|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Speaking of drawing on the earth's magnetic field, check this one out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnxjLWR0VXM
The video quality is poor, but he demonstrates this quite clearly.
At one point, he turns the device upside down and it quits working, he then freely admits that he doesn't understand why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
I don't think these things violate the law of thermodynamics at all.
It may be that they are drawing energy from some outside source, such as the earth's magnetic field. The problems arise because the guys who invent these things usually have no clue how to explain them.
http://www.freeenergynews.com/news/index.html |
Well, the Irish guys claim it does violate the law. |
Incorrect. Nobody knows what exactly is happening. The word "appears", whic is what their website states, needs to be stressed here. And you need to be careful about assuming the current laws of physics will always be as they are. After all, haven't we just learned the speed of light is **not** constant? Given that new fact, relativity is a little bent and not quite as solid an idea as it seemed.
The "stifling" comes from ridiculing anyone who appears to be breaking one of your precious laws. Critical inquiry does not equal ridicule and dismissal.
All this was said earlier in the thread. As on other threads, you simply choose to see what you want, not what is. Give us, for example, a reason why the energy cannot be coming from the magnetic field of the Earth? The simple mass of the Earth, et. al.? Dark matter? |
Maybe. If you want to believe, go ahead.
Dark matter is highly theoretical. It would be rather amazing someone has found it here on earth and been able to use it as an energy source, no less.
Maybe someone has found a way to simply harness the magnetic field of the earth. Odd more brilliant people haven't cracked that one. Not saying some "outside scientist" can't. But it's not where I'd lay my money.
All of science is subject to revision. But when something appears to work in opposition of well tested, long standing laws, skepticism is the watch word.
So, maybe. I'll await the proof. What I would lay money on is these Irish guys are like all the other free energy, zero point energy, too cheap to meter energy types. Lots of talk. Fancy jargon filled theories. But they just never submit their machine to a real scientific test and instead simply invoke the well trodden lines about closed minded scientists, pressure from oil concerns, and the need to keep things locked up in NDAs...
Anyway, the Irish guys have selected a short list of esteemed, lettered scientists to test their device, right? Surely they will soon shut up the naysayers like me and then usher in a glorious new future of zero point energy et al.
Regarding the speed of light constant:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092
The "maybe" is hardly a refutation. Do you have more recent studies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
I don't think these things violate the law of thermodynamics at all.
It may be that they are drawing energy from some outside source, such as the earth's magnetic field. The problems arise because the guys who invent these things usually have no clue how to explain them.
http://www.freeenergynews.com/news/index.html |
Well, the Irish guys claim it does violate the law. |
Incorrect. Nobody knows what exactly is happening. The word "appears", whic is what their website states, needs to be stressed here. And you need to be careful about assuming the current laws of physics will always be as they are. After all, haven't we just learned the speed of light is **not** constant? Given that new fact, relativity is a little bent and not quite as solid an idea as it seemed.
The "stifling" comes from ridiculing anyone who appears to be breaking one of your precious laws. Critical inquiry does not equal ridicule and dismissal.
All this was said earlier in the thread. As on other threads, you simply choose to see what you want, not what is. Give us, for example, a reason why the energy cannot be coming from the magnetic field of the Earth? The simple mass of the Earth, et. al.? Dark matter? |
Maybe. If you want to believe, go ahead. |
Believe what? I dont remember saying I believed anything. I took issue with your logic, nothing more.
| Quote: |
| Dark matter is highly theoretical. It would be rather amazing someone has found it here on earth and been able to use it as an energy source, no less. |
Dark matter is theoretical like evolution is theoretical. In fact, there was/is a paper coming out noow, or has just come out, that basically proves dark matter. Don't have a link. Do the google. (Sorry, but common knowledge sorts of stuff/proven facts just shouldnt need links...)
