Mister Mister Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Under Decadent Thought Control, Originality Is a Crime That Must Be Stamped Out by All Loyal Peasants No, it is an assertion, a cry in the wilderness. Unlike the dogmatism of self-appointed experts granted prestige by permanently immature students seeking an intellectual father-figure, it is not a consensus-clique statement expressed in the same way that Fundamentalists quote the Bible. I would be sympathetic to your arguments, and I think so would many others here, but your approach I think is lacking in humility and sensitivity required for this very big topic. I would recommend, take some time, calm down, try thinking about how to communicate this with the rigor necessary for the topic, start a new thread, and invite people to ask certain questions, rather than accusing everyone who disagrees with you of irrationality if they don't immediately agree with your very volatile . It would be like if I went to a political rally and shouted Government is a Violent Religion of Bigotry and Entitlement, and then hurled rapid-fire verbal abuse at anyone who disagreed. That is the "Scientists are jerks" objection. I won't deny that scientists can be neurotic, vindictive, self-righteous, and power-hungry. But scientists are not science. Science is a body of knowledge and the scientific method is the way to acquire it - and that makes it immune to criticisms of personality. But, to be fair, hasn't science in the last 100 years operated almost entirely in the realm of government licensed and subsidized universities? And hasn't a lot of data come out recently about the tenuous nature of peer review and so on?
Will Torbald Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 But, to be fair, hasn't science in the last 100 years operated almost entirely in the realm of government licensed and subsidized universities? And hasn't a lot of data come out recently about the tenuous nature of peer review and so on? That's a good criticism of the way science has been funded, but not of its effectiveness at producing knowledge. Yeah, a lot of articles about how papers get published into journals without any scrutiny. Someone even sent a fake paper full of gibberish and it got publshed in a few of them. That only speaks at how lazy scientists are, not of the methods themselves. Peer review isn't the only check, too. There is also experimental reproducibility, where other teams have to be able to confirm your data independently. There's a long process before something becomes canon, so to speak. Although I hear the concerns, really. I too want better science.
Mister Mister Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Wait, you don't think that government funding has any negative effects on the effectiveness of a program?
Will Torbald Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Wait, you don't think that government funding has any negative effects on the effectiveness of a program? If the government is telling the scientists what the results of the research should be in advance (like with climate change research funded by the UN) then it's not science. Plain and simple. If the government just funds science blindly, like it is supposed to be, then it is proper science and it doesn't affect the outcome. It's lamentable that it is funded that way, but I don't think a genetic fallacy is necessary.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Your "us versus them" attitude here is contrary to my experience. Science is a methodology not a castle to be claimed by Nobel lords (pun intended). Borrowing a Self-Identity From Outside Yourself You want to believe what you're told to believe about glorified personalities. Having automatic pre-formed heroes saves the time and effort it takes to think of them as if their opinions and character were analyzed without any conformist confirmation bias. That is the "Scientists are jerks" objection. I won't deny that scientists can be neurotic, vindictive, self-righteous, and power-hungry. But scientists are not science. Science is a body of knowledge and the scientific method is the way to acquire it - and that makes it immune to criticisms of personality. Just Like the Church Is Not Falsified by What the Clergy Does? Science professors tell you it is immune. Baseball has certain rules and proven tactics, but it is as dependent on the talent and character of the players as science is. I would be sympathetic to your arguments, and I think so would many others here, but your approach I think is lacking in humility and sensitivity required for this very big topic. I would recommend, take some time, calm down, try thinking about how to communicate this with the rigor necessary for the topic, start a new thread, and invite people to ask certain questions, rather than accusing everyone who disagrees with you of irrationality if they don't immediately agree with your very volatile . It would be like if I went to a political rally and shouted Government is a Violent Religion of Bigotry and Entitlement, and then hurled rapid-fire verbal abuse at anyone who disagreed. But, to be fair, hasn't science in the last 100 years operated almost entirely in the realm of government licensed and subsidized universities? And hasn't a lot of data come out recently about the tenuous nature of peer review and so on? Nerds Never Take Revenge on Those Who Profited by Making Them Nerds Let the scientists be humble; that's how they got to their positions and they have no reason to be proud after getting there. They sacrificed their personal lives and personalities in a childish escapist pursuit. I have a right to feel that they betrayed intelligent people by becoming such pushovers. Worse, they over-reacted to that masochism by becoming intellectual sadists.
