The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY  (Read 24099 times)

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #50 on: 13/12/2009 19:36:55 »
Quote
I also suspect that you struggle with these concepts and that speaks somewhat to your natural aptitudes or lack of them.  But that's your problem.  Not mine

Actually, it kind of is. The responsibility is on the scientist to explain properly, clearly & well so that people can understand. If you can't, you won't get much support for quite a while, no matter how good your evidence is.

Hi glovesforfoxes.  I cannot expect anyone to understand the model unless they first read it.  But the model is not the subject of this thread.  I'm just trying to remind you all that academics have not yet reviewed the evidence nor attended a demonstration nor tried to replicate the experiment.  And - I wonder if they will not lose their moral authority if this persists - especially in the light of the replications now going on all over the place.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #51 on: 13/12/2009 20:01:48 »
But you should not expect people to take you seriously when you say that you have an over unity device and you are not a billionaire. It's really quite simple.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #52 on: 13/12/2009 20:07:27 »
Physbang - I really don't want to go over this yet again - so am posting and earlier reply on another thread and I really don't mind if you don't take the claim seriously.   


Hi again, nixietube.

Definitely tapping into a 'heretofore' unidentified energy source.

Have spent many years trying to get academic accreditation.  Have also experimented on more significant wattages using utiltiy supply sources through bridge rectifiers.  But have never developed it for my own home uses as it's beyond my competence.  Have only just got replication now evident by experimentalists in Canada - Oregon USA - and Spain.  The USA experimentalist is developing it with private funding for commercial use - as we speak.  I believe the other two are also looking to commercialise.  Research funding required for instutional studies will only probably be available when and if our paper gets reviewed and published.  Until then there is not likely to be serious mainstream involvement unless, possibly, if the media bring this technology to our public's attention.

When and if this paper gets reviewed there will be the distinct possibility that the technology will get the required research funding.  Until this is published all applications run the danger of being considered fraudulent and there are real litigation risks in the offing. This would certainly prevent public funding - which is required to get the research completed for the technology to get it to a an expoitable condition.  That is the real difficulty that is being experienced.

My own interest in this technology is theoretical.  I think the proposed circuit is a good means to expose the energy potential - but the model itsef points to far more efficient means of harnessing this energy potential.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #53 on: 13/12/2009 20:45:36 »
Do you really think that you can rewrite physics?
Apart from anything else, to do that you need to show what's wrong with the current version.

Perhaps you could start with that.
Keep the explanations in reserve for later. Just tell us what current physics gets wrong.


Of course, if you are right then your ideas will become part of science so it will never have lost it's authority.
Presumably you will then start another thread where you claim that you never said it did.

In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why you posted that nonsense about "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "
« Last Edit: 13/12/2009 20:52:50 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #54 on: 13/12/2009 21:09:10 »
Quote
Hi glovesforfoxes.  I cannot expect anyone to understand the model unless they first read it.  But the model is not the subject of this thread.  I'm just trying to remind you all that academics have not yet reviewed the evidence nor attended a demonstration nor tried to replicate the experiment.  And - I wonder if they will not lose their moral authority if this persists - especially in the light of the replications now going on all over the place.

Hi :)

That's fine, & of course scientists must look at evidence - it's what science is based on! I can't say I have read the paper, I doubt I would understand it.

If academics have not reviewed it, then it is not a failure of science, or even scientists: it is a failure in communication of people. Scientists are trusted to know about their field of expertise, because they spend their lives researching it! Just as I trust a chef to make me a nice dinner..

Scientists have no real moral authority. A scientist might be an authority figure, but it is the failure of both the scientist and the people who listen if they accept everything uncritically. It seems you're prescribing too much weight for my liking for scientists to get everything right all of the time - in other words, you expect too much. A chef will sometimes ruin a meal, and a scientist will sometimes ruin the truth..

The wonderful thing about science is that is constantly adapting. Scientists are scientists for the very reason that they are interested in the truth. They can misunderstand the truth, but they are still committed to the truth.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #55 on: 14/12/2009 04:01:25 »

Regarding your rude reference to my work on grizelda's thread - when one makes a prediction as a required consequence to a proposed thesis - and that consequence is tested, measured and found to be correct - then the thesis is normally considered to be a full blown or partial theory depending on the test and the thesis itself.  Or is this only true if it proposed and tested by mainstream science - and the results also then conform to mainstream's requirement in term of thermodynamic laws?

In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular.



Bored chemist - this is the context of my comment regarding your attitude.  Out of context it is meaningless.  Do you read these posts?  Or do you just take a stab at my meaning?

