It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Steorn Gives Alleged COP > 1.0 Demo Jan. 12 2010

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by masterp
You have a mistake in your calculations, and your conclusion is based on that mistake.

Nice comeback. I like a guy who tries it on, just to see if he can prove P.T. Barnum right.

You'd have gulled more people, though, if you'd said the systems pulls energy out of the past. Superficially, that sounds a bit more plausible.


You are spoiling a perfect conspiratorial soup, my friend. We are here not to do science but to hypothesize on the impossible.

If you want hard science, I can give it to you. I am a physicist. And a master one :-).

But this site is not Scientific American or Bad Astronomy...

Well, back to the fantasy land of conspiracies...your formulas are good, except that you don't take into account the flow of time: timeframe tn becomes timeframe (tn+1) as the time flows. This means energy from the future is transmitted to the past, then back to the future again.

Please, a little bit of imagination never hurt anyone...;-)

EDIT:

By the way, Sean McCarthy is a fraudster for many reasons:

1) If one had an overunity device, he wouldn't sell 'developer kits'. An overunity device is a money printing machine.

2) the whole overunity demo was not an overunity demo. The excuse 'it's too complicated so we filmed a video' is absolutely absurd.

3) the "no back EMF" claim is absurd.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by masterp]




posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Hi Astyanax,

Actually i don't disagree in any fundamental way with what you said and gave you a nice old star ( the third) to show that i appreciate not only what you said but how you said it.

I will add some thoughts tonight as to why i omission is more dangerous than a outright lie and why i think you too could benefit by taking what i consider to be a wider view and no so easily overawed by the very same scientific consensus beliefs that have never done anything good for the progression of our knowledge of the natural world.

The 'scientific process' does not need protection from any person or group as the natural laws are not only more than able of maintaining themselves but frequently shows their inviolability by killing those who proceed without reflection or caution.

More later and regards for now,

Stellar



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Frankly, the universe has an energy sinking capacity that's practically infinite, while the amount of energy we could ever get out hands on is extremely limited in comparison.

The energy of untold trillions of stars blazing their output into the void does dick all to the average background energy of the universe. When the last of the stars are all burnt out to nothing, and the last black holes have dissapated, the universe will STILL be at about 3 kelvins.

any civilization that lasts long enough and uses enough power to make the background radiation level can just install heat pumps to increase the temperature of their radiators and keep blazing away even longer.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
If E (tn) = e + ne',

then E (t(n+1)) = e + (n+1)e'

Yum yum.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 





Frankly, the universe has an energy sinking capacity that's practically infinite, while the amount of energy we could ever get out hands on is extremely limited in comparison.


huh? Who is talking about the universe?

If you somehow pull energy from the future, or halfway across the universe, and use it on Earth you are adding that energy to a (relatively) closed system. The Earth is struggling to dissipate the energy it is receiving from the sun now, what is it going to do with all this free energy?



The energy of untold trillions of stars blazing their output into the void does dick all to the average background energy of the universe. When the last of the stars are all burnt out to nothing, and the last black holes have dissapated, the universe will STILL be at about 3 kelvins.


The energy of untold trillions of stars blazing their output into the void IS the average background energy of the universe. So what? Do you want to concentrate all that energy onto the Earth? What in the hell are you talking about?



any civilization that lasts long enough and uses enough power to make the background radiation level can just install heat pumps to increase the temperature of their radiators and keep blazing away even longer.


Oh, I see. Right.

So have you patented your radiator yet? Run it past the guys at the IPCC would you please? It might ease their fears.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Hi Astyanax,


Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by StellarX
 


Since we come from the same type of western schooling system, which for all practical purposes is a scientific one, i am not altogether sure what you mean by 'scientific' education when we are taught the same general methodologies by which to reach our conclusions wether they be in physics, maths or quite precisely structured languages. I am sure there are very few people who posts on ATS who have not had this type of education and that any lack of scientific rigour in argument will serve better as condemnation of the way the natural sciences are taught than the individuals who are around there twenties and still can not tell where science stops and baseless speculation begins.