Mister Mister Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Let the scientists be humble; that's how they got to their positions and they have no reason to be proud after getting there. They sacrificed their personal lives and personalities in a childish escapist pursuit. I have a right to feel that they betrayed intelligent people by becoming such pushovers. Worse, they over-reacted to that masochism by becoming intellectual sadists. You realize, you completely ignored what I said and just doubled down. I'm not talking to "scientists", I'm talking to you. And you're not talking to "scientists" you're talking to us here on this board. And if you want to convince us that your argument has merit and is worth consideration, I'm telling you that you have to work on your communication skills. Shaming a whole group of people called "scientists" isn't going to accomplish anything.
shirgall Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Borrowing a Self-Identity From Outside Yourself You want to believe what you're told to believe about glorified personalities. Having automatic pre-formed heroes saves the time and effort it takes to think of them as if their opinions and character were analyzed without any conformist confirmation bias. You have not offered any argument that discounts my experience of working with scientists, and I'm a pretty skeptical fellow. The extraordinary claim that I'm suffering from indoctrinated authoritarian bias requires evidence.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Wait, you don't think that government funding has any negative effects on the effectiveness of a program? ESCAPIST TREKKIE CIRCUS Don't forget that successful and efficient government programs can also be useless, like NA$A. Or harmful, like the thorough but job-killing Endangered Species Act. You realize, you completely ignored what I said and just doubled down. I'm not talking to "scientists", I'm talking to you. And you're not talking to "scientists" you're talking to us here on this board. And if you want to convince us that your argument has merit and is worth consideration, I'm telling you that you have to work on your communication skills. Shaming a whole group of people called "scientists" isn't going to accomplish anything. I AM THE BAD INFLUENCE YOUR PARENTS WARNED YOU AGAINST It is hopeless to persuade people who have been so overwhelmed with conformist brainwashing. I can only plant seeds of doubt against what even a chief perpetrator of irrational science like Einstein kept doubling down against when it went too far even for him. You have to water those seeds yourselves. Trickledown from the academic oligarchy won't help you do that. 2
Mister Mister Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 ESCAPIST TREKKIE CIRCUS Don't forget that successful and efficient government programs can also be useless, like NA$A. Or harmful, like the thorough but job-killing Endangered Species Act. I AM THE BAD INFLUENCE YOUR PARENTS WARNED YOU AGAINST It is hopeless to persuade people who have been so overwhelmed with conformist brainwashing. I can only plant seeds of doubt against what even a chief perpetrator of irrational science like Einstein kept doubling down against when it went too far even for him. You have to water those seeds yourselves. Trickledown from the academic oligarchy won't help you do that. No, it is hopeless to persuade people when you insult them, and generally don't know how to talk to people. Like I was saying, I would be sympathetic to your "arguments" and engage in a conversation, and I think so would others, but your communication style SUUUUUCCCCKKKSS. Especially in a community of people who listen to, process, and make challenging arguments that 99% of the population finds crazy, to be told the reason we don't immediately agree with everything you say, is because of our intractable closed minds, with no self-reflection of your own words on your part, is incredibly off-putting. For example, when you say "You want to believe what you're told to believe about glorified personalities. Having automatic pre-formed heroes saves the time and effort it takes to think of them as if their opinions and character were analyzed without any conformist confirmation bias." That's REEEEAAALLLY annoying, to be told what you think and feel. Assuming someone's desires, beliefs, and motives is not only irrational but arrogant and obnoxious as well. It doesn't mean you're wrong of course, none of what I'm saying does, but if you really care about convincing people of radical ideas (which some of us might know something about), you really ought to self-reflect on how you talk to people.