[yor_on]

Good luck:)
And if it works, give it a spin from me.

And if it doesn't you will have new experiences enabling you to create even better designs.
Trial and error is a cool teacher.

[lyner]

That is just gobbledegook and you know it.
(Not the good luck message)

[yor_on]

SC what is best.
Sitting down doing nothing.
Or testing your ideas to see if they work?

But you are right in that I'm a doubter:)
I think though that AB knows that i doubt.

[AB Hammer]

SC what is best.
Sitting down doing nothing.
Or testing your ideas to see if they work?

But you are right in that I'm a doubter:)
I think though that AB knows that i doubt.

 You are correct and everyone should doubt. The school of trial and error teaches other possibilities as we go along. That is how I cam up with my grids, by close observation or balance and reaction. The book thumpers who don't build anything are the ones that try to give me the most grief. They can't understand that it is my hobby and I enjoy it and I am chairing some of what I do with others with the same hobbies and those who would just like to see a possible breakthrough.

[lyner]

Could you invent a supersonic aircraft or a TV or a computer by trial and error?
Which theories are you prepared to accept and which ones do you reject?
Are you going to develop the whole of your Science by trial and error?
You are being selective and totally subjective about this matter.

Why are you involving yourself with a Science forum if you don't subscribe to the fundamentals of Science?

[yor_on]

I think that it might have something to do with this being a very factual site.
When I read interesting ideas I kind of forget it at times.

What is it the marines say?
Learn Adapt and Overcome:)

Anyway, test it and see.
A cool hobby keep you 'on your toes'.
Physically as well as mentally.

And that one beats a couch by light years:)

--------------

SC, Now you made me think of the Wright brothers.

[AB Hammer]

Could you invent a supersonic aircraft or a TV or a computer by trial and error?
Which theories are you prepared to accept and which ones do you reject?
Are you going to develop the whole of your Science by trial and error?
You are being selective and totally subjective about this matter.

Why are you involving yourself with a Science forum if you don't subscribe to the fundamentals of Science?

All of science starts with a hypotheses then the trial and error through testing so the answer to your question is a resounding YES!!! []

I got to get back to work, lunch is done.

[lyner]

All of science starts with a hypotheses

No - it starts with a whole history behind it. It then makes informed hypotheses, based on intelligent analysis of what's been found out already. It does not waste its time in half thought out nonsense.
What you are doing is not Science, it's romance, to put it kindest.

[AB Hammer]

All of science starts with a hypotheses

No - it starts with a whole history behind it. It then makes informed hypotheses, based on intelligent analysis of what's been found out already. It does not waste its time in half thought out nonsense.
What you are doing is not Science, it's romance, to put it kindest.

 So you are confusing someones experiences with science (it starts with a whole history behind it) These things help with the hypotheses of course. But the experiences are not the science, they are the person's working with science background that help him or her  in there decision to make hypotheses. In history the artisan, scientist, engineer, and the blacksmith all went under the category of "arts and science". So don't tell me I am not doing science. All and all, All science starts with hypotheses and then the hypotheses have to be tested to see if it is correct or not, Trial and error. Take a look at how many hypotheses are correct first time out? The answer is most likely none, thus the trial and then an error. And this happens again and again and again ..... []

[lyner]

So you think Newon and Einstein both started from scratch, do you?
Actually, they built on existing and well tested Science. Anyone who starts off on a new, uninformed, track is at serious risk of wasting their time. Be a bit humble about this business; take advice, learn some Science and avoid wasting your time (and that of many other people).

[AB Hammer]

So you think Newon and Einstein both started from scratch, do you?
Actually, they built on existing and well tested Science. Anyone who starts off on a new, uninformed, track is at serious risk of wasting their time. Be a bit humble about this business; take advice, learn some Science and avoid wasting your time (and that of many other people).

sophiecentaur

 Pay more attention to what is written. Don't confuse experience with being an entity. Each individual is just that, with experience and references. You are talking like the scientist are suppose to be part of an entity, spending all there time trying to improve what is known. We call this inside the box. The only real progress is those who go outside the box and then later those in the box will absorb it into "your entity" and try to ignore that it was an all new idea and an all new hypotheses that went through trial and error and verbal abuse from those inside the box. "Your entity".
 
Einstein's theories went against mainstream science and was ridiculed at first as well and then the quantum theory cam to be. A new understanding. You need to get your head out of the box and look around how the best breakthroughs came to be and then look how the rest of science steps in to improve it. That is how science works.