The preference for staying on the 'safe side' can at best be called a personal failing when there is no one to yank your funding, damage or 'reputation' ( as scientist who don't question the status quo without it already being in tatters) or otherwise hurt the money flow that seems to be the base inspiration behind most of this 'safe science' you so blithely refer to. Perhaps that is just a argument against the way scientific research is done , or not done, in capitalistic societies but it hardly matters when that's encompasses so much of the research we see these days and all we really need to contend with. Further pursuing 'speculative ideas until experimental evidence is found' seems to be how much of the trouble starts as the scientific method works best when available evidence is pursued instead of attempting to find proof for speculative hypothesis ; unless you wish to concede that the difference between them and us is essentially who turns out to be 'accurate' independent of their training or ability There is significant overlap but as we have seen time and time again human beings , scientist or otherwise, tend to find what they are looking for in this world which always serves to undermine the way we experiment to thus best prove ourselves correct.

I agree with the principle that the acknowledged experts in a field can and should speculate&argue amongst themselves but i must necessarily point out that being best 'qualified' ( by a presumptive standard) or respected does not mean anything in terms of what is eventually determined real. Our idea of who is best qualified is merely a standard that has allegedly served us well but it's not a deterministic standard which logically leads to answers that stands the test of time. Just like might, independent of how it was gained, have always given right, by absence of means to resist in the rest, so truth is true independent of what the standards of the day might find acceptable or even logical; reality does not care if and by who it's workings is described. The history of science is obviously by en large a testament to self deception, outright misrepresentations and old fashioned abuse of accumulated power.

It is my view that it is right and proper for interested lay folk such as ourselves to know what the currently accepted views are long before we care to read about a similarly qualified individuals who happen to have reached different conclusions by employing the same sets of data and experiments. This is after all how science progresses which is not often explained to lay folk who rarely seems to grasp the transition periods where plenty of scientist in a given field necessarily lose 'face' and the grants that so often keeps them in house and home. Fact is our current system ensures that corruption will be rife and that contrarion analysis will only very slowly, if at all, make headway. Since scientist oft uses their speculation as evidence for their own quasi-scientific views, their human albeit better able to defend their own misrepresentations and deceptions, i think everyone should have the same right while they attempt to gain more insight and learning into their respective fields of interest.

As amateurs we are ideally suited to ask questions as unlike scientist with reputations&professional standings and perhaps decades of invested time we can change our minds for lack of serious investment where for them to do so could and frequently does risk not only a life's work but also a pension and a mortgage. Since the vast majority works for money they may be scientist second but first they are working for a paycheck and must eat like the rest of us and are as unlikely as the most uninformed amongst us to forget it. To suggest that those who have all the vested interest in the world not ( subconsciously if not consciously) to upset standards are paragons of impartiality and that they will always go where the evidence leads is to show a comprehensive ignorance of at least economics and human psychology; since i'm not even trying to insult you or anyone in particular i wont spend more seconds adding to the list of why a scientific establishment is as prone to corruption as any other variety of establishment with established self interests. If the question is how something like a 'science' can be monolithic then i can just add that processes and procedures as well as seniority&patronage can and does do well to mimic the reactionary achievements of rather more simple totalitarian systems.

I did not question the veracity of the 'laws of thermodynamics' as much as i questioned the abuse of such laws by those who do not understand the implications of when and how they are applicable and when not. We were specifically discussing the second law which deals not only with just macroscopic systems ( not all systems) but ISOLATED macroscopic systems at that. The host of fallacious , illogical and absurd assumptions that is required to thus rule our local macroscopic negentropic systems is why i object to those who in their vast ignorance wield 'the laws of thermodynamics' as blunt weapon. Those who wish to question why 'laws' are questioned should at the very least be familiar with the laws being questioned before they jump to the defense of established theories which hardly needs the defense of lay people when the qualified one's are doing a bang up job of it.

Scientific orthodoxy is necessarily the only jump off point for investigating the natural sciences as frankly no one should try to build their own house without at the very least making sure how everyone else built theirs. To question orthodoxy because it is that is not only foolhardy but also pointless as without alternative hypothesis, or at least to expose apparent flaws for further investigation, one is not contributing as much as one is exposing your own immaturity and insecurity. I do not make up alternative theories to the one's currently held, i am not that creative and hardly qualified, as much as i read papers and theories by those who are before sometimes deciding that some of them, even if not widely accepted, fits better with everything else i know of the world which again, obviously, may not mean much from your perspective. Since that is hardly a qualification and also a value judgement it's something everyone who is interested in these ideas should only consider if they are willing to give up on the notion of 'certainty' in as much as those can be perfect descriptions of the underlying reality of the one we observe.

