Just a general chat about science today, and the flaws that surround it.
A video to kick off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnzhpH3ZdQ
One major flaw is the formation of cult like behavior that keep amending past "ideas" with ever increasing hacks and workarounds until only the few in the cult can make sense of the immense complexities.
Ideas and theories should be fluid, experimentalists and engineering are what give us structure and equations to build things from these fluid ideas. If experiments show behaviors that the theory does not predict THEN it would be time to look for something completely different and not add tumors to the theory until it becomes terminally sick. Gripping for dear life to your favorite super star theory and calling everyone else a crackpot is what turns super smart people into mindless drones that barely can get rockets into space 60 years after we reached the moon with simple calculators and the human mind. Computers are good at simulating ideas, but when we constrain them to faulty ideas that should have been fluidic in nature we get dumb computers too.
In my opinion any theory that is not fractal in nature should not even be entertained in once mind. Trying to explain a fractal on a given scale will make you go around loops forever always one step behind the fractal that keeps morphing forever eluding your non-fractal theories and equations.
Maybe this crackpot is/was onto something:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Conrad-Ranzan-2013957168
Or how an IC reverse engineer shows us what the Mandelbrot set truly looks like if we rendered its "complete" form:
https://www.righto.com/2011/12/new-multi-branch-algorithm-to-render.html
I consider myself stupid and slow, barely capable at doing "science" yet even I can form ideas about the universe that are worth looking at just by surfing the web and finding interesting ideas, can you imagine what really smart people can do with the right framework and mindset free of a rigid church like belief system? But I warn everyone, even if cult like behavior is determinantal, spiritually is very important on the other hand. The path to seek the truth of where we come from is not for the faint of heart. Going in without any spiritual background or a circle of good people around you that can help you stay grounded at times, will make you quickly lose your grasp on reality. It might sound cheesy, but love is everything.
My simple contribution. Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter? Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force? Why are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force. There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.30, 11:50:09
My simple contribution. Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter? Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force? QuoteWhy are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force.
There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.
Smudge
Would that be considered centrifugal force ?
They say there is no such thing, and the force is actually centripetal-apparently, but I disagree.
We have centrifugal pumps, that through the water outward.
If i was in a large drum, say with a diameter of 5 meters, and a depth of 1 meter, and that drum was full of water, and was rotated at lets say 60rpm, then i would be thrown out to the rim of the drum by the centrifugal force- a force with outward force vectors. There is no centripetal force, as there is no force vectors pointing in toward the center of the drum by me or the body of water.
Just my take.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.30, 12:11:00
There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.
Smudge
Would that be considered centrifugal force ?
Yes. If you were held by a rope attached to a rod fixed along the centerline of the drum so you didn't reach the outer edge the rope would be in tension. The usual method of denoting tension is to have two arrows pointing in opposite directions, one at each end of the rope. The outer one points outward and the inner one points inward. Just to confuse things, for this case where the tension is caused by centrifugal force, science has given these two arrows different names!! But there is no doubt that there is a force on the mass pointing out into space. The force is at right angles to the velocity, so to confuse things more it is callled a fictional force. If we have an experiment where the force on an electron is at right angle to the velocity (as we do with movement though a magnetic field) we don't call that fictional, and we recognize it as an external force on the electron due to motion through that field. Why can't we accept that the centrifugal force is due to motion through an aether field. It doesn't have to be a field with field lines, it can be a field of scalar potential. Indeed it can be an already known scalar, gravitational potential. We live within a huge gravitational potential coming from all the masses in the universe, with the largest contribution coming from the most distant masses. Only if that scalar value varies with distance do we get a gravitational field and we know what that is because of the local masses like the earth, the moon, the sun etc. But the huge added scalar value that is uniform across our local space is never considered. It is so so easy to deduce that acceleration within that huge scalar leads to the external force we endure. We even have identical math for the case of an electron accelerating within a scalar electric potential.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.30, 11:50:09
My simple contribution. Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter? Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force? Why are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force. There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.
Indeed and the treatment of inertia by science is a good example of circular reasoning and cognitive dissonance.
For example, suppose two objects A and B of equal mass push away from each other simultaneously in space. A<<< >>>B
A moves to the left away from B and B moves to the right away from A.
Problem
1)In order for A to move to the left B must offer some resistance but B is not attached to anything.
2)In order for B to move to the right A must offer some resistance but A is not attached to anything.
3)We can only conclude B must have acted on itself in order for A to produce a force and push off of it.
4)We must also conclude A must have acted on itself in order for B to produce a force and push off of it.
As we know science forbids anything "acting on itself" and yet this is exactly what must happen in the example above. What science seems to have done is use a clever variation of circular reasoning to explain inertia. For example, what does A push off of?, well it's B. Then what does B push off of?, well it's A. They claim A and B push off each other but never explain how either object was able to offer a resistance in order to produce a force and push off anything. As they say it's "Turtles all the way down".
AC
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnzhpH3ZdQ
"Einstein was wrong": that's the kind of stupid headline that's designed to attract attention.
When a theory describes a multitude of things with great precision, it will always do so and therefore will never be "wrong". If in new fields, or with new precision in measurements, it is found to be inadequate, then its area of validity is clarified, and the new encompassing theory is used to make further progress.
Relativity has proved that Newtonian gravitation is "false" in the sense in which that word is used in the article. But that doesn't mean that Newtonian gravitation is no longer relevant in its field. Of course it's still correct, and still allows useful calculations.
And the same goes for relativity if a more relevant theory emerges.
Scientific theories are what best describe what we know about the universe at a given time. They can never be "wrong", since known facts occur in accordance with their predictions up to a certain degree of accuracy. But incomplete, certainly, and it will always be like that for any theory, unless you believe in absolute knowledge. It's commonplace to say so.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.30, 11:50:09
My simple contribution. Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter? Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force?
...
because it is only felt by the rotating object.
If the force is "external", why doesn't the object feel it when it stops?
Smudge
QuoteWhy is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter? Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force?
It may be because the terms internal and external are ambiguous in reality.
In reality you are 1% matter/particles floating about in 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves. The atmosphere outside your body is also 1% matter floating in 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves and outside the Earth it's also over 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves. Ergo the difference between you and the space you occupy is only 1%.
So what is "internal" when 99% of you is the same stuff which is external to you?. There is no such thing as "internal" from the perspective of the particles your made of. For example, if I were floating beyond our solar system with a big telescope and saw you on Earth floating in a big empty space should I say you are internal?, relative to what?.
So when were speaking of our bodies on a rotating carousel we should understand nothing is truly internal because were talking about 1% particles moving about in 99% hard vacuum full of EM waves. Ergo, 99% of the stuff by volume presumed to be in motion is not in reality. The 99% hard vacuum of space within the supposedly moving body is stationary.
This may relate to a phrase by Hermes Trismegistus, "As above so below".
QuoteIn essence, it suggests that the patterns, structures, and principles that govern the universe are reflected in smaller systems and phenomena, and vice versa. It implies a sort of unity or interconnectedness between different levels of existence.
Which begs the question how someone in the 4th century could understand atomic and astronomical scales could have a similar relationship?. I mean, these people were supposedly primitive goat herders so how could they develop an advanced concept 99% of people today cannot even understand?. It boggles the mind...
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.30, 17:44:30
because it is only felt by the rotating object.
If the force is "external", why doesn't the object feel it when it stops?
This statement is not true and the basis of Mach principle, which states that if the entire universe rotated instead of the bucket that the water would still head towards the walls.
Its not that General Relativity is "wrong" but I never understood why when we call a medium "SpaceTime Continuum" it is celebrated but when we call it a dynamic Aether its ridiculed out of the room. Both can be equivalent and both can be referring to the same thing, one from a purely mathematical construct point of view the other from an actual physical point of view (which others have formulated the math for as well, e.g. Mach himself, Robert Distinti, Conrad Ranzan, Andre K. T. Assis... and so many others). However looking at it as a physical reality as well gives us much more mental clarity and perhaps allows us to do experiments to validate this. Ironically EVERY general relativity experiment does not invalidate the Aether, and as you say when the model fits it doesn't need replacement unless a better model can explain MORE of the universe, for instance unify what happens at the small and large scale (I am only aware of Robert Distinti doing this right now).
Just a week ago we got a never before seen picture of a black hole showing what appears to be a damned water sink vortex, showing a very fluidic nature, if that isn't amazing then I dont know what is.
This is what is keeping science held back, the lack of ability to change perspectives. One might even ironically say, the lack of ability to look outside of the spinning bucket.
I will try and make an illustration of the bucket experiment using a "medium" which would make more sense than anyone I have seen so far.
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Conrad-Ranzan-2013957168
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368123001644
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215457491_The_cellular_universe_A_new_cosmological_model_based_on_the_holographic_principle
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/image-black-hole-milky-way-magnetic-field-rcna145331
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.30, 17:44:30
because it is only felt by the rotating object.
If the force is "external", why doesn't the object feel it when it stops?
It is not the rotation of the object, it is the transation of the object. If the object is at the center of the carousel it rotates but there is no force. When the carousel stops rotating, the force on an off-center body disappears because the translation through the aether stops. I am surprised that someone of your calibre should make that comment.
Smudge
Here is my view on the bucket/centrifugal force dilemma (and Mach's principle) using a medium. I have not seen anyone explain it like this before. Maybe Newton was missing Powerpoint to understand his bucket experiment >:-).
When you accept a dynamic medium model you start dealing with flow and pressure gradients and things start to make much more sense. Unlike SpaceTime which is a "static" medium model, missing crucial dynamic information that comes with fluid DYNAMICS. When you accelerate through a medium, you will hit a lot more "stuff", just how your face starts to warp due to the wind when you free fall from the sky or there is a big pressure build up if you move a flat plate through the air, felt as a "fictional drag" force. The same goes for whatever "stuff" the universe is filled with.
For crying out loud just this past week experimentalists have shown they can simulate black holes in a lab using super fluids and even simulate the ability for sound waves not being able to escape the "event horizon": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_nTWdg_neE
"Scientists" are starting to face crushing dilemma's on a weekly basis now. The 100 year old jig is up its time to face the music. And every time they cheer and say "this opens up new scientific discovery" ignoring all the voices that have been proposing them for all those years. Ignorance begets ignorance.
The question is if manipulating the pressure of the medium is as simple as rotating a body of mass that even a child can do, what else can we unlock from this knowledge? Shouldn't "scientists" be excited by such endless new possibilities just by shifting their perspective and FINALLY accepting that we are surrounded by a medium? Instead of referring to a century old flawed experiment that only proved this medium was NOT static? Which "Spacetime" is essentially referring to from a purely mathematical point of view.
Please lets take the blue pill and wake up from the dream into the real world finally and get rid of all these imaginary constructs like:
- dark matter
- dark energy
- "fictional" centrifugal force
- "virtual" particles
- "imaginary" complex number i
- Quantum Foam
- Higgs field
And lets finally stop mocking REAL concepts like the "imaginary" unit complex number ''i'', part of our physical reality since the beginning of time explaining the rotational (non-linear) nature of the universe elegantly so we can finally perhaps get back into space without burning enormous candle sticks.
However I am a big fan of physics that can be visualized without any math AND tells you what is happening so that even a child can understand it. As math is a language and needs education, visual information is universal and that is how you start to inspire a new generation with new ideas not intimidate them with your math skills meant to impress your cult for prestigious prices and medals. The math part comes handy when you start to build space ships.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.30, 17:35:19
"Einstein was wrong": that's the kind of stupid headline that's designed to attract attention.
When a theory describes a multitude of things with great precision, it will always do so and therefore will never be "wrong". If in new fields, or with new precision in measurements, it is found to be inadequate, then its area of validity is clarified, and the new encompassing theory is used to make further progress.
Relativity has proved that Newtonian gravitation is "false" in the sense in which that word is used in the article. But that doesn't mean that Newtonian gravitation is no longer relevant in its field. Of course it's still correct, and still allows useful calculations.
And the same goes for relativity if a more relevant theory emerges.
Scientific theories are what best describe what we know about the universe at a given time. They can never be "wrong", since known facts occur in accordance with their predictions up to a certain degree of accuracy. But incomplete, certainly, and it will always be like that for any theory, unless you believe in absolute knowledge. It's commonplace to say so.
And the increasing speed of the expanding universe ?
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.31, 09:34:53
And the increasing speed of the expanding universe ?
The limits of theories are well known, notably the incompatibility of general relativity with QM.
Does this mean that below these limits, where the theory is in phase with measurements, the theory would be "false"?
If you use the limits of knowledge as an excuse not to use that knowledge, we can go back to the Stone Age.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.31, 10:43:54
The limits of theories are well known, notably the incompatibility of general relativity with QM.
Does this mean that below these limits, where the theory is in phase with measurements, the theory would be "false"?
If you use the limits of knowledge as an excuse not to use that knowledge, we can go back to the Stone Age.
I have been Reading scientific work, papers, articles and journals for many years. I have talked to many scientists across those years. Very very very few of them were open minded enough to even accept an alternative viewpoint. It's not about who is right or wrong but about the ability to open up to new ideas even if they come from the "fringe".
I have linked to some papers previously. Why has not a single astrophysicist considered Conrad's work for instance. Is it because he dresses cooky? Why is it that we can model one of the most elusive cosmic body, a black hole, with a super fluid and get terrifyingly accurate results? Is there perhaps a medium after all?
