:28
I also like Electroboom for similar reasons. He's an electrical engineer but seems to have little grasp of electrodynamics or working theory. For example, like most he claimed he had no idea how a self-oscillating tesla coil could possibly work because the base/gate trigger was open circuit. So once again we see the closed circuit/closed system brainwashing is alive and well in academia.
AC
Yeah, Electroboom is still a great asset because he actually does pick up a scope and soldering iron and build things. He'll figure out eventually who'se been giving useful advice and who hasnt.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.03, 17:23:28
Yeah, Electroboom is still a great asset because he actually does pick up a scope and soldering iron and build things. He'll figure out eventually who'se been giving useful advice and who hasnt.
Yes he is a major asset and he has already figured it out: no one gives useful advice. When he can build and measure something that works in free energy, he will change his mind.
As long as people like him are not convinced, as long as the skeptics are not convinced, the reason is that FE does not exist yet.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.03, 14:17:48
@AC
...
Why do you say "They also seem to have no problem with a universe created from nothing" when it is totally false? Where is your scientific references that would claim a creation ex nihilo?
...
Still no answer?
I think Electroboom has the same kind of problem. We see a lot of gibberish, and when we ask for the facts, we get more gibberish.
F6FLT
QuoteWhy do you say "They also seem to have no problem with a universe created from nothing" when it is totally false? Where is your scientific references that would claim a creation ex nihilo?
The big bang theory claims the universe as we know it expanded from a super dense point or cluster of compressed matter. They also claim entropy and the conservation of energy will not allow all the expanded universe to be compressed back to it's original state.
As such it's a violation of the COE and causality where the laws of physics would prevent the original state (a compressed universe) from ever happening. Ergo, if the laws of physics forbid the universe from contracting back to it's original state then it's all but implied it must have been created from nothing. How else could the original state have ever come into existence if the laws of physics forbid it?.
It just seems like a clever way of saying, we think this happened, but we cannot say it because nobody would ever believe it.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.09, 22:00:04
F6FLT
The big bang theory claims the universe as we know it expanded from a super dense point or cluster of compressed matter. They also claim entropy and the conservation of energy will not allow all the expanded universe to be compressed back to it's original state.
As such it's a violation of the COE and causality ...
This is false, it is in no way contrary to the COE and causality. These are just your interpretations of a theory that you obviously don't master at all.
Moreover, you have not answered the question "Where is your scientific references that would claim a creation ex nihilo?" to prove your assertion: "They also seem to have no problem with a universe created from nothing" when it is totally false?
Scientists have never claimed "a universe created from nothing" and that is why you are unable to provide evidence.
You are still defaming scientists and unable to prove anything you say against them, which is obscurantism.
Quote from: F6FLT
Scientists have never claimed "a universe created from nothing"
It would seem some do and some don't.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
I'm not sure we'll ever have a concrete answer since it borders closer to philosophy than to science.
Hakasays
QuoteIt would seem some do and some don't.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
I'm not sure we'll ever have a concrete answer since it borders closer to philosophy than to science.
I agree but think Stephen Hawking was on the right track. I tend to use brute force reasoning rather than appealing to others dogma's similar to Hawking. For example...
1)If the universe is expanding it must have originated from a compressed cluster of matter and energy.
2)We are then left with trying to explain how the universe originally became compressed in supposed violation of entropy, the COE and causality.
3)To assume the compressed universe just existed for no reason is no different than creationism and getting something from nothing.
4)Ergo, to believe the universe is expanding is to believe it was once compressed by some other forces presently unknown to us.
Rather than gut the laws of physics we presently know the easier option is as Hawking suggested. The universe as we know it has no beginning or end and our "observable universe" is similar to how we see other galaxies. Our supposed universe could be just a large formation of grouped galaxies in a sea of other grouped galaxies we mistakenly call a universe. In which case universal compression and expansion could be normal cycles we already see everywhere in nature.
As Einstein, Feynman and Hawking implied, I prefer to be disagreeable. I recognize no authority or there beliefs. As Feynman said "Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough."
AC
Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.10, 14:28:26
It would seem some do and some don't.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
I'm not sure we'll ever have a concrete answer since it borders closer to philosophy than to science.
You have to distinguish science from research, which is not yet science (only its method is scientific). A debate between scientists, including various and even contradictory hypotheses, is part of research, not science.
There is no scientific consensus on a big-bang being the beginning of a universe from nothingness and I doubt that even one scientist affirms it in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Or, same question as to AC, provide the scientific publication that would assert it. Again, a debate is not science, a scientist's word is not science, even a scientific publication without consensus is not science, you need consensus; understand what you are talking about.
F6FLT
QuoteAgain, a debate is not science, a scientist's word is not science, even a scientific publication without consensus is not science, you need consensus; understand what you are talking about.
I found most modern science is kind of like puppeteering.
This is my puppet named "science" and rather than me making a claim my puppet will. It can claim anything it wants and we can pretend it's not a person but we know it's really just another person pulling the strings. It's just another convenient scapegoat to deflect from our human nature. It wasn't my mistake it was science or god or unicorns or whatever.
It's a slippery slope because in the past the scientific consensus was the Earth was flat, then the center of the universe, then a limited universe and so on. Knowing this one could presume the original consensus on anything has consistently been wrong. So this is a debate on science and how a methodology which should give the correct answers seldom does. The proof is progress which shows most past science and there consensus was wrong.