________________________________________________

“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”

Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947 

[Bikerman]

I'd stay away from discussing Einstein's theories, and their reception, unless you understand the scientific and social context. His theories were NOT ridiculed at the time since there was a growing realisation that Maxwell's work could not be reconciled with Newton, as well as a growing realisation that Newton could not account for the orbit of Mercury. There was some scepticism about SR, but that is how science works and is entirely justified. Very few people at the time actually understood the theory and the worst you can say for Einstein's treatment is that his theories were not immediately accepted - it took a while. This is right and proper in science - you don't just accept the next theory that comes along. You try to experiment to disprove it. Eddington offered the first experimental evidence with his solar eclipse photographs and from that point onwards Einstein was taken very seriously indeed.

This idea that scientists start with a hypothesis is nonsense. Science starts with observation/problem. You observe a new phenomenon, or one which cannot be accounted for by current theory. You then hypothesise and finally you test, with an aim to refute (not prove) the hypothesis.

Now, to compare this with what you are doing is an insult to hard-working scientists.
You have no observation/phenomenon that cannot be explained by current theory.
Citing Bessel here is like citing Uri Geller and saying we need to explain how he bends spoons. We don't. We know it is possible to bend spoons, using a variety of 'tricks', but we don't know the exact method Geller used - it doesn't matter. The assumption is he is a con-man until he can demonstrate that there really IS a phenomenon that cannot be explained by current theory. Exactly the same applies to Bessel's wheel.

You have no hypothesis worthy of the name, and your testing consists of trying to prove an assumption is correct with no regard for proper scientific methodology. This has nothing to do with science at all - it is hobbyist tinkering, at best.

[lyner]

ABH

Einstein's theories went against mainstream science

I don't think you have much idea about either, actually, or you wouldn't be making the statements you have made..

[Bikerman]

Ah, 'zero point energy' do sounds like a way to get 'free' energy.
M..m.aybe???

Perhaps (though it would not be free - it would be simply harnessing an existing energy source). I remain sceptical about zero-point energy 'harvesting'. I know there are many proposed devices on the net but I've yet to see one that has been properly tested, or even that looks likely. Most of the physicists that I talk to are deeply sceptical. Many point out that the production of virtual particles occurs on such a small timescale that there is no viable way to utilise the 'energy' since, according to uncertainty principle, the overall energy state is 0 taken over any meaningful timescale...

[lyner]

I think that it might have something to do with this being a very factual site.
When I read interesting ideas I kind of forget it at times.
. . . . .
A cool hobby keep you 'on your toes'.
. . . . . . .

What does Science do, if it does not attempt to get as near to the 'fact' as possible? Why do you think that people like me subscribe to this sort of site? If you want an 'airy fairy wouldn't it be nice if' type of site then you have come to the wrong place.

And since when (ignoring the diilitante amateur experimenters of a past age) was Science some sort of hobby, to be toyed with?
Football fans may talk in term of 'passion' but, with Scientists, it's dedication.

[AB Hammer]

Bikerman

 The reason there are so many 0 point energy devices, is because they are easy to fake. All of these need to be tested honestly and fairly where the public can see the posted results. Fraudsters are all over just trying to get into peoples pocket. But there are those trying to make an honest effort. Most of the honest ones don't ask for investment until they feel they have something to show, than just an idea.

[Bored chemist]

AB Hammer,
You are asking us to invest our time. You have, at the moment, nothing to show but ideas.
The ideas are decidely suspect.
Don't spend any more of your time posting here until you have a real concrete example you can show us.
You can spend the rest of yopur life typing and you won't convince anyone.
If you make the thing work then you will convince everyone instantly.

[AB Hammer]

AB Hammer,
You are asking us to invest our time. You have, at the moment, nothing to show but ideas.
The ideas are decidely suspect.
Don't spend any more of your time posting here until you have a real concrete example you can show us.
You can spend the rest of yopur life typing and you won't convince anyone.
If you make the thing work then you will convince everyone instantly.

 So you want to stomp on my freedom of speech? Forums are for people to express themselves. You don't have to answer me, but you have the wright to tell me what ever as long as you stay within the rules. Your time here is the same as mine voluntary. Your word are worth no more than mine. Now if you look at this string it is one of the longest strings on this forum. I would say it is good for the forum.

[lyner]

What you say about forums is true to some extent but it is only fair to talk Science on a Science forum. You seem to steer well clear of that particular requirement.
What would be the point of talking baseball on a football forum?

[BenV]

Personally, I feel this thread has more than run it's course.  It's come down to most people pointing out that perpetual motion is an impossibility, and one claiming it's possible but refusing to offer any evidence.  I see no advantage in allowing this thread to continue and so will be locking it soon.  If anyone feels that they have anything constructive to add, please send me or one of the other moderators a private message.  If enough people feel it should be unlocked for the arguments to continue, I shall do so.