People have often asked which came first; the chicken or the egg. I would hope it was the rooster.
😎
😎
True. The rooster should have done a better job. Many more eggs, maybe.
E39 M5 Anthracite color. Tubi Exhaust. More mods to come. I'm modifying it to run on a bleed level of Brown's gas. This will, according to all acounts, drop emissions levels to virtually zero. Ie, near zero effulent and near zero carbon dioxide. Cost of modification if self installed (this ~is~ DIY here, is it not?)..about $400. At that point my car will be a consumer (still guilty on that point but NOT a global warmer-unless you count the thermal). Less output than an electric car. Even a solar panel powered car would have more effluent output, due to the parts it was built from and the damage to the envirornment that created.
http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=PowerPedia:Browns_gas&redirect=no
I do have a ER1200 (upgraded to a ER1600) Brown's Gas generator.
"Other researcher's published literature on Brown's Gas states that 1 liter of water would make 1866.6 liters of Brown's Gas. Normal di-atomic H2:O2 is 933.3 liters of gas per liter of water and Brown's Gas displaces more volume than normal because of it's mon-atomic constituent. The above example proves the volume increase and my experiments with my machines and Yull Brown's own machines prove it. Further, an old researcher in Brown's Gas just came up with a further method to prove the volume increase caused by the mon-atomic portion of the gas. He weighed it in a fixed volume at a fixed pressure and temperature."
However, read the previously provided link first, before jumping all over the latter quote. Things are not quite what they seem, apparently.
And John, The idea of the internet and the information available allowing any old idiot to find the exact comment they may like and make their own little rampaging screamy bandwagon or bus, yes. True.
But the other side of the coin it true as well. It allows those who look for the anomalous considerations to reach and find more of them, and the lesser understood points of science may be 'pieced together' into some coherent but yet not popularly recognized 'whole' of some sort.
You can't rant about the internet creation of this issue (both in your personal interpretation and the reality of it-in the context of the 'issue' you see) without recognizing it's advantages and value as well. Or vice-versa. Fair is fair.
Lack of balance is what I accuse science of -- and it stands, fully guilty of. Due to the reasons stated. I do not believe it is always off balance but there are aspects of how it does things which, like anything written in stone...over time....become a limitation. And in some areas of investigation....a VERY notable limitation. Hoisted by it's own petard.
Problem is, humans are involved. Like I said in an earlier post: All we have in defence of that..are the thoughts and voices of saner and more humane men.
When science begins to or attempts to encompass an area of science or 'edge' of reality (quantum considerations) as are found in 'over unity' and 'free energy' devices...(I dislike those terms, inaccurate and misleading...less understood would be more correct) ..there is going to be a clash of ideologies, methods and ways, tenants, etc.
The metaphyiscs folks, don't suffer from a limitation of having narrow viewpoints and/or levels and types of acceptance for data. The philopsophy folks don't suffer from that either. Due to this as an aspect of each, it is definitely possible to call both a far more refined, evolved, and erudite 'science' than 'science' itself - is.
A good scientist is a multiple-disciplinarian. A Renissance Man. Manifold in in his skillset. And does recognize the human animal for what it is. That is the doorway I speak of, that if you want to understand this stuff.. you gotta pass through it. This is an issue of the hindbrain, nothing more. However, in that seemingly simple statement, is a world of hurt and deep mental wrangling/reformation/transformation for those who wish to understand such-the quantum physics angle. For all the reasons I have stated, in multiple posts, and in many different ways-this is not a simple task for the individual. Each time, each post, I've attempted to drive the singular aspect or point, home. And it is ignored or missed, for the exact reasons stated. Stated right in the posts themselves, I say it-flat out. Again and again.
