EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Deco56 on February 03, 2016, 11:18:08 pm
-
Just to let you guys in one a little secret...
Free energy is possible, it just gets a bad rap. If you do not think so, just remember how old crystal radios use to work....no battery supply. Nikola Tesla is still way ahead of his time...he and others have successfully tapped into the quantum vacuum, or ether. If you do not know of this, please read up. Why do you think Wardenclyffe project was shut down? Why do you think such a great inventor died broke?
Some of this knowledge is valuable, do your own research. I can give some clues and examples of non-typical devices. Also, if you think free energy is BS....Please look at the Casimir force...research it....the quantum vacuum can do REAL work on particles....open system thermodynamics...For all those who say it breaks laws of physics ...no...ask yourself...is the Universe as a whole an open or closed system?
I have countless examples of anamolous devices, not all over unity per se, but it is definitely possible and backed by quantum physics theorectically...
I have many examples of overunity devices, I suggest you research Jim Murray and his SERPS technology....there is alot from the Tesla patents that are still not understood including Radiant energy...Also Steinmetz with his papers on oscillating currents are very interesting....Please ask for clarification or additional information
-
Ok, I'll bite.
If you do not think so, just remember how old crystal radios use to work....no battery supply.
What radios used to work without batteries?
Nikola Tesla is still way ahead of his time...he and others have successfully tapped into the quantum vacuum, or ether. If you do not know of this, please read up.
Proofs?
Why do you think Wardenclyffe project was shut down? Why do you think such a great inventor died broke?
Because he was wrong about real world physics? The same reason all other "great" overunity inventors are broke? Their problem is investing into garbage instead of a good physics book.
I have countless examples of anamolous devices, not all over unity per se, but it is definitely possible and backed by quantum physics theorectically...
Give one, for instance?
-
conservation of energy works in a closed system, which you will never find in reality.
Another way to put it, you will always find "free" energy to you. It is just that "free" energy isn't quite free to somebody else.
-
Ok, I'll bite.
If you do not think so, just remember how old crystal radios use to work....no battery supply.
What radios used to work without batteries?
Crystal radios. Seriously, look them up. It's not free energy, though, it's usually transmitted at great cost.
-
Crystal radios.
Well, ok. Wireless charging is also a real thing. There is a megawatt transmitter on the other end of the link :)
Or the point is that you can put coils under power transmission lines and get "free" energy this way? That's not "tapping into the energy of a vacuum", it is stealing.
-
Crystal radios.
Well, ok. Wireless charging is also a real thing. There is a megawatt transmitter on the other end of the link :)
Indeed. There's 'free' and 'free'.
By this definition of free, my wifi is free internet. Oddly enough, it costs me a fair bit to keep it turned on every month, and I had to pay money for these access point thingies.
-
Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....
I mentioned already SERPS by Jim Murray as a device with unique power properties.
Most of all...the universe is an OPEN system...look at estimates of quantum vacuum energy...on the order of 10^113 Joules per cubic centimeter....thats a ridiculous amount of "ambient energy".
Please look up the Casimir force and Casimir effect for a proof of concept....remember the quantum vacuum is always in the background...sea of energetic "virtual" particles...
-
Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....
So where did those radio waves come from?
-
....and like I said...free energy is a misnomer...but the possibilities with vacuum energy are just now being investigated
-
Ok...I can do that too:
Casimir force....where does the force come from? please dont selectively choose to ignore facts
-
Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....
That's real world physics, we can calculate exactly how much power will be received. No quantum overunity required.
Most of all...the universe is an OPEN system...look at estimates of quantum vacuum energy...on the order of 10^113 Joules per cubic centimeter....thats a ridiculous amount of "ambient energy".
Lets establish terminology. What are open and closed systems in your opinion?
-
Ok...I can do that too:
Casimir force....where does the force come from? please dont selectively choose to ignore facts
I don't know, I'm not big on quantum field theory.
-
Casimir force....where does the force come from? please dont selectively choose to ignore facts
It does not really matter where it comes from. My (and yours, I presume) understanding of physics is not good enough to discuss this topic.
Do you have a proposal on how to use this force to create work? If not, then what is the point of discussing it?
-
I dont do opinions. Every scientifically literate person knows what an open and closed systems are...no energy or mass exchange between itself and other system is closed.
If you are not big on quantum field theory....read up! The vacuum is doing the work!
-
The vacuum is doing the work!
Praise the god!
-
If you are not big on quantum field theory....read up! The vacuum is doing the work!
It's theory. And so far.. no practical use of the casimir effect. No facts other than a force we don't understand exists.
-
Gravity is also a force. Why not focus on it? I guess by now even the stupidest of overunity nuts have some understanding of how gravity works.
So it is a turn of a vacuum now.
-
Are you kidding me? Point of discussing it? Oh, I dont know...maybe a whole new energy paradigm lol....
...and yes I have a BSc in Mathematical Physics, so I do understand it well enough to discuss it...
A force we dont understand or YOU dont understand?
and thanks ataradov....your input was enlightening and insightful
-
Like I said...crystal radios could recieve radio waves and only the radio waves to power it....
Yes, but it takes a radio tower consuming thousands of watts of power for that crystal radio to work. Keep in mind the crystal set is only able to capture a minuscule amount (in the order of milliwatts) of that power, so it's very inefficient.
So, it's not pulling energy from the ether. Now, I know what you're going to say: "But, timb! When you're not tuned to a station you hear static!" Yes, that's true, but static is cosmic background radiation and has virtually no power. Keep in mind you don't hear static on a crystal radio; you only hear it on an actively powered set. That's because the background radiation is such a small amount of energy, it can't provide the power to activate a crystal radio.
Short answer: You're wrong.
-
Everyone is focused on the crystal radio like it was the only comment I made. Any one else wanna ignore the whole Casimir effect thing again???
-
Any one else wanna ignore the whole Casimir effect thing again???
What practical use do you propose of Casimir effect?
And if you are just saying that there is some poorly understood thing out there and some time in the future it can be used for good, then OK, point taken. What's next?
I'm just an MSc, but my penis is bigger :)
-
Are you kidding me? Point of discussing it? Oh, I dont know...maybe a whole new energy paradigm lol....
It's just a force. There are a lot of forces...gravity, magnetism, pressure (and vacuum), etc. Using that force to do consistent work has always been the hard part.
Gravity can certainly do work, push a boulder off of a cliff and see what it does, but it's not over-unity. In order to "reset" the system you have to lift the boulder back up onto the cliff, expending significantly more energy to do so than you got out of the boulder when it fell.
Same with magnets, they can attract or repel very well, but to reset the system so it can happen again requires you to expend even more energy than you got out of it.
Pressure can do work too, release a filled balloon and you can watch it fly around the room, but it takes more work to refill the balloon than you got out of it when it flew around. Vacuum is the same way.
-
Oh yeah I got my M.Eng already too. Going for PhD soon too.
If you cant understand how quantum vacuum doing work on a system with no external input...doesnt matter how big your penis is lol :-DD
-
Yes it is a force. It is just one example of a ether type force...how to harness this is a future engineering problem...
-
how to harness this is a future engineering problem...
Do you propose we all drop everything we are doing and jump on solving it? We are not stupid, we don't want to die broke :)
People have been trying to "harness" power of gravity for a long time inventing all sorts of perpetual motion machines.
I also like how obvious scam term "perpetual motion" is replaced by a more reputable "overunity" :)
-
My point is...the Casimir effect is only ONE type of vacuum fluctuation...there can be others
Has any of you actually delved into Tesla patents and creations? He claimed some marvelous things that of coursd impossible because the textbooks say so. He was an incredible inventor and died poor because he was too ahead of his time. Few if any of you can actuallu read or understand his patents...
Do your own research. Dont just regurgitate what you've been spoon fed...
-
Why do you tell us what to do? Everyone will decide what to do for themselves. If you think it is a good idea to extract energy from a vacuum, go ahead, prove us all wrong and become rich. But if it turns out that it is a pile of crap and does not work, you will be poor.
I personally will continue to structure my life around conventional physics.
-
What are you guys really proposing? obviously nothing new or original...
Before you debunk me....
read of the lives of Nikola Tesla, Stan Meyer, Townsend Brown among others...
Just because its not in your little nerd manual doesnt mean its impossible...
-
It's not just a bad name, it's also a bad forum topic. Please quit wasting your time here, go back to your ether vacuum, and come back when you have a working demo.
-
LOL...I love the dogma! Science is vulberable to ignorance as well!
Do your own research. If you think everything is impossible...go ahead...just re-read all your textbooks
-
read of the lives of Nikola Tesla, Stan Meyer, Townsend Brown among others...
I'd also read works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. They did some solid writing as well. There is also a lot of good science fiction out there. Plenty of stuff to read.
Before you have a proof of concept or at lease a solid design for an experimental setup, there is noting to talk about.
-
If you think everything is impossible...go ahead...just re-read all your textbooks
Ok, you convinced me. It is totally possible to extract energy from vacuum. What do we do next?
-
Read Steinmetz work on oscillating currents. He called electrostatic charge a prehistoric conception...
To quote, ''Unfortunately, to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro- static charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.''
Steinmetz continues, ''There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday's representation of the magnetic field by lines of force."
-
You're correct about most systems not being 'closed systems'. The Earth itself isn't a closed system, constantly receiving EM radiation from the sun, as well as cosmic radiation, similarly it kicks out plenty of energy.
The trouble with the phrase 'free energy' as a) Energy comes form somewhere, and one usually has to pay for it in some way, be it picking up ambient RF, covering up land with solar panels etc..
and b) there have been countless claims, by countless people, and yet nothing has come of it.
So the phrase has become synonymous with people 'tinkering' with magnets, coils, with little if any background in the underlying principles, and so immediately jump to the conclusion that they've somehow tapped into a 'free energy source'. Then, to confirm that, they throw out buzzwords from recent scientific theories - often completely out of context - to convince both themselves and others that they have discovered something new.
There are many levels of 'science' with theoretical physicists being the most abstract, and engineers right on the coal-face - applying/exploiting such discovered laws. As this is an engineering forum, I suspect almost every member has seen claims of 'free energy devices' and quickly found its obvious flaws and so, dismissed it. Theoretical physicists describe idea's without the bounds of reality (abstract concepts of dimensions) and deal with numbers representing vast (or minuscule) quantities, and of course construct theories about the very fabric of reality. They do not have the restrictions that Engineering poses which is 'in the real world'.
Throwing out 'quantum' or any strange behaving theories/laws from recognised physics in the same sentence as 'free energy' is something that most followers of the so-called 'free energy' scene do to try and legitimize their argument. There are so odd quirks of physics, and still much we don't understand - that doesn't mean you can just pick out an ambiguous area of science, and slap it onto a 'free energy device' and make it right. The words 'Quantum', and even 'dimensions' are thrown about by marketing companies for anything from batteries, to skin cream, but if you claim to be an engineer, you don't have to try and 'market' something - you build it.
Its an Ideology, often bolstered by conspiracy theories that 'big business' is suppressing hidden technology that could provide clean free energy for everyone, and make the planet into a true utopia, free from the shackles of our limited technology. Unfortunately, that is bollocks.
It is the same Ideology that keeps the alternative medicine movement alive - the more you prove them wrong, the stronger their beliefs become - as they immediately disregard anything that does not align with what they believe, and latch onto and twist anything that *sounds* like it proves them right. Conspiracy theories, dooms-day theories, religious extremism, its all the same. In a way, we are all prone to confirmation bias - even engineers - but for the most part those in science and engineering follow evidence, and it often proves us wrong.
I have seen this written countless times in many forums:
If you know of a way to produce usable energy that is currently unknown, build it, in a closed box, with only external power to start it, then let it power itself, as well as a usable load.
Don't go around posting on forums, posting youtube comments about how you can do it, or if it exists, to try and convince others. It only serves to damage the reputation of those who are part of this following even further, as well as make grumps like me type out a rant. The very fact many talk about such things, but never provide any proof, is evidence itself that it is much more of a religion than Engineering/Science.
Edit: I'm tired of seeing 'Tesla' everywhere. yes, the man was clever, anddeserves recognition for his contribution to science and technology. But no more than Faraday, Maxwell and the rest of the gang. I have yet to see anything Tesla did that was 'magical' or that hasn't been explained. You should repsect his work by understanding it, not starting with the appeal of a 'brand new mysterious technology' then trying to attribute his many patents to it. Some get extremely defensive, like teenage girls getting angry when someone says One Direction lip syncs.
-
What do we do next? Shut the petro monopolys down by investigating vacuum energy and other forms of alternative energy. Go out and experiment...what else can we do? I hope we all stop pretending the second law of thermodynamics is sacred...every electrical system interacts with the vacuum....now we research and experiment
-
Funny how quick you are to deny alternative medicine too...
Look up Andreas Moritz Liver cleanse....I had a medical doctor tell me there is no such thing as a liver cleanse and I'd have to operate on my gallbladder....but then I read the book for myself...and the doctor was wrong.
I agree most claims are fake....but NOT all
-
Shut the petro monopolys down by investigating vacuum energy and other forms of alternative energy.
Are they actively stopping you at the moment?
now we research and experiment
No, now you experiment. I'm personally not interested in this topic. Not because I'm against progress, but because it is simply not something that interests me. I'm also not interested in civil engineering, for example. It does not mean that civil engineering is not a valid field of research.
And if you think that people don't give you money for your research, well, it is not because of petrol companies, it is because you failed to preset your case.
-
Funny how quick you are to deny alternative medicine too...
That's just troll overload.
-
lol no no...ofc the huge energy companies dont care what alternatives there are...
We've had eco friendly eletric and hemp cars for a long time...cheaper too...yet we still fill up with gas...corporations like Exxon will do whatever they need to stunt their dollars dropping
-
Funny how quick you are to deny alternative medicine too...
Look up Andreas Moritz Liver cleanse....I had a medical doctor tell me there is no such thing as a liver cleanse and I'd have to operate on my gallbladder....but then I read the book for myself...and the doctor was wrong.
I agree most claims are fake....but NOT all
To quote Tim Minchin: 'Do you know what alternative medicine is called when it works? Medicine. Alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or proven not to work'
....and therefore isn't actually medicine, the 'Alternative' prefix is there to separate it from fact.
You read a book. Good for you. There are hundreds of books about 'cleanses' and detox's. I suspect the authors of these books don't actually believe what they are preaching, after-all, the reason we have a liver is to 'detox'. But this is an electronics forum. Not a medicine forum (alternative or otherwise). Nor a Science forum, although I'm sure another part of the forum is for Science questions. If you look near the top of the page you'll see its 'Projects, Designs, and Technical stuff'. So what was your question? Have you built a 'free energy device' and need someone to check your PCB layout? Or perhaps over-voltage protection. You can tell I'm biting my lip trying to not take the piss...
-
Yes the liver detoxes your body...what detoxes your liver though? I hope you change the oil in your car too.
My question is...since the discovering of the quantum vacuum effects like the Casimir effect and others...why is there such a disdain for so called devices that make use of ambient energies like it is a blasphemy? Funny how you mention religious fanatics...have you ever read responses on forums like this over a scientific debate? Science has become a religion too
-
why is there such a disdain for so called devices that make use of ambient energies like it is a blasphemy?
Show us one such device, then there will be some thing to discuss.
What do you want from us here right now?
As it has been pointed out, if you had a design or PCB for review, then we can help. If you need moral support, we can provide that as well.
You seem to know what to do based on all those books you have read, so lead the way, start the work and we will join.
And if you just throwing ideas out there, then I propose we figure out how to get from US to Europe in 10 minutes.
-
To any and all of you who think Science has got it all figured out, please watch
https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg
Rupert Sheldrake is a true man of Science. Try to learn something...
I am done...this post was mainly for the know-it-alls out there...and the few that responded like they already were
:
-
I am done...this post was mainly for the know-it-alls out there...and the few that responded like they already were
So what was the question? and what was the project?
-
Scroll up and read, if you dare.
The project is to build something new with new principles.
If you took a second and researched it yourself you might be surprised. Or just Google it. If Google says it cant be done then its impossible...right?
Any more useless comments? lol
Watch Rupert Sheldrakes video...why was it banned? why do we assume we know so much?
-
What are you guys really proposing? obviously nothing new or original...
Before you debunk me....
read of the lives of Nikola Tesla, Stan Meyer, Townsend Brown among others...
Just because its not in your little nerd manual doesnt mean its impossible...
Nikola Tesla never claimed to have created "free energy" from nothing. He believed he had a method for lossless power transmission but he understood that there had to be a powerful _source_ for it to operate. His famous "wheelwork of Nature" quote never implied "free energy" at all in the sense you mean and has been taken out of context so many times it isn't even funny. He also believed that he had detected signals from intelligent life on Mars.
Stan Meyer was an outright fraudster:
In 1996, Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer, the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[citation needed] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis." The court found Meyer had committed "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.
(from the WIKI article on Meyer)
... and nobody since has been able to reproduce his claimed "overunity" results. Many have tried, many have claimed to have done so, but all such claims have been found to be either errors or outright frauds when examined scientifically. His patents are in the public domain... yet you'll not be able to find any ICE that actually runs on water using Meyer's methods (or any other "overunity electrolysis" method.) And his patents are self-contradictory nonsense in large part and should never have been granted in the first place.
T. Townsend Brown used various electrostatic phenomena to propel model crafts. Anyone can repeat many of his propulsion effects today quite easily using high-voltage and electrostatic power sources and the various "lifter" geometries, and ion drives using high-voltage acceleration of charged particles are a reality. His "antigravity" claims have been proven false, and there is no "free energy" anywhere in any of T. T. Brown's work. The famous "levitation" experiment used a counterweight and pulleys to offset the entire weight of the "levitated" model craft and the electrostatic forces and corona discharge (ion wind) only had to lift with enough force to overcome the bearing friction in the suspension system.
Sheldrake... :palm: A clearer demonstration of how really smart people can have some really crazy ideas would be hard to find.
What else you got? Can you demonstrate a single credible "free energy" device yourself?
Of course you cannot.
:popcorn:
-
I dont do opinions. Every scientifically literate person knows what an open and closed systems are...no energy or mass exchange between itself and other system is closed.
So you do do opinions then. A closed system in thermodynamics can exchange energy or work with the surroundings, but not matter. That's different from your opinion expressed here.
-
Science has become a religion too
Quite the contrary.
Most religions are based on faith. Even Webster's definition of religion includes "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Faith, according to the dictionary, is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Religion is, by definition, a principle or system of beliefs that are held to strongly in the absence of any proof.
Science, or more specifically the scientific method, is, again according to Webster, "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Or more accurately, this fun little diagram:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg
Science is the accumulation and pursuit of knowledge based on hypotheses, tests and observations. It is the exact opposite of religion.
In the case of "free energy" and all of its other names, they are wholly rejected by the scientific method, not because of some pro-oil agenda or indoctrination, but simply because there is no proof. None, at all. Not a single free energy device has ever been shown to work. Every hypothesis has failed the "experiment" stage of the scientific method, and has therefore been rejected.
Show me a SINGLE DEVICE that extracts any useful energy from this "vacuum" as you call it, and I'll be a believer, as will the entire scientific community. None currently exist. If you think you can build one, then knock yourself out, nothing is stopping you. That field is of no interest to me.
-
Like I said free energy is a bad name....more suitable is aether energies...
Tesla tapped into cosmic rays of a different kind...even lightning and use that to power his machines. He used the ether and says so in his quote. Even Einstein said the ether is real...yet it has been thrown out by modern physicists
Tesla mentioned using the Earth rotation through the galaxy as a power source...
What about Ed Leeskanlin...and the coral castle...thats a fraud too? Please do not use Wiki as a reference for truth, no one uses that as a credible source...
Yea keep denying though...thats how progress is made...
Even Dr. Sheldrake....look at how you dismiss it...you just say hes crazy...where is your factual evidence?
-
Trolling?
FYI, Deco56 emailed me personally about this first and I dared him to take it up on the forum ;D
-
Are you kidding me? Point of discussing it? Oh, I dont know...maybe a whole new energy paradigm lol....
...and yes I have a BSc in Mathematical Physics, so I do understand it well enough to discuss it...
A force we dont understand or YOU dont understand?
Why don't you explain it to us then, explain how you can extract useful practical energy out of the vacuum. :popcorn:
-
Oh look! The forum creator got all his goons to do the dirty work.
Yes its all fake guys.
UFOs are not real...you cant levitate a spaceship with Townsends technology...Area 51 doesnt exist...there is no new technology ever....we have it ALL FIGURED OUT....right guys lol??? hahahahaha :-DD
I said look up SERPS by Jim Murray and Coral Castle by Ed Leeskanlin
-
What are you guys really proposing? obviously nothing new or original...
Before you debunk me....
You haven't proposed anything to debunk, you are just ranting about Tesla and vacuums and how everyone is closed minded etc.
Show us the real work you have done.
-
Oh look! The forum creator got all his goons to do the dirty work.
I explained to you why I don't debate technical stuff by personal correspondence.
If you cannot come onto a public technical forum with convincing technical arguments, then odds are your arguments aren't as convincing as you think they are.
-
It looks to me the OP is a bot and the operator behind it is doing a Turing test. Anyway, the OP's talks showed some randomness. If it is not a bot, it can only be some mantal thing.
-
The Casimir effect is a PROOF OF CONCEPT.
It proves that the ambient vacuum energy, which was thought to be small and insignificant, is actually a large energy density that CAN be used to do real WORK...im done for tonight....re-read the posts or watch the Sheldrake video if you are confused....Goodnight!
-
The Casimir effect is a PROOF OF CONCEPT.
Casimir effect is just a force. There is no meaningful way to extract work from it.
Gravity is the same way. It is all over the place, but none of the gravity-based perpetual motion devices ever worked out.
Force is exerted on static conducting planes. If you let go of those planes, then force will do the work, up to the point where planes meet. After that you will need to put work in and bring them apart again. Just like with gravity.
-
Oh look! The forum creator got all his goons to do the dirty work.
Well I resent that! For a start, Dave hasn't paid me... and secondly, I may be a Goon, but I do like making LED's light up in pretty colours and... wait, what was the third thing you said?
-
"Dr. Sheldrake....look at how you dismiss it...you just say hes crazy...where is your factual evidence?"
Well you could waste 18 min of your life and watch the video.
I don't know enough to debate you but after spending 5 min of my life skimming the video I agree Dr. Sheldrake is a bit odd?
-
I hope your experiments blow up our minds.
Let us know on your progress.
Btw, the reason the tower was shutdown, is because Tesla lied to Westinghouse telling him he was working on something but really doing something else so he cut down the funding.
Don't get me wrong, I do admire what Tesla did and was capable of doing.
Using ground as a transmission line is a cool concept maybe you should investigate that and report your findings.
Also want to point out that most brilliant scientific minds saw the correlation between music and the physical world, so I'll encourage you to study music and the math behind it.
-
https://youtu.be/287qd4uI7-E
Ok so Casimir is a force? Do we have all the forces now? I thought there was only gravity, strong, weak nuclear and electrostatic forces? Now the Casimir force....are you SURE these are all the forces possible?
There are no perpetual motion machines....but that video shows you can still be a genius with a little jumpstart.
Coral Castle in Florida anyone? Thats all fake too of course...its probably another scam since we do not understand it...
-
The Casimir effect is a PROOF OF CONCEPT.
Casimir effect is just a force. There is no meaningful way to extract work from it.
Gravity is the same way. It is all over the place, but none of the gravity-based perpetual motion devices ever worked out.
Force is exerted on static conducting planes. If you let go of those planes, then force will do the work, up to the point where planes meet. After that you will need to put work in and bring them apart again. Just like with gravity.
Yes, this.
Although in theory you could make an oscillator out of it:
http://www.quantumfields.com/IEEEJMEMSACO.pdf (http://www.quantumfields.com/IEEEJMEMSACO.pdf)
Deco56 must think the new X-Files series is a documentary.
-
I know of Bachs music and how polyphony relates to poly phase power and harmonics.
Yes Tesla used the ground as a transmission mediumn, I have studied this as well.
I keep saying free energy is a horrible name...but etheric energies or quantum vacuum energies do exist and are being actively pursued. Im just asking the skeptics to do somr original research before just dismissing a claim you assume is not possilbe based on your indoctrination
-
There are no perpetual motion machines....but that video shows you can still be a genius with a little jumpstart.
This video of a machine that is explicitly designed to demonstrate failed perpetual motion machines. It is run by an electrical motor and author does not hide it, it is an educational tool.
-
Im just asking the skeptics to do somr original research
Ok, is all your research based on biographies of dead people and the Internet? Do you have peer-reviewed articles, may be?
-
CP Steinmetz - Notes on Oscillating currents and all of his other books
Do you make new discoveries in peer-reviewed papers lol?
Casimir Effect is a proof of the potential of the quantum vacuum. The fact that two uncharged lightweight metal plates strangely attract each other in a perfect vacuum....if that is not shocking to anyone..then I am talking to a wall. Vacuum energy is real no matter how bad you want to deny it...
-
Oh look! The forum creator got all his goons to do the dirty work.
Well I resent that! For a start, Dave hasn't paid me... and secondly, I may be a Goon, but I do like making LED's light up in pretty colours and... wait, what was the third thing you said?
"You rotten swine,you have deaded me!"
-
I keep saying free energy is a horrible name...but etheric energies or quantum vacuum energies do exist and are being actively pursued. Im just asking the skeptics to do somr original research before just dismissing a claim you assume is not possilbe based on your indoctrination
It doesn't matter what you call it, there is still ZERO evidence that any useful energy can be extracted from any of this. Force is not energy. Force is not work. Force is easy, a lot of things generate a force, but they can only provide useful work up to a distance, then you have to reset them by injecting more energy than you were able to get out of it.
How on earth can you call it indoctrination? There is NO evidence, at all, what so ever, to support your argument. If anybody has been indoctrinated, it's you. If anybody is acting like a religious fanatic, it's you. Show us SOME evidence, ANY evidence. A real device, that is putting out more energy than it is taking in. ALL examples of such devices, dating back hundreds of years, can easily be written off as 1) the "inventor" didn't know how to read his instruments, or 2) the "inventor" was intentionally trying to fake the results to commit fraud. PLEASE show me ONE example that is legitimate.
-
Do you make new discoveries in peer-reviewed papers lol?
Yes, I do.
The fact that two uncharged lightweight metal plates strangely attract each other in a perfect vacuum....if that is not shocking to anyone..then I am talking to a wall.
The fact that two massive objects strangely attract to each other in a perfect vacuum... if that is not shocking to anyone..then I am talking to a wall.
BTW, gravitational force between those plates may end up being stronger than Casimir force :)
-
Casimir Effect is a proof of the potential of the quantum vacuum. The fact that two uncharged lightweight metal plates strangely attract each other in a perfect vacuum....if that is not shocking to anyone..then I am talking to a wall. Vacuum energy is real no matter how bad you want to deny it...
Once again, FORCE IS NOT ENERGY. You've been watching too much Star Wars.
Gravity is a force, yet it can not be harvested as an energy source. Same with magnets, same with pressure, same with a vacuum, same with name-a-force. Work = Force * Distance. Unless a given force can apply it over a distance, continuously, with less energy input than can be extracted, then it's not doing any real, long-term, usable, work.
-
Casimir Effect is a proof of the potential of the quantum vacuum. The fact that two uncharged lightweight metal plates strangely attract each other in a perfect vacuum....if that is not shocking to anyone..then I am talking to a wall. Vacuum energy is real no matter how bad you want to deny it...
It's an interesting effect that's been known for many decades. Nothing new or shocking about it.
Magnets are much more interesting, anyone can buy them anywhere and play with them. Countless people for centuries have spent huge parts of their lives trying to make them into perpetual motion or over-unity machines or extract energy from them etc and all have failed dismally. No evidence at all to suggest that the Casimir Effect will be any different.
-
Interestingly,people quite rightly dismiss "over-unity" devices,but still think "gain antennas" can increase real power.--------But that is another discussion! ;D
-
"You rotten swine,you have deaded me!"
Ahhhh..... ;D
-
I was going to say - Vacuums suck.
But should I be switching to - Vacuums blow?
-
... Not to be disrespectful to the subject of the quantum world and emerging knowledge.
-
To all the idiots:
The Casimir effect does WORK. It moves plates over a distance with a force. Thats the definition of work. The plates are super lightweight so gravity is not significant.
Dave, if you think this is not a big discovery, I suggest you do some reading on quantum field theory and its applications. The Casimir effect showed the vacuum flucuations can produced physical WORK!!!! Nothing new or shocking right? LOL
It proved that what we thought was empty space was actually filled with energetic virtual particlrs....a sea of energy!
I will continue to research this, please do not act as if it is psycho-babble. Its all scientifically backed by evidence!
If you want an overunity device to study...I said multiple times: SERPS technology by Jim Murray!
Interested in magnetics? Ed Leeskanlin!
Case closed.
-
The Casimir effect does WORK. It moves plates over a distance with a force. Thats the definition of work. The plates are super lightweight so gravity is not significant.
What happens then the plates MEET?
Magnets also do WORK when they move. That's until they physically stick to each other.
-
The plates are super lightweight so gravity is not significant.
How lightweight is "super lightweight"? Let's throw in some numbers for a change?
-
Rupert Sheldrake is a true man of Science.
Yeah, the science of Discworld. That's the only place where morphic resonance is a real thing.
I am done...
Oh, if only that were true...
-
Casimir Effect is a proof of the potential of the quantum vacuum. The fact that two uncharged lightweight metal plates strangely attract each other in a perfect vacuum....if that is not shocking to anyone..then I am talking to a wall. Vacuum energy is real no matter how bad you want to deny it...
Once again, FORCE IS NOT ENERGY. You've been watching too much Star Wars.
Gravity is a force, yet it can not be harvested as an energy source. Same with magnets, same with pressure, same with a vacuum, same with name-a-force. Work = Force * Distance. Unless a given force can apply it over a distance, continuously, with less energy input than can be extracted, then it's not doing any real, long-term, usable, work.
Well gravity is "sort of" harvested for power.
It rains,or snows,the raindrops or snowflakes fall----gravity
Water from raindrops or melted snowflakes flows downhill to a dam-----gravity
The collected water flows downhill out of the dam driving a turbine,which drives an alternator----gravity.
Of course,without the water condensing again to become rain or snow ,it wouldn't work.
Instead of us having to pump the water back up to the dam,Nature,very considerately,does it for us!
-
CP Steinmetz - Notes on Oscillating currents and all of his other books
Do you make new discoveries in peer-reviewed papers lol?
Casimir Effect is a proof of the potential of the quantum vacuum. The fact that two uncharged lightweight metal plates strangely attract each other in a perfect vacuum....if that is not shocking to anyone..then I am talking to a wall. Vacuum energy is real no matter how bad you want to deny it...
How certain are you that they are uncharged?
If there is a difference in charge,or equal & opposite charges they will be attracted.
If they have an equal charge of the same polarity they will be forced apart.
That is Electrostatic Force.
Nothing magic about vacuum----------it works in air,too.
-
How lightweight is "super lightweight"? Let's throw in some numbers for a change?
Let me start. According to this http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html) two 1 square metre plates a micron apart will experience 1.3 mN of force.
Let's assume we can make those plates out of gold and 1 micron thick. I don't know if it is possible, but let's assume we did it somehow.
Density of gold is 19300 kg / m^3, so one plate will weigh 1*1*1e-6 * 19300 = 0.0193 kg (19.3 g).
So gravity between two plates (assuming they are point-masses, which at this scale is a bit sketchy)
F = 6.674e-11 * 0.0193 ^ 2 / (1e-6 ^ 2) = 0.0248599826 N = 24.9 mN. So gravitational force between them will be an order of magnitude stronger.
-
To all the idiots:
Self reflect much? Once you start insulting contrary opinions you lost your case and cool.
The Casimir effect does WORK. It moves plates over a distance with a force. Thats the definition of work. The plates are super lightweight so gravity is not significant.
Dave, if you think this is not a big discovery, I suggest you do some reading on quantum field theory and its applications. The Casimir effect showed the vacuum flucuations can produced physical WORK!!!! Nothing new or shocking right? LOL
It proved that what we thought was empty space was actually filled with energetic virtual particlrs....a sea of energy!
I will continue to research this, please do not act as if it is psycho-babble. Its all scientifically backed by evidence!
It's not energy but yeah there are relations in there. "relations" is what its all about, energy is a side effect on our perceptual world.
If you want an overunity device to study...I said multiple times: SERPS technology by Jim Murray!
Interested in magnetics? Ed Leeskanlin!
I though you were going to say John Bedini and his school girl motor :)
Case closed.
It doesn't work that way. Usually detectives have to actually show proof, not google searches.
-
It is also a very interesting reading on what setups were used to even detect those forces in practice and what challenges researches had to overcome. Warning, this involves reading peer-reviewed articles.
-
vk6zgo....please stop talking untill you actually read about Casimir effect.
miguelvp, if you wanna debunk Bedini, please go ahead, enlighten us.
I have consistently said free energy is a horrible choice of words. However, ether technologies have long existed and can be even made to appear as overunity. Please look at Jim Murray SERPS. If you want to debunk, please go ahead and do so concisely, not just say its crazy. Same thing for Rupert Sheldrake. He has a PhD and is more qualified to make any statements he believes is supported by his research. Debunk his experiments with facts not opinions. All I got out of the skeptics were: "damn hes so crazy....because of his....crazy ideas....that are false...because I think they are!"
Casimir effect shows off unexpected results based on theory prior to its discovery. It changed the world view of physics as mostly empty space to a sea of ambient energy. This has direct effect on all of engineering and this information can be used to pursue more complex methods.
Again, ambient virtual particles are performing work on a system. If this does not astonish you, I give up. To this day, very little is known of the quantum vacuum. Go ahead, make a joke hahaha. Still doesnt change the fact the ether is real and is a fundamental part of all physical processes.
Read Bearden's "Energy from the Vacuum" if you are interested.
If you are not interested, please refrain from posting. Goodnight all!
-
Two magnets, two little pieces of metal, attract each other across empty space with impossible force.
Invisible lines of magnetic force are doing work on a system. If this does not astonish you, I give up.
-
vk6zgo....please stop talking untill you actually read about Casimir effect.
miguelvp, if you wanna debunk Bedini, please go ahead, enlighten us.
I have consistently said free energy is a horrible choice of words. However, ether technologies have long existed and can be even made to appear as overunity. Please look at Jim Murray SERPS. If you want to debunk, please go ahead and do so concisely, not just say its crazy. Same thing for Rupert Sheldrake. He has a PhD and is more qualified to make any statements he believes is supported by his research. Debunk his experiments with facts not opinions. All I got out of the skeptics were: "damn hes so crazy....because of his....crazy ideas....that are false...because I think they are!"
Casimir effect shows off unexpected results based on theory prior to its discovery. It changed the world view of physics as mostly empty space to a sea of ambient energy. This has direct effect on all of engineering and this information can be used to pursue more complex methods.
Again, ambient virtual particles are performing work on a system. If this does not astonish you, I give up. To this day, very little is known of the quantum vacuum. Go ahead, make a joke hahaha. Still doesnt change the fact the ether is real and is a fundamental part of all physical processes.
Read Bearden's "Energy from the Vacuum" if you are interested.
If you are not interested, please refrain from posting. Goodnight all!
Nice!-----you don't address my comments about the possibility of error due to Electrostatic Force.
Instead,you tell me to shut up!
Who is stifling comment now?
-
Considering when we first found out about it , 100+ years...not shocking
The fact the even most physics majors do not know of the Casimir effect after discovered 50 years ago
...shocking yes...
both the magnetic lines and casimir force are ether type interactions...did you ever think about what the magnetic field lines ARE MADE OF?????
It is not electrostatic...the plates are neutral...I told you to read up on it before commenting
-
Considering when we first found out about it , 100+ years...not shocking
The fact the even most physics majors do not know of the Casimir effect after discovered 50 years ago
...shocking yes...
both the magnetic lines and casimir force are ether type interactions...did you ever think about what the magnetic field lines ARE MADE OF?????
It is not electrostatic...the plates are neutral...I told you to read up on it before commenting
And I said "Are you sure?"
In the real world,it is possible that airflow across the two plates was uneven during evacuation of whatever chamber was used,causing a difference in charge.
-
Apparently, by Wikipedia, one of the recent attempt of explaining the Casimir effect is with the induced electric dipole interaction. It is somewhat similar to the interaction of two magnets. There is nothing about the breakdown of energy conservation there. If the OP is really interested in free energy, he may want to think about Maxwell demons.
-
In the real world,it is possible that airflow across the two plates was uneven during evacuation of whatever chamber was used,causing a difference in charge.
The thing has been experimentally proven using some micro-etched "plates", they were microscopic. There were no actual plates to speak of. I don't think there was ever an actual experiment with large scale objects, it is just too difficult to do.
Effect does exist, but so are magnetism and gravity. None of them are useful for extracting energy.
-
We have generators running of natural dams that produce power, using renewable power from natural events (tides). We can trick nature to do the work for us. I guess in a way free energy exists already its about how we tap into it. We the breaking of magnetic flux lines to induce a electromotive force. I ask again, what are magnetic field lines made of? If we do not know that, we have a long way to go....please dont tell me you think field lines are only conceptual
-
I ask again, what are magnetic field lines made of?
Magnetic field lines are imaginary, they are not made of anything. They are a way to visualize magnetic field.
If we do not know that, we have a long way to go
If you don't know that, you need to read a physics book.
-
Oh look! The forum creator got all his goons to do the dirty work.
Yes its all fake guys.
UFOs are not real...you cant levitate a spaceship with Townsends technology...Area 51 doesnt exist...there is no new technology ever....we have it ALL FIGURED OUT....right guys lol??? hahahahaha :-DD
I said look up SERPS by Jim Murray and Coral Castle by Ed Leeskanlin
All you can do is scream and laugh, all you will ever do is scream and laugh.
Let us know when you have one single solitary actual idea. Build something. Anything. But you can't, so you just scream and laugh.
-
Please be careful quoting Wikipedia, it is not a peer review source (some times) It does have a lot of information but is it all fact? (that is a debate that needs to talked about)
-
Please be careful quoting Wikipedia,
At this level of discussion, when quotes from Tesla biography are presented as a valid scientific argument, quoting Wikipedia is not the worst thing :)
-
both the magnetic lines and casimir force are ether type interactions...did you ever think about what the magnetic field lines ARE MADE OF?????
The same thing that Barometric pressure lines are made of on a weather chart - nothing!
They are merely representations that help us visualise a concept.
Here's my question to you - Take a magnet, attach it to a steel beam so it's sitting at a height of 1 metre above the ground. The magnet remains in place for 10 years.
How much work has the magnet done?
-
I have read and studied Tesla he was a GIANT in the electrical field of study, He took on Edison and blew him away.
He is responsible for our current power system and he gave the rights to George Westinghouse, that is why he died broke.
AKA he was screwed .
Did he have the answers to all of the electrical secrets NO but he sure brought us into the 20th. century!!
I am sure that there were many engineers from after that time would have discovered most of what he had.
Hope you can agree with my rant.
-
Here's my question to you - Take a magnet, attach it to a steel beam so it's sitting at a height of 1 metre above the ground. The magnet remains in place for 10 years.
How much work has the magnet done?
Easy. None.
-
But then you could pick up a 20kg printer from a desk 750mm off the floor, carry it 20m and place it on another desk also 750mm off the floor and you will have done no work either.
-
Here's my question to you - Take a magnet, attach it to a steel beam so it's sitting at a height of 1 metre above the ground. The magnet remains in place for 10 years.
How much work has the magnet done?
Easy. None.
Yeah, right answer. But does Deco56 understand that.
Reason I asked is that when proposed that question in high school, it was the moment that I understood the difference between work, force and energy.
-
But the Prime source of actual, practical energy (insolation) is "free" isn't it?
If there were any practical concepts hidden in Tesla's work, why have thousands of people failed to find them now after millions of man-hours of research and experimentation?
-
Well gravity is "sort of" harvested for power.
It rains,or snows,the raindrops or snowflakes fall----gravity
Water from raindrops or melted snowflakes flows downhill to a dam-----gravity
The collected water flows downhill out of the dam driving a turbine,which drives an alternator----gravity.
Of course,without the water condensing again to become rain or snow ,it wouldn't work.
Instead of us having to pump the water back up to the dam,Nature,very considerately,does it for us!
And nature very kindly provides the energy input into the system to make all that weather stuff happen, it's called the sun.
-
miguelvp, if you wanna debunk Bedini, please go ahead, enlighten us.
I'm not debunking a thing, I just stated that I was expecting Bedini's school girl motor for magnets.
The only thing I know is that my house nor anyone's is powered by that motor and I wonder why is that?
Did you build one? can you show us the output power? The only thing I've seen is people showing voltages but they never show the amps or loads, I wonder why? can you explain that?
The thing is that many let me rephrase, All of those "experiments" have no practicality, otherwise we will be living our well deserved utopia, but somehow that's not the case.
I'm a firm believer that we are on our infancy in science, but I'm also a firm believer that people are gullible and tend to want to believe in the extraordinary and pay good money for it.
So, show us instead of pointing us to it. Since you claim is there just do it then and show the world and let them reproduce the experiment.
Bare in mind you are talking to engineers not scientists. We need the practical aspect of things based on science, so if you have something practical to show us, then do that. We will measure the results in the practical world not on the theoretical one.
-
vk6zgo....please stop talking untill you actually read about Casimir effect.
miguelvp, if you wanna debunk Bedini, please go ahead, enlighten us.
I have consistently said free energy is a horrible choice of words. However, ether technologies have long existed and can be even made to appear as overunity. Please look at Jim Murray SERPS. If you want to debunk, please go ahead and do so concisely, not just say its crazy. Same thing for Rupert Sheldrake.
Nope, that's not how it works. The person making the extraordinary claim (overunity, energy from vacuum etc) is the one that gets to prove it. Given that those said people are not here, you'll have to do the proving for them.
Please go right ahead and prove with evidence that overunity or extracting useful practical energy from a vaccuum exists. Waving your hand around with your belief that such things are possible does not cut it. Belief is not evidence, nor is simply pointing us to go and do extensive investigations. If you want us to take your claims seriously you will have to provide the evidence.
And given that the claims are extraordinary, you will require extraordinary evidence.
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-what-counts-is-not-what-sounds-plausible-not-what-we-would-like-to-believe-not-what-one-or-two-carl-sagan-263944.jpg)
-
Deco56 must think the new X-Files series is a documentary.
Told you all, blame it on new X-Files, expecting more of these free energy crowd will be popping out here. :palm:
-
I blame Verne, Asimov and the like but at an admiring distance :)
-
The only thing I've seen is people showing voltages but they never show the amps or loads, I wonder why? can you explain that?
That's the thing. Average people understand volts (to a degree), but don't fully appreciate the energy involved in any given system.
A comment I made on a Youtube video from one of the Batteriser fanboys (which I tried to present as an observer) included this:
A major difficulty that the Engineers have (as I understand it) is the fact that the discussions keep rabbiting on about Volts, but that's only one side of the coin. What really matters is the WATTS (Some Engineers might be annoyed with me using this - but it comes from the same math that they use.) Why watts? For the same reason you use it to choose light globes for your kitchen, living room or desk lamp.
The response: I can no longer post any more comments.
Trying to bring the full picture into view that challenges their vignette just gets you blacklisted, it seems.
-
Deco56 must think the new X-Files series is a documentary.
Told you all, blame it on new X-Files, expecting more of these free energy crowd will be popping out here. :palm:
IMO, it's symptomatic of the current culture and times. Our political and celebrity culture saturates the media with the idea that all ideas are equally valid, that scientific evidence is just a suggestion and that just because everything is not known with certainty, everything is equally uncertain. That logic and scientific facts should be on equal footing with uninformed conjecture and agenda driven opinion.
The fact that we regularly see it here on an engineering forum still surprises me though.
-
Deco56 must think the new X-Files series is a documentary.
Told you all, blame it on new X-Files, expecting more of these free energy crowd will be popping out here. :palm:
IMO, it's symptomatic of the current culture and times. Our political and celebrity culture saturates the media with the idea that all ideas are equally valid, that scientific evidence is just a suggestion and that just because everything is not known with certainty, everything is equally uncertain. That logic and scientific facts should be on equal footing with uninformed conjecture and agenda driven opinion.
The fact that we regularly see it here on an engineering forum still surprises me though.
+1 , very well said. :-+
-
So how many pages will this thread go on for before we find out the OP is also a Flat-Earther?
-
https://youtu.be/287qd4uI7-E
Ok so Casimir is a force? Do we have all the forces now? I thought there was only gravity, strong, weak nuclear and electrostatic forces? Now the Casimir force....are you SURE these are all the forces possible?
There are no perpetual motion machines....but that video shows you can still be a genius with a little jumpstart.
Coral Castle in Florida anyone? Thats all fake too of course...its probably another scam since we do not understand it...
You cannot be serious. You show a Veproject1 video as some kind of "proof"? All that proves is that you are too gullible for words. Go to Veproject1's website and read carefully, you just might learn something.
Leedskalnin, in addition to being somewhat of a creepy old man (read his "Sweet Sixteen" sometime) used leverage to build his Coral Castle, and never made a Joule of excess energy from his contraptions. His methods of quarrying and moving big blocks of coral are well understood by anyone with a little _real_ mechanical engineering, or even stonemasonry, savvy. His _alleged_ magnetic or electromagnetic devices are just pieces of junk sculpture.
And your talk of the Casimir "force" shows that you don't have a very good understanding of what it is and how it's produced. It's not a _new_ type of force. No, we as scientists are not _sure_ that there are not other types of forces than the four you mention, in fact there is some evidence for a fifth force, and the question of "dark energy" and/or "MOND" (modified Newtonian dynamics) acting on a galactic scale is still unresolved. If you think you can create "free energy", "Overunity" or "perpetual motion" from these speculative forces... please go ahead and demonstrate it, or at least give a coherent logical argument for your viewpoint. So far we've only seen misunderstandings, misquotes and misrepresentations from you.
And I never said Sheldrake was crazy ... I implied that he, being a very smart man, had some crazy ideas anyhow. And that's why he's not given a lot of credence any more, even amongst his academic peers.
-
I know of Bachs music and how polyphony relates to poly phase power and harmonics.
Yes Tesla used the ground as a transmission mediumn, I have studied this as well.
I keep saying free energy is a horrible name...but etheric energies or quantum vacuum energies do exist and are being actively pursued. Im just asking the skeptics to do somr original research before just dismissing a claim you assume is not possilbe based on your indoctrination
I myself have indeed done _years_ of research on these matters. I defy you to provide a coherent definition of "aetheric energy" that is somehow different from our conventional physical understanding of energy. Quantum vacuum energies? More than one of them? I'd give you some references to _real_ physics papers that talk about the topic of ZPE and the quantum vacuum, but I seriously doubt that you'd read them or be able to understand them even if you did... they are heavily mathematical.
-
vk6zgo....please stop talking untill you actually read about Casimir effect.
You are the one who needs to do some reading, and not in your "free energy" fantasy webpages. It is clear to some of us that you do not know whereof you speak about the Casimir effect.
miguelvp, if you wanna debunk Bedini, please go ahead, enlighten us.
The debunks of the false claimant John Bedini are legion. His contraptions also do not make a single Joule of excess energy over and above that which is used to run them.... all they do is recycle existing energy supplied by _batteries_ and fluff up voltage (sometimes called "fluffy charge") but do not increase the stored energy in the batteries at all. It is well known that certain types of pulse charging can restore sulfated Lead Acid batteries to functionality... and it is also known that Bedini's chargers frequently ruin batteries making them incapable of holding a full charge. No Bedini machine has ever "run itself", they always depend on batteries. He makes his living selling CDs and plans for his contraptions, and many people have been suckered into buying them, and not one person, ever, has made a single Joule of excess energy from any Bedini device. Other researchers have even made "better than Bedini" pulse motors that produce higher intensity recirculating voltage spikes and do better charging of batteries, but these researchers have better sense than to claim "overunity" in a device that cannot be self-looped, and cannot be "daisy chained" to run other identical devices with excess energy being used to do real work at each stage in the chain.
I have consistently said free energy is a horrible choice of words. However, ether technologies have long existed and can be even made to appear as overunity. Please look at Jim Murray SERPS.
You keep bringing up this myth as if it represented some kind of evidence for your claims. What Murray's SERPS fiction proves is that he doesn't know how to do real experiments or make proper electrical and calorimetric measurements. Some of us DO, however, and that's why he still peddles his DVDs and other stuff at "true believer" expos and on websites like Energetic Forum and PESwiki. Again, there is no credible evidence that SERPS works as claimed.
You might as well include Rossi, BlackLight Power, and Defkalion in your "proofs". :-DD
http://www.keelynet.com/news/072114a.html (http://www.keelynet.com/news/072114a.html)
If you want to debunk, please go ahead and do so concisely, not just say its crazy. Same thing for Rupert Sheldrake. He has a PhD and is more qualified to make any statements he believes is supported by his research. Debunk his experiments with facts not opinions. All I got out of the skeptics were: "damn hes so crazy....because of his....crazy ideas....that are false...because I think they are!"
You are resorting now to what is called "appeal to authority" which is a logical fallacy. Sure, Sheldrake has a PhD. This is in no way proof that his ideas are not crazy. It is not up to skeptics to disprove false claims or the interpretations of questionable experimentation, it is the responsibility of the _claimant_ to provide credible proof and bullet-proof, incontrovertible experiments. Sheldrake has not done so, and cannot do so.
Casimir effect shows off unexpected results based on theory prior to its discovery. It changed the world view of physics as mostly empty space to a sea of ambient energy. This has direct effect on all of engineering and this information can be used to pursue more complex methods.
Again, ambient virtual particles are performing work on a system. If this does not astonish you, I give up. To this day, very little is known of the quantum vacuum. Go ahead, make a joke hahaha. Still doesnt change the fact the ether is real and is a fundamental part of all physical processes.
So here are we getting to some sort of definition of "ether"? Is it the same as the Dirac sea? The quantum vacuum? Fine, let's see you show one single device, or some theoretical analysis or design, that could use this "ether" to perform work. Don't forget to include the enormous amounts of energy it requires to create and sustain a "perfect vacuum" (no such thing really) in a laboratory or industrial setting in your energy-balance calculations.
Read Bearden's "Energy from the Vacuum" if you are interested.
If you are not interested, please refrain from posting. Goodnight all!
Tom Bearden !! LOL, another "Science Fiction" theorist, who has also never made a single excess Joule or enabled anyone else to do so. Bearden's writings are great examples of pseudo-technical babble, with a few tiny grains of truth embedded in them. I guarantee that real physicists and electrical engineers will be laughing out loud by the third page. There is _no "there" there_ in "Colonel" Bearden's screeds.
-
IMO, it's symptomatic of the current culture and times. Our political and celebrity culture saturates the media with the idea that all ideas are equally valid, that scientific evidence is just a suggestion and that just because everything is not known with certainty, everything is equally uncertain. That logic and scientific facts should be on equal footing with uninformed conjecture and agenda driven opinion.
Yes, you sadly see this everywhere |O
-
We have generators running of natural dams that produce power, using renewable power from natural events (tides). We can trick nature to do the work for us. I guess in a way free energy exists already its about how we tap into it. We the breaking of magnetic flux lines to induce a electromotive force. I ask again, what are magnetic field lines made of? If we do not know that, we have a long way to go....please dont tell me you think field lines are only conceptual
Facepalm again.
"Natural dams" that produce power, using renewable power from natural events (tides). Well, tides are a result of the gravitational attraction of the Moon on the masses of water and other materials that make up the Earth. The energy does not come from gravity, it is only a mechanism of transfer. The energy comes from the enormous stored energy of rotation and orbital revolution of the mass of the Moon. These tides have already slowed the Moon's own rotation until it is tidally locked to the Earth, which is why we only see one side of it. This is not "free energy" or "etheric energy" but is simply stored energy of motion being converted to other forms, with gravity as a coupling force.
Other dams, hydroelectric ones, are fundamentally solar energy converters. The Sun's energy evaporates water from low places like the oceans, and solar-powered convection and winds raise and transfer this water vapor to higher places like mountains, where it eventually condenses back to liquid water which is at a higher _gravitational potential energy_, or energy of position, where it then runs into reservoirs and through the turbines of hydroelectric dams, eventually reaching the sea where the process is repeated for as long as the sun shines and there is water to cycle. Again, this is not "free energy", ultimately it comes from the fusion processes inside the Sun. You could call that fusion energy "cosmic" and you wouldn't be very wrong... for the first time!
Magnetic field "lines" are indeed mathematical fictions. The "field" is a description, a map, of how a test particle would tend to move if placed at a particular location in space. It's easy to get suckered into believing that "field lines" have some objective reality since we see loops of plasma in high-definition solar photographs, or chains of particles of iron filings stuck together in the classic demonstration of the field of permanent magnets. The field itself has a reality, if an ineffable one. Field lines have a rigorous mathematical definition but are no more "real" than topographic contours on a terrain map or isobars on a weather map. In fact they are exactly that real.
-
We have generators running of natural dams that produce power, using renewable power from natural events (tides). We can trick nature to do the work for us. I guess in a way free energy exists already its about how we tap into it. We the breaking of magnetic flux lines to induce a electromotive force. I ask again, what are magnetic field lines made of? If we do not know that, we have a long way to go....please dont tell me you think field lines are only conceptual
Facepalm again.
