A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[tcmtech]

Name me just one organism that does not do all of those things, and are considered alive.

That a a very weak way to define what is or is not alive being the vast majority of the organisms in our biosphere do not do all of those things. Most do some but not all.

Very few living organisms have actual self awareness and there are countless others that do not do one or more of your other examples as well.

Some don't constrict anything, others show no standard responses to stimulus, others don't exactly eat or defecate by any standard definition and so forth.

Electronic bateria. They do not eat or defecate solid particles of matter to live.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ms-that-live-on-pure-energy.html#.VM0ImNLF-E5

To be honest as a few others keep showing your definitions and expectations are pretty narrow minded and show little range of acceptance to what is already known by others that you yourself do not know.

A true scientist admits when they are wrong or have come a false conclusion based on limited data and thusly is willing to relearn that they thought to be true in order to find the correct understandings.

Religious people tend to only believe what they want to believe and then place all other things in the realm of Gods problem and not their own thus absolving themselves of ever having to admit or learn anything new that may show they were wrong or incorrect in their understandings of a subject yet the good book says largely otherwise to them.
=========
"Throughout Scripture we find that reason, wisdom, and logic are lifted up as good traits. For example,Proverbs 3:13says we are blessed when we find knowledge and understanding.Hebrews 5:12-14reproves teachers for not learning and growing in understanding. Paul commends the church at Berea because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). In many places throughout Acts the apostle Paul was said to “reason” with the lost, attempting to prove to them the truth of his words.James 1:5even tells us to ask God for wisdom, which He gives “generously to all without finding fault.”

There are many other places where reason and understanding are uplifted. To state the point simply, God created humans with the ability to think and reason, and God expects us to use the gift He has given us. Remember that at its core the goal of reason and logic is to find truth, and Jesus made the bold claim that He is truth (John 14:6), so reason and logic should lead us to Jesus every time.

Read more:https://www.gotquestions.org/blind-faith.html#ixzz3QQ5Db6TV"

 

[Ratchit]

That a a very weak way to define what is or is not alive being the vast majority of the organisms in our biosphere do not do all of those things. Most do some but not all.

That is the way biologists define life.

Very few living organisms have actual self awareness and there are countless others that do not do one or more of your other examples as well.

I said awareness, not self-awareness. For instance, ocean plankton rise and fall in the ocean depending on the amount of sunlight present. The have awareness of their surroundings.

Some don't constrict anything, others show no standard responses to stimulus, others don't exactly eat or defecate by any standard definition and so forth.

They might not be sensitive to human responses, but it is a good bet that are responsive to something. Just because they don't masticate their food doesn't mean they don't take in food. They might not eliminate wastes products like humans do, but they have an alternate way of doing it.

Electronic bateria. They do not eat or defecate solid particles of matter to live.

That is not what the article says. Electrons are particles. They have to eat something else in order to replace their superstructure. They are not built with just electrons only. And they have to get rid of their old parts.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ms-that-live-on-pure-energy.html#.VM0ImNLF-E5

All that article shows me is that those bacteria don't have to use a complicated electrochemical method to harvest the valance electrons from sugar compounds. Do they supplement their diet of higher energy electrons with something else? Anyway, they still eat to live. The article does not discuss how they extract the energy from the electrons.

To be honest as a few others keep showing your definitions and expectations are pretty narrow minded and show little range of acceptance to what is already known by others that you yourself do not know.

No, I think you and others are misinterpreting the discoveries and thinking they completely replace what was previously thought.

A true scientist admits when they are wrong or have come a false conclusion based on limited data and thusly is willing to relearn that they thought to be true in order to find the correct understandings.

I don't know about that. A lot of "true" scientists have a high affinity for evolution.

Religious people tend to only believe what they want to believe and then place all other things in the realm of Gods problem and not their own thus absolving themselves of ever having to admit or learn anything new that may show they were wrong or incorrect in their understandings of a subject yet the good book says largely otherwise to them.
=========
"Throughout Scripture we find that reason, wisdom, and logic are lifted up as good traits. For example,Proverbs 3:13says we are blessed when we find knowledge and understanding.Hebrews 5:12-14reproves teachers for not learning and growing in understanding. Paul commends the church at Berea because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11). In many places throughout Acts the apostle Paul was said to “reason” with the lost, attempting to prove to them the truth of his words.James 1:5even tells us to ask God for wisdom, which He gives “generously to all without finding fault.”