Think about it... if the majority of our past science was proven incorrect then 50 years from now the science you presently know should also be incorrect. You just don't know it yet...
Here is a good example...
https://www.aier.org/article/why-so-much-science-is-wrong-false-puffed-or-misleading/
QuoteIt's not that scientists willfully lie, cheat, or deceive – even though that happens uncomfortably often, even in the best of journals – but that poorly designed experiments, underpowered studies, spreadsheet errors or intentionally or unintentionally manipulated p-values yield results that are too good to be true. Since academics' careers depend on publishing novel, fascinating and significant results, most of them don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
It's not rocket science, anytime anyone has a vested interest in a given result the process is biased.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.11, 15:00:18
There is no scientific consensus on a big-bang being the beginning of a universe from nothingness and I doubt that even one scientist affirms it in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Or, same question as to AC, provide the scientific publication that would assert it. Again, a debate is not science, a scientist's word is not science, even a scientific publication without consensus is not science, you need consensus; understand what you are talking about.
Thanks for rephrasing into a more generalized view. I just wanted to correct that while "origin" remains a philosophical/theological notion that there are still many scientists attempting to tackle it (or pretend that they have solved it).
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.11, 17:45:32
F6FLT
I found most modern science is kind of like puppeteering.
This is my puppet named "science" ....
The so-called "puppet" provides you with the energy that allows you to produce this message and all the computer and network tools through which it travels, and it provides all the modern technology.
When you have nothing to show better than the scientists, and even nothing to show at all, you'd better shut up and work, rather than slander.
When the obscurantism and esotericism that you defend will be able to do as much as the scientists, don't hesitate to let us know.
Quote from: Hakasays on 2023.02.13, 12:59:21
Thanks for rephrasing into a more generalized view. I just wanted to correct that while "origin" remains a philosophical/theological notion that there are still many scientists attempting to tackle it (or pretend that they have solved it).
The very idea that there would be an "origin" is a prejudice. It is a vestige of the beliefs of creationists.
Scientists try to go back as far as they can. There are also theories of cycles. Finally, time being a component of our universe, depending on the gravitational potential, to evoke the "before" big-bang as if we were still in the absolute time of Newton, is meaningless and those who think like that prove only one thing: their scientific inculture, they are more than a century behind.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.13, 15:17:46
The very idea that there would be an "origin" is a prejudice. It is a vestige of the beliefs of creationists.
This actually highlights a major prejudice 'Big Bang' theory faced in Lemaitre's era, when the roles were reversed. :D
At that time common scientific consensus was that the universe was as an endless sea with no beginning or end or boundaries (Steady State theory).
This 'let there be light' singularity known as the Big Bang faced tremendous bias and scrutiny by the community because of the parallels it had with the creationist view, which is largely why it took so many decades to be adopted. Lemaitre's credentials as a Catholic priest certainly didn't help.
(Note: personally I have no real opinion on this matter; I just like to articulate how our biases influence us (myself included))
I thought this was interesting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo
Maths Fundamental Flaw
Specifically the game of life created in 1970 by John Conway at minute 1 in the video. As the video explains, even simple patterns with simple rules can do very complex and unexpected things. As the author put it, the patterns can become "undecidable" meaning it's impossible to predict it's outcome. Similar to the concept of uncertainty where we can never know the what and where of things with any accuracy.
I found this concept to be true in electrodynamics as well. After a decade or so of research and experiments I found a person starts to get a very good feel for how circuits or machines should work in reality. From our experience, like a circuit simulator based on math, most of the time we can predict what should happen. However not always and there are always exceptions to a rule.
For example, in one case while building a smaller variant of the Hubbard device I had a dilemma. By making only a few small changes to the device the result became uncertain and I had no idea what the result would be. The rules changed and by adding a few extra variables the complexity and possible number of different interactions increased exponentially. As the video above suggests the outcome became undecidable and the device did not act like it was supposed to, it did something very different.
Watch the patterns generated by Conway's game of life. The rules are very simple and not unlike the electron, proton, neutron of the atom bound by an electric and magnetic field. Yet everything we know with all it's complexity evolved from these relatively small number variables. This is why we need to be very careful about lumping things together or averaging them. Nature with it's infinite amount of complexity and diversity is obviously not a simple lumped sum or average.
AC
Concerning Conway's game of life, it is a game, not real life. And it is deterministic. Even if we don't have an algorithm to predict its evolution, numerical tools can simulate it, the limit being only the computing time. Then real life, especially human life, adds a factor: the non respect of rules. We are indeed not obliged to respect the laws of nature. Of course we are subject to it, but we transcend it thanks to our conscience. If our own evolution was subject to Conway's game of life, we can anticipate evolution in the short or medium term, and decide to change the pattern if we do not like it, it is enough to be always a few steps ahead of Nature. Anticipation adds a feedback factor, allowing a predictable future state to be prevented. This is already common practice (which can lead to instability problems but that is another debate).
But I don't see any connection with the subject: "Bias or propaganda against the free energy community". There will always be errors in science, logically undecidable concepts too, science always incomplete too. The only question to ask is: is it the best solution?
To claim that this is not an ideal solution is a truism. To claim that because this solution is not ideal, it should be rejected, is the "perfect solution fallacy" (https://springhole.net/logical-fallacies/perfect-solution-fallacy.htm), thus a logical error.
When you don't have anything better to propose, it is better to stick to science. The "free energy community" would do better to point out its own mistakes, which it never does, and which prevents it from making any progress, without any need to invoke conspiracy theories against it or the imperfections of others.
