PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-04-26, 12:53:39
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Author Topic: Help Building a special transformer ?  (Read 61917 times)
Group: Guest
Quote
There must be a reason and the most logical reason is that steam bubbles have formed at or near the surface of the plates which has raised the resistance to the current flow. This is because bubbles of steam or another gas are not water, they are not the same thus the resistance cannot be the same which is most likely why the current falls.

I can see that pockets of water vapour may disrupt ion current flow throughout the liquid and hence effectively increase the resistance, but I don't particularly see any excessive build up of bubbles on or near the electrodes themselves. Compared to the water, the electrodes are very good conductors and will only be getting hot as a result of the water itself heating.  Afterall, it is the water that offers the resistance. This is not like electrolysis where gases are formed at the electrodes.

Likewise if cavitation is occurring, then rarefaction and compression can take place anywhere in the liquid between the oscillating electrodes.

If scaled up and standing waves were set up then we would have distinct areas of compression and rarefaction, but these devices are far too small to set up standing waves.

Regarding the graph, I tend to agree with MH, in that it makes very little sense. It is simply too crude to make any sense of, and hardly something you would expect from a scientist - which is not in itself very encouraging.

I may be wrong, but I would not expect to see a linear graph.  Sure the water resistance will decrease as the temperature rises due to more energy being absorbed by the water molecules and hence increased self-ionisation, but the initial current flow will mainly be determined by ionic impurities. If we take the graph as shown - a straight line – there is a lower point whereby no current will be flowing at all, and if no current flows to start with, the device won’t work. Are we to assume that the graph starts with ice? And why would the current be shown to continually drop as is indicated once boiling? Obviously the water can only reach 100 deg.C (though Chet, would appear to think otherwise) and so I would have expected the current to simply drop for a while and then stabilise. We all know that when up to temperature we can reduce the power and set to simmer, but there is no indication from the graph of the current levelling off.  I also think that the current range indicated is too great. I would expect quite a high initial current flow that rises to a peak and then drops after boiling to a point whereby we get equilibrium. All this being said, we may be looking too hard at such a slap-dash graph.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@FarrahDay
Quote
I can see that pockets of water vapour may disrupt ion current flow throughout the liquid and hence effectively increase the resistance, but I don't particularly see any excessive build up of bubbles on or near the electrodes themselves. Compared to the water, the electrodes are very good conductors and will only be getting hot as a result of the water itself heating.  Afterall, it is the water that offers the resistance. This is not like electrolysis where gases are formed at the electrodes.

I think we need to separate cause and effect here, the bubbles would be due to a change in pressure due to the mechanical motion of the electrodes which is not directly related to either the current or the temperature. As well in electrolysis the gasses forming at the plates are due to conduction not a variation in pressure. Now we can ask the questions what is the primary cause of the bubbles? -- a variation in pressure, what is the primary cause of the variation in pressure? -- the change in velocity (an acceleration) of the electrodes themselves, what is the primary cause of this change in velocity of the electrodes? -- Is it electrical forces, magnetic forces or Electromagnetic forces?. If so we have a degree of separation in which the mechanical forces and a change in state have isolated the electromagnet forces at play in time and space (a distance).

Quote
Likewise if cavitation is occurring, then rarefaction and compression can take place anywhere in the liquid between the oscillating electrodes.
What is cavitation?, it is a change in the condition or physical state due to a pressure variation.

Quote
If scaled up and standing waves were set up then we would have distinct areas of compression and rarefaction, but these devices are far too small to set up standing waves.
That would depend on the distance between the electrodes relative to the wavelength of the waves however we cannot discount indirect effects. What is the frequency of the collapsing bubbles? You see when a steam bubble forms then collapses in on itself rapidly the pressure acts inward to a singular point then reflects outward due to the pressure at that point, this could produce waves not directly related to the pressure variation which created the bubbles in the first place. Just as the collapsing magnetic field can produce an inductive discharge in a coil which produces harmonics completely unrelated to the field which charged the coil in the first place. Are you sure this is just simple cause and effect? if we consider that effects similar to Sonoluminescence may be happening then it would definitely put a new spin on things.
I do not think we can get to the bottom of this by generalizing and simplifying everything if in fact something out of the ordinary may be happening.