| Quote: |
| Maybe someone has found a way to simply harness the magnetic field of the earth. Odd more brilliant people haven't cracked that one. Not saying some "outside scientist" can't. But it's not where I'd lay my money. |
Why odd? Nobody but the garage inventors are even looking into it. Garage inventors discovered or invented virtually all the major advances. TV? Garage. Radio? Garage. Telephone? Garage. I could go on. Most of the "advances" of science are built largely on huge piles of previous work and truly original breakthroughs... from individuals.
| Quote: |
| All of science is subject to revision. But when something appears to work in opposition of well tested, long standing laws, skepticism is the watch word. |
No argument, but critical investigation is better, imo.
| Quote: |
| Anyway, the Irish guys have selected a short list of esteemed, lettered scientists to test their device, right? Surely they will soon shut up the naysayers like me and then usher in a glorious new future of zero point energy et al. |
Let us hope so. But, really, even if successful, marketing, patents, licensing will mean the same as ever: only those that can affored it will get it. What we need is a technology that the inventor makes free to all. Now THAT would change the world. Anything less will just create a new thing to fight over.
I'm not in the mood to chase it down. When I read or see info about new breakthroughs that are factual, I don't see the need to "prove" it to anyone. If it were theoretical only, I would state as much. This is something that is relatively new, so maybe it isn't common knowledge. If bored later, I will try to track it down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Dark matter is theoretical like evolution is theoretical. In fact, there was/is a paper coming out noow, or has just come out, that basically proves dark matter. Don't have a link. Do the google. (Sorry, but common knowledge sorts of stuff/proven facts just shouldnt need links...) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
| Quote: |
| The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include new elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, ordinary and heavy neutrinos, dwarf stars and planets collectively called MACHOs, and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called nonbaryonic dark matter. |
It's amazing we could be drawing energy from a form of matter with an unknown composition.
| Quote: |
Although dark matter was detected via optical means in August 2006[11] , many aspects of dark matter remain speculative. The DAMA/NaI experiment has claimed to directly detect dark matter passing through the Earth, though most scientists remain skeptical since negative results of other experiments are (almost) incompatible with the DAMA results if dark matter consists of neutralinos.
|
It's amazing we're getting energy from something we're not even sure is present or passing through the earth.
Maybe but I'd bark up a different tree to explain a new source of energy that seemingly violates scientific laws. If an inventor is throwing around the latest buzz words (dark matter, nano-, or the old quantum blah blah standby), I would surely take that as a warning.
| Quote: |
| Why odd? Nobody but the garage inventors are even looking into it. Garage inventors discovered or invented virtually all the major advances. TV? Garage. Radio? Garage. Telephone? Garage. I could go on. Most of the "advances" of science are built largely on huge piles of previous work and truly original breakthroughs... from individuals. |
Hey I'm not saying that great things don't come from lone individuals working outside the system. Relatively is another one. But again, if I had to lay my money on where amazing breakthroughs in new forms of energy are going to come from, I'd look towards large companies with vested interest in cheap energy. What's true is every bogus free energy device over the last 100+ years has come from exactly these kinds of people. You prefer to pay attention to the "hits". It's also important to remember for every hit, the misses are legion.
| Quote: |
| Let us hope so. But, really, even if successful, marketing, patents, licensing will mean the same as ever: only those that can afford it will get it. |
In that list above, did this stop the inventors of the telephone or the radio or whatever? Bell got quite rich. So if someone has a zero point energy machine or whatever you prefer to call it, well, I'm sure he'll find investors. I mean there's that one cracker that's going around to churches getting people to invest in his perpetual motion machine. There's no end of willing investors to back such a scheme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Dark matter is theoretical like evolution is theoretical. In fact, there was/is a paper coming out noow, or has just come out, that basically proves dark matter. Don't have a link. Do the google. (Sorry, but common knowledge sorts of stuff/proven facts just shouldnt need links...) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
| Quote: |
| The composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include new elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, ordinary and heavy neutrinos, dwarf stars and planets collectively called MACHOs, and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called nonbaryonic dark matter. |
It's amazing we could be drawing energy from a form of matter with an unknown composition. |
Why? Did the Native Americans know WHY fish heads helped corn grow better? Etc.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Although dark matter was detected via optical means in August 2006[11] , many aspects of dark matter remain speculative. The DAMA/NaI experiment has claimed to directly detect dark matter passing through the Earth, though most scientists remain skeptical since negative results of other experiments are (almost) incompatible with the DAMA results if dark matter consists of neutralinos.