F6FLT
QuoteConcerning Conway's game of life, it is a game, not real life. And it is deterministic. Even if we don't have an algorithm to predict its evolution, numerical tools can simulate it, the limit being only the computing time. Then real life, especially human life, adds a factor: the non respect of rules.
I agree and that was kind of my point.
Most computers have trouble with simulations having even a limited number of variables like Conway's game of life. Even basic models can easily evolve into complex geometric forms and ever increasing complexity and uncertainty. As you say, it's not real life which is beyond the computing capacity of any computers we know of.
For example the stock market is a multi trillion dollar industry yet a recent study found a common house cat beat the best stock investors using state of the art predictive computer software. Not by a small margin and the cats supposedly random picks did almost twice as well as the experts.
QuoteBut I don't see any connection with the subject: "Bias or propaganda against the free energy community". There will always be errors in science, logically undecidable concepts too, science always incomplete too. The only question to ask is: is it the best solution?
I was thinking in an abstract sense which isn't for everyone. Most are using an argument for normalcy when they object to free energy which is a mistake in my opinion. This is why they like to lump things together and average them. However real life gets messy and there is always a great deal of uncertainty due to random events. You see as a programmer who has run many CFD simulations on gas turbines and wind generators I understand we cannot include random numbers or events. The render time goes from days to hundreds or thousands of years even on fairly basic simulations. The problem is the resolution and number of details/variables involved.
Which may be why the real FE inventors like Schauberger said "do the opposite of everyone else" and Steven Marks said "do your worst" ie. chaos theory. I mean if normal isn't working then why not try something else?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.16, 20:52:30
...
Which may be why the real FE inventors like Schauberger [...] and Steven Marks...
We have no real FE, so there are no real FE inventors (except in the imagination of real dreamers).
F6FLT
QuoteWe have no real FE, so there are no real FE inventors (except in the imagination of real dreamers).
I think your using the same narrative as the fossil fuel and tobacco companies.
1)Cast doubt on the subject.
2)Marginalize the people involved.
3)Repetitive denial of any facts involved.
4)Attempt to rewrite the history of what actually happened.
However, as we know the truth always manages to come out sooner or later. It just seems like a waste of time pretending nothing can ever change when we know it always does.
I like Tesla's mindset, "the present may be there's but the future is mine". Long after you and the other skeptics are dead and buried he still wins. Tesla still wins because he was the only one who did anything real that matters unlike the skeptics. That's pretty cool...
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.18, 16:03:56
F6FLT
I think your using the same narrative as the fossil fuel and tobacco companies.
1)Cast doubt on the subject.
2)Marginalize the people involved.
3)Repetitive denial of any facts involved.
4)Attempt to rewrite the history of what actually happened.
...
Your accusations are extremely stupid and a trial of intent. Moreover, this is exactly what you do against scientists.
What I am expressing here are only my convictions, without any ulterior motives.
Instead of accusing others on the basis of your twisted judgment, clean up your own house and instead of lying to others and to yourself, provide to the humanity that has never seen it, this FE that you claim to already exist.
F6FLT
Obviously, I'm not the one claiming "We have no real FE, so there are no real FE inventors (except in the imagination of real dreamers)" ... in a free energy forum.
You just can't seem to break your repetitive pattern...
1)Cast doubt on the subject.
2)Marginalize the people involved.
3)Repetitive denial of any facts involved.
4)Attempt to rewrite the history of what actually happened.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.19, 19:07:22
F6FLT
Obviously, I'm not the one claiming "We have no real FE, so there are no real FE inventors (except in the imagination of real dreamers)" ... in a free energy forum.
You just can't seem to break your repetitive pattern...
1)Cast doubt on the subject.
2)Marginalize the people involved.
3)Repetitive denial of any facts involved.
4)Attempt to rewrite the history of what actually happened.
"We have no real FE, so there are no real FE inventors", it is me who asserts this, obviously not you. That's why I try to produce it, but you don't because you consider that we already have it!
You spend your time:
1) to assert that there would be real inventors of FE and real FE when you don't have it and humanity is waiting for it
2) defame science, scientists and skeptics like me since it is thanks to the scientific method and rational thinking that we can affirm that point 1 is false
3) incessantly repeating lies, urban legends and tales about FE machines that nobody can reproduce and that humanity does not have
4) to write a pseudo-history of this FE from which nobody has ever benefited, on a background of esoteric obscurantism, of praise of dubious characters from which no usable invention has come out, and of blind and unintelligible beliefs.
FL6FLT
Quote"We have no real FE, so there are no real FE inventors", it is me who asserts this, obviously not you. That's why I try to produce it, but you don't because you consider that we already have it!
Here's a clue...
Inventor:
1)One who invents or devises something new; one who makes an invention.
2)To produce (something, such as a useful device or process) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment.
3)One who invents, either as a hobby or as an occupation.
By definition an inventor is simply one who invents something. It has nothing to do with patents, science, whether they disclose or share it with anyone in any way or profit from it. The moment anyone invents something new or unique they become an inventor and it has nothing to do with what anyone else believes or not.
It's no wonder you keep failing at FE, you don't understand what an inventor is or how invention actually works.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.21, 18:25:15
...
1)One who invents or devises something new
...
You have simply forgotten that "something new" that does not work is not an invention in the technical sense that we are interested in, but a fiction, a dream or a lie.
Define an experiment that will show that FE exists.
Deleted.....