E39 M5 Anthracite color. Tubi Exhaust. More mods to come. I'm modifying it to run on a bleed level of Brown's gas. This will, according to all acounts, drop emissions levels to virtually zero. Ie, near zero effulent and near zero carbon dioxide. Cost of modification if self installed (this ~is~ DIY here, is it not?)..about $400. At that point my car will be a consumer (still guilty on that point but NOT a global warmer-unless you count the thermal). Less output than an electric car. Even a solar panel powered car would have more effluent output, due to the parts it was built from and the damage to the envirornment that created.
http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=PowerPedia:Browns_gas&redirect=no
I do have a ER1200 (upgraded to a ER1600) Brown's Gas generator.
"Other researcher's published literature on Brown's Gas states that 1 liter of water would make 1866.6 liters of Brown's Gas. Normal di-atomic H2:O2 is 933.3 liters of gas per liter of water and Brown's Gas displaces more volume than normal because of it's mon-atomic constituent. The above example proves the volume increase and my experiments with my machines and Yull Brown's own machines prove it. Further, an old researcher in Brown's Gas just came up with a further method to prove the volume increase caused by the mon-atomic portion of the gas. He weighed it in a fixed volume at a fixed pressure and temperature."
However, read the previously provided link first, before jumping all over the latter quote. Things are not quite what they seem, apparently.
And John, The idea of the internet and the information available allowing any old idiot to find the exact comment they may like and make their own little rampaging screamy bandwagon or bus, yes. True.
But the other side of the coin it true as well. It allows those who look for the anomalous considerations to reach and find more of them, and the lesser understood points of science may be 'pieced together' into some coherent but yet not popularly recognized 'whole' of some sort.
You can't rant about the internet creation of this issue (both in your personal interpretation and the reality of it-in the context of the 'issue' you see) without recognizing it's advantages and value as well. Or vice-versa. Fair is fair.
Lack of balance is what I accuse science of -- and it stands, fully guilty of. Due to the reasons stated. I do not believe it is always off balance but there are aspects of how it does things which, like anything written in stone...over time....become a limitation. And in some areas of investigation....a VERY notable limitation. Hoisted by it's own petard.
Problem is, humans are involved. Like I said in an earlier post: All we have in defence of that..are the thoughts and voices of saner and more humane men.
When science begins to or attempts to encompass an area of science or 'edge' of reality (quantum considerations) as are found in 'over unity' and 'free energy' devices...(I dislike those terms, inaccurate and misleading...less understood would be more correct) ..there is going to be a clash of ideologies, methods and ways, tenants, etc.
The metaphyiscs folks, don't suffer from a limitation of having narrow viewpoints and/or levels and types of acceptance for data. The philopsophy folks don't suffer from that either. Due to this as an aspect of each, it is definitely possible to call both a far more refined, evolved, and erudite 'science' than 'science' itself - is.
A good scientist is a multiple-disciplinarian. A Renissance Man. Manifold in in his skillset. And does recognize the human animal for what it is. That is the doorway I speak of, that if you want to understand this stuff.. you gotta pass through it. This is an issue of the hindbrain, nothing more. However, in that seemingly simple statement, is a world of hurt and deep mental wrangling/reformation/transformation for those who wish to understand such-the quantum physics angle. For all the reasons I have stated, in multiple posts, and in many different ways-this is not a simple task for the individual. Each time, each post, I've attempted to drive the singular aspect or point, home. And it is ignored or missed, for the exact reasons stated. Stated right in the posts themselves, I say it-flat out. Again and again.
Very few people know enough about those things to refute any of the claims.
But last I heard, talking months ago, no scientist believed in the Big Bang theory. The thing now is several big bangs.
As for point 4, "Belfast homeopathy results," I saw this on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
"Although many researchers now offered proof that the effects of homeopathy can be measured, none have yet applied for James Randi's million dollar prize. For the first time in the programme's history, Horizon decided to conduct their own scientific experiment.
(...)
To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."
Maybe point 4 is related to point 1, "The placebo effect."
But last I heard, talking months ago, no scientist believed in the Big Bang theory. The thing now is several big bangs.
As for point 4, "Belfast homeopathy results," I saw this on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
"Although many researchers now offered proof that the effects of homeopathy can be measured, none have yet applied for James Randi's million dollar prize. For the first time in the programme's history, Horizon decided to conduct their own scientific experiment.