"Natural dams" that produce power, using renewable power from natural events (tides). Well, tides are a result of the gravitational attraction of the Moon on the masses of water and other materials that make up the Earth. The energy does not come from gravity, it is only a mechanism of transfer. The energy comes from the enormous stored energy of rotation and orbital revolution of the mass of the Moon. These tides have already slowed the Moon's own rotation until it is tidally locked to the Earth, which is why we only see one side of it. This is not "free energy" or "etheric energy" but is simply stored energy of motion being converted to other forms, with gravity as a coupling force.
Other dams, hydroelectric ones, are fundamentally solar energy converters. The Sun's energy evaporates water from low places like the oceans, and solar-powered convection and winds raise and transfer this water vapor to higher places like mountains, where it eventually condenses back to liquid water which is at a higher _gravitational potential energy_, or energy of position, where it then runs into reservoirs and through the turbines of hydroelectric dams, eventually reaching the sea where the process is repeated for as long as the sun shines and there is water to cycle. Again, this is not "free energy", ultimately it comes from the fusion processes inside the Sun. You could call that fusion energy "cosmic" and you wouldn't be very wrong... for the first time!
Magnetic field "lines" are indeed mathematical fictions. The "field" is a description, a map, of how a test particle would tend to move if placed at a particular location in space. It's easy to get suckered into believing that "field lines" have some objective reality since we see loops of plasma in high-definition solar photographs, or chains of particles of iron filings stuck together in the classic demonstration of the field of permanent magnets. The field itself has a reality, if an ineffable one. Field lines have a rigorous mathematical definition but are no more "real" than topographic contours on a terrain map or isobars on a weather map. In fact they are exactly that real.
If you step from one of those map contours to an adjacent much lower height contour,you become immediately aware of the reality hiding behind those lines!
-
...bla..bla..
.<snip>
....Please ask for clarification or additional information
Hmmm ... all of these noise, so this is it ? Yet another subscription based thingy ? Is it free ? :-DD
-
We have generators running of natural dams that produce power, using renewable power from natural events (tides). We can trick nature to do the work for us. I guess in a way free energy exists already its about how we tap into it. We the breaking of magnetic flux lines to induce a electromotive force. I ask again, what are magnetic field lines made of? If we do not know that, we have a long way to go....please dont tell me you think field lines are only conceptual
Facepalm again.
"Natural dams" that produce power, using renewable power from natural events (tides). Well, tides are a result of the gravitational attraction of the Moon on the masses of water and other materials that make up the Earth. The energy does not come from gravity, it is only a mechanism of transfer. The energy comes from the enormous stored energy of rotation and orbital revolution of the mass of the Moon. These tides have already slowed the Moon's own rotation until it is tidally locked to the Earth, which is why we only see one side of it. This is not "free energy" or "etheric energy" but is simply stored energy of motion being converted to other forms, with gravity as a coupling force.
Other dams, hydroelectric ones, are fundamentally solar energy converters. The Sun's energy evaporates water from low places like the oceans, and solar-powered convection and winds raise and transfer this water vapor to higher places like mountains, where it eventually condenses back to liquid water which is at a higher _gravitational potential energy_, or energy of position, where it then runs into reservoirs and through the turbines of hydroelectric dams, eventually reaching the sea where the process is repeated for as long as the sun shines and there is water to cycle. Again, this is not "free energy", ultimately it comes from the fusion processes inside the Sun. You could call that fusion energy "cosmic" and you wouldn't be very wrong... for the first time!
Magnetic field "lines" are indeed mathematical fictions. The "field" is a description, a map, of how a test particle would tend to move if placed at a particular location in space. It's easy to get suckered into believing that "field lines" have some objective reality since we see loops of plasma in high-definition solar photographs, or chains of particles of iron filings stuck together in the classic demonstration of the field of permanent magnets. The field itself has a reality, if an ineffable one. Field lines have a rigorous mathematical definition but are no more "real" than topographic contours on a terrain map or isobars on a weather map. In fact they are exactly that real.
If you step from one of those map contours to an adjacent much lower height contour,you become immediately aware of the reality hiding behind those lines!
Certainly, the contour lines on a _map_ tell you, for example, which way a bowling ball would roll if placed on the _real terrain_. But "the map is not the territory" as Korzybski famously told us.
I've done plenty of mountain hiking, and I've never seen a contour line on an actual mountain. The only places I've seen contour lines have been flat maps.... and I try not to step on them. Muddy footprints make them hard to read.
Of course there are terraced crop fields in mountainous third-world countries that have the appearance of contour lines on mountains. But they aren't, really....
And of course some maps are marked in metric intervals, some in Imperial intervals... both describing the same terrain. Some are even color-coded, like aviation sectional charts. Which is the "reality" there? I'd love to see a "free energy" machine made from topographic contour maps.
-
I was really thinking about falling off a cliff,
It hurts!---I have done it without the help of a map! ;D
Bill Bryson tells a story about sliding down a steep slope after not reading the contour lines on his Ordnance Survey map in the UK.
I think they are drawn to a different scale to maps in Oz & the USA.
Also,Bill was never one to spoil a good story with facts.
My comment was to do with "imaginary" things,I have no belief in "free energy".
Lots of things we use are "imaginary"----Looking at the trace of a 'scope or the needle of an analog meter isn't seeing volts.
-
Just read this thread, oh boy that's 30 mins of my life I'll never get back....
The OP claims a BSc in Mathematical Physics, you'd have hoped that they'd have learned the rigor and disciplines associated with proof.
Simple maths, 2+2=22 right? Why, because I said so and it kinda looks right!, I am going to ignore all the other proofs from countless more intelligent people that myself that it's 4 because I like the idea of it being 22.
-
Tesla mentioned using the Earth rotation through the galaxy as a power source...
I have a concern with that - extracting energy out of earth rotation will make days last longer and we will have to keep readjusting our watches. Other than that it's all good with what you say :-DD
-
Tesla mentioned using the Earth rotation through the galaxy as a power source...
I have a concern with that - extracting energy out of earth rotation will make days last longer and we will have to keep readjusting our watches. Other than that it's all good with what you say :-DD
Already happens. As mentioned above, the tidal forces between earth and moon have already slowed down the rotation of the moon to only face (roughly) one side towards the earth. The same process is slowing down the rotation of the earth.
-
Is this a joke? Sigh...
-
both the magnetic lines and casimir force are ether type interactions...did you ever think about what the magnetic field lines ARE MADE OF?????
The same thing that Barometric pressure lines are made of on a weather chart - nothing!
They are merely representations that help us visualise a concept.
Here's my question to you - Take a magnet, attach it to a steel beam so it's sitting at a height of 1 metre above the ground. The magnet remains in place for 10 years.
How much work has the magnet done?
You could say that a permanent magnet saves power.
If you used an Electromagnet,you would consume power operating it,24/7 for 10 years.
Or,you could use a bolt,for a little extra input in the beginning,if all you want to do is stick a bit of steel up there. ;D ;D
-
Your central argument can be boiled down to this "there is something we don't fully understand so free energy is here"
You never established why that mysterious "something" will make your free energy dream a reality.
Whenever challenged for a plausible explanation, you point to your challengers to your big diploma or the internet at large.
That makes you sound very weak.
-
As to my position on this, free energy is not just possible, it is everywhere - under the right frame of reference, :).
The same for free lunch, free money,, free diapers, ......
-
Who knows, we might find new sources of energy in the next 100 years but whatever they are, they all will fulfill the requirements of our established physics and thermodynamics.
My experience is that people are interpreting Tesla to an extend that even Tesla did not know. Tesla was a brilliant down to earth person that made some really bad business decisions and that is why he was poor at the end. Edison was much more a business man and was rich at the end of his life.
The mysteries around Tesla are far over exaggerated !
(and believe me, I read his papers and studied his patents)
-
The same for free lunch, free money,, free diapers, ......
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
The cost is simply excised through other, indirect means.
-
" people are interpreting Tesla to an extend that even Tesla did not know"
Some people are, and most of those people have no clue whatsoever about Tesla work, as so evidently obvious in this thread.
-
There's one source of "free" energy, if you want to call it that, which deserves more attention. If it wasn't for the Sun, our planet would be a frozen snowball. Does all the work. You just have to collect it. Solar panels is one way of doing it. If you want to bother people with this quantum vacuum stuff then just bring in the results of your experiments. Talk is just talk. Doesn't matter who says what. Claims stand on their own. You can't throw names or degrees around to prove anything. Ultimately it's the experiment that distinguishes what's real and what's not.
-
All energy is free. The sun makes no charge for supplying the Earth with energy and the Earth makes no charge for access to stored energy in the form of fossil fuels. Anything else is someone, somewhere trying and usually suceeding in making a buck.
Talking of which - what are the free energy nuts actually after when they ask us to "believe" - often we get to the bottom line fairly quickly. We are asked to believe sufficiently to buy something. Either a book which tells us how to make the wondrous device and make a killing, or the device itself (and make a killing) or some other scheme for parting the believer from their cash.
It's a bit like the books which promise to tell us how to "get rich quick[sic]" - if I knew how to get rich quickly I'd be doing it, not writing about it so the skeptic starts to wonder whether the real motive is book sales and pumping dubious stocks.
It's the same with "free energy" - why would the inventor want to sell the idea rather than benefit from it himself. Or sell it to the power companies who have the 100's of millions of bucks that a real functional device that could pull power out of the aether would be worth.
It is an extraordinary claim but I don't think it needs extraordinary proof - just build your device and show it powering a real load - a 1kW heater, say, and show that your device can power it continuously for days, weeks or months with no input power. The world will beat a path to your door.
In 100 years we might know some physics that is beyond our understanding today. We probably won't laugh at todays physicists in the same way we don't laugh today at Newton for not knowing anout relativity or Quantum Physics but the odds that someone who can't comprehend why AxV is not power when talking about AC power and reactive loads has inadvertently stumbled upon a practical application of as yet unknown physics with the application of a few magnets and coils is slim, to say the least.
So - to the OP, build your device and show it working. No-one has managed that yet so don't refer us to other free energy shamans, show us the goods or go away.
-
You might as well include Rossi, BlackLight Power, and Defkalion in your "proofs". :-DD
You forgot to mention Searl and his SEG scam. That one is now running for decades.
If the stupidity of those people who believe in such things could be converted into usable energy, well, then we surely would have free energy en masse.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Here's a question for those free-energy believers that never gets answered:
Power companies spend billions and billions of money in building powerplants, running them, maintaining them, etc. Once built, they spend a lot of money for the fuel that is needed to keep them running. Those companies want to make money, and lots of it. They are also those that more often than not get accused of supressing the oh-so-fancy free energy stuff. Now, if any of these free energy schemes would actually work, why aren't they all over it and use that stuff? They could maximise their profits to no end. Build something once, spend a little bit on maintenance, and that's it. No more fuel costs. No more waste disposal. Just more and more profit because of all these savings.
And no, claiming that such devices would produce too little energy to operate at a large scale is stupid. For one, instead of spending billions to design the next reactor, they could spend that money in making those things bigger. And in the worst case, they could just build and use millions of the smaller devices.
So, for those that believe in free energy: Why are they not doing that? Why do they spend boatloads of money for buying fuel? Why do they spend a lot of money for waste-management, renaturalization of the contaminated grounds the plants were, etc?
Greetings,
Chris
-
Now put on the tinfoil hat and consider what you said.
Maybe they HAVE already converted power plants to run on free energy, and the fuel in/waste out and all the smoke is just faked to make it look like they are still generating power the old fashioned way.
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
-
Now put on the tinfoil hat and consider what you said.
Maybe they HAVE already converted power plants to run on free energy, and the fuel in/waste out and all the smoke is just faked to make it look like they are still generating power the old fashioned way.
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
Haha, of course! That must be it! How could i have not seen that! :-DD
Greetings,
Chris
-
If you step from one of those map contours to an adjacent much lower height contour,you become immediately aware of the reality hiding behind those lines!
Same if you flood the area and look at the wet to dry border as the water rise.
-
So, for those that believe in free energy: Why are they not doing that? Why do they spend boatloads of money for buying fuel? Why do they spend a lot of money for waste-management, renaturalization of the contaminated grounds the plants were, etc?
Greetings,
Chris
This is very true, its all about profit and shareholder value for these gigantic companies.
That is why they came up with "built in obsolescence" and that is why they had a "light bulb cartel" and so on.
If there would be so called free energy be available, these large corporations would have jumped on it.
Especially in Germany, since they have to shut down the nuclear reactors.
At least they would have closed that field with real patents.
It seems to me that probably all of these free energy nuts have never done any real energy calculations. And although, some seem to have an engineering degree, they still do not have a concept of understanding of what is really going on.
-
If there would be so called free energy be available, these large corporations would have jumped on it.
...
At least they would have closed that field with real patents.
Indeed. They would have patented the hell out of it, and they could, because they would then have working models. They would drop their conventional powerplants like hot potatoes and build lots of "free energy plants". They wouldn't care about their friends in the oil and coal industry either (which somehow is another meme with thos FE nuts: That they so love their coal/oil/etc. suppliers and thus still use it), because their savings by dropping them would be massive.
It seems to me that probably all of these free energy nuts have never done any real energy calculations. And although, some seem to have an engineering degree, they still do not have a concept of understanding of what is really going on.
Well, most of them can't even use a multimeter correctly. And "engineering" is a wide field. Just because someone is an engineer doesn't mean squat. That person may be good at designing trains, for example, but lack any EE skills. And even if they were EE's, their belief in FE simply clouds their rational mind.
Greetings,
Chris
-
So, for those that believe in free energy: Why are they not doing that? Why do they spend boatloads of money for buying fuel? Why do they spend a lot of money for waste-management, renaturalization of the contaminated grounds the plants were, etc?
I believe we'll find out by the end of the new X-Files series ;D
-
First you claim that we cannot get energy from forces. Now we are using gravity fields and magnetic fields to produce power in hyrdo dams. Again, this is a type of free energy....we are tricking Nature to do the work for us. Thats all that is really needed....so you see we can extract energy from gravity and magnetic fields....A similar concept can be achieved with ether fields...
I dont need to convince a bunch of nerds of new ideas....you can rot in your 50 year old manuals and textbooks lol...
I keep going back to this: What are magnetic field lines made of?
If magnetic lines are not real....how come we hear a scraping noise if we pass a magnet through a coil and listen to the output...individual scrapping noises...you can actually hear the magnetic flux lines being cut....
Stop using free energy....Tesla manipulated POWER...not energy
Please debunk Bedini and Jim Murray SERPS here, if you can....demo it!
and again...with Rupert Sheldrake...still yet to hear evidence against his ideas....still calling his ideas crazy with no backup
I cant answer everyone, but so far no one has debunked anything...including CORAL CASTLE by Ed Leeskanlin...it was definitely NOT using mechanical leverage LOL :-DD
-
Hall Puthoff...
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PREv48_1562.pdf (http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PREv48_1562.pdf)
Of course he is a quack too....right?
-
I don't mind if people dream of free energy. Research it all you want. I do take exception when they post that they have an idea and they want someone else to make it work.
-
We are not tricking nature, the sun heats up the water producing evaporation, then it condenses into clouds and then it precipitates. The energy comes from the Sun, not from us tricking the water to evaporate :)
But I'm wasting my time and so are you. Instead of brining ideas from other people, why don't you build those things and show us?
You are the one bringing it here, so the burden is on you not anyone else.
-
I said we can trick Nature to provide the input for us...all of those who are skeptical check the paper by Hal Puthoff...it is viable just not practical now...
-
I cant answer everyone, but so far no one has debunked anything...including CORAL CASTLE by Ed Leeskanlin...it was definitely NOT using mechanical leverage LOL :-DD
Deco, why do you care what other people think? Just use the 'free energy' to your own benefit and be happy.
As Seekonk pointed out, you cannot force other people to do the work for you.
-
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/4/40/Do_not_feed_the_trolls.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120531015543)
-
NASA is a branch of American Air Force...I dont plan on giving them ideas...
I dont really care what people think, just trying to bring new ideas and experiments to light...
I have posted several links and ideas...even theorectical peer reviewed papers on the concept
Even simple experiments to prove magnetic field lines are real not just a conception...I rest my case
I do not have a working model as of yet...but will work towards it in the future.
Sorry to dissapoint no working model to demo here...and I probably wouldnt demo it here either...its not like this forum is that influential...postingl original ideas toè a forum is just asking for those ideas to be stolen
Please read Puthoffs work and Sheldrakes presentation on Science.
Also show me clear evidence SERPS by Jim Murray is fake. Thanks.
-
I do not have a working model as of yet...but will work towards it in the future.
Having a working and reproducible model that will passes independent tests will be a good step forward convincing the deniers wrong.
Good luck.
-
"You rotten swine,you have deaded me!"
I suspect there about 4 people alive who get that reference, you and I being two of them :-DD
-
You do realise that there probably isn't a single person on this forum who wouldn't love a truly "free" energy source, no matter how (reasonably) sceptical they are being, yes?
And about vacuum energy or virtual particles, how would you actually get any work out of a phenomena that pretty much instantly cancels itself out due to any energy or particles that are produced being equal and opposite? I thought -1+1==0, or do you have evidence of an imperfect symmetry in these things no one else has yet?
-
First you claim that we cannot get energy from forces. Now we are using gravity fields and magnetic fields to produce power in hyrdo dams. Again, this is a type of free energy....we are tricking Nature to do the work for us. Thats all that is really needed....so you see we can extract energy from gravity and magnetic fields....A similar concept can be achieved with ether fields...
I dont need to convince a bunch of nerds of new ideas....you can rot in your 50 year old manuals and textbooks lol...
I keep going back to this: What are magnetic field lines made of?
If magnetic lines are not real....how come we hear a scraping noise if we pass a magnet through a coil and listen to the output...individual scrapping noises...you can actually hear the magnetic flux lines being cut....
Stop using free energy....Tesla manipulated POWER...not energy
Please debunk Bedini and Jim Murray SERPS here, if you can....demo it!
and again...with Rupert Sheldrake...still yet to hear evidence against his ideas....still calling his ideas crazy with no backup
I cant answer everyone, but so far no one has debunked anything...including CORAL CASTLE by Ed Leeskanlin...it was definitely NOT using mechanical leverage LOL :-DD
You may claim to have a PhD, I would not have passed you in a high school science class.
Basic scientific method - if you want to present a theory you need to support your hypothesis. You haven't done that, you don't even seem to understand it. You don't know what the difference between a force and work is. You don't even seem to know what forces are. You cannot answer the most basic of questions about your ideas.
All you can do is scream and throw insults and type emojis. People treat you like a crank because you act like a crank. You are the guy holding signs on the street corner, the guy writing WITH random CAPITALIZATION. You are timecube.
-
You may claim to have a PhD, I would not have passed you in a high school science class.
Basic scientific method - if you want to present a theory you need to support your hypothesis. You haven't done that, you don't even seem to understand it. You don't know what the difference between a force and work is. You don't even seem to know what forces are. You cannot answer the most basic of questions about your ideas.
What's also sad is that he doesn't understand the simple concept of "burden of proof". He makes the claims, he has to prove them right. Instead he wants us to prove them wrong.
But then, the free-energy cranks all have a big problem with that. I mean, if that stuff works as they claim, it should be trivial for them to produce a working model that can be idependently tested by several, independent scientists. Just pointing to allegedly peer-reviewed papers doesn't help. There have been, and always will, be instances were the peer review fails. Also, one has to be very careful what kind of peer-review or journal they appear in. There are such papers where, if one looks close enough, the journal publishing and reviewing them is actually from the same person (or proxy of that person).
All you can do is scream and throw insults and type emojis. People treat you like a crank because you act like a crank. You are the guy holding signs on the street corner, the guy writing WITH random CAPITALIZATION. You are timecube.
Timecube .... That brings back memories .... :-DD
Greetings,
Chris
-
I can get free volts from a 560pF + 560pF tuner cap, charge it up to 30V when fully meshed, spin it and you can blink a neon, that's it.
And she square tuned..
-
Ok, so ignore the magnetic field experiment to prove the field lines are a reality themselves...
Ignore Ed Leeskalin too...and the coral castle...and townsend brown with levitation
If we know of this now...how come we are not building spaceships on these principles...still using gasoline
I have put up a paper by Hal Puthoff for the more academically inclined to viee.
I am not presenting a full blown theory here on a forum. I hope you expect less for someone posting here.
I apologize for the ad hominum attacks, you can continue with yours if you like.
Funny how you mention force and work and I have shown what those mean. Take a step back....do you even know what ENERGY is????
Even Richard Feynman said physicists dont know what ENERGY is...
https://m.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gstun/richard_feynman_said_it_is_important_to_realize/
If a Nobel prize winner and PhD in Physics doesnt know what Energy is...Im ok with not knowing what what WORK is (measured in joules)
-
NASA is a branch of American Air Force...I dont plan on giving them ideas...
No, NASA is a civilian organization. They already have more ideas than you've ever had and would only laugh at your "ideas".
I dont really care what people think, just trying to bring new ideas and experiments to light...
That's pretty obvious. However your ideas are not new and your "experiments" are poorly defined, badly executed and results misinterpreted.
I have posted several links and ideas...even theorectical peer reviewed papers on the concept
"theorectical".... LOL..... you clearly cannot understand the Puthoff paper you posted. I have a long history with Puthoff and Ibison and friends and they would be laughing at you if they bothered to read silly stuff like what you write.
Even simple experiments to prove magnetic field lines are real not just a conception...I rest my case
Your "simple experiment" is a demonstration of the Barkhausen effect and does not "prove" magnetic field lines at all. You have no case to rest.
I do not have a working model as of yet...but will work towards it in the future.
Of course you don't have a working model, that's obvious and isn't news to anyone. You are free to waste your time however you like, but when you start selling DVDs telling other people how to build what you cannot build yourself... that's when you cross over the line from silly fool to fraudster. No offense intended, of course.
Sorry to dissapoint no working model to demo here...and I probably wouldnt demo it here either...its not like this forum is that influential...postingl original ideas toè a forum is just asking for those ideas to be stolen
One wonders why you are even posting anything at all on this forum full of skeptics and thieves and goons. It's just the largest test and measurement forum on the internet, not influential at all, full of dishonest ignoramuses. Right?
Please read Puthoffs work and Sheldrakes presentation on Science.
Please return your university degrees, because they are obviously defective. Maybe you can get your money back and use it to build your Free Energy machine.
Also show me clear evidence SERPS by Jim Murray is fake. Thanks.
In the first place, it is Murray's obligation to show clear evidence that it is NOT fake or mistake, which he has not and cannot do. However, fake is a pretty strong word. In Murray's particular case it's just misinterpreting bad measurements and refusing to make proper ones, not "faking" measurements. But plenty of so-called "free energy" claimants have indeed descended into outright conscious fakery and fraud. But I wouldn't expect someone who posts Veproject1 videos as "proof" to be able to tell the difference.
For example... you will _never_ see any of these "free energy" claimants like Jim Murray using a proper wideband power analyzer to test and measure their devices. Why is that? I know why... and so do most of the people reading here. And you will _never_ see any of these "4000 percent OU" devices running themselves in a self-loop, or running another identical unit in a daisy-chain with the excess power running a real load. Why not, if they are so "overunity"? I know why not, and so do most of the people reading here. Let Jim Murray submit one of his systems to Dave our kind host for testing in his laboratory. Hah... this will _never_ happen. Why not? I know why... and so do the rest of us.
(And there are plenty of Leedskalnin debunks out there, with YouTube videos of people moving huge blocks of stone using levers and ordinary block-and-tackle arrangements. Do your homework!)
-
Ok, so ignore the magnetic field experiment to prove the field lines are a reality themselves...
Ignore Ed Leeskalin too...and the coral castle...and townsend brown with levitation
TT Brown never "levitated" anything. As I have explained to you his model craft were counterbalanced, as you can clearly see in the actual diagrams of his experiments. His thrust effects were produced by ion wind, nothing more. There is no "magic capacitor" that will produce antigravity or unidirectional thrust in the absence of ion wind.
Leedskalnin did nothing unusual either.
If we know of this now...how come we are not building spaceships on these principles...still using gasoline
You have answered your own question: because what you "know" isn't so.
I have put up a paper by Hal Puthoff for the more academically inclined to viee.
Puthoff's work is so far over your head I doubt if you can even get past the abstracts. I have a long history with Puthoff, first met him in 1999, I have a preprint of his most recent paper on my desk right now, and I can confidently state that you have no clue.
I am not presenting a full blown theory here on a forum. I hope you expect less for someone posting here.
I apologize for the ad hominum attacks, you can continue with yours if you like.
Funny how you mention force and work and I have shown what those mean. Take a step back....do you even know what ENERGY is????
Even Richard Feynman said physicists dont know what ENERGY is...
https://m.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gstun/richard_feynman_said_it_is_important_to_realize/
If a Nobel prize winner and PhD in Physics doesnt know what Energy is...Im ok with not knowing what what WORK is (measured in joules)
Here's another quote from Feynman:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
And you have still not cited a single credible experimental result that would support your claims that "free energy" devices exist.
-
Everyone is focused on the crystal radio like it was the only comment I made. Any one else wanna ignore the whole Casimir effect thing again???
Well, if you so easily misunderstood how a simple crystal radio set works, it puts serious doubt on your ability to grasp other basic electronics and physics concepts....
As for all your other claims and posts... You can't just come in here and post a bunch of links and say, "Prove it doesn't exist!" That's not how it works... The burden of proof is on *you* not us. It's already said, but I'll say it again: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I swear, I really want to start a trust, like James Randi did, only to debunk free energy. If anyone can show a working device that holds up to scientific scrutiny, they win $1 Million dollars.
And no, hydroelectric dams and solar power are not free energy. Solar relies on the sun, which is just a large scale nuclear reactor which will eventually burn out. It also doesn't work 24/7. Hydro relies in large part on gravity (and some on the sun) and is only viable in small parts of the world (at least until 100% lossless power transfer is viable, by that I mean never). Ultimately that, plus wind and tidal power are simply forms of clean energy.
Free Energy is basically pulling energy from nothing. Think about that for a minute. Let it sink in. If there is nothing, how can you get anything from it? You can't.
Which one of these options are more likely: Our entire understanding of physics and basic universal constants are wrong. Or your completely unscientific ramblings and crackpot theories are wrong.
I'll go with hundreds of years of established science over some guy on a forum who can't show any proof of his claims, thank you very much.
I'd love to be proven wrong, it'd change the world. Unfortunately, you can't. (Some very smart people have died penisless trying. You're obviously not very smart, so...)
-
Some very smart people have died penisless trying.
:o
Never knew free energy 'research' was so hard on the old one-eyed trouser-snake.
Unless the people in question were women - and this seems to be one of those obsessive and fruitless activities largely dominated by men.
-
Some very smart people have died penisless trying.
:o
Never knew free energy 'research' was so hard on the old one-eyed trouser-snake.
Unless the people in question were women - and this seems to be one of those obsessive and fruitless activities largely dominated by men.
I was wondering if anyone would catch that. It was a typo, Freudian slip even, but I thought it was funny and decided to leave it in. (Sometimes I mentally revert to a 12 year old and giggle with delight at things like that.)
Penis for your thoughts?
-
Even simple experiments to prove magnetic field lines are real not just a conception...I rest my case
Yeah
I love how when you walk around with a compass you can see it click in discrete steps due to the field lines.
Twit.
-
Obviously none of you read any of Tesla Radiant energy patents or real Tesla Magnifying Transmitters
btw...still have yet to hear a case against Jim Murray SERPS or Coral Castle Ed Leeskanlin
Ill put my knowledge of physics up with anyones in this forum.
All the rebuttals I get are...."oh thats so abstract i doubt anyone understands it"
So Ed Leeskanlin was a crank too? Even all the books and notes he wrote on magnetism?
Ok so he moved and spun rocks with a lever and the power of a single man....so how did he cut them and transport them? Im guessing you guys think the ancient pyramids were built with levers and brute force pushing too :-DD
CP Steinmetz knew the magnetic field lines were real. He invented the phasor method, I hope you think he was legit, you use all his methods when analyzing AC.
To quote, ''Unfortunately, to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro- static charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.''
Steinmetz continues, ''There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday's representation of the magnetic field by lines of force."
Watch this video....is the metal conductors really have charge on their surface or is the charge stored in the field?
https://youtu.be/9ckpQW9sdUg
The field lines have a physical reality...an eletric or magnetic field is an ether process...they ate stress conditions of the ether....even Faraday believed and first relayed the tubes of force idea
-
Please do not talk about polarization fields and all that does not meet Occam's razor. Why make it more complicated then it need to be? The insulator is storing the dieletric field...the whole charge residing on a metal surface is BS as Steinmetz explained
-
https://xkcd.com/356/
It's not me, nor do I know who it is. He/she may be sincere, but it's rather extreme.
Seven pages! :box:
-
To all the smart asses:
https://youtu.be/DFa-IymyWHM
Please explain how effects seen in this video can be replicated or are false?
Let me guess...they edited the video in the 70s?
Especially around 20 min mark...and charging a capacitor from a light bulb on a single wire tranmission line...
Everyone is a crackpot right?
-
I have watched that entire one hour film at half speed, and at the time you mention, you can very clearly see Bugs Bunny in a corner, with a batteriser!
It's solved. Stop now, please.
-
Its solved! Care to share the solution lol....how is anything shown in that video conventional or not new? Someone please show me a light bulb charging a capacitor when running off a single wire transmission line
-
I knew Dollard would be brought up.
Don't get me wrong, he is not an idiot, but he can play anyone very credibly for food/booze/drugs and a place to stay. He is so successful at this, that people fight over him all the time. They tried to make a lab for him and he always self sabotages the plans and moves on to the next group that will help.
Any money thrown in his direction eventually disappears, he is a professional and very smart homeless person that pretty much doesn't mind just sleeping in the bushes as he puts it.
Very interesting person.
Edit: Tell you what, if you contact him and offer him food and a place to stay with some disposable income for his other needs, he'll gladly talk to you all about his whole life experiences.
Maybe you should start with that and get Eric to move with you.
-
"show me a light bulb charging a capacitor when running off a single wire transmission line"
That has been done billions of times, at less than a dollar each, in the 1990s. Google cell phone ring flasher. It is essentially a crystal radio consisting of a coil plus a led. They were the rage then.
-
Yes, he is interesting.
...and all the Tesla experiments he did were real...very real.
He is homeless yes and has had a very difficult life...but his experience in RF engineering is unmatched and legit
Please do not just tell me of it...show it...links please...not anecdotes
The charging of the capacitor by light from a regular lightbulb running on impulse currents...this is not photoelectric effect
-
Yes, he is interesting.
...and all the Tesla experiments he did were real...very real.
He is homeless yes and has had a very difficult life...but his experience in RF engineering is unmatched and legit
Please do not just tell me of it...show it...links please...not anecdotes
The charging of the capacitor by light from a regular lightbulb running on impulse currents...this is not photoelectric effect
What can I say, even Lindemann and Tom Brown gave up on him, (Edit: And they do care a lot about him but he is beyond help), he has always been an expert manipulator and refined his story many times.
Like I said, get Eric, he is cheap to get, just expensive to keep :)
-
Not sure why you keep referring to the person. I am interested in the experiments shown on video. My question is....can anyone replicate this with conventional means? How do you explain it using conventional theory? Can you show me videos of similar experiments or papers on them???? Thanks.
-
Obviously none of you read any of Tesla Radiant energy patents or real Tesla Magnifying Transmitters
btw...still have yet to hear a case against Jim Murray SERPS or Coral Castle Ed Leeskanlin
Ill put my knowledge of physics up with anyones in this forum.
All the rebuttals I get are...."oh thats so abstract i doubt anyone understands it"
So Ed Leeskanlin was a crank too? Even all the books and notes he wrote on magnetism?
Ok so he moved and spun rocks with a lever and the power of a single man....so how did he cut them and transport them? Im guessing you guys think the ancient pyramids were built with levers and brute force pushing too :-DD
https://youtu.be/9ckpQW9sdUg
I can't see why not-----Medieval Cathedrals,which were enormous undertakings,were built in historical times,using just such methods.
Even in fairly recent times,some massive infrastructure was built that way.
The Goldfields Water Scheme in Western Australia was built in the late 1800s.
There was some use of steam powered cranes,but a huge component of the work was done with "levers & brute pushing".
Were the Ancient Egyptians wimpier than 1890s Australians?
-
You compare a cathedral with a pyramid?
What about the fact Ed Leeskalin was a lone man....not an easy feat no matter how many levers you got...
and to cut out and transport the coral???
My main interest is in the video of Eric Dollard's experiment. Please someone comment on how this can be easily done with conventional means
https://youtu.be/DFa-IymyWHM
-
Its solved! Care to share the solution lol....how is anything shown in that video conventional or not new? Someone please show me a light bulb charging a capacitor when running off a single wire transmission line
I'll show you a whole frickin' house running off one wire. It's well understood and practical for long runs. It's oo expensive to do for every house (cost of bulky step down transformer etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-wire_earth_return
As for Faraday and 'tube's of field' - it was how this might smart man conceptualised fields *without* the knowledge of higher level maths that Maxwell was able to use to derive his equations.
You know, with things like integrals that resolve the discrete steps into infinitely small steps.
-
ok SWER is known....so when you plug in a light bulb (regular) does it charge capacitors from afar??? What about the light creating a pressure and attracting the metal tape when switched on???
-
Solar and wind energy, after you acquire the equipment, is free as long as the natural phenomenon exists...
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
-
Obviously none of you read any of Tesla Radiant energy patents or real Tesla Magnifying Transmitters
btw...still have yet to hear a case against Jim Murray SERPS or Coral Castle Ed Leeskanlin
Ill put my knowledge of physics up with anyones in this forum.
All the rebuttals I get are...."oh thats so abstract i doubt anyone understands it"
So Ed Leeskanlin was a crank too? Even all the books and notes he wrote on magnetism?
Ok so he moved and spun rocks with a lever and the power of a single man....so how did he cut them and transport them? Im guessing you guys think the ancient pyramids were built with levers and brute force pushing too :-DD
CP Steinmetz knew the magnetic field lines were real. He invented the phasor method, I hope you think he was legit, you use all his methods when analyzing AC.
To quote, ''Unfortunately, to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro- static charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.''
Steinmetz continues, ''There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday's representation of the magnetic field by lines of force."
Watch this video....is the metal conductors really have charge on their surface or is the charge stored in the field?
https://youtu.be/9ckpQW9sdUg
The field lines have a physical reality...an eletric or magnetic field is an ether process...they ate stress conditions of the ether....even Faraday believed and first relayed the tubes of force idea
What's even your point with the Whimshurst machine? Insulators store charge - yep.
Party trick - rub a balloon on a kids hair, show them how it attracts their hair, show them that the charge can make the balloon stick to ceiling. Insulators hold charge, no mystery there.
The demo is cool though.
-
Solar and wind energy, after you acquire the equipment, is free as long as the natural phenomenon exists...
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Nuclear (fusion!) power FTW!!
-
Insulators store charge...yep...
so why do we teach when a capacitor is charged...the charges accumulate on the surface of the metal...this is incorrect please look at Steinmetz quote..
and I am still interested to hear a conventional explanation of a the light bulb charging a capacitor from afar and have metal tape attracted to it when switched on...
btw, cold fusion FTW....cheaper too
-
You compare a cathedral with a pyramid?
What about the fact Ed Leeskalin was a lone man....not an easy feat no matter how many levers you got...
and to cut out and transport the coral???
My main interest is in the video of Eric Dollard's experiment. Please someone comment on how this can be easily done with conventional means
https://youtu.be/DFa-IymyWHM
Cathedrals are very large,and hundreds were built.
OK,if you don't like that,how about the Parthenon,or the Coliseum,or Roman viaducts,The Great Wall of China?
If the ancient Egyptians had access to such great sources of power,how come we aren't all part of the Egyptian Empire?
Where are their Moonbases?
And as for Leeskalin,just about every country has one of these eccentrics who builds quite huge stuctures.
Single-mindedness & application will do it every time!
-
Insulators store charge...yep...
so why do we teach when a capacitor is charged...the charges accumulate on the surface of the metal...this is incorrect please look at Steinmetz quote..
and I am still interested to hear a conventional explanation of a the light bulb charging a capacitor from afar and have metal tape attracted to it when switched on...
btw, cold fusion FTW....cheaper too
This explains where the charge goes when the metal is removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPXv063O5B8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPXv063O5B8)
-
Deco56:
Any particular reason why you avoid to answer my question? Or just the usual FE bullshit?
Greetings,
Chris
-
so why do we teach when a capacitor is charged...the charges accumulate on the surface of the metal
What's this "we" you are talking about? You might teach that, because in your ignorance you know no better. But informed people know more about the subject and understand better what is going on.
-
so why do we teach when a capacitor is charged...the charges accumulate on the surface of the metal
What's this "we" you are talking about? You might teach that, because in your ignorance you know no better. But informed people know more about the subject and understand better what is going on.
Unlike a resistor, an ideal capacitor does not dissipate energy. Instead, a capacitor stores energy in the form of an electrostatic field between its plates.
When there is a potential difference across the conductors (e.g., when a capacitor is attached across a battery), an electric field develops across the dielectric, causing positive charge +Q to collect on one plate and negative charge ?Q to collect on the other plate.
Thats from wiki....it says right there...they insist a positive and negative charge accumulating on the plates...so....I guess they do teach it like that...please refer to Steinmetz quote. Even your friends video used charge accumulation on plates to explain...the explanation was so backwards...the charge is never on the surface of the plates...its all contained in the electrostatic field stored by the dielectric
Still waiting on response to experiments posted above...multiple times
-
Gee have you not read my response? the charge goes into the dielectric. :palm:
sorry guys I am a high school drop out may be not up to PHD standards but I think I get it.
I do have an AA degree.
-
so....I guess they do teach it like that
Nice deflection there, changing "we" into "they" ;)
-
Okay, so why do so many texts and wiki refer to charge accumulating on plates...it is stored only in the electrostatic field by dieletric...there is no charge accumulation on plates....as multiple references suggest
-
Okay, so why do so many texts and wiki refer to charge accumulating on plates...it is stored only in the electrostatic field by dieletric...there is no charge accumulation on plates....as multiple references suggest
Before you lead us to speculate textbooks, may I ask you to post your BS Physics diploma and transcript?
Post my personal information on a open forum? :-DD
-
Still waiting for a response on the Dollard videos...very interesting experiments
Please someone explain those with conventional circuit theory...not the single wire part...the light bulb effects
-
..the charge is never on the surface of the plates...its all contained in the electrostatic field stored by the
Um, nope. The stored charge is the source of the field. Small difference in wording, massive practical implication.
-
..the charge is never on the surface of the plates...its all contained in the electrostatic field stored by the
Um, nope. The stored charge is the source of the field. Small difference in wording, massive practical implication.
The stored charge are the source...so the charges are electrons right...so where are they...on the surface of conductor or in the insulator?
-
To all the smart asses:
https://youtu.be/DFa-IymyWHM (https://youtu.be/DFa-IymyWHM)
Please explain how effects seen in this video can be replicated or are false?
Let me guess...they edited the video in the 70s?
Especially around 20 min mark...and charging a capacitor from a light bulb on a single wire tranmission line...
Everyone is a crackpot right?
:palm:
Dollard believes the Sun is hollow. Lindeman believes that stars are invisible in outer space. They each believe so much BS that it's a wonder they can even use a computer (which device, by the way, falsifies much of what they claim to be true.) They both take ordinary electrical and electronic phenomena and couch them in streams of gobbledegook "explanations" which mystify and bamboozle their target audience... which is made up of gullible undereducated but hopeful individuals with more dollars than sense.
Here, smartass crackpot, explain this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1UpX0-Q00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1UpX0-Q00)
And before you talk about what is "obvious" about your critics ... I reproduced my first project from a Tesla patent (a thermomagnetic motor) when I was 12 years old and won my school's science fair blue ribbon for it. I've read all of Tesla's published work, many of his patents, most of the third-person biographies and I've been building Tesla coils for many years. Here's a sample, a 24 volt DC powered hybrid SS-SG coil:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIZClhoU2Xk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIZClhoU2Xk)
I find your insults amusing, since you _obviously_ can't hold a candle to the _real_ theoretical and practical knowledge of the posters on this forum. And evidently I know a lot more about the "free energy" area of research and experimentation than you do. Leedskalnin! Dollard! Bedini! Bearden! Your heroes are ignoramuses and scammers, who have never made a single excess Joule of "free energy" but who have sucked up lots of creative energy, time and money that should have been better spent doing real creative work in other areas.
You don't think charge accumulates on metal surfaces? Explain please how a Van de Graaff generator works, then. I'm sure that will be very amusing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aP7sk48jw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-aP7sk48jw)
Leedskalnin! HOOT ! :-DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2SmmSD0afg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2SmmSD0afg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ8n_HU0vP0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ8n_HU0vP0)
-
Post my personal information on a open forum? :-DD
May I challenge you to do so?
All projects I uploaded to this forum has copyright block that has my name and email address on it.
I prefer not to post certain personal information for privacy reasons...
-
May I challenge you to do so?
All projects I uploaded to this forum has copyright block that has my name and email address on it.
I don't see any academic work on free energy, just for-pay energy.
Free energy is clearly not your area of expertise.
-
Again for privacy reasons, and other reasons, I will not be doing that...and it doesn't add to the discussion either...
-
Pressing for information which can easily be considered personal to be published on a publicly accessible forum is not grounds for criticism - and I believe any such demand be abandoned.
What one person may provide about any personally identifiable information is not for others to decide.
Move on. There is plenty of other material to work with here.
-
..."Again for privacy reasons, and other reasons, I will not be doing that...and it doesn't add to the discussion either..."
If it doesn't add to the conversaion, why did you bring up you education / diploma in the first place?
You certainly didn't do so then for privacy reasons then. If so, how did privacy suddenly become a concern of yours now?
Throughout this discussion, you have been consistently inconsistent.
-
guys, why are you even feeding this monster BS or are you just after entertainment value..... :-DD which it is....
-
Maybe it's something like - Feed the trolls. See if they choke.
-
In the mid 1980s there was a guy in Germany with the name of Sven Mielord and he wrote a (very expensive) book on "free energy". (Probably made a lot of profit of the book sales). It was a hype in those days in Germany and lots of people were talking about this.
One of my really good professors got so fed up with this, he played out a hoax and announced that the University under his leadership has found the key to free energy and wants to demonstrate it in the physics department to everyone. The invitation went out to all these free energy nuts, including Sven Mielord and 4 weeks later we had this event going on and a huge lecture hall was filled with people. I was the assistant to this professor for this evening. Even some newspaper people showed up and we had some real fun. The invitation said "to bring your own device" ...
If I remember right, we showed anti gravity, high voltage being produced out of "nothingness" from a rotating belt and wireless transmission and all that good stuff.
Well, all these free energy nuts that came from all over Germany, were so disappointed.
But we had so much fun with them.
Then everyone got an opportunity to show their own "device" and within minutes, everything was debunked.
I took some pictures, if I find them, I will scan post them here for entertainment purpose.
There was also a newspaper article written, may be its online by now, I have to look.
The world of free energy in Germany was differently after this event.
-
Back to the science of this subject....
There is good German summary here:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Psychose.html (http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Psychose.html)
Raumenergie – eine wissenschaftliche Massenpsychose! -
Translated:
Space Energy - a scientific mass psychoses
For those of you who speak German, this is a nice reading.
In the article it even says, that Sven Mielord after years of traveling, never found a working machine and was very disappointed.
-
In the article it even says, that Sven Mielord after years of traveling, never found a working machine and was very disappointed.
Shocker!!, who would have thought.....
-
Pressing for information which can easily be considered personal to be published on a publicly accessible forum is not grounds for criticism - and I believe any such demand be abandoned.
What one person may provide about any personally identifiable information is not for others to decide.
Move on. There is plenty of other material to work with here.
Nope, sorry, wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this case, the extraordinary claim is that the OP graduated from high school, let alone college! This isn't meant as an ad hominem either. I'd be genuinely shocked if the OP actually has any type of engineering or science degree, at least one that didn't come in the mail.
Not that you need a college degree to be educated, mind you. There's quite a lot of brilliant people who never set foot on a campus. (Though, for people who design jumbo jets, nuclear reactors and cut into other human's bodies, I'd say a real degree is a requirement.)
Someone else mentioned this earlier, but it's so true: People like this are wired for intelligence. Unfortunately, they don't have the right education, so they latch on to things like free energy, because it seems to make sense. This is also why they latch onto conspiracy theories so easily.
Now, the other answer is our friend here does genuinely have the degrees he's claiming he has, but has a mental illness, such as a Schizoaffective disorder, which-incidentally-also entails strong beliefs in things like free energy and global conspiracies, especially when mixed with a background like he claims to have. (People with non-science backgrounds are more likely to have religious based delusions, I.e., God is talking to them or they're an angel/demon.)
Personally, if I didn't know any better I'd go with Mental Illness in the OP's case. But maybe I'm biased, I do have a Masters in Psychology after all. ;)
-
Pressing for information which can easily be considered personal to be published on a publicly accessible forum is not grounds for criticism - and I believe any such demand be abandoned.
What one person may provide about any personally identifiable information is not for others to decide.
Move on. There is plenty of other material to work with here.
Personally, if I didn't know any better I'd go with Mental Illness in the OP's case. But maybe I'm biased, I do have a Masters in Psychology after all. ;)
Chuckle, proof, proof!!!
-
Pressing for information which can easily be considered personal to be published on a publicly accessible forum is not grounds for criticism - and I believe any such demand be abandoned.
What one person may provide about any personally identifiable information is not for others to decide.
Move on. There is plenty of other material to work with here.
Personally, if I didn't know any better I'd go with Mental Illness in the OP's case. But maybe I'm biased, I do have a Masters in Psychology after all. ;)
Chuckle, proof, proof!!!
Hang on, let me just whip out Photoshop and figure out which college has the most prestigious Psychology program...
(Seriously though, having the OP actually post a picture of his degree is pretty pointless as we have no way of verifying it's actually his. Even if he holds up a newspaper and a copy of his Driver's License we have no way to actually verify he didn't just print it out or photoshop it in. Short of social engineering someone at the college which is way more work than I'm willing to put in; the OP's not getting any free energy out of me!)
-
"You rotten swine,you have deaded me!"
I suspect there about 4 people alive who get that reference, you and I being two of them :-DD
Ying Tong ;)
-
yes, totally pointless just like free energy arguments.... but i'm enjoying the lunacy....
-
iddle I po...
-
I'm feeling a new as yet undiscovered free energy force sucking me into the quantum vacuum as I write..... :scared:
-
You do realise that there probably isn't a single person on this forum who wouldn't love a truly "free" energy source, no matter how (reasonably) sceptical they are being, yes?
And about vacuum energy or virtual particles, how would you actually get any work out of a phenomena that pretty much instantly cancels itself out due to any energy or particles that are produced being equal and opposite? I thought -1+1==0, or do you have evidence of an imperfect symmetry in these things no one else has yet?
Yes, the idea that a vacuum contains energy is plausible but it doesn't mean it can do work for nothing. After all, it's not energy which does work but the difference in energy levels.
-
Ok, you guys seem to be stuck on my degrees alot. Let me know when you are done with that and would like to comment on the Dollard experiments....Im still waiting guys....lol
fyi, I dont care if you believe if I have the degrees or not....but keep going with the ad hominum attacks....but whatever floats your boat...
-
"
fyi, I dont care if you believe if I have the degrees or not"
Actually, no one cares about your bigdiploma until you brought it up to enhance your argument.
After that, it is only fair that people challenge you onthat.
You brought this into yourself.
-
Ok, you guys seem to be stuck on my degrees alot. Let me know when you are done with that and would like to comment on the Dollard experiments....Im still waiting guys....lol
fyi, I dont care if you believe if I have the degrees or not....but keep going with the ad hominum attacks....but whatever floats your boat...
I don't give a flying flimp about your degrees or not, and I don't want you to show any personally identifiable information on the internet.
But I DO want you to acknowledge the things I've posted.
Leedskalnin himself, hoisting heavy blocks with a chain hoist, on film. Fake, or not?
A 24 VDC hybrid SS-SG Tesla coil producing 7 inch heavy arcs... designed and built by a goon, ignorant of Tesla's works... or not?
An incandescent lightbulb, high frequency, powered wirelessly _under water_ ... putting Dollard's "experiments" to shame.... A "smart ass" fake, or not?
An electrostatic motor "defying gravity", powered by a miniature VDG machine, using metal spheres and plates as charge storage and carriers NOT dielectrics.... Fake, or not?
I've got more, if that's not enough. MY credentials are established by my published work. Yours.... :-//
-
I have only sampled this thread so may have missed something important ;).
The OP reminds me a great deal of a colleague who was a proponent of harnessing Coriolis force to power the world. A little bit of understanding is far more dangerous than no understanding. It leads the partially informed person to think he knows more than he does, and tempts others to think that further training is possible.
-
and tempts others to think that further training is possible.
I'm constantly reminded here how difficult it is to explain even how to get a LM317 to work.
-
Energy is free alright but the problem is it cost so much to get it!
Gooood! Where are you? Have you abandoned us since the Random Number Generators, FTDI gate2.0, Sigilent customer reply, etc, etc threads , have you God!?
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
The OP reminds me a great deal of a colleague who was a proponent of harnessing Coriolis force to power the world. A little bit of understanding is far more dangerous than no understanding. It leads the partially informed person to think he knows more than he does, and tempts others to think that further training is possible.
There have been many sensible comments from people on this thread, this is one of them. Alas, access to the internet means people can find specifics, buzzwords, and latch onto them, and warp them to their own gain - knowing 'just enough' to seem credible to the misinformed and dangerous those who know even less, but more willing to experiment.
-
Ok, hope you guys got all the degree comments out...
No I dont see Leeskalin using a lever...not does it explain how he cut the coral and transported it...
The other videos I have seen something similar....I have an idea how they might be done...maybe you could explain the water one, might be helpful, might be fake...its not too shocking though...I have see similar things with Tesla hairpin circuit...HFHV
or something like this: http://youtu.be/JA3Y6KBwXe4 (http://youtu.be/JA3Y6KBwXe4)
BUT....Im still waiting for the explanation for dollards video....once you guys are done with the ad hominum attacks...which I get the sense you are not done with those :-DD
Ahhh...how negative, skeptical and defensive you all are....I wonder why....lol
Please comment on how the Dollard experiments are explained using conventional theory.
-
Why are you so focused on YouTube videos?
Can we get a description of a setup, so we could try to replicate it?
-
Why are you so focused on YouTube videos?
Can we get a description of a setup, so we could try to replicate it?
I can tell you did not watch the video, because the set up is described therein....
-
Can we get a description of a setup, so we could try to replicate it?
This thread about free energy overturnity machines , you are not supposed to even ask such a question!
-
It leads the partially informed person to think he knows more than he does.
It's a well recognised phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
-
It leads the partially informed person to think he knows more than he does.
It's a well recognised phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Ok...more personal attacks and insults...when you guys are done, I'd like some explanations with Dollards experiments....which I have asked for at least four times now, with no avail. Even the set up is given to you in the video....
Any more ad hominum attacks or does someone want to discuss the experiments shown? :-DD
-
There is only one experiment you shown of Dollard and has nothing to do with free energy.
As in explanation, well it's complicated but you can lookup Schumann resonances as in why Tesla though there was a virtual ground.
But it doesn't produce energy out of nothing, since you actually can see he can turn off the device if he takes the power off. Actually Dollard's experiment it doesn't use earth as the ground, but the return line is clearly there, so it's just a transmitter and a receiver connected to each other by a common ground. just a radio.
So probably that's why you didn't get a response, because is totally irrelevant.
-
I never claimed Dollards experiments were showing free energy...
I asked someone to explain the light bulb charing up a capacitor from a distance and how the metal tape is attracted to the light...
Again, it does not show free energy and I never claimed it did...I said you can not explain the above effects with conventional theory...leading to my argument that we do not know it all...we are still in our infancy in science, so please dont be negative and assume everything is impossible just because it hasnt been done before...
AGAIN...Im not claiming the video shows free energy...but it does show something interesting
Will you not admit that the effect is at least interesting and not well understood????
-
Again, it does not show free energy and I never claimed it did...I said you can not explain the above effects with conventional theory...
leading to my argument that we do not know it all...
Oh my, :palm:
leading to your argument that you do not know it all...
-
It leads the partially informed person to think he knows more than he does.
It's a well recognised phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Ok...more personal attacks and insults...when you guys are done, I'd like some explanations with Dollards experiments....which I have asked for at least four times now, with no avail. Even the set up is given to you in the video....
Any more ad hominum attacks or does someone want to discuss the experiments shown? :-DD
These aren't ad hominem attacks. As I stated in my comment about your degree, these are general facts about people who believe in free energy. I.e., Some know just enough to think they know everything, some just don't have the education needed, some have a mental illness... We're simply speculating on the underlying causes of your flawed belief system.
If I were to say you were a registered sex offender, *that* would be an ad hominem attack. But nobody is saying that.
As for the reason nobody is answering your questions; try not posting multiple hour long videos. Nobody here is going to waste hours of their life watching videos (which can easily be faked or manipulated) just to try and change your mind, which is clearly already made up and not capable of accepting the facts as presented to you. Every time we debunk something, you never respond and instead post a new crazy theory or video.
If you really want us to respond then summarize the videos to us in technical terms with an explanation of what the device does, how it works and possibly how it can be recreated. Preferably with schematics and pictures. You do that and then we'll talk.
