A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[Ratchit]

Hello,

Well your new reply is neutral so there is nothing to reply to. So like i said, "Everything you said but just the opposite".
It is up to you who you want to believe, but time will tell. I believe the majority of the scientists, i have no choice because there is no other intelligent choice.

Oh yes there is. You can delve into the nuts and bolts of what they say and determine if it jives with what is really happening. Analyze their reasoning and determine if it makes sense. Look for alternate explanations and think about whether that better explains what is happening. But, most of all, follow the money. It is easier to get research money when the world is in a perceived crises mode than when things are going OK. I remember when "nuclear winter" was the big thing. Now, "green house gas" studies are proving more lucrative and sound more plausible.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

But Ratch, how, can anyone well-versed in science take your arguments about global warming seriously when you reject even elolutionary theory, one of the best examples of a theory explaining all known data, with evidence provided by multiple lines of thought and with multiple technological tools. The basics of the theory of evolution have stood strong agianst the harshest critics, including scientists, nonscientists and even you.

Personally, I dont know what to make of global warming theories because I'm not an expert in those relevant areas, and I have not put the time into studying the data. And the field is new enough that human falibility might not have filtered itself out of the process yet. But, I have put more than half my life into studying the basic information available about evolution theories, the fossil record and DNA analysis. No other scientific theory exists to explain the origin of life. As more data comes in, the theories are still holding strong, through the centuries, Yes, there are religious theories/beliefs, which I dont try to criticize, but a discussion about science is generally not supposed to appeal to religious arguments.

Time will tell the answer to the global warming mystery, but it seems wise to investigate whether humans causing the doubling (and beyond) of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a detrimental effect on the climate. Even if it turned out that all the past analysis was flawed, who can say that another problem is not looming at some critical threshold of CO2 in the atmosphere. The idea to wait and act only when there is clear proof of a problem may prove dangerous in that it might be too late to correct a problem once you are sure it is there. Some people like to be more proactive than that method. Noone is saying slam on the breaks and stop using all fossil fuels and go back to a cave-dweller lifestyle. People are recommending easing up on the gas pedal, and exploring other options. In that way we allow more time to study and understand and we ensure that useful technology will be in place if or when we need it.

And, dont forget there is big money driving both sides of the issue. It is disingenuous to suggest that only one side is seeking to obtain gains by lying. Humans are cabable of lying, both to others and even to themselves, but the scientific process always tells the truth in the end, if we use that tool correctly. Sometimes it takes time because of human predudices and vices, but the answers will be clear eventually.

 

[tvtech]

Here a some light reading for you ... (Thanks Joe )

Interesting stuff and a thread I fully expected to be closed long ago...so happy that people are discussing stuff and all.

Plus is I am learning too. Love you Guys

Regards,
tv

 

[Ratchit]

But Ratch, how, can anyone well-versed in science take your arguments about global warming seriously when you reject even elolutionary theory, one of the best examples of a theory explaining all known data, with evidence provided by multiple lines of thought and with multiple technological tools. The basics of the theory of evolution have stood strong agianst the harshest critics, including scientists, nonscientists and even you.

The above is a false statement. Biological evolution has a gigantic flaw in its basic premise. It assumes that some kind of order, direction or organization can somehow come about out of complete chaos. Neither you or anyone else has ever seen things left to themselves become more orderly or better organized. Things left to themselves are always winding down to a lower order of organization. You never see things organizing themselves to a higher degree on their own. It is silly to imagine life coming into existence from inert material. The simplest form of life is the cell. The lowest cell is unbelievably complicated and you could spend your whole life studying how it works. Yet some imagine that a life form could pop into existence immediately, or exist as a half-construct for an extended period of time. All over the world people who should know better are filling test tubes with organic compounds and zapping them with electric arcs, radiation, light, and who knows what else, hoping to see some indication of life formation. When you say evolution theory has stood up against critics, I say that it has been in a state of factual denial for a long time.

Personally, I dont know what to make of global warming theories because I'm not an expert in those relevant areas, and I have not put the time into studying the data. And the field is new enough that human falibility might not have filtered itself out of the process yet.

You don't have to be an expert in a field to evaluate someone who is. They can be judged by the results of their work.

But, I have put more than half my life into studying the basic information available about evolution theories, the fossil record and DNA analysis. No other scientific theory exists to explain the origin of life. As more data comes in, the theories are still holding strong, through the centuries, Yes, there are religious theories/beliefs, which I dont try to criticize, but a discussion about science is generally not supposed to appeal to religious arguments.

You are correct in rejecting religious arguments about the origin of life. You should reject any scientific arguments, also. You should instead accept a theological explanation. Let me explain. Religion relates to the worship of a deity. It can involve prayers, beliefs, customs, preaching, attendance at gatherings, proselytizing, solemn ceremonies, designated dates, holy leaders, holy books, vestments, symbols, etc. All that has no place in science. But a theological explanation only assumes a Being whose ability to create goes beyond the ability of science. I submit that is the one and only explanation for this universe and the life within it. It is also nonreligious and just as valid an explanation to consider as a scientific one. Science cannot explain everything, especially the origin of life.