Mirror topic ( shared with permission ( as always))
https://overunity.com/19396/poc-proof-of-concept-for-apparent-gain-with-parametric-coil-using-rle/msg574525/#new
Respectfully
Chet K
My opinion is that we should look into the concepts first such as:
F.E...When we learn more about electricity we will build better. There is nothing free in this.
OVERUNITY...The potential of this universe is infinite. What then is the meaning of over?
Most important is to recognize that we see almost nothing! For over a century, the radial motor is used with so many flaws, but we do not see that.
Einstein said "Fast motion multiples electric potential". Now we have to decide – do we modify the cylindrical coil or this knowledge cannot be applied to our cylindrical coil?
The advantage of the axial motor was in its radius. Now someone very smart decided to decrease the radius so the power could be multiplied tremendously!!!
The same with the Maglev technology and many others.
The biggest question is: if something better arrives, who is going to be the one to recognize it? Throughout history, man used all his might to discredit the new.
How far are we today?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2023.02.22, 18:52:12
Define an experiment that will show that FE exists.
A scientific demonstration of "free energy" cannot be made. "Free energy" is indeed not a scientific notion because "free" is not.
At most, one could make a demonstration of inexhaustible energy coming out of a seemingly isolated setup where nothing would seem to be depleted or significantly depleted. It would not be "free" since at least the setup has to be paid for, but I think that is what we are looking for.
In this case any true engineering scheme claimed to be free energy is duplicable and a consensus on the reality of the device can be reached, unless it is a lie, urban legend or tale.
F6FLT
QuoteYou have simply forgotten that "something new" that does not work is not an invention in the technical sense that we are interested in, but a fiction, a dream or a lie.
Thankfully your opinion is irrelevant and countless free energy related devices have been patented globally and the persons recognized as real inventors. As defined by patent laws created by federal government/patent lawyers and real inventors not some nut job on the internet.
QuoteA scientific demonstration of "free energy" cannot be made. "Free energy" is indeed not a scientific notion because "free" is not.
Thankfully science is irrelevant and anyone could build and sell countless FE devices to anyone they please. The only laws relate to business law and any claims made regarding a product in question. There are no laws which require the operation of the device be disclosed, that it be reproducible or operable by non-owners or disclosing where the energy comes from or why. The only requirement is that a product work for the "owner" as claimed.
QuoteAt most, one could make a demonstration of inexhaustible energy coming out of a seemingly isolated setup where nothing would seem to be depleted or significantly depleted. It would not be "free" since at least the setup has to be paid for, but I think that is what we are looking for.
In this case any true engineering scheme claimed to be free energy is duplicable and a consensus on the reality of the device can be reached, unless it is a lie, urban legend or tale.
In fact, free energy is just as it sounds, free (no cost) and energy(relating to the motion of something on some level).
All energy is free because it cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. What part of "cannot be created or destroyed" do people not understand?. So when we speak of "free energy" we are referring to the fact "energy" is free regardless of how or what transforms it. We cannot own energy because it's a form of motion, we can only own material energy carriers as objects or material devices which transform energy.
For example, can you own the motion of photons or high energy particles ejected from a star like our Sun?. Can you own the motion of electromagnetic waves found everywhere in the universe produced by moving electric or magnetic fields?. Here's a clue, if nobody can own something then it must be free. Here's another clue, to our knowledge nobody owns the rest of the universe outside of Earth including the energy and everything is free. It's only on Earth that people of limited means and intelligence associate a cost with everything. All energy is inherently free...
AC
C.C
I'll throw in my demented views.
All energy, whether "free" or "paid" comes from the same place. Natures force to balance..
Gasoline ignites and creates "pressure" in a combustion chamber. Now we have an "Imbalance" of pressures.. Nature dislikes imbalances and exerts energy to balance it out. We tap the imbalance being balanced by inserting a piston and we spin our wheels.
Magnet passes a coil. Positive and Negative charges separate causing an imbalance. Nature does not like the imbalance so given a path, the charges balance and we run our electronic loads by making nature balance through them.
A waterfall.. Imbalance of height exists. Nature does not desire this imbalance so there exists a force to level these waters. We put a little water-wheel in the path and get free work from nature balancing.
As "Free Energy Researchers" we seek to create or discover an imbalance we can pillage and rape for our benefit. Whether tapping an existing imbalance or using input to create the imbalance, nature will continually exert force we can tap - as-long as the imbalance exists.
Floodrod
QuoteAll energy, whether "free" or "paid" comes from the same place. Natures force to balance..
Gasoline ignites and creates "pressure" in a combustion chamber. Now we have an "Imbalance" of pressures.. Nature dislikes imbalances and exerts energy to balance it out. We tap the imbalance being balanced by inserting a piston and we spin our wheels.
I agree however it also helps to understand where all energy including that in gasoline came from.
1)A bunch of material moving about in space was pulled together by gravitational energy and formed a star, our Sun, which started a fusion process.
2)The fusion/radiant energy from our Sun then traveled to Earth and was transformed by plants into a hydrocarbon HxCy and O2 from H2O and CO2.
3)Animals also ate the plants and when the plants and animals died they were covered in earth.
4)Pressure and heat then transformed the dead organic material into a hydrocarbon liquid we call oil.
5)The oil was then transformed again into a lighter hydrocarbon we call gasoline.
So where did the "Energy" in the gasoline actually come from?. Energy always comes from a source which was the cosmic/gravitational energy to form the Sun and the energy released by the fusion process in the Sun. So we should be clear gasoline is not a source of energy per say and like most things is only an energy carrier.