Just as an aside, you keep talking about "The Ether" and how we can get energy from it. I hate to disappoint you, but I've personally been to the Aetheral Plane before (DMT, it's a hell of a drug) and there's no free energy there. It's actually created by clockwork mechanisms that are made out of prismatic fractals. Pan-dimensional beings made of pure light and shadow run the whole operation (at least that's how we see them, as were not able to comprehend their true form in the context of our universe). It's actually pretty involved and complex.
You see, our universe is just a simulation created by them, and being a simulation there are rules, of which our quantum mechanics are pretty close to describing. One rule that can't be broken is conservation of energy. If it could be broken, the "computer" the simulation runs on would go into an infinite loop and The Universe would essentially BSoD. You ever have Deja Vu? Yup, that's the simulation resetting (the one thing The Matrix actually got right).
So I'm sorry, but free energy just isn't possible. If you don't believe me, grab some Dimethyltryptamine (or Ayahuasca if you're afraid of needles) and ask for yourself.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160205/4624457fd5953800566ecc45fa9ff56b.jpg)
-
Well, build it yourself, it's just AC at very high frequency oscillating via a big capacitor via a 2 turn primary and a pancake coil as the secondary hooked to an antenna. Then get an SDR dongle and look at the radio waves transmitted and monitor the return path with a scope and spectrum analyzer.
Then report back.
I don't have that setup to work on RF so I'm not going to do it and I don't want to build a radio, You do it since you are the one interested on it.
-
The answer is 42.
-
Its funny when I present a coherent video that includes all details and info...people say they wont waste their time looking at it. Or that I should build it by myself. No one can explain it using conventional theories, yet no one wants to even admit it is a very interesting experiment, with no mention of free energy.
I do not have the equipment or funds to replicate this...I have built Tesla coils for communication experiments when I had access to a lab
-
Or that I should build it by myself. No one can explain it using conventional theories, yet no one wants to even admit it is a very interesting experiment,
Yes it is interesting experiment.
However, seemingly because you probably are M.Eng and almost PhD in BS science, you are too stubborn or lazy to spend a few minutes to find and then read the information which explains it with "conventional theories".
-
Ahhh...how negative, skeptical and defensive you all are....I wonder why....lol
And what's wrong with being skeptical? That's a good thing.
Not to mention when there is very good evidence as to why people should be skeptical about over-unity / free energy claims. i.e. in hundreds of years, not a single person has been able to show one working and have others repeat it using proper engineering methods.
And BTW, don't confuse skepticism for negativity and defensiveness for no reason.
Please comment on how the Dollard experiments are explained using conventional theory.
No, you are the one who has to explain why they work at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You can keep asking all you want, but the onus is on you to explain, not us to debunk it.
-
Ok, I did look at the first experiment more in detail and it's not a radio after all.
So let me take a stab at Dollard's first experiment, you are going to be disappointed though.
So you have a primary coil that you feed a high frequency AC signal to it. This is the one with just two turns with a capacitor in between in parallel.
The secondary coil (what they call resonant coil) is just that a secondary coil that couples to the primary coil via induction, nothing extraordinary so far.
On the receiving end you have the same setup but reversed, the primary coil that "receives" the energy is the one with a lot of turns, then you get a shorter secondary coil with just two turns attached to the light bulb with a capacitor in parallel as well.
The secondary coil of the transmitter is wired to the primary of the receiver via a single wire. Both of them terminated with a discharge neon Argon lamp.
So apparently the neonArgon lamp is an antena transmitting power via the aether and returning via that wire, via a virtual ground right? That's what Tesla mentioned anyways, so must be true. Actually he probably didn't mention it at all, it was the Tesla followers that were trying to figure out how that would work.
Well, the neonArgon lamps (or the big metal ball on Tesla's patent) is not an transmitting or receiving antena. It's in there to prevent corona discharge and avoid reflections on the single wire transmission line. No virtual ground I'm afraid, they are just terminators as you will use when transmitting anything via a wire you have to match the impedance at both ends.
So the way to visualize how this works is the same as if the secondary of the transmitter and the primary of the receiver was the same coil but extended and properly terminated at both ends.
Then the propagating magnetic and electric fields will reach the other end and the power is then extracted by the receiver secondary coil.
It's pretty simple and very inefficient because of skin effect loss on the transmission line.
And there you have it. no magic not virtual ground and the skin effect of the earth as a transmission line wouldn't allow this to work as he though it would without big losses of power.
And I'm not an EE but it's pretty simple if you really look at it in detail.
Satisfied now?
Edit: TL;DR It's just a transformer with two taps using the secondary (edit: or center tap) properly terminated as the transmission line. No magic to be found.
Edit2: Said neon lamp, it was an Argon lamp.
-
Wait for it ......
-
And BTW, don't confuse skepticism for negativity and defensiveness for no reason.
This is a big problem for a lot of people. They cannot distinguish the two.
-
The funny thing is that I think Tesla knew all of this all along and because the jet-set (well, they didn't have jets back then, I think they were called socialites) was all mesmerized with his work and they would invite them to dinner and social events then Tesla turned into an entertainer of shorts to keep the hype about him.
So he devised this "apparatus" in a geometry such that people would think the energy was transmitted by the aether or whatever he called it and returned through the ground.
The problem was that the ground on those small scale models was not really referenced to ground at all, they where indeed the transmission line. Then he probably got the notion of building big to make the earth ground be the transmission line, but for that to happen he would have need to go even bigger than that big tower.
If he actually was successful in putting enough energy being carried though the earth crust (which of course he wouldn't be able to achieve) then anything on that path would become a load if you happened to couple with the electro magnetic field bellow you, pretty much ruining your day.
But I can see why he became the showman that he ended up being, hey, we all like to be pampered specially after getting a taste of it.
Anyway, it's just plain induction at work, the rest of Dollard's experiments are just variations of the theme.
-
Im glad to hear no one thinks those experiments are fake. I encourage further research by all.
I know the set up is a tesla transformer...two of them with a common single wire ground
Still no one has explained how the light bulb attracts the metal tape or how the light bulb charges the capacitor from a distance...
Insult Tesla all you want, he was a prolific inventor...do not try to disdain his lifes work...makes you look stupid
I cannot explain it using conventional theories, so nothing I say can satisfy any of you...
I challenge any of you to explain it conventionally
-
Im glad to hear no one thinks those experiments are fake. I encourage further research by all.
I know the set up is a tesla transformer...two of them with a common single wire ground
Still no one has explained how the light bulb attracts the metal tape or how the light bulb charges the capacitor from a distance...
Insult Tesla all you want, he was a prolific inventor...do not try to disdain his lifes work...makes you look stupid
Is not a single wire ground since it's not grounded!
I'm not insulting Tesla, I would have done the same :)
And I'm definitely not disdaining his life's work, after all he got all the way up there as a celebrity nonetheless because of his brilliance.
As for the rest of the experiments, well I have other things to do so I only did the first part, because it's a long video. Cue me to the timeline in the video and I'll take a look.
Edit: you can experiment with it too, no one else needs to do this because you say so, you just need a transformer with two taps and a center tap terminated to see what is going on. Nothing special at all.
You don't even need the transformer, Learn LTSpice (free) and experiment all you want.
Edit to your Edit:
I cannot explain it using conventional theories, so nothing I say can satisfy any of you...
I challenge any of you to explain it conventionally
But I did explain it conventionally for at least the first 4 or so "experiments"
-
Ahhh...how negative, skeptical and defensive you all are....I wonder why....lol
And what's wrong with being skeptical? That's a good thing.
Not to mention when there is very good evidence as to why people should be skeptical about over-unity / free energy claims. i.e. in hundreds of years, not a single person has been able to show one working and have others repeat it using proper engineering methods.
And BTW, don't confuse skepticism for negativity and defensiveness for no reason.
Please comment on how the Dollard experiments are explained using conventional theory.
No, you are the one who has to explain why they work at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You can keep asking all you want, but the onus is on you to explain, not us to debunk it.
If thats true, then why did you make a YouTube video debunking a fake free energy circuit? Debunk when its easy to do so?
You guys cant wait to see a set up and demo to debunk...but then when its given somehow for this particular case the onus is on me to explain it to your satisfaction
-
Like I said I do not have the equipment to do these experiments....basically no equipment...no caps or coils or power source or the specialized parts outlined in the video....I will work towards building a basic lab...
and a computer simulation is no substitute for real experiments
-
Like I said I do not have the equipment to do these experiments....basically no equipment...no caps or coils or power source or the specialized parts outlined in the video....I will work towards building a basic lab...
and a computer simulation is no substitute for real experiments
.... so how do you know you haven't been deceived?
-
I know the set up is a tesla transformer...two of them with a common single wire ground
Hmm, just picked up on this, if you knew, then why are you asking about it? of course you know now because of the explanation given.
But all of the sudden you already knew it? bollocks! :-DD
I'm done because even if me or anyone else puts the effort to explain the rest, you are going to say that you already knew about it.
:bullshit:
-
If thats true, then why did you make a YouTube video debunking a fake free energy circuit? Debunk when its easy to do so?
You guys cant wait to see a set up and demo to debunk...but then when its given somehow for this particular case the onus is on me to explain it to your satisfaction
[/quote]
Why debunk free energy? Because regardless of whether there is such a thing or not, there is hard evidence that there are large numbers of Charletons who are trying to swindle people. Is there some possible collateral damage to some fantastic new approach that has real value? Yes, of course there is. But there is little real evidence that such a thing exists. And a great deal of evidence that cheaters exist in droves. I have personally and directly encountered nearly a half dozen myself, starting with a gentleman at the gas station near where I lived at the time who was trying to make a free energy automobile. It wasn't really free energy as he was filling his air tanks from the station pump (this was back when air was free at gas stations in the US). It wasn't practical because the amount of energy you can store in a few liters of compressed air at 125 psi is laughably small and his car could just about cross the few meters of the parking lot before it needed a recharge. It didn't stop him from attempting to sell his "free energy" car invention, and didn't stop him from proclaiming that big oil was suppressing his invention to keep their monopoly.
As others have asked, what is it that you want from this forum? Adulation? Assistance in pursuing one of these concepts? Why do you persist in complaining about people who have explained why they aren't interested in participating in YOUR dream. If it turns out that you are right you will share the glory with fewer people. If you are wrong, people who already have filled their lives with things that interest them will have not wasted any of that time on a pipe dream.
-
Free energy at the cost of the gas station air compressor, that's just priceless :)
And I agree with CatalinaWOW, you made me waste a couple of hours that I'll never get back when you could have already explain it yourself as you state now that you knew all along. Which of course I don't believe because then you would have stated so already and you wouldn't have called the single wire transmission line as being grounded, since obviously it's not.
-
Why debunk free energy? Because regardless of whether there is such a thing or not, there is hard evidence that there are large numbers of Charletons who are trying to swindle people.
That's one reason why people make the effort. Another is to try and help the understanding of those who can't see the watts for the volts.
-
I'll give up a freebie of the attraction of the copper piece. The light bulb has turns with high frequency going through the filament, therefore is pretty much an electromagnet, not a good efficient one but enough to attract that piece of copper.
The single wire without the bulb wont attract it because the field goes around the wire, so no electromagnet there.
meh, parlor tricks if you ask me. They did sell books so yeah swindlers all three of them, even to this date.
Edit: did see the capacitor as well, same thing high frequency electromagnet charging one plate, very inefficiently as well I might say.
Still parlor tricks to get money out of your wallet.
-
Ok, hope you guys got all the degree comments out...
No I dont see Leeskalin using a lever...not does it explain how he cut the coral and transported it...
The other videos I have seen something similar....I have an idea how they might be done...maybe you could explain the water one, might be helpful, might be fake...its not too shocking though...I have see similar things with Tesla hairpin circuit...HFHV
or something like this: http://youtu.be/JA3Y6KBwXe4 (http://youtu.be/JA3Y6KBwXe4)
BUT....Im still waiting for the explanation for dollards video....once you guys are done with the ad hominum attacks...which I get the sense you are not done with those :-DD
Ahhh...how negative, skeptical and defensive you all are....I wonder why....lol
Because we're all in the pay of "The Club of Rome!"---(followed by evil laughter)
-
It's ok, Dollard's video is fully debunked. :box:
-
Please comment on how the Dollard experiments are explained using conventional theory.
It's really simple, for any video you care to point towards:
A) If the video is genuine and it shows what really happened, then what happened is explained by physics and is nothing extraordinary.
B) If the video is faked, then we are wasting our time watching it and need not care.
Why do you waste your time worrying about this stuff?
-
I'll give up a freebie of the attraction of the copper piece. The light bulb has turns with high frequency going through the filament, therefore is pretty much an electromagnet, not a good efficient one but enough to attract that piece of copper.
The single wire without the bulb wont attract it because the field goes around the wire, so no electromagnet there.
meh, parlor tricks if you ask me. They did sell books so yeah swindlers all three of them, even to this date.
Edit: did see the capacitor as well, same thing high frequency electromagnet charging one plate, very inefficiently as well I might say.
Still parlor tricks to get money out of your wallet.
How does the electromagnet light bulb a copper tape? Copper is very weakly magnetic....a magnetic field wouldnt just attract the copper...and he shows its not an electrostatic effect by hooking up a wire and showing the HV does not attract the tape either...only the light bulb when run on single wire transmission...
All I want is some recognition that this experiment is interesting and worth investigating with anyone capable of replicating with the equipment I do not have access to...I obviously cant force anyone to do anything so....just trying to peak interest, damn me for that...lol. No adulation or admiration, it is not my original work...
Cheers
-
How does the electromagnet light bulb a copper tape? Copper is very weakly magnetic....a magnetic field wouldnt just attract the copper...and he shows its not an electrostatic effect by hooking up a wire and showing the HV does not attract the tape either...only the light bulb when run on single wire transmission...
All I want is some recognition that this experiment is interesting and worth investigating with anyone capable of replicating with the equipment I do not have access to...I obviously cant force anyone to do anything so....just trying to peak interest, damn me for that...lol. No adulation or admiration, it is not my original work...
Cheers
I guess you mean how does the electromagnet light bulb "attract" the copper tape?
It's just an air core electromagnet and we are not talking about huge distances, well under half an inch.
Well it has to do with the frequency, as you can see the same bulb at 60Hz AC doesn't act like an electromagnet at all.
Also the silk (I think it was) probably has something to do with that, look it up yourself.
And as I explained the single wire with high voltage high frequency doesn't act as an electromagnet at all because the magnetic field is around the wire and oriented toward the direction of the wire, that's why you need loops to make an electromagnet even an inefficient air core one.
What you want, as in recognition of the experiment being interesting, and the reality that they were trying to sell their book with parlor tricks, well you got my answer already.
Not interesting at all, just a way to get gullible people to give them money.
Is it worth reproduction, not really for me, maybe for others to look on how high voltage high frequencies need to be terminated to avoid reflections and collapse of the magnetic field due to corona discharges.
I normally only have Friday, Saturday and Sunday to work on my hobby, you took one of those days out of my weekend, you use your own time from now on. I already did spend too much for something that is not really that interesting and it's just as conventional as it can get.
-
Copper has diamagnetic...it is very poor in attracting to a magnetic field...as doesnt explain how capacitor is charged up...
Sure, nothing interesting...and J didnt take your day away from your weekend...you did it to yourself
-
Copper has diamagnetic...it is very poor in attracting to a magnetic field...as doesnt explain how capacitor is charged up...
Sure, nothing interesting...and J didnt take your day away from your weekend...you did it to yourself
Copper by itself, yeah, but it's suspended via some other material. Again, look it up.
Yeah I did it to myself out of your constant, show me, show me, show me. So I did.
You do the rest.
-
Look at "bending water" for a clue on why the copper got attracted, pretty close diamagnetic properties as copper.
Parlor tricks I tell you.
-
For some reason, seeing a light bulb light up with no apparent connection causes a particular mindset to get overly excited. I think this illustrates the adage "any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic". Given the woeful lack of public education and knowledge of science, it only takes one of these parlor tricks for some people think "wow, that must be magic! So...if magic is real, maybe we can get Free Energy ?"
Even within "conventional" science, there are many things that are quite non-intuitive or hard to understand. But the two great things about science, is that the hard work has been done for you, and you can be fairly certain it is correct because of the scientific method, which over time tends to produce results close to reality. They are often mis-steps, but they get corrected. The second great thing is that you can do a lot of the experiments yourself, and verify the science.
If you see a magician make a rabbit appear from thin air, you know there is a trick and there is no magic. Apply the same principle when watching Youtube videos....
-
If thats true, then why did you make a YouTube video debunking a fake free energy circuit? Debunk when its easy to do so?
Because:
a) Someone asked for it
b) That particular one I thought could be interesting and educational
c) It was something relatively easy and quick to setup and debunk with simple math and measurements.
If I had to go wind coils and motors and whatnot and spend a week building some elaborate setup then it's not worth my time.
You guys cant wait to see a set up and demo to debunk...but then when its given somehow for this particular case the onus is on me to explain it to your satisfaction
Correct.
You started this thread making all sorts of claims, you get to prove it.
People are not obligated to debunk your personal pet theory. In fact there is ample evidence that it would be a complete waste of their time, because it appears you are a (very typical) "true believer" who will never accept it's not possible or isn't practical etc. Yours was one of hundreds of emails I've gotten on the topic since that video, and they are all practically identical ::)
-
Like I said before:
Like I said I do not have the equipment to do these experiments....basically no equipment...no caps or coils or power source or the specialized parts outlined in the video....I will work towards building a basic lab...
and a computer simulation is no substitute for real experiments
.... so how do you know you haven't been deceived?
-
Like I said I do not have the equipment to do these experiments....basically no equipment...no caps or coils or power source or the specialized parts outlined in the video....I will work towards building a basic lab...
So you have a bunch of theories that you don't quite understand, and videos you have no way of verifying yourself, yet you want us to debunk them for you?
Kind like you walk into someone's house and saying to him: "I am the best marksman there is in the world. You go prove it."
If it makes any sense to you, go back to that school that gave you that fat diploma and ask your tuition back + penalty because you have absolutely learned nothing from them.
-
It's unreasonable to ask other people to do the work for you. Even if they have access to certain equipment , they may not have the time or the interest for variety of reasons. Obviously you are fascinated by the topic, so why not try and do some experiments of your own. You may not have all the necessary equipment to begin with, but you should be able to afford basic things like multi meters and power supplies. At least it's a start of some kind.
There's not much interest in the subject because nothing substantial ever comes out of it. Every time a "free energy" device is placed under scrutiny it turns out to be a scam or a fundamental misunderstanding of physics or engineering by the inventor. You can understand why being skeptical is a normal state of affairs, which is a good thing. That's how science works. It's been done before and thus far the topic of "free energy" is rightfully placed under pseudoscience. Maybe it will change in the future. If you claim there's more to the topic of free energy - that's great. Do the necessary work, invest time in setting up experiments and see where the results lead you.
-
Dave, thank you!
You guys all just keep proving my point...when it is easy to do you will debunk it....when its not easy...its not worth the time! :-DD
So whats the motto here Dave??? If its hard to do, its not worth doing!!! :-DD
The video gives all details....and told you I do not have the equipment....yet its still on me only to investigate and only me...
I will experiment when I have the proper equipment to do so.
I showed a video to peak interest...not to prove anything other than there is alot we all do not know...
-
Like I said I do not have the equipment to do these experiments....basically no equipment...no caps or coils or power source or the specialized parts outlined in the video....I will work towards building a basic lab...
So you have a bunch of theories that you don't quite understand, and videos you have no way of verifying yourself, yet you want us to debunk them for you?
Kind like you walk into someone's house and saying to him: "I am the best marksman there is in the world. You go prove it."
If it makes any sense to you, go back to that school that gave you that fat diploma and ask your tuition back + penalty because you have absolutely learned nothing from them.
Ok, another diploma comment and ad hominum attack. Please be more creative than re-using those lame jabs.
I am quite well versed in physics and engineering...I stuided Hamiltonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, calculus of variations, quantum theory, general relativity, microwave engineering, etc.
So yes I learned nothing lol....based on me having a different view
-
I showed a video to peak interest...not to prove anything other than there is a lot we all do not know...
You keep doing this thing where you project onto other people. Just because "there is a lot you do not know" doesn't mean it is mysterious or cannot be explained. But please don't infer the community of experts is stumped by these things.
If there was anything odd there would someone investigating it. Researchers are always looking for interesting and valuable research topics. But that's not the case. There's nothing to solve, nothing to research.
When I watch a magician doing a trick, I often do not know how it is done and it leaves me baffled. But never once do I think the trick was accomplished by magic. I know there is an ordinary explanation, even if I cannot see it.
You need to have the same mindset. Everything you see on YouTube either has an ordinary explanation, or it is faked. Those are the only two explanations. There is no unknown physics in magnetism or electricity. It was all sorted out well over 100 years ago.
-
"I stuided Hamiltonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, calculus of variations, quantum theory, general relativity, microwave engineering, etc,"
Having studied something and having understood it is quite different. You have done a really nice job demonstrating the difference between the two.
-
So everything we need to know about electricity and magnetism has been established 100 years ago? So we know everything now? There are people investigating this, any should be more quite frankly.
I understood the courses I was taking, otherwise I would not have passed them all without failing any...If you are claiming I studied and memorized without understanding, then I question if the courses are even designed for understanding. ..since I passed them...guess they dont ask enough of Physics majors :-DD
Just because I do not agree we have the entire picture figured out already. Even established theories must constantly be tested and modified to account for new experimental data. All these physics courses are heavily theorectical. Even Tesla warned of scientists delving too deep into equations.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
Nikola Tesla,
-
Maybe not everything is known. Most likely that is the case that not everything is known.
But what you have shown so far is known and demonstrable by our current understanding of physics.
-
Maybe not everything is known. Most likely that is the case that not everything is known.
Everything is known about fundamental physics at the level of experiments people can build and demonstrate on YouTube.
The unknown lies in areas that are very expensive to reach, such as the experiments conducted in places like CERN.
-
Okay, difference of opinion I suppose. I am still waiting for the conventional explanation of Dollards video if anyone has one...and no the light bulb does not attract the metal tape with magnetism.There are SEVERAL interesting effects in the whole video....
If you can demostrate someone else doing very similar effects with a single wire light bulb (attracting copper tape and charging a capacitor from a distance)...please do.
-
Maybe not everything is known. Most likely that is the case that not everything is known.
Everything is known about fundamental physics at the level of experiments people can build and demonstrate on YouTube.
The unknown lies in areas that are very expensive to reach, such as the experiments conducted in places like CERN.
Agreed, everything at our grasp is known, the unknowns are things outside of our grasp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
-
Okay, difference of opinion I suppose. I am still waiting for the conventional explanation of Dollards video if anyone has one...and no the light bulb does not attract the metal tape with magnetism.There are SEVERAL interesting effects in the whole video....
If you can demostrate demonstrate someone else doing very similar effects with a single wire light bulb (attracting copper tape and charging a capacitor from a distance)...please do.
I do not want to watch the entire BS video(s). Can you please kindly tell me which video it is, and when (mm:ss) the experiment starts?
A link will be appreciated.
If you do not want to watch the video they why ask for a link lol?
The link was posted several times, title "Longitudinal electricity with Peter Lindeman, Tom Brown and Eric Dollard."
The entire video is a set up explanation and experiments
-
Okay, difference of opinion I suppose. I am still waiting for the conventional explanation of Dollards video if anyone has one...and no the light bulb does not attract the metal tape with magnetism.There are SEVERAL interesting effects in the whole video....
If you can demostrate demonstrate someone else doing very similar effects with a single wire light bulb (attracting copper tape and charging a capacitor from a distance)...please do.
I do not want to watch the entire BS video(s). Can you please kindly tell me which video it is, and when (mm:ss) the experiment starts?
A link will be appreciated.
If you do not want to watch the video they why ask for a link lol?
The link was posted several times, title "Longitudinal electricity with Peter Lindeman, Tom Brown and Eric Dollard."
The entire video is a set up explanation and experiments
That's just the problem. Nobody has time to watch long videos just to explain to you how it works. If you really want an explanation, post a diagram of the setup and explain it in suitable detail. Screen grabs from the video would be helpful too. Also include a direct time YouTube link to when the experiment starts so we don't have to scrub through the video.
A lot of us in this forum are professional engineers and don't have time to sit around doing your work for you.
As for that particular video, my off the cuff guess is some form of electrostatic charge is being induced and that's what is pulling the copper plate. It would be helpful if we had a diagram of the setup.
-
I am still waiting for the conventional explanation of Dollards video if anyone has one...and no the light bulb does not attract the metal tape with magnetism.There are SEVERAL interesting effects in the whole video....
This is your research project. You do the research, you figure it out.
What's this "I am waiting..." attitude? That's a bit demanding, isn't it?
We have no obligation to help you. You're the confused one, not us.
If you want help, follow the advice given to homework students everywhere: make an attempt to analyze the system, show your working, explain what you think, and tell us where you get stuck. If you show that you have tried, and are not just trying to get other people to do the work for you, then you may find people more willing to help you.
-
All details including schematic set up and materials used are in the described video. I was thinking of induced electric charge too, but the load is still being run on the receiving end.
I will not time cue the video as the entire video has pertinent information. If watching that for one hour is a waste to you, fine, but isnt also watching a movie? There are alot of things that can be categorized as a waste of time, all about perspective...
I am not waiting for someone to do this for me. As I have previoisly stated I do not have the equipment to do this right now. I will work towards it. I do not have the specialized equipment shown...no 1920 capacitors for HAM radios or 1920 tesla medical coil or hydrogen spark gaps...I will work towards. I am not just waiting around for someone to do it. I am simply peaking interests....sue me.
Edit: all I said I was waiting for was a conventional explanation of the effects seen...or similar demos...not an exact replication by anyone on the forum
-
I am not suggesting you try to replicate the experiment either.
What I am proposing is that after watching the video you try to explain it for yourself. You can draw diagrams, you can propose appropriate theory, you can write equations, you can do lots of things. You have shown us none of this.
You are just sitting there, saying "Feed me!"
Well, we don't have to feed you. That's a life lesson you need to learn.
-
As for that particular video, my off the cuff guess is some form of electrostatic charge is being induced and that's what is pulling the copper plate. It would be helpful if we had a diagram of the setup.
That actually will make more sense than my electromagnet theory.
Glass gets positively charged, the copper is conductive and the masking tape gets negatively charged.
-
All details including schematic set up and materials used are in the described video.
So, pause the video and take screenshots of the schematic, setup, materials etc., do a write up and post a time queued link to when it starts to run. That would make it easy to digest and you might get an answer.
Watching a movie normally isn't a waste of time, because you're watching something entertaining that *you* want to watch. What you're doing is akin to someone's girlfriend dragging them to a sappy romantic movie that they're completely not interested in.
There is a valid answer to that video, based on known physics. We can tell you if you simply provide us with details. That's all we're asking.
-
everything at our grasp is known, the unknowns are things outside of our grasp.
Everything mankind knows is unknown to some men.
Everything mankind knows is tiny vs. the unknown.
It is likely that there exists unknowable unknowns - to borrow from Mr. Rumsfield.
-
Everytime I see the name of this thread a tune pops into my head:
Free energy's just another name for another kind of scam
Nothin' aint nothing gonna make energy for free.
....
Pseudoscience is good enough for me.
Good enough for me and my free energy.
Me and Bobby McGee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXV_QjenbDw)
-
By now, us, the fishes, have took the bait for over 200 times!
Seems you are right.
As for the video, I tried to watch it but the video quality is terrible. They could have a 6 gauge bus bar running along the table and you wouldn't be able to see it.
Also, the post production effort is painful. The first 2 minutes contain just 4 graphics and scene changes are awkwardly slow. Also, the opening line of their secret laboratory buried deep in the suburbs while standing inside a garage really gave me a chuckle.
I will admit I didn't (couldn't) make it all the way through, but there was one consistent urge I had on many occasions - and that was to say 'Stop!' ... Measure this!... Try that... Show me what happens if ........
There was just so much in the way of unaddressed questions that I could not get into what they were purporting to demonstrate and yet they just kept chugging along. Also, at no time did they make any attempt to clarify how their 'demonstration' would show the difference between transverse and longitudinal propagation.
Quite simply, it just cannot be considered a fair demonstration of anything conclusive - just a series of scenes where the uninformed will have no idea of what is actually going on - but are dazzled by it all.
Snake oil - that's all it is.
Here's a question:
Has there been any independent confirmation of these claims - by any certified organisation?
-
...
I am not waiting for someone to do this for me. As I have previoisly stated I do not have the equipment to do this right now. I will work towards it. I do not have the specialized equipment shown...no 1920 capacitors for HAM radios or 1920 tesla medical coil or hydrogen spark gaps...I will work towards. I am not just waiting around for someone to do it. I am simply peaking interests....sue me.
...
This is the bit that I really do not understand. Why in the world would you need nearly 100-year old equipment/parts to replicate the phenomenon? Even if what is demonstrated in the video is not explainable by current theory, would you not still assume that some form of general mechanism is behind these phenomena? Why then should it not be possible to replicate them with modern parts that behave identically? On the other hand, if specific properties of these parts alter the observed phenomenon, such that it can only be produced with "old" parts, but not with modern parts, then that perhaps already gives you a clue what might be going on here. Then you can test such a hypothesis by altering these variables of interest (preferably one at a time), and take careful measurements of what they do. This is how science works. Predictions based on theories are tested against careful observation/measurement in controlled experiments. This is what is completely missing in this video (and in the few others I happen to look at). There is no attempt at making a prediction based on any theory whatsoever. There is no careful manipulation of variables to measure their effect on the outcome.
Brumby summed up my exact reaction to the video as well:
...
I will admit I didn't (couldn't) make it all the way through, but there was one consistent urge I had on many occasions - and that was to say 'Stop!' ... Measure this!... Try that... Show me what happens if ........
There was just so much in the way of unaddressed questions that I could not get into what they were purporting to demonstrate and yet they just kept chugging along. Also, at no time did they make any attempt to clarify how their 'demonstration' would show the difference between transverse and longitudinal propagation.
...
-
I fully understand the appeal of this. Deep inside me I believe there is some technology that will make me 20 again and I will date a super model. I butt against reality and accept it will maybe just make me 40 again. Without that belief I couldn't go on living.
-
Free energy exists, it all comes down to the definition of it:
(Not my drawing/image)
-
I am quite well versed in physics and engineering...I stuided Hamiltonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, calculus of variations, quantum theory, general relativity, microwave engineering, etc.
So yes I learned nothing lol....based on me having a different view
Either way the OP clearly lacks verbal reasoning skills. Having put forth a claim he/she has spent the entire thread telling everyone it's up to them to prove him/her wrong despite everyone telling him/her why the onus in on him/her to prove the claim. If nothing else at least offer up a nugget of hope that might want us to warm up the soldering iron. My oh my!
If it wasn't for the entertainment value, I'd stop reading this thread and conserve my costly energy for something more worthwhile.
-
This is the bit that I really do not understand. Why in the world would you need nearly 100-year old equipment/parts to replicate the phenomenon?
My theory:
Without understanding the physics involved, if you were to attempt the experiment with modern equipment and it fails (what are the odds?) then you haven't proven anything. You must then use the original type of equipment for a genuine chance - and when that doesn't work, then there must be something wrong with the equipment "Oh, yes - the original coil had 12,500 turns and this one only has 12,350 ... that must be it."
Besides, old fashioned gear makes crackly, zappy noises - so you know something is happening. It's dramatic and scary and mysterious and ... just a 'show'.
-
I do not have the specialized equipment shown...no 1920 capacitors for HAM radios or 1920 tesla medical coil...
So your decades of training in mathematics, big fat diploma in quantum mechanics ..... tell you that you need exactly 1920 capacitors ("for HAM radios"?) to do the experiment?
You definitely deserve a refund for your degrees.
-
Dave, thank you!
You guys all just keep proving my point...when it is easy to do you will debunk it....when its not easy...its not worth the time! :-DD
So whats the motto here Dave??? If its hard to do, its not worth doing!!! :-DD
The video gives all details....and told you I do not have the equipment....yet its still on me only to investigate and only me...
I will experiment when I have the proper equipment to do so.
I showed a video to peak interest...not to prove anything other than there is alot we all do not know...
Is it finally sinking in?
-
All I want is some recognition that this experiment is interesting and worth investigating with anyone capable of replicating with the equipment I do not have access to...I obviously cant force anyone to do anything so....just trying to peak interest, damn me for that...lol. No adulation or admiration, it is not my original work...
The internet is already full of soooo much rubbish that it's not the factual resource it used to be (without being careful). Too many people get caught up with YouTube video's purporting something incredible that IMO it's just not worth the trouble to debunk because it just adds to the mess that's out there.
You have asked on a respected engineering site for some comments.......but the people you are asking are the ones that are the most likely to not want to get deeply involved.
If the subject matter was indeed fact/real/incredibly true........then it wouldn't be posted on YouTube as a first publication. People know that.
Related: Some friends of mine are caught hook line and sinker by all sorts of conspiracy theories.....mostly by way of YouTube and associated sites. It's actually changed their personalities...........I wish they'd never gotten online!
Ian.
-
Like some other threads, this one has been running circles for some time. Apparently everyone involved has a lot free energy to push it to run more circles. Maybe, the OP is better to be encouraged to privately pursue his free energy endeavor.
-
I understood the courses I was taking, otherwise I would not have passed them all without failing any...If you are claiming I studied and memorized without understanding, then I question if the courses are even designed for understanding. ..since I passed them...guess they dont ask enough of Physics majors :-DD
Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if there are students who pass some degree courses without actually understanding all of the material.
I notice some people doing this at college and decided not to continue to study to degree level as I thought it was pointless.
-
Eric Dollard Con man and general nutter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE7M7tB4_qY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE7M7tB4_qY)
If you can bear to watch the video?
-
What's really annoying is the OP's denial of actual evidence. In the videos I've posted all the answers are there, but he chooses to ignore them or seems incapable of thinking about what is shown. We see film of Leedskalnin himself lifting blocks with block-and-tackle, chain hoists and tripod frames. Modern videos of people sawing coral blocks with ordinary crosscut carpenter's saws and water lubrication. Stonemasons moving huge blocks with levers and rope. No... that film and video _evidence_ is not good enough, Leedskalnin just did that while people were watching, but when they were gone he used magic, vibrations and chanting or something. Right.
As far as the Dollard video goes... again, all the questions have been answered several times but he chooses to ignore the answers and explanations, even the demonstrations. Evidence isn't good enough... either it's faked (but Dollard's isn't :-DD ) or it is incomprehensible so not worth thinking about, or maybe he isn't even looking at the short videos I've posted, preferring to watch Dollard and Lindeman spouting gobbledegook and repeating 100-year old high-school physics lecture hall demonstration phenomena instead.
So why not... for your amusement here are a few more videos using really complicated apparatus....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeQ5WnziKBA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULDh8sTc8Kw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULDh8sTc8Kw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)
|O
-
I don't have a lab, nor the time, but I am interested in X and all of you who do have labs must do my research for me, video it and explain it, otherwise whatever you tell me is baloney, because I say so......
-
Ok some more ad hominum attacks. I wouldnt expect any less of you guys. :-DD
The video is there to peak interest in some experiments. I am not presenting a full theory here, nor does any conventional theory explain all the effects shown in the video. Just as dangerous as false free energy claims, which have been numerous, is this attitude that there is nothing really new out there, only CERN could find something new. This is a sad state of mind.
The videos and schematics are all there, yet everyone keeps commenting on my views and perspective. This is not about me, so personal attacks can only satisfy your own ego. I am merely peaking interest, and asking for a conventional explanation. So far none has been given, not even induced charge....no explanation of why the different currents cause different phenomenon as well as the several other effects.
Dave says he debunks when its easy and educational. Since this set up is not easy I guess its not worth debunking right???? :-DD
Do dont anything. Dont experiment. Dont question, I can not force you to do anything.....
but please, keep those personal attacks coming!!! :-DD
More diploma insults! I cant get enough! :-DD
Edit: the dollard con vido was posted by a scam artist who interviewed Dollard and tried to claim ownership to his intellectual material....AetherForce scam...lool up Aaron Murakamis video with Dollard explaining this...or other ones explaining that Dollard was misled byTechZombie
-
nor does any conventional theory explain all the effects shown in the video
Of course it does. What is wrong with you?
Either the effects in the video are real, in which case by definition they have a physical explanation, or they are faked, in which case there is nothing to see.
Unless you believe in magic, perhaps?
-
So its only real if we already know the physics and mechanicism behind it? Of course they have a physical explanation but do they fall under the well known conventional theories? Nothing has shown me that it is. Including no similar demos.
You ask for a setup I give it. Then the video is too long. Then the video quality isnt quite good enough. Then its realized it would take some time to do so its not worth it. Then some more personal attacks. Then demands that I should be doing this at home on my own and shouldnt even post anymore. Then its easily explained by conventional physics...and then we have all these theories established 100 years ago...then only CERN can do meaningful new experiments....etc. If there are anymore excuses I missed please add to the list!!! :-DD
-
That video is just a transformer using a single wire transmission line properly terminated.
The light bulb running at high frequency charges the light bulb glass electrostatically to positive, the copper is suspended with masking tape so it will get a negative charge and the copper is a good conductor so it will get attracted to the glass.
The capacitor can also be charged electrostatically as those big capacitors floating above our heads (clouds) do.
No mystery and no unexplained phenomena at all.
As for Dollard, he is the only one in that community that has a solid EE background and he is milking it to support his addiction. It wasn't a mere interview, he never lifted a finger after those gullible people forked the money and work to set him up with a good lab, not to steal anything because there is really nothing to steal. So Dollard as he typically does, just went along for the ride until it was time for him to move to a new enabling group. If you pay attention, he doesn't really want to build anything to prove his theories, because he knows they won't work so it's not on his interest to build anything anymore.
The only thing he replicated was just a simple transformer with a two turns primary on one end, using the central core as the transmission line and another two turns on the other end to capture attached to the bulb, which will work but with a lot of loss on the transmission line. That can't scale. Pancake bifilar coils air coils makes it a bit more efficient than your regular air core coils because the loss will only be more noticeable on the transmission line (not earth referenced by the way as proposed by Tesla)
In any event, Dollard is an addict, and I should know because I had to deal with that in my family. They are master manipulators and spend all their waking hours devising how to get more of the stuff. No matter how brilliant they are in reality the addiction takes over and they will use their tools and skills to do so. Their personality is still in there and they can convince everyone that they are fine until they squeeze you out of everything they can and move on to the next target. But he is able to just cut cords and move on until he burns all his bridges.
Edit: He is so successful at what he does, that he even gets people fighting to see who gets the Dollard.
-
Haven't you guys had enough yet? Clearly Deco56 isn't going to be satisfied until everybody agrees that he's right. Dealing with individuals like this is akin to a cat chasing it's own tail, at first it's fun, the thought that you might catch it (or in this case that you might learn something new, or be able to teach something to somebody that they previously didn't understand). Then it gets frustrating, because you're going around in circles in the hope that you'll be able to have them consider a more (logical) explanation. Then, finally, you give up because you realize that no matter how long, or how many times you try, you're not going to be able to get them to consider a differing view point. I'm not so sure that Deco56 actually came to this forum looking for answers, (surprise surprise) I feel like he's completely satisfied with whatever explanation he has in his head. Also crystal radios operate on free aether energy from the quantum vacuum... I rest my case. :palm:
-
Right, maybe, instead of, chasing OP's moving target, we should just stick to his beginning claims,
Free energy is possible, it just gets a bad rap. If you do not think so, just remember how old crystal radios use to work....no battery supply.
Let's be simple, OP, could you answer,
1). Do you still think, there is free energy involved in crystal radios?
2). Do you still think the working crystal radios can't be explained by existing theories in physics?
For the rest of us, we should ask why with all the credentials(and courses) he claimed to have, he could not understand crystal radio was fully understood by existing theories (including NO free energy and NO magic). I know you all know the answer in someway.
-
For the rest of us, we should ask why with all the credentials(and courses) he claimed to have, he could not understand crystal radio was fully understood by existing theories (including NO free energy and NO magic). I know you all know the answer in someway.
That's obvious, crystals have special powers, including detection and healing, especially the pyramid shaped ones. Ask us something less trivial.
-
In any event, Dollard is an addict, and I should know because I had to deal with that in my family. They are master manipulators and spend all their waking hours devising how to get more of the stuff. No matter how brilliant they are in reality the addiction takes over and they will use their tools and skills to do so. Their personality is still in there and they can convince everyone that they are fine until they squeeze you out of everything they can and move on to the next target. But he is able to just cut cords and move on until he burns all his bridges.
Edit: He is so successful at what he does, that he even gets people fighting to see who gets the Dollard.
This is so very true. You remember in the old Looney Tunes when Daffy Duck or whoever would have the little Angel and Devil versions of himself on his shoulder telling him what to do? Well, Addiction has them bound and gagged in the back room and takes over.
From what I've read about Dollard, you're absolutely right. He's a hardcore addict that's being enabled by people, which is the absolute worst kind as it reinforces their delusion that they're doing OK and don't have a problem.
The only way someone can get clean and stay clean is when *they* realize they really do have a problem. You can't force it (which is why court mandated rehab and such almost always fails) because addicts are masters at getting what they want and know how to game the system. (This is especially true of people who are addicted to opiates; if you've ever run out of money and had to kick cold, you'll do everything in your power to never have that happen again. It's agony.)
I've dealt with it in my extended family as well as personally, so I get it. It's a shame someone clearly as smart as Dollard is basically a hobo. But, being smart doesn't make you immune to it. You can't outthink addiction; it's an equal opportunity employer.
-
Yup,
Another skill they posses is the getting all the groups not to talk about him but fight and create dissent. That way no one is wise to what is really going on.
They fight each other and accuse each other of manipulating Dollard, when in reality, it's Dollard manipulating the whole thing.
Oldest trick in the book, but these groups are so Tesla fanatic that they can't see that, and think that the only way to bring Tesla's work back is if they can get Dollard to do it, and of course he wont.
His presentations are pretty good and the stories he has to tell are so fantastic that who wouldn't want to give him a chance?
I do like the guy and when he is on a clear mindset he can definitely deliver and put people at awe.
Fascinating really. But I feel for him because no one in that community seems to want to help the person, just want to fulfill their own agendas and in a way they are addicts as well. To a cause not a drug.
-
Yeah, Dollard organized the scam artist and a counter scam artist together so he could dwindle people out of their money....you can tell he just smokes meth all the time...especially in the video of the experiments.
So you guys went from personal attacks on me to personal attacks on Dollard? When do you get the info that he is a addict other than from Tech Zombie (Aether Force).
Ok, guys, you are right...absolutely no interesting effects in the experiment at all...same old boring stuff...or just fake.
and all the years Dollard worked as an RF engineer for RCA? Useless experience...
Thanks ....
-
What's your point, caller?
What do YOU think is going on in these videos? What are your theories, and how does any of it relate to free energy?
-
"So you guys went from personal attacks on me to personal attacks on Dollard? "
Calm down, dude.
Take a deep breath and there may be another way to look at this discussion.
You admitted that you lack the funds and specialized equipment to conduct and validate the experiments. That would suggest that you don't have empirical evidence of all the free energy things that you are talking about.
Yet, take a look at your choice forbthe title of this thread, "free energy is just a bad name" suggesting that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with free energy. The only bad thing is its messaging.
With all the degrees you have earned, does proclaiming somethings without empirical evidence sound like the scientific thing to say?
Even without those big fat diplomas of yours, does it sound the smart thing to say?
-
As for Dollard, he is the only one in that community that has a solid EE background
Perfect.
Use your knowledge to create a show of magical intrigue, based on a enigmatic figure. Then offer your own explanations (magicians use the same principle - it's called 'misdirection') inviting "Ooooo ... Aaahhh" responses from an audience of gullible wallet holders who recognise every other word and understand 1 in 10 - if they're lucky - but are ignorant of the actual physics involved. Then, to safeguard the inevitable challenges from minds that do understand what's going on (and dare to attempt to challenge the 'script') the labels and dismissives are rolled out - and these are joyously taken up by the now 'faithful' who then chant them on cue.
It's a show - definitely.
It's a con - quite possibly.
It's bullshit.
-
... but if anyone wants to continue to believe it is real, then just take the topic elsewhere.
Is that because we can't address the questions - and that we feel threatened by such exotic 'technology'?
NO.
It's because we have tried - and YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO LISTEN!
I've had enough of this. Count me out from here on in.
-
So you guys went from personal attacks on me to personal attacks on Dollard? When do you get the info that he is a addict other than from Tech Zombie (Aether Force).
I heard it from his own mouth, or are you saying they doctored the tape to make him say that.
The whole victim stories he tells is a good indication as well. I've been around addicts and I can spot them in a second.
It's not a personal attack on Dollard, I'm just sad that the people surrounding him want to use him and don't care about the person who obviously needs help.
-
...you can tell he just smokes meth all the time...especially in the video of the experiments.
Hey, you may be onto something here...
What if we installed special treadmills and bikes that have generators attached in trailer parks across the US; they would dispensed a free hit of meth for every kWH of energy produced. (We could do the same with crack cocaine in housing projects.)
Boom. I just figured out Free Energy *and* how to lower the crime rate. Top that, smart guy.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyU15-GgXnI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyU15-GgXnI)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUk2A6-DNw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwUk2A6-DNw)
-
3 Secrets About Our Sun by Eric Dollard (5 of 12)
What is surprising:
54.000 views and 425 likes
Unreal!
-
I was bored so I skimmed through this thread.
Heh, the usual yawn-tastic hand-waving nonsense. It's like the enlightenment never happened for the OP. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone could pass a degree in mathematics and fail to understand the application of force over time. It's first year calculus ffs.
Favourite moment you ask? Well if you insist. I think that'd be "your liver detoxes the body, but what detoxes you liver?!" stated in triumph as though it demonstrates anything other than the OP's failure to grasp both basic biochemistry and scientific rigour.
-
Yes, OMG!
Yes the liver detoxes your body...what detoxes your liver though?
It's clear you never did biology at school.
By the way lots of those dumb detox diets, actually increase the build-up of toxins as a result of malnutrition.
-
My impression of 'free' energy sources[1] is that we can't economically make use of the renewable energy resources we have. So a source of free energy is of no particular practical interest unless it can be engineered to compete with coal in a buildable megawatt plant. So let's at least see a several kilowatt implementation before taking it any further.
[1] Actually I'm signed up to thermodynamics so I don't think there are any. But who cares when we have the Sun on our doorstep?
-
Yes the Andreas Moritz Gallbladder and Liver cleanse is legit. You would know this if you read it...
and the Dollard video saying he smoked meth....very clearly edited and cut...totally taken out of context, shame you cant see through that or any of the lawsuits put forth against Aether Force (Tech Zombie)
Lets keep ignoring Dollards 50+ years as an RF engineer and keep slinging personal attacks! It adds so much to the comversation....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster)
Im not saying this breaks laws of physics...but to propell without carrying fuel???
Gravitec Inc. alleges that in 2011 they tested the "asymmetrical capacitor" device in a high vacuum several times and have ruled out ion wind or electrostatic....
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe)
The universe as a whole does not conserve energy...yet we are forever bound to it?
-
:=\
-
There is no such thing as free, absolutely nothing. if you see a ten dollar bill lying in the road and you bend down to pick it up, is that free No it is not, you have just put effort into picking that ten dollars up so it has already cost you.
So even if you could pull energy out of nothing you still have to spend in order to do so one way or another.
-
There is no such thing as free, absolutely nothing. if you see a ten dollar bill lying in the road and you bend down to pick it up, is that free No it is not, you have just put effort into picking that ten dollars up so it has already cost you.
So even if you could pull energy out of nothing you still have to spend in order to do so one way or another.
You bring up a good point. Take a look at the definition of work...if I move a block of 100 kg 10 meters then move it 5 meters back....I did 500 Joules of work by physics definition based on displacement, but expended 1500 Joules in absolute work....yet no mention of this in texts...
-
If you ignore the acceleration change when you changed your velocity vector.
-
Physics definition of work includes displacement....so a physicist would calculate the work done as 500 joules...the displacement is key in definition of work. I did not ignore any velocity vector, just using work by definition
-
Ok some more ad hominum attacks. I wouldnt expect any less of you guys. :-DD
The video is there to peak interest in some experiments. I am not presenting a full theory here, nor does any conventional theory explain all the effects shown in the video. Just as dangerous as false free energy claims, which have been numerous, is this attitude that there is nothing really new out there, only CERN could find something new. This is a sad state of mind.
The videos and schematics are all there, yet everyone keeps commenting on my views and perspective. This is not about me, so personal attacks can only satisfy your own ego. I am merely peaking interest, and asking for a conventional explanation. So far none has been given, not even induced charge....no explanation of why the different currents cause different phenomenon as well as the several other effects.
Dave says he debunks when its easy and educational. Since this set up is not easy I guess its not worth debunking right???? :-DD
Do dont anything. Dont experiment. Dont question, I can not force you to do anything.....
but please, keep those personal attacks coming!!! :-DD
More diploma insults! I cant get enough! :-DD
Edit: the dollard con vido was posted by a scam artist who interviewed Dollard and tried to claim ownership to his intellectual material....AetherForce scam...lool up Aaron Murakamis video with Dollard explaining this...or other ones explaining that Dollard was misled byTechZombie
After multiple repetitions by you I just have to ask you to do one tiny bit of research.
Look up in your dictionary (or on line if you prefer) the definition of "peak" and then look up "pique". Then think about it and see if you detect any lack of attention to detail, and then think if that has any other implications in your life.
-
You bring up a good point. Take a look at the definition of work...if I move a block of 100 kg 10 meters then move it 5 meters back....I did 500 Joules of work by physics definition based on displacement, but expended 1500 Joules in absolute work....yet no mention of this in texts...
If you go to college and get a scientific education, including subjects like physics, applied science and engineering, then you will find where this is described in great detail in texts.
Right now, you should stop pretending you have studied science, and actually go do so. You might learn something.
-
Yes the Andreas Moritz Gallbladder and Liver cleanse is legit. You would know this if you read it...
and the Dollard video saying he smoked meth....very clearly edited and cut...totally taken out of context, shame you cant see through that or any of the lawsuits put forth against Aether Force (Tech Zombie)
Lets keep ignoring Dollards 50+ years as an RF engineer and keep slinging personal attacks! It adds so much to the comversation....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster)
Im not saying this breaks laws of physics...but to propell without carrying fuel???
Gravitec Inc. alleges that in 2011 they tested the "asymmetrical capacitor" device in a high vacuum several times and have ruled out ion wind or electrostatic....
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe)
The universe as a whole does not conserve energy...yet we are forever bound to it?
Ok so more personal attacks flood the screen...thought this post shouldnt be skipped over for all those who say vacuum energy is worthless... :-DD
-
Yes the Andreas Moritz Gallbladder and Liver cleanse is legit. You would know this if you read it...
and the Dollard video saying he smoked meth....very clearly edited and cut...totally taken out of context, shame you cant see through that or any of the lawsuits put forth against Aether Force (Tech Zombie)
Lets keep ignoring Dollards 50+ years as an RF engineer and keep slinging personal attacks! It adds so much to the comversation....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster)
Im not saying this breaks laws of physics...but to propell without carrying fuel???
Gravitec Inc. alleges that in 2011 they tested the "asymmetrical capacitor" device in a high vacuum several times and have ruled out ion wind or electrostatic....
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe)
The universe as a whole does not conserve energy...yet we are forever bound to it?
Ok so more personal attacks flood the screen...thought this post shouldnt be skipped over for all those who say vacuum energy is worthless... :-DD
The point I bring up with the definition of work is there are hidden joules unaccounted for if yoy apply the definition strictly
-
The point I bring up with the definition of work is there are hidden joules unaccounted for if yoy apply the definition strictly
There are not. You are just betraying your ignorance.
At this point I believe you are trolling by making silly statements to get a reaction. I think it is time for you to leave now.
-
Yes the ... -snip- :blah:
Ok so more personal attacks flood the screen...thought this post shouldnt be skipped over for all those who say vacuum energy is worthless... :-DD
The point I bring up with the definition of work is there are hidden joules unaccounted for if yoy apply the definition strictly
Impressive. Not just quoting yourself, but quoting yourself quoting yourself! I don't think I've ever seen that before!
-
It's ok, he is arguing with himself now and apparently doing personal attacks to himself.
:scared:
-
Again:
Yes the Andreas Moritz Gallbladder and Liver cleanse is legit. You would know this if you read it...
and the Dollard video saying he smoked meth....very clearly edited and cut...totally taken out of context, shame you cant see through that or any of the lawsuits put forth against Aether Force (Tech Zombie)
Lets keep ignoring Dollards 50+ years as an RF engineer and keep slinging personal attacks! It adds so much to the comversation....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_thruster)
Im not saying this breaks laws of physics...but to propell without carrying fuel???
Gravitec Inc. alleges that in 2011 they tested the "asymmetrical capacitor" device in a high vacuum several times and have ruled out ion wind or electrostatic....
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe (https://www.quora.com/Does-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-hold-at-the-largest-scale-of-the-universe)
The universe as a whole does not conserve energy...yet we are forever bound to it?
Time for me to leave? LOL
Sounds like if anyone disagrees with the view of the masses, we should feed those heretics to the fire!
Sounds a little arrogant...
Edit: I love how the personal attacks keep coming even if it adds nothing to the conversation. I mean, if personal attacks is all you can contribute... :-DD
Keep em coming! :-DD
-
Again:
...
Sounds a little arrogant...
In that we can all agree.
-
It would be funny if our friend here was that other guy sending richards...
-
Again:
Yes the Andreas Moritz Gallbladder and Liver cleanse is legit. You would know this if you read it...