In conclusion i wish to apologise for a good part of my past conduct as reading some of my older posts more often than not leaves me cringing for one reason or another. Since i have no doubt that i will feel the same way in five years i realise that what i lack in formal training i should at the very least try to compensate for in civility. Having said that i am still not sure how and why the second laws , or thermodynamics in general, is being employed to attack the observable evidence of local negentropy in our local rather significant macroscopic system. I understand that you wish to talk about the universe at large ( for some reason presuming it's a closed/isolated system when that has not been proven) but frankly that was never my intent and it is really completely irrelevant if entropy results somewhere else or the sun , our local source of negentropy, kills us all five billion years from now. What i and so many others are interested in is technology's that will allow is to use existing flows or stores of energy, like fossil fuels/wind/solar/tidal, to allow humanity access to cheap independent 'sources' of energy. We , at least the intelligent one's, never suggested that energy will be created or destroyed to facilitate such processes ( as as far as we know energy can't be) and we can not for the life of us understand why you attribute such ridiculous notions to us. Perhaps you can begin to understand why some , including me, get so very angry and exasperated with the second law stuff when we for the most part don't understand why you think it's relevant when we never but questioned their relevance on local scales!

Either way i have very little time these days but i would eventually like to get to our current understanding of EM theory to show that there are significant omissions that goes a long way towards explaining why so many lay scientist and engineers ( to say nothing of the educated one's) just wont stop tinkering! Perhaps if the theory was better understood and explained there would not , at the very least, be such great room for misunderstanding?

Regards,

Stellar

[edit on 14-2-2010 by StellarX]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

Just to clarify this:


Since we come from the same type of western schooling system, which for all practical purposes is a scientific one, i am not altogether sure what you mean by 'scientific' education when we are taught the same general methodologies...

I don't know how they do it in your part of the world, but where (and when) I went to school we got a 'general' education up to tenth grade, then for the last two years of high school we specialized. In those grades, I studied four subjects: physics, chemistry, mathematics and something called 'further mathematics'. I then went on to read an honours degree in physics, which is to say that except for a couple of extra-credit options in the first semester (in my case, pyschology and science fiction criticism), the only subject we studied was physics.

That's what I meant by a 'scientific education'.



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by StellarX
 

Just to clarify this:


HI Astyanax,

I'm quite surprised that's all you wish clarified; i didn't intend to type up 9500 words of commentary but that seems to be what happens to me when i try to clarify or explain myself.



I don't know how they do it in your part of the world, but where (and when) I went to school we got a 'general' education up to tenth grade, then for the last two years of high school we specialized.


Well i had maths, and physics/chemistry up to 12th grade with history and 'geography' ( Earth sciences would perhaps be a general description) falling away in grade nine or ten. Not sure what you mean with specialization in last two years so perhaps you can elaborate. Either way my point was generally that the method by which and the things were were taught were part of the accumulated scientific/ scientifically gained knowledge of humanity.


In those grades, I studied four subjects: physics, chemistry, mathematics and something called 'further mathematics'. I then went on to read an honours degree in physics, which is to say that except for a couple of extra-credit options in the first semester (in my case, pyschology and science fiction criticism), the only subject we studied was physics.

That's what I meant by a 'scientific education'.


Again not sure if you mean the last two grades ( we have twelve grades starting age 6 -18) were reserved for great specialization or if that was in fact what we would call the tertiary education in my country. Since that's where you will get honours degree's in physics i presume a 15 year formal education for you which would then be three more than me.

From this at least i would absolutely agree that you should know more than me and i hope you can thus help me understand the confusion that arises whenever people talk about entropy and the laws of thermodynamics.

Regards,

Stellar

[edit on 14-2-2010 by StellarX]



posted on Feb, 14 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
This thread still alive?