There are many other places where reason and understanding are uplifted. To state the point simply, God created humans with the ability to think and reason, and God expects us to use the gift He has given us. Remember that at its core the goal of reason and logic is to find truth, and Jesus made the bold claim that He is truth (John 14:6), so reason and logic should lead us to Jesus every time.

Read more:https://www.gotquestions.org/blind-faith.html#ixzz3QQ5Db6TV"

Good thing I am not a religious person. But the facts are what they are.

Ratch

 

[tcmtech]

That is the way biologists define life.

Actually the way biologists define life and what it is to be alive is way way more complex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005285/

No, I think you and others are misinterpreting the discoveries and thinking they completely replace what was previously thought.

Not really. Its not so much as seeing much of the new information as replacements but as informational add ons based on new data and rational theory that can back it up.
The more information available on a topic the better the understanding and the decisions that can be made about it.

 

[Ratchit]

Actually the way biologists define life and what it is to be alive is way way more complex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005285/

That article talks about find life in the cosmos with respect to Darwinian evolution. No one has found extra-terrestrial life yet, and evolution is pseudo-science. I listed the characteristics of life from my old biology text book as I remembered them.

Not really. Its not so much as seeing much of the new information as replacements but as informational add ons based on new data and rational theory that can back it up.
The more information available on a topic the better the understanding and the decisions that can be made about it.

Yes, but when the new information is badly evaluated, the errors keep piling up. I think progress in biology and disease cures been slowed by the evolutionary slant that permeates biology science.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

The Earth is a accretion of matter brought together by gravity into a spherical shape. It is a natural process that happens all over the place when mass accumulates somewhere. That is not what I see as an example of evolution, especially the start of life. I cannot imagine the meaning of a phrase like "if evolution existed". It would be like the phrase, "if matter repelled itself instead of attracting itself".

Ratch

Hi,

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

The example of the Earth formation is to show that simple things and simple processes can create big important things. It came from a random process yet it is of prime importance to us. To think it is simple in structure though is not a good idea because of the complexity on the surface and under the surface and how it relates to other objects in the solar system.

The example can not show how evolution of life works because we dont know how that works, but it does in fact show that things that we might think at first not to be possible, are in fact possible, and we even get very complex things from super simple concepts like gravity, friction, and static charge (some basic mechanisms of Earth formation). The Earth has a rather large number of elements, not just one (like maybe the magnetic balls) and those elements and their relative quantities make life sustainable, at least for a decent amount of time. The formation of the atmosphere, the way the sea currents work, the weather systems, the metal core which allows a magnetic shield to form which protects life from radiation from the sun, etc., etc. All this from a process that started as just random.
And on the subject of randomness itself, we can see periods of non randomness where things that dont seem possible actually happen.

The magnetic balls were a simpler example though, to show that even with a few simple rules we can have complexity. A more impressive example of this would be found in the body of fractals, where incredibly complex shapes are formed with a couple extremely simple rules of math applyed over and over.

We often must extend out our intelligence to think about how things CAN possibly work, not how they CANT possibly work, if the theory seems even the least bit likely. If we already believe that they cant work, then we'll never figure out if they really do or not. We'll have little drive to try to find out for sure.

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

The example of the Earth formation is to show that simple things and simple processes can create big important things. It came from a random process yet it is of prime importance to us. To think it is simple in structure though is not a good idea because of the complexity on the surface and under the surface and how it relates to other objects in the solar system.

The example can not show how evolution of life works because we dont know how that works, but it does in fact show that things that we might think at first not to be possible, are in fact possible, and we even get very complex things from super simple concepts like gravity, friction, and static charge (some basic mechanisms of Earth formation). The Earth has a rather large number of elements, not just one (like maybe the magnetic balls) and those elements and their relative quantities make life sustainable, at least for a decent amount of time. The formation of the atmosphere, the way the sea currents work, the weather systems, the metal core which allows a magnetic shield to form which protects life from radiation from the sun, etc., etc. All this from a process that started as just random.
And on the subject of randomness itself, we can see periods of non randomness where things that dont seem possible actually happen.

The magnetic balls were a simpler example though, to show that even with a few simple rules we can have complexity. A more impressive example of this would be found in the body of fractals, where incredibly complex shapes are formed with a couple extremely simple rules of math applyed over and over.

We often must extend out our intelligence to think about how things CAN possibly work, not how they CANT possibly work, if the theory seems even the least bit likely. If we already believe that they cant work, then we'll never figure out if they really do or not. We'll have little drive to try to find out for sure.