What I tried to say is that science is progressed by experimental evidence evaluated in the context of explanations.  If we refuse to consider explanations - predicted or otherwise,  then we would not have scientific disciplines.  Instead we would have belief structures.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 04:05:30 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #56 on: 14/12/2009 04:27:25 »
Bored chemist

In truth there's no need to re-write physics.  I was possibly being a little grandiose.  All I'm proposing is that dark energy and dark matter are responsible for all bound amalgams.  In other words disassociated atoms are at their lowest energy levels.  Combine atoms into an amalgam and you introduce energy.  That's the energy that I see that we use - that is also underlying the electromagnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces.  And that energy is malleable - or useable - or exploitable - and that's what we get when we induce electric current flow - is all.  So.  I immodestly propose a modest little particle as being the source of all energy. It's not so much a re-write as a new take.

But nothing wrong with known physics.  Plenty wrong with the academic review process.  And - in the unlikely event that the model is ever to be considered a fair representation of reality - then we've got something that will address our need for clean and abundant energy.  That's exciting.  What I resent is the apparent need to apologise for these insights as they clearly offend everybody.  Can't help it if I'm right.  Sorry if I'm wrong.  But I'd prefer the facts assessed rather than my credentials.  I'm an unlikely harbinger of these things.  But there you go.  It was me that proposed this.  Hopefully our mainstream will appropriate the idea as their own - eventually.  I just want to see the technologies progressed.  We all should.  It's good news - whoever they proposer - and however it comes out in our academies.

And let's hope that scientists do re-evaluate their paradigms - as glovesforfoxes proposes.  Thus far I have seen ZERO evidence of this.
« Last Edit: 16/12/2009 06:23:11 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #57 on: 14/12/2009 04:44:24 »
To believe unknown/undefined energy sources do not exist is arrogant. Just as it is arrogant to assume one is correct in a (questionable) position.

To run my colours up the mast here, at this point I have only a passing interest in your ideas. The challenge, if I can call it that, is to identify your error(s) and get you to accept them. Sadly I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important.

Spend more time on (2) in my earlier post, and a little less time on the new theory. Start again, this time assuming all your prior work is flawed. Question everything. If you still arrive at the same conclusions, then cut down on the supposition, educate yourself, and approach people for help with the question.. "What is going on here?" followed by: " I do not understand what is going on in my circuit. "
Posted by nixietube on another thread.

Here's an example of that typical mindset.  I find it HUGELY offensive.  So here's my answer

nixietube - hello again.

There are no self-respecting physicists alive today who do not subscribe to dark energy and dark matter.  This is - nonetheless - considered to be a new energy source from a yet to be identified particle.  it is known to comprise 96% of the known universe - is detectable through gravitational lensing - it is cold - entirely invisible to light and  it responds to gravity.  Its distribution is throughout the universe but is clustered at galaxies and is considered to be the 'missing mass' required to explain why our galaxies don't unravel.  Notwithstanding which the most informed of electrical engineer that I know - seldom realise the significance of this.  It is a newly identified energy source that has not been fully explained.  And its particle does not conform to standard models.  And it is thought to contribute 10 times more mass to a galaxy than is evident in its light.

Now to tackle your post.  That you find it arrogant to deny new energy sources, or that you find it arrogant to assume to have found new energy sources, either way - is fatuously irrelevant.  Where did arrogance come into the equation with the discovery of dark matter?  Or lack of arrogance, or excessive pride, or humility, or shock or horror at the presumptions, at these prescriptive requirements?  Why is the emotion relevant?  The question is not whether I see your point but do you see mine?  When has science required this ridiculous dance - this skirting of the truth in order to protect the fragile egos of its members.  What absurdities you propose.  We must now first come to you - nixietube - and ask you to please explain a measurable event - lest we antagonise or affront those strange sensibilities that detect the abence or presence of pride and arrogance.  We must not point out that it was required and predicted in terms of a prior field model, but rather allow you - nixietube to assess the evidence.

Tell me who here is being arrogant?  That you require this diplomatic denial of the facts speaks volumes to the mindset that I am determined to confront.  I will not ask 'what is going on here?'  Why should I?  I know.  Nor will I say 'I do not understand what is going on in my circuit' because it would be a lie designed to pander to your ego and not to the truth. Science has NOTHING to do with diplomacy - and it has everything to do with the truth.

And you come to this argument 10 years after it was first launched.  Because you're a late comer I must now defer all further analysis and evidence while you familiarise yourself with the details of that argument? And this to give you opportunity to confirm your unscientific assessment that 'sadly' you do not believe that we have discovered an over unity / free enegy device'.  As I have neither claimed this nor see it, I agree with the latter.  I deny the former and the evidence is in my favour.