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 No, it is hopeless to persuade people when you insult them, and generally don't know how to talk to people. Like I was saying, I would be sympathetic to your "arguments" and engage in a conversation, and I think so would others, but your communication style SUUUUUCCCCKKKSS. Especially in a community of people who listen to, process, and make challenging arguments that 99% of the population finds crazy, to be told the reason we don't immediately agree with everything you say, is because of our intractable closed minds, with no self-reflection of your own words on your part, is incredibly off-putting. For example, when you say "You want to believe what you're told to believe about glorified personalities. Having automatic pre-formed heroes saves the time and effort it takes to think of them as if their opinions and character were analyzed without any conformist confirmation bias." That's REEEEAAALLLY annoying, to be told what you think and feel. Assuming someone's desires, beliefs, and motives is not only irrational but arrogant and obnoxious as well. It doesn't mean you're wrong of course, none of what I'm saying does, but if you really care about convincing people of radical ideas (which some of us might know something about), you really ought to self-reflect on how you talk to people. In other words, you can't handle the truth. What about my annoyance at continually having thrown at me the ideas of authorities I not only disagree with, but don't even believe deserve their jobs? They got their jobs the same way as authorities you agree with, so you don't want me disrespecting even the ones you disagree with to the extent of criticizing them as inferior to myself, both mentally and morally. This respect for the ruling class's sponsored alternatives puts me in my place. If I see someone as just parroting ideas from above, why should I pretend he has opinions of his own? If you admit you are too dependent on people you lazily look to for answers, maybe you'll come up with something original. And again, you've given yourself the right to criticize my attitude only because you've got the backing of higher authority on that, too. And you also have the collective consensus of others who want to keep original independent thinkers in line. Both wings of the dominant vulture want to humiliate us by forcing us to believe that humility is a virtue. 2
Romulox Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 So far all you have done is tell us that scientists are wrong without providing any evidence or even an alternative theory. It is hopeless to persuade people who have been so overwhelmed with conformist brainwashing. I can only plant seeds of doubt against what even a chief perpetrator of irrational science like Einstein kept doubling down against when it went too far even for him. You have to water those seeds yourselves. Trickledown from the academic oligarchy won't help you do that. Please elaborate, how are Einstein's theories irrational? The sooner you can tell me the better, as I'm currently sitting a few hundred yards from an operating nuclear reactor right now. If Einstein is wrong, I'd like to know ASAP so I can start running. We take E=mc2 kinda seriously around here. After I've retreated to a nearby fallout shelter, perhaps you can elaborate on how you are managing to use a computer to post all these messages if Einstein's theories on quantum mechanics are a fraud.
Mister Mister Posted October 17, 2015 Posted October 17, 2015 In other words, you can't handle the truth. What about my annoyance at continually having thrown at me the ideas of authorities I not only disagree with, but don't even believe deserve their jobs? They got their jobs the same way as authorities you agree with, so you don't want me disrespecting even the ones you disagree with to the extent of criticizing them as inferior to myself, both mentally and morally. This respect for the ruling class's sponsored alternatives puts me in my place. If I see someone as just parroting ideas from above, why should I pretend he has opinions of his own? If you admit you are too dependent on people you lazily look to for answers, maybe you'll come up with something original. And again, you've given yourself the right to criticize my attitude only because you've got the backing of higher authority on that, too. And you also have the collective consensus of others who want to keep original independent thinkers in line. Both wings of the dominant vulture want to humiliate us by forcing us to believe that humility is a virtue. I actually agree that Einstein and QM are highly problematic, so I don't exactly know what you are getting at. I don't want you disrespecting authorities I agree with? No, I want you to make your case with reason and evidence rather than assertions and slander. Anyway, thanks for completely proving my point that you are shitty at talking to people. I hope you will at least think about this and improve, for your own sake. In the meantime it's not healthy for me to pretend we're having a debate for both our sakes.
shirgall Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 I actually agree that Einstein and QM are highly problematic, so I don't exactly know what you are getting at. I don't want you disrespecting authorities I agree with? No, I want you to make your case with reason and evidence rather than assertions and slander. Anyway, thanks for completely proving my point that you are shitty at talking to people. I hope you will at least think about this and improve, for your own sake. In the meantime it's not healthy for me to pretend we're having a debate for both our sakes. Problematic? How? Even though these are from the 1960s, these are a great resource: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html
Torero Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Problematic? How? I'd call any science relying on others' authority (that includes special particle discoveries or 'discoveries' unavailable to you and me to verify) problematic. Science is in its essence empirical, falsifiable and free of authoritive powers influencing it. Theoretical physics and the NASA-influenced Hawkingian-Einsteinian nearly religious speech is quite far from that...