What I am getting at is the Earth shape is a simple natural process of gravity forming a sphere.

Not only do you not know how evolution works, you don't know that it even exists. Yet there are thousands of scenarios that presume it does work. To argue that because we are seeing things now that we did not even dream of before, means that evolution might be possible is arguing by analogy. As I said before, an automobile will never make itself no matter how much the elements in the Earth are boiled and roiled in a random manner. And the simplest life is a lot more complicated than an automobile.

It is a very good method to eliminate what is clearly impossible in order to concentrate effort on what is plausible. That is just common sense.

Ratch

 

[JoeJester]

nsaspook provided the link from https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

The "sufficiently elegant" crowd wants you to "believe them" and have faith in their explanations.

Earlier I posted an article where people "had faith" to the tune of millions of dollars. There is faith in the tune of "billions" of dollars with the "climate change" aka "global warming" crowd. The name was changed because they were being questioned more and they don't want their funding to go away. They are addicted to the "your cash."

Garbage in = garbage out. If the data is unreliable, so is the conclusion. All the present probes specifications exceed the reported "global temperature" increase. They only report the one figure and never report the potential error of that figure.

I do agree the climate is cyclic. I do not agree the global trend can be "assumed" from the few probes world wide.

Evolution is a "sufficiently elegant" theory without proof. It certainly is one explaination.

Anyone care to guess how the cave man counted time? I doubt they did, as they were too busy surviving to be mindful of such a trivial topic. I will assume they knew sunrise to sunset, by the position of the sun, but no concept of hours and minutes.

 

[4pyros]

Wow still reading, love this junk.
I will get back to you later.

 

[MrAl]

What I am getting at is the Earth shape is a simple natural process of gravity forming a sphere.

Not only do you not know how evolution works, you don't know that it even exists. Yet there are thousands of scenarios that presume it does work. To argue that because we are seeing things now that we did not even dream of before, means that evolution might be possible is arguing by analogy. As I said before, an automobile will never make itself no matter how much the elements in the Earth are boiled and roiled in a random manner. And the simplest life is a lot more complicated than an automobile.

It is a very good method to eliminate what is clearly impossible in order to concentrate effort on what is plausible. That is just common sense.

Ratch

Hi,

Sorry to sound so negative, but none of the above is completely true. I'll go into detail here.

First, the Earth may have been formed by gravity, but there were other processes happening too besides gravity, before gravity had a major influence. These other processes would have started the Earths progress just before gravity was able to kick in. With Earth it is a little more tricky, but with larger planets it is easier to prove that gravity was not enough. There were other forces at work which would not allow some planets to form from the effects of gravity alone because it would have taken too long, and time was of the essence when there were other forces trying to move the parts around in the pre solar system. But who cares, right?
The fact that we got such an interesting object from much more simple processes shows us that larger complex things can form from smaller simpler things using simple processes. That's is all it has to show because there is other evidence for at least piece wise evolution.

Second, looking briefly into quantum theory we find that the universe is defined in a more statistical way. What we see was already the aggregation of millions of much smaller things where probability rules what might or might not happen. Thus, something complex might be created. But that's not what we think of when we think of evolution. We might get an automobile, but it would not be from what we normally think of as evolution.

Lastly, we see recent evidence that animals have changed significantly over millions of years. I am sure you have heard the children's nursery rhyme, "Little Jack Horner". <chuckle>. Well he's not that little anymore, and he does not sit in a corner anymore, he sits in a lab (maybe in Montana) and shows that chickens can show traits of dinosaurs if certain proteins are activated during the embryonic stage of development. Now if chickens had nothing to do with dinosaurs, we could never see this i dont think. The only other explanation i can think of is that any animal can be turned into any other animal via the manipulation of the proteins, which still suggests that at least short time evolution is possible even if there was an 'intelligent' starter.

Dont get me wrong, i am not arguing the whole theory of evolution is true, just that short time evolution must be true. I am also not suggesting that we could genetically produce any animal we want to, like a pig that could fly, because some animals will not be possible due to other constraints on the planet like the relative strength of gravity near the surface and stuff like that. A pig may need wings too big and muscles too large to activate them in order to fly, which would lead to bigger wings, bigger muscles, and bigger wings, and....etc. We could also probably not produce a "Godzilla" because of relatively low oxygen content in the atmosphere at present.

 

[4pyros]

Wait did he say "quantum vacuum" ?

 

[4pyros]

I saw this one awhile ago and wanted to post it to my other tread.