The unwillingness to change perspective is what bothers me the most. I have been ridiculed many times yet here we are facing "crysises" on a daily basis in cosmology. The standard model needs saving by investing more billions of local currency so we can build ever more powerful colliders. Fusion reactors have been stuck in a rut for many decades. What if we just changed perspectives and listened to some of those crackpots. Perhaps this 100 year impasse will finally come to pass and we can move on into a world we could not even imagine right now. A world were ideas flow freely no matter where they came from.
I have a feeling that admitting that Einstein was wrong in his assumptions and facing the consequences of that is for many akin to insulting their religion. Einstein cannot be touched no matter what. Why? He is Just a human who brought an interesting idea for its time. Ideas are like humans too, they grow old, become weak and die and a new generation of ideas take over. It's the natural process of the universe.
We humans have a bad habit of idolizing the person behind an idea rather than using the idea untill it reaches its limits. Here's hoping we can get rid of bad habits in the future.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.31, 10:43:54
The limits of theories are well known, notably the incompatibility of general relativity with QM.
Does this mean that below these limits, where the theory is in phase with measurements, the theory would be "false"?
If you use the limits of knowledge as an excuse not to use that knowledge, we can go back to the Stone Age.
I am glad you see that there are limits to which the theories hold true so far.
We use these limits of knowledge to go forward.
That is why we are here--to find gaps in the theories we can use to our advantage.
Physics say that the permanent magnet cannot do useful work.
How could they know that for sure, when they don't actually know what the field is that surrounds a permanent magnet ?
Could the magnetic field be the bending, curving, warping of space/time ?
Could it be a disturbance in this dark energy field they claim must exist?
This claim by physics is based around-well we haven't been able to do it, so it can't be done.
Claiming that this magnetic field can't do useful work, without knowing what that field actually is, is like claiming some ones vehicle cannot exceed 100mph, without knowing what the vehicle is.
There are holes left for us to use to our advantage.
We just have to find them.
Brad
There are energy sources not used today like cosmic radiation or Earth magnetic field. Maybe theories are good but the people have wrong look at them.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.30, 19:39:25
It is not the rotation of the object, it is the transation of the object. If the object is at the center of the carousel it rotates but there is no force. When the carousel stops rotating, the force on an off-center body disappears because the translation through the aether stops. I am surprised that someone of your calibre should make that comment.
This seems incorrect on several levels.
QuoteIf the object is at the center of the carousel it rotates but there is no force.
In fact there is a force internal to the object which acts from it's exact center to it's perimeter. Here's a hint, it's magnitudes more efficient to spin up an object on it's center axis and have it tear itself apart than it is to tear or crush it into pieces. Logically any matter off the exact center of rotation down to the atomic scale will feel a force.
QuoteWhen the carousel stops rotating, the force on an off-center body disappears because the translation through the aether stops.
The problem in question is perceptual.
The centrifugal force is an illusion of sorts. As shown below, draw a radius line R from the center of the carousel to the perimeter. Now place an object on the line R and draw a line perpendicular to R in the direction of rotation. As we can see the line perpendicular to R is the direction the object wants to travel but it cannot because it is bound to a circular path on the disk. So the "centrifugal force" is simply the inertia of the object wanting to continue moving "in a straight line" when it is bound to another path not in a straight line. As such this is not a special force in any sense of the word it's just that many people seem to get confused by things which move in circles.
Here is a hint, forget the circle and simply draw the line R as a lever which it is in reality. Now draw the path of rotation (P) and the perpendicular line it wants to go (D) as short segments. Connect the segments and we get a triangle where segment PD represents the change in direction and the force experienced by the object due to it's own inertia.
We could also invert the triangle and imagine pushing the object up a ramp or hill. As the object is pushed up the ramp it is changing direction from level to an upward motion. The change in direction constitutes an acceleration upwards thus the object experiences a force. Should we also call this force "centrifugal" because it's the same force as before?.
AC
And future space ships have been proposed that have simulated gravity. They are huge drums that are rotating with the humans living on the inside of the curved surface. They feel gravity, if they drop a ball it fals towards their ground. Yes they can perform careful measurements to show it is not the usual gravity if they know the math, but the behaviour is acting like an external gravity force. It is quite easy to create the math for this external force in the same manner we do for moving electrons. And that is far more sensible than the usual dribble about inertia that AC has just expounded.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.31, 18:49:49
And future space ships have been proposed that have simulated gravity. They are huge drums that are rotating with the humans living on the inside of the curved surface. They feel gravity, if they drop a ball it fals towards their ground. Yes they can perform careful measurements to show it is not the usual gravity if they know the math, but the behaviour is acting like an external gravity force. It is quite easy to create the math for this external force in the same manner we do for moving electrons. And that is far more sensible than the usual dribble about inertia that AC has just expounded.
Smudge
Or we can just manipulate the aether flow and "shower" ourselves with it simulating gravity :). The other interesting question is what does the hull of the space ship need to be made of for Aether to flow around it like a wing rather than through it. Super dense structures? We already see strange higher dimension Quasi crystals in meteorites and high velocity impact experiments. I believe highly ordered structures and nano technology like meta materials will be key in this field. Additionally breaking the light barrier might come from understanding the nature of Aether and how to manipulate it.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.03.31, 16:12:37
This seems incorrect on several levels.
In fact there is a force internal to the object which acts from it's exact center to it's perimeter. Here's a hint, it's magnitudes more efficient to spin up an object on it's center axis and have it tear itself apart than it is to tear or crush it into pieces. Logically any matter off the exact center of rotation down to the atomic scale will feel a force.
The problem in question is perceptual.
The centrifugal force is an illusion of sorts. As shown below, draw a radius line R from the center of the carousel to the perimeter. Now place an object on the line R and draw a line perpendicular to R in the direction of rotation. As we can see the line perpendicular to R is the direction the object wants to travel but it cannot because it is bound to a circular path on the disk. So the "centrifugal force" is simply the inertia of the object wanting to continue moving "in a straight line" when it is bound to another path not in a straight line. As such this is not a special force in any sense of the word it's just that many people seem to get confused by things which move in circles.
Here is a hint, forget the circle and simply draw the line R as a lever which it is in reality. Now draw the path of rotation (P) and the perpendicular line it wants to go (D) as short segments. Connect the segments and we get a triangle where segment PD represents the change in direction and the force experienced by the object due to it's own inertia.
We could also invert the triangle and imagine pushing the object up a ramp or hill. As the object is pushed up the ramp it is changing direction from level to an upward motion. The change in direction constitutes an acceleration upwards thus the object experiences a force. Should we also call this force "centrifugal" because it's the same force as before?.
AC
This explains why but not how. When you are forced to rotate, all the atoms in your body are constantly being accelerated through the Aether, this Aether flow will have a net flow radially outwards and thus causes the force we have been calling "fictional" for centuries. The same goes for when you are accelerated in a straight line, you encounter much more Aether flow, wanting to drag you "back" just like the drag force of air. At constant speeds the Aether flow is constant and thus no force is felt. Not voodoo physics, simple fluid dynamics.
I also want to add this thought. I dont believe the medium we call Aether, spacetime or whatever is "absolute". I believe we can only live in a fractal universe meaning this "stuff" itself is fractal in nature too and thus will have its own infinite structure the further down we go investigating it. If we assume nature repeats we only need to study our own "level" of the fractal to unveil the whole fractal.
However my hunch is that this "stuff" might be very similar in structure to water on our "level" of the fractal. Just like how protons appear to have 2 quarks and one special "charm" quark, or water that has 2 hydrogen and one special oxygen atom or even our solar system that seems to come in pairs of two similarly sized planets and one sun. The signifiance of 3 is on every level important it seems. Or rather the significance of 2 similar things being held by one dissimilar, usually larger, "godly" thing. Even on the light spectrum we see this pattern of "3". What if this pattern is part of the very "DNA" of the universe, what if this state happens to be the "ground state" or the state where the universe is in its most ideal energetic configuration. And when we come across such a state we get to see magical things. Wouldn't that imply that the ground state itself is setup to induce life itself?
The magical thing that makes this possible on our level is the neutron. Without neutrons there would be no elements, water or anything else. The neutron itself is unstable and will decay within 15min. However if there is hydrogen nearby it will stick to it and form Deuterium. This stable "neutronic" configuration then kick stars a whole universe of elements through fusion.
Even lower we have neutrinos doing essentially the same thing, building structure. At higher scales we have neutron stars, arguably holding the universe together. So this often "neutral", "neutronic" particle or "god" particle as some may call it repeats throughout the fractal giving rise to structure to an otherwise structureless energetic universe. The question then arises, where or how is this "god" particle formed on each level? Gravity, or more correctly electrostatics. When you bunch of enough hydrogen atoms together through the force of "gravity", some electrons will jump to the proton and form neutrons. These neutrons will attach to other hydrogen atoms and you kick start the formation of elements. But fusion is not limited to our level either. Subatomic particles have their own "elements" table as well which we see fragments of when we smash atoms together.
We dont need large extremely expensive hydron colliders to investigate nature (or rather the debri of nature) nature is giving us the biggest atomic show when we just look up at the night sky at such a slow pace that even the best detectors cant emulate. Is it a coincidence that since the James Webb Telescope went up there now is a crisis in cosmology on a monthly/weekly basis?
https://www.livescience.com/space/after-2-years-in-space-the-james-webb-telescope-has-broken-cosmology-can-it-be-fixed
Wouldn't it be ironic if we discovered the universe was actually contracting rather than expanding. It wouldn't be the first time our monkey brains had the direction wrong.
Makes you think about things.
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.30, 11:50:09
My simple contribution. Why is inertial mass considered as an internal property of matter? Put another way, why is the external force that we can feel on our bodies when we are on a rotating carousel not considered by science to be an external force? Why are we not allowed to draw force vectors pointing outwards from our mass indicating an external force. There is no other branch of science where the results of this simple experiment would not be taken as evidence of an external force acting on the body.
Smudge
I asked chatGPT
A- The situation you're describing, where you feel a force on your body when on a rotating carousel, is indeed due to an external force – the centripetal force. However, in classical mechanics, the concept of an inertial reference frame is fundamental. An inertial reference frame is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds true – that is, an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
So seems like science just want's you do do it their way, even though you are correct Smudge.
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.01, 05:57:23
Wouldn't it be ironic if we discovered the universe was actually contracting rather than expanding.
That expansion is based on just one aspect of astronomical observations, the shift of frequency (or wavelength whatever is measured) of the known spectral values for different elements. This is assumed to be a doppler shift indicating that the distant matter is moving relative to us. The shift seems to generally follow a law where the recession velocity is proportional to the distance away from us, but if you look at the actual measurements it is not a straight line. No account has been taken for the possibility that the shift may be due to other factors, the most obvious one being that a scalar gravitational potential in the outer reaches of a finite non-expanding universe could account for the spectral shift. Or some other aether aspect along the lines Broli is expounding. So the Big Bang theory is based on one single assumption that could be wrong.
Smudge
Quote from: broli on 2024.03.30, 19:20:46
This statement is not true and the basis of Mach principle
Mach's principle is a hypothesis. It doesn't predict our observation of the universe as well as relativity, and what's more, it doesn't predict phenomena that relativity does, such as the lifetime of radioactive elements as a function of speed.
This need to look for an approximate alternative theory, out of rejection of academic science, is irrational.
Quote from: broli on 2024.03.31, 12:06:15
I have been Reading scientific work, papers, articles and journals for many years. I have talked to many scientists across those years. Very very very few of them were open minded enough to even accept an alternative viewpoint. It's not about who is right or wrong but about the ability to open up to new ideas even if they come from the "fringe".
This point of view is totally arbitrary and contrary to the facts, in my opinion due to a misunderstanding of why scientists hold a certain number of current theories to be the best and others to be false or insufficient.
On the other hand, they are totally open to new ideas as long as they are relevant, i.e. verify observations. If they weren't open, Einstein would never have been able to put forward relativity, which shocked everyone at the time and was nevertheless adopted.
This openness can also be seen in scientists' ability to question their own theories - I've already mentioned this in connection with relativity - and to search for a "new physics", because they are perfectly aware of the limitations of the current theories. Do a Google search for "new physics", and you will see that all physicists are looking for it. Seriously, do you think you're the only ones who know that scientific theories have limits and want to look beyond them?!
This closed-mindedness of those who believe themselves to be open-minded can be seen everywhere in FE, particularly in the rejection of any scientific theory because it is beyond them. Some people here challenge relativity when they don't understand it at all - they've only read a vague popularization of it. How can you criticize something you don't understand?
I am addressing them.
Denying what you don't understand, refusing to acknowledge facts that are different from what you'd like to see, falsifying and reducing the world to simple beliefs, demand an absolute Truth but inventing imaginary realities like FE machines that no one has, has always been the lot of believers. They believe that what they don't understand is false, that the world should be reduced to what they do understand or dream, and that it should be rewritten to suit the childishness of children railing against their teachers or great minds.
When mankind is equipped with your "free energy" machines, you'll be able to teach scientists a thing or two. For the moment, it's thanks to them that you have energy, that you can communicate here, so thank them, show some modesty, lean on them to go beyond, and before condemning what's beyond you, try to learn to think straight or you will always be as bad as today in the creation of a new technology useful to humanity.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.01, 10:21:21
Mach's principle is a hypothesis. It doesn't predict our observation of the universe as well as relativity, and what's more, it doesn't predict phenomena that relativity does, such as the lifetime of radioactive elements as a function of speed.