Here is an analogy, A long time ago I was tuning Helmholtz resonators in my research of pulse jet and pulse detonation combustion. Now if too much material was taken away the frequency changed and if any material was added the frequency changed. I tuned the resonator perfectly then added a support and it was off, I re-tuned it then added my fuel/air connectors and again the frequency was off. I found the only actual way to produce a pure fundamental frequency which integrates both the gas pulse frequency and the harmonics of the pipe itself was if the pipe was floating freely in mid-air. Even then a change in temperature would change the relationship -- tuning anything is not easy, tuning things with variables which continually effect the variables is damn near impossible.
As such if you think this device is just a couple of electrodes making bubbles I believe you are mistaken.

Regards
AC

« Last Edit: 2012-01-25, 20:28:19 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3025
AC
You are one of the Few people I have read that puts This into perspective,It is not one field of science at play here....
It is almost "ALL" that could be in play.
 To make broad sweeps with the Doubt brush from just one perspective or frame of reference is at best Poor judgement!
You sir are a breath of fresh air .I can't wait till we can all dig in on this !!

THX
Chet
   
Group: Guest
While I agree that there may well be more than one thing going on with the device, I don't really agree with anything else you've said in your last post AC. I think maybe you are getting things confused here.

A pocket of water vapour within the liquid created by heat, is not the same as a pocket of water vapour created due to rarefaction.  The pocket of water vapour created by heat will not rapidly collapse in on itself like the pocket of water vapour created as in cavitation.

These great big bubbles and bubbling effect are due to the water boiling, not due solely - if at all - to cavitation. We know this from Savics crude graph. Cavitation bubbles in this device would likely be microscopic.

You talk about pressure variations creating the bubbles, and yes, sure in cavitation, but gas is also formed when too much energy (heat) is absorbed by the liquid and it changes state, and these bubbles won't collapse until the surrounding liquid cools, and if it is being continually heated the bubbles will simple rise to the surface. These are two completely different things.

It could well be that any movement of the electrodes is simply due to the energetic bubbling off of the water vapour, and hence an effect rather than a cause.

If the electrodes do vibrate with respect to each other due to interacting magnetic fields, then it has to be at mains frequency, ie. 50 - 60Hz, so that rules out standing waves.  Also, if the current drops off as indicated by Savic's graph, then the amplitude of the vibrating electrodes will also decrease proportionally... so what does that tell us?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@FarrahDay
Quote
A pocket of water vapour within the liquid created by heat, is not the same as a pocket of water vapour created due to rarefaction.  The pocket of water vapour created by heat will not rapidly collapse in on itself like the pocket of water vapour created as in cavitation.

Hmm, I was never speaking of "A pocket of water vapour" formed by heat, I was speaking of perfectly spherical bubbles formed due to pressure variations, I thought I was quite clear about this.

Quote
These great big bubbles and bubbling effect are due to the water boiling, not due solely - if at all - to cavitation. We know this from Savics crude graph. Cavitation bubbles in this device would likely be microscopic.

I think you are making pointless generalizations again, First I am not and never was speaking of "great big bubbles" nor a " pocket of water vapour" and the term "Boiling" is relative as water can boil due to heat being absorbed (2257 KJ/Kg to be exact) OR boil due to a drop in pressure and in both cases the water is considered as boiling.

Quote
You talk about pressure variations creating the bubbles, and yes, sure in cavitation, but gas is also formed when too much energy (heat) is absorbed by the liquid and it changes state, and these bubbles won't collapse until the surrounding liquid cools, and if it is being continually heated the bubbles will simple rise to the surface. These are two completely different things.