Edit: I love how the personal attacks keep coming even if it adds nothing to the conversation. I mean, if personal attacks is all you can contribute... :-DD
Keep em coming! :-DD
Explain, in great detail exactly how you think this liver detox works. (I'm guessing you believe in homeopathy too?)
Also, as I've said before: Arguing that you don't have a grasp of basic scientific concepts is *not* a personal attack or ad hominem. It's completely valid to argue that your knowledge is flawed.
Now, if I were to say that you were a registered sex offender and because of this, your opinion didn't matter. That would be a "Against the Man" attack.
However, pointing out your lack of basic high school level science knowledge isn't.
Why? Because the former has no bearing on the current discussion while the latter goes directly to your credibility of the subject at hand.
To paraphrase Andre the Giant, "You keep saying 'Personal Attacks' but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean."
-
All the details of the liver cleanse can be found here:
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
-
Explain, in great detail exactly how you think this liver detox works. (I'm guessing you believe in homeopathy too?)
Also, as I've said before: Arguing that you don't have a grasp of basic scientific concepts is *not* a personal attack or ad hominem. It's completely valid to argue that your knowledge is flawed.
Now, if I were to say that you were a registered sex offender and because of this, your opinion didn't matter. That would be a "Against the Man" attack.
However, pointing out your lack of basic high school level science knowledge isn't.
Why? Because the former has no bearing on the current discussion while the latter goes directly to your credibility of the subject at hand.
To paraphrase Andre the Giant, "You keep saying 'Personal Attacks' but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean."
For another paraphrase from one of the greatest movies of all time, "never go in against a troll when reasoning is on the line"
-
"The universe as a whole does not conserve energy...yet we are forever bound to it?"
Because the law of energy conservation is conditional. That means that if those conditions are not satisfied - they are plenty of cases where they are not satisfied - energy may not be conserved.
I think you have shown rudimentary understanding of intro level physics. At this point, you are far better off developing a more robust understanding first than jumping on to fancy terminology to buttress your credibility.
-
Hmm livers, since it's close to Mardi Gras I might indulge on some Foie gras.
I know, I know, but in Spain they don't always force feed them, some do Natural Foie Gras
-
I used to like eating liver. But a few med school experiences put me off it. Nothing like the sight and smell of a liver being resected with electrocautery....
-
Yes conservation laws are conditional...and a graduate student at Perimeter Institute is telling you in general relativity the universe does not as a whole follow energy conservstion laws.
So if the universe does not behave as such why can we not use that to our advantage.
What about the quantum vacuum thrusters?
...and if anyone actually sets their ego aside and researches the liver cleanse, you will see not all alternative medicine options are scams...
-
All the details of the liver cleanse can be found here:
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
Cleansing the liver and gallbladder from gallstones is one of the most important and powerful approaches to improving your health. The liver cleanse requires six days of preparation, followed by 16-20 hours of actual cleansing.
To remove gallstones you need the following items:
Apple juice
Six 1-liter (32oz) containers
Epsom salts
4 tablespoons dissolved in three 8-oz glasses of water**
Virgin olive oil, cold-pressed
One-half glass (4oz)
Either fresh grapefruit (pink is best), or fresh lemon and orange combined***
Enough to squeeze 2/3 glass of juice
2 pint jars, one with a lid
What total BS. Who needs costly surgery?
-
Simple: unless you find practical means to take advantage of it, it is no use.
Think about a whitehole. It is a perfect ezame of energy non-conservation, as something is made of nothing.
Another example is the big bang - which is kind of like a whitehole.
In a universe where the universal constants are time or space variant, energy doesn't conserve.
But where is your whitehole? Or your home-made big bang? Or your own universe?
There is a lot we don't know. But of the things we know, they are fairly well established. For anyone, let alone a poorly trained hobbyist physicist, your chance of making a breakthrough ***within the existing framework*** is nill at best.
So if you really want to do something here, go back to school, pick a decent program, and study under someone who is unorthodox. Then you may have a chance, however small.
-
What about Cartoon Laws of Physics, plenty of evidence there that gravity is only there if observed, so as long as you don't look you wont fall.
It's well documented. Look it up!
-
More diploma insults! I cant get enough! :-DD
Whats that? A professor hitting the students with a paper? >:(
-
All the details of the liver cleanse can be found here:
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
Cleansing the liver and gallbladder from gallstones is one of the most important and powerful approaches to improving your health. The liver cleanse requires six days of preparation, followed by 16-20 hours of actual cleansing.
To remove gallstones you need the following items:
Apple juice
Six 1-liter (32oz) containers
Epsom salts
4 tablespoons dissolved in three 8-oz glasses of water**
Virgin olive oil, cold-pressed
One-half glass (4oz)
Either fresh grapefruit (pink is best), or fresh lemon and orange combined***
Enough to squeeze 2/3 glass of juice
2 pint jars, one with a lid
What total BS. Who needs costly surgery?
Exactly the point...you do not NEED that costly surgery....if you dont think its true try it out your and follow all the instructions carefully...
How do you just dismiss it because you cant concieve how something so simple could work...
Still no comment on the quantum vacuum thrusters either...
I actually like the jokes and insults...smooth way to avoid the information being brought up
Forget all that...we need more jokes! :-DD
-
The thing is that you are scattered, jumping from one thing to another, so it's obvious you just want to waste our time (trolling)
Come with something more concrete instead of generalities. Because you have access to this big internet thing and you can do the research yourself.
-
Deco, I follow an even better clense programme, that also cures kidney stones. Paypal me $50 and I'll give you the info that they don't want you to have. So far no one has debunked my programme...
-
Yes, there is a kidney stone cleanse too.. its a herbal mix tea actually...you can find the recipe of that and info online for free, so I'll keep my 50 thanks... :-DD
Andreas Moritz has also written about that kidney tea
-
I'd just LOVE to see the evidence that drinking that concoction will dissolve gallstones, or shrink them enough to pass. I can't test it because I wimped out and just had mine removed when it acted up. But based on the explanation the doctor gave me prior to deciding on surgery, I can't see how anything you eat or drink would actually remove the problem.
And I'm sure people say it works. Until they get another attack. Because that's how it works. I went to the hospital in such intense pain it was making me puke. By that same evening, I was feeling fine. Doctor explained how it can somewhat clear up, but once you have a gall bladder attack, it only gets worse. And if it gets too bad, they have to do it the old way and open you up, plus there are greater chances for complications. I elected to just have it out and be done with it, and they did it laproscopically.
If drinking large quantities of water, which I do, doesn't flush out toxins, guzzling some concoction of juice and vinegar and olive oil and whatnot isn't going to do jack.
-
Kidney tea is so last century.
I have this super secrete 251.4-step cleansing program that has saved countless lives from certain death. However, I see that you are such a promising future leader of mankind that I am willing to sacrifice my fortune by giving you a one-time special friends-and-family pricing of $49.99, if you pay-pal me in the next 10 minutes.
Hurry, deals of this magnitude don't come by every 1000 years, certainly not every month or every week. So pick up that phone and dial right now! This is the deal you have been dreaming about your whole life. Why wait! Dial right now!
:)
-
Really? I think this is one of the most diverse thread I have read in a very long time.(IE: way off track) :palm:
-
I'd just LOVE to see the evidence that drinking that concoction will dissolve gallstones, or shrink them enough to pass. I can't test it because I wimped out and just had mine removed when it acted up. But based on the explanation the doctor gave me prior to deciding on surgery, I can't see how anything you eat or drink would actually remove the problem.
And I'm sure people say it works. Until they get another attack. Because that's how it works. I went to the hospital in such intense pain it was making me puke. By that same evening, I was feeling fine. Doctor explained how it can somewhat clear up, but once you have a gall bladder attack, it only gets worse. And if it gets too bad, they have to do it the old way and open you up, plus there are greater chances for complications. I elected to just have it out and be done with it, and they did it laproscopically.
If drinking large quantities of water, which I do, doesn't flush out toxins, guzzling some concoction of juice and vinegar and olive oil and whatnot isn't going to do jack.
Im sorry to hear that but those surgeries are completely unnecessary. I and many of my friends have done this cleanse with successful results...and you can even test your gallstones you pass if you wish to test them. Also, I think there is benefit for people without a gallbladder anymore too. I need to double check that. Surgery definitely not necessary as you can test yourself.
...and no one said you had to give any cash for anything here...so Ill still keep my 49.99
The herbal tea is a mix of 12 herbs a list of which can be found online and bought at the proper store...
Even the liver flush...how is it a scam to buy some olive oil, epsom salts and grapefruits if it works? How does the author gain from that? It can be found online, in less detail
-
How do you just dismiss it because you cant concieve how something so simple could work...
How could you just accept it without any objective evidence to show that it does?
Still no comment on the quantum vacuum thrusters either...
Yawn. Haven't you figured this out yet? No-one is commenting on your stupid quantum vacuum shit because we cannot be bothered reading your timecube websites. For the nth time, it is not up to us to validate your quantum flapdoodle. You are making the claims, you show us the evidence that it works. How about a bit of real maths? Experiment? Anything other than "go read this website, it's totes cool!" because frankly, I can't be bothered.
I actually like the jokes and insults...smooth way to avoid the information being brought up
Then you need to find something better to do with your life. Like, oh I don't know, solving the problems of making super deluxe quantum vacuum dick-sucking power generators or something, instead of pissing your ignorance all over an internet forum. Speaking of which, time to go back to doing some actual science. Good day.
-
...and you can even test your gallstones you pass if you wish to test them. e found online, in less detail
Please explain! I'd love to hear more about how this is done...
-
Any objective evidence? LOL
You havent even read the book I posted that had all details. There are testimonials in there too. Impossible to verify right? Something to cleanse my liver? Pffft not worth my time.
The quantum vacuum thrusters are not my claim and that is obvious. Please check the wiki page for more reference. Or you cant be bothered either?
And again, of course...more insults :-DD
Observe how defensive and angry you are. Didnt know it was such a defensive subject...
However I will not participate in the insulting, you all are welcome to do so if thats what you want to put out there....
As for testing . you can collect the gallstones and have them sent to a proper lab for analysis, I dont know of a way to do this at home
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
All details can be found in the link above!!!
-
'truthkeeperz' sounds very reliable :palm:
-
'truthkeeperz' sounds very reliable :palm:
...and now you are judging it based on the domain name? How superficial can you get? Look at the details, not something insignificant like a god damn domain name....
-
Yeah tell that to the local radio personality who was all into that kind of stuff. Said he didn't need heart surgery because chelation would fix him up. He's dead now - of a heart attack.
This is all just the religious argument all over again, You can't prove a negative. You just want us to accept on faith that these crazy foods cure all ills, yet there is absolutely no scientific proof that they do anything. But you keep wanting the rest of us to prove it doesn't work.
I'll just leave this here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y)
-
All the details of the liver cleanse can be found here:
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
What has this to do with Free Energy? When it comes to stuff like this, I have no idea and will ask my doctor.
See, it's okay to admit when you don't understand about something!
-
Any objective evidence? LOL
You havent even read the book I posted that had all details. There are testimonials in there too. Impossible to verify right? Something to cleanse my liver? Pffft not worth my time.
Objective. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Testimonials? How quaint.
For your information, my liver doesn't need de-toxing for the simple reason that it uses enzymes to break down toxins into less harmful forms before they are excreted in my urine. No magical cures necessary. Now go crack a book.
-
Your liver doesn't need a de-tox? :-DD
Okay, hold onto to those gallstones if you want, see how that turns out.
Telling me crack a book...I just gave a whole book worth of info on the liver and gallbladder flush, take your own advice and crack that book...
-
All the details of the liver cleanse can be found here:
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
What has this to do with Free Energy? When it comes to stuff like this, I have no idea and will ask my doctor.
See, it's okay to admit when you don't understand about something!
I hope you are able to read and discern for yourself if something makes sense. The book has a lot details and is very scientific. You can read and decide for yourself, not just blindly trusting whatever a doctor says.
Point being...if doctors dont know about this,pr its possible alternative medicine isn't total crap. It's an example of a non-conventional procedure to eliminate gallstones without surgery....just because its not in the mainstream, doesnt mean its not true...Like I said, I've done this cleanse and its legit. No money scams here, all free
-
One thing is for sure, you are blissed.
I wouldn't know how to achieve such a perfect state of happiness.
I blame education for that.
-
As long as we are curing livers and gall stones not to mention energy.
Any one have a cure for toe nail fungus? :palm:
(Sorry I could not resist) :-//
-
Any one have a cure for toe nail fungus? :palm:
Boric acid ;)
Greetings,
Chris
-
All the details of the liver cleanse can be found here:
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
What has this to do with Free Energy? When it comes to stuff like this, I have no idea and will ask my doctor.
See, it's okay to admit when you don't understand about something!
I hope you are able to read and discern for yourself if something makes sense. The book has a lot details and is very scientific.
Like defining FDA as "Federal Drug Administration"? :-DD
Or that oral herpes is caused by toxins?
Or this gem of a statement:
The nose is bending towards the left. Unless caused by an accident, this asymmetric shape of the nose implies that the organs on the right hand side of the body are underactive.
Needless to say, all of this comes back to these supposed gallstones, whose existence can only be proven by eliminating them (thus dissolving the evidence):
The only way to prove to yourself that you have gallstones is to do the liver flush.
That book is a textbook example of completely unscientific work, of quoting elements of real science within a sea of new age hocus pocus.
-
The book has a lot details and is very scientific.
Thanks for the link. My coworkers and I had a look. We haven't had that good of a belly laugh in a long time.
Here's a sampling of some of the "scientific" gems:
The nose is bending towards the left. Unless caused by
an accident, this asymmetric shape of the nose implies that the
organs on the right hand side of the body are underactive. These
include the liver, gallbladder, right kidney, ascending colon, right
ovary or testicle, and the right side of the brain. The main cause
for this for this condition is an accumulation of gallstones in the
liver and gallbladder (the nose is likely to return to center once the
stones are removed).
Toxins and waste carry a positive charge and, thus, naturally tend
to attach themselves to the body, which is negatively charged overall.
As the negative oxygen ions enter the body, they are pulled towards
the positively charged toxic material. This turns waste into neutral
fluid matter which is easily and effortlessly discharged by the body.
The most superior water I personally have come across is Prill
Water. This is a description taken from the web site of Global Light
Network http://global-light-network.com (http://global-light-network.com):
“To make Prill water, first rinse off the beads very well. Then
place them in a one-gallon glass container of water…it can be old
yucky tap water… and let it sit for 24 hours. Then you can pour off 3
quarts of very pure and therapeutic water. Leave the remaining one
quart and the Prill beads and then fill the container…from then on,
you can draw off 3 quarts of Prill water every hour for the rest of your
life. After the Prill water is made, it can be stored in any container
even a cheap plastic bottle like distilled water comes in….
“Prill water can be used in so many ways. You can drink it, you
can cook with it, you can bathe in it, you can give it to your plants,
you can give it to your pets and every time any of it goes down the
drain, it will begin restoring the water in your area. When enough of
us around the world are using Prill water, we will transform to water
of the Earth!!!
“When you make Prill water, the Prill beads transform water at
the molecular level and make what Jim Carter calls thin water. The
water forms single molecules of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen
atom that are very tightly and permanently bound together. In some
magical way, the chlorine and fluoride in the water are dissipated and
the water is pure and pristine as glacial water and will super hydrate
The normal intestinal flora, consisting of friendly bacteria, will
not be disturbed. The first half of the colon is responsible for
generating and gathering the intestinal flora required for balanced
colon functions. When food is not digested properly feces tends to
attach to the inside of the bowel. Layer upon layer of fecal
encrustation inhibits the lining of the intestine to produce the
necessary intestinal flora. The resulting lack of lubrication intensifies
the congestion and generates toxemia. This, in turn, upsets the normal
acid-alkaline balance (pH) and further inhibits the growth of friendly
bacteria. Consequently, this imbalance invites destructive bacteria to
overpopulate the gut (destructive bacteria help to break down waste,
but produce strong toxins as a result of this action). Colon cleansing
helps to restore the normal pH-value in the bowel
That's some bat-shit crazy stuff there.
BTW - not one scientific reference to back up any of the numerous silly claims.
Look - there's lots of useful complimentary and alternative medicine out there. The problem is always seperating out the wheat from the chaff. Not easy since there are so few actual controlled studies looking at most of it. Self-deception and the placebo effect are powerful things.
It's this kind of pseudoscience babble that Mr. Moritz is spewing that makes it so difficult for legitimate alternatives to gain any credibility.
It would all be funny except that occasionally it results in real death and misery for people who fall for this crap instead of getting actual real cures for their disease. ( I could tell stories...)
And you Engineers think you have it tough dealing with the Free Energy and Batterizer nuts...
-
Love how the last thing anyone is considering doing is trying out the cleanse for themselves lol....
Yea gallstones are all hocus pocus, no need to remove them ever:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/liver_biliary_and_pancreatic_disorders/gallstones_85,P00841/ (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/liver_biliary_and_pancreatic_disorders/gallstones_85,P00841/)
No references at all .... :-DD
It's all BS! Even John Hopkins Medicine says so! :-DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk)
-
Any one have a cure for toe nail fungus? :palm:
Lamisil (terbinafine) will usually cure it but I don't recommend it because it can be toxic to the liver. Oh wait - just do the magic liver cleanse and then it will be perfectly safe!
-
It's all BS! Even John Hopkins Medicine says so! :-DD
OK. Now I see how your mind works: Gallstones are a real disease so it must be true that any bat-shit crazy pseudoscience babble cure for them must be true as well!
Now I know why I avoided your free energy trolling.
But thanks again for the laughs - I really mean that BTW - we were in tears earlier at work reading that stuff - it's not often I laugh that hard.
-
It's all BS! Even John Hopkins Medicine says so! :-DD
OK. Now I see how your mind works: Gallstones are a real disease so it must be true that any bat-shit crazy pseudoscience babble cure for them must be true as well!
Now I know why I avoided your free energy trolling.
But thanks again for the laughs - I really mean that BTW - we were in tears earlier at work reading that stuff - it's not often I laugh that hard.
And the fact that I know the cleanse works makes me laugh too! :-DD
Great random video I saw of someones experience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk)
You can search Andreas Moritz Q and A videos for the liver cleanse....but yea its all psycho babble :-DD
-
You should get one of those foot detox contraptions, I've heard they get rid of your toxins even without putting your feet in.
Btw, what about astrology charts, tarot, irish reading, palm reading, aura reading. It was all true all along!
I guess it's all about the Illuminati suppressing it all, including the government suppressing alien technology, because we all know that the transistor and the tech we have now with microprocessors all comes from alien tech that was given to the big corporations.
Or maybe H.P Lovecraft's books where all based in reality and we have all kinds of paranormal and the necronomicon by Abdul Alhazred is real and not fictional. How stupid of us to just throw caution to the wind when it's been demonstrated over and over by famous writers of the suppressed truth!
To the OP, since you do like videos try to watch this one, might do you some good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uec1CX-6A38 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uec1CX-6A38)
Not entirely fiction and boring as hell most of the times, but maybe it gets you to explore and think instead of just trust what you find on the deep corners of the interwebs.
-
Or this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI)
-
Well I like a bit of grapefruit juice, and often cook with olive oil, and I've never had gallstones...
Explain THAT then, doubters and Big Medicine shills.....!
-
As long as we are curing livers and gall stones not to mention energy.
Any one have a cure for toe nail fungus? :palm:
(Sorry I could not resist) :-//
Toenail fungus? FIGHT IT WITH JUBLIA!
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160209/2ae069e9d99df5a9db5380105aef611e.jpg)
Ask your doctor about Jublia today!
All the details of the liver cleanse can be found here:
http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf (http://www.truthkeeperz.com/andreas.moritz.-.the.amazing.liver.cleanse.pdf)
Cleansing the liver and gallbladder from gallstones is one of the most important and powerful approaches to improving your health. The liver cleanse requires six days of preparation, followed by 16-20 hours of actual cleansing.
To remove gallstones you need the following items:
Epsom salts
4 tablespoons dissolved in three 8-oz glasses of water**
With that much Epsom Salts, you're going to be cleansing something, but it ain't gonna be your liver or gallbladder. If anyone is brave enough to try his recipe, stay very, very, very close to your toilet and drink plenty of water. (Hint: It's a saline laxative.)
So, this "cleanse" could actually cause problems (at least temporary ones) by dehydrating you (removing electrolytes) and potentially throwing off the balance of helpful bacteria in the digestive tract. But if it detoxes your liver that's a small price to p... Oh, wait...
This Post is Proudly Sponsored by Jublia
-
"John Hopkins Medicine says so!"
With your big fatvdiploma, and your love for detox cleansing, you still cannot spell Johns Hopkins right?
And you wonder why people don't take you seriously?
-
Love how the last thing anyone is considering doing is trying out the cleanse for themselves lol....
Yea gallstones are all hocus pocus, no need to remove them ever:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/liver_biliary_and_pancreatic_disorders/gallstones_85,P00841/ (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/liver_biliary_and_pancreatic_disorders/gallstones_85,P00841/)
No references at all .... :-DD
It's all BS! Even John Hopkins Medicine says so! :-DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk)
I didn't say gallstones are hocus pocus. I said the book and its absurd claims are, and I stand by that. Gallstones are real; claiming that they are responsible for all ills is idiotic.
As for those testimonials you love sharing: The plural of anecdote is not data. If you actually knew anything about science, you'd know that we prove things by setting up controlled experiments that control for all factors other than the one we want to study. Testimonials simply do not provide valid experimental data. Period.
Would you kindly fuck off and go away? You're not going to convince one single person here of any of this new age crap.
-
"Would you kindly fuck off and go away? You're not going to convince one single person here of any of this new age crap."
That's just sad.
-
No, it's true. The few people here who already believe in it don't need convincing. And those who don't believe certainly won't be convinced by this. Nobody's opinion is going to be changed either way.
-
Wait, so gallstones are the root of all ills? Well tell me then why I still get sick on occasion, I have no gall bladder and can't possibly have any gallstones.
-
Wait, so gallstones are the root of all ills? Well tell me then why I still get sick on occasion, I have no gall bladder and can't possibly have any gallstones.
Because it's liver gallstones that need cleansing! Apparently our livers are riddled with stones that conveniently happen to be undetectable with mainstream medical techniques. :-DD
-
Deco, do you believe that nose turns away from the side of the body that has organs that require cleansing, and returns after a clense?
-
This is the best thread ever. Thanks Desco.
-
:-DD
Yea no one has gallstones! They are fun to have!
Only surgery guys! Make sure you get a big old scar and remove your whole gallbladder...its the only way!!!
:-DD
Even people without a gallbladder, EVERYONE has gallstones...
I do believe what Andreas is saying about the nose and other such features....he was also into iridology....its all a scam to get rich though...if you can look at persons eye and see the inner ailments...it could work for other parts of the body...How much did you guys spend on the free e-book I sent....oh it must be the olive oil conglomerate wants to profit on our vulnerabilities
Funny how I suggested anyone can try this and test the gallstones they pass but everyone is just assuming thats impossible and has no health benefits...heres a word of advice to the non-believers: read the instructions and try it yourself and dont even read the testimonials...try it yourself!!!! If you follow all the instructions, it works, and has been confirmed to me personally and to any friends I recommend the cleanse to...
...and yes of course governments have been surpresssing advanced technologies....thats why you can get shot coming 1 mile within Area 51...and if theres Area 51...what about from 1-51?
but yeah...lets just focus on my big fat diploma and how I spell John Hopkins...makes all the difference...and keep telling me to fuck off...adds so much to the convo :-DD
-
Feed the troll, feed the troll, feed the troll. If we all stopped the thread would
be gone in a day. But we can't stop, we have to peek behind the curtain of Todd
Browning's freak show. So dance for the puppet master. You have made this a number
one thread. He doesn't even care about free energy, He just wants to see you dance.
I say ban him from the forum just because he is smarter than us!
-
We know what is going on, no worries about that. If we keep on feeding him is so he can keep on entertaining us.
-
Feed the troll, feed the troll, feed the troll. If we all stopped the thread would
be gone in a day. But we can't stop, we have to peek behind the curtain of Todd
Browning's freak show. So dance for the puppet master. You have made this a number
one thread. He doesn't even care about free energy, He just wants to see you dance.
I say ban him from the forum just because he is smarter than us!
+1 :-+
-
Hey Deco, do you also believe in the Golden Ratio?
-
Love how the last thing anyone is considering doing is trying out the cleanse for themselves lol....
Yea gallstones are all hocus pocus, no need to remove them ever:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/liver_biliary_and_pancreatic_disorders/gallstones_85,P00841/ (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/liver_biliary_and_pancreatic_disorders/gallstones_85,P00841/)
No references at all .... :-DD
It's all BS! Even John Hopkins Medicine says so! :-DD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk)
What's next? Is he going to claim it's a cure for baldness? ;D
-
"Hey guys lets all ignore the things he said that way we can avoid the uncomfortable facts that come up!"
Smooth play :-DD
More jokes! Lets not test the cleanse out ourselves! We know already its all bull crap! Why even test it????
Quantum vacuum thrusters still avoided, not surprisingly. ...
and still no real research into the cleanse...like I said...try it out yourself ...what happened to experimentation???
...and I dont need to believe in the Golden Ratio, it is a well recognized mathematical constant and shows up in Nature all the time....
More jokes please! Didnt know this was a amateur comedy forum :-DD
Dont quit your day jobs.... :-DD
-
"Hey guys lets all ignore the things he said that way we can avoid the uncomfortable facts that come up!"
Smooth play :-DD
More jokes! Lets not test the cleanse out ourselves! We know already its all bull crap! Why even test it????
Quantum vacuum thrusters still avoided, not surprisingly. ...
and still no real research into the cleanse...like I said...try it out yourself ...what happened to experimentation???
...and I dont need to believe in the Golden Ratio, it is a well recognized mathematical constant and shows up in Nature all the time....
More jokes please! Didnt know this was a amateur comedy forum :-DD
Dont quit your day jobs.... :-DD
Show me a double-blind study with a solid number of participants that says your cleanse works and I'll believe you.
You or me or anyone on this forum trying it is meaningless; anecdotal evidence is not part of the scientific method. Furthermore, the placebo effect can be very powerful.
Correlation does not imply causation. Do you understand what that means?
Being a bit of an Internet Detective, I did some sleuthing. Don't worry, I'm not going to release your personal info; also, your other little secret is safe with me. It just makes me really sad to know that you're not a troll. You really believe this stuff. (http://img.timb.us/emoticon/psyduck.gif)
Sometimes I think Idiocracy is a real documentary from the future. *Sighs*
-
How is passing gallstones a placebo effect? You can pass and test those gallstones yourself....
As for personal info, you can find my name somewhere...I dont really care...
-
It's all BS! Even John Hopkins Medicine says so! :-DD
OK. Now I see how your mind works: Gallstones are a real disease so it must be true that any bat-shit crazy pseudoscience babble cure for them must be true as well!
Now I know why I avoided your free energy trolling.
But thanks again for the laughs - I really mean that BTW - we were in tears earlier at work reading that stuff - it's not often I laugh that hard.
And the fact that I know the cleanse works makes me laugh too! :-DD
Great random video I saw of someones experience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk)
You can search Andreas Moritz Q and A videos for the liver cleanse....but yea its all psycho babble :-DD
That you tube video takes you to a get rich quick scheme/scam. Also consuming large quantities of Epsom salt is likely to be harmfull. For that reason I am out.
-
So we started with 'Free energy is possible - because crystal radios', and somehow we've ended up here, being berated for not 'trying the liver cleanse for ourselves'. How am I supposed to determine whether my liver NEEDS cleansing for a start? And how does one determine whether one's liver is sufficiently 'cleansed' afterwards - for all I know this process could render my liver 'dirtier' than it was before. What am I supposed to do, perform a biopsy on myself before & after? It's all well and good demanding that we 'try it for ourselves' (actually it isn't, but never mind) - but how precisely are we supposed to learn ANYTHING from being a guinea pig for your outlandish claims? Even assuming that I feel AMAZING after submitting myself to this process, how am I supposed to know whether it's because my liver is 'cleansed' - the process could have realigned my gall-bladder, or perked up my pancreas instead, for all I know. So despite having no reason to believe that my liver is 'dirty', and no way of determining whether said liver is somehow 'cleansed' by this process, I'm supposed to submit myself to this treatment regime in order to learn precisely NOTHING. So why would I do that, exactly?
-
I beat my liver up daily, it don't need any cleansing.
-
Most things can be cleaned with alcohol, the purer the better :-DD
-
In keeping with the suggested go to cleanser on the forum ...make sure its IPA.. and dont forget to scrub :P.
And next,
Its time to get the shovel and .45 out for this thread.
-
It's all BS! Even John Hopkins Medicine says so! :-DD
OK. Now I see how your mind works: Gallstones are a real disease so it must be true that any bat-shit crazy pseudoscience babble cure for them must be true as well!
Now I know why I avoided your free energy trolling.
But thanks again for the laughs - I really mean that BTW - we were in tears earlier at work reading that stuff - it's not often I laugh that hard.
And the fact that I know the cleanse works makes me laugh too! :-DD
Great random video I saw of someones experience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGybxqeLJgk)
You can search Andreas Moritz Q and A videos for the liver cleanse....but yea its all psycho babble :-DD
That you tube video takes you to a get rich quick scheme/scam. Also consuming large quantities of Epsom salt is likely to be harmfull. For that reason I am out.
Epsom Salt, in the suggested dose (4 Tbsp.) isn't harmful, per say. You just need to drink a lot of liquid over the next 8 to 24 hours. I'd recommend at least 16-32 Oz. of water right away and then at least a glass every 2 hours afterwards.
Epsom Salt basically works like Milk of Magnesia. It's a saline laxative (as opposed to a bulking or fiber agent like Metamucil or a stimulant laxative such as Dulcolax) that works by causing your bowels to absorb large amounts of water, basically giving you diarrhea.
Unlike stimulant laxatives, saline types don't cause a dependency. The only bad aspect is dehydration and depletion of electrolytes, but that can be fixed with plenty of water plus a bottle of Gatorade or Coconut Water. Remember: Electrolytes. It's what plants crave.
(Yes, I know way, way too much about laxatives.)
-
I don't believe in any of this shit, I'll stick to my homeopathic liver cleanse, that has yet to be debunked....
-
Reminds me of the Ionic foot detox video showing it was a scam by big Clive and posted here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-snake-oil-thread/msg858759/#msg858759 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/the-snake-oil-thread/msg858759/#msg858759)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH0QpaDNwS8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH0QpaDNwS8)
I know people that did get into that, it was like a pyramid scheme, getting friends to do it and or buy it so they could keep on spreading how this will clean your body from toxins around the year 2000 or so.
-
Again, no one comments on microwave cavity resonators as a method of thrust without fuel...pure electrical energy. Wiki page on "quantum vacuum thrusters" references several experiments with positive results...
...and yea I dont really care if anyone believes in the cleanse, but the last thing someone offers is to try it out themselves following all instructions...again no scam here cause no money needs to be spent other than on the oil, epsom salts and grapefruits...the book has been posted here for FREE
...but dont tell me and anyone I recommend this cleanse that it doesnt work...because it does, without a doubt. I passed gallstones...and all of my friends have ...this can easily be checked by trying out the cleanse but its not worth it right...health is useless...
-
Again, no one comments on microwave cavity resonators as a method of thrust without fuel...pure electrical energy. Wiki page on "quantum vacuum thrusters" references several experiments with positive results...
Can you explain for us laymen how that works in your own words? I would be curious to see your point of view on how to get useful work out of zero-point energy.
-
Again, no one comments on microwave cavity resonators as a method of thrust without fuel...pure electrical energy.
the fact that you haven't seen something debunked doesn't mean it hasn't been debunk, or it couldn't be debunked.
with all the big fat diploma of yours, you of all people should know that.
-
Can you explain for us laymen how that works in your own words? I would be curious to see your point of view on how to get useful work out of zero-point energy.
The idea is not that complicated. Normal thrusters have to eject matter to produce the reaction that drives the space vehicle in the desired direction. This means the space vehicle must carry a supply of propellant to eject, and the propellant will necessarily be in finite supply. When the propellant runs out the space vehicle can no longer maneuver.
Quantum thrusters envisage the idea that quantum particles can be used as the propellant. This is much like what is thought to happen on the event horizon of a black hole (Hawking radiation). If a space craft could separate a matter/anti-matter particle pair produced by quantum fluctuations and eject one of the particles out of the thruster it could generate thrust without needing to carry its own matter supply (it would still need an energy supply, of course).
But the whole thing is strongly in the realms of speculation and future technology. It's just an idea borne out of blue sky thinking. At this point it is fantasy.
-
I am not sure how it works but Im pretty sure it has something to do with the quantum vacuum and high Q cavity resonators....you can research it yourself. Im not claiming its a free energy device....but it is very unique. Not sure you can explain that in laymen term...I have seen physicists find it controversial because of wording. However, several positive results done by different personnel...even government..Key point is it changes the fact that no propellant is needed to be carried. Not saying this breaks the laws of conservation of momentum either...power can be collected from solar or other methods
The cleanse is not a scam, again no one is profiting from this, all can be done at home with your own supplies....mins the colonics which are important part...
-
The cleanse is not a scam, again no one is profiting from this, all can be done at home with your own supplies....mins the colonics which are important part...
Why are you deriding the homeopathic cleanse? This has been proven to work yet you seem to deny it. Are you a shill for Big Epsom?
-
Yeah, but by looking at the formula say you have 2 plates of 1 meter square separated by one millimeter.
The force would be:
-(Pi*6.62606957*10^-34*299792458)/(480*(0.001^4)) ->
-6.2406031653139997462919588093694*10^-25/0.00000000048 ->
-1.300125659440416613810824751952*10^-15 newtons.
Or the weight of 1.274987729815136158582792455373*10^-17 grams of force, not much at all.
Might be useful in space if they can make the material rigid enough so that the plates don't attract each other. But we don't have the technology to make any use of this in the short run.
Edit: the only interesting thing about it, is further knowledge on how gravity really works at the quantum level.
Edit2: also the force probably gets converted to minuscule amounts of heat because it will be between the plates so I don't think you could use it for transportation just yet, you might need materials that we don't have with our current tech. Even with future tech this is way less practical than using nuclear propulsion.
-
I am not sure how it works but Im pretty sure it has something to do with the quantum vacuum and high Q cavity resonators
Can you be any more self-contradictory, in one sentence?
-
Here, someone made a micromechanical silicon chip to measure the Casimir forces.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/full/ncomms2842.html (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n5/full/ncomms2842.html)
No it doesn't produce energy nor moves around your desk, it's just to be able to study the Casimir force and of course it consumes power to do such experiments and measurements.
Still they experienced deviations on the measurements and they attribute that to residual electrostatic forces, but they are not sure.
In any event, it requires precise alternating voltage of 5.7 uV with a frequency determined by the silicon construction. Also requires a very precise calibration.
They also mention that this doesn't explain it all and that more sophisticated measurement circuitry and better detection schemes would be required for future experimentation.
But hey, give them a call, maybe you can purchase the silicon :)
-
:-DD
Yea no one has gallstones! They are fun to have!
Only surgery guys! Make sure you get a big old scar and remove your whole gallbladder...its the only way!!!
:-DD
Even people without a gallbladder, EVERYONE has gallstones...
I do believe what Andreas is saying about the nose and other such features....he was also into iridology....its all a scam to get rich though...if you can look at persons eye and see the inner ailments...it could work for other parts of the body...How much did you guys spend on the free e-book I sent....oh it must be the olive oil conglomerate wants to profit on our vulnerabilities
Funny how I suggested anyone can try this and test the gallstones they pass but everyone is just assuming thats impossible and has no health benefits...heres a word of advice to the non-believers: read the instructions and try it yourself and dont even read the testimonials...try it yourself!!!! If you follow all the instructions, it works, and has been confirmed to me personally and to any friends I recommend the cleanse to...
...and yes of course governments have been surpresssing advanced technologies....thats why you can get shot coming 1 mile within Area 51...and if theres Area 51...what about from 1-51?
but yeah...lets just focus on my big fat diploma and how I spell John Hopkins...makes all the difference...and keep telling me to fuck off...adds so much to the convo :-DD
Big old scar? Did you miss the part where I said they removed mine laproscopically? I can find the teeny tiny scars (I have a bigger one on one of my fingers where I got myself with a hobby knife when I was a kid) only because I still remember where the little bandages were when I came home. There are only 2 visible and the other is inside my bellybutton. And now, 7 years after, almost 8, nothing is really visible - I can find them because I know where they are.
Gallstones, no - if there is no gall bladder to form a stone you can't have gallstones. You CAN, in very rare cases (5 to 12% of 15% of the people who have had their gall bladder removed) get bile duct stones. Any present at the time of gall bladder removal would have been taken out, but in rare cases it can come back (bile duct stones, not gallstones). Look it up yourself, since you want us to do all your research. It's called Choledocholithiasis.
-
You will find that cases of energy non conservation due to general relativity tend to happen on very large dimensions or scales that they have very little practical uses,at least in the foreseeable future.
-
As for explaining it, I was hoping he did research enough to explain at least the water wave analog.
But he is pretty hopeless doing research on his own.
-
Quote from: Buriedcode on February 04, 2016, 11:13:26 AM (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=62430.msg859082#msg859082)
You're correct about most systems not being 'closed systems'. The Earth itself isn't a closed system, constantly receiving EM radiation from the sun, as well as cosmic radiation, similarly it kicks out plenty of energy.
The trouble with the phrase 'free energy' as a) Energy comes form somewhere, and one usually has to pay for it in some way, be it picking up ambient RF, covering up land with solar panels etc..
and b) there have been countless claims, by countless people, and yet nothing has come of it.
So the phrase has become synonymous with people 'tinkering' with magnets, coils, with little if any background in the underlying principles, and so immediately jump to the conclusion that they've somehow tapped into a 'free energy source'. Then, to confirm that, they throw out buzzwords from recent scientific theories - often completely out of context - to convince both themselves and others that they have discovered something new.
There are many levels of 'science' with theoretical physicists being the most abstract, and engineers right on the coal-face - applying/exploiting such discovered laws. As this is an engineering forum, I suspect almost every member has seen claims of 'free energy devices' and quickly found its obvious flaws and so, dismissed it. Theoretical physicists describe idea's without the bounds of reality (abstract concepts of dimensions) and deal with numbers representing vast (or minuscule) quantities, and of course construct theories about the very fabric of reality. They do not have the restrictions that Engineering poses which is 'in the real world'.
Throwing out 'quantum' or any strange behaving theories/laws from recognised physics in the same sentence as 'free energy' is something that most followers of the so-called 'free energy' scene do to try and legitimize their argument. There are so odd quirks of physics, and still much we don't understand - that doesn't mean you can just pick out an ambiguous area of science, and slap it onto a 'free energy device' and make it right. The words 'Quantum', and even 'dimensions' are thrown about by marketing companies for anything from batteries, to skin cream, but if you claim to be an engineer, you don't have to try and 'market' something - you build it.
Its an Ideology, often bolstered by conspiracy theories that 'big business' is suppressing hidden technology that could provide clean free energy for everyone, and make the planet into a true utopia, free from the shackles of our limited technology. Unfortunately, that is bollocks.
It is the same Ideology that keeps the alternative medicine movement alive - the more you prove them wrong, the stronger their beliefs become - as they immediately disregard anything that does not align with what they believe, and latch onto and twist anything that *sounds* like it proves them right. Conspiracy theories, dooms-day theories, religious extremism, its all the same. In a way, we are all prone to confirmation bias - even engineers - but for the most part those in science and engineering follow evidence, and it often proves us wrong.
I have seen this written countless times in many forums:
If you know of a way to produce usable energy that is currently unknown, build it, in a closed box, with only external power to start it, then let it power itself, as well as a usable load.
Don't go around posting on forums, posting youtube comments about how you can do it, or if it exists, to try and convince others. It only serves to damage the reputation of those who are part of this following even further, as well as make grumps like me type out a rant. The very fact many talk about such things, but never provide any proof, is evidence itself that it is much more of a religion than Engineering/Science.
Edit: I'm tired of seeing 'Tesla' everywhere. yes, the man was clever, anddeserves recognition for his contribution to science and technology. But no more than Faraday, Maxwell and the rest of the gang. I have yet to see anything Tesla did that was 'magical' or that hasn't been explained. You should repsect his work by understanding it, not starting with the appeal of a 'brand new mysterious technology' then trying to attribute his many patents to it. Some get extremely defensive, like teenage girls getting angry when someone says One Direction lip syncs.
It's schizophrenia, magical thinking and such.
There are scientific experiments even brains of religion fanatics share lots of similarities with schizophrenic people.
No matter what gods you kill, people will still create new idols. Even from nowhere or just words, just look at Steve Jobs.
Lost information? Governments and big organizations having secrets? There's no doubt, that's how computers and ARPANET born. But are you able to know the truth or just get crazy imagining all kind of shit that may happen? Learn your stuff, get facts and not lose time on telling stories or you'll become another disabled man eating too many pills and walking like a zombie.
TO OP: I'm "mentally insane"
I have ADHD and still in a hard phase of struggling with it. I get depressed and distracted frequently, despite having many ideas and curiosity. I got diagnosed just a few years ago, so things are harder than usual, but I have hope in myself (if not, I wouldn't be alive).
Be wise and control your overwhelming imagination, it can be very useful or it can destroy you.
-
I think I now know how this free energy lark works. Take large amounts of laxatives and build a bio gas generator then feed it with the results of the laxative. :-DD
-
@timofonic Yeah, uh, ADHD isn't a debilitating mental disease, so to call it insanity is a bit much. Unlike people with bipolar or schizophrenia, there's really good medication to treat ADHD. So, take your Amphetamine and get your productivity on. (I highly recommend something like Vyvanse or Concerta, if you can afford it. Being time-release prevents the crash and is generally better on your system as it avoids the peaks and valleys.)
The comorbidity with depression does suck, but I've been where you are and it will eventually get better. Hang in there buddy.
-
I think I now know how this free energy lark works. Take large amounts of laxatives and build a bio gas generator then feed it with the results of the laxative. :-DD
Hmmm, if you can feed it with bullshit then the OP's posts might power a small country!
-
It's rather funny, in a sad way, to see that the crackpots lack the fundamental understanding of what science, and the scientific method, actually is and means. Also, it's rather frightening to see that such anti-scientific thinking is spreading, and somewhat slowly becomes the norm. Are the educational institutions really in such a bad shape?
Science does not claim to have all the answers. It doesn't claim to be able to have all the answer at some point in the distant future. Heck, it doesn't even claim that the answers we curretnly have are 100% correct and will never change. Science, and the scientific method, is nothing more than just a tool that helps us to get a good understanding of things around us. So far it is the best tool we have for that. If someone wants something that only speaks in absolutes, claims to know all there is know, and insists that it can't be changed, well... That's religion then.
What the crackpots also love to ignore is how how new theories are formed, heck, even what the word "theory" means in the scientific context. One can not just go on willy-nilly, babbling about how something currently not understood, or not understood well, is supposed to work and call that a theory. Whenever someone comes up with a new, or refined, theory, there is a rather huge burden on that person. For one, the actual theory has to be sound. But then, and this is way more important, it also has to explain any change/relation to any other theory it touches upon. The new theory basically must also explain everything else it touches upon, in a way that it explains those phenoma at least with the same precission, preferably even better, but never worse.
For example, if someone were to come up with a new theory about some currently unexplained phenomenon about electric conductivity in a special material. That person can't just go on and change known constants and math to make the electrons do what he likes them to do. If he does, the new version _also_ _must_ be able to explain electron flow in well understood materials, yielding the same results that we already have with conventional theories, using the _same_ set of constants and maths. And it doesn't stop there, because it also touches on the field of electromagnetism then, which is also must be able to explain with the new data.
And that is why those crackpots don't understand what "theory" means in science. No, it's not what "theory" means in common language, as in "It's just a theory". Instead it is a carefully researched, and experimentally tested explanation of whatever the theory is about. One looks at a phenoma, then comes up with an idea as to how it may work. That person then comes up with a set of testable hypthesis. These are then experimentally tested, and checked wether the observed results match the hypthesis. This is done over and over again until there is a set of experiments that can be duplicated by basically any other scientist in that field. And as mentioned above, such a theory has to consider and explain anything else it touches upon that is already explained in som way. Only after that is done it is put forth as a sound theory of that thing.
Crackpots want to ignore all that. "Look, science can't explain X, so science sucks!". They completely ignore that the first step must be to prove that X is actually real. Instead they want to conjure up wildest "theories", focussing only on X (which may or may not be real), ignoring everything else. And if their explanation doesn't fit within what we already know, then of course it must be science that is wrong, never them.
Really sad.
Greetings,
Chris
-
(http://militaryhumor.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/military-humor-gravity-just-a-theory.jpg)
I find it funny when people point at the uncertainties of the scientific method as though they are weaknesses. Quite the opposite, in fact. The uncertainties are the method's true strengths. They are what allow us to keep pushing at the boundaries of knowledge by a process of continually refining and expanding our knowledge base.
It's also amusing when people say things like 'all your text books and theories are wrong! So what you learnt at university is crap!' Like, duh. No shit. Atomic theory is wrong, and we know that it's wrong, but we teach it anyway because it's currently the best explanation we have of how atoms work. Newtonian physics is also wrong but nonetheless very useful. The thing these people are missing is that a good scientific education does NOT teach you what to think, instead it teaches you how to think. Understanding how to extract useful information from garbage and the unknown, using imperfect methodology built this civilisation. What have the naysayers ever done for it?
-
And 18 pages in it's now obvious why I stopped reading the OP's email after he mentioned "Tesla patents".
I'll give him a A though for actually having the guts to post on the forum and embarrass himself, most won't do that.
Ever since my free energy video, I've gotten hundreds of emails.
It's always one of two types:
1) The ones who kick and scream like babies, and call you ignorant from the get-go.
or
2) The ones who agree that the device in the video was a load of bunk and that "real" "free energy" is trickier, more subtle, harder to get, but it's certainly possible. And that only the Dollard's and the Tesla's have cracked it (they always mention Tesla) but they were suppressed etc, and that I really should have an open mind and investigate it *insert links to whackjob videos*
When I see the word Telsa and say I'm out, they trout their qualifications or those of others, and call me ignorant and close minded ::)
When asked for evidence they wave their hands around, point to more wacko videos so incoherent it causes you to lose brain cells, or some obscure paper that proves something entirely different etc. You could be arguing with Dollard himself, or Mr Steorn Orbo and you'll still just get the same response.
It's folly.
Carl Sagan nailed it:
(https://theteacherjames.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/aaa54-carl-sagan-open-mind.jpg)
-
Heck, it doesn't even claim that the answers we curretnly have are 100% correct and will never change.
If anything, science has assured us that what we know is 100% wrong, in the sense that someone in the future will somehow show a better understanding of what we know today.
Instead it is a carefully researched, and experimentally tested explanation of whatever the theory is about. One looks at a phenoma, then comes up with an idea as to how it may work. That person then comes up with a set of testable hypthesis. These are then experimentally tested, and checked wether the observed results match the hypthesis. ...
A theory is just that, a theory, a hypothesis as to how things may play out. There are plenty of examples where people imagined how things work and propose them forward for others to test against: string theory, the dark matter / dark energy, relativity, etc. It is too much to ask a theorist to theorize, experiment and document against all possible counter-arguments.
So I think it is perfectly OK to theorize, however wild it may be. Just don't get too carried away.
-
A theory is just that, a theory, a hypothesis as to how things may play out.
No, a scientific theory and a hypothesis are not the same thing at all: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19 (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19)
-
Heck, it doesn't even claim that the answers we curretnly have are 100% correct and will never change.
If anything, science has assured us that what we know is 100% wrong, in the sense that someone in the future will somehow show a better understanding of what we know today.
Which means that we aren't 100% wrong. It's not black and white. For example: "The Earth is flat. No it isn't it's a sphere. No it isn't it's an oblate spheroid." There's a progression there. Saying the Earth is a sphere is not nearly as wrong as saying it's flat. In fact, you can get away with approximating it as a sphere and still do useful predictions. Yes, it's technically 'wrong' but it has a known margin of error and can still be useful. In the same way, Newtonian physics is still useful for doing orbital calculations even though we know from Einstein that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Instead it is a carefully researched, and experimentally tested explanation of whatever the theory is about. One looks at a phenoma, then comes up with an idea as to how it may work. That person then comes up with a set of testable hypthesis. These are then experimentally tested, and checked wether the observed results match the hypthesis. ...
A theory is just that, a theory, a hypothesis as to how things may play out. There are plenty of examples where people imagined how things work and propose them forward for others to test against: string theory, the dark matter / dark energy, relativity, etc. It is too much to ask a theorist to theorize, experiment and document against all possible counter-arguments.
So I think it is perfectly OK to theorize, however wild it may be. Just don't get too carried away.
A scientific theory does not conform to the modern slang definition of the word. It is not a guess. It is a construct that attempts to describe the workings of the natural world by explaining how the observed data fit together. The theory of gravity explains the observation that objects with mass are attracted to each other. I do agree that string 'theory' is a terrible name. It is not, strictly speaking, a scientific theory because it has no supporting data. It is, at best, a well formed hypothesis. Theories are supported by data because they explain them. When new data emerge that do not fit with the theory, it is modified such that it still explains all the available data. As new data become available, the explanatory power of the theory increases.
The strength of a theory is in its explanatory and predictive power. The more correct predictions you can make about the behaviour of the real world, the better your theory is. Every time your theory makes a correct prediction it has been tested and confirmed in some way. Hypotheses are usually derived from theories. You think "okay, the theory says that matter behaves [in this way]. Therefore, if I get [thing x] and [thing y] they should do [this, that or the other]." You carry out the experiment and modify your theory (or not) based on the observed data.
When it comes to this, the words 'right' and 'wrong' are so narrow and pejorative as to be completely useless. Instead, 'margin of error' may be a better description. Early on in any given field there may be many competing hypotheses and 'theories' attempting to explain certain phenomena (wide margin of error). As things progress and our understanding improves, the theory is modified and its ability to make accurate predictions increases (narrower margin of error). The continual refining of the model of the atom is an excellent example of this (and we know that it's still 'wrong' today because it doesn't adequately explain some phenomena, but it's far better than it was 100 years ago).
-
A good example would be his cleanse. My theory could be it does nothing. To prove it, I could do before and after ultrasounds of his liver and swimbladder. My hypotheses states the two images will be identical. In fact, I'd postulate that on 100 subjects it would be no better than placenta.
See, that would be way more scientific than relying on anecdotal evidence!
-
....My hypotheses states the two images will be identical. In fact, I'd postulate that on 100 subjects it would be no better than placenta.
:scared:
I hope you meant 'placebo' there... I've heard some hilarious 'theories' about 'cleansing the body', but sticking a placenta on someones liver is a new one.. (to be fair, they are pretty amazing filters...)
-
Which means that we aren't 100% wrong.
When you aren't 100% wrong, you are wrong.
I think we are saying the same thing but from different perspectives.
Theories are supported by data because they explain them.
You may be redefining the word "theory". To me, a theory is a guess, a conjecture of how things may work. There may or may not be data / empirical evidence supporting that theory and that is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
You may have "confirmed theories", or you may have "unconfirmed theories" but they are all "theories": an explanation of how things may work.
Obviously there are differing "quality" among the various theories. A theory with empirical support is more valuable and trust-worthy than a theory without empirical support, for example.
But one's lack of empirical support does not make a theory more or less valid - I am sure that there are a lot of theories that we do not have empirical support today that will, in the future, replace a lot of current theories we do have empirical support. Think relativity theories in its early days vs. Newtonian theories.
-
You may be redefining the word "theory". To me, a theory is a guess, a conjecture of how things may work. There may or may not be data / empirical evidence supporting that theory and that is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
Nope, he is not redifining the word. "Theory" in the context of science, that is, a scientific theory, is not a guess or conjecture. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
Greetings,
Chris
-
You may be redefining the word "theory". To me, a theory is a guess, a conjecture of how things may work. There may or may not be data / empirical evidence supporting that theory and that is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
Absolutely not, not when referring to scientific theories.
If you were to put the level of certainty of an idea on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is a random idea bubble somebody has sitting in their garage, and 10 is a law of nature, a scientific theory is an 8-9. Guesses or hypotheses are a 1-2. They are not the same thing, not even close.
-
10 is a law of nature, a scientific theory is an 8-9
I would go further than that, since laws of nature and scientific theories are often synonymous. For example, the law of conservation of energy is a theory that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
-
And the fact that I know the cleanse works makes me laugh too! :-DD
So I'm sure you have a double blind randomised control study to show us all it does. Just share that instead of:
Great random video I saw of someones experience:
And when it comes to your free energy claims, what's your hypothesis and what, experiment do you propose to test it, and what predictions about that experiment are you making? If you want people to prove you wrong or right that's the minimum you should do or just admit that you just like the idea but have no idea how it could be implemented or even if it can work at all.
Think relativity theories in its early days vs. Newtonian theories.
Relativity came with testable predictions and an explanation of why they would happen, something the OP is refusing to do.
Also you're definition of a theory doesn't fit the definition for a theory in a scientific context. The Wikipeadophiles got this one right:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.
You're getting theories mixed up with hypotheses ;)
And before anyone says anything yes there is a little something called "string theory" that isn't actually a theory but an hypothesis misnamed by people who should know better.
-
Think relativity theories in its early days vs. Newtonian theories.