This need to look for an approximate alternative theory, out of rejection of academic science, is irrational.
This point of view is totally arbitrary and contrary to the facts, in my opinion due to a misunderstanding of why scientists hold a certain number of current theories to be the best and others to be false or insufficient.
On the other hand, they are totally open to new ideas as long as they are relevant, i.e. verify observations. If they weren't open, Einstein would never have been able to put forward relativity, which shocked everyone at the time and was nevertheless adopted.
This openness can also be seen in scientists' ability to question their own theories - I've already mentioned this in connection with relativity - and to search for a "new physics", because they are perfectly aware of the limitations of the current theories. Do a Google search for "new physics", and you will see that all physicists are looking for it. Seriously, do you think you're the only ones who know that scientific theories have limits and want to look beyond them?!
This closed-mindedness of those who believe themselves to be open-minded can be seen everywhere in FE, particularly in the rejection of any scientific theory because it is beyond them. Some people here challenge relativity when they don't understand it at all - they've only read a vague popularization of it. How can you criticize something you don't understand?
I am addressing them.
Denying what you don't understand, refusing to acknowledge facts that are different from what you'd like to see, falsifying and reducing the world to simple beliefs, demand an absolute Truth but inventing imaginary realities like FE machines that no one has, has always been the lot of believers. They believe that what they don't understand is false, that the world should be reduced to what they do understand or dream, and that it should be rewritten to suit the childishness of children railing against their teachers or great minds.
When mankind is equipped with your "free energy" machines, you'll be able to teach scientists a thing or two. For the moment, it's thanks to them that you have energy, that you can communicate here, so thank them, show some modesty, and before condemning what's beyond you, try to learn to think straight or you will always be as bad as today in the creation of a new technology useful to humanity.
I am not afraid to be wrong in fact I am wrong all the time and love to be corrected because this is the space where improvement is made. The problem arises when being wrong threatens your livelihood, this tends to trigger our animalistic survival behavior.
I am not condemning scientists but rather the cult like mindset that has affected many. I am condemning the church of sciences and their priests of " scientific" advisors and tv personalities that chose what ideas get funding and which don't sending massive funds down rabbit holes with no benefit for humanity to show after countless decades. I am condemning rigid thinking that throws "that is against the laws of thermodynamics" at anything that challenges their belief system without further exploration. I am condemning the gate keeping of science to those that have read the books of scientific worship and "understand" "real" science.
Science should be the space of ideas, ideas on how our universe might work where we come from and why. Science should be philosophical in nature. Engineering on the other hands deals with hard data and the APPLICATION of ideas. If your data or models arent right planes will fall out of the air causing massive disasters.
The space of data and equations is therefore very useful to transform ideas into something that have a body and structure. Both are needed to get us closer to the truth of the universe giving ideas structures and allowing the structure to be morphed or changed by new ideas in order to evolve to get closer to whatever put us here. In fact I believe the closer you get to this truth the more turbulent these two become leading to ever more ridiculous ideas.
I have nothing against smart people in engineering and science that are doing amazing things. Telescopes and rockets are amazing feats of the human mind. But our framework on how to approach these two spaces is wrong. Noone should have the authority to break down Ideas specially not the church of science which has become the idea police how ironic that may sound.
I look forward towards a time where ideas are shared openly and freely and where we get rid of intellectual "property". Perhaps a fair and democratic vote can be placed on which ideas could be explored further or left for another time where everyone gets a limited vote until the idea they voted on is abandoned or achieved. However even votes can be influenced and people swayed by emotions hence I return to my initial statement I am wrong all the time and this is why sharing ideas freely and openly without ridicule can lead to interesting discussions to form better ideas or to put them in the drawer until their time comes. But shooting down new ideas should be a sin akin to child murder as ideas can never be wrong, only their application. Yes not all ideas are great some even dangerous but every idea can be useful we only dont know when its time will come. Just like how we approach dynamic democratic societies, are they perfect? Heck now, hence why we have laws and police. The application of ideas can be dangerous as well as is evident from the many types of ways people have invented to kill each other. It's not going to be easy to regulate the APPLICATION of all these ideas, but being a dictatorship is just choosing the lazy solution.
History tends to repeat maybe we should read up on it from time to time.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.01, 10:21:21
Mach's principle is a hypothesis. It doesn't predict our observation of the universe as well as relativity, and what's more, it doesn't predict phenomena that relativity does, such as the lifetime of radioactive elements as a function of speed.
This need to look for an approximate alternative theory, out of rejection of academic science, is irrational.
This point of view is totally arbitrary and contrary to the facts, in my opinion due to a misunderstanding of why scientists hold a certain number of current theories to be the best and others to be false or insufficient.
On the other hand, they are totally open to new ideas as long as they are relevant, i.e. verify observations. If they weren't open, Einstein would never have been able to put forward relativity, which shocked everyone at the time and was nevertheless adopted.
This openness can also be seen in scientists' ability to question their own theories - I've already mentioned this in connection with relativity - and to search for a "new physics", because they are perfectly aware of the limitations of the current theories. Do a Google search for "new physics", and you will see that all physicists are looking for it. Seriously, do you think you're the only ones who know that scientific theories have limits and want to look beyond them?!
This closed-mindedness of those who believe themselves to be open-minded can be seen everywhere in FE, particularly in the rejection of any scientific theory because it is beyond them. Some people here challenge relativity when they don't understand it at all - they've only read a vague popularization of it. How can you criticize something you don't understand?
I am addressing them.
Denying what you don't understand, refusing to acknowledge facts that are different from what you'd like to see, falsifying and reducing the world to simple beliefs, demand an absolute Truth but inventing imaginary realities like FE machines that no one has, has always been the lot of believers. They believe that what they don't understand is false, that the world should be reduced to what they do understand or dream, and that it should be rewritten to suit the childishness of children railing against their teachers or great minds.
When mankind is equipped with your "free energy" machines, you'll be able to teach scientists a thing or two. For the moment, it's thanks to them that you have energy, that you can communicate here, so thank them, show some modesty, lean on them to go beyond, and before condemning what's beyond you, try to learn to think straight or you will always be as bad as today in the creation of a new technology useful to humanity.
Sorry, but i'm not hooked on all of todays theories of physics, more so now than ever.
Sure, use them as a guide, but a guide only.
Here is a classic example. There are those here, and physics it self, that say an all magnet motor is not possible, as it go's against the conservation of energy.
These same people are now claiming that this dark energy stuff must exist, so as relativity works on a universal scale.
They are yet to detect it or find it, but it must be there. They need this negative gravity stuff to make relativity work in all cases.
Well, it could be the very same for a working all magnet motor, which is being powered by a !yet to be discovered! force or energy source.
It is yet to be discovered what the magnetic field is. Sure, we know how to form it, we know how to use it, and we know it's effects--but we don't know what it is.
On a universal scale, mans understanding of natures laws of physics, is still in nappies.
The government has come clean on UFOs, or UAPs as they call them now, and 10's of thousands of public sightings as well, for the last 60 odd years.
This being true, we are a long way to fully understanding the workings of actual physics.
Their maneuvering abilities, the speeds at which they travel, their trans medium capabilities, is far beyond what we have today-or so we are led to believe.
Regardless of the known laws of physics, there is always room for expansion, like there will be if this claimed dark energy is found to exist.
Maybe the magnetic field of a PM is interacting with this dark energy ? And no, you can't say rubbish, as you don't know what dark energy is, or even if it exists, and you don't know what the magnetic field is either. So you would be having a blind guess that what i proposed is false.
Brad
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.04.01, 08:59:37
...No account has been taken for the possibility that the shift may be due to other factors...
Smudge
Really ?
There are many alternative hypotheses, and hundreds of academic publications on the subject.
A single counter-example is enough to invalidate your assertion:
http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ees/article/view/3770
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.01, 11:13:34
...
Well, it could be the very same for a working all magnet motor, which is being powered by a !yet to be discovered! force or energy source.
...
When the discourse of free energy is no longer in the conditional but in the present tense, humanity will have taken a big step forward, moving from fiction to reality.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.01, 11:21:51
When the discourse of free energy is no longer in the conditional but in the present tense, humanity will have taken a big step forward, moving from fiction to reality.
I totally agree with you F6.
Brad
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.01, 11:02:16
...
I am not condemning scientists but rather the cult like mindset that has affected many. I am condemning the church of sciences and their priests...
Science has accepted relativity, which calls into question our entire conception of the world because time has become relative.
She later accepted quantum mechanics, further challenging our understanding, since a reality independent of observers no longer even makes sense.
All these fantastic and disturbing ideas, compared to which the ideas of FE are banal, conventional and without scope, science has accepted them.
There is no "church of science", it is only a prejudice. Academic science accepts papers challenging major theories every day.
Your arguments against academic science fall under the "straw man fallacy". You attack a revisited and denigrated representation of science, which has no reality.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.01, 11:21:51
When the discourse of free energy is no longer in the conditional but in the present tense, humanity will have taken a big step forward, moving from fiction to reality.
I would even go one step further than TinMan and say this is not a new force, any force model out there can explain it, including Maxwellian electrodynamics. Only its APPLICATION is new.
Forces can be conservative in perfect closed off systems, but if endlessly tiny spinning gyroscopes break your "closed" system model then why should we limit our imagination by staying in the metaphorical "closed system" box?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.01, 12:01:06
Science has accepted relativity, which calls into question our entire conception of the world because time has become relative.
She later accepted quantum mechanics, further challenging our understanding, since a reality independent of observers no longer even makes sense.
All these fantastic and disturbing ideas, compared to which the ideas of FE are banal, conventional and without scope, science has accepted them.
There is no "church of science", it is only a prejudice. Academic science accepts papers challenging major theories every day.
Your arguments against academic science fall under the "straw man fallacy". You attack a revisited and denigrated representation of science, which has no reality.
I dont believe in an evil society that is actively suppressing "real science" either. But scientific research and exploration needs time and funding, a reality no one can escape. And yes some of these ideas have been openly shared for many decades and perhaps centuries. There is no suppression, which makes it even worse. The best kind of surpression is ridicule or even worse, apathy. When your idea or paper is just sitting there collecting dust it doesn't matter how revolutionary the idea might be if no one cares and instead wants to chase the shiny glory of making a name of yourself like the "greats" that have come to pass.
I've been hearing your speech for 20 years. A theory is used to explain facts. A theory that has no supporting facts is not a theory but a fantasy. Working machines never come from fantasies. It is time for FE researchers to put their feet back on the ground.
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.01, 12:07:01
I dont believe in an evil society that is actively suppressing "real science" either. But scientific research and exploration needs time and funding, a reality no one can escape. And yes some of these ideas have been openly shared for many decades and perhaps centuries. There is no suppression, which makes it even worse. The best kind of surpression is ridicule or even worse, apathy. When your idea or paper is just sitting there collecting dust it doesn't matter how revolutionary the idea might be if no one cares and instead wants to chase the shiny glory of making a name of yourself like the "greats" that have come to pass.
Q- is some breakthrough science suppressed
A-
While there have been instances throughout history where scientific breakthroughs have faced suppression or censorship for various reasons, such occurrences are relatively rare in modern times and usually attract significant attention when they occur.
Here are a few scenarios where scientific breakthroughs might face suppression:
Corporate interests: In some cases, corporations may suppress scientific findings that could harm their profits or reputation. This might involve withholding research that shows the negative effects of a product or technology, or attempting to discredit scientists whose findings contradict their interests.
Government censorship: Governments may suppress scientific research or findings that go against their political agenda or interests. This could include research on topics such as public health, environmental impact, or social issues.
Ethical concerns: Sometimes, scientific research raises ethical concerns or challenges societal norms, leading to attempts to suppress or restrict it. This could involve research on controversial topics such as human cloning, genetic engineering, or certain aspects of artificial intelligence.
National security: Research that has implications for national security may be classified or restricted from publication to prevent adversaries from gaining access to sensitive information or technologies.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.01, 12:09:12
I've been hearing your speech for 20 years. A theory is used to explain facts. A theory that has no supporting facts is not a theory but a fantasy. Working machines never come from fantasies. It is time for FE researchers to put their feet back on the ground.
I agree, this will also be my last post in this thread. Time to crawl back on the ground and build.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.01, 11:17:27
Really ?
There are many alternative hypotheses, and hundreds of academic publications on the subject.
A single counter-example is enough to invalidate your assertion:
http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ees/article/view/3770
Yes there are many more, so why has the implausible big bang theory gained acceptance by our scientific establishment over the more plausible non big bang theories?
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.04.01, 14:43:22
Yes there are many more, so why has the implausible big bang theory gained acceptance by our scientific establishment over the more plausible non big bang theories?
I would have to agree Smudge.
How on earth did the most idiotic, become the most believed theory?
The same people say energy cannot be created, but bang, a whole universe-no problem :D
I think that our known universe is nothing more than a micro universe in an infinite universe, which would explain the increasing speed at which our little universe is expanding.