This statement tells me a great deal, In the graph the effect occurs near 100 Deg C, not at 100 Deg C, near 100 Deg C and water will not boil at less than 100 Deg C unless the pressure is lower than atmospheric and this only applies to the exact space where the pressure is lower. As well the change in state is dependent on two factors which are temperature and pressure and these two factors are dependent on one another, they are not different things as you have suggested.
Water can boil producing steam bubbles due to heat being absorbed then instantly condense if the pressure is raised just as water can instantly boil at a temperature lower than 100 Deg C if the pressure is lowered because the change in state is dependent on both temperature AND pressure. The graph below may clarify things, as they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Quote
It could well be that any movement of the electrodes is simply due to the energetic bubbling off of the water vapour, and hence an effect rather than a cause.
This could be the case however I do not think it would explain a rise in heat output, which is why we are here --- aren't we?.

Quote
If the electrodes do vibrate with respect to each other due to interacting magnetic fields, then it has to be at mains frequency, ie. 50 - 60Hz, so that rules out standing waves.  Also, if the current drops off as indicated by Savic's graph, then the amplitude of the vibrating electrodes will also decrease proportionally... so what does that tell us?
Well no it does not, if I strike a bell at 50Hz does this mean the bell must "ring" at 50Hz, well no that is just silly and the bell will ring at it's natural frequency between each strike.
As well if the current drops this could effect the vibrating electrodes however this is only if the current is solely responsible for the motion of the electrodes, is it? we do not know and that is the only point I would make.

It's funny that your posts always have the same old theme and you seem bound and determined to assume no device could ever produce excess energy from somewhere we have yet to understand. I don't mean to be overly critical of your doom and gloom outlook however just once I would like to hear a reason from you why or how something could work in reality. To my knowledge I have never seen a single post from you in which you have given reasons why or how something could work only generalized reasons why it cannot, do you find that a little odd?, I do.
Let's do a little thought experiment Farrah, if this device was hypothetically producing excess energy in the form of heat then where do you think the energy might come from and why?.

Regards
AC



---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   
Group: Guest
That's it, I'm done with you AC. Conversing is pointless as clearly we have totally different outlooks when it comes to science, pseudoscience and sheer fantasy.

I really think that you too easily lose touch with reality in a vain attempt to support these people and their wild claims. You are like Chet's right-hand man - he sources these devices while you clumsily attempt to add credibility to these things. You obviously have a thing for the under-dog, no matter how crazy. I mean come on, only you would encourage these folk to build a 'Special Transformer'... why would you do that? The rest of us know that if they haven't got the skills to build this simple boiler, then in what universe are they going to be building a Special Transformer! And, who in their right mind - even if capable - would go to so much time and trouble to build something that can operate at something other than mains frequency, when the boiler's key attribute is the very fact that it operates at mains frequency??? It simply makes no sense... are you building a 'special transformer'?

The sad reality of it all, is that there is not one single piece of actual evidence to suggest any of these claims even hold water. Do you trust Savic's graph? Do you trust Savic? What about Savic's Neutrino explanation... are you going to try to slot that into the equation somewhere?  C.C

I wouldn't trust Savic as far as I can throw him. Nothing about his posts even suggest he is particularly highly educated, let alone a professor... and a professor of what exactly?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@FarrahDay
Quote
I really think that you too easily lose touch with reality in a vain attempt to support these people and their wild claims. You are like Chet's right-hand man - he sources these devices while you clumsily attempt to add credibility to these things.

Speaking of wild claims, lol, first I'm not supporting anyone and my purpose here is to explore all the options of how any device could theoretically be made to work while you seem to be in some manic form of denial that everything cannot ever work in any way and nobody should even try.

Quote
You obviously have a thing for the under-dog, no matter how crazy. I mean come on, only you would encourage these folk to build a 'Special Transformer'... why would you do that?
No I have a thing for people saying something cannot work without justification, you see it just does not sit well with my idea of science. As well why would I not encourage others to build a variable frequency power supply (your special transformer)?, I have built more than I would care to admit and it has always been a valuable learning experience and no matter how many I build they can always be made better in some way.