In some sense we could say all the energy we know is Cosmic energy relating to the universe. It was cosmic energy which caused all the stuff to start moving about then later gravitate together, start a fusion process in a star and radiate some energy to this planet. Which is why most credible physicists like to say all the material and energy we know on Earth came from somewhere else in the universe, ergo cosmic energy.
Think about that, whenever we fire up our truck it's running on cosmic energy. Energy and material which came from somewhere else in the universe through countless transformations over the course of billions of years. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed thus it always comes from somewhere else then eventually goes somewhere else. To understand this concept is to understand energy...
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.23, 21:30:44
Floodrod
I agree however it also helps to understand where all energy including that in gasoline came from.
1)A bunch of material moving about in space was pulled together by gravitational energy and formed a star, our Sun, which started a fusion process.
Interesting, but perhaps the entire timeline you proposed is all reaction. What made the gravitational energy pull together all the material to form the sun and cosmos?
It could be possible the great force of "Balance" is responsible for everything, including your timeline. All power, including cosmic powers, could all be reaction from the supreme force of balance that is encoded in the fabric of reality throughout the multiverse. The very same force that makes a coil induct could be the same force that formed the galaxy.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.23, 21:30:44
Floodrod
I agree however it also helps to understand where all energy including that in gasoline came from.
1)A bunch of material moving about in space was pulled together by gravitational energy and formed a star, our Sun, which started a fusion process.
2)The fusion/radiant energy from our Sun then traveled to Earth and was transformed by plants into a hydrocarbon HxCy and O2 from H2O and CO2.
3)Animals also ate the plants and when the plants and animals died they were covered in earth.
4)Pressure and heat then transformed the dead organic material into a hydrocarbon liquid we call oil.
5)The oil was then transformed again into a lighter hydrocarbon we call gasoline.
So where did the "Energy" in the gasoline actually come from?. Energy always comes from a source which was the cosmic/gravitational energy to form the Sun and the energy released by the fusion process in the Sun. So we should be clear gasoline is not a source of energy per say and like most things is only an energy carrier.
In some sense we could say all the energy we know is Cosmic energy relating to the universe. It was cosmic energy which caused all the stuff to start moving about then later gravitate together, start a fusion process in a star and radiate some energy to this planet. Which is why most credible physicists like to say all the material and energy we know on Earth came from somewhere else in the universe, ergo cosmic energy.
Think about that, whenever we fire up our truck it's running on cosmic energy. Energy and material which came from somewhere else in the universe through countless transformations over the course of billions of years. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed thus it always comes from somewhere else then eventually goes somewhere else. To understand this concept is to understand energy...
Af
Our Sun being a fusion reaction is a belief more akin to religion than science IMO. The sun is cooler on the inside, elements not produced by fusion exist in the sun, the corona is 100s of times hotter than the surface. There is a lot of room for better models of our universe than "once upon a time there was nothing which exploded" Dark energy/matter = dog ate my homework. They just sound like convenient work around excuses. EU theory make much more sense. Sadly we lost another EU giant recently. Wal Thornhill has joined Halton Arp amongst the stars.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.23, 17:35:20
F6FLT
Thankfully your opinion is irrelevant and countless free energy related devices have been patented globally and the persons recognized as real inventors.
...
Proof of the reality of an invention has never been required from patent offices.
All it takes is for an "inventor" label to be placed on an official paper for you to confuse it with a person who actually invented something.
You are confusing the map with the territory, it is childish.
QuoteIn fact, free energy is just as it sounds...
Talking about what you have never given us any proof of is talking about nothing.
"any true engineering scheme claimed to be free energy is duplicable and a consensus on the reality of the device can be reached", I wonder what you don't manage to understand so simple ! We have no consensus, humanity is still waiting for this free energy.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2023.02.24, 03:55:13
...EU theory make much more sense...
Certainly not. It is incredible this mania in the free energy movement to accept anything as long as it is opposed to academic science, especially since I have never seen that those who defend these pseudo-sciences have the skills and knowledge of the subjects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw
F6FLT
QuoteProof of the reality of an invention has never been required from patent offices.
All it takes is for an "inventor" label to be placed on an official paper for you to confuse it with a person who actually invented something.
You are confusing the map with the territory, it is childish.
Talking about what you have never given us any proof of is talking about nothing.
QuoteTalking about what you have never given us any proof of is talking about nothing.
"any true engineering scheme claimed to be free energy is duplicable and a consensus on the reality of the device can be reached", I wonder what you don't manage to understand so simple ! We have no consensus, humanity is still waiting for this free energy.
Talking about what you have never given us any proof of is talking about nothing.
QuoteCertainly not. It is incredible this mania in the free energy movement to accept anything as long as it is opposed to academic science, especially since I have never seen that those who defend these pseudo-sciences have the skills and knowledge of the subjects.
Talking about what you have never given us any proof of is talking about nothing.
You see this nonsense works both ways and if you can demand proof for everything then so can we. As well just like you, once you do provide what you call proof we can call it gibberish and demand even more proof, ad nauseam.
Your cool with that aren't you?, every time you open your mouth we demand more and more irrefutable proof or deem you a moron for a lack of it. It's just silly in my opinion and goes towards the bias and double standard this thread is about.