Maybe our universe started of as a black hole, that absorbed that much matter, it exploded. ;D
Brad
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.01, 12:07:01
I dont believe in an evil society that is actively suppressing "real science" either. But scientific research and exploration needs time and funding, a reality no one can escape. And yes some of these ideas have been openly shared for many decades and perhaps centuries. There is no suppression, which makes it even worse. The best kind of surpression is ridicule or even worse, apathy. When your idea or paper is just sitting there collecting dust it doesn't matter how revolutionary the idea might be if no one cares and instead wants to chase the shiny glory of making a name of yourself like the "greats" that have come to pass.
Hi Broli,
Some very good insight, IMHO, and I must concure.
Conceiving a new technology, or a unique twist to existing technology, can be huge; but its only a
small step in the journey - a viable proof-of-concept based upon many iterative tests and analysis
must follow; that takes a lot of time, effort and money. But again, at the end of this phase you're
only left with a viable, all be it, a unique unexplained technology.
Now you have to explain it, in both scientific and engineering, terms. Again, time consuming and
possibly difficult if the science requires development as well.
Of course another hurdle is acceptance of the concept, especially if it's non-main stream. It has to
be rigorously defended; and even so, some will never acceppt it, that's just typical human nature.
Possibly a better route is just to quietly commercialize or industrialize this new technology and
let it simply speak for itself in a few sought-after applications. It will grow as time goes without
any needed fan-fare. This approach also side-steps much of the discourse, supression and apathy.
Although the search for an excess energy device is the primary goal; once achieved, so what!
But; when it's proven the device works as conceived, implementation then becomes the fun...
There are many examples - telephone, ICE, radio, flight, x-rays, TV, space, etc. - none of these,
and many others, were not done in a day or two, and they cost much more than a few dollars.
Please, let me join you "back on the ground!" SL
Quoteauthor=solarlab link=topic=4629.msg111301#msg111301 date=1712116385,
Possibly a better route is just to quietly commercialize or industrialize this new technology and
let it simply speak for itself in a few sought-after applications. It will grow as time goes without
any needed fan-fare. This approach also side-steps much of the discourse, supression and apathy.
That is the only way.
Just sneak it out into society, or share it with an entity that big, it can't be stopped.
Brad
Apart from the whole "1st there was nothing which exploded " basis of cosmology, the sun being colder on the inside that the corona etc etc here is the state of "peer reviewed" articles. It will get worse. You can find these yourself. Simply go to google and search for site:sciencedirect.com and use one of the following phrases in quotes. "certainly here" "regenerate response" "As an AI language" .
In case it's not clear, peer "review" journals are publishing articles that have sections directly copied and pasted from ChatGPT, Google Bard (Gemini) Claude Anthropic etc. It's turning up everywhere
Broli
QuoteI dont believe in an evil society that is actively suppressing "real science" either. But scientific research and exploration needs time and funding, a reality no one can escape. And yes some of these ideas have been openly shared for many decades and perhaps centuries. There is no suppression, which makes it even worse. The best kind of suppression is ridicule or even worse, apathy. When your idea or paper is just sitting there collecting dust it doesn't matter how revolutionary the idea might be if no one cares and instead wants to chase the shiny glory of making a name of yourself like the "greats" that have come to pass.
The truth about suppression is much easier to explain.
In fact, every corporation is required to have a corporate mandate which prevents anyone from acting against the interests of the corporation. All employee's are legally bound to protect the corporation and shall take no action which harms the corporation or limits profits. Not to mention the fact all major corporation's have NDA's which forbid anyone from talking about what the corporation does or does not do to protect there interests.
Which begs the question why so many FE critics seem absolutely clueless as to how a corporation actually works.
Here's a clue, it's common knowledge and on record that the tobacco industry established thousands of fake foundations, committees and shell companies to suppress any criticism of tobacco use. For decades they bought off scientists, corporations and politicians successfully suppressing any damning evidence of harm by there products. All this over something as stupid as a cigarette, a dried up plant stuck in a paper tube which the user ignites and then inhales the smoke. This is proof evidence can easily be suppressed for decades.
With FE were not talking about something as silly as a cigarette. Were talking about a trillion dollar global technology which would obliterate all completion in a short period of time. Yet the critics would have us believe millions of corporations faced with looming bankruptcy would do nothing to suppress the technology and just roll over and play dead, lmao. It is so utterly naive and unbelievable it defies all logic and reason.
So all we really need to understand is that every corporation negatively affected by any technology is legally bound to do there best to suppress it. It's not a conspiracy it's a fact written into the mandate of every corporation.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.03, 16:39:12
Broli
The truth about suppression is much easier to explain.
In fact, every corporation is required to have a corporate mandate which prevents anyone from acting against the interests of the corporation. All employee's are legally bound to protect the corporation and shall take no action which harms the corporation or limits profits. Not to mention the fact all major corporation's have NDA's which forbid anyone from talking about what the corporation does or does not do to protect there interests.
Which begs the question why so many FE critics seem absolutely clueless as to how a corporation actually works.
Here's a clue, it's common knowledge and on record that the tobacco industry established thousands of fake foundations, committees and shell companies to suppress any criticism of tobacco use. For decades they bought off scientists, corporations and politicians successfully suppressing any damning evidence of harm by there products. All this over something as stupid as a cigarette, a dried up plant stuck in a paper tube which the user ignites and then inhales the smoke. This is proof evidence can easily be suppressed for decades.
With FE were not talking about something as silly as a cigarette. Were talking about a trillion dollar global technology which would obliterate all completion in a short period of time. Yet the critics would have us believe millions of corporations faced with looming bankruptcy would do nothing to suppress the technology and just roll over and play dead, lmao. It is so utterly naive and unbelievable it defies all logic and reason.
So all we really need to understand is that every corporation negatively affected by any technology is legally bound to do there best to suppress it. It's not a conspiracy it's a fact written into the mandate of every corporation.
AC
This is so badly wrong I couldn't resist to break my promise. This is akin to saying, the police enact maximum force when you try to commit murder IN a police station. Only fools run with their ideas to trillion dollar corporations and patent offices and expect to be received with hugs and kisses.
From day one, many years ago, in the FE community I couldn't grasp how much older and wiser people than me believed in concepts of intellectual property, patents, NDAs or making money from their FE ideas.
If you are such a fool that thinks you can enrich yourself with such ideas you deserve all the suffering and suppression that comes your way. Ideas of liberation can NEVER be brought with chains or else the cycle of suffering will repeat. An idea meant to free and liberate people must be FREE in every way, there is no other way! As no human power big nor small can suppress a truly free idea floating in the Aether, free to be applied and collected by all just like the air your breath right now.
If you think or act otherwise you deserve to be shut down with all the force and disappear in the annals of history or worse be forgotten. This is not human powers that enacts this, but the universe itself. FREE energy is FREE in every way including the ego of the so called brain that came up with it. If that foolish ego tries to rob the universe from its FREE energy the universe will pay that ego a harsh and painful visit.
Most FE tinkeres are not battling against the laws of physics but their own egos. Free your idea and the universe will reward you, constrain it and you will be met a harsh reality.
I am starting to sound repetitive. Now I will shut up as I am not in a good mood and dont want to make enemies.
Solarlab
QuotePossibly a better route is just to quietly commercialize or industrialize this new technology and
let it simply speak for itself in a few sought-after applications. It will grow as time goes without
any needed fan-fare. This approach also side-steps much of the discourse, supression and apathy.
I agree having been in the loop and knowing others in it as well.
Most suppression occurs by supposed friends who help the inventor financially just enough to convince them to sign a contract and NDA. This is when the money stops and everyone walks away leaving the inventor broke and gagged. This technique is commonly used by corporations and governments to mentally and financially break the individual into submission.
My advice is for the FE inventor to take matters into there own hands. The goal is not to try to reason with unreasonable people or to submit to others the goal is to sell working technology. To my knowledge every FE inventor in the past failed because they did not have the financial means to go into production themselves. I mean, if a person had working technology and were a multi-millionaire the choice is obvious. We would bypass the science community and critics because they don't matter. We would bypass investors who usually cheat and control the inventor then steal the technology.
The goal is to start building and selling working technology under the radar until we are financially independent and then go mainstream.
As everyone can understand the people having the least wealth are the easiest to control because there options are limited. This is why wealthy people seldom if ever go to prison where poor people do. Wealth gives us freedom, mobility and control over our life.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.03, 17:37:02
Solarlab
I agree having been in the loop and knowing others in it as well.
Most suppression occurs by supposed friends who help the inventor financially just enough to convince them to sign a contract and NDA. This is when the money stops and everyone walks away leaving the inventor broke and gagged. This technique is commonly used by corporations and governments to mentally and financially break the individual into submission.
My advice is for the FE inventor to take matters into there own hands. The goal is not to try to reason with unreasonable people or to submit to others the goal is to sell working technology. To my knowledge every FE inventor in the past failed because they did not have the financial means to go into production themselves. I mean, if a person had working technology and were a multi-millionaire the choice is obvious. We would bypass the science community and critics because they don't matter. We would bypass investors who usually cheat and control the inventor then steal the technology.
The goal is to start building and selling working technology under the radar until we are financially independent and then go mainstream.
AC
Still so badly wrong how are you people working on FE with such narrow vision and grasp on reality. You cannot cheat the universe with your manmade schemes and "plans".
AC is not wrong :-(
This sort of thing is still happening.
See these patents (still pending)
https://patents.google.com/?q=(george)&inventor=egely&oq=george+egely
The inventor needed money to build test devices. So he found a "friendly backer".
The inventor and the financial backer have since fallen out.
The inventor is now with another backer, but backer no.1 is making legal threats.
See below, from https://carrzee.org/2023/10/05/dispute-over-mysterious-energy-cells-shows-tense-race-to-monetize-game-changing-cleantech/ (note that the Biaco and ENG8 dispute is over a different technology again).
Quote from: Havercake on 2024.04.03, 21:12:43
AC is not wrong :-(
This sort of thing is still happening.
See these patents (still pending)
https://patents.google.com/?q=(george)&inventor=egely&oq=george+egely
The inventor needed money to build test devices. So he found a "friendly backer".
The inventor and the financial backer have since fallen out.
The inventor is now with another backer, but backer no.1 is making legal threats.
See below, from https://carrzee.org/2023/10/05/dispute-over-mysterious-energy-cells-shows-tense-race-to-monetize-game-changing-cleantech/
If anything these stories serve as a warning of the universe rather than a confirmation of so called perfect money making schemes panning out. You can try to outsmart the universe but it will have the last laugh while you end up wondering how your perfect scheme has failed you, alone, broke and forgotten. Have you ever wondered why the most destructive ideas gain the most success? The universe will give you your wildest dreams and test you when it comes to destructive ideas but freeing and liberating ideas are not part of such test. Such ideas are sacred and will never be allowed to be brought with schemes of self enrichment, greed or "intellectual property". Bring your freeing idea freely into the world and the universe will provide, dont and it will take everything from you. If you seek "success" go build ideas that destroy and take lives, the universe will give you everything you have dreamt of and more and forget about your distorted view on "Free" Energy. But there is a steep price to pay at the end of that journey.
But dont mind me and my stupid tiny monkey brain, try as you might, keep on scheming, keep filing those patents and try to outsmart the universe we will see who will win, your tiny monkey brain or the thing that put you here O0
Quote from: Havercake on 2024.04.03, 21:12:43
AC is not wrong :-(
This sort of thing is still happening.
See these patents (still pending)
https://patents.google.com/?q=(george)&inventor=egely&oq=george+egely
The inventor needed money to build test devices. So he found a "friendly backer".
The inventor and the financial backer have since fallen out.
The inventor is now with another backer, but backer no.1 is making legal threats.
See below, from https://carrzee.org/2023/10/05/dispute-over-mysterious-energy-cells-shows-tense-race-to-monetize-game-changing-cleantech/ (note that the Biaco and ENG8 dispute is over a different technology again).
Open source is the way around this. The Internet is built on it and people profit from it. Linus Thorvald he came up with Linux is not a poor man.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2024.04.03, 23:09:00
Open source is the way around this. The Internet is built on it and people profit from it. Linus Thorvald he came up with Linux is not a poor man.
Finally some reason in here. Thank you O0
I believe ALL ideas should be open source and their applications left up to anyone willing to APPLY them in the world. The wright brothers story also serves as a lesson on how greed and wealth can stop innovation, so much so that the US became a joke with their airplanes compared to Europe which was free of the patent trolls that these brothers became and who used their vast wealth to sue everyone that "stole" or improved their idea.
Open source, and the universe will help, financial or otherwise. Delude yourself with plans and schemes of self enrichment and wealth and you will be cursed. People should read some history on the stories of so called great "inventions" and the effects on the minds that brought them. Nobel went as far as inventing the Nobel prize so future generations wouldn't remember him for the horrible things he brought into the world that cost many lives but made him very rich. Thomas Midgley Jr let greed take over and became the man that poisoned the entire planet with lead because his "great invention" could make him a lot of money while knowing very well the dangers of lead. Thomas Edison once the great "inventor" is now seen by the current younger generation as a hack who's only skill was to hire the best engineers and stifled or sabotaged innovation by launching idea wars against his rivals, Tesla for example, by sadistically harming and killing sacred animals like elephants to prove a ridiculous point. Or the great Christopher Columbus, once the prime example of the idea of human exploration and expanding once boundaries, now seen as a rampant genocidal maniac. History does not reward people that apply ideas from a malicious, self interest and enrichment point of view.