Relativity came with testable predictions and an explanation of why they would happen, something the OP is refusing to do.
Also you're definition of a theory doesn't fit the definition for a theory in a scientific context. The Wikipeadophiles got this one right:
Relativity wasn't well received:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
Also, if it wasn't for someone that tried many times but logistically couldn't perform the experiments to prove the theory, it would have been refuted.
Forgot the name of the fellow that did the measurements to prove the theory to be true, it's probably in that link but I'm on my lunch break and I can't read it all right now.
Edit: It was Frank Dyson I believe, nope Arthur Eddington, but didn't look up the details yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
-
You're getting theories mixed up with hypotheses ;)
I think a lot of the confusion I see here comes from a misunderstanding of the what the words theory and hypothesis means in a scientific context - which is different from the way non-scientists use them.
The website tooki referenced earlier (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19) does a good job of explaining the difference.
With regard to Theories (emphasis mine):
Theory: In everyday language, the word theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. They are concise (i.e., generally don't have a long list of exceptions and special rules), coherent, systematic, and can be used to make predictions about many different sorts of situations. A theory is most acceptable to the scientific community when it is strongly supported by many different lines of evidence — but even theories may be modified or overturned if warranted by new evidence and perspectives.
-
Look at how carefully it is stated.
It's obvious that theory is not irrefutable fact, reason being is that new theories might supersede older ones, the emphasis should be on the last sentence.
Edit: let me state too, that new theories don't invalidate the previous ones, they add definition.
But it's the "Accepted" current view of the scientific community and strongly supported by evidence.
There is no denying that current theories hold true for all observed phenomena with some loose ends that don't pertain to this thread.
-
the world's largest experiment is that millions of people proves overunity every day
usual car ,consumption vs kinetic energy
-
the world's largest experiment is that millions of people proves overunity every day
usual car ,consumption vs kinetic energy
Stored energy originally gathered from sunlight powering cars proves overunity how? You don't get more energy out than went into making the oil, you don't even get unity from the chemical energy out of the engine, most of it is wasted :-\
-
disprove me,as I said current consumption vs. kinetic energy per second
-
disprove me,as I said current consumption vs. kinetic energy per second
We don't know what you are talking about.
-
what you do not understand ,calculate how much energy is consumed per second,and how much do you have kinetic energy per second.
-
What are you on about?
Gasoline has an energy density of 32.4 MJ/L.
A typical car might get 7.8 L/100km at 100 kph
That's 252.72 MJ/100km at 100 kph, or 252.72 MJ/h, or 70 kW.
This same typical car would probably have a coefficient of drag * area of about 0.65 m^2. That gives it a drag force of .5*.65*1.225*27.778^2 = 307 N. Pushing 307 N at 100 kph requires about 8.5 kW (basic unit conversion). So that car uses 70 kW of energy to do 8.5 kW worth of work, with the rest mostly burned off as heat. Where is this over-unity again?
-
Relativity wasn't well received:
Still isn't in the sense that we know it to be incorrect - quantum physics for example.
Theories are useful because it is wrong: theories are simplified reality and because of the simplification it can be incorrectly used.
Someone mentioned 'margins of error'. In model risk management, that term is widely used as the "use test".
As engineers, we should welcome "wrong models", as long as we know when the 'wrongs' are so excessive that the model becomes unusable.
-
what you do not understand ,calculate how much energy is consumed per second,and how much do you have kinetic energy per second.
You do realise that kinetic energy is stored energy yes? If there was no friction you'd need 0 energy to keep something travelling at 70mph, only to accelerate. When you're sat cruising you don't need to constantly produce enough energy to get to 70mph, you only need enough to overcome frictional losses.
-
252.72 MJ per hour ,I told you per second lol
-
Okay, like I said try the cleanse out yourself and you will see, if done properly. Even if you have no gallbaldder you have a liver which produces them. The cleansee works and you can easily check the gallstones you pass and analyze them.
Dave, still avoiding trying out that video experiment by Dollard because first it wasnt worth your time now the video is incoherent even though a schematic is shown and materials talked about. If its so incoherent how have I and others understood the set up. Nikola Tesla died poor. He invented AC....and so many other prolific invetions....and died broke. Doesnt that seem a little odd to anyone?
I never claimed to have a free energy device...but I think the ether (quantum vacuum) can be manipulated and used in future technologies...all these free energy claims are really some form of aether technology. The quantum vacuum thrusters are interesting as well due to possibility of travel without fuel being carried...boring and old right? Several positive experiments reported.
This will be my final post on this thread. I leave you with three great quotes from three great scientists;
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e., we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it... [There] is a weighty argument to be advanced in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."
-Einstein
Robert B. Laughlin:
" It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed ...
The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. ... Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.
It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
“Only the existence of a field of force can account for the
motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption
dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this
subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all
attempts to explain the workings of the universe without
recognizing the existence of the ether and the
indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest
importance. As I have searched the entire scientific
records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time
without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself
the original discoverer of this truth, which can be
expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter
other than that received from the environment.” – Nikola Tesla
But what do Einstein, Tesla and a Nobel winner Laughlin know about physics right? :-DD
Take care
-
252.72 MJ per hour ,I told you per second lol
Either troll somewhere else or explain WTF you're trying to say using actual words.
-
How do you expect to find free energy when you can not understand the basics of the so-called great physics
how much kinetic energy has a vehicle that weighs one and a half ton
-
Classic spelling is aether not ether, that's what they put you under with.
-
Classic spelling is aether not ether, that's what they put you under with.
Well, i'm sure one has to use a lot of the latter, over long periods of time, to still cling to the former as some obscure source of free energy.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Laugh, I got to dig out my 1939 Radio Engineering Handbook and see what says about the aether. It's in there somewhere, the aether.
They do things in Mils and Jars for inductance and capacitance.
-
Dave, still avoiding trying out that video experiment by Dollard because first it wasnt worth your time now the video is incoherent even though a schematic is shown and materials talked about. If its so incoherent how have I and others understood the set up. Nikola Tesla died poor. He invented AC....and so many other prolific invetions....and died broke. Doesnt that seem a little odd to anyone?
I never claimed to have a free energy device...but I think the ether (quantum vacuum) can be manipulated and used in future technologies...all these free energy claims are really some form of aether technology. The quantum vacuum thrusters are interesting as well due to possibility of travel without fuel being carried...boring and old right? Several positive experiments reported.
Well, we do know your attempt to replicate failed two years ago.
So you proved it to yourself that it won't work, or you just don't know how to do it, but it's really both.
but we did explained to you, what it really is and how it will work.
the quantum vacuum is not practical as already explained as well.
But one thing is for sure, you are not studious enough to see things through. Did you make your primary have the same surface as your secondary? what materials did you use for your coils when they failed?
Share something about what went wrong and what you were able to observe on your attempt.
-
How do you expect to find free energy when you can not understand the basics of the so-called great physics
how much kinetic energy has a vehicle that weighs one and a half ton
Who are you talking to? I don't expect to find free energy, because it's a crock of shit, and the only people who pursue it are scammers and idiots in my experience.
As for kinetic energy, a 1300 kg object moving at 100 kph has ~500 kJ stored in its momentum.
-
so How the fuck can you have 70kj vs 500kj per sec
-
so How the fuck can you have 70kj vs 500kj per sec
|O |O |O |O
Do you even know what potential energy is?
Let me ask you this question, you have a 1000mAh battery that you charge up to 3.7V. That battery now contains 3.6 kJ of potential energy. Do you have to continually feed it 3.6 kW of power to keep it charged, or does it stay charged, because it's POTENTIAL energy, and it is only used when it's discharged?
Here's another. You climb up a large hill near your home. Your home is at 100 m altitude, the top of the hill is at 400 m, and you weigh 70 kg. By climbing to the top of the hill, you have increased your potential energy by 205 kJ. Do you need to continuously spend 205 kW of energy to stay at the top of the hill, or can you just lay down and relax?
And another...a gallon of gasoline contains 32.4 MJ/L of potential energy. If your car has a 40 L tank and you fill it to capacity, it now contains 1.3 GJ of potential energy. Do you need to spend 1.3 GW of power to keep it there, or does it just quietly sit until you light it on fire?
Kinetic energy is a potential energy, like a battery. You "charge it up" by accelerating, and "discharge it" by decelerating. You do not have to spend any energy to maintain it once you're there, you only have to overcome friction losses caused by air resistance, tire rolling resistance, drivetrain resistance, etc.
-
accelerating car with 70 kj andby crushing in the wall you have 500kj |O |O
-
accelerating car with 70 kj andby crushing in the wall you have 500kj |O |O
Who on earth said you could accelerate an average car to 100 kph using only 70 kJ of energy!?!?!?
I said that an average car can CRUISE at 100 kph using only 70 kW of power (70 kJ/s), but getting up to speed takes a hell of a lot more than that. Let's say this average car uses 30 L/hr of gasoline while accelerating, and it takes 10 seconds to get to 100 kph (in reality, you'd be using a LOT more than 30 L/hr accelerating at that rate, but let's go with it). That is 83 mL of gasoline, which has an energy of 2.7 MJ. From which you would recover 500 kJ when you ran into the wall.
-
for God's sake, I have taken the average for simplicity but if you want maximum consumption of my car is 40 liters,and it only takes one or two seconds when starting from a standing position therefore will never exceed the limit of 500kj,You can also smash car in less than half a second thus unleashing even more energy.lol
-
for God's sake, I have taken the average for simplicity but if you want maximum consumption of my car is 40 liters,and it only takes one or two seconds when starting from a standing position therefore will never exceed the limit of 500kj,You can also smash car in less than half a second thus unleashing even more energy.lol
You've taken the average of what? I haven't seen you present any numbers of your own, you just keep regurgitating mine.
Your car takes one or two seconds for what? You don't honestly think you can get to 100 kph from a stand-still in 2 seconds do you? And you don't honestly think any car capable of doing that would consume a piddly 30 L/hr of fuel at that rate of acceleration, do you?
Your comment about smashing in less than half a second yielding even more energy just proves that you have no idea of the difference between energy and power (energy per unit time). It doesn't matter how fast you slow down, you will get 500 kJ from it. The faster you slow down the more instantaneous power that is, but the total energy extracted is the same.
-
My very fast car can do 0-60 mph in 4.6 seconds, but doesn't weight much.
0-100 mph in 2 seconds, no way unless you have a top fuel dragster, but those things are close to 7000 hp.
-
average of the acceleration-you do not spend the same amount of fuel every second
What do you think it is better-receive a large amount of energy at once or or the same amount of energy for a long time
see time is important can kill you
-
Sure, the fuel consumption changes with output power, which changes with RPM. 30 L/hr is an approximation for an average car under acceleration, but let's put some real numbers with it.
I have a very fast car, ~600 hp, AWD, etc. It uses four 1500 cc/min injectors, which run from ~70% to ~95% duty cycle under full boost, varying with RPM. Let's take the average and call it 82.5%. It can also do 0-60 in about 2.5 seconds (theoretically, but I can't shift that fast). 4*1500*.825/60 = 82.5 cc/sec, or 206.25 mL of fuel during that run. It runs on E85, not gasoline, which has an energy density of 25.65 MJ/L, which means it takes approx 5.3 MJ to accelerate from 0-60, at which point ~500 kJ has been stored as kinetic energy in my momentum, and the other 4.8 MJ has been burned off as a LOT of heat. As I decelerate back to 0, that 500 kJ is also burned off as heat in my brakes.
-
What would you rather buy,a car that can go moderately forever, or your saw-I'm talking about normal everyday cars with normal acceleration,but it is not the word about cars but the kinetic energy and physics
and yes heat is an additional source of energy that even did not take into account
-
What would you rather buy,a car that can go moderately forever, or your saw-I'm talking about normal everyday cars with normal acceleration,but it is not the word about cars but the kinetic energy and physics
What?
-
accelerating car with 70 kj andby crushing in the wall you have 500kj |O |O
What a load of bullshit.
Hey, here's an experiment you should try:
Walk up to a skyscraper. You now have stored a lot of potential energy by walking up there. Jump off the ledge. You now have expended only a little amount of energy. Now carefully watch the mess you make when you hit the ground. Explain how that is possible, because you only needed a little energy for the jump.
Greetings,
Chris
-
and yes heat is an additional source of energy that even did not take into account
In a combustion engine, heat is wasted energy, not a source.
You seem to have a serious deficiency in understanding the basics.
Greetings,
Chris
-
and yes heat is an additional source of energy that even did not take into account
In a combustion engine, heat is wasted energy, not a source.
You seem to have a serious deficiency in understanding the basics.
Greetings,
Chris
My theory is that overunity comes from that deficiency so it all balances out.
-
thing is I quote physics and the laws that we all use,but also quote Tesla who said for Newtonian law how can we need less energy if we do things more slowly In other words if we raise an object of a certain mass against gravity slowly we need less energy and during the fall of object we get more.same thing with car.Of course no problem throw the heat ,but also throw and turbo
-
thing is I quote physics
You can't properly quote physics without understanding it. Otherwise you end up talking nonsense.
and the laws that we all use
Like another poster here, you are projecting the use of "we" inappropriately. You cannot do that. You have to say instead, "and the laws that I use incorrectly (because I don't understand them)".
-
Tesla who said for Newtonian law how can we need less energy if we do things more slowly In other words if we raise an object of a certain mass against gravity slowly we need less energy and during the fall of object we get more.same thing with car.
NO!
Again, you're confusing energy (J) with energy RATE (J/s, aka power). It takes less POWER to lift something slowly, but you have to do it for a longer amount of time (a length of time that is directly proportional to the change in power), so the total energy delivered is the same.
Lifting a 1 kg mass to 1m requires 9.81 joules of energy, time never enters into the equation. If you do it in 1 second, that requires 9.81 watts (J/s). If you do it in two seconds, that requires 4.9 watts. Four seconds requires 2.45 watts. But of course, regardless of what you choose, when you integrate power*time you get back to the same amount of energy. Same goes for when you drop the mass to recover the energy.
-
you understand?then Try to raise one kilogram on ten meters in height with the speed of half meter per second
-
you understand?then Try to raise one kilogram on ten meters in height with the speed of one meter per second
Why? What are you trying to say?
Doing that would require 98.1 joules of energy, and would take 10 seconds, which is 9.81 watts.
Looks like you edited your question - fine, half a meter per second would take 20 seconds, which is 4.905 watts, and still 98.1 joules.
Do you have any point to your repeated questions that just require the most BASIC of all energy equations? None of which are anywhere in the ballpark of "free energy". So far we've proved that it doesn't take any energy to sit on a hill, and typical cars are somewhere around 10% efficient. All things that the world already knew.
-
I've found a way to generate infinite energy. We just have to keep this thread running and then use something like>
http://gizmodo.com/washington-dc-in-turning-our-nations-poop-into-power-1737095861 (http://gizmodo.com/washington-dc-in-turning-our-nations-poop-into-power-1737095861)
And there you have it, infinite energy source. I'm still unsure where the energy in this thread is coming from tho, must be aether or resonence thingamajig mentioned before.
-
f we raise an object of a certain mass against gravity slowly we need less energy and during the fall of object we get more.
You cleary have no clue. You don't get "more", never. In the real world, you will never get back the same amount of energy that you put in. Remember the experiment i proposed? While you fall, you surely will hear somw whizzing in your ears, from the air. To make that sound, that is, to rub against the air, requires energy. So the mess you will make if you finally splash onto the pavement will be slightly less than what it would be if we only use the potential energy, and neglect the losses.
Seriously, this is basic school physics. How can people fail to understand that?
Greetings,
Chris
-
now try to throw that object down jouls and watts are the same
-
you understand?then Try to raise one kilogram on ten meters in height with the speed of one meter per second
Why? What are you trying to say?
Doing that would require 98.1 joules of energy, and would take 10 seconds, which is 9.81 watts.
Looks like you edited your question - fine, half a meter per second would take 20 seconds, which is 4.905 watts, and still 98.1 joules.
It's the same like the people who claim that using a lower wattage heater to bring a given amount of water to boil will save them costs on the electricity bill. Because lower wattage! They have no clue that in fact it will cost them more, because of thermal losses over a longer period of time.
Greetings,
Chris
-
... jouls and watts are the same
Nope.
-
small and non-significant difference for daily life
-
now try to throw that object down jouls and watts are the same
What? Joules and Watts are most certainly not the same. They have very specific definitions, a Watt is defined as a Joule of energy per second. A joule is a unit of energy, a watt is a unit of power, which is an energy rate. They are very different. Just like the difference between distance and speed, mile versus mile per hour.
When you throw the block down, some energy will be lost to air resistance, but most will be converted to kinetic energy. Just before it hits the ground, nearly all of that 98.1 J of potential energy will be converted into kinetic energy (which means it will be travelling just under 14 m/s). When it hits the ground that energy will be dissipated mostly as heat and sound, could displace parts of the block, could displace parts of the ground, and it will do so in a VERY short amount of time, say 100 mS. 98.1 J in 100 mS is 981 W, so a lot of power, but for a very short amount of time, and the same total energy as what the block had when it was elevated, and the same amount of energy you had to exert to lift it to that height (minus inefficiencies and drag of course).
-
small and non-significant difference for daily life
Again: Nope.
-
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
-
I am wondering what to do about the kidney stones after I have cleansed myself of the gallstone by consuming Epsom salts on a regular basis's. |O
-
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
An elastic object, because its compression will extend the amount of time it takes to change velocity. That means a smaller acceleration (a = dv/dt, larger dt = smaller a), and less force exerted on your head (f = m*a, smaller a, smaller f).
Again, what is the point of all of these VERY BASIC questions? Seriously, all of this is answered in high school physics, isn't it?
-
small and non-significant difference for daily life
Again: Nope.
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
-
I am wondering what to do about the kidney stones after I have cleansed myself of the gallstone by consuming Epsom salts on a regular basis's. |O
Arrange them in a fancy pattern, backlighting them with some LED's, and sell the contraption as some kind of new-age-cure for whatever you can come up with. Crystal energy and all that!
Greetings,
Chris
-
small and non-significant difference for daily life
Again: Nope.
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
Funny that you ask that. Because according to you it would be the same.
-
small and non-significant difference for daily life
Again: Nope.
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
you forgot a very important thing and that is the number of cycles
-
small and non-significant difference for daily life
Again: Nope.
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
you forgot a very important thing and that is the number of cycles
Now you've gone beyond stupid....
-
Sorry boys, I quoted the wrong person
-
I can only assume you were trying to quote me? If so, I don't understand your comment. Cycles of what?
-
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
An elastic object, because its compression will extend the amount of time it takes to change velocity. That means a smaller acceleration (a = dv/dt, larger dt = smaller a), and less force exerted on your head (f = m*a, smaller a, smaller f).
Again, what is the point of all of these VERY BASIC questions? Seriously, all of this is answered in high school physics, isn't it?
In the first cycle body of equal mass have the same kinetic energy and speed ,After several cycles all changes depending on the elasticity but more cycles equally more Kinetic Energy because you do not have to lift object more
-
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
An elastic object, because its compression will extend the amount of time it takes to change velocity. That means a smaller acceleration (a = dv/dt, larger dt = smaller a), and less force exerted on your head (f = m*a, smaller a, smaller f).
Again, what is the point of all of these VERY BASIC questions? Seriously, all of this is answered in high school physics, isn't it?
In the first cycle body of equal mass have the same kinetic energy and speed ,After several cycles all changes depending on the elasticity but more cycles equally more Kinetic Energy because you do not have to lift object more
The energy is the same in both cases. With the inelastic object, assuming it doesn't bounce, all of the energy is lost in the first impact, and is spent cracking your skull, breaking your skin, etc.
With the elastic object, most of the energy is lost in heat as the object flexes. On the first impact, the object compresses, burns off heat flexing, stores its energy in its compressed elasticity, then it rebounds, burns off more heat flexing, and launches itself into the air again. It won't bounce as high as it fell from originally due to air resistance and heat generated in flexing, and the process will repeat until it finally stops. The ball will start with gravitational potential energy, convert it to kinetic energy, convert that to potential energy in the form of its compressed elasticity, convert it back to kinetic energy, back to gravitational potential energy, etc., until finally all of the original energy is lost, mostly due to air resistance, and heat in flexing.
My head doesn't care about the total energy lost by the objects, which is the same in both cases, it only cares about the force of impact. Since it's less with the elastic ball, that's my preference.
-
you are right-but what more would you want to fall on your head solid object or an elastic object of the same mass
An elastic object, because its compression will extend the amount of time it takes to change velocity. That means a smaller acceleration (a = dv/dt, larger dt = smaller a), and less force exerted on your head (f = m*a, smaller a, smaller f).
Again, what is the point of all of these VERY BASIC questions? Seriously, all of this is answered in high school physics, isn't it?
In the first cycle body of equal mass have the same kinetic energy and speed ,After several cycles all changes depending on the elasticity but more cycles equally more Kinetic Energy because you do not have to lift object more
Lol. As i said, you've gone beyond stupid.
Here's a hint: You bend something elastic -> put energy in it. You release that elastic, having it move something -> take energy out of it. At no point in time there will be more kinetic energy. In fact, over time it will quickly become less due to losses.
Try the following: Take a large rubber band. Meassure it's temperature. Now quickly stretch and release it many times. Then meassure the temperature again.
-
You want to say that the elastic object because of elasticity loses mass or kinetic energy on impact
-
You want to say that the elastic object because of elasticity loses mass or kinetic energy on impact
No, I already said what I want to say:
An elastic object, because its compression will extend the amount of time it takes to change velocity. That means a smaller acceleration (a = dv/dt, larger dt = smaller a), and less force exerted on your head (f = m*a, smaller a, smaller f).
My head cares about the force of impact, which is lower with an elastic object due to the lengthened deceleration time.
The total energy lost by the objects is the same, but where the energy is lost matters. The inelastic object will deliver most of that energy to my head through a larger force. The elastic object will burn most of that energy off as heat internally due to flexing.
And AGAIN, what is the point of all of these elementary questions??? Are you trying to get us to "slip-up" and admit that a bouncy ball is over-unity or something stupid like that (since apparently you believe the common automobile, one of the least efficient modes of transportation on the planet, is over-unity)?
-
You want to say that the elastic object because of elasticity loses mass or kinetic energy on impact
No, I already said what I want to say:
An elastic object, because its compression will extend the amount of time it takes to change velocity. That means a smaller acceleration (a = dv/dt, larger dt = smaller a), and less force exerted on your head (f = m*a, smaller a, smaller f).
My head cares about the force of impact, which is lower with an elastic object due to the lengthened deceleration time.
The total energy lost by the objects is the same, but where the energy is lost matters. The inelastic object will deliver most of that energy to my head through a larger force. The elastic object will burn most of that energy off as heat internally due to its elasticity.
I agree, the force will be slightly lower but as I said you should certainly care about how many times regardless of the duration impact you will receive the same amount of impact as a steel ball
-
I agree, the force will be slightly lower but as I said you should certainly care about how many impact times
Why? After the first impact, any subsequent bounce-then-impact will have less and less energy. You do understand why brakes in a car work better than a brick wall, right? I mean, both bring the car to a stop...
-
you should certainly care about how many times regardless of the duration impact you will receive the same amount of impact as a steel ball
Huh? No, you won't. I'm not even sure what you mean by "amount of impact". Give me some units here, what kind of units does "amount of impact" have?
My head cares about force and pressure, both of which are lower with the elastic object (assuming the two objects are of a similar shape). Total energy deposited in my head will also be lower, because the elastic object ends up burning most of its energy off as heat internally instead of cracking my skull.
-
less plus less plus less without input energy equally more energy out Q factor of space or object is very important
-
less plus less plus less without input energy equally more energy out Q factor of space or object is very important
"less plus less plus less" what? Energy? What are you even talking about? Give me some numbers...you have a 100 g bouncy ball dropped from a height 1m above a person's head. Tell me all of the energy involved, where it's lost, and in what form the energy is currently stored at each step in the bouncing process. This should be a very easy exercise, just make some assumptions about the ball's elasticity that fit with observation.
At this point, I doubt you're capable of that, which means comments like the one I've quoted above are meaningless. We don't even know WHAT energies you're adding together, and given your posts earlier in this thread, it's probably all wrong anyway.
Remember, kinetic energy or potential energy at two points in time can not be added, because they're simply a storage mechanism, not a release mechanism. Just like you can't fill a bucket with 1 L of water, pour that water into another bucket, and then say you have 2 L of water because at time 1 you had 1 L in bucket A and at time 2 you had 1 L in bucket B. It's the same liter. Similarly, as the bouncy ball bounces, it's constantly converting its energy from one form to another. Gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy to compressed elastic potential energy (minus a bit lost as heat), back to kinetic energy (minus a bit more lost as heat), back to gravitational potential energy, etc. It's all the same energy, it's just changing forms. Similar to boiling a kg of water, capturing the steam in a container, moving it elsewhere, condensing it back into another container, freezing it, chipping up the ice into small parts, dumping them into a bucket and letting it melt. It's still the same kg of water, it's just changing forms.
-
Your head will receive an equal amount of impact regardless of the object ,and you do not have to worry about the loss of elastic object,you just need to worry about how many times will hit or bounce of the head
-
less plus less plus less without input energy equally more energy out Q factor of space or object is very important
You really want to be seen as stupid, don't you?
There is energy input when bouncing. In fact, there is a constant exchange of energy with lots of losses along the way.
You impact on an elastic surface. You transfer the energy to the elastic.
Some of that energy in the elastic will be converted to heat. The bulk of it will be used to transfer energy back to you, to propel you up again.
This cycle repeats over and over again, until there is no energy left in the system. At no point there will be any magic addition of "less plus less".
-
Cot time
-
Are we talking about alchemy or something like that?
How come I still have a computer if I did travel back in time, like the book "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"?
How come the internet is available in medieval time?
Can someone tell me all the major eclipses in medieval times? it probably will come out handy if I need to impress these folks.
Please let me know if the dates given are adjusted or not, specially since I think I'm in England and they were late adopters of the Gregorian calendar.
-
less plus less plus less without input energy equally more energy out Q factor of space or object is very important
You really want to be seen as stupid, don't you?
There is energy input when bouncing. In fact, there is a constant exchange of energy with lots of losses along the way.
You impact on an elastic surface. You transfer the energy to the elastic.
Some of that energy in the elastic will be converted to heat. The bulk of it will be used to transfer energy back to you, to propel you up again.
This cycle repeats over and over again, until there is no energy left in the system. At no point there will be any magic addition of "less plus less".
whether is the same one impact ,or several ,is not that fucking obviously
-
less plus less plus less without input energy equally more energy out Q factor of space or object is very important
You really want to be seen as stupid, don't you?
There is energy input when bouncing. In fact, there is a constant exchange of energy with lots of losses along the way.
You impact on an elastic surface. You transfer the energy to the elastic.
Some of that energy in the elastic will be converted to heat. The bulk of it will be used to transfer energy back to you, to propel you up again.
This cycle repeats over and over again, until there is no energy left in the system. At no point there will be any magic addition of "less plus less".
whether is the same one impact ,or several ,is not that fucking obviously
It fucking is. I invite you to my place to see how obvious it is. That is, i will take a 1kg hammer and hit you on the head 100 times at 10 cm per second. Then i will take the same hammer and hit you on the head with it only one time at 1000 cm per second. Then you tell me wether the difference was obvious or not.
Deal?
-
whether is the same one impact ,or several ,is not that fucking obviously
AGAIN, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?
Are you seriously trying to convince us that a bouncy-ball is over-unity? From the sound of it, your rationale is that the bouncy-ball starts at a height of 1 m with 9.8 J of potential energy, falls, bounces, returns to a height of 0.9 m with 8.8 J of potential energy, and since 9.8+8.8 = 18.6 J, that's more than 9.8, so it's over-unity and energy must have been injected from the "quantum vacuum". Is that your argument? If so, please go to all of the schools you've ever been to and tell the headmaster (or whoever is in charge) this statement, so they can fire all of the physics teachers you've ever had.
-
less plus less plus less without input energy equally more energy out Q factor of space or object is very important
You really want to be seen as stupid, don't you?
There is energy input when bouncing. In fact, there is a constant exchange of energy with lots of losses along the way.
You impact on an elastic surface. You transfer the energy to the elastic.
Some of that energy in the elastic will be converted to heat. The bulk of it will be used to transfer energy back to you, to propel you up again.
This cycle repeats over and over again, until there is no energy left in the system. At no point there will be any magic addition of "less plus less".
whether is the same one impact ,or several ,is not that fucking obviously
It fucking is. I invite you to my place to see how obvious it is. That is, i will take a 1kg hammer and hit you on the head 100 times at 10 cm per second. Then i will take the same hammer and hit you on the head with it only one time at 1000 cm per second. Then you tell me wether the difference was obvious or not.
Deal?
that it's your problem too many-cycle of energy input lol
-
hmm I wouldn't blame the teachers, obviously he doesn't want to listen so it didn't matter how good the teachers were.
-
less plus less plus less without input energy equally more energy out Q factor of space or object is very important
You really want to be seen as stupid, don't you?
There is energy input when bouncing. In fact, there is a constant exchange of energy with lots of losses along the way.
You impact on an elastic surface. You transfer the energy to the elastic.
Some of that energy in the elastic will be converted to heat. The bulk of it will be used to transfer energy back to you, to propel you up again.
This cycle repeats over and over again, until there is no energy left in the system. At no point there will be any magic addition of "less plus less".
whether is the same one impact ,or several ,is not that fucking obviously
It fucking is. I invite you to my place to see how obvious it is. That is, i will take a 1kg hammer and hit you on the head 100 times at 10 cm per second. Then i will take the same hammer and hit you on the head with it only one time at 1000 cm per second. Then you tell me wether the difference was obvious or not.
Deal?
that it's your problem too many-cycle of energy input lol
Well, lets test on yourself wether "many-cycle" is a problem for you then, or if the single cycle is a problem.
-
http://google.github.io/liquidfun/ (http://google.github.io/liquidfun/)
select elastic particles in the JavaScript app.
-
http://google.github.io/liquidfun/ (http://google.github.io/liquidfun/)
select elastic particles in the JavaScript app.
But! But! That one is surely based on those fancy theories, that mean nothing, because science can't explain everything, right?
Greetings,
Chris
-
calm down, and think if you have a brain- am steel structure filter I can move several tons of steel with one hand and I know the hammer more than you think
-
calm down, and think if you have a brain- am steel structure filter I can move several tons of steel with one hand and I know the hammer more than you think
So i take it you don't want to take up the offer? I wonder why that is....
-
calm down, and think if you have a brain
If we have a brain?
You come here, claim one of the most inefficient methods of transportation on the planet is over-unity because you have such a horribly flawed understanding of energy and power. Then you proceed to ask the most ridiculous oddball questions that I've ever seen, questions that require no more than the physics they teach a 14 year old to understand. You ignore all explanations, you ignore all questions that are asked of you, and then you imply we are the ones that are brainless.
Classic.
-
Well:
https://youtu.be/x8Afv3U_ysc?t=213 (https://youtu.be/x8Afv3U_ysc?t=213)
Greetings,
Chris
-
Which means that we aren't 100% wrong.
When you aren't 100% wrong, you are wrong.
I think we are saying the same thing but from different perspectives.
No. We aren't. Because you're doing exactly what I said in an earlier post: pointing to science's inherent uncertainties as though they are weaknesses rather than its strengths. In empirical science (not mathematics) you cannot ever be 100% right. For the simple reason: a new piece of data from somewhere in the universe may disprove your theory. You'll never be able to prove there isn't a piece of invalidating data (how do you prove a negative?) So you have to live with it. But that doesn't make the theory useless. If you can still explain the laws of nature and the goings on of matter, still make useful predictions, then it is a valuable tool.
Theories are supported by data because they explain them.
You may be redefining the word "theory". To me, a theory is a guess, a conjecture of how things may work. There may or may not be data / empirical evidence supporting that theory and that is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
I'm not redefining anything. That is how the word 'theory' is used in a scientific context. Outside that context, the meaning of the word has drifted and become more synonymous with 'hypothesis' or 'guess'. There are other situations in which it is still used in this way. Consider 'music theory' which explains the observed data that different groups of notes (scales) happen to sound good with each other (and plenty more besides).
Obviously there are differing "quality" among the various theories. A theory with empirical support is more valuable and trust-worthy than a theory without empirical support, for example.
But one's lack of empirical support does not make a theory more or less valid - I am sure that there are a lot of theories that we do not have empirical support today that will, in the future, replace a lot of current theories we do have empirical support. Think relativity theories in its early days vs. Newtonian theories.
Eh? You're kidding right? A lack of empirical support makes a theory totally useless as an explanatory and predictive framework, which as I've pointed out already, is the entire purpose of a theory!
Your example is actually incorrect. Einsteinian physics was not unsupported from the get-go. It explained all the phenomena that Newtonian physics did, plus extra stuff that Newtonian physics could not. Therefore, we needed only to find the evidence that it correctly explained the 'extra stuff' to elevate his model over Newton's as a more accurate predictor of how physical bodies behave in relation to one another.
-
You may be redefining the word "theory". To me, a theory is a guess, a conjecture of how things may work. There may or may not be data / empirical evidence supporting that theory and that is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
Absolutely not, not when referring to scientific theories.
If you were to put the level of certainty of an idea on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is a random idea bubble somebody has sitting in their garage, and 10 is a law of nature, a scientific theory is an 8-9. Guesses or hypotheses are a 1-2. They are not the same thing, not even close.
I'm sorry, but this is also incorrect. Laws are not above theories. A law of nature is a consistent observation, like the law of gravity. We know that objects with mass attract each other, we see it every day. The theory of gravity explains how that works. The laws can be considered the 'what' (as in what happens). The theory is the 'why'.
-
Synthetase is correct. These kind of misconceptions of science really should be corrected - especially on an engineering forum.
Again - I think the website referenced earlier (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19) in this thread does a good job of explaining the differences between theory, hypothesis, law, etc in terms anyone should be able to understand:
Misconception: Hypotheses are just guesses.
Correction: Hypotheses are reasoned and informed explanations.
Misconception: Theories are just hunches.
Correction: In science, theories are broad explanations. To be accepted, they must be supported by many lines of evidence.
Misconception: If evidence supports a hypothesis, it is upgraded to a theory. If the theory then garners even more support, it may be upgraded to a law.
Correction: Hypotheses cannot become theories and theories cannot become laws. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are all scientific explanations but they differ in breadth, not in level of support. Theories apply to a broader range of phenomena than do hypotheses. The term law is sometimes used to refer to an idea about how observable phenomena are related.
-
You may be redefining the word "theory". To me, a theory is a guess, a conjecture of how things may work. There may or may not be data / empirical evidence supporting that theory and that is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.
Absolutely not, not when referring to scientific theories.
If you were to put the level of certainty of an idea on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is a random idea bubble somebody has sitting in their garage, and 10 is a law of nature, a scientific theory is an 8-9. Guesses or hypotheses are a 1-2. They are not the same thing, not even close.
I'm sorry, but this is also incorrect. Laws are not above theories. A law of nature is a consistent observation, like the law of gravity. We know that objects with mass attract each other, we see it every day. The theory of gravity explains how that works. The laws can be considered the 'what' (as in what happens). The theory is the 'why'.
Fair enough. I shouldn't have said a 10 is a law of nature, since as you said that's really comparing apples and oranges (or theories and laws...ba dum tss!)
-
Synthetase is correct. These kind of misconceptions of science really should be corrected - especially on an engineering forum.
Again - I think the website referenced earlier (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19) in this thread does a good job of explaining the differences between theory, hypothesis, law, etc in terms anyone should be able to understand:
This assumes that people can understand such simple terms. My guess is that educational institutions sometimes fail at that level already. Things like home-schooling surely don't make things better in that regard. It's a really sad state of affairs that we even have to talk about, and explain it over and over again, what the difference between common language theory and scientific theory is. It's about time that we, as societies, spend more money in giving children a good education. Having a teacher in front of more than 20 pupils is just sad. Having said pupils require to take up large loans to get further education is just stupid. No wonder that so many people are basically uneducated.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Well:
https://youtu.be/x8Afv3U_ysc?t=213 (https://youtu.be/x8Afv3U_ysc?t=213)
Greetings,
Chris
Love it!
-
It's schizophrenia, magical thinking and such.
Not trying to start a debate on mental health, but I don't think it is caused by schizophrenia - although I do see your point, as the stereotype of someone suffering from it, is a very unpredictable paranoid person.
It's 'confirmation bias', coupled with the appeal to belong to a group that is separate from other groups - pretty much how cults work. 'Us vs them'.
It is putting belief before anything else, so rather than evidence, experiments and calculations creating conclusions - they start off with the conclusion, and design experiments and fiddle the numbers to lead to that conclusion. Just because their idea's are about science and technology doesn't make it any less of a religion, because it doesn't adjust its views based on tests - it adjusts the tests based on its views and preconceptions.
Whilst I'm not trying to offend anyone, I think we are all prone to confirmation bias, that is after all why we conduct experiments multiple times and double check things. Even then I'm sure most of us has examples where we've been a bit 'blind' to something, our preconceptions dictate where we look for evidence, which can be in completely the wrong place. That 'tunnel vision' happens to me quite often. Ultimately the scientific method exists to counter this.
-
Whilst I'm not trying to offend anyone, I think we are all prone to confirmation bias, that is after all why we conduct experiments multiple times and double check things. Even then I'm sure most of us has examples where we've been a bit 'blind' to something, our preconceptions dictate where we look for evidence, which can be in completely the wrong place. That 'tunnel vision' happens to me quite often. Ultimately the scientific method exists to counter this.
I think you're absolutely right, I've done it myself, and I see it in my colleagues all the time (I do think it's easier to see it in somebody else than in yourself, which is probably why I see it in them more than I see it in me).
I often encounter the reverse problem though...I have a hypothesis of how something works and a good idea of the results I want to see in an experiment. I conduct the experiment, and the results are even cleaner and better than I could have possibly imagined. My initial reaction isn't "Eurica! I've found it", it's "Shit, it's not supposed to look that good...I screwed something up somewhere", and then I spend the next 3 days looking over my setup, processing code, and results to see where I went wrong.
I think too many of the free energy folk (all but the fraudsters, TBH) stop when they hit the "Eurica!" results, and never go back and check that what they're measuring is actually real. I think that's why so many of them present results that don't prove free-energy, they prove that the person has no idea how to attach or read a multi-meter.
-
Synthetase is correct. These kind of misconceptions of science really should be corrected - especially on an engineering forum.
Again - I think the website referenced earlier (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19) in this thread does a good job of explaining the differences between theory, hypothesis, law, etc in terms anyone should be able to understand:
This assumes that people can understand such simple terms. My guess is that educational institutions sometimes fail at that level already. Things like home-schooling surely don't make things better in that regard. It's a really sad state of affairs that we even have to talk about, and explain it over and over again, what the difference between common language theory and scientific theory is. It's about time that we, as societies, spend more money in giving children a good education. Having a teacher in front of more than 20 pupils is just sad. Having said pupils require to take up large loans to get further education is just stupid. No wonder that so many people are basically uneducated.
Greetings,
Chris
Hey, don't blame home schooling. I know some really smart people that were home schooled. I think the public school system is the bigger problem (due largely to classroom sizes and the push for test scores instead of actual education).
There's a plethora of different home school curriculums; while it's true some are Christian based, most actually teach science very throughly, including Evolution.
-
It's schizophrenia, magical thinking and such.
Not trying to start a debate on mental health, but I don't think it is caused by schizophrenia - although I do see your point, as the stereotype of someone suffering from it, is a very unpredictable paranoid person.
It's 'confirmation bias', coupled with the appeal to belong to a group that is separate from other groups - pretty much how cults work. 'Us vs them'.
It is putting belief before anything else, so rather than evidence, experiments and calculations creating conclusions - they start off with the conclusion, and design experiments and fiddle the numbers to lead to that conclusion. Just because their idea's are about science and technology doesn't make it any less of a religion, because it doesn't adjust its views based on tests - it adjusts the tests based on its views and preconceptions.
Whilst I'm not trying to offend anyone, I think we are all prone to confirmation bias, that is after all why we conduct experiments multiple times and double check things. Even then I'm sure most of us has examples where we've been a bit 'blind' to something, our preconceptions dictate where we look for evidence, which can be in completely the wrong place. That 'tunnel vision' happens to me quite often. Ultimately the scientific method exists to counter this.
I think that Dunning/Kruger has more to do with it, as the video i linked to said in a rather light fashion. To know how dumb you are, you need a certain level of intelligence. That is, if you are really dumb, you lack the capacity to recognize that you are dumb. This also means that to be sure you really know something, you need the mental capacity and knowledge to actually know that you know something. This is simplified, of course. See the WP page for a better explanation of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Greetings,
Chris
-
Things like home-schooling surely don't make things better in that regard.
Why? Quality education doesn't have to be institutionalized.
It's about time that we, as societies, spend more money in giving children a good education.
Why?
if you are really dumb, you lack the capacity to recognize that you are dumb.
Agreed. Knowing what you don't know is an important part of IQ/EQ.
-
Synthetase is correct. These kind of misconceptions of science really should be corrected - especially on an engineering forum.
Again - I think the website referenced earlier (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19) in this thread does a good job of explaining the differences between theory, hypothesis, law, etc in terms anyone should be able to understand:
This assumes that people can understand such simple terms. My guess is that educational institutions sometimes fail at that level already. Things like home-schooling surely don't make things better in that regard. It's a really sad state of affairs that we even have to talk about, and explain it over and over again, what the difference between common language theory and scientific theory is. It's about time that we, as societies, spend more money in giving children a good education. Having a teacher in front of more than 20 pupils is just sad. Having said pupils require to take up large loans to get further education is just stupid. No wonder that so many people are basically uneducated.
Greetings,
Chris
Hey, don't blame home schooling. I know some really smart people that were home schooled. I think the public school system is the bigger problem (due largely to classroom sizes and the push for test scores instead of actual education).
There's a plethora of different home school curriculums; while it's true some are Christian based, most actually teach science very throughly, including Evolution.
Sorry if that came off offending, mind you that i'm in Germany. The little i know about home schooling is that the results are usually far worse than what public schools produce. Sure, there are always outliers. But in general it ought to be worse. If things have changed so much that home shooling actually becomes better than public education, then things are _really_ bad. And no, i'm not talking about home schooling by religious idiots.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Synthetase is correct. These kind of misconceptions of science really should be corrected - especially on an engineering forum.
Again - I think the website referenced earlier (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19) in this thread does a good job of explaining the differences between theory, hypothesis, law, etc in terms anyone should be able to understand:
This assumes that people can understand such simple terms. My guess is that educational institutions sometimes fail at that level already. Things like home-schooling surely don't make things better in that regard. It's a really sad state of affairs that we even have to talk about, and explain it over and over again, what the difference between common language theory and scientific theory is. It's about time that we, as societies, spend more money in giving children a good education. Having a teacher in front of more than 20 pupils is just sad. Having said pupils require to take up large loans to get further education is just stupid. No wonder that so many people are basically uneducated.
Greetings,
Chris
I broadly agree. I said in an earlier post that a good scientific education teaches you how to think, not what to think. Unfortunately, most sciences classes at schools (obviously I can't comment on home-schooling) don't bother with teaching the philosophy of science (how we know what we know), but rather focus on a bunch of facts and figures (just what we know). This means that students leave thinking it's all based on arguments from authority, opinion and conjecture. Meaning any opinion is equally valid, which is obviously nonsense. You can see the evidence for that in this very thread.
-
Things like home-schooling surely don't make things better in that regard.
Why? Quality education doesn't have to be institutionalized.
Because it is far more effective to have people trained to teach other people. I'm not disputing that home schooling may work, but in general it is a bad idea. The parents can only teach what they know. Their kids, in return, can teach only what they know. And i'm sure you know the game of chinese telephone, right? If you arte at a point where home shooling gives better results than regular schools, instead of applauding home schooling you better get to it to make conventional schooling better. Because it means that the latter has degraded rather horribly.
It's about time that we, as societies, spend more money in giving children a good education.
Why?
Because the children are our future. If we don't give them good education, they can't do much. We profited from good, cheap education. We profited from good and cheap education that our parents had. If we don't educate the children, we will end up with a shitload of idiots that think homeopathy cures everything and paying energy bills is stupid because we have free energy. Who then will repair your stuff? Give you the proper care when you are old and unable to care for yourself?
Greetings,
Chris
-
I broadly agree. I said in an earlier post that a good scientific education teaches you how to think, not what to think. Unfortunately, most sciences classes at schools (obviously I can't comment on home-schooling) don't bother with teaching the philosophy of science (how we know what we know), but rather focus on a bunch of facts and figures (just what we know). This means that students leave thinking it's all based on arguments from authority, opinion and conjecture. Meaning any opinion is equally valid, which is obviously nonsense. You can see the evidence for that in this very thread.
Absolutely agree!
Greetings,
Chris
-
Unfortunately, most sciences classes at schools (obviously I can't comment on home-schooling) don't bother with teaching the philosophy of science (how we know what we know), but rather focus on a bunch of facts and figures (just what we know). This means that students leave thinking it's all based on arguments from authority, opinion and conjecture. Meaning any opinion is equally valid, which is obviously nonsense. You can see the evidence for that in this very thread.
You absolutely can. mtdoc summarized this nicely earlier in the thread:
IMO, it's symptomatic of the current culture and times. Our political and celebrity culture saturates the media with the idea that all ideas are equally valid, that scientific evidence is just a suggestion and that just because everything is not known with certainty, everything is equally uncertain. That logic and scientific facts should be on equal footing with uninformed conjecture and agenda driven opinion.
-
Ah yes, I remember seeing that post. :)
-
Things like home-schooling surely don't make things better in that regard.
Why? Quality education doesn't have to be institutionalized.
It's about time that we, as societies, spend more money in giving children a good education.
Why?
if you are really dumb, you lack the capacity to recognize that you are dumb.
Agreed. Knowing what you don't know is an important part of IQ/EQ.
I hate to jump back here but I had to add my opinion on home schooling.
1. I know many people that have been home schooled that have better education than what is offered here in the public system.
2. As we all know it is the teacher that makes the difference.
Our public education here in the u.s. for the most part sucks and we spend the most per student ???
we are rated #21 ?
-
'in general it is a bad idea. '
I don't think that's established yet.
Even if it is, it is far from your earlier statement about homeschooling surely doesn't make it better.
It is easy to think of quite a few scenarios where kids can be better off being hone schooled.
As to education, I don't think of educating my kids as a way for me to be taken care of later. I think of it instead as a way for my kids to be what they want to be. Ifvthat goal calls for lots of education, great. If it calls for no education, great too.
I don't see being educated by itself makes someone better / better off. Or worse for that matter.
-
'in general it is a bad idea. '
I don't think that's established yet.
Even if it is, it is far from your earlier statement about homeschooling surely doesn't make it better.
It is easy to think of quite a few scenarios where kids can be better off being hone schooled.
Having a few scenarios where kids were better of does not validate it. Let me put it differently:
One person thouroughly educated in history teaches history classes.
One person thouroughly educated in math teaches math classes.
One person thouroughly educated in physics teaches physics classes.
... And so on...
Lets assume that said class has 20 pupils. If you want them all home home schooled, the parents have to be thouroughly educetd in all of that to provide at least the same level of knowledge. Heck, lets be sloppy and say that only one parent needs to be that way. So you have 20 pupils requiring 20 parents to barely achieve the same result.
That is far from efficient. Furthermore, it brings the kids up to a different level of knowledge.
As to education, I don't think of educating my kids as a way for me to be taken care of later. I think of it instead as a way for my kids to be what they want to be. Ifvthat goal calls for lots of education, great. If it calls for no education, great too.
So we can assume that you will never make use of medical services later on? That you will reject to be cared of in old age? Because, hey, those that would care may not have been _your_ kids, but they have been someones kids. However, if you like to be cared for at old age, what you just said is purely selfish idiocy.
I don't see being educated by itself makes someone better / better off. Or worse for that matter.
I lack the imagination to take that as anything else than a lousy attempt at a Poe.
Greetings,
Chris
-
'in general it is a bad idea. '
I don't think that's established yet.
Even if it is, it is far from your earlier statement about homeschooling surely doesn't make it better.
It is easy to think of quite a few scenarios where kids can be better off being hone schooled.
As to education, I don't think of educating my kids as a way for me to be taken care of later. I think of it instead as a way for my kids to be what they want to be. Ifvthat goal calls for lots of education, great. If it calls for no education, great too.
I don't see being educated by itself makes someone better / better off. Or worse for that matter.
Unless I am miss reading your response you think it is better to let a bunch of liberals to fill our young people with a bunch of crap? or is it you don't have the time or desire to teach them? you know you can do both.
-
'in general it is a bad idea. '
I don't think that's established yet.
Even if it is, it is far from your earlier statement about homeschooling surely doesn't make it better.
It is easy to think of quite a few scenarios where kids can be better off being hone schooled.
Having a few scenarios where kids were better of does not validate it. Let me put it differently:
One person thouroughly educated in history teaches history classes.
One person thouroughly educated in math teaches math classes.
One person thouroughly educated in physics teaches physics classes.
... And so on...
Lets assume that said class has 20 pupils. If you want them all home home schooled, the parents have to be thouroughly educetd in all of that to provide at least the same level of knowledge. Heck, lets be sloppy and say that only one parent needs to be that way. So you have 20 pupils requiring 20 parents to barely achieve the same result.
I don't think you understand exactly how home schooling works... The parents don't just arbitrarily teach their kids what they know...
By far the most common approach is where you buy a package of curriculum which includes textbooks for the students, tests, workbooks for the teachers and so on. Basically the exact same stuff used in a normal school. (Also, a lot of these providers offer video lessons, sometimes shot in an actual private school classroom.)
There's two variants: Accredited and Non-Accredited. With the former, the child takes tests and wires reports, which get mailed to the provider for grading. In the latter, the parent takes care it (they would get answer sheets for the tests, etc).
I'm sure it's all done over the net these days, but in the mid-90's, it was through snail mail and lessons were on VHS tapes.
Anyway, here in the US, home schooling is overseen by the Board of Education, so parents can't just teach kids whatever they feel like. At the very least, the kids have to be able to pass the standardized tests.
Sorry, it's just a sour subject for me. Homeschooling gets a really bad rep because of a few loud mouthed religious zealots.
-
Heh.... re confirmation bias:
Note my signature line below.....
-
You can beat the free energy/cancer curers/... every time by getting specific, and asking a question.
-ask a question about power factor, or how they connect a wall socket, or how the efficiency of a transformator is determined.
-to the second group, what's the difference between a virus and a bacteria, how do taste receptors on a tongue work.
The answer is always "that is not relevant, you don't have to X for Y"
And then become personal: Relevant, ok. How are YOU relevant to that profession? What product did you design, who did you cure? Or are you only a spectator?
The answer is then: "You don't have to be X for knowing Y"
And then become specific, personal and responsabilised:
I don't know anything about cooking, eggs and butter. I don't work in the bakery domain, but I have an idea:
I'm gonna make something I call "a cake".
If you force me to listen to your story, I will force you to eat it.
-
You can beat the free energy/cancer curers/... every time by getting specific, and asking a question.
Actually, you can't beat or convince most. A beautiful quote:
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
(apply to field of choice - free energy, flat earthers, conspirators of all shapes and sizes)
-
I don't think you understand exactly how home schooling works... The parents don't just arbitrarily teach their kids what they know...
By far the most common approach is where you buy a package of curriculum which includes textbooks for the students, tests, workbooks for the teachers and so on. Basically the exact same stuff used in a normal school. (Also, a lot of these providers offer video lessons, sometimes shot in an actual private school classroom.)
There's two variants: Accredited and Non-Accredited. With the former, the child takes tests and wires reports, which get mailed to the provider for grading. In the latter, the parent takes care it (they would get answer sheets for the tests, etc).
I'm sure it's all done over the net these days, but in the mid-90's, it was through snail mail and lessons were on VHS tapes.
Anyway, here in the US, home schooling is overseen by the Board of Education, so parents can't just teach kids whatever they feel like. At the very least, the kids have to be able to pass the standardized tests.
Sorry, it's just a sour subject for me. Homeschooling gets a really bad rep because of a few loud mouthed religious zealots.
OK, fair enough. So i'll use the definiton "parents can teach their kids whatever crap they like, as long as said kids are able to put to cross at the right place on some stuff". Or "... as long as they can memorize a bunch of things by rote". Having one person tell 20 kids some kind of BS is way more likely to get exposed than one person telling one kid the same BS, with the adendum of "but if you are tested for that, answer X instead".
Greetings,
Chris
-
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; "
It is not about creationists. It is about close-mindedness. I'm sure there are open-minded creationists as there are close-minded scientists, engineers, or any other non-creationists.
-
It is about close-mindedness. I'm sure there are open-minded creationists as there are close-minded scientists, engineers, or any other non-creationists.
No, there is a huge difference between a creationist and a so-called "close-minded" scientist. The former has to take creationism at face value. He can not honestly admit to the many flaws of that, because doing so would take away the basis of his/her belief. OTOH, a "close-minded" scientist is basically just stubborn. Any scientist worth his or her salt will, in the end, go with what the scientific process has come up with. They may not agree with it at first, but the more evidence comes up, the more they are going to give up their wrong assumptions. Because doing so is what science is all about, in the end. Yes, of course, there are and have been scientists that will not accept things. But in the grand scheme of things that doesn't matter, since science will advance anyways. Religion and belief can't do that. Whatever deity is claimed to have said must be taken as absolute truth. It can not be changed, which is why we still have creationists around. Heck, not only around, but seemibgly growing in numbers. (They may just be more vocal, though...)