(...)
To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."
Maybe point 4 is related to point 1, "The placebo effect."
poobah said:
KBK said:
We have problems here.
"Don't blame science" is a cop-out.
I'm sure Comte, the creator of the quasi-religion positivism, was a fan of Newton. But I'm equally sure Newton would have had nothing but scorn for the Pope of Positivism.
I cannot see how man can be taken out of the equation.
"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are so, and of things which are not, that they are not."--Protagoras
No. Muscle pain is our friend...embrace it.KBK said:
It details the limits that were exceeded. It is negative feedback, to help keep the system stable.
For me, it details the parts of my body that require bolstering before the next round
I am without a left ACL, 18 years ago. Bindings set very very low, requiring finess down the slope, as brute force will release the ski.KBK said:
Reckless endangerment of self and others is not minor, nor is it to be categorized as something as trivial as "speed freak". I have attended the funerals of those with your apparent mindset. Bravado and common sense are not mutually exclusive.KBK said:
KBK said:
No, you have not answered either, but simply deflected.
The first point you made was concerning proof of entanglement/speed of light for a pair of electrons that travel to either side of a solenoid. (I'm keeping it simple). I pointed out that neither is the case, but rather, it has been completely explained via Faraday's law of induction. And, it is consistent with something we are all familiar with, that of the operation of a toroidal transformer, even though there is no external magnetic field present. It is not magic, it is not unexplained, it is completely modelled, it predicts correctly, it tests out correctly.
Your blurb has been trashed. And, not by me, by others. Face it, you are pwned. (did I use it right Sy?)😀
The second one, that quarks were understood back in 1920, was it?
Complete and utter BS. Quarks, and quark-gluon plasma are just now being learned. Ask me how I know this.
KBK said:
No, it has to do with YOU answering the question. You presented it, you answer it.
You are not the first person to copy work for word, the ramblings of others and post it on a website as proof of something. You are not the first to claim understanding of the work of others (regardless of the level of fiction involved) but yet have no clue as to the topic.
It is neither good nor bad that you believe silly pseudoscience something taken from a book or the web. It just is. You do not have the background to discern it's accuracy. That is not a character flaw, it is simply one of educational background. And E/M theory is not exactly one of the easiest to understand.
Arguing the merit of pseudoscience to those who do understand the topic, that is just silly.
In this regard, you have several choices. Either accept and acknowledge that you do not understand the material and move on, continue to divert from that fact with silly posturing, or just discontinue posting in a silly attempt to save face.
IT IS NOT A SIMPLE TOPIC, VERY FEW ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT..
It's not the end of the world..
Cheers, John
KBK said:
No. You are taking completely unscientific information and attempting to use it to justify that which you wish. Nothing you are using has been subjected to peer review, no VALID tests have confirmed any of what you are speaking of.
It is not a lack of balance of science, it is you attempting to circumvent science with completely unfounded material culled from others. Since you do not have the option at your disposal to either prove or disprove all this free energy stuff, you accept the word of those who profit by your blind acceptance for understanding.
You WILL eventually fail to get free energy, and you will not report such. Nobody who falls for this ever reports failure. But until they fail, it's always "science's fault for not being right.
KBK said:
You have not introduced any logical science, you have stated nothing, actually. I have asked you twice for any plausible reasoning to explain why, for two very easily explained entities. And you have returned nothing.
I ask for science, you return philosophy. You divert from the issue, and hope I will be bamboozled into believing you understand the topic..it doesn't work that way.
Cheers, John
"Kidnap Pilot's Wife: Issue demands."
Once again, John, you are missing the point entirely. At this point I will not bother with responding to you anymore. I will not toss barbs, whine, nor will I attempt to get the last word in.
I have told you already. Again, and again, and again.
Once again, John, you are missing the point entirely. At this point I will not bother with responding to you anymore. I will not toss barbs, whine, nor will I attempt to get the last word in.