I dont believe in a man made concept of God, however I believe in powers much greater and more vast than our monkey brain can grasp, that keep everything turning. And if you turn against those powers they will turn against you with ways you could never have imagined especially when it comes with the most freeing of ideas. Even your once beloved and trusting family, children or friends will turn against you and the only thing you are left with is despair and perhaps the only highlight of the day would be the "free" meal given to you if you are so lucky to also be locked up in a cage like an animal.
You will never know how an idea will be applied by others, and you cannot stop it and most definitely not with patent applications, you can only bring it with the best intentions in the world free of manmade constructs, and hope the universe will take care of the rest. An idea is just like a child, you nurture it, raise it, give it love and ultimately when its grown enough you let it free into the world and hope that what you did was enough for it to have a meaningful and positive impact on others. And maybe, perhaps, from time to time it might return back "home" to give you some of the love back you gave it as a child. Parents that seek to enrich themselves through their children are disgusting.
I hope some day we can rid of stupid concepts such as "intellectual property", these materialistic ideas invented by materialistic minds and FOR materialistic minds that today only serve to protect the top of the pyramide. All ideas should live in a different space than this material world, there is no "property" in such space. New ideas form and are born all the time when they interact and are inspired by other ideas, free of shackles and man made laws. Sure, go ahead and APPLY them in your material world, rally a team to build machines based off of them, make money out of them if you want, punish those that apply these ideas to harm others, compete and let the best APPLICATION win BUT leave your nasty monkey paws off this free flowing space of ideas as material concepts of self interest, ego and property dont belong in such space. If no one wants to pick up your idea, the blame is on yourself and the time and energy YOU were willing to put in it to gather people around you, not some lazy moronic "lack of finances" theory. The internet has made this orders of magnitude more easy today, 3d printers have become dirt cheap, and you can get PCB boards made in mass for pennies through the power of capitalism. The only limit is you and your monkey ego.
Release you idea freely, champion it will all the means and power available to you at that time and people will align and follow, choose a shortcut and the universe will cut you short.
This ape will return back to his cave now.
Quotequote author=Allcanadian link=topic=4629.msg111309#msg111309 date=1712165822
I agree having been in the loop and knowing others in it as well.
Most suppression occurs by supposed friends who help the inventor financially just enough to convince them to sign a contract and NDA. This is when the money stops and everyone walks away leaving the inventor broke and gagged. This technique is commonly used by corporations and governments to mentally and financially break the individual into submission.
My advice is for the FE inventor to take matters into there own hands. The goal is not to try to reason with unreasonable people or to submit to others the goal is to sell working technology. To my knowledge every FE inventor in the past failed because they did not have the financial means to go into production themselves. I mean, if a person had working technology and were a multi-millionaire the choice is obvious. We would bypass the science community and critics because they don't matter. We would bypass investors who usually cheat and control the inventor then steal the technology.
The goal is to start building and selling working technology under the radar until we are financially independent and then go mainstream.
Couldn't have said it better my self.
Brad
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.03, 17:39:31
Still so badly wrong how are you people working on FE with such narrow vision and grasp on reality. You cannot cheat the universe with your manmade schemes and "plans".
You must live on another planet.
How exactly are you cheating the universe by using what it gives freely?
I am often confused as to how some people think.
AC is correct in everything he said.
Brad
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.04, 05:07:37
Finally some reason in here. Thank you O0
I believe ALL ideas should be open source and their applications left up to anyone willing to APPLY them in the world.
And what do you think would happen to some poor guys invention once some one with wealth and power get hold of it.
They would patent the design under some other design description, and shelve it.
Then no one could mass produce it.
Do you really think the governments and the elites are going to let some free energy device into the world, and make the fossil fuel industry, the renewables industry-solar, wind, etc, just become obsolete?
I bet it would be made illegal, due to some national/global security bullshit.
Something like this takes careful planning, and being involved with powerful people who want this to happen.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.04, 08:22:38
And what do you think would happen to some poor guys invention once some one with wealth and power get hold of it.
They would patent the design under some other design description, and shelve it.
Then no one could mass produce it.
Do you really think the governments and the elites are going to let some free energy device into the world, and make the fossil fuel industry, the renewables industry-solar, wind, etc, just become obsolete?
I bet it would be made illegal, due to some national/global security bullshit.
Something like this takes careful planning, and being involved with powerful people who want this to happen.
Brad
Why do you people keep dragging me out of my cave, I just want to stay in it in peace and spread useful ideas. These "speeches" are mentally draining.
I dont want to give another speech on the nature of open source, the legal protection that comes with it and all the case laws in favor of it. you can easily prove your idea came before the application of the patent in court, because when its released in the wild on the internet it will stay online forever. Many BIG corporations have been successfully sued before over using open source ideas in their closed source applications and in fact many will avoid such risks by avoiding open source in general (ask ChatGPT). Then no matter how "powerful" the power may be, you will hold the legal upperhand by proving the idea was open sourced before the application of any patent. And trust me there is an army of good spirited young hungry lawyers that are willing to jump in the fire with you to protect such cases pro bono free of charge. As good will always trumps bad intent or greed. Dont limit yourself to constrained thinking and trust the universe and the universe will provide.
However I agree with you on planning and pace, having structure, a good approach and most importantly a good set of people around you is important in order to successfully spread such idea as far and wide as you possibly can not out of self interest or intellectual "property" more so to battle the wave of resistance and friction that will be coming your way after such information enters the real world. No single person can handle such burden, but a good spirited team there to lighten that burden expecting nothing in return helps a lot. After that no amount of science, theory, money or law can deny or suppress a working machine that even a child can build at home if you did things right and well intentioned free of your own ego.
The biggest fear of the FE tinkerer seems not whether or not his idea will work but whether or not he can make money out of it. As the parent of such ideas your only purpose is to protect and nurture your child when its still young but to let go when its mature so it can freely wonder and explore the world FREE of constraints, "contracts" or "laws".
My suggestion is:
- Come up with an idea so simple and cheap even a child can build
- Validate the sh*t out of it
- Involve few trustworthy people with the right mindset and proven reputation, and avoid people with "power"
- Send a few prototypes out
- Perpare a "theory" or paper on how or why your idea works for the academic world
- Publish your theory and launch a media campaign using social media platforms that made ideas go viral at the press of a button: YouTube, Rumble, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter... (for once these abomination will be useful). Countless tinkerer and "science" youtubers that would love to build such a machine have millions of followers that can amplify your idea greatly and inspire a whole new generation of young explorers that will take and improve your idea and come up with so many different and new things. THIS is the true priceless joy of sharing ideas openly and freely, seeing the wonderous things and derivations other will come up with.
After that brace yourself for the ride of your life. Preferably even disappear out of sight and become part of the noise or the pleb that is just building the machine locally and making an honorable living for yourself so you can survive instead of drown in earthly pleasures.
Bitcoin became the most powerful crypto currency in the world not because of IP protection or investors, but because it was a liberating idea shared with the whole world at the right time in history. Right now we are facing the same "right time" moment as the world and its powers are shifting greatly.
I also find it funny how the whole system is on the verge of a complete collapse and yet here we are discussing how we can gain a seat in it. Widen your mind and imagine a better and different future for yourself and loved ones rather than limit yourself by imagining how you can gain a seat in a broken system that is about to collapse.
Its not going to be easy and you will only have one shot at it so do everything in your might to not mess it up.
Timing is key but you cannot wait too long either for obvious reasons.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2024.04.03, 23:09:00
Open source is the way around this. The Internet is built on it and people profit from it. Linus Thorvald he came up with Linux is not a poor man.
I use Linux all the time - and love it. But don't forget that Linus wrote the original kernal as a "free/libre" alternative to Minix - and Minix was a microcomputer implementation of mini & mainframe Unix systems. So the equivalent commercial OSs came first. The Linux Foundation, however, will still sue you if you don't follow the "free/libre" licensing rules.
But yes, a technology only really "takes off" after people can copy it without legal encumbrance. Patents on the IC engine ran out over a century ago, but plenty of companies still make money selling engines.
Actually, George is a sincere and open source kind of guy - although possibly a little naive. He's been working in the field for over 40 years, has written for (and even guest edited) Infinite Energy magazine, and would be happy just to see people using any OU technology he comes up with or uncovers. We all build on the discoveries and developments of the past - and George would be the first to acknowledge that. It's the financiers that take a different view.
I remember reading a quote from one electrochemist researcher, from the early days of 'cold fusion', who divided all the "investors, entrepreneurs, & businessmen", that he ever had contact with, into two categories:
(a) Crooks
(b) Lesser Crooks
But as AC says, if you need money to develop your ideas, and you don't have lots of money in the bank, your options can be quite limited. Unlike software, that can be multiplied infinitely and at little cost, hardware needs physical resources.
Quoteauthor=broli link=topic=4629.msg111320#msg111320 date=1712219763
QuoteThe biggest fear of the FE tinkerer seems not whether or not his idea will work but whether or not he can make money out of it.
Or a little money and backing, so as they can be built in house for those that don't have the means to build their own.
Shipped at cost--non profit.
QuoteMy suggestion is:
- Come up with an idea so simple and cheap even a child can build
- Validate the sh*t out of it
- Involve few trustworthy people with the right mindset and proven reputation, and avoid people with "power"
- Send a few prototypes out
- Build a "theory" on how or why your idea works
- Publish your theory and launch a media campaign using social media platforms that made ideas go viral at the press of a button: YouTube, Rumble, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter... (for once these abomination will be useful). Countless tinkerer and "science" youtubers that would love to build such a machine have millions of followers that can amplify your idea greatly
Agree with that, except it would have to be a pretty crafty child :)
Quoteif you did things right and well intentioned free of your own ego.
Anyone who invents such a device, deserves some self pride i would think.
Brad
[/list]
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.04, 09:20:22
Agree with that, except it would have to be a pretty crafty child :)
Never underestimate the next generation as they will surprise you in ways you could never imagine. They are the true geniuses that will make us look like fools and the ones we will entrust with our rusty ideas to take them beyond our limited old slow brains.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.04, 09:20:22
Anyone who invents such a device, deserves some self pride i would think.
I hope you have a well written speech prepared when you receive that glorious "Nobel" price. On the other hand you could always use such platform to clown the premise of such ridiculous pride stroking event and give the shiny golden medal to the first homeless person you pass >:-)
Oh snap, now my own ego is raising, time to beat it down into submission.
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.04, 09:34:53
Oh snap, now my own ego is raising, time to beat it down into submission.
QuoteNever underestimate the next generation as they will surprise you in ways you could never imagine. They are the true geniuses that will make us look like fools and the ones we will entrust with our rusty ideas to take them beyond our limited old slow brains.
I have seen some examples of the generation after me, and the one after them, and i hold little hope.
Being able to use an iphone, and play computer games, is hardly genius to me. Half of them don't know if they man, woman, or sheep.
QuoteI hope you have a well written speech prepared when you receive that glorious "Nobel" price. On the other hand you could always use such platform to clown the premise of such ridiculous pride stroking event and give the shiny golden medal to the first homeless person you pass >:-)
There will be nothing like that.
I'm not interested one bit in any public fame.
I just want to be left alone, building in my workshop, holidaying with the wife, and spending time with my family--thats what i'm interested in.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.04, 10:43:47
I have seen some examples of the generation after me, and the one after them, and i hold little hope.
Being able to use an iphone, and play computer games, is hardly genius to me. Half of them don't know if they man, woman, or sheep.
iPhones and most of today technology was not brought by the next generation into the world but by the careless previous ones that put profit over morals and human value. Dont blame the ideas of greed and their applications that the previous generations brought and their disastrous effects on the current generation. Will you blame a baby for consuming mercury that you as an adult have carelessly put next to it? No you dont, you are to blame for that.
Its up to the previous generation to provide the best and safest environment for the next generation to thrive in and we have but ourselves to blame for not delivering such environment.
I am no longer pessimistic about the future of the next generation. The advantage of a young mind is that it can recover quicker from the damage that was imposed upon it unlike the old rigid stubborn mind that is better off out of sight and influence and preferably a few feet under ground to not waste any more space in the energetic space of ideas.
Our only job as "parents" is to provide the best possible environment, ideas and stories to leave behind for the next generation in hope that they dont repeat our stupid mistakes so they too can leave behind a better environment and future for their next generation.
If you can live with such ideals then at least you can die in peace knowing you did the best you could do to ensure a better future for your children and hopefully surrounded by them and the people that you love, rather than old, grumpy, alone and bitter regretting your life choices chasing "wealth" and influence, and all its disastrous consequences, your legacy will be one to warn the next generation of rather than to inspire.
I would rather choose to live modestly and humbly, "owning" very little and on my last hour be surrounded by my family with a smile of content on my face rather than despise the life I have lead and leave my family fighting over the wealth and estate I have amassed.
I know you are not this man but this is a warning and reminder for others who do think such ideas and goals are worth chasing.
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.04, 11:08:28
iPhones and most of today technology was not brought by the next generation into the world but by the careless previous ones that put profit over morals and human value. Dont blame the ideas of greed and their applications that the previous generations brought and their disastrous effects on the current generation. Will you blame a baby for consuming mercury that you as an adult have carelessly put next to it? No you dont, you are to blame for that.