shirgall Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 I'd call any science relying on others' authority (that includes special particle discoveries or 'discoveries' unavailable to you and me to verify) problematic. Science is in its essence empirical, falsifiable and free of authoritive powers influencing it. Theoretical physics and the NASA-influenced Hawkingian-Einsteinian nearly religious speech is quite far from that... Einstein put together what a lot of others had worked on before him, but it's not unreachable. General relativity can be observed by comparison Mercury's orbit to the classical Newtonian model. Radiation can be observed, especially electromagnetism. Einstein's biggest contribution, imho, is that he asserted that physical laws should not be alterable with Lorentz transforms. *That* was a stroke of genius that led to better and more accurate expressions of physical laws. And he got there by working with normal everyday things like gravity and electricity. If you want to see how many different people were on the path to similar if not the same conclusions, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute There's no doubt that scientists influence one another, and expound upon each other's ideas. Labeling it all authoritarian dogma doesn't follow if you look at the history and conclusions and openness to criticism, reproduction, contrary evidence, etc. doesn't describe a dictatorship of the elite.
Torero Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Shirgall, we've met in the NASA thread and I don't think we will (ever?) find a common ground in here. Once "science" gets to levels incomprehensible to common well-educated men and is intermixed with (statist; don't forget that!) propaganda*, it's very difficult to separate truth from falsification (so not: falsifiability). Then we have two choices: 1 - rely on people who have lied to us before and will keep doing so as that is what psychopaths tend to do* 2 - stick to reason, evidence*, empirical science, knowledge about how the world works (so not how the media portray the theatre of the absurd) and common, peasant sense You choose option 1, I stay in the second half of the field. And I am confident with that, you with yours. No problems whatsoever. * Stephen Hawking says we should be more frightened of capitalism than robots "If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed," he wrote. "Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution." Some might almost see this as a hope for technological socialism. However, Hawking observed: "So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality." Many have debated and will continue to debate whether technology really does drive inequality or whether people adjust to new circumstances and new ingenuity brings new markets and new jobs, ones previously unforeseen. Some weren't impressed with Hawking's economics and its implied politics. "Shorter Stephen Hawking: 'For hundreds of years, people who claimed that machines reduce jobs have looked silly. But I'll be different!'" tweeted venture capitalist Marc Andreesen. Andreesen went on to suggest that "someone buy Stephen Hawking an Economics 101 textbook please." Worries about increasing income inequality aren't without foundation. Instead of seeming like a temporary attribute of society, it feels like something that's becoming permanent. Whether technology is to blame for this isn't clear. There are many factors contributing to the division of income. Greedy rich people whose wealth doesn't trickle down terribly far might be one factor, some might say. Hawking, though, seems firmly on the side of those who worry that society is becoming permanently skewed. Still, he did find the time to address slightly lighter matters. "The real risk with AI isn't malice but competence," he said, conceding that it was "likely to be either the best or worst thing ever to happen to humanity, so there's huge value in getting it right." He also admitted that his favorite movie was Truffaut's "Jules Et Jim" and that his favorite song was Rod Stewart's "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You." It's a Van Morrison song, professor. You're not seriously suggesting that the Rod Stewart version is better, are you? That truly is scary.
AccuTron Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 "Michio Kaku," --used to adore this guy, then in one interview, he said Fukushima would be cleaned up in 40 years (the official TEPCO B.S. at the time), and that anthropogenic global warming was real. Shot himself down!