Anyways, why are you guys acting like kids? (Astyanax and StellarX that is)

First of all, any good scientist knows that any credits received in high school mean absolutely nothing. Honor credits? pfff, put them on your resume and you lose the job. Perhaps those credits are good to get you into college as it shows them you have an interest in the area, but nothing more.

StellarX, what exactly are you referring to when you say scientists abuse physic laws? If it turns out the universe is not closed, too bad, heat death theory goes down the drain, but 2nd law still holds as it says nothing about the universe. Theories and assumptions are not requirements of laws, its the other way around.

If you are talking about things you read here on ATS, remember that this is by no means a scientific community. If you want a scientific opinion you should look for the phd who has 20+ years of research *in the area* you are interested about. He will not only have the experience you seek, but perhaps a good amount of papers to back up anything he says. Don't have the time to do that? Open a physics book, their opinions are well stated there. But here on ATS we are not talking to scientists, we are talking to regular everyday people.

You cannot assume that Astyanax knows more/less than you based on his schoolwork - heck, I have a BSEE and know nothing no further than what astyanax has said so far - however here he is showing a lot more knowledge than the regular user and that's where you should base your assumptions from.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
As opposed to an artistic, technical/vocational or general education.

Or no education.

/Offtopic



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Hi Daniel,


Originally posted by daniel_g
First of all, any good scientist knows that any credits received in high school mean absolutely nothing. Honor credits? pfff, put them on your resume and you lose the job. Perhaps those credits are good to get you into college as it shows them you have an interest in the area, but nothing more.


That is normally what high school ( Universities in my country looks at the middle of the 12th grade exam results) results are used for and as you say it does not 'prove' that you know much as much as it shows what you are capable. Suffice to say that without the background of many years of schooling in general and science schooling in particular you have very little chance of being selected....


StellarX, what exactly are you referring to when you say scientists abuse physic laws? If it turns out the universe is not closed, too bad, heat death theory goes down the drain, but 2nd law still holds as it says nothing about the universe. Theories and assumptions are not requirements of laws, its the other way around.


The fact that you need to ask.... The misrepresentation of existing knowledge is often used to dismiss, or at least until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious, research and findings that are contrary to the currently accepted avenues of investigation. So a universal theory of entropy doesn't say anything about the universe? Why the reference to isolated and closed systems we no such systems are known to exist in nature other than perhaps the universe itself?


If you are talking about things you read here on ATS, remember that this is by no means a scientific community. If you want a scientific opinion you should look for the phd who has 20+ years of research *in the area* you are interested about.He will not only have the experience you seek, but perhaps a good amount of papers to back up anything he says.


You still do not seem to get it. Scientific reasoning is something different than knowledge and to presume that someone who uses a certain reasoning process is also in possession of all the knowledge he should be is inaccurate. Having twenty years of experience in a field does not make you right, more likely to be 'right' or anything in particular other than perhaps showing that you have accumulated a great deal of knowledge and were able to keep yourself employed and thus fed. This is the type of deference to seniority that has and will keep up holding up scientific progress in all areas.



Don't have the time to do that? Open a physics book, their opinions are well stated there. But here on ATS we are not talking to scientists, we are talking to regular everyday people.


What do you think we read and what sources do you think we used when we make the claims we do? Why is it that because one PHD with 20 years of experience reaches different conclusions than is perhaps the current norm i can't support his views? Are you just trying to tell me that it's futile, which i happen to realise, or are you trying to suggest that consensus is 'best' or what i should stick to? Trust me when i say that i do not dream up the contrarion theories i happen to support at this time as it really would be quite ridiculous.


You cannot assume that Astyanax knows more/less than you based on his schoolwork - heck, I have a BSEE and know nothing no further than what astyanax has said so far - however here he is showing a lot more knowledge than the regular user and that's where you should base your assumptions from.


Well if your a electrical engineer i would be surprised if you do not know more than Astyanax. As for Astyanax showing more knowledge than the regular user that would be why i am discussing it with him and not someone else. Either way we are not discussing something terribly complex and yet the misunderstanding is as visible on this forum as on one's where far better qualified opinions are available.

Sadly scientist are people too and little better than the rest at uncovering misrepresentations that are often enough reinforced.

Regards,

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join