|
It's amazing we're getting energy from something we're not even sure is present or passing through the earth. |
Excuse me, bu who said we are? Am talking to a republican? Seems like it. All I ahve said is we don't know where it comes from necesarily, but what does it matter? I tossedout some possibilities simply for the sake of illustration, and you latch onto this one to try to make me sound like a nut? I must be a terrorist to. Nice work.
| Quote: |
| Maybe but I'd bark up a different tree to explain a new source of energy that seemingly violates scientific laws. If an inventor is throwing around the latest buzz words (dark matter, nano-, or the old quantum blah blah standby), I would surely take that as a warning. |
And maybe you should just bark, since that's all your doing, anyway? See above.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Why odd? Nobody but the garage inventors are even looking into it. Garage inventors discovered or invented virtually all the major advances. TV? Garage. Radio? Garage. Telephone? Garage. I could go on. Most of the "advances" of science are built largely on huge piles of previous work and truly original breakthroughs... from individuals. |
Hey I'm not saying that great things don't come from lone individuals working outside the system. Relatively is another one. But again, if I had to lay my money on where amazing breakthroughs in new forms of energy are going to come from, I'd look towards large companies with vested interest in cheap energy. |
There are none, which is why alternative enrgy use is thirty eyars behind where it could be. Sure, let's trust big business. 
| Quote: |
| What's true is every bogus free energy device over the last 100+ years has come from exactly these kinds of people. You prefer to pay attention to the "hits". It's also important to remember for every hit, the misses are legion. |
This is flatly false. I posted early on that most are probably frauds, so where did you dredge this straw man up from? Great work. You're losing all credibility with this attacking the messenger crap. Good luck with that.
| Quote: |
| Let us hope so. But, really, even if successful, marketing, patents, licensing will mean the same as ever: only those that can afford it will get it. |
| Quote: |
| In that list above, did this stop the inventors of the telephone or the radio or whatever? Bell got quite rich. So if someone has a zero point energy machine or whatever you prefer to call it, well, I'm sure he'll find investors. I mean there's that one cracker that's going around to churches getting people to invest in his perpetual motion machine. There's no end of willing investors to back such a scheme. |
What are you trying to say? I was talking about people, which is the word I used, not companies. I was talking about getting access to it, not investing in it. In other words, consumers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, good luck. But I'll bet you these Irish guys are going to blow a lot of hot air and then disappear like every other perpetual motion machine "inventor". It will never be tested.
It's a little like someone who pops up ever 6 months and claims he has the calculations to prove the world is going to end next Tuesday. The date comes and goes.
Every year or so someone pops up with some zero point woo woo machine or amazing water engines or whatever. What's true is none have ever been subject to or passed scientific testings. What do ya think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines
Hell, at least that starlite plastic guy submitted his super plastic to scientific testing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me pose this question to anyone who follows the zero point energy thingy:
What's your best scientific evidence for any of the machines you feel is legit? (By scientific evidence, I don't mean reporters who have been given a demonstration or even a scientist who may have been given an uncontrolled demonstration... because you're a scientist doesn't mean you can't be fooled by a simple trick.)
Do you have one peer reviewed scientific paper you can point to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no way of knowing if there are peer reviewed papers on this stuff or not. My guess is that there are not. At least not involving practical applications or working devices. I assume there are plenty of theoretical papers though.
This stuff is still highly theoretical and much work need to be done to explain it, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/ZPE/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Let me pose this question to anyone who follows the zero point energy thingy:
What's your best scientific evidence for any of the machines you feel is legit? (By scientific evidence, I don't mean reporters who have been given a demonstration or even a scientist who may have been given an uncontrolled demonstration... because you're a scientist doesn't mean you can't be fooled by a simple trick.)