Its up to the previous generation to provide the best and safest environment for the next generation to thrive in and we have but ourselves to blame for not delivering such environment.
I am no longer pessimistic about the future of the next generation. The advantage of a young mind is that it can recover quicker from the damage that was imposed upon it unlike the old rigid stubborn mind that is better off out of sight and influence and preferably a few feet under ground to not waste any more space in the energetic space of ideas.
Our only job as "parents" is to provide the best possible environment, ideas and stories to leave behind for the next generation in hope that they dont repeat our stupid mistakes so they too can leave behind a better environment and future for their next generation.
If you can live with such ideals then at least you can die in peace knowing you did the best you could do to ensure a better future for your children and hopefully surrounded by them and the people that you love, rather than old, grumpy, alone and bitter regretting your life choices chasing "wealth" and influence, and all its disastrous consequences, your legacy will be one to warn the next generation of rather than to inspire.
I would rather choose to live modestly and humbly, "owning" very little and on my last hour be surrounded by my family with a smile of content on my face rather than despise the life I have lead and leave my family fighting over the wealth and estate I have amassed.
I know you are not this man but this is a warning and reminder for others who do think such ideas and goals are worth chasing.
Sorry, not going to agree.
The smartest members on this forum, are the older generation.
This generation has decided that there are some 86 genders-so far, and counting.
Us older generation live in a land of reality, where there are still just two genders-proven fact by science since the beginning of time.
You think this generation is going to change the world, start a revolution.
Hell, they can't even start a lawnmower.
No, change is going to come from the older generation, as this generation is still trying to work out which one of the 86 genders they are.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.04, 11:40:33
Sorry, not going to agree.
The smartest members on this forum, are the older generation.
This generation has decided that there are some 86 genders-so far, and counting.
Us older generation live in a land of reality, where there are still just two genders-proven fact by science since the beginning of time.
You think this generation is going to change the world, start a revolution.
Hell, they can't even start a lawnmower.
No, change is going to come from the older generation, as this generation is still trying to work out which one of the 86 genders they are.
Brad
I choose not to enter such debates because only time will tell who is right and you must always respect your elders. But I urge you to strongly read the following thread:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4616.msg111305;topicseen#msg111305
You will perhaps come to understand why the non-binary nature of the universe is maybe what makes up for everything we perceive. And perhaps you will also come to realize the true nature of your own brain child and become more tolerant to ideas you currently dont understand as often our children teach us more about ourselves than we teach them.
For me now its time to shut up and build because the mail man just delivered a machine from the future.
I wish you good luck and try to keep up wise old man because things will only accelerate from here ^-^
Broli
QuoteThe biggest fear of the FE tinkerer seems not whether or not his idea will work but whether or not he can make money out of it.
This highlights a common misconception. Business and money are not inherently bad they just tend to attract bad people like flies to a manure pile.
This is why people tend to equate wealth with psychotic behavior and greed. There is a disproportionate number of psychotic people associated with business, money and politics. However wealth and money are not bad, they are inanimate concepts, only people who abuse them can be bad. So like many you seem to be confusing the actual nature of the problem.
Ironically, it's the rich and powerful who tend to spread the lie that being poor somehow makes you a better person, lol. They do this to control people and avoid competition. Cesspools like Russia, China and Iran virtually invented this concept. They promote the false belief that being uneducated, poor and powerless is somehow a virtue... obviously it's not.
AC
A good video explaining one of the biggest problems with science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PsbgZvcjl8
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.04, 08:12:40
Couldn't have said it better my self.
Brad
Having seen so many promising (in its most literal sense) tech get fanfare and then disappear over the years including one that I was a consultant on, I came to the conclusion long ago that a clean, cheap, safe, 'free' energy tech had to be open sourced for humanity and the planet. Being honest with myself though there has been at least one occasion when I thought I had "something" and I thought .. "maybe I COULD get a patent on this"... ! That is the modern mindset.
Being older and more experienced in business now, I know there are plenty of ways to make a comfortable living where I don't need to own a patent but I DO have to produce value for others. None of the ecommerce businesses I work with have patents but they do 100s of millions in sales.
If I developed say a working negative resistor tomorrow I would get a book written, an ecommerce store and a subscription service up before I released to the public. I would not have to manufacture, I would give the ideas away for free and sell other related materials. If I simply gave away the plan without having a strong support network in place first, it may benefit humanity but there would be a lot of mis/dis information in the short term.
Even with $ aside though, there is also the matter of feeding my ego. If I just gave this away how would the world know I was responsible for this gift to humanity? The answer for me would be, to get involved in educating the market. As we know nature abhors a vacuum and someone, possibly someone who I don't respect would fill that role. I'd hate that.
Remember Solar Freaking ROadways? It was not about the sausage they were selling it was the sizzle. Sure the tech was doomed but they got funded because of the marketing even though they were deluded not dishonest. If my negative resistor worked, there would be plenty of noise to support it. That would be my approach and I'd help anyone else do it as well. I'm always talking with clients about JV ideas Others would try to shut it down. When you threaten existing markets they will respond by attacking you and your claims. By the way in an unrelated matter I hear vitamin D is pretty good. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.05, 16:02:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8
This theme is similar to my observations and the longer science, religion, politics, economics etc... go on the more corrupt and divisive it becomes.
For example, economics used to be based on the production and trade of goods and services. However today most economics revolves around betting some dupe is willing to pay more for something than we did which is in effect a grift or gambling. 30 years ago cryptocurrency which is a ponzi scheme would have been deemed illegal and everyone involved sent to prison. 30 years ago anyone who was a compulsive liar who assaults women would not be a politician they would be in prison. 30 years ago people had the common sense to keep there beliefs to themselves and privacy was a virtue most respected.
My current philosophy follows the picture below. As Nikola Tesla implied, if mankind is broken and going sideways anyways why not go for it?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.06, 00:09:03
This theme is similar to my observations and the longer science, religion, politics, economics etc... go on the more corrupt and divisive it becomes.
For example, economics used to be based on the production and trade of goods and services. However today most economics revolves around betting some dupe is willing to pay more for something than we did which is in effect a grift or gambling. 30 years ago cryptocurrency which is a ponzi scheme would have been deemed illegal and everyone involved sent to prison. 30 years ago anyone who was a compulsive liar who assaults women would not be a politician they would be in prison. 30 years ago people had the common sense to keep there beliefs to themselves and privacy was a virtue most respected.
My current philosophy follows the picture below. As Nikola Tesla implied, if mankind is broken and going sideways anyways why not go for it?.
AC
Yes.
Those that think science is the same today as it was yesty year, simply do not understand what is actually going on.
Science today is not about discovering something different, it's about-how many papers can i get out, how much funding can i get, and how much fame can i create using word salad.
True science is about finding flaws in accepted academia, and discovering new ways things can be done.
It's not about carrying out a few experiments to confirm what we already know, it's about carrying out experiments and finding things we don't know.
Science does not dictate what is possible--mechanics and engineering does.
All mans scientific limitations can be overturned with engineering. O0
Brad
Educational levels have fallen in the West, and the young people who have graduated are now engineers, less competent than their elders.
In France, the Flamanville EPR nuclear power plant, scheduled for 2012, is still not up and running. There's always something going wrong, and it's postponed year after year.
Even the weather forecasts aren't as good today as they were 10 years ago!
If we keep smoking cannabis, which causes people to lose 3 to 5 IQ points, if we keep brandishing the precautionary principle, which doesn't encourage anyone to take risks in innovation, if we keep repeating the environmentalist message that man is the worst species, always polluting the earth, if we keep repeating that we work too much, why should young minds invest in science and technology? They're conditioned to vegetate, to celebrate themselves as saviors of the planet by sorting waste, and to contemplate nature like prehistoric man.
Unfortunately, Elon Musks are on the verge of extinction. We can be pessimistic, very pessimistic.
For the moment, technology only comes from academic science.
When FE enthusiasts get the hang of it, they'll be able to teach scientists a thing or two.
The thoughts of many of them on science and scientists are of a level I would describe as pathetic. They should read a bit more philosophy of science to understand what they're talking about and talk about it more intelligently.
It smacks of frustration, complexes and revenge, but as long as they want to eliminate everything that comes from science and that works, and replace it with illusions, they'll remain losers.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.04.07, 16:54:45
For the moment, technology only comes from academic science.
QuoteBoth Wilbur and Orville did well in school, although Orville was known for getting into mischief. Orville and Wilbur were the only members of the immediate Wright family who did not receive a high school diploma, attend college, or marry.
I dont do what I do out of revenge, hate or malice, my main motivation is sharing ideas openly and freely so the people around me can have a better tomorrow where they also can live more openly and freely.
Although I must admit, my ego does show itself from time to time, but so far I manage to tame it. "Science" is not some holy matter that is immutable, it must follow the same laws of nature, namely evolution. If it does not evolve then it becomes useless and is discarded by nature itself. Evolution happens when new discoveries are made improving old ones or making them obsolete. I thank evolution for not still being a cave dweller not "science".
I look forward to the day where all sides can join the round table, "academics" and "crackpots", to freely and openly discuss ideas without ridicule or bad intention. Sure there will be extremes on both sides but why does it have to be binary, there is a whole spectrum in between too of people finding common ground with their ideas to test and validate them. And yes that even includes you, surrounding yourself with yes men only serves to build cults which I want nothing to do with.
If circles and lines can come together to create a whole universe so can we. Sorry I had to interject my crackpot theory ;D ;D
F6FLT
QuoteIf we keep smoking cannabis, which causes people to lose 3 to 5 IQ points, if we keep brandishing the precautionary principle, which doesn't encourage anyone to take risks in innovation, if we keep repeating the environmentalist message that man is the worst species, always polluting the earth, if we keep repeating that we work too much, why should young minds invest in science and technology? They're conditioned to vegetate, to celebrate themselves as saviors of the planet by sorting waste, and to contemplate nature like prehistoric man.
For a moment I thought you were talking about the Vietnam War era from the 50's to 70's. Ever watch a documentary on that era?, it seems most were wasted or drunk, one big party like Woodstock, laying around doing nothing, hair down to there waist, protesting everything and warning everyone about polluting mother Earth. So it's more than a little hypocritical that the boomers are now judging the younger generation.
QuoteUnfortunately, Elon Musks are on the verge of extinction. We can be pessimistic, very pessimistic.
You mean rich kids who got millions from daddy, overworked and underpaid people smarter than they could ever be, milked the taxpayer subsidy train and creating multiple insolvent companies. Were now seeing many of his supposed companies have grossly overinflated evaluations and are not worth 1/10 what Musk claims. Elon even said he takes after Edison, 99% hot air and 1% invention.
Apparently Elon did very little, a minor shareholder in most companies and it was his employee's who made some minor improvements to EV's, rockets and internet micro satellites. Coincidentally, China is now producing better EV's at half the price so Tesla is basically a dead horse without even more taxpayer subsidies. So no, entitled rich kids bankrolled by there parents who grift and manipulate others for profit are hardly on the verge of extinction.
AC
I was once again doing the impossible this morning.
Many people are conned into buying a "maintenance free lead acid battery" when in fact there is no such thing. By maintenance free they mean putting a large sticker over the fill/vent caps so the battery fails prematurely due to a low acid level. So this morning I was popping the vent caps and topping up the electrolyte level with deionized RO water in all my equipment batteries. My riding mower with a smaller utility battery had a low level just barely above the plates.
Low electrolyte levels are caused by evaporation over many charging cycles ie. time but it can also be overcharging. Overcharging is why many smaller cheaper vehicles like riding mowers, motorcycles and ATV's tend to "boil out" there batteries and fail more often.
Contrary to popular belief there are many things we can do to extend the battery life well beyond 15 years.
1)Check the electrolyte level every year.
2)Place some medium density foam under/around the battery to soften hard bumps which tend to break up the internal plates and bus bars.
3)If a battery constantly boils out check your charge voltage and regulator.
I think this is another good example of how many people believe false popular opinions and things which are just not factually true. Like when an supposed expert tells them there $200 battery must be replaced when there's a 80% chance a half litre of RO water could solve the problem.
AC
Something useful to share with the group:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lPhMSulSU
This crackpot physics PhD lady sure sounds like a lunatic.
Quote from: broli on 2024.04.10, 10:22:20
Something useful to share with the group:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lPhMSulSU
This crackpot physics PhD lady sure sounds like a lunatic.
Those are wonderful theories however in the real world experiments always reign supreme.
For example, a magnet can move in any direction and induce currents but never on rotation. This is a demonstrable fact which when coupled with Faraday's claim there are no real lines of force renders most current theories a mute point. This is not a crackpot theory it's a valid experiment even a six year old can perform and it requires no math whatsoever.
Let's put this fake science to bed...
Question to Chat GPT:
-Are Faraday's lines of force real or imaginary?.
Answer:
Quote-Faraday's lines of force, also known as magnetic field lines or electric field lines, are a conceptual tool used to visualize the direction and strength of electric and magnetic fields. They are not tangible physical objects themselves but rather a representation of the field's behavior.
Question:
-Why do so many people think these imaginary lines of force are real?.
Answer:
Quote-The confusion may arise because the concept of field lines is a powerful and intuitive way to visualize electric and magnetic fields, and it's often taught in introductory physics courses as a fundamental concept. When students first encounter these concepts, they may interpret the representation of field lines as physical entities rather than abstract representations of the field's behavior.