And I might add - whether you are sad or happy is immaterial.  And what science has ever been based on 'belief'.  The two terms are mutually exclusive.  You are very free with your advice.  I suggest you keep it to yourself unless you can make it relevant.   
« Last Edit: 16/12/2009 03:40:52 by witsend »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #58 on: 14/12/2009 06:54:02 »
Did anyone else spot this?
http://xkcd.com/675/
 

nixietube

  • Guest
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #59 on: 14/12/2009 13:34:47 »
Did anyone else spot this?
http://xkcd.com/675/




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHahahhaahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHA 

Perfect. I genuinely laughed so much a colleague came to check I was OK.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 13:39:13 by nixietube »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #60 on: 14/12/2009 15:16:10 »
nixietube - I've now reported you to a monitor.  If this is the best you can come up with in lieu of discussion then what are you doing on this forum? 
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #61 on: 14/12/2009 17:41:40 »
What did he do wrong, exactly? It seems you're being a bit over sensitive. ???
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #62 on: 14/12/2009 18:49:28 »
I would agree - Over-sensitivity is rampant in these last few posts.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #63 on: 14/12/2009 21:11:50 »
I just about laughed my socks off when I saw that cartoon freshly published this morning (at least from my time zone's point of view). I guess it's a coincidence, but I do wonder if XKCD's author gets inspiration from threads like this. In any event the timing was near perfect.

BTW, Witsend, did you report me too?
Will you if I cite this page
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
and say that I think you tick boxes 1,3,4,5,6,9,11,12,13?

BTW, this, "In which case, the universe according to Bored Chemist would never have progressed beyond the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation and all revolves around our little planet. I might remind you that those observations were also rather unpopular. "
in any context, still makes no sense.
What I did was ask you to clarify you paper and to check on whether one aspect of it might derive from using a meter outside it's range of aplication, rather than from a breakdown of the laws of physics as we know them.

Seriously, which do you think is more likely and do you think that asking such question is unscientific?
I have reviewed enough papers, and had enough of my own reviewed, to know that those are exactly the sort of questions that get asked.
It's not a matter of "does your explanation fit the observed data?" it's a matter of " does your explanation fit all the observed data, including that published before and does it, in some sense, add to that?"

There's also the logical glitch (no matter what the context) that "the first scientific observations that we are the very centre of God's creation" doesn't make sense because that never could have been a scientific observation.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 21:21:27 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #64 on: 15/12/2009 07:15:02 »
LOL @ the xkcd cartoon

Guess you'll have to report me too witsend
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #65 on: 15/12/2009 10:44:55 »
Bored chemist, Mididus_Scientia, glovesforfoxes and JimBbob.  Have reported you all.  Not that it makes a blind bit of difference.  Seems like I need to fight my corner here.  And patently I'm on my own.  LOL

Here's the link.  Read the paper and come up with some constructive criticism - if you can.  We'd all be much obliged.  I'd love to know which, if any of you, actually understand the writing.  And I'm prepared to put money on it that none of you have read it.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Have fun guys. 

 ;D  :)

By the way - sorry to read that you've got health issues JB. Hopefully they're abating.

second edit.  Bored chemist - I'd answer your post if it were half way relevant. 
« Last Edit: 15/12/2009 10:47:22 by witsend »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #66 on: 15/12/2009 10:52:53 »
Witsend - having read through the more recent posts on this thread, it certainly seems that you're giving as good as you get.  I appreciate that you feel attacked, but if you respond with ad hominem attacks then you don't really have a leg to stand on when reporting people.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #67 on: 15/12/2009 11:10:01 »
Hi BenV.  I never really expected you to rally.  But it would have been a nice ?  ;D

Truth is I don't really mind. It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive.  And as for Nixietube?  I've composed my own little exercise in doggerel to give him his dues.  But keep it coming guys.  You know what they say about advertising?  I thought we could seriously discuss the inadequacies of review process to represent mainstream - but it seems that serious discussion is definitely not topical.  Relevance to science has nothing to do with relevance to this forum.

And far be it from me to question the authority of JimBoy and Madidus_Scientia.  That's some serious weight in posting numbers guys.  Am deeply impressed.

 ;D :o 

Here's my tribute to Nixietube in case anyone missed it.

This master of science and such
Has a brain that's in need of a crutch
He buries his qualms
In a waving of arms
Because his logic's just not up to much.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2009 11:12:45 by witsend »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #68 on: 15/12/2009 11:20:12 »
It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive. 

But perhaps he feels that you're not answering his questions - hence why it's repetitive.  I doubt he's overwhelmed by it either.