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.24, 10:45:13
Certainly not. It is incredible this mania in the free energy movement to accept anything as long as it is opposed to academic science, especially since I have never seen that those who defend these pseudo-sciences have the skills and knowledge of the subjects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw
sorry for challenging beliefs. I never wore a mask the last 3 years either. I don't follow science.
"Belief" is the right word.
I personally know almost nothing about immunology, so I'm not going to start having "beliefs" in anti-vaccine theories from a tiny fraction of "experts". At the very least I will remain in doubt.
Science is not challenged with beliefs but with facts and refutable reasoning, especially physics. When one does not know how to hold them, one would be better advised to reserve judgment. When one considers that the value of one's beliefs prevails, religion or politics is the best alternative.
When you say "I don't follow science", after having affirmed sienctific observations like "The sun is cooler on the inside" or having spoken about the "electron spin" and having referred to scientific publications, I see there a big lie or a big incoherence: it is affirming a thing and its opposite!
You have to choose sides. The downgrading of science to the level of religion is unacceptable and to be fought.
If you think mainstream "Science" isn't politically polarized and corrupted, then I don't know what to say..
I can absolutely guarantee much "Funding" of these scientific research projects comes with strings attached.. The who issue the funds usually have their own agenda and make it abundantly clear what conclusion the research should reach. And if the conclusion is not congruent with the funders expectations, the results are hidden, destroyed, or altered.
IMO- we have reached a point of such extreme corruption, that "Mainstream Science" has become a mockery. Profit and Power have prevailed over the quest for truth.
Quote from: floodrod on 2023.02.25, 14:39:28
If you think mainstream "Science" isn't politically polarized and corrupted, then I don't know what to say..
I know why many in the "free energy communauty" think that : ;D
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4411.msg103981#msg103981
I note that the free energy community relies on science and spends its time invoking concepts from science, such as "magnetic field", "electric current" or "energy". It is perfectly legitimate and useful to do so.
The absurdity is that many of those who adopt these concepts, which they would not have had the idea of if science had not taught them, start to dispute them, even though they are only definitions and models formalised within the scientific framework, not real objects existing in the absolute!
The "electric field" is only what science formulates, since it is a concept created and defined by science alone. It is an abstraction. If you don't want it, if you see its effects differently, if you don't want this science that you hate because you don't understand it, define your own concepts instead rather than behaving like a parasitic phagocyte with it.
Something you remind me more and more of Russian-language forums.
There is a furious squabble with the transition to personalities and obscene expressions.
You are more intelligent people...
floodrod
QuoteIf you think mainstream "Science" isn't politically polarized and corrupted, then I don't know what to say..
I can absolutely guarantee much "Funding" of these scientific research projects comes with strings attached.. The who issue the funds usually have their own agenda and make it abundantly clear what conclusion the research should reach. And if the conclusion is not congruent with the funders expectations, the results are hidden, destroyed, or altered.
I agree and it's an interesting dilemma, many with a vested interest in a given interpretation of science may claim it's not polarized or corrupt. However the science of psychology proves to be human is to be polarized and biased in some way. Everyone is biased and to claim were not is simply more proof of our bias.
Here's a good example of how many misuse and misrepresent science to serve there own interests.
Science is a systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area. The knowledge is often represented by observations and experiments. However, then many do something were not supposed to do in science and tell others how they must use this knowledge based on there own beliefs.
For example, science tells us the known universe is a sea of energy because everything we know has been proven to be in motion on some level. All the material stuff is in motion in a sea of electromagnetic waves and all of this represents energy. However then many misinterpret this knowledge and claim we can never utilize some aspects of this energy based on there own personal beliefs. Here we need to separate knowledge from an opinion of what we think the knowledge means.
In effect, science and real scientists don't tell people what they can or cannot do with knowledge or what to believe. Only people with a vested interest or opinion tell others what to believe. My opinion is that since we have been proven to be swimming in a sea of energy it's just a matter of time before we find new and better ways of transforming it. My proof is that history has shown this has always been the case and there is no reason our progress should stop.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.25, 17:44:22
...the science of psychology proves...
Psychology has never "proven" anything. One wonders if it is even a science. The psychologist is like the economist: the expert who can tell you afterwards why what he predicted before did not happen. ;D
In a recent trial, psychiatrists were not even able to answer a simple question: "was a child lying or telling the truth?" ! A "science" unable to answer such a simple binary question, I no longer call that a science.
On the other hand, a hard science, such as physics, is able to predict an eclipse of the moon or the sun to the minute decades in advance. A discipline is judged by its results. When we compare the results of all the technology coming from the sciences with the results, the nothingness, coming from their detractors like many in this free energy community, we understand this ridiculous situation where those who have never produced anything useful nor consequently understood anything they talk about, shamelessly criticize those who understand and succeed. Immodesty is proportional to incompetence, see the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.02.25, 17:44:22
history has shown this has always been the case and there is no reason our progress should stop.
AC
But what about the degradation and decline of states and civilizations?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.25, 18:58:57
A "science" unable to answer such a simple binary question, I no longer call that a science.
And where do the thoughts and ideas inspired by inspiration come from ?
Whether it be in invention, music or poetry?
What physics can explain this?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.02.26, 07:46:35
And where do the thoughts and ideas inspired by inspiration come from ?
Whether it be in invention, music or poetry?
What physics can explain this?
If you believe in spirituality, in the existence of a spirit without matter, then you can answer irrationally all you want about it.