Overall, while field lines are not tangible physical entities, they are a useful and widely accepted tool for understanding and describing electric and magnetic fields. However, it's essential to recognize them as conceptual aids rather than physical objects themselves.
Oh dear now were in big trouble. So in effect countless physics students have been falsely taught many imaginary things are real. In effect the foundation they are basing many other effects on like closed loops, rotations and vortexes which are also imaginary is also a lie. Could it get any worse?, I'm not sure how.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.10, 23:57:44
So in effect countless physics students have been falsely taught many imaginary things are real. In effect the foundation they are basing many other effects on like closed loops, rotations and vortexes which are also imaginary is also a lie. Could it get any worse?, I'm not sure how.
AC
Show me a reputable source of mainstream science or conventional physics that teaches magnetic lines of force are real physical entities or that a magnetic field rotates on its NS axis.
Thanks,
bi
ps. Physics students are taught about conservative forces, still, I hope, which it seems is a theory to which you don't subscribe. Ref. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_force
Quote from: bistander on 2024.04.11, 11:45:26
Show me a reputable source of mainstream science or conventional physics that teaches magnetic lines of force are real physical entities or that a magnetic field rotates on its NS axis.
Thanks,
bi
ps. Physics students are taught about conservative forces, still, I hope, which it seems is a theory to which you don't subscribe. Ref. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_force
Bi
Do you have any thoughts on what the field actually is around the body of a PM?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.11, 13:22:25
Bi
Do you have any thoughts on what the field actually is around the body of a PM?
Brad
Hi Brad,
I think it is what is referred to as a force field, similar to gravity. I can't begin to explain what it actually is. Maybe a condition in space caused by electric charges.
Regards,
bi
The magnetic field is a vector field, i.e. characterized by a given norm and direction, defined at any point in space, and whose presence translates into the existence of a force acting on moving electric charges (known as the Lorentz force).
It's nothing more than that, and anything not compatible with this definition is not a magnetic field.
All these notions are pure mathematical definitions used to model observations. It is even remarkable that we can use the concept of potential instead of field, and model electromagnetism as well. We can also use relativity to model the magnetic field from the electric field, and that works too.
To believe that the magnetic field is a real physical entity is to confuse the map with the territory.
That's why redefining it differently, as I often see in the blah blah around the FE, is naive if not stupid, since its "existence" is an intellectual concept, that of those who defined it, and if you have another one, you'll have to call it something other than "magnetic field" and define it yourself.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.04.11, 11:45:26
Show me a reputable source of mainstream science or conventional physics that teaches magnetic lines of force are real physical entities or that a magnetic field rotates on its NS axis.
...
Good point! ;)
Quoteauthor=F6FLT link=topic=4629.msg111567#msg111567 date=1712927364]
QuoteThe magnetic field is a vector field, i.e. characterized by a given norm and direction, defined at any point in space, and whose presence translates into the existence of a force
Great.
But what is this field of force ?
QuoteTo believe that the magnetic field is a real physical entity is to confuse the map with the territory.
How can you state that the field is not a real physical entity without knowing what that field is?
If it can apply a real physical force, then it must be a real physical entity.
I found it helps to understand the history of science from a psychological point of view.
Man used to use words and symbols to describe everything however this does not help with calculating something. Man wanted to build more complicated stuff and teach others how to build so they invented an imaginary system they called numbers and math. Over time some worshiped the number systems in the same way others worshiped gods. They saw imaginary patterns in the numbers and it became something in itself. To the extent they replaced reality with there patterns of numbers.
For example, Einstein was clueless as to what a field was in reality so he changed the patterns of numbers ie. the measures of time and space became variable so the math works. Einstein said, "if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts". Change the facts?, in other words cheat and make up whatever they need to in order to make the math work because math is everything to them.
In fact we see this psychological defect in every aspect of society. Drug addicts think wasted is normal not sober, business thinks greed is normal not sharing, physicists think patterns of numbers and equations is normal not so much reality. City people think overpopulation, smog, crime and ambulance sirens are normal but there not outside the city. Every group which becomes too immersed in there own beliefs becomes deluded over time to some extent including free energy. This is why it's really important to do real experiments and gather our own facts.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.13, 05:58:28
...Einstein said, "if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"
...
Which of his writings are you talking about? Source, reference?
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.13, 00:48:49
...
But what is this field of force ?
...
We've just said that these concepts are not physical realities but tools for describing what we observe, and you're back to asking the question of existence using the word "is", which of course can have no answer other than the one already given.
Before talking about the limits of science, or even asserting that it is wrong, the first thing is to reflect on the limits of one's own knowledge.
When I was getting back into the swing of things, having given up physics a long time ago, it took me ten years or so to get to grips with relativity, even though I'd studied the subject in university. The concept became a simple, common-sense way of explaining so much of what we observe, even though I know very little about calculating in GR.
Do you think it's possible to understand this kind of thing, or even the question you asked, without ever working hard to understand the basics of physics, without spending time taking courses, without doing practical equation-solving exercises?!
And if we don't understand it, how can we say it's wrong or incomplete? Certainly, if science is reduced to what those who have never studied it understand, a mediocre popularization, it is false. I think that's why it's so decried in the FE movement.
We're all ignorant to one degree or another, but there are two kinds of ignorant: those who understand that they have limits and that those smarter than they are can guide them, so they can learn before they fly on their own, and those who judge from the height of their ignorance that what seems too complicated to them is wrong, so they'll never progress since their prejudices are enough for them.
The majority of physicists seem to believe the magnetic field is "virtual particles popping in and out of existence", possibly from other universes.
QuoteA virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle, which allows the virtual particles to spontaneously emerge from vacuum at short time and space ranges.
The contradiction is that they also believe a particle is just a moving wave or ripple in a field where a virtual particle is a disturbance in a field. The key concept is that your reality is supposedly imaginary and matter is just some silly moving waves and fields jiggling waves magically existing in something they call "the vacuum". The vacuum an imaginary fabric, think Aether, where the moving and jiggling waves sometimes exist.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?, the new physics is basically the old Aether physics with new terms, new math and a few new twists.
In effect, they solved the Michelson–Morley problem by creating an imaginary fabric/medium called the vacuum and fudging the math by making time and distance variable. So in reality the new physics is just a different flavor of the old physics and nobody has a clue what's really going on.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.13, 19:05:54
The majority of physicists seem to believe the magnetic field is "virtual particles popping in and out of existence", possibly from other universes.
AC
I don't believe that is a true statement. So I asked elsewhere:
QuoteDo the majority of physicists seem to believe the magnetic field is "virtual particles popping in and out of existence", possibly from other universes?
ChatGPT
No, that's not a commonly accepted explanation for the magnetic field among physicists. The magnetic field is typically described by classical electromagnetism or quantum field theory, which doesn't involve virtual particles from other universes. It's more about the interaction of charged particles and their fields.
I think the answer from chatgpt is far more likely to be the truth.
bi
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.13, 00:48:49
Great.
But what is this field of force ?
How can you state that the field is not a real physical entity without knowing what that field is?
If it can apply a real physical force, then it must be a real physical entity.
Hi Brad,
I tend to agree with you that since it applies real forces, then it is something real. Gravity is certainly real. But with real things or real effects, when invisible, we will devise constructs or visualizations to aid in understanding and communication about the subject. That is what magnetic lines of force are. Nobody I know thinks the lines of force are the real "thing" which applies the force on a charge.
And BTW, in the diagram, the pink lines are not magnetic lines of force nor do they represent B-field, flux density. They are a depiction of the A-field, magnetic vector potential. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential
I think both diagrams are correct.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.04.13, 22:20:05
Hi Brad,
I tend to agree with you that since it applies real forces, then it is something real. Gravity is certainly real. But with real things or real effects, when invisible, we will devise constructs or visualizations to aid in understanding and communication about the subject. That is what magnetic lines of force are. Nobody I know thinks the lines of force are the real "thing" which applies the force on a charge.
And BTW, in the diagram, the pink lines are not magnetic lines of force nor do they represent B-field, flux density. They are a depiction of the A-field, magnetic vector potential. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential
I think both diagrams are correct.
bi
The diagrams were to show the fields and their gradients, not to indicate some lines of force.
As i have always said, what ever this separation is around the PM body, it is in a 3 dimensional figure 8--like an hour glass.
The lines depicting the B field are incorrect, as there is no field, and so no flux density at the center point between the two ends of a PM.
Example--Quote: A magnetic field is an invisible force field created by a magnet which exists all around it
That is incorrect.
The field does not exist all around a PM.
It exists only at each end, and becomes neutral at the center between these two opposite fields.
What ever this field is, it is the anti field to that which man creates.
Example--If we flow a current through a wire, and create a magnetic field around that wire, the field of a PM will reject that man made magnetic field around the wire.
The wire with current flowing through it, will always only stick to the center of the PM body, as it is rejected by both fields at each end of the PM body.
The rotation of the field around the wire determines as to which way the wire will travel to the center of the PM body.
The current carrying wire sticks to the center of the PM body, as there is no field at the center to reject it.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.14, 02:16:11
What ever this field is, it is the anti field to that which man creates.
Example--If we flow a current through a wire, and create a magnetic field around that wire, the field of a PM will reject that man made magnetic field around the wire.
The wire with current flowing through it, will always only stick to the center of the PM body, as it is rejected by both fields at each end of the PM body.
The rotation of the field around the wire determines as to which way the wire will travel to the center of the PM body.
The current carrying wire sticks to the center of the PM body, as there is no field at the center to reject it.
Brad
Ok, so obvious question, as I haven't thought from this angle before: why is the wire with the generated field even attracted to the PM?
Couple of thoughts, if it is spin that determines polarity at either end of the magnet, that alludes to a field rotating - as in the case of your wire being repelled in determineable direcitons. If the PM were freely suspended, could you run two wires with generated fields like skipping ropes in opposite directions around it?
If spin determines polarity, is it possible that the angle of spin is at its most 'optimum' to become dominant at each end of the PM - however that optimum only exists for a short period within its cyclical field path before passing back through a zero zone where angle is changing, resulting in a changed spin direction and re-appearing at the opposite pole to repeat the process?
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.14, 02:16:11
...
The current carrying wire sticks to the center of the PM body, as there is no field at the center to reject it.
...
The current carrying wire sticks to the center of the PM body, because the moving charges on the wire feel the electric field of the moving charges in the PM as the fields are no longer seen to be isotropic around the charges due to their relative motion. So the electric field of the positive charges of the atomic nuclei is no longer cancelled out by that of the electrons (the "motion" of the charges in the PM being mainly due to spins).
Elementary phenomena between charges easily explain all this. It's the same explanation as the attraction between wires carrying a current, see this course extract (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Cours/R.Paul%20Bickerstaff%20-%20Claustrophobic%20physics%20ch.%2014.8.1.pdf).
It is really not all that complicated. Sorry for the poor quality sketch below but it simply is the result of attracting or repelling magnetic fields as to how the inducing wire is positioned on the PM depending on polarity.
Regards,
Pm
The magnetic field is merely a mathematical artifice of Maxwell's classical electromagnetism.
It's much simpler to think in terms of a single field, the electric field, and a single force: the electric force F=q.E.
When charges move (currents in wires, or spins in PMs), then the electric field is E=VxB and we always have F=q.E, which in this case is called the Laplace force.
If you imagine the magnetic field as a "reality", apart from the fact that it's not what physics says, you've chosen the worst field of all, since it's only a relativistic effect of the much more fundamental electric field. If there is a reality (a reality that depends on the observer), the reality of the magnetic field is only that of the electric field.
F6FLT
QuoteThe magnetic field is merely a mathematical artifice of Maxwell's classical electromagnetism.
This is illogical because the magnetic field will always exist and doesn't require people or math.
You make it sound as if science was a religion and Maxwell created magnetism, lol. Nature has limits while mans ego and stupidity have none.
QuoteIf you imagine the magnetic field as a "reality", apart from the fact that it's not what physics says, you've chosen the worst field of all, since it's only a relativistic effect of the much more fundamental electric field. If there is a reality (a reality that depends on the observer), the reality of the magnetic field is only that of the electric field.
The easy explanation is that a changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field. A changing magnetic field produces a changing electric field.
In effect, a changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, which produces a changing electric field, which produces a changing magnetic field and so on. So it's easier to simply call the phenomena Electro-Magnetism.
For example, if we shake a magnet in our hand it produces very weak low frequency Electro-Magnetic waves in the surrounding space. Shake the magnet very fast and modulate the shaking and we have a radio wave transmitter. You see no fancy words, math or equations are required and it's pretty easy to understand.
AC
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.28, 03:57:14
Just a general chat about science today, and the flaws that surround it.
Along the same theme,
a long-time physicist laments how the dreams she pursued in physics slowly crumbled as the field turned out to be more focused on chasing the next round of grant money than seeking truth and making real scientific progress.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.16, 22:42:31
F6FLT
This is illogical because the magnetic field will always exist and doesn't require people or math.
You make it sound as if science was a religion and Maxwell created magnetism, lol. Nature has limits while mans ego and stupidity have none.
The easy explanation is that a changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field. A changing magnetic field produces a changing electric field.