Quote
And as for Nixietube?  I've composed my own little exercise in doggerel to give him his dues. 

...

Here's my tribute to Nixietube in case anyone missed it.

This master of science and such
Has a brain that's in need of a crutch
He buries his qualms
In a waving of arms
Because his logic's just not up to much.

You don't think that this is hurtful and unneccesary?  Why should I rally round and support you doing things like that?

 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #69 on: 15/12/2009 11:51:15 »
Hi again BenV

I thought I'd let Nixitube get a feel for wit.  His own is so seriously lacking.  But if you'd prefer it that I desist I will.  If you need a guage as to 'hurt feelings? consider his own contributions.  Or is it only required that I modify my own while he's freed from any required constraints?  That's not fair.

But I hear you.  It's not constructive.  Sorry guys.  I'll hold back.

 ;D [:X]
« Last Edit: 15/12/2009 11:59:13 by witsend »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #70 on: 15/12/2009 20:16:17 »
It gets me down when Bored chemist becomes excessively repetitive. 

But perhaps he feels that you're not answering his questions - hence why it's repetitive.  I doubt he's overwhelmed by it either.

Got it in one.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #71 on: 15/12/2009 21:49:55 »
Look witsend. I'm all for minority views. I'm a vegan & polyamorist (search google if you want definitions) in a Western society. If you take a look at my recent posts you'll see I argue passionately for veganism. I understand the cases are somewhat different, but you can have constructive conversations about unpopular opinions & viewpoints if you wish on this forum.

There is a certain way to go about expressing them. Your attitude does not encourage debate - it encourages flaming. You do not go into debates with compassion & understanding in your mind, & it is to your, your argument, & other people's detriment. People won't respect your point of view, no matter how logical, clever, or consistant it is if you express it with a flavouring of insults. So even if you're not fussed about being polite for the sake of it, you're still not impressing anyone by reporting slight slights against you. You gotta take it with a pinch of salt. If you want a productive conversation about the disadvantages of the method of submission of papers, then talk about that. Even your very title is automatically putting people on the defensive: "WHEN SCIENCE LOSES IT'S AUTHORITY"

You're automatically starting witht the assumption scientists here (or anywhere in the world) assume they are authorities, & but the very spirit of science is to reject arguments from authority. I would argue that any scientist that says "I'm an authority on X therefore I am right about X" solely on the basis that they are an authority has gone astray from the main purpose of science. You're not looking for the truth when you do that.

Now, if you desist from doing stuff like this & try to cultivate a more civilised attitude, I'm sure people better qualified to understand what you're saying will listen to you.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #72 on: 16/12/2009 03:30:51 »
Glovesforfoxes - Arguing for proclivities or food preferences is hardly the same thing as arguing the foundational constructs of physics.  And I am entirely satisfied that any challenge of the latter brings out the beast in the man. Here's my proof.  A thread was started on overunity.com titled 'claimed overunity device of Rosemary Ainslie'. I did not know of this thread and my name, my character, the published Quantum paper, my family - ALL - came under the most vicious attack that has ever been known in the history of that forum.  And I neither contributed nor knew of this happening.  In fact - I subsequently applied for membership and now hold the curious distinction of being the first person in the history of these forums - to have been banned without ever contributing.  It was EXTRAORDINARY.  Nothing to do with me. Nothing to do with my attitude.  I simply had the temerity of posting the Quantum article and my magnetic field model on the internet.  So don't tell me what attitude to take.  I've been obsequeious, tactful, apologetic, polite, defensive, name it.  I've tried it.  There is nothing about about my attitude that ignites this anger.  It is the claim itself.  The Laws of Thermodynamics have become a belief system rather than a reasoned argument - and it is defended by mainstream with the vim and vigour that is usually attributed to fanatics. 

So.  Get it that the antagonism here is simply to do with the fact that I'm challenging a belief structure that is as profound as a religious conviction.  But that's usually how new ideas begin.  I'm in good company.  And I really don't mind that there's this constant attack.  It's only on this thread.  Overunity.com eventually accepted me as a member - and I now hold the curious disctinction of also being a monitor.  Attitudes change.  And if I need to endure the rather toothless criticisms of some mindless contributors to get there - that's fine.  There's a reading public who are more measured and discerning than most of us who write here.  And truth will out.  Reason will prevail.  That's just the way of things.

   
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #73 on: 16/12/2009 06:50:48 »
Witsend,

Might I suggest you read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

I believe you would find it helpful.
 

nixietube

  • Guest
WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #74 on: 16/12/2009 10:11:13 »
witsend, were you in my local supermarket this morning shouting at the cheese?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHORITY
« Reply #74 on: 16/12/2009 10:11:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums