Originally posted by AnjeluvDeath
No. Belief in God and Science are very different things. I scientific truth can be both replicated and correctly predicted. You have neither
example.
Agreed. Scientific truths should both be replicable and have predictive abilities. Our, or at least my, point here is that one can attack specific
devices or designers but can not and should not dismiss possibilities and processes that science as we know it don't in fact discount.
I mean Possible and not IMPossible.
But have you ever seen it in practice and are you qualified to decide whether or not it was doing what it claimed?
Never observed any of the devices in operation but then , as you say, what use would that be any ways when you would/could never believe me because
you believe it to be impossible? How can we discover something new when it's believed to be impossible by people who do not seem to have a firm grasp
of the knowledge they are employing to arrive as such conclusions? What is most important to me is not my observations as much as it is the fact that
science as we know have never explained where the source charges 'draws' the energy,.that is captured by the circuit, from. These scientist ( well
most of the one's i discuss
) are proposing solutions to well known problems and contradictions and that's why we can't ignore them.
The Laws of Physics
The Laws of physics have been ignored ever since the dawn of the 'electric' age as we still have no non-contradictory explanation, in classical
physics as it's taught now, for where the energy that powers our national networks comes from.
Because that is the defenition of Zero point energy. Perhaps you need some lessons.
Personally i don't consider vacuum energy extraction to be the same ( but it's oft held to be synonymous) as zero point extraction as frankly i
don't understand ( who does?) the necessity for quantum physics or the conclusions reached, or presumed, to lend it descriptive power. Either way the
mechanism suggested for 'tapping' zero point energy is as i understand very different.
If any of the above is true, then you should have no trouble convincing me with some evidence from somewhere. Maybe from that 'free'
book.
Well they do say that when you get something for free you get exactly what you paid for ( ai, nothing) so i have some sympathy with the skepticism
about free books.
Either way it has been a great read ( especially the parts i think i understood.
) and it has led me to the same primary
sources the author employed. As for the 'evidence' i don't really know what you need to know so perhaps i can offer a basic quandary that highly
respected scientist muse over by mostly ignore so as to not give themselves headaches or worse.
This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.
However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?
sites.huji.ac.il...
How is energy 'conserved' when what is counted is merely what is being diverged into the primary system? Certainly one can enforce symmetry on a
electrodynamic system and apply 'conservation' laws but what sense does it make when we KNOW that we are counting merely what we can observe to be
powering loads/dissipated otherwise? Is that not just as ridiculous as it sounds?
I would be happy to learn but first I need to understand how it is that it is so readily available and yet somehow mysteriously impossible to
find or implement or replecate?
Oh it's no more impossible to find than it is to find wind, sunlight,tides and rivers to employ towards creating renewable energy infrastructures yet
that isn't being done either. What does our ability to 'find' stuff have to do with what our current economic/political system chooses to employ or
resist? I think where our views diverge is in that you believe that science serves some greater 'truth' when it , like other mostly state/private,
merely serves the interest of it's sponsors/financiers. You seem to hold the notion that the 'truth' ( scientific in this case) must and will come
up where i don't have such a idealistic , well in my opinion, view of the world.
So yes, i could attempt to provide you with patents for what i believe to be working devices or even news paper clippings of state agency ( fire
station and a few other) that is currently employing systems that seem to be over-unity but since such things are according to your views impossible
they could hardly convince you. We will have to concentrate on the theory and physics as that's where you have become , in my opinion, misinformed
enough to discount what you can observe to adhere to only what your view of reality dictates possible.
Stellar