Do you have one peer reviewed scientific paper you can point to? |
Again, misrepresenting what has been discussed on this thread. Who said any of the machines are legit? What has been said to you is, just because a machine is not fully understood does not automatically mean it's breaking any laws of physics.
From that you get all these generalizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Let me pose this question to anyone who follows the zero point energy thingy:
What's your best scientific evidence for any of the machines you feel is legit? (By scientific evidence, I don't mean reporters who have been given a demonstration or even a scientist who may have been given an uncontrolled demonstration... because you're a scientist doesn't mean you can't be fooled by a simple trick.)
Do you have one peer reviewed scientific paper you can point to? |
Again, misrepresenting what has been discussed on this thread. Who said any of the machines are legit? What has been said to you is, just because a machine is not fully understood does not automatically mean it's breaking any laws of physics.
From that you get all these generalizations. |
Hey, I've been saying maybe too. I'm just saying when something seems to break a fundamental law of science, you put energy into a system with no established fuel source, and get an excess of energy out, skepticism is the watch word. When everyone who has ever claimed to have such a machine and actually submitted it to testing has failed, I'd say skepticism is the word.
Consider areas of research like bigfoot or ghosts. These areas are highly highly plagued with fraud and hoaxes. You approach any claim coming out of that realm with a great deal of skepticism. Your zero point woo woo field seems equally plagued with fraud and hoaxes. Again, skepticism is the word.
Is it your word too?
(Certainly there is fraud in traditional areas of science. However, the amount of fraud is considerably lower.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Let me pose this question to anyone who follows the zero point energy thingy:
What's your best scientific evidence for any of the machines you feel is legit? (By scientific evidence, I don't mean reporters who have been given a demonstration or even a scientist who may have been given an uncontrolled demonstration... because you're a scientist doesn't mean you can't be fooled by a simple trick.)
Do you have one peer reviewed scientific paper you can point to? |
Again, misrepresenting what has been discussed on this thread. Who said any of the machines are legit? What has been said to you is, just because a machine is not fully understood does not automatically mean it's breaking any laws of physics.
From that you get all these generalizations. |
Hey, I've been saying maybe too. I'm just saying when something seems to break a fundamental law of science, you put energy into a system with no established fuel source, and get an excess of energy out, skepticism is the watch word. When everyone who has ever claimed to have such a machine and actually submitted it to testing has failed, I'd say skepticism is the word.
Consider areas of research like bigfoot or ghosts. These areas are highly highly plagued with fraud and hoaxes. You approach any claim coming out of that realm with a great deal of skepticism. Your zero point woo woo field seems equally plagued with fraud and hoaxes. Again, skepticism is the word.
Is it your word too?
(Certainly there is fraud in traditional areas of science. However, the amount of fraud is considerably lower.) |
Again, I prefer critique. Skepticism implies bias to me. Potato/potahto, perhaps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines
Let me make an analogy regarding the 100% track record of failure of perpetual motion claims.
Suppose you buy things from Ebay, always from a different seller. 100% of the time the sellers get your order wrong. Do you hold out much hope the next order will be fullfilled properly? You would begin to greet any Ebay seller's claims with a very high degree of skepticism. If you refused to place an order without a high degree of assurance, no one would accuse you of being an uncreative thinker, closed minded, or blinded by laws you think are immutable.
Let's add in that Ebay claims they can teleport the items to you. Sure it's possible, but I would doubt this claim along several lines:
1) No one has ever made such a device or could begin to describe how to make such a device.
2) I would doubt such a break through would come from Ebay.
3) There are an awful lot of known problems with teleportation and anyone making such a claim, you might want to know how they deal with these problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dang, I guess those crystal power cells Hutchinson has devised must be bogus....... no doubt, he rigged the volt meter to show current where there was really none.
All the interest by the US military in Hutchinson's work must be pure coincidence I suppose.
He's just another .....spoonbender after all.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