If, like me, you are a materialist, if you think that the mind is only an emanation of the brain, which has received during its life a multitude of solicitations and information linked to the experience of the individual, to his environment, and to his culture, then imagination, invention and everything that revolves around it comes from the "background noise" of the brain.
We can notice in fact that inventions are never radically new. The Tesla coils or the contraceptive pill could not have been invented by prehistoric men. The same goes for Beethoven's 5th symphony, perspective drawing or impressionist painting. It takes a context, it takes the evolution of humanity to prepare these ideas, and then the smallest click in the brain of a pioneer will trigger the release of this idea that was already in the air of time, and so the progress of techniques, ideas and art continues. Novelty is never created completely ex nihilo.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.02.26, 14:30:49
If, like me, you are a materialist, if you think that the mind is only an emanation of the brain, which has received during its life a multitude of solicitations and information linked to the experience of the individual, to his environment, and to his culture, then imagination, invention and everything that revolves around it comes from the "background noise" of the brain.
That is, orderly is born out of chaos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmmYtopGx7Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmmYtopGx7Y)
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.02.26, 16:49:03
That is, orderly is born out of chaos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmmYtopGx7Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmmYtopGx7Y)
Chaos can give rise to stable and regular patterns.
We should therefore not be surprised by a certain order in our universe, since it has been able to give rise to the observers that we are, and the observer of a universe can only be compatible with it. In a theory of multi-universes, even if these universes come from a chaos functioning on the same basis, it is the initial conditions which will determine an evolution where there will be the possibility in some of them, like ours, of a sufficient order for the appearance of observers, who will thus notice this relative order coming from the chaos.
"
The second paradigm is the one which has emerged in only the last 150 years or so from our increasing scientific understanding of the world, namely that order emerges spontaneously but inevitably from chaos or randomness, and that the world becomes more ordered, complex and interesting over time."
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2015/08/order-emerges-out-of-chaos-the-fundamental-d1/
F6FLT
QuoteIf you believe in spirituality, in the existence of a spirit without matter, then you can answer irrationally all you want about it.
If, like me, you are a materialist, if you think that the mind is only an emanation of the brain, which has received during its life a multitude of solicitations and information linked to the experience of the individual, to his environment, and to his culture, then imagination, invention and everything that revolves around it comes from the "background noise" of the brain.
It's problematic in my opinion because the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, gravic) are considered immaterial.
Particles are considered material however the electric and magnetic fields which dictate all forces thus there action are considered immaterial. Unless we want to define the space between particles as material but then were talking about a materialistic concept similar to the Aether or dark energy/matter.
It's an interesting debate, a spirit is defined as "a force or principle believed to animate living beings". What are the forces which animates anything?, it's the Primary Fields and Energy which are also considered immaterial like a spirit. So the term spirit just seems like a more primitive and generalized way of describing what we already know of field/energy theory.
It gets even more strange when we consider that we are now developing organic computers. These could become an intelligent organic AI with a organic robotic form similar to us in the future. However most would never dare say it has a spirit even if it learned to act like us in every respect. Even if the electro-magnetic field energy moving about between the particles in it's computer is really no different than in our brain. It would all seem to be the same stuff,(particles, fields and energy) which animates everything so how is it any different?.
I do not tend to agree with either the Atheist/materialist or spiritual/religious perspectives. I prefer the some things can become more than the simple sum or average of there parts theory and nature.
AC
A very important understanding of the physical world to us is to recognize the difference between the brain and the mind.
BRAIN is physical which means electric. Electricity and the effects of electricity are the sole property of the material world.
MIND is spiritual or the controlling power and energy behind physical matter. Magnetic light with mirrors and concave and convex lenses is creating an illusion of motion and substance where nothing exists.
The brain can copy, imitate, reason and sense another motion.
Imagination, gut feeling, sixth sense, inner knowing and wisdom is magnetic.
In this cycle the woman had to be suppressed or the game could not be played out the way it was. Woman is very intuitive, where man's intellect is not a match for it.
These are some things that are a must to know when dealing with information, knowledge and AI.
Quote from: ourunity on 2023.03.07, 03:27:40
...
BRAIN is physical which means electric. Electricity and the effects of electricity are the sole property of the material world.
MIND is spiritual or the controlling power and energy behind physical matter.
...
You make the same difference between the brain and the mind, as between a computer and a software.
The problem is that we have never seen a software having an operational function without a machine to run it.
And the very idea of software has only ever existed in a hardware, the human brain.
From there to say that it is the hardware that creates the software, since it always precedes it, there is only one step that I will happily take.
Your "spiritual" concepts, like all religious ideas, are nothing but an inversion of causes and effects.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.03.06, 17:19:55
F6FLT
It's problematic in my opinion because the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, gravic) are considered immaterial.
...
It is only your "opinion" that is problematic, because it is an opinion, not knowledge.
If you are co-moving with a charge, you do not see a magnetic field.
If you move relative to a charge at rest, you see a magnetic field.
One observer may see a magnetic field where another observer sees nothing, or each may see different intensities and directions of the field.
Science defines an electric field as a property of space where a force F=q.E is exerted on the charge. This is its definition. Only the force is seen by all observers, not the field, which can be seen as electric or magnetic.
This definition makes no assumption that the field is "immaterial" but it does make the assumption that space is modified by the field. If you do not conceive the electric field as defined here, it is no longer an electric field, call it something else, define it, and since you speak of "immateriality", also give an operational definition of this term, otherwise it will never be anything but pseudo-scientific gibberish.