If you ask me, anyone who says to believe in creatonism has already lost any debate about scientific things by default. Heck, personally i go so far and say that whoever believes in any religion has lost any credibility in whatever science stuff they do or say. Simply because of the fact that they already admitted that science is basically worthless to them, that they will happily ignore any scientific thinbg, because they will discard it all when it comes to religious belief. To me, anyone who says "X must be because $scripture says so, damn the evidence against it" can not be taken serious anymore. If they ever come up with something credible, it should be scrutinized especially thoroughly, because the source has openly admitted to not care about science when it conflicts with their belief.
I am well aware that this is an rather extreme stance, but there it is. Having such people in the midst of science in the 21st century can't be good. That crackpottery is on the rise has to have a cause somewhere. Some religious nutjob telling students that evolution is just a theory basically tells those students that everything else in schience is "just a theory" and can be debated/believed away. Such people should have no place in the public education sector or, as my stance goes, in anything science either.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Heck, personally i go so far and say that whoever believes in any religion has lost any credibility in whatever science stuff they do or say. Simply because of the fact that they already admitted that science is basically worthless to them, that they will happily ignore any scientific thinbg, because they will discard it all when it comes to religious belief.
Interesting statement that. Because here was I thinking it was the available data supporting what a scientist says and not their personality, their race, religion, or who they get it on with. :)
Have you not encountered the wondrous human trait of doublethink? :)
I've known some very good scientists who were religious. It's kind of weird to watch in a way, because they kind of switched their way of thinking between being in the lab and being outside of it. I'm sure everyone settles their own mind in their own way. However, I couldn't fault their methodology and the data were good, so in the end it was completely irrelevant.
-
"personally i go so far and say that whoever believes in any religion has lost any credibility in whatever science stuff they do or say"
Given that science was practically born in the church, there is no surprise that the list of scientists who are religious is long, Newton, eistein, ...
I think the difference between them and those who think they understand science is that the likes of Newton understand the limits of science.
Then, there are also people who view science as a religion, ....
-
If you ask me, anyone who says to believe in creatonism has already lost any debate about scientific things by default. Heck, personally i go so far and say that whoever believes in any religion has lost any credibility in whatever science stuff they do or say. Simply because of the fact that they already admitted that science is basically worthless to them, that they will happily ignore any scientific thinbg, because they will discard it all when it comes to religious belief....
True, of course. But for me "religious belief" it includes that "other" religion too, you know, the one that cannot be criticised, where 93% of the subsidized "agree".
-
Interesting statement that. Because here was I thinking it was the available data supporting what a scientist says and not their personality, their race, religion, or who they get it on with. :)
Have you not encountered the wondrous human trait of doublethink? :)
Yes, i did. in fact, i'm not free of that myself. Which is why i wrote what i wrote. I'm happy to admit that $thinking of mine is wrong. I'm happy because if gives me the opportunity to learn new stuff. Well, at least new to me, anyways. I, like anyone else, have my prejudices. But unlike religion, i'm happy to give them up for a more accurate understanding. Most of the stuff i know i have learned from people who, at some point, knew more about it than me. For lurkers, no, this is not an appeal to authority. I'm not blindly doing the "But i think X is Y, Z also said so, so i must be right". Yes, there is a lot of stuff that goes way over my head. But that is what science is for. Explaining it to me. And while i don't understand all of it, i know where to look, and more importantly, how to look at it.
Like, dunno, peer-reviewed papers. Generaly we say that a paper becomes better the more peer-review it had, while it could uphold it's premises. But this is a catch, already. Look at Rossi, for exmaple. There is a "Journal of...." that "peer reviewed" his papers. Leading to a positive conclusion. But then look at who "publishes" that "journal". Basically it's like toilet paper. It would be rather cheap for me to have a really bad joke printed on many, many sheets of toilet paper. A lot of folks would see it. Still doens't make it a goof joke, though....
if, during a discussion, or exchange of ideas, someone tells me that i'm wrong, so be it. Usually i will be grumpy about that. If i'm provided with evidence why my thinking is wrong, i will look at it. If it convinces me, i say "i was wrong". If it doesn't, but still have good points, i will say "well, yea, but that doesnt strongly refute $mystuff". At any point along this way i try to remain open minded.
This is contrary to religion. Religion has 1) a fixed set of premises and 2) a fixed set of results, and a fixed set of way to go from 1) to 2). It has no room to allow for corrections to that, because $deity. Any religious person basically has to stick to that. Which means they have to suspend the scientific method at some point to make it fit together. Which, for me, just means they can (and probably will) discard whatever science contradicts their belief. There is no thing like "a little murdering". One murders a person, or one doesnt. Willing to admit that in context A it is murder, but in context B it is not, because belief, well, yes, that is doublespeak...
Greetings,
Chris
-
Given that science was practically born in the church ...
You are making a sad joke, right?
-
If you ask me, anyone who says to believe in creatonism has already lost any debate about scientific things by default. Heck, personally i go so far and say that whoever believes in any religion has lost any credibility in whatever science stuff they do or say. Simply because of the fact that they already admitted that science is basically worthless to them, that they will happily ignore any scientific thinbg, because they will discard it all when it comes to religious belief....
True, of course. But for me "religious belief" it includes that "other" religion too, you know, the one that cannot be criticised, where 93% of the subsidized "agree".
Which is? Name the names. If you can't, don't pretend to know any of them. What are the "other"? What are "93% of the subsidized"? 93% of what? Subsifized how? Agreeing with what?
-
You want to say that the elastic object because of elasticity loses mass or kinetic energy on impact
No, I already said what I want to say:
An elastic object, because its compression will extend the amount of time it takes to change velocity. That means a smaller acceleration (a = dv/dt, larger dt = smaller a), and less force exerted on your head (f = m*a, smaller a, smaller f).
My head cares about the force of impact, which is lower with an elastic object due to the lengthened deceleration time.
The total energy lost by the objects is the same, but where the energy is lost matters. The inelastic object will deliver most of that energy to my head through a larger force. The elastic object will burn most of that energy off as heat internally due to flexing.
And AGAIN, what is the point of all of these elementary questions??? Are you trying to get us to "slip-up" and admit that a bouncy ball is over-unity or something stupid like that (since apparently you believe the common automobile, one of the least efficient modes of transportation on the planet, is over-unity)?
My guess is he doesn't speak much English, is genuinely curious and chose the wrong thread to ask nubie questions in.
-
My guess is he doesn't speak much English, is genuinely curious and chose the wrong thread to ask nubie questions in.
His first post in this thread was a declaration that the common automobile is over-unity, because it's kinetic energy at speed is greater than the rate of energy consumption required to maintain that speed. He's not just asking newbie questions, he genuinely has a fundamental misunderstanding of energy and power, and nothing we're saying seems to be making any difference. He seems to be aggressively ignorant. Even after I went through the math of energy consumption vs energy dissipation due to wind resistance for an average car, his response was, and I quote:
252.72 MJ per hour ,I told you per second lol
At that point I was almost certain he was just pulling our leg, but I was wrong.
-
Given that science was practically born in the church ...
You are making a sad joke, right?
He is not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
-
Btw, major, no let me rephrase that, Revolutionary discovery announced today:
Scientists have detected gravitational waves!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/11/466286219/in-milestone-scientists-detect-waves-in-space-time-as-black-holes-collide (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/11/466286219/in-milestone-scientists-detect-waves-in-space-time-as-black-holes-collide)
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/11/10965312/einstein-gravitational-waves-discovered-announced-video (http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/11/10965312/einstein-gravitational-waves-discovered-announced-video)
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/11/ligo-discovers-gravitational-waves/80226644/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/11/ligo-discovers-gravitational-waves/80226644/)
Yey Science!
Edit:
Yey Einstein!
Edit, this is Amazing:
The detectors are sensitive enough to pick up a length change of only one ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton, which is one of the particles making up an atom.
Outstanding they can actually measure that, it really blows my mind!
-
If you ask me, anyone who says to believe in creatonism has already lost any debate about scientific things by default. Heck, personally i go so far and say that whoever believes in any religion has lost any credibility in whatever science stuff they do or say. Simply because of the fact that they already admitted that science is basically worthless to them, that they will happily ignore any scientific thinbg, because they will discard it all when it comes to religious belief....
True, of course. But for me "religious belief" it includes that "other" religion too, you know, the one that cannot be criticised, where 93% of the subsidized "agree".
Which is? Name the names. If you can't, don't pretend to know any of them. What are the "other"? What are "93% of the subsidized"? 93% of what? Subsifized how? Agreeing with what?
Instead of commenting on every word, you could also try to interprete the whole sentence.
If your brain succeeded in this, it's maybe ready to go to the next step, and discover what is meant "between the lines"
Don't focus too hard on the number 93%. It once was 97%, other numbers were used too, but all in the "near to 100%"
P.S. I name what I want. I formulate how I want. I pretend what I want. and it's not up to something like you to decide on what "I can't" or "know"
-
"You are making a sad joke, right?"
As I said earlier, knowing what you don't know is an important part of iq/eq.
-
Things are never quite so cut and dry. I am an Atheist. But I fully understand that religion can have positive effect on some people. Things like hope, altruism etc.. are well represented in the religion. Religion is also ingrained in various cultures and it can be next to impossible to separate.
I don't have issues with religious folk. Whatever gets them through the day. Just keep it to yourself. And be tolerant of people of other religions and those who don't believe in any.
-
Given that science was practically born in the church ...
You are making a sad joke, right?
He is not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
Well, as i said, a bad joke ...
greetings,
Chris
P.S.: Not only was it known "earlier than the church" that the earth is roughly a ball-shaped object, it has been put to use before. And that is just one thing....
Ah, but i can't resist... Why exactly did they burn down that great library?
Greetings,
Chris
-
" And be tolerant of people of other religions and those who don't believe in any."
The same for those who are atheists as well. Having or not having a religion doesn't make one better or worse, smarter or dumber. Thinking it does makes one dumber, however.
I believe in a religion of no religion. But that doesn't prevent me from appreciating why others may find comfort in a belief system, and why that's notbin conflict with their scientific work.
-
" And be tolerant of people of other religions and those who don't believe in any."
The same for those who are atheists as well. Having or not having a religion doesn't make one better or worse, smarter or dumber. Thinking it does makes one dumber, however.
I believe in a religion of no religion. But that doesn't prevent me from appreciating why others may find comfort in a belief system, and why that's notbin conflict with their scientific work.
Yes. I agree. That last part was for the Atheists and Agnostics.
-
I've known some very good scientists who were religious.
As have I.
I think those who think religious or spiritual beliefs are incompatible with science either have no direct experience with a variety of working research scientists and/or equate religious/spiritual beliefs only with the extreme fundamentalist religious views that only represent a small minority.
Science, by definition deals with the physical universe. Religion primarily does not. There need not be any conflict as long as those realms do not overlap. I think for most with religious or spiritual beliefs they do not expect them to - or perhaps only rarely (miracles..).
For example, one of the faculty in my department while I was in graduate school was a world renowned neurobiologist - one of the foremost experts in the neurochemistry of alzheimer's disease. He was also a born again Christian. At first it was hard for me to figure out how that could be. But after a while I got to know him and one of his graduate students very well (who was also a born again Christian) and realized that there was no conflict at all. They did not believe any of the usual bible thumping nonsense - no literal interpretation of the creation myth, etc. Did they believe that Christ actually "rose from the dead"? - I'm sure they did but I'm also sure that belief had no bearing on the work they were doing or even on how they view the workings of the physical universe on a daily basis.
-
Instead of commenting on every word, you could also try to interprete the whole sentence. If your brain succeeded in this, it's maybe ready to go to the next step, and discover what is meant "between the lines"
Don't focus too hard on the number 93%. It once was 97%, other numbers were used too, but all in the "near to 100%"
P.S. I name what I want. I formulate how I want. I pretend what I want. and it's not up to something like you to decide on what "I can't" or "know"
OK fair enough. So let me rephrase it, in a single sentence, plus a bonus question:
What is the other religious belief that can't be criticized because 93% of which is subsidized? And as an extra question: What, roughly, are those folks that agree with said 93%?
Here is my rough speculation about the answer, if there is any from you: It is the religion of the one true god, abviously! and anyone who takes their belief serous will sponsor it, so at least 93%! Can't say what or who they are, of course, because $privacy before an almighty, allknowing, allseeing god.
But heck... I'm guilty of hacing this thread go off-topic for so long. I'm really sorry for that.
Let me conclude with a video that relates to the OP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w)
And then let me add another video about the medicinal crap the OP claimed, after having failed at physics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U)
Greetings,
Chris
-
...Here is my rough speculation about the answer, if there is any from you: It is the religion of the one true god, abviously!
couldn't be more wrong, nothing to do with all that.
But I see you like guessing. Take another guess. What other man-made concept, where 97% agrees, can better be seen as a religion?
-
... I believe in a religion of no religion ...
You do understand tha... Oh, wait, you are the guy who said that a theory in science is basically just conjecture... So, nevermind...
-
...Here is my rough speculation about the answer, if there is any from you: It is the religion of the one true god, abviously!
couldn't be more wrong, nothing to do with all that.
"It's not X, but i wont tell you what it is either! Nananana!!"
-
But I see you like guessing
Please be specific about what you think i am guessing about.
. Take another guess. What other man-made concept, where 97% agrees, can better be seen as a religion?
I hope you better have hard evidence for that 97% number. And that they agree. And who those 97% are ... After all, if you are off by just a percent, you are basically out of the game. That is if we apply your understanding of things ....
Edit: Should have been "understanding" of course ...
-
"Nananana"
The answer is so obvious that even a caveman knows it, :)
Hint: a religion is not just a religion. Think deeper about the various traits of a religion and look around to see how they are reflected in life.
It requires you to develop a true understanding of "religion", which can be hard for some.
-
I have used the term "religion of science" before and I continue to think it is very accurate.
There are certainly scientists who believe in the religion of science but it seems to be more prevalent among people with rudimentary and superficial understanding of science and who are eager to be associated with the "in" group.
You can easily spot those people based on their inability to spot true religions.
-
"Nananana"
The answer is so obvious that even a caveman knows it, :)
Hint: a religion is not just a religion. Think deeper about the various traits of a religion and look around to see how they are reflected in life.
It requires you to develop a true understanding of "religion", which can be hard for some.
Ahh, i see! And a theory is just that, a theoriy! Right?
The only "true understanding" of religion is: It's all bullshit.
There are some many religions out there ... So many gods ... A lot of them contradict each other ... Which basically means: They can't all be right .... .However, there is a really simple and elegant solution to that: They are all wrong.
There is only one true understanding of religion: Fantasy books. If you think that whatever crap in you "holly babble" is true, then you have to grant that every page in the quran is true. And after that you have to grant that every page in a harry-potter book is true.
Any attempt to clear that up is just special pleading. "My $magic-entity is more magic than your $magic-entity". In the end, just a silly contest to see who's dick is the longest/thickest/whatever.
-
I have used the term "religion of science" before and I continue to think it is very accurate.
Yes, you also think that "theory", in a scientific context, is just a guess, conjecture, etc...
In other words: You are part of the problem.
-
Science is based on current "belief", granted they are based on observable truths, but they are "beliefs" nevertheless.
That doesn't mean that when we find new and better ways, those previous "beliefs" are invalidated, but in essence they are.
Take String Theory and the Multiverse, or Relativity and the new find gravitational waves, (of course just one independent confirmation doesn't settle it and more review of the data is needed).
So what is it? Relativity or Quantum Physics?
What is the current "Belief"?
-
I have used the term "religion of science" before and I continue to think it is very accurate.
That is a completely nonsensical phrase. Equivalent to saying "the science of the afterlife" or "the religion of electromagnetism". Continuing to promote such nonsense just demonstrates an misunderstanding of science and/or religion.
-
"So many gods ... A lot of them contradict each other ... Which basically means: They can't all be right "
Sounds like that certain duality in particle physics.
I think instead of mouthing off at things you certainly don't understand, you can benefit from at least being civil, and being cognizant of limitations of your own knowledge and capabilities.
-
I think instead of mouthing off at things you certainly don't understand, you can benefit from at least being civil, and being cognizant of limitations of your own knowledge and capabilities.
Well Danny assuming you're responding to my post I'll just say that pointing out your lack of understanding of science is not a personal attack. I am certain there are many things you have greater knowledge about than me.
However, your repeated demonstration of a lack of science literacy speaks for itself. This is an engineering forum and Dave is all about "no bullshit" so I will continue to call bullshit when you make such nonsense claims about "the religion of science", etc.
-
I think instead of mouthing off at things you certainly don't understand, you can benefit from at least being civil, and being cognizant of limitations of your own knowledge and capabilities.
Well Danny assuming you're responding to my post I'll just say that pointing out your lack of understanding of science is not a personal attack. I am certain there are many things you have greater knowledge about than me.
However, your repeated demonstration of a lack of science literacy speaks for itself. This is an engineering forum and Dave is all about "no bullshit" so I will continue to call bullshit when you make such nonsense claims about "the religion of science", etc.
Amen brother! Preach it!
-
Amen brother! Preach it!
Hallelujah!!
Hallelujah! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeQyoTSgllc)
-
Like, dunno, peer-reviewed papers. Generaly we say that a paper becomes better the more peer-review it had, while it could uphold it's premises. But this is a catch, already. Look at Rossi, for exmaple. There is a "Journal of...." that "peer reviewed" his papers. Leading to a positive conclusion. But then look at who "publishes" that "journal". Basically it's like toilet paper. It would be rather cheap for me to have a really bad joke printed on many, many sheets of toilet paper. A lot of folks would see it. Still doens't make it a goof joke, though....
I agree, the reliance on the short-hand "published in a peer reviewed journal = must be okay" is very annoying because it's such a blatant appeal to authority. Obviously it's an appeal to the scientifically illiterate for some kind of gold standard so they have some hope of sorting out snake oil from real science, but it's frustrating because it simply perpetuates the cycle of misnomers. I've read plenty of papers published in peer reviewed journals that were crap. Sloppy methodology, obvious confirmation bias, etc. To get good information out of the scientific literature you need to understand the method and apply it ruthlessly.
-
Science is based on current "belief", granted they are based on observable truths, but they are "beliefs" nevertheless.
That doesn't mean that when we find new and better ways, those previous "beliefs" are invalidated, but in essence they are.
Take String Theory and the Multiverse, or Relativity and the new find gravitational waves, (of course just one independent confirmation doesn't settle it and more review of the data is needed).
Oh that old chestnut. You have a belief, I have a belief, therefore they are both equal. Except current 'beliefs' (if you really want to put it that way) in science are supported by real data. You can use them to make predictions about the behaviour of the physical world and be correct. Which certainly makes them far more useful than crap like belief in over unity devices or other nonsense.
So what is it? Relativity or Quantum Physics?
What is the current "Belief"?
Really? It's both and neither. Both models work within their respective scopes. They both make useful, testable predictions about the behaviour of the natural world and have been confirmed countless times. That they don't marry up together is interesting because we're clearly missing something in the puzzle, but that doesn't invalidate the achievements we've already made.
-
because it's such a blatant appeal to authority.
Be careful, as we have quite a few fans of "peered reviews".
They have very little ability to process information, to think critically that they would rather outsource that to some complete strangers.
-
I have used the term "religion of science" before and I continue to think it is very accurate.
Yes, but you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't actually understand how science works, so I'll feel free to disregard that.
-
Like, dunno, peer-reviewed papers. Generaly we say that a paper becomes better the more peer-review it had, while it could uphold it's premises. But this is a catch, already. Look at Rossi, for exmaple. There is a "Journal of...." that "peer reviewed" his papers. Leading to a positive conclusion. But then look at who "publishes" that "journal". Basically it's like toilet paper. It would be rather cheap for me to have a really bad joke printed on many, many sheets of toilet paper. A lot of folks would see it. Still doens't make it a goof joke, though....
I agree, the reliance on the short-hand "published in a peer reviewed journal = must be okay" is very annoying because it's such a blatant appeal to authority. Obviously it's an appeal to the scientifically illiterate for some kind of gold standard so they have some hope of sorting out snake oil from real science, but it's frustrating because it simply perpetuates the cycle of misnomers. I've read plenty of papers published in peer reviewed journals that were crap. Sloppy methodology, obvious confirmation bias, etc. To get good information out of the scientific literature you need to understand the method and apply it ruthlessly.
This is a good point. One thing all research scientists do is spend a lot of time carefully looking at journal articles in their field and weeding out the good ones from the flawed ones. There are a lot of flawed ones.
You're not likely to find many problems in Nature or Science or the top journals in a particular field (though occasionally you may) but there are literally hundreds of mediocre "peer reviewed" journals.
This is another area were those not familiar with the scientific process have trouble and are prone to either confirmation bias or conscious promotion of their particular agenda. It's easy to find a journal article or two that supports or refutes almost any hypothesis or theory. They fail to understand is that science never stakes it's larger conclusions about the validity of a theory on only a handful of journal articles.
The concept of Strong Inference (http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/science64_strong_inference.pdf) is key both at an individual researcher/ specific hypothesis level and at the broader level of confirming the validity of a theory.
-
Science is based on current "belief", granted they are based on observable truths, but they are "beliefs" nevertheless.
That doesn't mean that when we find new and better ways, those previous "beliefs" are invalidated, but in essence they are.
Take String Theory and the Multiverse, or Relativity and the new find gravitational waves, (of course just one independent confirmation doesn't settle it and more review of the data is needed).
Oh that old chestnut. You have a belief, I have a belief, therefore they are both equal. Except current 'beliefs' (if you really want to put it that way) in science are supported by real data. You can use them to make predictions about the behaviour of the physical world and be correct. Which certainly makes them far more useful than crap like belief in over unity devices or other nonsense.
And who said the opposite?
So what is it? Relativity or Quantum Physics?
What is the current "Belief"?
Really? It's both and neither. Both models work within their respective scopes. They both make useful, testable predictions about the behaviour of the natural world and have been confirmed countless times. That they don't marry up together is interesting because we're clearly missing something in the puzzle, but that doesn't invalidate the achievements we've already made.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity do complement each other and they are the best tools we have in our hands at the moment, Quantum Physics on the other hand, doesn't play nice with Relativity.
-
Science is based on current "belief", granted they are based on observable truths, but they are "beliefs" nevertheless.
That doesn't mean that when we find new and better ways, those previous "beliefs" are invalidated, but in essence they are.
Take String Theory and the Multiverse, or Relativity and the new find gravitational waves, (of course just one independent confirmation doesn't settle it and more review of the data is needed).
Oh that old chestnut. You have a belief, I have a belief, therefore they are both equal. Except current 'beliefs' (if you really want to put it that way) in science are supported by real data. You can use them to make predictions about the behaviour of the physical world and be correct. Which certainly makes them far more useful than crap like belief in over unity devices or other nonsense.
And who said the opposite?
So what is it? Relativity or Quantum Physics?
What is the current "Belief"?
Really? It's both and neither. Both models work within their respective scopes. They both make useful, testable predictions about the behaviour of the natural world and have been confirmed countless times. That they don't marry up together is interesting because we're clearly missing something in the puzzle, but that doesn't invalidate the achievements we've already made.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity do complement each other and they are the best tools we have in our hands at the moment, Quantum Physics on the other hand, doesn't play nice with Relativity.
-
Science is based on current "belief", granted they are based on observable truths, but they are "beliefs" nevertheless.
That doesn't mean that when we find new and better ways, those previous "beliefs" are invalidated, but in essence they are.
Take String Theory and the Multiverse, or Relativity and the new find gravitational waves, (of course just one independent confirmation doesn't settle it and more review of the data is needed).
Oh that old chestnut. You have a belief, I have a belief, therefore they are both equal. Except current 'beliefs' (if you really want to put it that way) in science are supported by real data. You can use them to make predictions about the behaviour of the physical world and be correct. Which certainly makes them far more useful than crap like belief in over unity devices or other nonsense.
And who said the opposite? So what is it? Relativity or Quantum Physics? What is the current "Belief"?
Really? It's both and neither. Both models work within their respective scopes. They both make useful, testable predictions about the behaviour of the natural world and have been confirmed countless times. That they don't marry up together is interesting because we're clearly missing something in the puzzle, but that doesn't invalidate the achievements we've already made.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity do complement each other and they are the best tools we have in our hands at the moment, Quantum Physics on the other hand, doesn't play nice with Relativity.
-
You're not likely to find many problems in Nature or Science or the top journals in a particular field but there are literally hundreds of mediocre "peer reviewed" journals.
Also, if you get asked to review a submission, consider the process. Firstly, you are doing it for free, and your time is money, so you can't spend forever on the task. Secondly, you see the article, but you don't see all the raw data that was not included. So all you can do is ask pertinent questions, seek clarification, and object to anything that looks obviously bogus. But at the end of the day, you can only say "this looks genuine, and I can't obviously refute any of the claims". Beyond that, the reader of the published article must apply their own critical analysis.
I often read published work and find elements that I might question or disagree with. The same even with textbooks. The onus is on the reader to keep their critical faculties about them and understand what they are reading.
-
Like, dunno, peer-reviewed papers. Generaly we say that a paper becomes better the more peer-review it had, while it could uphold it's premises. But this is a catch, already. Look at Rossi, for exmaple. There is a "Journal of...." that "peer reviewed" his papers. Leading to a positive conclusion. But then look at who "publishes" that "journal". Basically it's like toilet paper. It would be rather cheap for me to have a really bad joke printed on many, many sheets of toilet paper. A lot of folks would see it. Still doens't make it a goof joke, though....
I agree, the reliance on the short-hand "published in a peer reviewed journal = must be okay" is very annoying because it's such a blatant appeal to authority. Obviously it's an appeal to the scientifically illiterate for some kind of gold standard so they have some hope of sorting out snake oil from real science, but it's frustrating because it simply perpetuates the cycle of misnomers. I've read plenty of papers published in peer reviewed journals that were crap. Sloppy methodology, obvious confirmation bias, etc. To get good information out of the scientific literature you need to understand the method and apply it ruthlessly.
This is a good point. One thing all research scientists do is spend a lot of time carefully looking at journal articles in their field and weeding out the good ones from the flawed ones. There are a lot of flawed ones.
You're not likely to find many problems in Nature or Science or the top journals in a particular field but there are literally hundreds of mediocre "peer reviewed" journals.
This is another area were those not familiar with the scientific process have trouble and are prone to either confirmation bias or conscious promotion of their particular agenda. It's easy to find a journal article or two that supports or refutes almost any hypothesis or theory. They fail to understand is that science never stakes it's larger conclusions about the validity of a theory on only a handful of journal articles.
The concept of Strong Inference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_inference) is key both at an individual researcher level and at the broader level of determining validity of a theory.
Agreed. A couple of the bad papers that spring to mind were published in PNAS. Obviously not quite Nature, Science or Cell, but up there. Although their ridiculous alternate submissions track where you could essentially bypass a lot of the peer review process if you're a member was at least partly to blame. I think they've removed that now, which is good.
Do you remember that NASA hoo-har (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163.full) about "we've found bacterial life that can use arsenic instead of phosphorous in DNA"? That paper was published in Science and is so bad I can't even begin to describe it. (Actually I can, I once did a half hour presentation in front of my department pointing out every single flaw. It was fun.) It's the microbiology equivalent of the Batterizer :)
-
@miguelvp I think I may have misread your post. Apologies.
-
Agreed. A couple of the bad papers that spring to mind were published in PNAS. Obviously not quite Nature, Science or Cell, but up there. Although their ridiculous alternate submissions track where you could essentially bypass a lot of the peer review process if you're a member was at least partly to blame. I think they've removed that now, which is good.
Do you remember that NASA hoo-har (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163.full) about "we've found bacterial life that can use arsenic instead of phosphorous in DNA"? That paper was published in Science and is so bad I can't even begin to describe it. (Actually I can, I once did a half hour presentation in front of my department pointing out every single flaw. It was fun.) It's the microbiology equivalent of the Batterizer :)
I vaguely recall reading about that one. There were a few I recall from my research days in the journal Neuroscience - the Cell of Neurobiology. Medical journals can be even worse. Though it should be pointed out that the quality journals are quick to publish corrections, refuting research or editorial critiques when egregious errors occur. All of this is part of the process of trying to flush out the truth.
-
"Nananana"
The answer is so obvious that even a caveman knows it, :)
I felt like it was obvious to everyone too, and like the guy wasn't spammed out yet.
Take another guess. What other man-made concept, where 97% agrees, can better be seen as a religion?
I hope you better have hard evidence for that 97% number. And that they agree. And who those 97% are ... After all, if you are off by just a percent, you are basically out of the game. That is if we apply your understanding of things ....
I think that profile is an text-generating algoritm.
Anybody else already saw a real living creature responding like this?
-
Wow, congrats to the OP who started a really diverse thread.. It started with free energy BS, went into colon cleansing or was it liver... who cares... and now we are on to religion.... :wtf:
-
Welcome to troll world!
-
Welcome to troll world!
To be fair this thread has done me a real favour as I took a peak at some of the videos mentioned. I must have been going around with my eyes closed to just how much BS is going on in the world. Who ever knew how many delusional nutters there are out there... Now I feel initiated and dirty :scared:
-
I have found this thread to be highly interesting. I don't share the OP's view on "free energy". However, I do admire his ability to keep his cool, and his dedication to his believes. I do wish he's better trained in some basic subjects.
how many delusional nutters
I think you will have a far better chance of finding extremely talented people from those "delusional nutters" than from the "normal people". Many of the people we admire today were considered "delusional nutters" of their times: the Wrights brothers, or Einstein for that matter. Some of those "delusional nutters" paid the ultimate price, ie. Galileo.
I am sure some of the "delusional nutters" of our times will be equally admired by future generations. And those who of us who now spit on those "delusional nutters" will end up like fools.
-
I am sure some of the "delusional nutters" of our times will be equally admired by future generations. And those who of us who now spit on those "delusional nutters" will end up like fools.
You mean like those delusional nutters who say humans are changing the climate?
-
I am sure some of the "delusional nutters" of our times will be equally admired by future generations. And those who of us who now spit on those "delusional nutters" will end up like fools.
Just like there's a big difference between a scientific theory and a random idea somebody has while driving their riding lawnmower to work, there is also a big difference between somebody who comes up with a new perspective on a field that, while different from the flow, is still backed by evidence, versus somebody who thinks they know more than the entire scientific community combined because they wrapped a wire around a magnet and never learned how to read a multi-meter.
-
+1
It may be we are but I don't believe throwing money at it is going to help.(except to make a lot of money for selling carbon credits) Al Gore.
-
I have found this thread to be highly interesting. I don't share the OP's view on "free energy". However, I do admire his ability to keep his cool, and his dedication to his believes. I do wish he's better trained in some basic subjects.
how many delusional nutters
I think you will have a far better chance of finding extremely talented people from those "delusional nutters" than from the "normal people". Many of the people we admire today were considered "delusional nutters" of their times: the Wrights brothers, or Einstein for that matter. Some of those "delusional nutters" paid the ultimate price, ie. Galileo.
I am sure some of the "delusional nutters" of our times will be equally admired by future generations. And those who of us who now spit on those "delusional nutters" will end up like fools.
Ah yes, that old chestnut...
"People said Galileo was wrong but he was proved right in the end, therefore my ludicrous unsupported creationism/audiophoolery/overunity/conspiracy theory must also be right."
Try harder with your trolling please, Danny.
-
(except to make a lot of money for selling carbon credits) Al Gore.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Mr. Gore: he did alright for himself and his investors in the Current TV/Al jazeera deal -> a much smarter way to take a $150MM pay day from a foreign government without a trace of risk. Superb artists themselves, Bill and Hillary are no match for that kind of crafty plays.
-
:palm: we almost stand no chance.(please no berne sanders comments)
-
"please no berne sanders comments"
We can blame Bernie for a lot of things but corruption is not one of them.
Bill and Hillary are a different story.
-
"personally i go so far and say that whoever believes in any religion has lost any credibility in whatever science stuff they do or say"
Given that science was practically born in the church, there is no surprise that the list of scientists who are religious is long, Newton, eistein, ...
Einstien was NOT religious in any "normal sign up for a church way" - apart from when he was looking for grants for his research in the US. In the US of A if you are not religious in some form - you rarely get anywhere. There is plenty of Einstein's personal letters where he often say he does not subscribe to a faith based religion. But living his latter years in the USA he was "forced" to say he was religious to get any grants and support.
And Churches was the ones holding back science for a long time.They saw (rightfully so) science a a threat. They tried keeping people from learning to read - held mass in languages the people did not understand (until protestant church reformation - Martin Luther Anno 1517'ish- the bible's used was only available in Latin)
-
"There is plenty of Einstein's personal letters where he often say he does not subscribe to a faith based religion. But living his latter years in the USA he was "forced" to say he was religious to get any grants and support."
Sounds like he had an integrity problem.
On your other point, the fact that a mother suffocated her kids doesn't negate the fact that she gave birth to them.
-
Sounds like he [Einstein] had an integrity problem.
Uhhhhh… :palm:
-
"There is plenty of Einstein's personal letters where he often say he does not subscribe to a faith based religion. But living his latter years in the USA he was "forced" to say he was religious to get any grants and support."
Sounds like he had an integrity problem.
On your other point, the fact that a mother suffocated her kids doesn't negate the fact that she gave birth to them.
Hmm, so you equate religion with being a murderer? That's quite apt. However, to be more accurate, you would need to equate religion with a mass murderer.
Fortunately, science survived the murderous intents of it's parent, and prospered. Unfortunately, murdering religion is still at large.
-
I am sure some of the "delusional nutters" of our times will be equally admired by future generations. And those who of us who now spit on those "delusional nutters" will end up like fools.
You mean like those delusional nutters who say humans are changing the climate?
The wind mill people! :scared:
-
"There is plenty of Einstein's personal letters where he often say he does not subscribe to a faith based religion. But living his latter years in the USA he was "forced" to say he was religious to get any grants and support."
Sounds like he had an integrity problem.
On your other point, the fact that a mother suffocated her kids doesn't negate the fact that she gave birth to them.
You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Sounds like he knew how to pick his battles. The results certainly speak for themselves.
-
mamalala
"So many gods ... A lot of them contradict each other ... Which basically means: They can't all be right "
Sounds like that certain duality in particle physics.
I think instead of mouthing off at things you certainly don't understand, you can benefit from at least being civil, and being cognizant of limitations of your own knowledge and capabilities.
But that suggest "you" have to start live as you preach, right?
That doesn't sound like a very human and fair treatment of the refugees. Those refugees were lured to go to Sweden when those Swedes welcomed the refugees and showed them their enthusiastic love. Now, having risked their lives and their fortune, the refugees are here and they seem to have been abandoned by those Swedes.
I say we should find out those Swedes individually, empty their bank accounts and send those refugees to the houses / apartments of those Swedes who wanted then to take care of those refugees. Those Swedes have to be made to keep their promises, don't you think so?:)
I think you are aggressively fishing for something and i'm not gonna take that simple bait!
their inability to spot true religions.
Please then describe what you thinks is "true religions" a swell as what constitutes false religions?
-
Sounds like he knew how to pick his battles.
Don't know. If he mis-represented his religion in order to get funding, he certainly had an integrity problem. and in that mis-representation happened at a high level (for military or clearance for example), that certainly could be far worse.
The results certainly speak for themselves.
I think I'm one of those who don't think the end justifies the means.
-
Sounds like he knew how to pick his battles.
Don't know. If he mis-represented his religion in order to get funding, he certainly had an integrity problem. and in that mis-representation happened at a high level (for military or clearance for example), that certainly could be far worse.
If he did so because he was being discriminated against then it's fair game. Back then people would often lie about things such as their religion or sexual orientation through fear for discrimination.
-
Sounds like he knew how to pick his battles.
Don't know. If he mis-represented his religion in order to get funding, he certainly had an integrity problem. and in that mis-representation happened at a high level (for military or clearance for example), that certainly could be far worse.
If he did so because he was being discriminated against then it's fair game. Back then people would often lie about things such as their religion or sexual orientation through fear for discrimination.
Danny is our resident "Devil's Advocate"; always taking the contrary opinion, so don't bother trying to argue with him.
(That's a polite way of saying he likes to troll threads, though he's not *quite* a troll as he does answer actual technical questions as well.)
-
Sounds like he knew how to pick his battles.
Don't know. If he mis-represented his religion in order to get funding, he certainly had an integrity problem. and in that mis-representation happened at a high level (for military or clearance for example), that certainly could be far worse.
The results certainly speak for themselves.
I think I'm one of those who don't think the end justifies the means.
Faith is a personal feeling. It can change over the lifetime of an individual. Some folks become believers and others lose faith. I view religion as a waste of energy, because I don't believe in the higher power. But if I was in a life or death situation I would probably pray to something out of pure fear. Does that make me lack integrity? No because, it's my personal feeling, it doesn't hurt anyone weather I have faith or not, it has no bearing on anyone else, and when it comes to internal feelings you are often contradicting yourself.
It is entirely silly to base funding requirements on something as fickle as faith. In reality Einstein was probably too busy thinking about physics to even examine if he had faith or not. His contribution to the world was much greater than a petty question of whether he was religious or not.
-
I can certainly believe that religious discrimination in grants occurred at that time in the US. It is a little hard to believe that Einstein, who didn't come to the US until well after his reputation was fully established, had to personally worry about grants in this country. Or that if he did, his religious beliefs would have been a significant barrier. If he did have either of those problems at Princeton there would have been several other prestigious institutions clamoring to have him come join them.
Einstein may have fretted about such things due to his early life experiences, but it seems quite likely that Princeton had staff to take care of all of the silly detail stuff for him.
-
I am sure some of the "delusional nutters" of our times will be equally admired by future generations. And those who of us who now spit on those "delusional nutters" will end up like fools.
Just like there's a big difference between a scientific theory and a random idea somebody has while driving their riding lawnmower to work, there is also a big difference between somebody who comes up with a new perspective on a field that, while different from the flow, is still backed by evidence, versus somebody who thinks they know more than the entire scientific community combined because they wrapped a wire around a magnet and never learned how to read a multi-meter.
Indeed the latter rather than the former....
-
And Churches was the ones holding back science for a long time.They saw (rightfully so) science a a threat.
Whilst I'm firmly in the 'evidence-based science' camp, one could easily argue that religion inspired and drove scientific advance. Far from being repressed heretics, many discoveries were made by those looking for the way 'god works'. The need to build ever larger religious buildings pushed engineering and mathematics forward, the mathematics of astronomy observing 'gods' heavenly bodies in motion...
The 'religion has held back progress' argument is one I see time and again, especially from loud atheists.
Whilst it is true that religion has suppressed thinking that goes against its 'teachings' (what-ever religion that may be), we're looking at it with hindsight - so it implies one knows what kind of technological level we *would* be at now, if it wasn't for being 'held back'. It is very easy to say 'if it wasn't for widespread religion we would have discovered this earlier, and therefore this earlier, and had computers by the 18th century'... But how can one possibly know what would have happened, considering advancements are made in fits and starts, driven by 'need' (wars), as well as curiosity (in the natural world, 'gods' world etc..). Ultimately, one cannot say what would have happened either way except that 'now' would be different if anything in the past happened differently. I'm getting too deep into philosophy here..
Also, again I try to distance myself from the OP and those who refuse to test their results because what they 'believe' to be true stands in the way - one could argue that the way modern science 'suppresses' - or rather ostracizes - pseudo-sciences is in some way similar to how early scholars and scientists were treated by religious authority. The main difference being, if there is a large body of evidence supporting an idea that goes against modern theories - it is incorporated into it, rather than stamped out. However, if idea's are simply discarded and not even tested, how can any evidence of such discoveries be made?
This leads nicely to the idea that the responsibility to provide evidences lies squarely on those who make such claims. It is a pity that often the methods required to analyze and test new theories are either beyond them, or seen as part of 'incorrect mainstream science'. I do think that, like some in this forum have done, such idea's should be at least looked at and not instantly dismissed. Not suggesting wasting time on it, but as Dave did, analyze a circuit/experiment, and evaluate the claims. Often this can be done very quickly, but it is all to easy to immediately dismiss a theory as to not even look any further - something that some claim the church has done in the past.
(sorry for the rant..)
-
the responsibility to provide evidences lies squarely on those who make such claims.
That doesn't seem to apply to climate science: where you are required to believe in the claims first.
Doesn't that sound like a cult?
-
the responsibility to provide evidences lies squarely on those who make such claims.
That doesn't seem to apply to climate science: where you are required to believe in the claims first.
Doesn't that sound like a cult?
Really ? so don't you think that year on year record high temperatures are not evidence ? We have had no snow this winter, no snow last year either, and every year is a new record high, just listen to the energy companies whining about falling profits. The climate is a slow system but it's getting there, and what we do today will be stored up for a while to come.
-
the responsibility to provide evidences lies squarely on those who make such claims.
That doesn't seem to apply to climate science: where you are required to believe in the claims first.
Doesn't that sound like a cult?
Yes, yes it does. With the whole 'climate change' situation, both sides haven't done themselves any favours. That is to say, in order to 'raise awareness', facts are either left out, or cherry picked, as to not bore the public, leaving one to believe we should just 'take their word it'. And that plays right into the hands of those who believe none-of-it is true, because they haven't been given hard evidence to dispute, so their argument simply becomes 'I'm not going to believe it just because they say so'.
Anyone who questions man-made climate change is often hounded by the climate change zealots - those who don't really understand the science behind it, but fiercely defend it. Which only strengthens the resolve of those who refuse to believe its a real thing. And it goes the other way to, with personal attacks on researchers working to find evidence for it. This means we only hear about the extreme ends of the spectrurm - like any controversial subject - with those who believe they have evidence for either side, but wish to refrain from making news headlines, not being heard. And that is sad.
Again.. that pretty much goes for any controversial subject. Climate change is particularly difficult to discuss because it involves so much... from new technology to international politics, as well as many different areas of science. Coupled with the huge complexity of various feedback systems, and endless cycles involved in meteorology and the natural world, it is almost impossible to categorically say 'this action has caused this to happen'. And then add to that the ambiguity over what to do about it, as well as diffusion of responsibility - 'well, taking my car to work today contributes so little carbon, I might as well', and you have a wonderful breeding ground for arguments, platforms to promote political, even religious opinion and no real changes.
dannyf: can you at least agree that humanity 'liberating carbon' has at least had *some* effect on the climate? I don't think that is the central argument though. Those are:
1. 'how much' of an effect we have had.
2. has that effect negatively impacted the world.
3. what we should do about it.
Whilst there is mounting evidence from many areas, I don't think there will ever be a straightforward simple answer to any of those, so there will always be ambiguity, and therefore, debate.
-
can you at least agree that humanity 'liberating carbon' has at least had *some* effect on the climate?
I would actually go much further than that:
1. humanity has had a definitive impact on the climate;
2. global warming (and global cooling) has been happening for billions of years and will continue to happen for billions of years to come.
1. 'how much' of an effect we have had.
That's the billion dollar question isn't it? 95%+ of the green house gas effect on this planet does NOT come from any of the green house gases, man-liberated or not.
2. has that effect negatively impacted the world.
or how has that positively impacted the world? I can list multitude of potentially positive effect of a warmer climate - like food production.
3. what we should do about it.
Absolutely. The zealots have never answered 1) why we should stop the climate from changing, and 2) why should it be our top priority, ahead of many other emergencies humanity is facing?
Unfortunately, you cannot have any kind of rationale discussion with people of the faith called "global warming", :)
-
2. has that effect negatively impacted the world.
or how has that positively impacted the world? I can list multitude of potentially positive effect of a warmer climate - like food production.
that is where most people fall flat on their face only seeing what is around them locally and what matters to them. Global warming does not necessarily mean a hotter climate all round. It means more energy in the system that moves heat and humidity around the world. For examply if the gulf stream and jet streams change course the Uk will eventually end up colder not warmer. other countries nearer the equator are becoming hotter and hotter. returning to italy 8 years after I left I found a much hotter and humid climate that does not favours for growing crops and was unbearable despite the fact i used to weather the weather out there ok.
Global warming means more chaotic weather and no regular seasons. So yes we have a warm winter, plants think it is sprint and start to blossom, then the real winter temperature arrive and kill the flowers, boom, your crop is gone, that is what climate warming does to crops, it does not help at all. Plants have evolved to work in what was a stable climate, they can't cope with hot - cold - hot - cold, at some point all the veg you get will have to be grown in climate controlled green houses.
-
Global warming means more chaotic weather and no regular seasons. So yes we have a warm winter, plants think it is sprint and start to blossom, then the real winter temperature arrive and kill the flowers, boom, your crop is gone, that is what climate warming does to crops, it does not help at all. Plants have evolved to work in what was a stable climate, they can't cope with hot - cold - hot - cold, at some point all the veg you get will have to be grown in climate controlled green houses.
This is last century's global warming fear inertia. In reality, the planet is getting greener due to increased co2, food production is going up, no significant temperature change for 18 years, life expectancy keep going up and no significant increase in ocean level rate. Sooner or later you will need to face the fact that the man-made catastrophic global warming predictions are divorced from reality. Hopefully it will make you happy rather than disappointed.
(https://images.sciencedaily.com/2013/07/130708103521_1_540x360.jpg)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm)
(http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/events/archive/2011/paa/lam_slide1.jpg)
(http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/images/2-1-5-level.gif)
(https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_lrg/life_expectancy.jpg)
(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/screenhunter_390-sep-09-00-25.jpg?w=640&h=375)
(http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/monckton-april-2014-avg.png)
(http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2015/06/oilpricechart20002015.jpg)
-
How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science
types trolls.
-
How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science types trolls.
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
-
Anti-science is antiscience. Free energy, gallstone quackery, or climate science denial - it's all the same. One either believes in the scientific method and what the science concludes or one does not. Rote recital of latin phrases such as "ad hominem", etc does nothing to change the truth of that. A troll is a troll is a troll.
The climate science denial nonsense has been repeated over and over here and beat to death with the facts many times over. Trolling to reignite the FUD with a bunch of completely irrelevant pretty pictures - no doubt cut and pasted from one of the many fossil fuel industry funded denial sites is pretty pathetic IMO.
But what the hell - I'm bored anyways. So here's a concise summary of why each of the pictures does nothing more than demonstrate either science illiteracy or a political agenda:
1. CO2 is good for plants - well duh... Red Herring
News flash - CO2 levels during the Jurassic and Cretaceous peiods were very high and the earth was covered in green - and it was warm. And guess what - there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew.
2. World food production has been going up. Yeah! Correlation != causation.
Food production began rapidly rising with introduction of petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides as well as increased mechanization oh and increased population - . Duh again.
3. Sea level graph. ? from where? citation? - What point are you trying to make with it?
See here (http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf) and here (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) for some referenced sea level data and why it is relevant.
4. Average life expectancy has gone up. Yeah! Relevance? Again Correlation != causation.
The increase in average life expectancy is due to many factors - public health measures and improved health care being the biggest factors.
5. Hurricaine graph. Relevance?
No - there is no scientific consensus that climate change means more tropical storms - and anyone who says otherwise is watching too many TV weathermen. The graph is just another attempt at FUD.
6. Cherry picked RSS data. Prime demonstration of political agenda. Easily debunked.
Here's the full data set (http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html) showing the 0.124 K/decade temperature increase.
Cherry picked data debunked by REMSS themselves (http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures)
In addition this is only one of many data sets all of which agree that the planet is warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255)
7. Graph showing fluctuation of oil prices. Relevance? Oil prices reflect supply/demand dynamics. No relation to global warming.
These kind of trolling climate denial posts can be entertaining to debunk but the pattern is old and boring. The denial websites are an endless treasure trove of pseudoscience and cherry picked data designed to create FUD - and true believers. Just like the free energy nutters or the gallbladder cleanse quackery - there is no honest skepticism - just half baked pseudoscience that ignores what the facts and what the actual scientists say. In many ways it's worse since it often is the product of a well funded political agenda.
Since we all know there is no convincing anyone - why continue to post this kind of crap? The only conclusion I can draw is that it is the work of a troll.
-
Recently watched that documentary about Tesla (Tower to the people), so the topic fits...
Nikola Tesla is still way ahead of his time...
[...]
Why do you think such a great inventor died broke?
Based on the info I read/watched Nikola Tesla was a genius in some ways, and in others was totally unable to grasp utterly basic concepts... which is what caused all his problems.
Like the whole "free energy for all" concept - it's not hard to add 1+1 and understand that even if his way of transmitting it worked the energy still had to be produced/harvested at the source(s) at the expense of... who exactly? And what are they getting in return for it? While it may be possible today you wouldn't pay an energy company on the other end of the world for your consumption back in those days, and... it wouldn't be "free energy" anymore if you did.
He never presented a business case or anything that someone could even semi-confidently buy into, because - there was none, it wasn't viable.
Why do you think Wardenclyffe project was shut down?
A bit meta, but my explanation for it is that at that time he still had a good image of a slightly mad but good inventor, and had he been able to go any further it would have revealed how completely off course and "incompetent" he also could be... today instead of having statues and museums at his name he'd be remembered for the biggest nonsense idea/failure/scam of all time... i.e. he was stopped to protect himself.
"Free energy" exists from nature and from anywhere some is rejected as a byproduct of a given process e.g. power plant rejects waste heat, using that waste heat to do something like heat homes or desalinate water uses "free energy" in the sense that you're not paying more to create it than you were already paying for the main process, BUT firstly equipment is needed to collect and distribute it which gives it a cost to the end user, and anyway given how the economy works once it can be used it can be valued, so it is and is not free anymore for whoever benefits from it in the end.
You can even go further and say all energy is free because... well it is, regardless of source and form it's basically "just there" for us to use, we're not paying the earth or sun for the oil or sunlight we take. It's only our processes and economy system that give it a cost.
-
Since we all know there is no convincing anyone - why continue to post this kind of crap? The only conclusion I can draw is that it is the work of a troll.
Well, if you want to cling to the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions it's your prerogative. One day it will occur even to you that they are gross exaggerations.
-
Anti-science is antiscience. Free energy, gallstone quackery, or climate science denial - it's all the same. One either believes in the scientific method and what the science concludes or one does not...
Don't polarise/simplify it so much.
There is also the possibility to believe in "the scientific method" but also believe political goverment-planning and subsidizing has a very bad influence on what science concludes.
It always comes down to the details, like the big difference between "climate science denial" and "climate consensus scepticism"
-
As a liberal, I am an avid support and listener of NPR. My local NPR station ran this piece last night.
Someone got a grant to do a survey of highschool science teachers' understanding of global warming / climate change. The surveyers were shocked to find
1) that most of the science teachers thought that many factors, including men, contributed to global warming;
2) that science is still developing regarding our understanding of global warming.
The surveyors said that there is "absolute consensus among scientists who agree that mankind caused global warming" - I am not kidding here, those are their words. They went on to educate that science teachers that they should only trust scientists on the cause of global warming.
At the end of the reeducation session, all the science teachers had aligned to the surveyors' views on global warming.
and everyone lived happily ever after, :)
Once of those days, I will find out that link and post it here. It was hilarious, and sad at the same time.
-
At the end of the reeducation session, all the science teachers had aligned to the surveyors' views on global warming.
And what were the surveyors views ?, I'm not sure of the point you are making. You would expect teachers of science to trust scientists for their information, rather more than some surveyor with a pre-conceived opinion. What is your point ?
However you look at it we need to improve the way we generate (well convert/transform) and use energy. Fossil fuels won't last forever and frankly anyone should see that churning co2 into the air is not a good thing.
Think of it like this: all of that fossil fuel comes from stuff that was around in the dinosaur age, when we agree (but I'm sure suddenly you will find prove of it being the contrary) that the earth was warm, in fact in a state of global warming. There were huge trees then that absorbed the co2 and brought the temperature down. Then we came along, and lived in this new climate quite happily for a few thousand years, until we decide to start digging up all of that carbon that used to be in the air causing global warming and chuck it back into the air, and then claim that it won't take us back to the situation of global warming that we know existed until it got buried.
There is plenty of meteorological data around about how the weather is warming and patterns are changing. Whether or not wholey due to us adding more co2 known to be a greenhouse gas is silly.
-
Anti-science is antiscience. Free energy, gallstone quackery, or climate science denial - it's all the same. One either believes in the scientific method and what the science concludes or one does not. Rote recital of latin phrases such as "ad hominem", etc does nothing to change the truth of that. A troll is a troll is a troll.
Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&ab_channel=1000frolly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&ab_channel=1000frolly)
George Carlin making fun of climate change trolls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&ab_channel=thenewhosser10580 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&ab_channel=thenewhosser10580)
Climate change ideas based on snakeoil science, windmill people, free energy, leftist , the fossil fuel industry and nuclear with Rottschilds and other climate change trolls with a dedicated agenda! :box:
1. CO2 is good for plants - well duh... Red Herring
News flash - CO2 levels during the Jurassic and Cretaceous peiods were very high and the earth was covered in green - and it was warm.
And guess what - there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew.
If you are going to troll you have to do better than that!
The reason dinosaurs during Jurassic, Mesozoic Era become so large was of ca:2-2,5% higher oxygen levels not CO2 levels.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Europasaurus_holgeri_Scene_2.jpg/1280px-Europasaurus_holgeri_Scene_2.jpg)
-
Anti-science is antiscience. Free energy, gallstone quackery, or climate science denial - it's all the same. One either believes in the scientific method and what the science concludes or one does not...
Don't polarise/simplify it so much.