Quote
The sad reality of it all, is that there is not one single piece of actual evidence to suggest any of these claims even hold water. Do you trust Savic's graph? Do you trust Savic? What about Savic's Neutrino explanation... are you going to try to slot that into the equation somewhere?

The sad reality is that some people like to judge a book by it's cover and belittle others to make themselves feel superior, that's just not my thing Farrah and I choose to judge any technology on it's merits and hypothetical potential. I do not know if it works in any way, I do not know how it could work but that should not stop me from exploring ways in which it could -- is that such a crime Farrah? Is this what all the fuss is about? I believe this is what science is all about, we form a hypothesis in which we believe it could possibly work and then test it.

To be honest I find it absolutely mind-boggling why you are so intent on killing this topic, why you are so determined to squash all debate in reference to it and attack the credibility of everyone involved. If you have mental issues and cannot stand to see others debate the theoretical operation of this device then please just stop posting.


I take it you are not going to answer my question?
Quote
Let's do a little thought experiment Farrah, if this device was hypothetically producing excess energy in the form of heat then where do you think the energy might come from and why?.
I'll just let it sit here a while then :)

Regards
AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1426
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Lets see...

There are those that dream up ideas regardless of the promise or futility.
And there are those that stop everything because there are not enough proof or rules.

Hmm...

What is a person to do?

This reality is created by those that dream. There has been nothing created by the rule makers except more rules.
You will not fly, ride a bike, parachute, talk on the phone, go to the movies because these things are too fast and one will definately get whiplash should one stick their nose too far out the window.

Now things are instituted for the masses by the rule makers when things are deemed safe.

Now guess what?

The dreamers should not and never consult the rule makers and vice versa.

The rule makers are always the ones to start fights. Fights, I tellya. The dreamers get beat up all the time when they tell others the prospects of non futility. The bullies alway throw the first punch. It is the only defense they have when their world is being shook. Shook, I tellya!

So who is doing the fighting and who is doing the shaking.? Effiin' rabid monkeys....

Go herd cats, juggle crabs or something...



---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Well I guess that we are hoping for Chet or PhysicsProf to save the day.  You know how threads always start with a lot of enthusiasm and eventually peter out.  We had a smidgen of credible data from the EF thread that showed under unity but it appears that the thread has ground to a halt.  Nobody knows what to say anymore.

So let's hope Chet's contact or PhysicsProf does some good testing.

The real disconnect is the following and I recognize the the fact that it's unresolvable:  People present data that is sloppy, amateurish, incomplete and has no credibility.  You read between the lines and all the signals are stating that the person presenting the data barely knows what they are doing and they are not credible.  It's a fiasco.  Camp A is incredulous that anybody can even take the proposal seriously.  Camp B thinks that it is something worth investigating an it is "science" in action.

Now, of course what I just wrote above was from the "Camp A" perspective.  It could also be rewritten from the "Camp B" perspective, no doubt.

The ultimate thing is that there is only one truth about the qualifications of the presenter and one truth about whether the proposal is true or not.

For me, Rosemary Ainslie, RomeroUK, and all flavours of the water heater experiment are not to be taken seriously for the reasons outlined above.  For this water heater experiment, it's screaming in my ears at 120 decibels.

Camp B disagrees.  So we wait for the inevitable, how all of these threads end.  They just fade away and nothing comes from it.

Camp B says "You never know, line up the monkeys."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfuBREMXxts[/youtube]

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Permit me to play Devil's Advocate relative to my previous posting also.  Supposing that someone came along with a free energy proposition where they presented their data in a credible way, their measurements looked solid, they appeared to be knowledgeable about the subject matter that they were discussing, etc.  Well then that would be really interesting and much more fun to follow and discuss.  That's the kind of person that I wish would come along, I really do.  That would be a challenge and open up some really interesting debate.