I have told you already. Again, and again, and again.
phn said:
They didn't? Who didn't? Man, there's about 1500 researchers here that are gonna have egg on their face..
Several big bangs? You talking brane theory? It's conjecture, made up. It has very far to go, many tests to pass, before it is considered plausible.
Same with string theory. Made up, constructed in the attempt to consolidate all. But being tested all the time, and modified.
Yah, I read all those sensational articles also. Very cool.
No it isn't. It is a direct rebuttal to the statement that science is in the wrong because some drivel posted or written by someone who presents entirely unscientifically based wishful thinking disagrees with reality.phn said:
I concur with the big wook, "blaming science" because it does not agree with a viewpoint serves no-one.
Cheers, John
KBK said:
You've stated nothing..as I stated, you have 3 choices..
1. Either accept and acknowledge that you do not understand the material and move on,
2.continue to divert from that fact with silly posturing,
3. or just discontinue posting in a silly attempt to save face.
You choose a combination of 2 and 3...I miss the point (diversion of fault), combined with I'm not gonna respond anymore.
I would have preferred dialogue. That is more constructive. It is unfortunate that you posted your way so deep into a hole.
Happy New Year. I wish you success with the goo.
Cheers, John
Astronomy is clearly beyond me.
I heard it on BBC, possibly on "Hard Talk." It might have been related to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4974134.stm
Science has that built-in defense, "conditional facts."
But then nothing is ever to be blamed. Surely social engineering cannot be blamed for bad social engineering (1930s Germany, Mao's China, etc.).
I heard it on BBC, possibly on "Hard Talk." It might have been related to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4974134.stm
Science has that built-in defense, "conditional facts."
But then nothing is ever to be blamed. Surely social engineering cannot be blamed for bad social engineering (1930s Germany, Mao's China, etc.).
NEWFLASH:
A plane with 100 narcissists aboard has been seized by terrorists. They are threatening to release one per hour until their demands are met...
😱
A plane with 100 narcissists aboard has been seized by terrorists. They are threatening to release one per hour until their demands are met...
😱
I like it, so as enjoy the articles in Sci Amer, or science, or APS on this stuff.phn said:
NO NO NO NO NO.phn said:
You misunderstand..where do you get this????
Conditional facts in science means.. that is what we know now, and while we know what we know now(rummyspeak), we state for all the world to see, that what we know is indeed bound to change.
Science is TESTING what we know as "facts".
The rants of others that science is silly because the "facts" keep changing is just an unfounded rant. The scientific process is THE REASON the facts change, specifically when the "facts" do not predict an outcome.
Cheers, John.
ps..if you think that is hard to read, try typing it..😀
jneutron said:
I do not misunderstand. I know that science is a method. Or methods since not all scientists agree one method is as valid others. Enter positivism and other junk sciences.
I do not call science silly. Those people I would lump with the weak-minded I mentioned some pages back.
Edit: Positivsm might not have been the junk science it is had the true believers realized the limitations of their religion. But that's probably a moot point.
phn said:
I didn't attribute that to you. I apologize for not making that very clear.
I do not agree, however, that the other posters within this thread are weak minded..on the contrary, I believe the posts would indicate otherwise.
I tour all manner of people in the facility here, most have little understanding of what I speak of so I have to keep it down to a 12 year old's level (this for high schoolers, degreed people, science prof's, and the layman.) It's not because they're weakminded, not at all. Many are intellectually well beyond me, just not in my domain..(and no master of my domain jokes)..
Cheers, John
jneutron said:
I'm not sure what you refer to. Anyway, no problem.
jneutron said:
I know you wouldn't try to put words in my mouth. But neither did I. Post 667 was (perhaps a lame) attempt to show that nobody is the fool. If I would accuse anything, for the case of argument, it's delivery. A person with good oratory or writing skills can win an argument even if his arguments are in fact the weaker. How ancient Greek of me.
Weak-minded was in referance to my post about string theory.
Ah, apparently my misread. Sorry again.phn said:
Where did you post on string theory. I do not recall such.
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.