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 So far all you have done is tell us that scientists are wrong without providing any evidence or even an alternative theory. Please elaborate, how are Einstein's theories irrational? The sooner you can tell me the better, as I'm currently sitting a few hundred yards from an operating nuclear reactor right now. If Einstein is wrong, I'd like to know ASAP so I can start running. We take E=mc2 kinda seriously around here. After I've retreated to a nearby fallout shelter, perhaps you can elaborate on how you are managing to use a computer to post all these messages if Einstein's theories on quantum mechanics are a fraud. Quantum Quacks' Motto: "If It's Weird, It's Wise" Again, you can have a false explanation of a true phenomenon. I suspect that Postclassical authoritarians really know that is all I am saying and are just being snarky. If someone preaches that gravity is really angels bringing the dropped object down to earth and then he drops an object, which falls, does that prove he can say that angels are doing it? I'm not saying that e doesn't equal m(c squared), as you insinuate I am. I'm saying that it is a formula of a collision with the atom's particles moving toward contact at the square of the speed of light. That velocity can't be reached if arising from our universe. So fission brings in a force from the fourth spatial dimension, which Einstein refused to recognize. The reason is his defective personality and fake boldness. The fourth dimension had been hypothesized decades before but had degenerated into paranormal explanations such as "that's where the ghosts come from." We all know that these absent-minded, social-loser, nerd are such wimps that they'd back away from a rational explanation just because others had "ruined" it. You know what creepy goofballs science geeks are, but you want to defend them just because you love everybody to submit to self-appointed authorities. Does anybody here really respect scientists as persons? Come on, admit that they are escapist Mamas' Boys who never grew up. 1
Guest Gee Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 We all know that these absent-minded, social-loser, nerd are such wimps that they'd back away from a rational explanation just because others had "ruined" it. You know what creepy goofballs science geeks are, but you want to defend them just because you love everybody to submit to self-appointed authorities. Does anybody here really respect scientists as persons? Come on, admit that they are escapist Mamas' Boys who never grew up.
Romulox Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Quantum Quacks' Motto: "If It's Weird, It's Wise" Again, you can have a false explanation of a true phenomenon. I suspect that Postclassical authoritarians really know that is all I am saying and are just being snarky. If someone preaches that gravity is really angels bringing the dropped object down to earth and then he drops an object, which falls, does that prove he can say that angels are doing it? I'm not saying that e doesn't equal m(c squared), as you insinuate I am. I'm saying that it is a formula of a collision with the atom's particles moving toward contact at the square of the speed of light. That velocity can't be reached if arising from our universe. So fission brings in a force from the fourth spatial dimension, which Einstein refused to recognize. The reason is his defective personality and fake boldness. The fourth dimension had been hypothesized decades before but had degenerated into paranormal explanations such as "that's where the ghosts come from." We all know that these absent-minded, social-loser, nerd are such wimps that they'd back away from a rational explanation just because others had "ruined" it. You know what creepy goofballs science geeks are, but you want to defend them just because you love everybody to submit to self-appointed authorities. Does anybody here really respect scientists as persons? Come on, admit that they are escapist Mamas' Boys who never grew up. People thought Einstein was a crackpot when he proposed a theory that time slows down when you move fast and later supported another theory that electrons cheat when you aren't looking, but people had to accept it when these theories were verified through repeatable experimentation. So you could be entirely right. Some of the mainstream theories require 11 or 26 special dimensions, so 4 dimensions seems reasonable in comparison. Can you provide a link to a more in depth explanation of this 4th dimension theory? Is there any evidence that shows this theory is correct and Einstein's are incorrect? Can you point to any independently verified, repeatable experiments? Einstein's theories seem to accurately describe the universe we live in, so I would need some extraordinary evidence to be convinced otherwise, or at least something more than the fact that he was a Mama's boy.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 People thought Einstein was a crackpot when he proposed a theory that time slows down when you move fast and later supported another theory that electrons cheat when you aren't looking, but people had to accept it when these theories were verified through repeatable experimentation. So you could be entirely right. Some of the mainstream theories require 11 or 26 special dimensions, so 4 dimensions seems reasonable in comparison. Can you provide a link to a more in depth explanation of this 4th dimension theory? Is there any evidence that shows this theory is correct and Einstein's are incorrect? Can you point to any independently verified, repeatable experiments? Einstein's theories seem to accurately describe the universe we live in, so I would need some extraordinary evidence to be convinced otherwise, or at least something more than the fact that he was a Mama's boy. Status-Quo Exclusivity The evidence is the effect, so you're violating normal thinking processes if you think there's no evidence. Conformism is caused by the failure to extend the status quo attribution of an effect to its own theory by claiming that others can't use that effect for other explanations and have to come up with different "evidence." Explanations are based on the effect and should be the most rational, even if the cause has to be located in a hidden dimension. If a wall is hot, there must be a fire inside, even though you can't see it. To call time a dimension is not rational. It has no extension. Curved space is absurd because a non-substance has nothing to curve. Start with the quantum leap, displacement without motion. That is a magical explanation. To go from A to B without moving through AB can only happen if there is a C dimension through which it can bypass AB. 1