There is also the possibility to believe in "the scientific method" but also believe political goverment-planning and subsidizing has a very bad influence on what science concludes.
This oft repeated idea has no basis in fact and illustrates a lack of understanding of how consensus among the global scientific community is reached.
You don't get to pick and choose which scientific theories and consensus conclusions you choose to believe depending on what fits with your politcal or ideological agenda.
There has now been 25 years of intensive climate science done by thousands of scientists across the globe. Scientists of various nationalities and political ideologies - many who began their research (appropriatlely) with the hypothesis that AGW was false. The consensus soon emerged and has been confirmed many times over so that every major scientific organiztion now agrees that AGW is fact.
Honest skepticism is the foundation of this and all science. It is not a part of the politically driven agenda af those who deny the conclusions of the scientific community.
Claiming that there is some worldwide conspiracy among scientist to alter the data ithat has remained secret for decades is an extradonary claim that would require extrordinary evidence.
On the otherhand, the fact that there is a well funded, coordinated disinformation campaign to flood the media and internet and create FUD about AGW is well documented. It finds a receptive audience among those who are inclined to never trust anything governments say ( with good cause IMO!), and those so blinded by their partisan politics that they are unable to acknowledge the facts or simply choose to ignore them in pursuit of their political agendal.
The fact that the general public has a poor understanding of how science works makes it an easy target for Free Energy nutters, gall bladder cleans quacks, AGW denial promoters, batteriser charlatans, and various other groups of hucksters and fraudsters.
Fortunately most on this forum can see through the nonsense.
-
Anti-science is antiscience. Free energy, gallstone quackery, or climate science denial - it's all the same. One either believes in the scientific method and what the science concludes or one does not. Rote recital of latin phrases such as "ad hominem", etc does nothing to change the truth of that. A troll is a troll is a troll.
Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&ab_channel=1000frolly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&ab_channel=1000frolly)
George Carlin making fun of climate change trolls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&ab_channel=thenewhosser10580 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&ab_channel=thenewhosser10580)
Climate change ideas based on snakeoil science, windmill people, free energy, leftist , the fossil fuel industry and nuclear with Rottschilds and other climate change trolls with a dedicated agenda! :box:
1. CO2 is good for plants - well duh... Red Herring
News flash - CO2 levels during the Jurassic and Cretaceous peiods were very high and the earth was covered in green - and it was warm.
And guess what - there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew.
If you are going to troll you have to do better than that!
The reason dinosaurs during Jurassic, Mesozoic Era become so large was of ca:2-2,5% higher oxygen levels not CO2 levels.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Europasaurus_holgeri_Scene_2.jpg/1280px-Europasaurus_holgeri_Scene_2.jpg)
There may have been more oxygen, you have just proved your ignorance, I never talked about oxygen, I talked about CO2, why don't you look up the composition of air. Most of it is inert gas! CO2 is such a small amount that a small increase percentage wise in total air volume is a large increase of CO2.
-
There may have been more oxygen, you have just proved your ignorance, I never talked about oxygen, I talked about CO2, why don't you look up the composition of air. Most of it is inert gas! CO2 is such a small amount that a small increase percentage wise in total air volume is a large increase of CO2.
I was not commenting you Simon so you have shown and proved your arrogance and ignorance because this is a troll thread not a definitive science!
Why dont you watch the videos and chill out a bit!
-
Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!
Oh geez, not that old nut again. Any quick google search will show you that he is not a climate scientist and has a well documented political agenda. His nonsense has been debunked many times over.
George Carlin making fun of climate change trolls
Carlin was a great man and a great comic who agreed that humans were making the planet unlivable but that ultimately the earth would " shake us off like a bad case of fleas". He was not, BTW, a climate scientist.
Climate change ideas based on snakeoil science, windmill people, free energy, leftist , the fossil fuel industry and nuclear with Rottschilds and other climate change trolls with a dedicated agenda!
please provide the extraordinary evidence for this claim.
1. CO2 is good for plants - well duh... Red Herring
News flash - CO2 levels during the Jurassic and Cretaceous peiods were very high and the earth was covered in green - and it was warm.
And guess what - there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew.
If you are going to troll you have to do better than that!
The reason dinosaurs during Jurassic, Mesozoic Era become so large was of ca:2-2,5% higher oxygen levels not CO2 levels.
Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet. The reasons for that have to do with the dependence of maintainable internal body temperature on surface area to body mass ratio. Mammalian physiology places strict limits on allowable internal body temperature. Any engineer should be able to appreciate that the ratio of surface area to total heat generating mass as it relates to ambient temperature has an impact on heat dissipation.
-
There may have been more oxygen, you have just proved your ignorance, I never talked about oxygen, I talked about CO2, why don't you look up the composition of air. Most of it is inert gas! CO2 is such a small amount that a small increase percentage wise in total air volume is a large increase of CO2.
I was not commenting you Simon so you have shown and proved your arrogance and ignorance because this is a troll thread not a definitive science!
Why dont you watch the videos and chill out a bit!
I know, but my statement stands. So what if there was more oxygen in the air ? oxygen is not the oposite of CO2 and does not cure global warming. The actual content of CO2 even in "climate change" air is quite low percentage wise, it does not take much percentage wise to make a difference.. Why don't you explain instead of call me arrogant ?
-
I know, but my statement stands. So what if there was more oxygen in the air ? oxygen is not the oposite of CO2 and does not cure global warming. The actual content of CO2 even in "climate change" air is quite low percentage wise, it does not take much percentage wise to make a difference.. Why don't you explain instead of call me arrogant ?
Why dont you provide facts from scientists who's research are not paid by climate changers before accusing people for being ignorant in a troll thread?
-
I know, but my statement stands. So what if there was more oxygen in the air ? oxygen is not the oposite of CO2 and does not cure global warming. The actual content of CO2 even in "climate change" air is quite low percentage wise, it does not take much percentage wise to make a difference.. Why don't you explain instead of call me arrogant ?
Why dont you provide facts from scientists who's research are not paid by climate changers before accusing people for being ignorant in a troll thread?
So now you accusing me of presenting evidence from a source that is biased because it is paid for by some non descript entity you call "climate changers" when all I did was state my opinion. Do you actually have an opinion you have formed yourself or do you just put out false information from false references that were no doubt put there in the interests of those who feel they would loose from us adopting a better way of life.
I mean hell, would it not be terrible for us to create a better way of living either way ? if the end result is a better lifestyle that should be promoted regardless, you are saying that we should not live better just because there is no death threatening reason to do so. What you are saying is that we should use the worse tools possible regardless unless impending doom is obvious ?
You still have no looked at what air is made of have you ? I bet you think it is just oxygen and CO2.....
-
Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!
I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.
-
Why dont you provide facts from scientists who's research are not paid by climate changers before accusing people for being ignorant in a troll thread?
WTF is a "climate changer"
There are those who accept the scientific consensus about climate change and those who deny that it exists. Just as there are those who accept or deny any scientific theory or consensus.
As far as providing facts from scientists, anyone who is honeslty interested (which you clearly are not) can easily find a plethora of them:
HERE's (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=scientific+evidence+for+climate+change&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&as_vis=1) a place to start.
Too much work for you? Ok. Have a look HERE (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) or maybe HERE (http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf).
-
So now you accusing me......
You seams to enjoy the role of a provocateur for fun to cause small storms in tea cups because as i already said which you arrogantly ignored
i didnt comment on your statement, you have to turn to dannyf whom you have your initial argument with!
I can debate Brexit and immigration flooding caused by Putin with you if you like!
-
Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!
I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.
Ha Ha! Yes, but that would imply he is unbiased..
FWIW Ivar Gliaver is employed by the Heartland Institute - which is a tobacco and fossil fuel industry funded "think tank" which conducts well known insustry funded campaigns to spread disinformation about the health effects of tobacco and about global warming.
He is not a climate scientist and the points he trys to make in that video have been thoroughly debunked (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html)
-
Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet. The reasons for that have to do with the dependence of maintainable internal body temperature on surface area to body mass ratio. Mammalian physiology places strict limits on allowable internal body temperature. Any engineer should be able to appreciate that the ratio of surface area to total heat generating mass as it relates to ambient temperature has an impact on heat dissipation.
But correlation is not causation. There are other possible explanations for small mammals. Mammals were new on the scene, and perhaps large mammals had not evolved by that time. Since there were already other large animals in the ecology there may have been competitive pressure against mammals growing larger to occupy an already populated space. Furthermore, I believe there is no clear conclusion about whether dinosaurs were warm blooded or not (birds are descended from dinosaurs and are warm blooded). If large, warm blooded reptiles might have existed, why not mammals?
I think your argument as presented is not enough to make a convincing case.
-
Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!
I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.
Not mine just referring to someone who thinks so. The whole climate change consensus/denial seams to be argumentum ad verecundiam just
as engineers believe in creation and Wignors friend is God etc as this universe is a creation of god or are god or a computer whatever. :=\
-
Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet. The reasons for that have to do with the dependence of maintainable internal body temperature on surface area to body mass ratio. Mammalian physiology places strict limits on allowable internal body temperature. Any engineer should be able to appreciate that the ratio of surface area to total heat generating mass as it relates to ambient temperature has an impact on heat dissipation.
But correlation is not causation. There are other possible explanations for small mammals. Mammals were new on the scene, and perhaps large mammals had not evolved by that time. Since there were already other large animals in the ecology there may have been competitive pressure against mammals growing larger to occupy an already populated space. Furthermore, I believe there is no clear conclusion about whether dinosaurs were warm blooded or not (birds are descended from dinosaurs and are warm blooded). If large, warm blooded reptiles might have existed, why not mammals?
I think your argument as presented is not enough to make a convincing case.
Oh - no doubt there may have been additional reasons there were no large mammals present then. That was not my point. My point is that the size and shape of mammals as they currently exist is limited in part by their need to maintain a relatively constant body temperature across the temperature range of their environment. It's more complicated that just being "warm blooded" or not.
It is certainly possible that if the earth had remained as warm as it was during those periods, larger mammals would have evolved that could thrive in that environment. If the planet slowly heats up to the same temperature again over millions of years - evolution would no doubt result in animals and ecosystems adapted to that environment.
Of course the issue with AGW is the rate of change. Evolution occurs over a very long time frame. Any engineer can appreciate that it is not the absolute level of some physical parameter that is always the most important but it may be the rate of change that is critical.
-
So now you accusing me......
You seams to enjoy the role of a provocateur for no fun to cause small storms in tea cups because as i already said which you
arrogantly ignore i didnt comment on your statement, you have to turn to dannyf whom you have your initial argument with!
I can debate Brexit and immigration flooding caused by Putin with you if you like!
Oh so only the person you aimed the comment at or responded to is entitled to reply to you ? i suggest you PM them and resolve it that way. We are having an open debate and anyone is entitled to reply to anyone's point. I am not DannyF, I have not presented someone elses polarized argument with no evidence and defended it to the ridiculous, I have put forward an opinion that I have formulated while you just regurgitate someone elses opinion. If you can't reply to the points made that is fine, it's better to admit you don't know (most of all to yourself) than try and pretend you know all. The most opposition to the suggestion that our climate is changing and that we may have a hand in it usually usually comes from people who do not know much about it but have been fed some convincing and convenient rubbish that they can repeat and feel they are experts.
Our weather monitoring and reporting has been stating that the jet stream usually at 100mph is now going at 230mph, is it overshooting the UK and taking warm air to the north pole that is now estimated to be not at -25 on the surface but at 0 which is where ice melts, but i suppose all of the weather observation stations in the world are conspiring and lying to us.
Air line companies are already looking at the impact of jet streams and how much faster or slower it will make their planes and how much more fuel they will have to burn to fly into a faster wind, I suppose they are just colluding to rip us off.
-
Nobel laureate talks about Obamas climate change mistakes!
I'm surprised Zapta didn't jump on this and point out your argumentum ad verecundiam.
Good point. The fact that Obama is a Nobel laureate means nothing in this context.
;-)
Edit: Obama has very strong opinion about the scientific aspects of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming. Don't expect descent from NASA, NOAA and other organizations that report to him.
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/ (https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/)
-
Edit: Obama has very strong opinion about the scientific aspects of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming. Don't expect descent from NASA, NOAA and other organizations that report to him.
Nonsense. They had the same positions under the Bush-Cheney adminsitrration. Besides, NASA and NOAA do not "report" to Obama. Their funding is by congress. NASA's
oversight is done by The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Commerce_Subcommittee_on_Space,_Science_and_Competitiveness). Currently with a Republican majority and chaired by none other than Ted Cruz.
Both your premise and your conclusion is demonstrably false and bringing Obama into this discussion just makes your political agenda clear.
If you have some evidence to support your claim that career NASA and NOAA scientists (who are both Republican and Democrat) have withheld or changed findings due to intervention of the president please present it.
-
Oh so only the person you aimed the comment at or responded to is entitled to reply to you?
Yeeeeeeeeeeees offcourse but playing dumb while run around and provoke is kinda lame really Simon!
But seams you believe people shall be forced to engage in anything you post, interesting approach!
it's better to admit you don't know (most of all to yourself) than try and pretend you know all.
Im not pretending anything its your leftist brain who imaginary troll itself to believe so, but i guarantee it's just an illusion you have! Besides pretending "know-it-all" is a leftist trademark, so whatever accusations you throw into peoples faces have a tendency to bounce back. Trying to provoke answers from anyone you disagrees with is kind of ugly...
Future of homosapiens!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TAgsUH2EP9Y/VXXA_WCbecI/AAAAAAAAXcg/7gKLlFW6V9c/s640/Aliens%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2Bextraterrestrials.jpg)
-
..Besides, NASA and NOAA do not "report" to Obama.
You must be kidding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn10YWsY1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn10YWsY1Q)
... bringing Obama into this discussion just makes your political agenda clear.
Read the thread again. Somebody else brought Obama here.
We are trying to have an honest discussion and you keep coming with personal accusations, name calling, political dogma and half truth.
-
WTF is a "climate changer"
You claimed to be a trained physiologist yet dont even know what a climate changer are. Yet constantly throughout this thread claims that yo know!! :palm: Ever heard of air conditioner? :-DD
There are those who accept the scientific consensus about climate change and those who deny that it exists.
Just as there are those who accept or deny any scientific theory or consensus.
Like those who believe in God and Devil while ignoring shades of gray?
As far as providing facts from scientists, anyone who is honeslty interested (which you clearly are not) can easily find a plethora of them.
not a climate scientist and has a well documented political agenda...
He was not, BTW, a climate scientist....
Your constantly referring to "climate scientists" while making snarky comments about my and other peoples persona which says a lot about your persona but these climate scientists are they the same one's who wrote a letter to your president Obama asking to use RICO to prosecute anyone who ""they find"" to be climate change deniers?... like the...."inquisition"...back in the ol' days...
I'm just baffled you support such "climate science" acts!
http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20150920110942/http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf)
Just random googling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/the-rico-20-letter-to-obama-asking-for-prosecution-of-climate-skeptics-disappears-from-shuklas-iges-website-amid-financial-concerns/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/the-rico-20-letter-to-obama-asking-for-prosecution-of-climate-skeptics-disappears-from-shuklas-iges-website-amid-financial-concerns/)
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf
argumentum ad verecundiam and ad litteram ad hominem dumbdumb ignorum climatum subscribum et riddiculum.
Clearly you are not a biologist (and show poor reading comprehension) The point i was making was not what may have allowed dinosaurs
to be so large but that mammals must be very small to thrive on a warm, very green, high CO2 planet.
I'm a evolution biologist and thinks ahead while you seams to be outright illiterate! My point was YOU cant make predictions for the outcome of biological evolutionary systems else you are a creationists. What you can say are evolution my take this or that direction but the outcome may be utterly surprising. So if evolution had taken a different direction very possible varm blooded larger mammals could have emerged a lot earlier.... or not at all.... or just slightly larger. Im not talking about eventual molecular level predicting which requires an understanding of mutational effects that govern complex relationship between genotype and phenotype.
Here is an interesting evolutionary idea about other life forms for your little brain to contemplate over!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHzPEpHYtXQ&ab_channel=EqualificationProductions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHzPEpHYtXQ&ab_channel=EqualificationProductions)
Just the notion that a tad or two less of gravity with current warmth and CO2/oxygen levels could enable for giants way larger then biggest dinosaur
to emerge, all according to your climate scientists.
It has been a belief among the academia for along time that clones suffers or will suffer from genetic degeneration!
Well surprise ants are more vital then anything else.
You blabber like illiterate lunatic while throwing tantrums suffering from the Streisand effect, what if oil people are paying climate change believers?
http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/ (http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)
What about Islam? Islam claims to have 12% of verses in the Koran dealing with the ecology and care for the planet.
andclaims to be a ""green religion"" and as such suggest a “a religious duty to fight climate change.” Will Daesh promote that?
While Christians who eat pigs and fart methane belongs to a bad religion? Surely Hindus dont have to worry since they dont eat cow to much,
well some do but prefer beans who also gives of gases! Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming when they fart and
suggest everyone start eat insects!
-
While Christians who eat pigs and fart methane belongs to a bad religion? Surely Hindus dont have to worry since they dont eat cow to much,
well some do but prefer beans who also gives of gases! Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming when they fart and
suggest everyone start eat insects!
You nailed it!
-
[
You must be kidding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn10YWsY1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn10YWsY1Q)
Zapta, your longstanding tradition of trying to make everything fit your political agenda is shameless.
Now you bring a video where a Nasa administrator talks about Obama wanting to encourage outreach to Muslims as somehow proof that NASA and NOAA scientists answer to Obama?
You continue to have a problem dealing with facts. Here's a few:
1) NASA and NOAA are non partisan government agencies staffed by thousands of scientists - both Democrats and Republicans (no doubt many Obama haters).
2) Their funding is controlled by congress (currently controlled by Republicans)
3) NASA's oversight is by Congress not the executive branch.
4) Regardless of oversight or current adminsitrator - their scientists are career employees who do not change with each administration change.
5) Claiming that NASA and NOAA scientists are controlled by Obama is pure, unadulterated political slander with no basis in fact. Such things are only claimed by shameless politicos like yourself.
Personally I find it remarkable that a few of them haven't taken Heartland Institute bribe money and made some public statements to encourage the deniers - as this has already happened in a few cases.
And of course none of that is even matters since
1) Literally thousands of scientist from across the globe working over the course of decades now have proven that - AGW is real.
2) Every major scientific organization (even those headed by republicans) have stated that AGW is real.
It's interesting that the pattern of posting here by you and MT is identical to the pattern shown by this threads OP -Free Energy and gallbladder cleanse nut: Ignore the factual data presented - do not respond to the calls for supporting facts but instead rely on youtube videos and cut and past from various pseudoscience websites.
-
Just random googling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/the-rico-20-letter-to-obama-asking-for-prosecution-of-climate-skeptics-disappears-from-shuklas-iges-website-amid-financial-concerns/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/29/the-rico-20-letter-to-obama-asking-for-prosecution-of-climate-skeptics-disappears-from-shuklas-iges-website-amid-financial-concerns/)
Do you realize that Anthony Watts who runs the wattsupwiththat website is an employee of the Heartland Institute and is not a scientist.? His nonsense has been debunked many times over by the actual scientific facts.
I'm a evolution biologist and thinks ahead while you seams to be outright illiterate!
Clearly! :-DD
My point was YOU cant make predictions for the outcome of biological evolutionary systems else you are a creationists.
Funny - nothing you said has anything to do with that point - you brought up something about Dinosaurs being large because of oxygen levels which had absolutely nothing to do with what I had posted.
What you can say are evolution my take this or that direction but the outcome may be utterly surprising. So if evolution had taken a different direction very possible varm blooded larger mammals could have emerged a lot earlier.... or not at all.... or just slightly larger. Im not talking about eventual molecular level predicting which requires an understanding of mutational effects that govern complex relationship between genotype and phenotype.
Relevance? Nothing to disagree with (though sort of nonsensical) just not relevant to the topic at hand.
It has been a belief among the academia for along time that clones suffers or will suffer from genetic degeneration!
Well surprise ants are more vital then anything else.
Relevance?
You blabber like illiterate lunatic while throwing tantrums suffering from the Streisand effect, what if oil people are paying climate change believers?
http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/ (http://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)
What about Islam? Islam claims to have 12% of verses in the Koran dealing with the ecology and care for the planet.
andclaims to be a ""green religion"" and as such suggest a “a religious duty to fight climate change.” Will Daesh promote that?
While Christians who eat pigs and fart methane belongs to a bad religion? Surely Hindus dont have to worry since they dont eat cow to much,
well some do but prefer beans who also gives of gases! Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming when they fart and
suggest everyone start eat insects!
Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda. Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. What the hell does that have to do with the scientific facts supporting climate change?
Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started. ::) Have at it guys..
-
Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming
That cannot be true. All climate change believers believe in man-made climate changes. So cows couldn't have caused global warming.
Unless climate change believers think themselves as cows?
Maybe that's the reason that those climate change believers advocate that we don't eat cows?
-
Some climate change believers say cows causes global warming
That cannot be true. All climate change believers believe in man-made climate changes. So cows couldn't have caused global warming.
Unless climate change believers think themselves as cows?
Maybe that's the reason that those climate change believers advocate that we don't eat cows?
Cattle are quite likely contributing to climate change. It's not natural for them to be intensively farmed.
-
1) NASA and NOAA are non partisan government agencies staffed by thousands of scientists - both Democrats and
Yes, thousands of scientists and none is descending the government line until they leave NASA.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/06/revealing-interview-with-top-contrarian-climate-scientists)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/)
Personally I find it remarkable that a few of them haven't taken Heartland Institute bribe money and made some public statements to encourage the deniers - as this has already happened in a few cases.
There is much more money and influence on the alarmist side, mostly from government grants and positions.
It's interesting that the pattern of posting here by you and MT is identical to the pattern shown by this threads OP -Free Energy and gallbladder cleanse nut: Ignore the factual data presented - do not respond to the calls for supporting facts but instead rely on youtube videos and cut and past from various pseudoscience websites.
You said that NASA doesn't report to Obama, I shown you a video where the NASA administrator admit that he gets his missions, not all scientific, from Obama and you discount it as 'a youtube video'.
Throwing 'science', 'trolls', 'old nut', 'nonsense' 'pseudoscience', 'ideologs', 'debunked' and all the other labels is meaningless. The fact of the matter is that the predictions of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are failing. This is the main point of this entire CO2 debate.
One day it will occur even to you, the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions are grossly exaggerated. When this will happen, remember this thread.
As for some crazy stuff that goes in this thread, I take it as a harmless comic relief.
-
Hey. I've got an idea... What if you were all to take a chill pill? Maybe wash it down with a nice mug of Shut the Fuck Up? Seriously. You're all acting like little babies; dannyf, mtdoc, MT, Simon, Zapta, et al. Do you need your diapers changed? No? Then grow up and act like adults.
Guess what, people hold differing opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. As much as you would like to say climate change is purely a scientific issue, it's not. It's very much political as well. For better or worse, politics always brings out strong emotions, especially on the Internet. Clearly nobody is changing anyone else's mind here.
If you still feel like dragging this out, Frankie Goes to Hollywood has some advice: Relax, don't do it. When you want to suck it, do it. Relax, when you want to come!
-
Cattle are quite likely contributing to climate change.
That's just clearly wrong, according to this article published in Science: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/19/467206769/why-science-teachers-are-struggling-with-climate-change (http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/19/467206769/why-science-teachers-are-struggling-with-climate-change)
BTW, it is the same NPR program that I referenced earlier. and it has a lot of gems in it, :)
-
Hey. I've got an idea... What if you were all to take a chill pill? Maybe wash it down with a nice mug of Shut the Fuck Up? Seriously. You're all acting like little babies; dannyf, mtdoc, MT, Simon, Zapta, et al. Do you need your diapers changed? No? Then grow up and act like adults.
OK thanks for leading by example there Timb ::)
Guess what, people hold differing opinions. There's nothing wrong with that. As much as you would like to say climate change is purely a scientific issue, it's not. It's very much political as well. For better or worse, politics always brings out strong emotions, especially on the Internet. Clearly nobody is changing anyone else's mind here.
If you still feel like dragging this out, Frankie Goes to Hollywood has some advice: Relax, don't do it. When you want to suck it, do it. Relax, when you want to come!
Actually I'm very relaxed. I have been all day. But especially now since I just returned for a long hike in the woods with my kids and dog followed by pizza and beer!.
I'm sorry if it offends you Timb but I will continue to call a troll a troll and antiscience bs when I see it. If someone takes it personally when I call them on their trolling and obvious political agenda then so be it.
The thing is climate science is not inherently political - it's just science. There are literally thousands of working scientists around the world who spend their lives working on this and could care less about the politics (and they on the reality of AGW). Now, I do agree that thanks to a very well funded politically motivated disinformation campaign there is a concerted effort to many to make it a political issue and they have largely succeeded in the media and on the internet.
I find it simultaneously funny and depressing though that on this forum - of all places - there are some very vocal politicos who willfully ignore the science on climate change - repeatedly posting the same discredited disinformation. Except for the political twist, it is the exact same mindset and tactic of the overunity free energy and miracle gallbladder cleaner crowd. Ignore the science and distract with copy and paste pseudoscience and innuendo.
It was amazing how nice it was around here for several months when one of them was in exile -but now they're back to rehashing to same old factually deficient disinformation and trolling - inserting politics into every thread they can.
Oh, well - I think I'll have another beer.
Cheers :)
-
It was amazing how nice it was around here for several months when one of them was in exile -but now they're back to rehashing to same old factually deficient disinformation and trolling - inserting politics into every thread they can.
It was nice here until you started to fill MC's vacancy.
-
[
You must be kidding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn10YWsY1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCn10YWsY1Q)
Zapta, your longstanding tradition of trying to make everything fit your political agenda is shameless.
Now you bring a video where a Nasa administrator talks about Obama wanting to encourage outreach to Muslims as somehow proof that NASA and NOAA scientists answer to Obama?
You continue to have a problem dealing with facts. Here's a few:
1) NASA and NOAA are non partisan government agencies staffed by thousands of scientists - both Democrats and Republicans (no doubt many Obama haters).
2) Their funding is controlled by congress (currently controlled by Republicans)
3) NASA's oversight is by Congress not the executive branch.
4) Regardless of oversight or current adminsitrator - their scientists are career employees who do not change with each administration change.
5) Claiming that NASA and NOAA scientists are controlled by Obama is pure, unadulterated political slander with no basis in fact. Such things are only claimed by shameless politicos like yourself.
Personally I find it remarkable that a few of them haven't taken Heartland Institute bribe money and made some public statements to encourage the deniers - as this has already happened in a few cases.
And of course none of that is even matters since
1) Literally thousands of scientist from across the globe working over the course of decades now have proven that - AGW is real.
2) Every major scientific organization (even those headed by republicans) have stated that AGW is real.
It's interesting that the pattern of posting here by you and MT is identical to the pattern shown by this threads OP -Free Energy and gallbladder cleanse nut: Ignore the factual data presented - do not respond to the calls for supporting facts but instead rely on youtube videos and cut and past from various pseudoscience websites.
I am often astounded by the fact that many US citizens have little idea of the workings of their,or any Representative Government.
US Presidents have many neat powers,but they cannot rule by decree like an Absolute Monarch.
Everything they do is under the scrutiny of the Legislature,the Supreme Court,& the Media.
The comments in the video are on about the same level as John Kennedy's “this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.”
It is an aspiration,not a blueprint.
Maybe NASA can inspire science in the Muslim nations-----after all,many years ago,Mathematics & Science thrived under Islam.
I can't see it happening in the short term,though.
zapta,your argument seems to be "Obama asked NASA to do this,so he has probably asked them to falsify global warming results".
Sorry,but that isn't worthy of you----it's the sort of crud that conspiracy sites spout!
In a short while,Obama will be an ex-President,& someone else (Don Trump?) will be in the "hot seat".
When that happens,the extremist component of their political opposition will be recycling all the "Obama did this,Obama did that" crap,just as happened with recycled anti-Bush propaganda being relabelled to attack the present incumbent.
Australian politics are pretty "down & dirty",but to a large extent,outright lies are eschewed.
-
The thing is climate science is not inherently political - it's just science.
But the thing is, it is political. It is political because the "just science" has potential consequences, which means maybe action should be taken, and discussion of what action to possibly take is very political.
There are questions like, can we do anything about it?, is it too late already?, is money better spent on prevention or mitigation?, and so on.
Furthermore, the facts are complicated. There are natural climate variations on many timescales. We know that Britain in Roman times was warmer than now, and we know there have been extreme cold periods in between. We know that the Sahara desert was green and fertile in human history. We also know that in geological terms we are leaving an ice age, so the long term climate trend is upwards. Even if AGW wasn't happening, future generations will still experience a much warmer Earth. We are talking about an incremental effect on top of underlying trends, not a sudden upset of a perfect balance.
-
zapta,your argument seems to be "Obama asked NASA to do this,so he has probably asked them to falsify global warming results".
You are now making things up.
-
zapta,your argument seems to be "Obama asked NASA to do this,so he has probably asked them to falsify global warming results".
You are now making things up.
Fair enough.what is your take from that video?
-
zapta,your argument seems to be "Obama asked NASA to do this,so he has probably asked them to falsify global warming results".
You are now making things up.
Fair enough.what is your take from that video?
mtdoc argued that NASA doesn't 'report' to Obama. The video shows that NASA gets assignments and priorities directly from the president. NASA is one of the agencies of our executive branch which is headed by the president.
-
But the stuff he quoted was airy-fairy feel-good stuff.
Hardly indicative that the President is involved in day to day management.
If your "freedom of Information " legislation is similar to ours,you can probably obtain "reports" that have been sent to your President by NASA.
Obviously,Security sensitive & "Business in confidence" stuff will be redacted,but the other stuff is probably Public Domain.
-
That cannot be true. All climate change believers believe in man-made climate changes. So cows couldn't have caused global warming.
Unless climate change believers think themselves as cows?
Maybe that's the reason that those climate change believers advocate that we don't eat cows?
There are probably a million times more cows on the planet than there would "naturally" be because we grow them to eat them, so yes it's man-made and is a source that could be avoided if we didn't do that...
I'd rather keep my steaks though :P
-
The thing about NASA is it does many, many things. One of them is public promotion and education regarding science and technology. Climate science is not its main thing. It's a government agency so of course the president is going to utilize it to promote science literacy - every president does. The "space race" was the most visible example of that.
But that is entirely different than the demonstrably false accusation that NASA scientists falsify data and plagerize themselves at the direction of the president. Making such a claim is just a bald faced transparent political action.
Of course since NASA plays a very, very small role in climate science - that argument - as ridiculous as it is - bears very little weight.
And yes, once again it is a fact that NASAs oversight is by the Republican controlled Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Commerce_Subcommittee_on_Space,_Science_and_Competitiveness) which also has jurisdiction over the NSF which is the primary funder of basic science research in the USA. IOW it is the agency that gives out the grant money.
So I guess the climate science deniers premise is this:
There is a worldwide conspiracy spanning decades among scientists across all nations to falsify data and research to convince the world that the planet is warming at an unusually fast rate and that all evidence is that this is primarily the result of increasing CO2 levels due to the burning of fossil fuels. They are doing this because they will all get rich from the high salaries they earn from government grants which of course are only given out (apparently in the US under both Republican and Democratic administrations since 2000) if one does the falsifying. Meanwhile the documented 100's of millions of dollars (e.g.see here (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers), here (http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html)) from the fossil fuel industry and far right political organizations directed toward creating manufactured uncertainty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy) via climate change denial websites and traditional media is somehow just innocent public education.
Does that sum up the argument?
-
OK thanks for leading by example there Timb ::)
If I were leading by example, I would have continued to refrain from posting. But if I did that, how would I make my point? Clearly, I should know better than to ever think that would work. Obviously I'm used to people arguing on the Internet by now.
You guys were lobbing insults back and forth and I guess I just felt left out. So, I figured I would go whole hog and just insult everybody in one shot. At the very least it made me feel very clever and now I'm pretty sure at least someone reading it thinks I'm cool now. So, mission accomplished.
Now I'll ride triumphantly into the sunset. Well, not literally *into* the sunset, I mean I'd burn to death long before I ever reached the surface of the sun, which wouldn't be very triumphant (unless you were trying to commit suicide, in which case I guess it would, but I digress).
Anyway, watch as I triumphantly ride in the general direction of, but not into, a sunset. Heeyah!
-
But the stuff he quoted was airy-fairy feel-good stuff.
Hardly indicative that the President is involved in day to day management.
I don't think I said that either.
When the head of the adminstration is so much invested in a specific outcome, it's a strong chilling affects for the employees that may have a descent opinion.
That's why they express descent publicly only after they leave the administration
Anyway, what matters is that the predictions of man-made-catastrophic-global-warming keep failing so it's can't go to long.
-
The thing is climate science is not inherently political - it's just science.
But the thing is, it is political. It is political because the "just science" has potential consequences, which means maybe action should be taken, and discussion of what action to possibly take is very political.
There are questions like, can we do anything about it?, is it too late already?, is money better spent on prevention or mitigation?, and so on.
Furthermore, the facts are complicated. There are natural climate variations on many timescales. We know that Britain in Roman times was warmer than now, and we know there have been extreme cold periods in between. We know that the Sahara desert was green and fertile in human history. We also know that in geological terms we are leaving an ice age, so the long term climate trend is upwards. Even if AGW wasn't happening, future generations will still experience a much warmer Earth. We are talking about an incremental effect on top of underlying trends, not a sudden upset of a perfect balance.
It's political because the only way of changing things one way or the other is for policies to be made. We the people don't decide what sort of power generation to use it has to be decided higher up. Rules that govern the way we live that have an impact either way have to be implemented, so of course it is political. But politicians only care about being elected so they try and keep people happy. And it's far easier to keep people happy that think the same as you.
-
Anyway, watch as I triumphantly ride in the general direction of, but not into, a sunset. Heeyah!
Beware of the edge of earth.
-
Don't forget, global warming is the biggest threat we face. Bigger than wars, bigger than death of innocent people, bigger than fine, bigger than deadly dieses, bigger than lior educatkon, bigger than crimes that impact you and me everyday, bigger than poverty, .....
Bigger than kf them combined, global warming is the biggest threat.
Can you find more out of touch politician?
-
Don't forget, global warming is the biggest threat we face. Bigger than wars, bigger than death of innocent people, bigger than fine, bigger than deadly dieses, bigger than lior educatkon, bigger than crimes that impact you and me everyday, bigger than poverty, .....
Bigger than kf them combined, global warming is the biggest threat.
Can you find more out of touch politician?
Well no one expects one politician to solve global warming so they can "unite" with us in "the fight against" global warming and we all think they are nice people. Reality is we expect them to make laws and make sure we have a social system with it's services (like the police) that keep us safe.
Again whatever a politician has to say about global warming will be tosh to make themselves to look good.
Ultimately, if our climate is going to change to the point that only some of us survive the harsh conditions to come (most likely the richest of us) then yes poverty and crime could be said to pale in the face of that but for the fact that they are two separate things with different time scales. A politicians job is to protect us from crime and poverty while listening to scientists on scientific matters, it's when they wade into science themselves that it all goes wrong.
-
Don't forget, global warming is the biggest threat we face. Bigger than wars, bigger than death of innocent people, bigger than fine, bigger than deadly dieses, bigger than lior educatkon, bigger than crimes that impact you and me everyday, bigger than poverty, .....
Bigger than kf them combined, global warming is the biggest threat.
Can you find more out of touch politician?
That sounds pretty sensible to me.
Things such as war, crime and deadly diseases are more likely when resources become scarce, which will be a direct result of climate change and depletion of natural resources such as fossil fuels.
-
That sounds pretty sensible to me.
Things such as war, crime and deadly diseases are more likely when resources become scarce, which will be a direct result of climate change and depletion of natural resources such as fossil fuels.
He was talking about the biggest problem we face, not the biggest problem we can imagine.
-
Anyway, what matters is that the predictions of man-made-catastrophic-global-warming keep failing so it's can't go to long.
That's just more attempt at spreading FUD. The truth is that all predictions of any "catastrophic" impacts of AGW made by climate scientists involve potential impacts decades away IF current trends continue. So far the effects seen (sea level rise, shrinking of arctic ice) are not large but have been mostly either on track or slightly ahead of past predictions. Of course as any scientists or engineer knows - modeling is alway imperfect and reality never exactly matches a model's predictions (see here (http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/modeling-sea-level-rise-25857988))
The fact that potential catastrophic effects of global warming will not occur for several decades is precisely the reason why I don't think anything of significance will be done to alter the course of events. What could alter it - and already has to some extent - is global economic slowdown or collapse.
The thing is climate science is not inherently political - it's just science.
But the thing is, it is political. It is political because the "just science" has potential consequences, which means maybe action should be taken, and discussion of what action to possibly take is very political.
There are questions like, can we do anything about it?, is it too late already?, is money better spent on prevention or mitigation?, and so on.
Furthermore, the facts are complicated. There are natural climate variations on many timescales. We know that Britain in Roman times was warmer than now, and we know there have been extreme cold periods in between. We know that the Sahara desert was green and fertile in human history. We also know that in geological terms we are leaving an ice age, so the long term climate trend is upwards. Even if AGW wasn't happening, future generations will still experience a much warmer Earth. We are talking about an incremental effect on top of underlying trends, not a sudden upset of a perfect balance.
It's political because the only way of changing things one way or the other is for policies to be made. We the people don't decide what sort of power generation to use it has to be decided higher up. Rules that govern the way we live that have an impact either way have to be implemented, so of course it is political. But politicians only care about being elected so they try and keep people happy. And it's far easier to keep people happy that think the same as you.
Yes, I agree that the political aspect comes in once one starts to discuss what (if anything) governments or society can or should do to slow or stop AGW.
My point earlier was that the science itself - that is the effort to answer the questions: 1) is the planet warming at an alarming rate? and 2) if it is, is human activity (primarily burning fossil fuels) the primary cause?.
Those are the scientific questions -they are apolitical - and they have been answered. I find it offensive that here - on an engineering forum in particular - there are those who would either for political purposes or out of ignorance - seek to discredit the science. It's the science side of it that matters to me not the political propaganda war.
Personally I'm not interested in debating the political aspect because I think that side of it is hopeless. We will not willingly change our behavior enough to have a significant impact. (see my comments above)
I do find it disturbing that so many put their political gamesmanship ahead of the long term livability of the planet. Even if you felt there was only a 5% chance that AGW is real - why would one risk not doing something to mitigate that risk? Even worse - why would one actively work to prevent others from trying to do something?
Ah well - I guess the human tendency towards tribalism (politics) and short term thinking (monetary effects) trumps all else for some.
-
Ah well - I guess the human tendency towards tribalism (politics) and short term thinking (monetary effects) trumps all else for some.
that is ultimately it in a nutshell.
-
That sounds pretty sensible to me.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense from the comfort of your home.
When a gun is pointed to your head, when your kids are crying from hunger, when your town is being shelled, or a gang is about to rape you and your family, ...., your perspective on this may change, even if it is just a little.
-
That sounds pretty sensible to me.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense from the comfort of your home.
When a gun is pointed to your head, when your kids are crying from hunger, when your town is being shelled, or a gang is about to rape you and your family, ...., your perspective on this may change, even if it is just a little.
Excuse me but what the hell are you talking about ?
-
Resource shortages and agricultural shortfalls - in particular those leading to food insecurity (http://ucanr.edu/blogs/food2025/blogfiles/14415.pdf) are a well known trigger for violent conflict and war.
Trying to do something about the root causes of war and prevent future war sure seems sensible to me.
-
oh, but I thought climate change was second in threat to war :box:
-
Resource shortages and agricultural shortfalls - in particular those leading to food insecurity (http://ucanr.edu/blogs/food2025/blogfiles/14415.pdf) are a well known trigger for violent conflict and war.
Trying to do something about the root causes of war and prevent future war sure seems sensible to me.
That's exactly what I was trying to say.That sounds pretty sensible to me.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense from the comfort of your home.
When a gun is pointed to your head, when your kids are crying from hunger, when your town is being shelled, or a gang is about to rape you and your family, ...., your perspective on this may change, even if it is just a little.
All of that shit is very likely when crops fail due to climate change.
-
oh, but I thought climate change was second in threat to war :box:
Ha - yeah - see my edit above. Climate change no doubt means increasing food insecurity - especially at a regional level = more regional conflict and war. Of course loss of habitable real estate in low lying areas will also equal more regional conflict and war.
But that's ok - War is good for business - good for the economy!!
Let's have a war! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXbUXqP6QE)
Sorry but my 1980s nostalgia gets the best of me at times... >:D
-
Hello Every Body,
I found this picture about the CO2 debacle
-
All of that shit is very likely when crops fail due to climate change.
But is it of higher risk to you and your family than climate change?
Every day we face tons of risks but that doesn't mean we devote tons of resources to address everyone of them. We prioritize.
The question is, why should we prioritize global warming to the top of our list when we are faced with so imminent and existential problems everywhere you look?
-
I found this picture about the CO2 debacle
Is it global warming or global shrinking?
-
All of that shit is very likely when crops fail due to climate change.
But is it of higher risk to you and your family than climate change?
Every day we face tons of risks but that doesn't mean we devote tons of resources to address everyone of them. We prioritize.
The question is, why should we prioritize global warming to the top of our list when we are faced with so imminent and existential problems everywhere you look?
actually you will be surprised at how fast humans will degenerate when whole communities have nothing left to loose. Contrary to some nuty ideas floating around global warming is making it harder for crops to be grown, this leads to less supply, but for us this is not a problem because we have the most money, we can just buy the food at the highest price while it exists to be bought. And no doubt we will be shielded from the reasons of conflict in lesser nations or conveniently not notice until it's our supermarkets that don't stock enough food, and what little they do stock is so expensive no one can afford it. The idea of a civilized society is to not get to this point.
-
Trying to do something about the root causes of war and prevent future war sure seems sensible to me.
If your goal is having less wars and more food, present the problem as such and then we can evaluate the impact and possible solutions. Using it to justify CO2 caps is hyperbole.
As expected, the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming is just a platform to push other agendas.
So far the effects seen (sea level rise, shrinking of arctic ice) are not large but have been mostly either on track or slightly ahead of past predictions.
Don't confuse wishes with reality. They predictions exaggerate the temperature rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/)
and they are completely wrong about the catastrophic implications
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/free-energy-is-just-a-bad-name/msg873996/#msg873996 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/free-energy-is-just-a-bad-name/msg873996/#msg873996)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/)
They even had to rename it 'climate change' to avoid scientific falsifiability, climate always changes.
-
Trying to do something about the root causes of war and prevent future war sure seems sensible to me.
If your goal is having less wars and more food, present the problem as such and then we can evaluate the impact and possible solutions. Using it to justify CO2 caps is hyperbole.
As expected, the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming is just a platform to push other agendas.
So far the effects seen (sea level rise, shrinking of arctic ice) are not large but have been mostly either on track or slightly ahead of past predictions.
Don't confuse wishes with reality. They predictions exaggerate the temperature rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/)
and they are completely wrong about the catastrophic implications
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/free-energy-is-just-a-bad-name/msg873996/#msg873996 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/free-energy-is-just-a-bad-name/msg873996/#msg873996)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/)
They even had to rename it 'climate change' to avoid scientific falsifiability, climate always changes.
Actually "they" don't like it being called climate change, "they" prefer global warming. The problem is you have 2 says of sub zero temperatures and people start saying it's proof that global warming does not exist. Unfortunately few people know what analytical thinking is and their memories don't go back more than a month when it comes to the weather. Since i returned to the UK the climate in the area of italy I used to live has become unbearable, from 30C and low humidity to 40C and 80% humidity, when I went out there last August we had to go on a road trip and find a 2000m mountain range to go up to be cooler and be able to cleep.
In 40C and 80% humidity sleep is pretty much out of the question, I used to be able to sleep when I lived out there 7 years ago.
-
Simon, there you mention the one thing the climate modellers either ignore, or model as a constant ( like the solar irradiation of the sun, which does actually vary over 11 years and longer periods) which is atmospheric moisture. Think of a cloudy day where there is high cloud, versus a similar day with no cloud cover, and what that does for daytime temperature and the difference between 2PM and just before sunrise temperatures..
-
Well I guess that is hard to model as it's hard to predict. I don't think we have comprehensive modelling yet. For example through BOINC I take part in climateprediction.net that is going over all available data from I believe the last 100+ years to try and construct a more accurate model than what we have. People think that just because we have computers and a bit of code we have models and they are accurate or totally wrong.
-
Well I guess that is hard to model as it's hard to predict. I don't think we have comprehensive modelling yet. For example through BOINC I take part in climateprediction.net that is going over all available data from I believe the last 100+ years to try and construct a more accurate model than what we have. People think that just because we have computers and a bit of code we have models and they are accurate or totally wrong.
I agree about that, but 100 years, and event 200 year of data is not enough to even say if the climate change is really due to the humanity or not.
I'm not denying that our action could have an impact, *but* does it have that much an impact on what's happening? I'm not sure
-
Don't confuse wishes with reality. They predictions exaggerate the temperature rise:
Really? More with the Heartland Institute's wattsupwiththat website disinformation - discredited many times over? Shameless.
For some actual science see:
Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011
Rahmstorf et. al. Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035)
Abstract
We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.
There are several studies that confirm this and debunk the Heartland Institute's propaganda. For a summary of those see HERE (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm)
For those who prefer a video, this is a good summary:
Models (http://youtu.be/Y_jKXcgR_QA)
-
Well I think that they are basically going through all of the available data. Of course there was a time when we did not collect much climate data or did not have the tools to do so. If you read the website their aim is to investigate all data down to the smallest zones possible. For speed current weather analysis and prediction uses fairly large "cubes" is say the average temperature in 1 cubic Km, what they are looking to do is go over everything in the smallest detail possible in order to try and extrapolate the best possible model. This of course is only possible because people like me are allowing it to run on their computers, in return it heats my bedroom for me :-DD
-
Actually "they" don't like it being called climate change, "they" prefer global warming. The problem is you have 2 says of sub zero temperatures and people start saying it's proof that global warming does not exist. Unfortunately few people know what analytical thinking is and their memories don't go back more than a month when it comes to the weather.
Yes, anecdotes are not that useful to understand a global trend.
Since i returned to the UK the climate in the area of italy I used to live has become unbearable, from 30C and low humidity to 40C and 80% humidity, when I went out there last August we had to go on a road trip and find a 2000m mountain range to go up to be cooler and be able to cleep.
In 40C and 80% humidity sleep is pretty much out of the question, I used to be able to sleep when I lived out there 7 years ago.
See comment above regarding anecdotes.
-
Just going to wedge my oar in again..
I'm sure it wasn't the mere mention of 'climate change' that started all this, but quite a few recent replies pretty much prove my point :/ Both ends of the argument.
I have noticed people using the term 'global warming', an 80's term that was carefully replaced by 'climate change'. The reason of course is that global temperatures actually levelled off, perhaps even fell slightly, in the 90's. It was more the fact that the old term was a misnomer anyway, because it implied 'Earth getting warmer = the bads!' but in reality it created more variability in weather as what ever the contributing factors (our emissions, mass forest clearance, volcano erruptions, variations in polar sea ice etc..), it was more prudent to describe the process as 'climate change' to highlight a much quicker 'change' in the climate than previous human records show (which do not go back that far). The nay-sayers will of course use this to claim its a conspiracy, and they changed it because their evidence was flawed.. which just goes to show, when there is a general consensus about something, even minor changes can be twisted into 'evidence' by those who disagree. But I'll admit, we do need those who disagree to at least spur on research, and discussion - hopefully not trying to derail everything.
And at the risk of sounding like a 'wet liberal', perhaps some common ground is in order! Who can agree with the following:
1. The climate is *always* changing, by its very nature. This is obvious, but perhaps not so obvious that the many contributing cycles can vary from periods of months, to millennia.
2. Man's activities are not the main contributor to CO2 'release' (as in, liberating carbon in the carbon cycle, by human interference).
2a. 'Mans Activities' have added to CO2 release, and therefore, will have an effect, be that positive or negative, either way, it is a 'change' to the input of climate systems, and therefore, a change in climate.
3. What we consider 'normal' climate, has only been that way for barely a few thousand years, and therefore is anything but 'normal'. One cannot use words like 'destabilize' because whilst there is a certain balance of systems, it implies that the climate by nature is 'stable', which from point 1, it isn't.
4. Both sides - the doom sayers who like to dream up apocolyptic scenarios, and those who claim its all 'conspiracy to control us', often distort (knowingly, or unwittingly) data to meet their expectations.
(ie: beware the context of any data).
5. We should try to shift power production away from fossil fuels, and increase efficiency, and perhaps easiest of all, stop wasting so much power. If not to curb CO2 emissions, then at least to provide cheaper, cleaner, more accessible power to more.
6. I still think far too much energy is wasted, not necessarily from the infrastructure or technology (efficiency), but simply convenience - leaving shop fronts and offices fully lit 24/7, having air-conditioning AND heating, AND windows open in offices, shops, and public places.
7. It is always easier to say 'well, this industry produces far more carbon than that industry, so it should do something before I do' as an excuse to do nothing.
I could add more, but I'll end up in full rant-mode, and I don't want to fall off my soap box...
editing: endless typos
-
Simon, there you mention the one thing the climate modellers either ignore, or model as a constant ( like the solar irradiation of the sun, which does actually vary over 11 years and longer periods) which is atmospheric moisture. Think of a cloudy day where there is high cloud, versus a similar day with no cloud cover, and what that does for daytime temperature and the difference between 2PM and just before sunrise temperatures..
This has been accounted for.
Other natural causes for the temperature increase have been studied and so far none have accounted for the extent of the temperature rise, already experienced.
Anyway, what matters is that the predictions of man-made-catastrophic-global-warming keep failing so it's can't go to long.
No, it's based on solid science.
The air absorbs radiation from the sun, causing it to warm up. This is why on the top of a mountain, where the air is thinner, it's a lot colder, despite being slightly nearer to the sun.
It's known that certain gasses such as a CO2, H2O* and CH4 contribute to this effect more than others do. Unfortunately burning fossil fuels and intensive agriculture releases large quantities of these gasses into the atmosphere, at a greater rate than they're naturally absorbed which is resulting in a temperature rise.
* There are uncertainties, especially regarding water vapour is actually one of the most important greenhouse gasses, yet it can cause cooling (it can condense to form clouds which block sunlight) as well as warming. Where I live more could would mean more rain, milder winters which less frost and ice and cooler, less sunny summers which would be bad for agriculture.
-
atmospheric moisture.
And that water vapors account for 95%+ of the greenhouse effect on this planet!
So what credibility do you want to place on any climate models that ignore the most important factor on climate changes?
:)
-
atmospheric moisture.
And that water vapors account for 95%+ of the greenhouse effect on this planet!
So what credibility do you want to place on any climate models that ignore the most important factor on climate changes?
:)
That's a lie. Climate models do account for water vapour. Google it.
-
Simon, there you mention the one thing the climate modellers either ignore, or model as a constant ( like the solar irradiation of the sun, which does actually vary over 11 years and longer periods) which is atmospheric moisture. Think of a cloudy day where there is high cloud, versus a similar day with no cloud cover, and what that does for daytime temperature and the difference between 2PM and just before sunrise temperatures..
SeanB,
The climate modellers do account for solar variablity. For example see HERE (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta)
(http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f7_online.jpg)
Solar variation (TSI) is the bottom graph and per the authors has actually contributed to a slighly down variation in temperature data.
-
but 100 years, and event 200 year of data is not enough to even say if the climate change is really due to the humanity or not.
That, according to climate scientists, will make your thinking unscientific and you a climate denier, :)
perhaps some common ground is in order!
There is no common ground (or common sense) when it comes to the religion of global warming. You either buy into the faith or you are a climate denier and should be prosecuted (or is that persecuted?) by the government that your tax dollars fund.
-
You either buy into the faith or you are a climate denier and should be prosecuted
No, you either are someone who believes in scientific conclusions, someone who doesn't believe in scientific conclusions, or worse someone who selectively believes (or pretends to) - only when it fits their political agenda.
-
No, you either are someone who believes in scientific conclusions, someone who doesn't believe in scientific conclusions, or worse someone who selectively believes (or pretends to) - only when it fits their political agenda.
+1.
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
-
glad to see my bridge building skills have still got it! :palm:
-
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
Please post some actual evidence that this is responsible for the scientific consensus on AGW (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Otherwise you are just demonstrating that you are part of the problem.
-
perhaps some common ground is in order!
There is no common ground (or common sense) when it comes to the religion of global warming. You either buy into the faith or you are a climate denier and should be prosecuted (or is that persecuted?) by the government that your tax dollars fund.
Now your being stupid and accusing people who are trying to have a sensible debate of exactly what people like you do yourselves. So far "the deniers" have shown no ability to provide any reasoning, they simply post links, which means they don't neccessarily understand but as someone else gave them the answers bingo.
If water vapor is a green house gas then that explains even more why small amounts of CO2 are a problem, a bit more CO2 starts the warming, more water vapor, even more warming. The problem is "the deniers" want a one line answers along the lines of A = B.
-
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
Please post some actual evidence that this is responsible for the scientific consensus on AGW (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Otherwise you are just demonstrating that you are part of the problem.
The catastrophic man made global warming predictions keep failing and are not corrected for political reasons. Bad science. It's not a consensus, it's group thinking.
(http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec6/IPCC1990_Prediction.png)
-
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
and a fraud.