 

[tvtech]

Wait did he say "quantum vacuum" ?

I really don't know....I only started the thread. The discussion here is way beyond my comprehension. I was lost many posts ago.

So, as the thread starter, I believe it is popcorn and interval time. My choice for the break is:

 

[Tony Stewart]

Vertical axis motor/generator flywheels in a vacuum are popular now for storing wind mill electric generated energy but in no way is it possible to get close to 100% efficient with the best engineering talent.

Over 100% efficency is a myth.

Using stored energy from a planet's inertia and gravitational pull for spacecraft maneuvers is a reality, but has nothing to do with over-unity.

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

Sorry to sound so negative, but none of the above is completely true. I'll go into detail here.

First, the Earth may have been formed by gravity, but there were other processes happening too besides gravity, before gravity had a major influence. These other processes would have started the Earths progress just before gravity was able to kick in. With Earth it is a little more tricky, but with larger planets it is easier to prove that gravity was not enough. There were other forces at work which would not allow some planets to form from the effects of gravity alone because it would have taken too long, and time was of the essence when there were other forces trying to move the parts around in the pre solar system. But who cares, right?
The fact that we got such an interesting object from much more simple processes shows us that larger complex things can form from smaller simpler things using simple processes. That's is all it has to show because there is other evidence for at least piece wise evolution.

Second, looking briefly into quantum theory we find that the universe is defined in a more statistical way. What we see was already the aggregation of millions of much smaller things where probability rules what might or might not happen. Thus, something complex might be created. But that's not what we think of when we think of evolution. We might get an automobile, but it would not be from what we normally think of as evolution.

Lastly, we see recent evidence that animals have changed significantly over millions of years. I am sure you have heard the children's nursery rhyme, "Little Jack Horner". <chuckle>. Well he's not that little anymore, and he does not sit in a corner anymore, he sits in a lab (maybe in Montana) and shows that chickens can show traits of dinosaurs if certain proteins are activated during the embryonic stage of development. Now if chickens had nothing to do with dinosaurs, we could never see this i dont think. The only other explanation i can think of is that any animal can be turned into any other animal via the manipulation of the proteins, which still suggests that at least short time evolution is possible even if there was an 'intelligent' starter.

Dont get me wrong, i am not arguing the whole theory of evolution is true, just that short time evolution must be true. I am also not suggesting that we could genetically produce any animal we want to, like a pig that could fly, because some animals will not be possible due to other constraints on the planet like the relative strength of gravity near the surface and stuff like that. A pig may need wings too big and muscles too large to activate them in order to fly, which would lead to bigger wings, bigger muscles, and bigger wings, and....etc. We could also probably not produce a "Godzilla" because of relatively low oxygen content in the atmosphere at present.

I have a hard time getting my head around what you are saying, but nothing you said convinces me that evolution is alive and well. Finding geometric patterns around the cosmos which automatically derive from physical laws is not what I am referring to when I say simple to complex. By complex I mean something like building an ecosystem from scratch.

You can find similarities in plants and animals on this Earth like bilateral symmetry and likeness in DNA. It is at least just as valid an explanation to say that is the work of a common Creator, who used the same design, as it is to aver that one species changed to another completely different organism. And nothing says he only created once. Biologists believe the dinos started their period very rapidly. The explanation for that is a another creation.

Ratch

 

[tcmtech]

THe easier way to fake the motor video is to simply put a smaller motor inside the large one with the small batteries hidden inside and wire it up so that when the two original power leads for the larger motor are shorted they complete the circuit.

As for the multimeter that easy too. Just add two small batteries internally so that whenever the leads ar shorted together they read the internal battery voltage.

Far easier than drilling the magnets.

 

[Tony Stewart]

I would imagine there is some Remanance effect from the battery energizing the core to store energy.

 

[steveB]

Yeah, it's not like the motor is driving any significant load. It looks like less than a micro joule of energy is stored somewhere and somehow.

 

[JoeJester]

It was interesting that the voltage (-5.91V) did not change when the load (motor) was applied to that source.

 

[steveB]

This video explains how it is probably done.

 

[Tony Stewart]

Many fundamental errors in reasoning.
https://digg.com/video/the-modern-a...-0-6-seconds?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email

exactly 5.9 is meaningless coincidence , with a 0.2V drop determined by insulative coating on the magnet and the 1 or 10 MOhm impedance of the meter.

In the case of the video it is the zener voltage of 2 White LEDs in series.