The problem is those cases are so few and far between that it's like finding a needle in a haystack.  Look at the recent featured clip on OU, "SELF CHARGING and ACCELERATING potential free energy motor generator."  I watched that clip and a couple of other clips by the same guy.  Guess what?  The guy has no clue.... again!  Foiled again in the quest for finding a challenging free energy proposition.  There are a few clues in the main clip but I would have to watch it again to tell you exactly what they are.  I watched another one of his clips and he makes reference to putting three big batteries in parallel, and they look like they might be lead-acid batteries.  Some of you might not realize it but that statement shows how little he knows, he may as well have a Post-It note on his forehead that says, "Clueless."  So he can't be taken seriously.

I will repeat it again, it would be great if something credible looking and really juicy came along.  It's all Slim Pickens!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcW_Ygs6hm0[/youtube]

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
Good job AC, I'm proud of you!  I'll engage this topic soon and we'll theorize the how and why in more detail.

MH, I sympathize, the pickings are slim indeed, that's why we theorize to keep this fun.

Farrah, water boiling phenomena is more complicated then you realize, it involves geometry and heat flow dynamics through solids, liquids, and gases, as in conduction and convection, it involves fluid dynamics, material phase change dynamics and latent heat, partial pressures, law of gasses, and God knows what else, and in this particular design discussed here it involves electricity and chemistry as well, but humans have boiled water for thousands of years so it must be a boring well known phenomenon, right?  Wrong!  
My advice, go get a f@&!? education on this topic!   Sorry, but I had to say it, cause you are annoying me! Please leave Chet alone.  Either keep an open mind and make positive contributions to the OU effort or go debate elsewhere. Here you seem to be playing the role of I'm smart and you're all dumb and foolish.  I hope I'm mistaken, but you sure left a trail of negative discouraging  postings towards this technology.

EM
« Last Edit: 2012-01-27, 13:51:47 by EMdevices »
   
Group: Guest
Here you seem to be playing the role of I'm smart and you're all dumb and foolish.  EM


Not really very hard to do given the nonsense people are continually posting, the lack of any real science and the unscientific approach people are taking to this device.

Very tired of the same old unsubstantiated claims from clueless folk, along with the mind-numbing rhetoric from others. So you'll be happy to know that I'm out of here - I'll simply watch things unfold from the sidelines and keep quiet. I should add, my expectations are not very high. :)
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@EmDevices
Quote
water boiling phenomena is more complicated then you realize, it involves geometry and heat flow dynamics through solids, liquids, and gases, as in conduction and convection, it involves fluid dynamics, material phase change dynamics and latent heat, partial pressures, law of gasses, and God knows what else, and in this particular design discussed here it involves electricity and chemistry as well, but humans have boiled water for thousands of years so it must be a boring well known phenomenon, right?  Wrong!  

Maybe this is why power engineers make upwards of $100K or more a year and I'm sure my friends would find Farrah's posts quite amusing. You see it is one thing to say Oh this is just simple boiling water and quite another to operate a 260MW power generation facility where this simple boiling water/steam would seem to be trying to destroy tens of millions of dollars of equipment on a daily basis. For example I have a steam generator online, a 400 foot run of 14" pipe to a steam turbine then I bring a second generator online. Someone forgets to check the rate control on my auto-valve and it slams open, the line pressure rises and some steam instantly condenses in the line and now I have a ton of water screaming down the line like a freight train at which point Mr.Newtons 1st law comes into play, things in motion tend to stay in motion. The high velocity slug of water hits a 90 Deg elbow or the regulator to the turbine and this generates massive forces and massive pressures and the equipment is instantly destroyed and now Farrah is sitting in the dark wondering why in the hell the lights don't work.

The issue here is that water boiling in a kettle cannot be compared to other systems with many variables involved because they are not the same and it should be obvious the dynamics are not the same.