Whenever you see someone trying to shut down a discussion, using "settled science", manipulating data, questioning the motives of those who disagree with them, assassinating their characters, utilizing the government machines to crush their opponents, appealing to authority, ..., you know that there is a fraud somewhere there, :)
Fortunately, you can see all of them in the global warming advocates.
-
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
Please post some actual evidence that this is responsible for the scientific consensus on AGW (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Otherwise you are just demonstrating that you are part of the problem.
The models' predictions keep failing and are not corrected for political reasons. Bad science. It's not a consensus, it's group thinking.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec6/IPCC1990_Prediction.png (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec6/IPCC1990_Prediction.png)
You obviously did not read what I explained about the climateprediction.net project. they are still trying to create better models. You seem to think a model is a one line formula that some bloke changes variables in based on a political agenda.
-
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
and a fraud.
Whenever you see someone trying to shut down a discussion, using "settled science", manipulating data, questioning the motives of those who disagree with them, assassinating their characters, utilizing the government machines to crush their opponents, appealing to authority, ..., you know that there is a fraud somewhere there, :)
Fortunately, you can see all of them in the global warming advocates.
I've never heard such dribbled, but then you need a standard response when you have nothing of value to add.
-
It's not a consensus, it's group thinking.
That chart is called "backtesting". A basic model validation technique.
And you can see objectively how powerful it is.
Making predictions about the future is easy, making predictions about the past is incredibly difficult.
-
[
The catastrophic man made global warming predictions keep failing and are not corrected for political reasons. Bad science. It's not a consensus, it's group thinking.
Please post the link to the source of your graph. The graph you post is completely bogus disinformation not only does it cherry pick an outdated 26 year old model and (assuming it's real) it plots the old IPCC model for global temperature versus observations from a single air temperature only data set. Shameless. :palm:
The actual real comparison for that model I've added to the bottom of this post.
Here's some actual current data with the sources linked:
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg)
Figure 10: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes, and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data. Source (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035)
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/tamino_rates.jpg)
Source (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/)
Here's the data comparing the outdated 1990 IPCC model to observations:
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FAR_2012.jpg)
Source (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm)
-
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
Please post some actual evidence that this is responsible for the scientific consensus on AGW (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Otherwise you are just demonstrating that you are part of the problem.
The models' predictions keep failing and are not corrected for political reasons. Bad science. It's not a consensus, it's group thinking.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec6/IPCC1990_Prediction.png (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec6/IPCC1990_Prediction.png)
You obviously did not read what I explained about the climateprediction.net project. they are still trying to create better models. You seem to think a model is a one line formula that some bloke changes variables in based on a political agenda.
No, didn't see that.
Indeed we need better models and better understanding of the implications. The claim that the science is settled is a lie.
-
No, didn't see that.
Indeed we need better models and better understanding of the implications. The claim that the science is settled is a lie.
I think the better models will just provide better accuracy, the general conclusions will still be the same. It's also worth noting that the temperatures we are talking about are just of the air. The sea will start to absorb it as well and hold it better, a small change in ocean temperature would be much more significant than of the air.
-
I think sooner or later, those climate data fitters will wise up, in terms of making short-term (thus backtestable) predictions.
Two basic ways to avoid backtesting:
1) make long-term predictions: at least untestable in one's life time;
2) make asymptotic predictions: since we cannot walk into the same river twice, such predictions are untestable by definition.
So they are always right, :)
-
I think sooner or later, those climate data fitters will wise up, in terms of making short-term (thus backtestable) predictions.
Two basic ways to avoid backtesting:
1) make long-term predictions: at least untestable in one's life time;
2) make asymptotic predictions: since we cannot walk into the same river twice, such predictions are untestable by definition.
So they are always right, :)
Sounds like you need to be careful you don't start making disprovable predictions yourself :-DD
-
I think the better models will just provide better accuracy, the general conclusions will still be the same.
If the models are accurate then the scientific question is solved. As for the policy side, we will need the understand the implications (what does X deg change means for good or bad), the possible courses of action and their expected benefits and costs.
There are too many shortcuts and forcing in the current process.
-
It's sad that science got hijacked for a political agenda.
Please post some actual evidence that this is responsible for the scientific consensus on AGW (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Otherwise you are just demonstrating that you are part of the problem.
Still waiting......
-
Two typical model validation techniques that I have never seen climate modelers use is out-of-time and out-of-sample testing.
In out of time testing, you essentially develop your model using data up to a historical point. After the model has been developed, you then use it to predict to the present time. That way, you can test the model performance against observable data.
In out of sample testing, you randomly take out observations and keep them out of your model development. Once the model is developed, you see how the model performs against those out-of-sample observations. If the model exhibits statistically different predictive performance on the out of sample observations vs. in sample observations, you know that your model is missing stuff -> the model is observation dependent.
Very rarely you see models deployed without passing any of those validation tests.
Unless of course you are talking about climate models.
-
I think the better models will just provide better accuracy, the general conclusions will still be the same.
If the models are accurate then the scientific question is solved. As for the policy side, we will need the understand the implications (what does X deg change means for good or bad), the possible courses of action and their expected benefits and costs.
There are too many shortcuts and forcing in the current process.
Well the fact is that eventually we will run out of fossil fuel anyway or that what little they can still get will become so expensive and you and me will be going to work on horseback. So actually policy wise it is wise to look to better sources of fuel/energy. The problem is that no one likes change and politicians like to get reelected. But most politicians know they won't last more than 2 or 3 terms so they kick it into the long grass, and this is why nuclear is a bad idea, in the UK we ran out of temporary storage for the waste because successive governments did not want to be unpopular so they let temporary storage become permanent storage and didn't build any more permanent storage until we ran out because every government said: "next governments problem". That is what policy does for you. The policy will always be to be popular and give the stupid ignorant surfs what they think they want.
-
Well the fact is that eventually we will run out of fossil fuel anyway or that what little they can still get will become so expensive and you and me will be going to work on horseback. So actually policy wise it is wise to look to better sources of fuel/energy.
Yes. That is an excellent point. These are things we should be doing (and should have been doing for decades) regardless of global warming.
But we won't.
The problem is there is enormous monied interest in continuing business as usual and as you say - the public doesn't like being told by politicians that they need to make sacrifices. Jimmy Carter made the mistake of trying that.
-
depends on what you call a sacrifice. People need to grow up. Not getting their stupid ignorant way is a "sacrifice" in ones own eyes :popcorn:
-
Just going to wedge my oar in again..
...
<long discussion deleted>
I welcome the voice of reason. ;-)
Good stuff.
-
Just going to wedge my oar in again..
...
<long discussion deleted>
I welcome the voice of reason. ;-)
Good stuff.
Yup. It's a shame it didn't help. You know why? Because *both sides* of the climate change debate are beyond reason.
This shit must activate the same part of the brain as religion, because otherwise logical, reasonable people (except dannyf, he just likes stirring the pot) turn into angry, contemptible idiots that have their positions chiseled in stone. They absolutely refuse to budge and just keep regurgitating the same lame arguments over and over, ad nauseam.
The real truth about climate change is somewhere in the middle. ;)
-
The real truth about climate change is somewhere in the middle. ;)
Yes just like the existence of luminiferous ether, the Earth going round the Sun, and evolution. Mind you, there is a lot of disagreement about the latter one in some rather science-depleted places.
-
Yup. It's a shame it didn't help. You know why? Because *both sides* of the climate change debate are beyond reason.
This shit must activate the same part of the brain as religion, because otherwise logical, reasonable people (except dannyf, he just likes stirring the pot) turn into angry, contemptible idiots that have their positions chiseled in stone. They absolutely refuse to budge and just keep regurgitating the same lame arguments over and over, ad nauseam.
FWIW - I'm not angry in the least. I find the whole thing rather amusing though at times exacerbating. I've long since accepted that we will not actually do anything meaningful to affect the outcome.
And honestly - I'd really like to hear why you think scientific evidence is "beyond reason".
Why do you find it ok to trust science to refute the "free energy" or gall bladder cleanse claims but not the AGW denial claims?
What I see in your post is evidence that the money spent to promote a manufactured controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy) were none exists among climate scientists has successfully convinced an otherwise intelligent educated person to question the conclusions of the scientific community.
That makes me sad. But not angry...
-
Just going to wedge my oar in again..
...
<long discussion deleted>
I welcome the voice of reason. ;-)
Good stuff.
Yup. It's a shame it didn't help. You know why? Because *both sides* of the climate change debate are beyond reason.
This shit must activate the same part of the brain as religion, because otherwise logical, reasonable people (except dannyf, he just likes stirring the pot) turn into angry, contemptible idiots that have their positions chiseled in stone. They absolutely refuse to budge and just keep regurgitating the same lame arguments over and over, ad nauseam.
FWIW - I'm not angry in the least. I find the whole thing rather amusing though at times exacerbating. I've long since accepted that we will not actually do anything meaningful to affect the outcome.
And honestly - I'd really like to hear why you thing scientific evidence is "beyond reason".
Why do you find it ok to trust science to refute the "free energy" or gall bladder cleanse claims but not the AGW denial claims?
What I see in your post is evidence that the money spent to promote amanufactured controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy) were none exists among climate scientists has successfully convinced an otherwise intelligent educated person to question the conclusions of the scientific community.''
Makes me sad. But not angry...
I never said I question the conclusions of the scientific community. What I question is people using articles, charts and graphs from think tanks funded by *either* side.
Unfortunately, scientists are human, which means they have an inbuilt bias that's very hard to put aside. Before I implicitly trust any results, I want to know how the data was collected and processed, who paid for the study, etc.
Both the money and politics involved in the "Green Energy" *and* "Fossil Fuel" sides makes me inherently distrustful of both. Beware anyone trying to sell you something.
The way I see it, the climate *is* changing. I don't think it's *solely* because of humans. Either way, we will run out of oil and coal eventually, so we need to start preparing, but scaremongering isn't the way to garner support.
I think that's a sensible position to take. Hence, somewhere in the middle.
-
Richard Feynman's 1974 Cal-Tech Commencement Speech
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. (Another crazy idea of the Middle Ages is these hats we have on today—which is too loose in my case.) Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas—which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked—or very little of it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.
Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk to talk about that I can’t do it in this talk. I’m overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks (they’re dark and quiet and you float in Epsom salts) and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it’s a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn’t realize how much there was.
I was sitting, for example, in a hot bath and there’s another guy and a girl in the bath. He says to the girl, “I’m learning massage and I wonder if I could practice on you?” She says OK, so she gets up on a table and he starts off on her foot—working on her big toe and pushing it around. Then he turns to what is apparently his instructor, and says, “I feel a kind of dent. Is that the pituitary?” And she says, “No, that’s not the way it feels.” I say, “You’re a hell of a long way from the pituitary, man.” And they both looked at me—I had blown my cover, you see—and she said, “It’s reflexology.” So I closed my eyes and appeared to he meditating.
That’s just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mind reading and bending keys. He didn’t do any mind reading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon.
But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you’ll see the reading scores keep going down—or hardly going up—in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There’s a witch doctor remedy that doesn’t work. It ought to be looked into: how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress—lots of theory, but no progress—in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way—or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn’t do “the right thing,” according to the experts.
So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science.
I tried to find a principle for discovering more of these kinds of things, and came up with the following system. Any time you find yourself in a conversation at a cocktail party—in which you do not feel uncomfortable that the hostess might come around and say, “Why are you fellows talking shop?’’ or that your wife will come around and say, “Why are you flirting again?”—then you can be sure you are talking about something about which nobody knows anything.
Using this method, I discovered a few more topics that I had forgotten—among them the efficacy of various forms of psychotherapy. So I began to investigate through the library, and so on, and I have so much to tell you that I can’t do it at all. I will have to limit myself to just a few little things. I’ll concentrate on the things more people believe in. Maybe I will give a series of speeches next year on all these subjects. It will take a long time.
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson Oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will—including Wesson Oil. So it’s the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.
We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.
A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the subject. Nevertheless, it should be remarked that this is not the only difficulty. That’s why the planes don’t land—but they don’t land.
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that kind of a disease.
But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing—and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of result. For example—let’s take advertising again—suppose some particular cigarette has some particular property, like low nicotine. It’s published widely by the company that this means it is good for you—they don’t say, for instance, that the tars are a different proportion, or that something else is the matter with the cigarette. In other words, publication probability depends upon the answer. That should not be done.
I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would he better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.
-
Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell. I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this—I don’t remember it in detail, but it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do, A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.
I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person—to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A—and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.
She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1935 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to nut try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see hat happens.
Nowadays there’s a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen to light hydrogen he had to use data from someone else’s experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked he said it was because he couldn’t get time on the program (because there’s so little time and it’s such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn’t be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying—possibly—the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.
All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on—with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and, still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A?Number?l experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat?running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using—not what you think it’s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat?running.
I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The subsequent experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn’t discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of Cargo Cult Science.
Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms—and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments—they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated—that you can do again and get the same effect—statistically, even. They run a million rats—no, it’s people this time—they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don’t get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?
This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology. And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent—not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching—to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity.
So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. May I also give you one last bit of advice: Never say that you’ll give a talk unless you know clearly what you’re going to talk about and more or less what you’re going to say.
-
I never said I question the conclusions of the scientific community. What I question is people using articles, charts and graphs from think tanks funded by *either* side.
Fair enough. But recognize that I and others generally post links to actual original research - peer reviewed journal articles. Or in some cases websites that summarize the findings of several journal articles - but which always provide links to the journal articles themselves.
That is much different from someone posting manufactured graphs from fossil fuel industry funded denial sites and never links to any actual scientific referenced source.
If you believe there is large money coming from somewhere to fund promotion of the actual real climate science -please show evidence of that - there is none that I'm aware of - though I guess it is possible some small PV company could be contributing money. There is no large corporation that would benefit from more public acceptance of climate science. That's too bad. I wish there was.
The funding for denial websites has been well documented.
And once again - it's a fact that as of 2011 97% of journal articles and climate scientists (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org) with an opinion on the matter agreed with the tenets of AGW.
There truly is consensus in the scientific community (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Yes, there really is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf).
So on one side you have fossil fuel industry funded "think tank" websites and on the other side you have actual climate scientists.
Again - the fact that you think that is not the case indicates to me that their disinformation campaign is successful.
-
There is no large corporation that would benefit from more public acceptance of climate science. That's too bad. I wish there was.
Surely any corporation invested in green energy would benefit?
-
There is no large corporation that would benefit from more public acceptance of climate science. That's too bad. I wish there was.
Surely any corporation invested in green energy would benefit?
Yes. That's why I said large corporation. All of the green energy companies I'm aware of are puny compared to the fossil fuel industries. Look at this list of the worlds's largest corporations by revenue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue) 6 of the top 10 are fossil fuel companies.
In the US 2 of the top 3 and 4 of the top 10 are fossil fuel companies (http://fortune.com/fortune500/).
I believe there are no "green energy" corporations in the Fortune 500. Tesla ranks #717 (though it's not really a green energy company - Solar City is but its revenues are a puny $67 million).
Koch Industries is the second largest privately held US corporation with annual revenue of $115 billion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries).
The reality is that all the green energy corporations added together are likely dwarfed in size by Exson or Koch or any of the large fossil fuel coprorations and I've never seen any evidence that any of them spend money to promote awareness of climate science.
-
Again - the fact that you think that is not the case indicates to me that their disinformation campaign is successful.
Science and nature don't care care what people are saying.
What maters for science is if the catastrophic-man-made-global-warning claims are accurate and match the evidence.
-
Again - the fact that you think that is not the case indicates to me that their disinformation campaign is successful.
Science and nature don't care care what people are saying.
What maters for science is if the catastrophic-man-made-global-warning claims are accurate and match the evidence.
Still waiting for you to supply any links to legitimate scientific publications supporting your many claims or any evidence of your claim that the consensus opinion of the scientific community is due to anything other than the data.
-
Still waiting for you to supply any links to legitimate scientific publications supporting your many claims or any evidence of your claim that the consensus opinion of the scientific community is due to anything other than the data.
I posted a few times, even in this thread, and you keep ignoring them.
Don't be so obsessed with what other people think. You know the real scientific truth so you should be happy. Good for you.
-
Still waiting for you to supply any links to legitimate scientific publications supporting your many claims or any evidence of your claim that the consensus opinion of the scientific community is due to anything other than the data.
I posted a few times, even in this thread, and you keep ignoring them.
No you did not - at least not that I saw. I've asked you several times and nothing but silence.
If you did in fact post something legitimate that I've missed, it should be easy for you to repost the link. If not you should be able to find something. After all the 2011 study showed only 97% support AGW - so there are a few out there.
I'll wait for it. Thank You.
-
:phew: my head is about to explode.
Question if it is caused by man ( I don't think it is) can we do anything about it?
I have read that the volcano eruptions in the last few years have put more carbon in the atmosphere than man has since the start of the industrial revolution. How do we do anything about that?
Don't forget to consider that big yellow star 93 million miles away has something to do with it, It is getting bigger and will destroy our planet in a few billion years.
-
No you did not - at least not that I saw. I've asked you several times and nothing but silence.
Here is another one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/)
After all the 2011 study showed only 97% support AGW
Yes, sure, and you believe it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHyd-Y6haMg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHyd-Y6haMg)
-
Apropos civility, here are two scientists, an IPCC supporter and an IPCC skeptic, present their opposing views in a civilized manner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GHlnjrZLUo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GHlnjrZLUo)
-
No you did not - at least not that I saw. I've asked you several times and nothing but silence.
Here is another one
How about the previous ones?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/)
Again with the wattsupwiththat website links? Really?
In case anyone doesn't already realize this - that website is the creation of Alan Watts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)) who is not a scientist but a former TV "weatherman" and a well known climate change denial blogger. He is funded by the Heartland Institute a well known fossil fuel and tobacco company funded libertarian "think tank".
As far as the video by Roy Spencer - he has also been paid by the Heartland Institute and Peabody Coal. Granted he does actually have a Phd and he does climate research - he is one of those in the 3%. But note - he does not dispute that global warming is occurring - just that burning fossil fuels is contributing to it. More info about him can be found here (http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist))
Oh yeah - he is also a creationist!! :palm:
As far as his "opinion" about the scientific consensus - it is not supported by the facts as determined by 3 different studies and which I posted earlier:
And once again - it's a fact that as of 2011 97% of journal articles and climate scientists (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org) with an opinion on the matter agreed with the tenets of AGW.
There truly is consensus in the scientific community (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Yes, there really is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf).
So we've got one more link to a fossil fuel industry funded disinformation website and one to a youtube video of a fossil fuel funded creationist climate researcher but still no links to legitimate research or scientific publications that support the 2 claims you've repeatedly made - 1)there is no evidence global warming is occuring and 2) the vast body of climate science and consesus of climate science community is due to political influence and not supported by the data.
So once again Zapta I will ask for you to supply any links to legitimate scientific publications or other non-fossil fuel funded evidence supporting these claims.
I'm waiting.....
-
Apropos civility, here are two scientists, an IPCC supporter and an IPCC skeptic, present their opposing views in a civilized manner:
Brave of Scott Deming to do that debate - given that it was a Heartland Institute conference.
And as I posted above, Roy Spencer does not support your previous claims in this thread that global warming is not occuring - he only disputes that human activity is contributing - he is one of the 3% and unsurprisingly has been paid by the Heartland Institute and Peabody Coal to promote his views.
-
Brave of Scott Deming to do that debate - given that it was a Heartland Institute conference.
Brave? I didn't notice any hostility.
And as I posted above, Roy Spencer does not support your previous claims in this thread that global warming is not occuring
Check his graph around 18:41, basically no increase after 1998. He also mention it at some point.
... he is one of the 3% and unsurprisingly has been paid by the Heartland Institute and Peabody Coal to promote his views.
You keep poisoning this discussion. Go away.
-
And as I posted above, Roy Spencer does not support your previous claims in this thread that global warming is not occuring
Check his graph around 18:41, basically no increase after 1998. He also mention it at some point.
What are you talking about? Did you even watch your own video? In that segment he specifically admits that climate change is real and at about 19:10 states: " I think the warming we've seen in the last 30-40 years is some part natural and some part anthroprogenic" (but says he "guesses" that it is mostly natural).
So your own video contradicts what you've been stating.
BTW - the scientific facts of actual temperature change were already presented (with references) in posts #628 and #717 of this thread.
... he is one of the 3% and unsurprisingly has been paid by the Heartland Institute and Peabody Coal to promote his views.
You keep poisoning this discussion. Go away.
I guess so much for your civility. I posted facts. I'm sorry if they are poisonous to you.
BTW - I have no issue with Roy Spencers skepticism. It is a welcome part of any science. There is literally no consensus scientific theory in modern times that does not have a few dissenting scientists. It is good to ask the questions he asks and to try and prove the consensus opinion wrong with actual science (rather than the usual pseudoscience used by most). But that does nothing to negate the scientific consensus on the matter. The fact is that his efforts have been repeatedly proven wrong and as a result I do not think he is taken very seriously by the scientific community (see here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/)and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/errors-cited-in-assessing-climate-data.html)). But good on him for continuing his quest.
Contrary to the often repeated fallacy that going along with other scientists is good for ones career - being one of the few contrarians in any field is actually a good way to gain notoriety. Because of the tenure system - university faculty have very little to fear from being proven wrong but much to gain by dissenting from the consensus view.
For example, in the early 1990s I was a Staff Research Associate in the Molecular and Cell Biology Department at UC Berkeley. There is a very outspoken faculty member there - Peter Duesberg - who did and still does I believe - argue that HIV is not responsible for AIDS. In fact that is what he is most famous for. Similarly Roy Spencer's claim to fame is that he disagrees with the scientific consensus on AGW. Fortunately for him I think that position pays better than Peter Duesberg's.
-
You don't get to pick and choose which scientific theories and consensus conclusions you choose to believe depending on what fits with your politcal or ideological agenda.
-You +They
They do.
-
I never said I question the conclusions of the scientific community. What I question is people using articles, charts and graphs from think tanks funded by *either* side.
Fair enough. But recognize that I and others generally post links to actual original research - peer reviewed journal articles. Or in some cases websites that summarize the findings of several journal articles - but which always provide links to the journal articles themselves.
That is much different from someone posting manufactured graphs from fossil fuel industry funded denial sites and never links to any actual scientific referenced source.
If you believe there is large money coming from somewhere to fund promotion of the actual real climate science -please show evidence of that - there is none that I'm aware of - though I guess it is possible some small PV company could be contributing money. There is no large corporation that would benefit from more public acceptance of climate science. That's too bad. I wish there was.
The funding for denial websites has been well documented.
And once again - it's a fact that as of 2011 97% of journal articles and climate scientists (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org) with an opinion on the matter agreed with the tenets of AGW.
There truly is consensus in the scientific community (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org). Yes, there really is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf).
So on one side you have fossil fuel industry funded "think tank" websites and on the other side you have actual climate scientists.
Again - the fact that you think that is not the case indicates to me that their disinformation campaign is successful.
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.
But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...
I know you may not want to admit this, but the scientific process isn't perfect. Scientists lie, they make mistakes and take shortcuts, just like everybody else. Mind you, not all of them, not all the time or even on purpose, but it happens. Psychology in particular was rife with this for many years. (See: Richard Feynman's commencement speech a few posts up.)
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all the data is bad and climate change isn't happening. Like I said earlier, there is clearly a climatic change; this can be easily proved with data from many varied sources. What I am saying is that the *cause* of that change isn't so easily pinned down. This is where manipulation of the data to fit an agenda comes in.
Big Oil pays think tanks, but what does the Green Energy side have? Well, all those researchers want grants to keep studying, companies want grants and investments to develop the next big thing in solar cells, etc. So, instead of a few Fortune 100 companies, you have thousands of small companies, academic institutions and so on vying for a piece of the pie.
It wouldn't be the first time a researcher fudged data to get more money to keep studying. Again, I have no direct evidence that's the case here, but can you see why it makes me apprehensive?
In my opinion, the "Natural vs Man-Made" (or a mix of both) debate is a red herring, it doesn't matter. Ultimately, there's only two simple facts that matter: 1) The climate *is* changing. 2) Fossil Fuels are a finite resource. Even if you disagree with #1, it doesn't matter because #2 is irrefutable, which means we all need to stop bickering about the former so we can start working on a solution for the latter.
-
So your own video contradicts what you've been stating.
Please quote my post that you are referring to.
-
.
-
.
I saw that. ;)
-
.
I saw that. ;)
I use the three minutes rule :)
Tapatalk can't delete posts.
-
.
I saw that. ;)
I use the three minutes rule :)
Tapatalk can't delete posts.
Yes it can!
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160222/96f2b6fd3f92924ef3f6c434b1f47ff3.jpg)
(Tap the post to bring up the "Quote Edit Share More" menu, tap "Edit" and finally tap "Delete".)
-
(Tap the post to bring up the "Quote Edit Share More" menu, tap "Edit" and finally tap "Delete".)
Not on my Android Taptalk 4.5.2 but I see now that they have a new app (new app ID, not just new version) so I will give it a try.
Thanks for the pointer. This thread became very useful. :)
-
:phew: my head is about to explode.
Question if it is caused by man ( I don't think it is) can we do anything about it?
I have read that the volcano eruptions in the last few years have put more carbon in the atmosphere than man has since the start of the industrial revolution. How do we do anything about that?
Where did you read that? Another dodgy fossil fuel industry sponsored website!
It's bullshit and was debunked a long time ago.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm (https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/)
-
Here is an interesting interview with Professor John Christy, an ex NASA scientists, that discusses the gap between the models used by the IPCC and the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhFqgflaQVQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhFqgflaQVQ)
-
So your own video contradicts what you've been stating.
Please quote my post that you are referring to.
So you are denying that you've made several posts that have tried to imply global warming is not occuring?
For example the large cherry picked graph you posted in post #625 or the misleading graph you posted in #712?
Or even your post just above (#747) :
And as I posted above, Roy Spencer does not support your previous claims in this thread that global warming is not occuring
Check his graph around 18:41, basically no increase after 1998.
The question then becomes if you actually do admit that global warming is occuring (As Roy Spencer does) why would you make those posts??
-
Here is an interesting interview with Professor John Christy, an ex NASA scientists, that discusses the gap between the models used by the IPCC and the evidence.
Yeah- John Christy is one of Spencers colleagues in the 3% minority. He along with Spencer unfortunately have been caught trying to publish erroneous data. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/errors-cited-in-assessing-climate-data.html).
We could both post youtube videos all day long. But that is no way to debate the merits of the science.
Still no actual science from you. So once again Zapta I will ask for you to supply any links to legitimate scientific publications or even other non-fossil fuel funded evidence to support the claims you've repeatedly made regarding AGW or the supposed conspiracy leading the consensus of the scientific community to be falsified.
I'm still waiting...
-
So your own video contradicts what you've been stating.
Please quote my post that you are referring to.
So you are denying that you've made several posts that have tried to imply global warming is not occuring?
For example the large cherry picked graph you posted in post #625 or the misleading graph you posted in #712?
Or even your post just above (#747) :
And as I posted above, Roy Spencer does not support your previous claims in this thread that global warming is not occuring
Check his graph around 18:41, basically no increase after 1998.
The question then becomes if you actually do admit that global warming is occuring (As Roy Spencer does) why would you make those posts??
You are making things up again.
I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-mad-global-warmings are exaggerated and this is in agreement what Roy Spencer said.
I said that there was no significant increase in global temperature level since 1998 which is in agreement with what Roy Spencer said.
We are trying to have an honest discussion here and you keep distorting the facts.
-
I said that there was no significant increase in global temperature level since 1998 which is in agreement with what Roy Spencer said.
We are trying to have an honest discussion here and you keep distorting the facts.
You are the one who is being dishonest. I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).
So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:
1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
a) Yes
b) No
2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.
Thank you.
-
You are the one who is being dishonest. I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).
So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:
1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
a) Yes
b) No
2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.
Thank you.
At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.
(http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/december2015/122015_tempsgraf.png)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/)
And then there is the question of cause, the pro and cons of increased CO2 level, and the implications of increased temperature.
As I said, the catashtrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions are grossly exaggerated, the notion of 'settled science' is a lie, and so is your claim that the above contradicts Roy Spencer.
mtdoc, are doing disservice to science.
-
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.
But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...
OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
So why is that not true for climate science? I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.
This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!). That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.
-
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.
But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...
OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
So why is that not true for climate science? I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.
This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!). That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.
Sorry mtdoc, I tried to reason and be patient with you but we are going in loops.
I just want to hope that you will not be disappointed if the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions will not materialize (and I don't expect the CO2 emissions to go down any time soon).
-
You are the one who is being dishonest. I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).
So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:
1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
a) Yes
b) No
2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.
Thank you.
At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.
Zapta - you repeatedly post links and cut and past from the same discredited fossil fuel industry funded disinformation site (wattsupwiththat) but despite repeated requests never post links or anything from reputable scientific sources. Why is that?
As I've posted before - there is no disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is occuring (even Spencer agrees). One again here are some links to reputable data sets:
Full data set (http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html) showing the 0.124 K/decade temperature increase.
Cherry picked data - starting at the 1998 debunked by REMSS themselves (http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures).
Continuing to post that demonstrates you have no interest in truth but are simply interested in trying to seed FUD.
There are several data sets that have been looked at all of which agree that the planet is warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255).
So based on your post - you seem to be continuing to try and convince others that significant global warming is not occurring (despite what your posted video expert says). So why did you assert otherwise just above? Why do you refuse to post any reputable scientific research data to support that claim? No, cherry picking the 1998 date does not count - as by REMSS themselves (http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures) point out:
The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope
-
You are the one who is being dishonest. I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).
So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:
1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
a) Yes
b) No
2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.
Thank you.
At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.
Zapta - you repeatedly post links and cut and past from the same discredited fossil fuel industry funded disinformation site (wattsupwiththat) but despite repeated requests never post links or anything from reputable scientific sources. Why is that?
As I've posted before - there is no disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is occuring (even Spencer agrees). One again here are some links to reputable data sets:
Full data set (http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html) showing the 0.124 K/decade temperature increase.
Cherry picked data - starting at the 1998 debunked by REMSS themselves (http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures).
Continuing to post that demonstrates you have no interest in truth but are simply interested in trying to seed FUD.
There are several data sets that have been looked at all of which agree that the planet is warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255).
So based on your post - you seem to be continuing to try and convince others that significant global warming is not occurring (despite what your posted video expert says). So why did you assert otherwise just above? Why do you refuse to post any reputable scientific research data to support that claim? No, cherry picking the 1998 date does not count - as by REMSS themselves (http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures) point out:
The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope
OK.
-
Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda. Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started. ::)
Perhaps it was a bait and you took it, again and again..or not. You seams to be very angry all the time particularly if questioned around things you claim absolute facts and the only truth!
Basically, you started it throwing tantrums, such as "Cherry picked" "poor reading comprehension" "mental clarity", "political agenda is shameless", "consensus", "not a climate scientist ", "trolls", "old nut", "nonsense","pseudoscience", "ideologists", "debunked", "factually deficient disinformation", just a "weatherman not a climate scientists", " there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew". "worldwide conspiracy", consensus","not honestly","manipulating data, not a climate scientist", etc, etc, etc and every other label possible the mindset of a character assassin mini pope could come up with.
You went so far calling out on George Carlin not climate scientist!!
So ask yourself why on earth (even if you where 101% right) should i or anyone else bother to read any of your links or posts to educate our self's when you show off such a arssassin mentality.
Few sane would say the climate/temperature is not changing rather it is changing but of which reasons, man fart made or not, i'm not climate scientists nor
are you as far as i have seen , i might have missed, nor are science absolute, humans massages data.
For example the tree line in Scandinavian Caledonides mountains have moved several hundred meters uphill in large areas, the forest is
also a lot denser with species that usually not present earlier, i measured it over a 23 year period, surely there is a reason but which one?
So you will probably end in an infinitive negative loop of dishonesty while mutter tantrums about how nice the forum was back in ol' yee days before yourself made it nasty. ::)
Ah, well, i was warned by some folks here when i joined this forum could be quite nasty at times..
-
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.
But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...
OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
So why is that not true for climate science? I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.
This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!). That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.
I already answered that: Money is the reason.
Evolution is not a billion dollar a year industry. Neither is gravity, the Earth being round, etc.
Green Energy is.
Big Oil may be spreading FUD, but that's not the reason for my misgivings. In fact, the Green Energy side has been spreading the same fear for many, many years. No, my apprehensions directly relate to the fact that *both* sides are trying to sell me something.
Also, I've spelled out this out very clearly at least twice now: I don't doubt climate change is happening. What I have are doubts about the reasons. And, as far as I know, there is no consensus in the scientific community saying that humans are the [/i]sole reason[/i] it's happening.
If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)
If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.
So, what I don't get is why you're so caught up in the particulars of *why* people believe in climate change. Why isn't it enough for us to just believe the climate is changing? For the average person, does it really matter why?
This would be like us both believing in evolution, but you saying God was really behind it. You can't prove it and I can't disprove it, so at the end of the day we both still believe in evolution.
-
If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)
If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.
There already is a fairly strong consensus amongst the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.
There's enough carbon down there to cause a lot of environmental damage. Another issue is the possibility of a positive feedback effects such as the melting of ice (which is reflective) exposing bare earth and sea, which absorbs more solar radiation and methane bubbles (another potent greenhouse gas) trapped in ice being released into the atmosphere, causing further warming. So, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, further warming may continue as a result of the damage we've already done.
The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.
The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.
-
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.
But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...
OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
So why is that not true for climate science? I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.
This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!). That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.
I already answered that: Money is the reason.
Evolution is not a billion dollar a year industry. Neither is gravity, the Earth being round, etc.
Green Energy is.
Big Oil may be spreading FUD, but that's not the reason for my misgivings. In fact, the Green Energy side has been spreading the same fear for many, many years. No, my apprehensions directly relate to the fact that *both* sides are trying to sell me something.
Thanks for your response. As I posted earlier in response to IanB - "green energy" is a trivially small business (likely <0.1%) in comparison to the fossil fuel industry which is THE largest business in the world by far. I have never seen any evidence green energy spends any money sponsoring propaganda websites, lobbying politicians to support climate science, etc. On the other hand many $100 of billions have been documented spent on such activities by the fossil fuel industry.
Also, I've spelled out this out very clearly at least twice now: I don't doubt climate change is happening. What I have are doubts about the reasons. And, as far as I know, there is no consensus in the scientific community saying that humans are the [/i]sole reason[/i] it's happening.
Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org), here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org), and here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf).
So, what I don't get is why you're so caught up in the particulars of *why* people believe in climate change.
What I am interested in is why people who otherwise trust the scientific consensus on every other issue, do not trust it on this issue. And why on an engineering forum of all places, otherwise well informed and educated people either unknowingly or knowingly seek to mislead others on what the scientific consensus is.
I find these questions fascinating. Despite my arguing my views passionately and calling out others when I see them failing to justify their views with scientific evidence - what this is about for me is exploring how others - especially the engineers and electronics enthusiasts here - come to their views on the subject and how they respond (or fail to) when asked to justify their opinion with science. I also can't let pseudoscience and disinformation left unchallenged. For me it is exactly the same as the back and forth that occurred at the start of this thread by others with the OP regarding free energy and gall bladder cleanses.
Thanks again for clarifying your views. And thanks to Zapta as well (I really mean it) for arguing his side of it. I've actually enjoyed the debate and learned something in the process. (yes, I know, perhaps I'm sick that way :o)
-
If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)
If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.
There already is a fairly strong consensus amongst the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.
There's enough carbon down there to cause a lot of environmental damage. Another issue is the possibility of a positive feedback effects such as the melting of ice (which is reflective) exposing bare earth and sea, which absorbs more solar radiation and methane bubbles (another potent greenhouse gas) trapped in ice being released into the atmosphere, causing further warming. So, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, further warming may continue as a result of the damage we've already done.
The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.
The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.
I don't think it's a hoax or a big conspiracy. I also never said I *don't* think humans are responsible.
My personal viewpoint is that I don't really care either way. At the very least, burning coal and oil creates smog, which makes it difficult to breath. At the worst it's damaging the world in irreversible ways. We can't reduce emissions much more than we have now, so we need to start pumping money into research for alternative energy.
I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Is it?
-
The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.
The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.
+1 Yep. Exactly.
-
Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org), here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org), and here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf).
From the papers that I've read, the theories seem to range from "CO2 emissions may be accelerating or influencing an existing natural climate shift" to "greenhouse gasses are turning our atmosphere into a blanket of death and we're all going to boil in our skin". I'm obviously paraphrasing and exaggerating there, but I guess my point is that I was unaware the global scientific community had reached a unanimous consensus on just how much we have affected climate change. Perhaps this has changed in the last few years? I don't really keep up on it anymore, to be honest. I'll take a look at those links.
I don't doubt that we're causing damage. I just question how much. It's hard to get a straight answer because I feel like *both* sides are engaging in hyperbole (or FUD, muddying the waters, whatever you want to call it). And if I, as an otherwise smart and logical engineer think this, imagine what the general public thinks!
-
Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org), here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org), and here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf).
From the papers that I've read, the theories seem to range from "CO2 emissions may be accelerating or influencing an existing natural climate shift" to "greenhouse gasses are turning our atmosphere into a blanket of death and we're all going to boil in our skin". I'm obviously paraphrasing and exaggerating there, but I guess my point is that I was unaware the global scientific community had reached a unanimous consensus on just how much we have affected climate change. Perhaps this has changed in the last few years? I don't really keep up on it anymore, to be honest. I'll take a look at those links.
I just realized I goofed one of those three links- I duplicated one - doh!. The correct third one is here (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full).
I don't doubt that we're causing damage. I just question how much. It's hard to get a straight answer because I feel like *both* sides are engaging in hyperbole (or FUD, muddying the waters, whatever you want to call it). And if I, as an otherwise smart and logical engineer think this, imagine what the general public thinks!
I think that you feel that way is a testament to the successful strategy the fossil fuel industry has employed. After all they don't have to prove anything - all they need to do is create doubt and achieve the impression that both sides are on the same footing regarding the science. Thanks for explaining your view so well.
-
Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda. Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started. ::)
Perhaps it was a bait and you took it, again and again..or not. You seams to be very angry all the time particularly if questioned around things you claim absolute facts and the only truth!
Basically, you started it throwing tantrums, such as "Cherry picked" "poor reading comprehension" "mental clarity", "political agenda is shameless", "consensus", "not a climate scientist ", "trolls", "old nut", "nonsense","pseudoscience", "ideologists", "debunked", "factually deficient disinformation", just a "weatherman not a climate scientists", " there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew". "worldwide conspiracy", consensus","not honestly","manipulating data, not a climate scientist", etc, etc, etc and every other label possible the mindset of a character assassin mini pope could come up with.
This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
-
Well, I don't think they're on the same footing regarding the science. Because I *do* believe in climate change. I think my biggest problem is that I've seen what happens when science and politics mix and it doesn't always turn out well. My biggest worry is that experiments aren't being performed properly, they're being rushed so that they can get another round of funding or whatever. Or that data is being manipulated.
I don't know, I mean maybe if I sat down and spent a few weeks researching it in depth I'd feel more comfortable? The reason I haven't done that is, it doesn't interest me very much and there's no practical benefit to the knowledge for me.
In the end, for me, it's always come down to this: Fossil Fuel = Finite Resource = True; Climate Change = True. Beyond that, I've never seen a reason to have in depth knowledge of the whys or how's. So, when presented with the question of, what causes climate change, I'm pensive about committing to an answer, because I just have a feeling that nobody is being entirely honest.
So, since I don't really care "why" plus the fact I believe in climate change, I'd say some disinformation campaign by Big Oil isn't my problem. Clearly I also believe in the scientific evidence of climate change itself. Why should *I* care why?
Does that make sense?
-
At the very least, burning coal and oil creates smog, which makes it difficult to breath.
Generating electricity from coal and oil can actually prevent fatalities from air pollution.
http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/ (http://www.who.int/indoorair/en/)
It's a complex world.
-
This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
Some people hide behind fake calls for civility and cry foul when they are not able support their arguments with facts. If you can't take the heat....
Our posts in this and other threads speak for themselves.
Anyone can see that in almost every case I've supported any substantial claims I make with links to reputable sources.
As I stated above to Timb - I readily admit to arguing passionately about this and other topics. If calling you out for posting pseudoscience and failing to support your arguments with any reputable sources upsets you to the point of accusing me of being uncivil then so be it. Maybe try not to take it so personally?
I do my best to avoid personal attacks but I occasionally get caught up in the heat of the moment and fail - almost exclusively in response to such an attack on me. But still I should do better. In the case of MT - well - just look over his posts - they speak for themselves - as do yours.
As I've also stated - no anger whatsoever on my end -I actually enjoy a passionate debate. Thanks again. :)
-
Regarding cows being a big contributor to global warming, I heard on the news today that scientists are discovering that fish fart too, especially when they go up / down in the ocean to hunt for food. So with gazillions of fish floating around, maybe cows aren't that bad and eating stake is really OK?
:)
-
This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Yeah im aware of that, not only FTDI gate 2.0 had pigs but other threads in history as well i have learned, Sigilent etc. I was a bit surprised you remained patient as long as you where with *mtdoc* while he was lashing out at you now calling it *passionate debate* and claiming people attacked him when the truth is he (initially) was attacking you in post 626-628 , just because he was bored!! Pretty clear he has more problems then this:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
-
Regarding cows being a big contributor to global warming, I heard on the news today that scientists are discovering that fish fart too, especially when they go up / down in the ocean to hunt for food. So with gazillions of fish floating around, maybe cows aren't that bad and eating stake is really OK?
:)
Ha! I have to admit it danny - sometimes you crack me up! Yes, I do loves me steaks! :D
-
This is a general trait, not just in this thread and not just about this topic. Check for example the bickering and anger in the FTIgate 2.0 thread.
We have here a large and diverse user population and some are not that compatible with civilized discussions. As Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”
Yeah im aware of that, not only FTDI gate 2.0 had pigs but other threads in history as well i have learned, Sigilent etc. I was a bit surprised you remained patient as long as you where with *mtdoc* while he was lashing out at you now calling it *passionate debate* and claiming people attacked him when the truth is he (initially) was attacking you in post 628 , because he was bored! Pretty clear he has more problems then this:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
(http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab49/norbrookc/Fail/irony-meter_zps6a643b0b.jpg)
-
attacking you in post 626-628
I hate to break it to you MT, but calling someone out for trolling and then responding with referenced facts is not a personal attack.
On the other hand calling someone an illiterate lunatic (#654) or a pig (as you just did) is.
Yes, irony.
We all can get carried away sometimes. It's the ratio of posts presenting new information, reasoned argument, links or helpful advice to trolling or personal attacks that matters to me. I certainly strive to do better in that regard - even if I sometime fail. If my response to your post #654 was too harsh, I apologize. I wish you well. :)
Can we get back to farting fish and farting cows now?
-
I hate to break it to you MT, but calling someone out for trolling and then responding with referenced facts is not a personal attack.
Oh please, you do understand there are other world wievs then yours.
On the other hand calling someone an illiterate lunatic (#654) or a pig (as you just did) is.
Where does it say i call you a pig? Im not, i just replied to zapta who refered to Bernad Shaw, perhaps zepta meant you was a pig?
We all can get carried away sometimes. It's the ratio of posts presenting new information, links or helpful advice to trolling or personal attacks that matters to me. I certainly strive to do better in that regard - even if I sometime fail. If my response to your post #654 was too harsh, I apologize. I wish you well. :)
Oh please, pretty please, you have sequence *character assassinations* etc to apology for, probably to loads of people! Why not start out with zepta then 654 and on and on and on.
Can we get back to farting fish and farting cows now?
Sure!
-
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.
But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...
OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?
How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science types trolls.
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
Which is perfectly acceptable around here, providing the person who you're having the debate with is arguing for free energy and against the scientific consensus on thermodynamics. But oh no, if they're arguing against anthropogenic climate change it's a cardinal sin.
-
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.
But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...
OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.
I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?
Because the later is a fake consensus. See Spencer's talk on how he, a catastrophic-man mad-global-warning skeptic would be counted in 97% and so are many if the skeptics.
Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.
-
How appropriate that this thread has made a home for all types of anti-science types trolls.
ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.
Which is perfectly acceptable around here, providing the person who you're having the debate with is arguing for free energy and against the scientific consensus on thermodynamics. But oh no, if they're arguing against anthropogenic climate change it's a cardinal sin.
Well if calling someone "anti-science" or a "troll" for posting anti-science stuff or for trolling is an ad hominem then I admit guilt - but of course by that definition then Dave and many others here use ad hominems frequently and that is acceptable - as you say. Using descriptive labels to describe someones oft repeated position or postings is just normal shorthand and used by almost everyone (including Zapta) when they hold opinions they disagree with.
That is fine in my book as long as they are then willing to back up the label with an argument as to why the label is appropriate.
I also feel it is perfectly acceptable to point out when someone is using an ad hominem (please spare us the latin defintions though ::)) - just don't cry foul when the reason for the label is laid out and backed up with logical argument. Once they do that they've negated the ad hominem.
I enjoy a good debate about any topic but crying "ad hominem" or for "civility" in lieu of actually refuting the other sides argument with logic and/or credible evidence just doesn't do much for me - and is usually hypocritical and just a passive aggressive attack itself. Attacking ones argument, no matter how voraciously, is not a personal attack and IME when it is cried out in the middle of a debate it's meant to distract from the debate and just means you have no reasoned response to the other sides position.
-
I find it odd that many people here seem to be fine with the scientific consensus on evolution but have a problem with anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps it's propaganda from the fossil fuel companies?
Because the later is a fake consensus. See Spencer's talk on how he, a catastrophic-man mad-global-warning skeptic would be counted in 97% and so are many if the skeptics.
The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual facts. There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time:
See here (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=8326D879C753EBC9A0251B83798BEFF9.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org),here (http://url=http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full),and here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf).
Within those links are both original research articles and summaries with links to the underlying research.
There are now several studies - some looking at the published research and some surveying the opinion of climate scientists. They all confirm that there is a consensus on the matter - that AGW is real.
Here's an example of the question they asked climate scientists in one of the studies on which there was a consensus "yes"
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.
The term "catastrophic" is a term you use over and over but it is not part of the science of AGW. But I am glad to see you now agree at least that there is scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Even if only a partial truth -that's progress! :-+
-
The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual facts. There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time: ...
Yes, several studies that 'confirm', but also studies and data that indicate that the models exaggerate the warming and the human casual. Check for example the interview with Christy. In science there are no proofs, just refutations, and one is sufficient.
Man-contribute-to-measurable-temperature-increase is very different from man-is-the-main-contributor-to-catastrophic-global-warming.
The term "catastrophic" is a term you use over and over but it is not part of the science of AGW.
Well, the all the alarms are based on the catastrophic aspects, not just on a measurable man-caused temperature increase.
But I am glad to see you now agree at least that there is scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming. Even if only a partial truth -that's progress! :-+
I am glad that you are glad but you could be just as glad at the beginning of this conversation. I didn't said man induced CO2 forcing don't cause a measurable temperature increase. I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are grossly exaggerated. A good lie is based on a kernel of truth.
-
The problem is Spencer's opinion is not justified by the actual facts. There are several studies not that have all confirmed the consensus. I have posted these before but here they are one more time: ...
Yes, several studies that 'confirm', but also studies and data that indicate that the models exaggerate the warming and the human casual. Check for example the interview with Christy. In science there are no proofs, just refutations, and one is sufficient.
Christy is again giving an opinion - not backed by any facts. That is not a refutation. (Never mind that Christy, along with Spencer have been caught publishing erroneous data several times),
I am glad that you are glad but you could be just as glad at the beginning of this conversation. I didn't said man induced CO2 forcing don't cause a measurable temperature increase.
Then why make several statements and post several purposely misleading graphs meant to distort the truth and imply that the earth is not warming?
I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-made-global-warming are grossly exaggerated. A good lie is based on a kernel of truth.
Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you. Or are you again accusing the climate science community of lying. If so, please offer some evidence.
-
Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.
Good. The predictions of the catastrophic outcomes of man made CO2 emissions are not part of the scientific consensus. I am glad to see this progress.
https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do (https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do)
-
Catastrophic is not a scientific term and I've seen no one use it on this forum other than you.
Good. The predictions of the catastrophic outcomes of man made CO2 emissions are not part of the scientific consensus. I am glad to see this progress.
https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do (https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do)
Yep. Catastrophe is not a scientific term and is used by those who wish to sensationalize the issue. It is not used by climate scientists when discussing the science. It never was.
There is a new study published in PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113) that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries. As quoted in a nice summary of the study by the NY Times, (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change.html) one of the primary authors of another study (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-human-fingerprints-on-coastal-floods-20050) that looked at the implications of the this research says:
“I think we need a new way to think about most coastal flooding,” said Benjamin H. Strauss, the primary author of one of two related studies released on Monday. “It’s not the tide. It’s not the wind. It’s us. That’s true for most of the coastal floods we now experience.”
It's up to the public to make a judgement as to whether the outcome of that, if the trend continues, will be "catastrophic" or not. That is not the job of the scientist.
Also in that article is a nice link to a well done summary of the issues surrounding climate change. It's worth a look:
Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html).
-
There is a new study published in PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113) that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries.
Why stop there? Here is a wider perspective:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)
The current data I saw suggest a rate of ~20"/century.
-
There is a new study published in PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113) that showed that the sea level rise in the 20th century was faster than in any of the previous 27 centuries.
Why stop there? Here is a wider perspective:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)
.
The current data I saw suggest a rate of ~20"/century rise.
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Please explain
-
Since you haven't responded, let me guess: You're trying to imply that because there was a very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago, that somehow makes the unprecedented in the common era rise over the last century unimportant?
If so then you are either being purposely misleading or you don't understand that the very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago was due to the end of the last ice age. See where is says "last glacial maximum"? That is the peak glaciation of the last ice age. As the ice age ended and all that ice melted sea levels rose quite a bit - duh. But why stop there - why not plot the previous interglacial periods where sea levels drop and rose again?
Where did you get your 20" /century rise number - from averaging in the post ice age melt rise? ::)
You wouldn't be purposely trying to misrepresent the history of sea level change would you? I hope not.
This is an engineering forum - that kind of thing will not fly.
The history of sea level rise immediately following the last ice age is irrelevant to the question of how the rate of sea level change over the last century relates to the rate of sea level change over the previous 27 centuries. If you read the study I linked to you'll see that the whole point is that the rate of change has acclerated dramatically and the only explanation is the global warming that has occured during that period.
Below you'll find a few plots from that that study (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113.full):
The first one shows global sea-level change and associated global temperature anomaly.
The second one shows counterfactual hindcasts of global mean sea-level rise in the absence of AGW.
As the authors conclude:
Counterfactual hindcasts with this model indicate that it is extremely likely (P=0.95P=0.95) that less than about half of the observed 20th century GSL rise would have occurred in the absence of global warming, and that it is very likely (P=0.90P=0.90) that, without global warming, 20th century GSL rise would have been between ?3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the observed 14 cm. Forward projections indicate a very likely 21st century GSL rise of 52–131 cm under RCP 8.5 and 24–61 cm under RCP 2.6, values that provide greater consistency with process model-based projections preferred by AR5 than previous semiempirical projections.
-
Since you haven't responded, let me guess: You're trying to imply that because there was a very large sea level rise between 20k and 8k years ago, that somehow makes the unprecedented in the common era rise over the last century unimportant?
This puts things in perspective.
As for the predictions in your post, that's nice, now let's see if they will materialize (don't confuse models with data).
So far sea level rises at a fix rate of 40cm/Century despite an increase in CO2 level.
(http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.png)
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2015rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed)
-
So far sea level rises at a fix rate of 40cm/Century despite an increase in CO2 level.
(http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.png)
I'm not sure how much can be concluded from only 20 years of data from one dataset, but nevertheless what the plot actually shows it a linear rate of increase in sea level which of course correlates very well with the rate of temperature rise and rate of CO2 level rise over the same period.
Oh yeah - and 3.3mm/year = 33 cm/century not 40 - a rate that has been slowly increasing over the last century as the study I referenced shows. Keep in mind that with any curve - a small enough slice will appear linear.
Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin'). BTW - I've noticed you have excellent coding skills - something I am weak on (in fact I'm currently struggling through homework for an online embedded programming course) - we all have our strengths and weaknesses.
In any case, thanks for posting real data and especially a link to its primary source. :-+
-
Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').
Well, well, well, we are getting cocky now.
-
Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').
Well, well, well, we are getting cocky now.
Ok, if that's the way you want to take it. Given the errors in your post, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - that you had trouble interpreting the data and not that you were purposely trying to mislead.
I was assuming the former and suggesting a solution. Just as I would hope someone would do for me in one of the many areas of electronics where I am still a beginner. There certainly are many uncivil ways I could have responded to the errors in your post.
One of the pitfalls of online discussion is that without body language cues - intent can be easily misread.
-
Don't take this personally but you might want to look into a course in data analysis - (just sayin').
Well, well, well, we are getting cocky now.
Ok, if that's the way you want to take it. Given the errors in your post, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - that you had trouble interpreting the data and not that you were purposely trying to mislead.
I was assuming the former and suggesting a solution. Just as I would hope someone would do for me in one of the many areas of electronics where I am still a beginner. There certainly are many uncivil ways I could have responded to the errors in your post.
Well, well, well, we are getting even more cocky now.
-
The fable of the scorpion and the frog comes to mind...
-
NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.
If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.
An optional additional explanation is:
-
Is there a problem in here?
:-DD
-
some one dug up and old thread and posted spam as their first post.