Will Torbald Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Status-Quo Exclusivity The evidence is the effect, so you're violating normal thinking processes if you think there's no evidence. Conformism is caused by the failure to extend the status quo attribution of an effect to its own theory by claiming that others can't use that effect for other explanations and have to come up with different "evidence." Explanations are based on the effect and should be the most rational, even if the cause has to be located in a hidden dimension. If a wall is hot, there must be a fire inside, even though you can't see it. To call time a dimension is not rational. It has no extension. Curved space is absurd because a non-substance has nothing to curve. Start with the quantum leap, displacement without motion. That is a magical explanation. To go from A to B without moving through AB can only happen if there is a C dimension through which it can bypass AB. This isn't evidence.
Mister Mister Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I'd call any science relying on others' authority (that includes special particle discoveries or 'discoveries' unavailable to you and me to verify) problematic. Science is in its essence empirical, falsifiable and free of authoritive powers influencing it. Theoretical physics and the NASA-influenced Hawkingian-Einsteinian nearly religious speech is quite far from that... I totally agree with you Torero! And I take issue with many assumptions of QM, and the pattern in the last century, of using abstract theoretical mathematical "objects", as ad hoc solutions to equations which don't jive right, i.e. strong/weak nuclear forces, virtual particles, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, string theory, and so on, not to mention the Big Bang itself. To me, the issue is, that most physical models are built off of "objects" in Space, then more complex concepts like fluid dynamics, angular momentum, and so forth, are built off of that. The basic assumption that drives nuclear physics, is the idea that matter is built from fundamental particles, which carry some objective property, which is responsible for the seeming solidity and consistency of matter and energy. What others have suggested, and what I hypothesize, however is that seemingly solid physical objects are an appearance created by continuous spiral motion, and that it is not a fundamental particle at the foundation of reality, but a fundamental pattern, regardless of scale. But the actual mechanics of how the incredibly consistent and ordered qualities of matter, such as spectral lines, chemical properties, hardness, color, crystallization, mass, charge, attraction, repulsion, and so on, can be created by continuous motion, are not well understood. Maybe this should be moved to a new thread, as we have drifted far from the original topic, but I wanted to give some examples of some empirical observations I've seen that would help us to discover how this process works, and be able to DEMONSTRATE it to the layman, rather than patronizing, oversimplified stories, based on non-falsifiable mathematical abstractions. "Electron" moving down a wire. Appears to be more like ripples on the outside of a wire, than billiard balls rolling down a pipe Tungsten atoms under electron microscope I was struck by how they look like standing waves, ripples in a pond Light & Color An old video, but some cool ideas, especially the TWO color spectrums, one from diffracting light in a dark room, the other from diffracting darkness in a light rooom, also the experiments at 35:00 really blew my mind, and are as compelling as the double slit experiment to me Gyroscopes by Eric Laithewaite, especially the experiments in the second half of the video This one is also cool, shows the connection between rotation and mass Cymatics experiment with sand on a plate, maybe demonstrating some principles of crystallization? This one shows different "forms" simulated by a fluid medium in continuous motion Toroids again, a simulated form maintained by continuous motion Cool Tumblr on Fluid Dynamics Jay Harman and Vortex Engineering potential advances in engineering using vortex forms from nature
Romulox Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Perhaps you are entirely right and I am not quite understanding. Let's start with something that I am very familiar with; nuclear fission. As I understand it, the energy from splitting a uranium atom comes from the breaking the bonds between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus and releasing the stored energy that bound the individual particles together. If you add up the mass of the fission products, you get slightly less than the total mass of the original atom. Multiply the mass difference by c2 and you get the energy that was released. This is empirically verified in the fact that we can accurately control and predict the power output of a nuclear reactor and predict the rate at which it consumes fuel. To me, this seems to be a reasonable explanation that does not involve another dimension. Assuming you are 100% correct, I have a huge interest in knowing why that explanation I learned was wrong. Pretend I'm 5 years old and explain to me how nuclear fission works from the beginning. You don't even have to do it; I'll be satisfied with just a link to someone else who can explain it.