Here is an excellent article I read on a regular basis concerning the dynamics involved in water and it also makes direct analogies to electrical phenomena --- http://www.rexresearch.com/bellocq/bellocq.htm
It's also kind of interesting that the patents to this were initially denied due to the fact they seemed to contradict most natural and scientific law at that time when in reality  Mr.Bellocq is the only one who actually understood the laws to any extent, lol, priceless. It also shows that we can have effects in any given volume which only apply to one singular region of the volume and that it is not "all the same" as some might suggest.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
Farrah, trust me I totally understand the frustration, if you're "tired"," watching from the sidelines" should help you recover your strength, but I hope when you return with renewed strength and rejuvenation you wont start "beating up" the playing "children" again.  In this mad digital world in which we all express ourselves, one can encounter a gamet of people from all walks of life, and if you want to impress or make a point or even teach anybody anything, leading by example is the best and most effective way, based on what I've seen in almost 20 years following free energy discussions online.  In other words BUILD SOMETHING and then do a "show and tell"  (if you dare and can handle the public scrutiny.)

Anyway, how are your hydroxy experiments going?  (let's discuss elsewhere not here)

AC,  nice post, big responsibility too, let's keep the lights on eh?  Lol

EM
   
Group: Guest
...
No I have a thing for people saying something cannot work without justification
...

We don't need justification: "What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof". Euclid.
The (possible) inventor has the burden of proof. A free energy machine must be considered to not work until the experimental evidence is shown and is strong enough for third party duplications.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@exnihiloest
Quote
We don't need justification: "What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof". Euclid.

Sweet :D, if we want to apply this thought in another context then I deny your existence exnihiloest because I have no proof you do exist and for all I know you are simply an automated machine sitting in some dark basement somewhere thus I must assume you do not exist and dismiss all your statements until such time that you can offer me absolute proof that you do exist in reality, you see the burden of proof is with you.

let's play a word game.
You said -----
Quote
The (possible) inventor has the burden of proof. A free energy machine must be considered to not work until the experimental evidence is shown and is strong enough for third party duplications.

And I say -----
Quote
The (possible) person has the burden of proof. A possible person must be considered to not exist until absolute proof is shown and this proof is strong enough for third party validation.

I hope you can appreciate how absurd this sounds yet this is what you are implying and only the context has changed, I have a theory and you can quote me on this----"If it sounds absurd it probably is".

On another note here just how silly this absurdness-ness really is , if you do not exist until such time as you can offer me absolute proof you do and I must discount all your statements until that time then you cannot offer me any proof can you?. Kind of like a cat chasing it's tail which is equally absurd.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest
Sweet :D, if we want to apply this thought in another context then I deny your existence exnihiloest because I have no proof you do exist
...

"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof" means that we have not to accept anything that is affirmed for the only reason that it is affirmed.
My existence is not affirmed, so denying what is not affirmed is completely outside of this Euclid's thought.
I hope it is only from you a lack of understanding of Euclid's thought, and not because you take Euclid for a twit...

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@exnihiloest
Quote
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof" means that we have not to accept anything that is affirmed for the only reason that it is affirmed.
My existence is not affirmed, so denying what is not affirmed is completely outside of this Euclid's thought.
I hope it is only from you a lack of understanding of Euclid's thought, and not because you take Euclid for a twit...

Sweet :D, not only do I deny your existence but also the interpretation of Euclid's thought's posted here because logically this assertion of Euclid's thoughts can be denied without proof as none has been given. That is unless the person posting here believed that they could read Euclid's mind or thoughts in some way which seems quite absurd but still it is not proof of anything.
You see this is the problem with using circular logic where one frame of thought builds on another, not unlike a cat chasing it's tail, because it must always come full circle. Which leads to my next thought, you seem like a smart enough person but apparently not smart enough to know your playing a game that cannot be won because you have one perspective which is yours and you assume it must be correct only because it is yours, you may want to refer to your textbooks to understand why this is so whacked. A psychology textbook may be a good start, I would suggest a book called The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
AC,

I declare that Ex exists!