In effect, a changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, which produces a changing electric field, which produces a changing magnetic field and so on. So it's easier to simply call the phenomena Electro-Magnetism.
For example, if we shake a magnet in our hand it produces very weak low frequency Electro-Magnetic waves in the surrounding space. Shake the magnet very fast and modulate the shaking and we have a radio wave transmitter. You seen no fancy words, math or equations are required and it's pretty easy to understand.
AC
Actually, moving a PM around, does not produce an electric field.
The electric field comes from the conductor the PM field is changing in relation to.
Brad
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.16, 22:42:31
...
In effect, a changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field, which produces a changing electric field, which produces a changing magnetic field and so on. So it's easier to simply call the phenomena Electro-Magnetism.
...
Typical example of a lack of scientific knowledge replaced by misunderstood popularization, linking phenomena with no relation of cause and effect.
If electrical devices influence each other at a distance, it's because the charges are subject to an electrical force. This force is the cause of the effect.
The only known electric force is F=q.E. When there's a magnetic field, E=E1+E2 with E1 the coulombic electric field and E2 the vector product VxB, the electric field resulting from the movement of charges, which is the deformation of an electric field by the relativistic effect of length contraction (see Bikerstaff's course cited above).
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.16, 22:42:31
F6FLT
...the magnetic field will always exist and doesn't require people or math.
...
Wrong.
Observers co-moving with charges don't see a magnetic field.
The reason is obvious : as the speed is relative and the magnetic field is an effect of the speed of the charges, it can't be absolute.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.17, 11:55:31
Actually, moving a PM around, does not produce an electric field.
The electric field comes from the conductor the PM field is changing in relation to.
I think it's problematic because if a changing magnetic field did not produce a changing electric field even in a vacuum then there could be no such thing as EM waves. The premise of an Electro-Magnetic wave is that the Electric and Magnetic fields alternately induce each other E-B-E-B-E-B-E in space.
So when we move a magnet near a conductor the magnetic field acts on the electric field of a charge carrier like an electron causing the electron to move. We call the motion of the charge carrying electrons an electric current. Here we need to understand the difference between an electric field, a charge carrier like an electron which carries an electric field with it and an electric current which is made of moving charge carriers.
It seems to me many may be confusing an electric field and particles like an electron which carry an electric field with it. Normally the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravic) are considered a property of space. This is true because the fields can exist and interact in the vacuum of space supposedly devoid of matter.
If a changing magnetic field cannot produce a changing electric field then how do we explain Electro-Magnetic waves in a vacuum?.
AC
Personally, I've had functional comprehension of the theory and application of electromagnetics without needing to apply special relativity. Taking a brief search of opinions on the subject, I found the following, which I think expressed my view well.
bi
QuoteThe "magnetic field" is a concept within classical electrodynamics. Maxwell's equations were developed in the mid 19th century at a time where basic atomic physics was still a nascent field of study.
Viewed in the contemporary historical context, a permanent magnet is a perfectly fine example of a magnetic field without an electric field. Within the theory of classical electrodynamics, there is no explanation for why the magnetic field exists, only that it does exist, and how it's related to the electric field. Permanent magnets have a magnetic field as an intrinsic, fundamental property, similar to the reasons rocks have mass. They just do.
In the past one and a half centuries other theories have been developed. For example the magnetic field can be explained by special relativity as length contraction apparently creating a charge imbalance, so it could be said the magnetic field doesn't exist as a fundamental property but is rather a manifestation of the electric field in moving reference frame, and quantum physics explains permanent magnets as moving charges at sub-atomic scales.
So viewed in the context of modern physics, there's really no need for a fundamental magnetic field at all since it can be explained in terms of the electric field and motion.
The discovery of a magnetic monopole would change this, but although it would bring an elegant symmetry to the kinds of particles that exist, no evidence of a magnetic monopole has been found by experiment yet.
Source: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/413741/can-a-magnetic-field-exist-without-an-electric-field-present
much of science relies on...
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.17, 18:33:19
...
If a changing magnetic field cannot produce a changing electric field then how do we explain Electro-Magnetic waves in a vacuum?.
...
A changing magnetic field cannot produce an electric field, it's the same reality. In conductors, charges moving relative to an observer at rest are seen to be surrounded by a magnetic field. The charges produce the electric field, seen from their own reference frame, and the observer who sees them moving sees a different electric field due to their speed, which Maxwell translated into the magnetic field model.
If the charges are moving at constant speed, they cannot exert a net force on all the electrons in another looped circuit, because the resultant is zero. In contrast, if the speed is variable, the resultant is non-zero on the circuit, creating the phenomenon of induction.
In a vacuum, the EM field is autonomous. The observation is that the 2 electric and magnetic fields are concomitant and both necessary for the wave, with no known causal relationship between the two, nor any delay that might evoke it. Whether it's the result of the propagation of a disturbance in the medium, such as virtual positron/electron particle pairs, virtual photons or others, or not, changes nothing in the model. It's normal to want to understand the exact mechanism, but that's another debate.
How can water with different densities at the boundary of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans not mix from the point of view of thermodynamics?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.04.20, 08:34:18
How can water with different densities at the boundary of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans not mix from the point of view of thermodynamics?
Your question is a sophism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question .
Your presupposition is not shared, I think you'll understand which one I'm talking about.
Rephrase your question in an open-ended way so that we can answer it.
I had read a few more sites .In fact, the oceans mix. I just fell for the yellow press.
What a pity. I thought that I discovered supposed source of free energy.
A great movie, and a powerful scene from that movie that screams truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3pSkDQroM
Brad
Another thing wrong with science and physics is those that preach it, seem to be able to defy it when the need to do so fits.
For example, the apollo 11 ascent stage had a dry mass of 2.3 ton, plus the two occupants, and whatever little fuel they had left.
So lets say a mass of 2.5 ton.
Can someone show me the science that allows this mass of 2.5 ton, to instantly come to a stop from rotation?
Watch from 4:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazzYgghQD4&t=317s
Brad
Tinman
QuoteCan someone show me the science that allows this mass of 2.5 ton, to instantly come to a stop from rotation?
Watch from 4:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazzYgghQD4&t=317s
The answer which relies on the least assumptions is probably the right one.
Which seems more likely,
1)The mass instantly came to a stop.
or
2)The video is running at a higher frame rate than the camera which took the video making everything appear much faster. You don't honestly think the astronauts were throwing the craft around like a bunch of cowboys do you?. I have seen many old films which seem to run faster.
Just googled it and it seems I'm probably correct.
https://theuijunkie.com/why-old-films-run-faster-than-normal/
So we need to be careful regarding what we think were seeing. Always check our premise and look for alternative answers more so regarding FE devices.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.27, 18:57:28
Tinman
The answer which relies on the least assumptions is probably the right one.
Which seems more likely,
1)The mass instantly came to a stop.
or
2)The video is running at a higher frame rate than the camera which took the video making everything appear much faster. You don't honestly think the astronauts were throwing the craft around like a bunch of cowboys do you?. I have seen many old films which seem to run faster.
Just googled it and it seems I'm probably correct.
https://theuijunkie.com/why-old-films-run-faster-than-normal/
So we need to be careful regarding what we think were seeing. Always check our premise and look for alternative answers more so regarding FE devices.
AC
Not buying that. Even at twice the speed, we would see it slow down at the same speed it sped up, not speed up slow, and then instantly stop.
It went from rotating to a complete stop in a single frame, when played frame by frame.
Brad
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.27, 18:57:28
...
2)The video is running at a higher frame rate than the camera which took the video making everything appear much faster. You don't honestly think the astronauts were throwing the craft around like a bunch of cowboys do you?. I have seen many old films which seem to run faster.
...
I think you are right. The video certainly does not run at real speed but is accelerated, so the deceleration time of movements including rotations is therefore reduced. This is confirmed around time 5:30 where the relative speed is much greater than in reality. The approaches are delicate phases always done at very slow speed, much slower than in the video, to avoid any shock.
There was a great civilization in the past, the Greco-Roman civilization, from which we come. 2000 years ago, the Romans mastered concrete, had built industrial water mills to supply the populations, brought water to the cities by aqueducts of tens or even hundreds of km, had public toilets, and the richer, central heating and bathrooms with running water. The arts also flourished, and literature.
And then what happened in the first centuries AD? It is said that the barbarians gradually destroyed this empire. Yes, but it is not the root cause. The root cause has been lack of trust, lack of great ambitions, and deficient political or intellectual elites. The system collapsed first from the inside. And we lost a millennium with the regression of the Middle Ages.
This is what is happening today with Western civilization. In the Age of Enlightenment, intellectual elites wanted to elevate the people, particularly through education meant to liberate men. Reason has enabled this formidable organization of societies which has made possible the 10-fold increase in the world's population in 300 years, thanks to hygiene, abundant food and technology.
But today people doubt, people prefer to take drugs than face reality, people trade culture for easy fun, and people feel guilty about global warming and ultimately despise each other. They no longer know how to choose their intellectual elites, who themselves are declining due to lack of motivation.
They listen more to appeals to emotions, alarmism, visceral reactions than to reason, which is the door open to appearances and arbitrariness. As in the time of the Roman Empire, through our weaknesses our democracies open the way to barbarians, Isla*ists or Putins and all that vermin which swarms more and more on earth.
Education will have been of no use, the people prefer to return to the gutter of superstitions, conspiracy, sensationalism, mindless amusement and vulgar stardom.
We are not reaching this point of decay because of our rationality over the last 3 centuries, but on the contrary, because today we are abandoning it.
F6
Did send you a note
Will remove this ( my post here ) when ...
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.28, 08:23:36
I think you are right. The video certainly does not run at real speed but is accelerated, so the deceleration time of movements including rotations is therefore reduced. This is confirmed around time 5:30 where the relative speed is much greater than in reality. The approaches are delicate phases always done at very slow speed, much slower than in the video, to avoid any shock.
well here it is at a much slower speed.
As you can see, toward the end when making their rolls, it comes to an instant stop, without slowing down first.
2.5 tons of mass stopped instantly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOYCWic3EBM
Brad
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.30, 19:13:11
Ideas such as "us vs them" indeed start at imaginary borders beyond which always a group of "barbarians" live. Barbarians with "barbarian" cultures, "barbarian" customs who even have "barbarian" children...
I didn't say that the "barbarians" had brought down Roman civilization, but that's what history says. Roman civilization was no longer able to ensure its security, and left the field open to those who wanted to destroy it.
Of course, "barbarians" may not be barbarians, that's a relative notion. We can undoubtedly behave like Putin's hordes, like Kim Jong Un's governmental and fascist mafiosi, like the Iranian theocrats who issue their fatwas, or like the Isla*ists of Ham*s or Da*ch and all the groups who claim to be them and commit massacres in our democracies, and still be seen as "civilized" by some.
We can have brought about social progress, eliminated illiteracy, brought about massive education, comfort of life, tended towards equality between men and women, abolished the death penalty, generalized communications around the globe, accepted homosexuality or transgenderism, and still be seen as "barbarians" by some because not everything is perfect.
That's not my point of view, but I leave it to you. The idea that the actions, organizations and civilizations of some are just as good as those of others because we're all human, in short your angelism, makes no sense. The Nazis were humans too. If, as a human being, you put everyone in the same basket, throwing victims and aggressors, fascists and democrats, honest and mafioso, yourself and those ready to eliminate you, you are either incapable of judgment or too cowardly to make one. You have to make civilizational choices, or stop complaining if someone comes to slit your throat.
People have always made their own misfortune, when they no longer know how to choose or refuse to choose or refuse to fight for their choice and follow the smooth talkers on the basis of their impressions aroused by promises that will never be kept, rather than on the basis of realistic ideas put to the test of their rational reflection.
What happens in the FE is what happens in the whole of civilization. You won't get FE because rather than rationality, you only follow appearances and impressions, the pretty Youtube videos, the demagogic chatter of egomaniacs. You can't tell the con man from the good person, or the complete crackpot from the competent. You refuse to exercise judgment, or are incapable of doing so. When the same thing happens en masse to a civilization, it collapses.
F6FLT
Well said and I agree with your last few posts.
Our history is very clear about what happens when people abandon logic, reason and facts and replace them with false beliefs and wishful thinking. It looks like history is about to repeat itself.
AC
Lets see how deep one can go, shall we?
What book material did Hitler burn?
How many jews did Hitler burn?
Have any of you read 'Dr Mary's Monkey'?
Have any of you read 'The gold warriors'?
Have any of you read Mein Kampf, stalag version 357?
Is anyone aware of how many Christians were genocided by Stalin? 18 million around ww1.
Another suicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov) Yeah, right.
One of the requirements is to not mention political or religious foes, right? IKR?
All your education and public allowances are controlled by the descendants of Canaanites via the Kazarians to Bolsheviks, to communists.
Are any of you aware that Hitler pleaded with the free world to stay out of his country and that he did not want war? You better do a deep dive on this.
Does any one know why and what the treaties and secrecy about Antartica are? Because we were told 'In the beginning' the children of abomination would be hid under the earth.
Sure does cover a lot of censorships to get this message out now doesnt it?
But we are supposed to keep our mouths shut on certain subjects to expose any lies. How can this be true science?
And I am sure the elbow bending Karens will be triggered.
Welcome to 1984 2.0 and 451F 2.0. And yes, the Chinese have armed robodogs. That didnt take long did it?