Guest Gee Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Perhaps you are entirely right and I am not quite understanding. Let's start with something that I am very familiar with; nuclear fission. As I understand it, the energy from splitting a uranium atom comes from the breaking the bonds between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus and releasing the stored energy that bound the individual particles together. If you add up the mass of the fission products, you get slightly less than the total mass of the original atom. Multiply the mass difference by c2 and you get the energy that was released. This is empirically verified in the fact that we can accurately control and predict the power output of a nuclear reactor and predict the rate at which it consumes fuel. To me, this seems to be a reasonable explanation that does not involve another dimension. Assuming you are 100% correct, I have a huge interest in knowing why that explanation I learned was wrong. Pretend I'm 5 years old and explain to me how nuclear fission works from the beginning. You don't even have to do it; I'll be satisfied with just a link to someone else who can explain it. The Sage means fusion but he doesn't even know enough to ask a question about what it is that he wants to know about. I'd be embarrassed if I were him.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 The Sage means fusion but he doesn't even know enough to ask a question about what it is that he wants to know about. I'd be embarrassed if I were him. Which Vain Ventriloquist Is Using You for a Dummy? How can you be me when you're not even yourself? You're just an echo chamber bouncing back theories from the eventually discredited authorities. You are really hurt when I question them because they are your substitute for a self-identity. 2
yagami Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 I dont think the sciences work on the exact same premise as if it would work someone would just build it and make a lot of money off of it. We currently have technology for teleportation and flying cars. Now we have only been able to teleport a few atoms across a room so that technology is just young. But for the flying cars thing it would be insanely expensive to implement the technology needed to actually have the technology be consumable. I suspect that if this zero point energy is real they are running into similar problems. Perhaps they can only get a very small amount of energy or it's so expensive it almost doesnt matter. Another thing to consider is governments do not want to solve our energy problem. Neither do the institutions that are currently in place "addressing" this issue. Nuclear energy is much cleaner and safer and more efficient than most people think but of course efficiency is not what the government is all about. The way I see it there are many possible reasons why this guy could be onto something but cant get much ground.
Guest Gee Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 Hi Yagami, unfortunately what zero-point guy is proposing is essentially a perpetual motion machine and can not exist.
yagami Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Hi Yagami, unfortunately what zero-point guy is proposing is essentially a perpetual motion machine and can not exist. My point still stands. Lets say it cost you 200 million dollars to be able to produce 2 kilowatts of free energy a second. Technically you are gaining energy but slowly and expensively. Also we cant assume what can or cannot exist in the future. Of course breaking the laws of physics is not at all likely but I wouldnt rule it out as impossible.
Guest Gee Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 My point still stands. Lets say it cost you 200 million dollars to be able to produce 2 kilowatts of free energy a second. Technically you are gaining energy but slowly and expensively. Also we cant assume what can or cannot exist in the future. Of course breaking the laws of physics is not at all likely but I wouldnt rule it out as impossible. Whilst revising some laws is possible (extending the laws to make them more accurate), the particular law that would have to be broken is the second law of thermodynamics. It is no exaggeration to say it is the most unbreakable of all the laws. A universe where zero point guy might be correct is a universe where time might spontaneously flow backwards. In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington, The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 My point still stands. Lets say it cost you 200 million dollars to be able to produce 2 kilowatts of free energy a second. Technically you are gaining energy but slowly and expensively. Also we cant assume what can or cannot exist in the future. Of course breaking the laws of physics is not at all likely but I wouldnt rule it out as impossible. I suspect that space itself is a substance and can be converted into energy. This would create a gap, but the universe can handle that tiny loss. Besides, space may be continuously created, as it was in what is called the "Big Bang."
Recommended Posts