There is no proof, no theory and no hypothesis.

Take it from there  ;D

I am wondering if he is actually a #BASH script running on some forgotten Linux box ???

Perhaps he is only the result of attempting to verify 'The Fifth Postulate'?

That would be too bad as anyone with a brain knows that Euclidean space only exists on paper and within an operating algorithm.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest
Sweet :D, not only do I deny your existence but also the interpretation of Euclid's thought's posted here because logically this assertion of Euclid's thoughts can be denied without proof as none has been given.

It is your right. In that matter, you will not be alone. There are hundred millions people denying the existence of Krishna because they believe in Jeovah, and vice versa. You can affirm anything until you understand that we are not here on a religious forum outside of logic and reality.

Science concerns only what can be observed (directly or indirectly). There must be objective facts, then we theorize from the observations and build from the facts.

If something is affirmed without proof, without elements of reality, without logical arguments from facts, then this "something" is outside of our reality and observations. So it is "irrefutable", meaning that it contains nothing that could be rationally challenged. As it is out of our reality, it is not the object of science because it can't be discussed with objective and logical arguments, and therefore it can be denied in the same way as it has been affirmed, simply, without proof for the reason that proofs are impossible. Euclid is a genious and the quotation is a great help to eliminate the jargon of pseudo-scientists without wasting time.

You should learn what is science and what is required by the scientific method. Then you will understand that there is absolutely no circular argument in Euclid's sentence, and that the circular argument is just an idea emerging in your mind from an incomplete view of a general question of logic in which Euclid's sentence is embedded.


   
Group: Guest
AC,

I declare that Ex exists!

There is no proof, no theory and no hypothesis.
...

Therefore it is the same as for the existence of overunity.
I'm disappointed that my chance to exist would be so low.
 :)

   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
I will strive to produce an acceptable hypothesis, then a testable theory and an experiment to prove his existence.

Until then, everything I say about him may be easily denied and complaints of illogical statements brought forward.

After all, everything I say is a lie, including this statement.

 


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof". Euclid.


There always limitation to everything.  If you work in an airport as security and someone call in "there is a bomb in your airport", you can deny them but you won't. 

We should make exception for the free energy community that " What is asserted without proof can be reinforced with proof" just because we can. 
   
Group: Guest
...
We should make exception for the free energy community that "What is asserted without proof can be reinforced with proof" just because we can. 

"What is asserted without proof could be reinforced with proof", yes, but only sometimes when what is asserted is at least somewhere linked to observations, facts and reality. It is not a generality.

A typical example is the hoax of the "gravity wave detector" from Groundloop (the thread is now censored, the posts from several members emphasizing the flaws and asking the good questions have been removed).

There is not one logical argument that could link this detector and gravity waves. When I ironically asserted that his detector could as well detect the farts of the invisible Pink Unicorn feeling an earthquake and scared, do you really believe that this can be "reinforced with proof"? Certainly not and as well for the gravity waves, because both assertions are completely unfounded, not one argument being given in favor of a causal relation between GW or Unicorn's farts and the signal from the detector.

So what do we want? Do we want to dream extravagant laws of an imaginary Nature that is not ours and so, never be able to build a single machine that works, or do we want to confront with reality and unravel mysteries of Nature in order to use it at our convenience? If the second point is our goal, then we have not to try to prove that anything we could imagine is real, but we have to imagine what could be the reality by deducing it directly and logically from what we observe.


   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2781
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
exnihiloest,

I think your point about the gravity wave detector has been driven home.

The first post of that thread has been edited to account for and to qualify the title. Whether it is detecting gravity waves or not is yet to be proven, but I think it's time to move on from there. Certainly GL is not trying to perpetuate a hoax...it's simply a name based on a theory.

GL is a valued contributing member here and he should be commended for that. Your posts also serve a purpose, but let's be sure things don't get out of hand, ok?

Cheers.

.99


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-04-26, 12:53:39