The idea of an absolute reality that would be the magnetic or electric fields, of an absolute time, and of an undefined "materiality", is childish and completely outdated since more than a century. I don't understand that we are still at this level today, except if we want to go back to the middle-age superstitions.
Was over at OU.com and Chet made a post about marathonman's website. On the first page I saw this jewel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag
Veritasium, Risking My Life To Settle A Physics Debate
The old DDWFTTW, Directly Down Wind Faster Than the Wind fiasco, lol.
This will always stick in my mind because in some sense it changed my mind about the people in science. I believe in science but also believe many treat it like a cult and this was a perfect example. It seemed everyone in physics and science including the forums was calling this a scam, a violation of the COE, a violation of the sacred laws of thermodynamics. Literally everyone got triggered and completely lost it claiming only a fool could believe in such nonsense.
I will always remember it because the first thing I did was draw countless sketches, did calculations and concluded something was wrong. Not with the device it works perfectly, not with the science it works perfect as well, it was our perception of what we thought was happening which was flawed. In fact, I nailed down the working principal in under an hour simply by assuming I didn't understand what was actually happening and it must be something else nobody thought of, go figure.
The mistakes were similar in nature to FE and everyone concluded the DDWFTTW device could not work because they thought the device was just like a windmill which is absurd. Even a 10 year old knows a windmill effect cannot work and it's obvious why. So how did millions of really smart people make such an amateur mistake and come to all the wrong conclusions?. How could they become so deluded that a physics professor was willing to bet $10,000 he was correct because physics doesn't lie.
It proved something I always knew from talking to so many really smart people. There really smart within the limits of there knowledge and what they know and have memorized. However there not much smarter than most people here when something falls outside the context of what they know. In fact it can become a liability not unlike the physics professor making a $10,000 bet he could never be wrong about physics and yet he was. Not only was he wrong and could have lost $10,000 but he made an amateur mistake. It was arrogance assuming he knew exactly what was happening and there was no need to look into it any further. In fact, science tells us we should never make assumptions and we should always ask questions and keep asking questions until were satisfied with the answers.
AC
An addition to the DDWFTTW, Directly Down Wind Faster Than the Wind fiasco...
I found this problem really easy to understand but also realized why so many others made some pretty amateur mistakes.
Now suppose we were to see this DDWFTTW device in action, what and how should we think?.
Unfortunately most thought it was a windmill, the wind turned the prop which turned the wheels pushing the craft along. However it should have been obvious right off the start that as the speed of the craft increases the apparent wind speed across the prop must decrease. Ergo, everyone should have known this cannot possibly work because when the craft speed approaches the wind speed the work on the prop reduces to zero.
Thus the only mystery is why so many people continued to believe something they should have known cannot be true?... why?.
How could literally millions of intelligent people all see the same thing and 99% of them come to all the wrong conclusions and not realize it?. As well, it's not as if this was a difficult problem because the craft only contained a hand full of supposedly well understood parts. How could scientists, engineers and physics professors misunderstand a simple machine with only a few moving parts?. Literally, the wind, a prop, two pulley's and a belt, a frame and four wheels... it's mind boggling.
This is why I find psychology so amazing and we should not try to pretend we are not part of every equation. Obviously psychology is very important when millions of intelligent people start coming to all the wrong conclusions about simple problems without realizing it. What's really bizarre is that like most people I was looking at the DDWFTTW device and couldn't see how it was possible. Then I blinked my eyes and the answer was staring me in the face and was obvious. How does this happen?, how is this even possible?, what happened in my mind in the blink of an eye?.
I found most technologies including free energy are not much different. One moment it's just a bunch of coils of wire and switches, there is literally nothing present which would suggest it could generate extra energy in any sense of the word. It's impossible, cannot be done and thinking it could is absurd. Then we blink and oh shit, where did that come from?, why didn't I see that before?. In this sense it doesn't matter what the problem is and more a matter of being open to the possibility of learning something, having the capacity to learn is what matters most in my opinion.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.03.25, 17:53:55
Now suppose we were to see this DDWFTTW device in action, what and how should we think?.
AC
And,how it work ? I don't know. There are hidden batteries?
The difficulty here was to detach oneself from one's intuitions linked to human experiences over the centuries, where sailing boats never go against the wind, nor with the wind and faster. The conditioning is cultural.
When scientists really got into the physics of the effect, they realized the obvious. Exceptions among them prove nothing, except that nobody is infallible.
Of course one can go faster than the wind and in the direction of the wind.
Before going into detail, one should know Newton's first law, which should encourage those who doubt to think better: one needs no energy to move (only to overcome losses or accelerate). So the conservation of energy is not what limits the possibility to go faster than the wind.
So how can we gain even more speed when we are pushed by the wind?
The propeller is linked to the wheels. The gearing system has to make the propeller blow the air backwards, therefore against the wind. This way the relative wind pressure on the machine increases, and it acquires more speed.
In the same way we can go against the wind with the energy of the wind.
The challenge was to make a machine with low enough losses that, unlike boats, could do this, and it was done.
We can simplify the explanation with an equivalent electric model. Replace m/s by volts. Let's suppose that a 12m/s wind is a 12v generator. Nothing prevents us from placing a capacitor in series with the generator, and charging it at any voltage from the 12v using electronic circuitry. This way we obtain a voltage higher than the power source, or even negative depending on the direction of the charge. Nobody is surprised about this in electricity. For wind, the air buffer blown by the propeller is the equivalent of the capacitor in series, it's the same.