Time will tell the answer to the global warming mystery, but it seems wise to investigate whether humans causing the doubling (and beyond) of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a detrimental effect on the climate. Even if it turned out that all the past analysis was flawed, who can say that another problem is not looming at some critical threshold of CO2 in the atmosphere. The idea to wait and act only when there is clear proof of a problem may prove dangerous in that it might be too late to correct a problem once you are sure it is there. Some people like to be more proactive than that method. Noone is saying slam on the breaks and stop using all fossil fuels and go back to a cave-dweller lifestyle. People are recommending easing up on the gas pedal, and exploring other options. In that way we allow more time to study and understand and we ensure that useful technology will be in place if or when we need it.

Time has already told us about global warming. It exists now, has existed before, and will probably exist in the future. It is a cyclical event because we have been warmer and colder in the past.

And, dont forget there is big money driving both sides of the issue. It is disingenuous to suggest that only one side is seeking to obtain gains by lying. Humans are cabable of lying, both to others and even to themselves, but the scientific process always tells the truth in the end, if we use that tool correctly. Sometimes it takes time because of human predudices and vices, but the answers will be clear eventually.

Yes, Big Fossil Fuel does not like to hear that they are responsible for global warming. Especially when it has not been proven. In fact, some think there is a better correlation of warming periods with the long term solar flare cycle level. You asked how anyone could take me seriously. I hope I explained how.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

But a theological explanation only assumes a Being whose ability to create goes beyond the ability of science. I submit that is the one and only explanation for this universe and the life within it. It is also nonreligious and just as valid an explanation to consider as a scientific one. Science cannot explain everything, especially the origin of life.

OK, let's focus on this. It is a non-scientific approach you describe here. It is my contention that even a theological explanation, in the way that you describe it, has no place in the scientific method. I would never try to take away any persons right to believe as you have just stated, or find answers by non-scientific means. I only say dont use that belief when you do science. I make no claims that scientific truth is the final word. I only say that it is a tool and a method with rules. You find possible answers with that method. You then are free to compare those answers with answers obtained by other methods. Then, it is your right to decide which answer is suited to your belief system.

It is clear that in the case of eveolution, science has proved it to be scientific fact and truth, by the rules of the method. There is no other scientific explanation that can compete. Now, the theology you decribe can compete with it, but it competes only in the human heart and soul, and not in any scientific arena.

 

[Ratchit]

OK, let's focus on this. It is a non-scientific approach you describe here. It is my contention that even a theological explanation, in the way that you describe it, has no place in the scientific method.

That is correct. The creation of life and the universe is beyond science.

I would never try to take away any persons right to believe as you have just stated, or find answers by non-scientific means. I only say dont use that belief when you do science.

Of course not. When and where science is meaningfully involved, I always stick to science.

I make no claims that scientific truth is the final word. I only say that it is a tool and a method with rules. You find possible answers with that method. You then are free to compare those answers with answers obtained by other methods. Then, it is your right to decide which answer is suited to your belief system.

Yes, science works for a lot of things, but not everything. I like to think my judgment is based upon the facts.

It is clear that in the case of eveolution, science has proved it to be scientific fact and truth, by the rules of the method. There is no other scientific explanation that can compete. Now, the theology you decribe can compete with it, but it competes only in the human heart and soul, and not in any scientific arena.

No, as I said before, evolution is a nonstarter with a faulty premise. Before you can claim it to be scientifically explainable, you have to resolve how life can arise where no life existed before. And then show how life can change from one form into an entirely different form. The theological explanation exists because it is the only way anyone can rationally explain how life and its variety came into existence. It is outside the purview of science.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

No, as I said before, evolution is a nonstarter with a faulty premise. Before you can claim it to be scientifically explainable, you have to resolve how life can arise where no life existed before. And then show how life can change from one form into an entirely different form.

Nothing in science is a nonstarter. Sometimes it is a non finisher, in that no good answers are found and maybe that questions can be attacked in the future when more knowledge is obtained.

You don't have to do anything before you can claim something is scientifically explainable. The scientific method works off the premise that all natural phenomenon are describable, and it works to make progress in the direction of providing better and better descriptions of nature.

There is no requirement to fully answer the final most difficult questions related to a phenomenon. One simply works and makes progress. Then theories are established and held to the fire of "agreement with observations" and "predictions of future findings". Over time, as theories prove that they agree with observations and provide accurate predictions of future findings, they are collectively considered by the scientific community to be good working theories, and the work continues.

No theory is final, and improvements are always sought. Even physics does not have a correct and final "theory of everything", and hence other fields have no hope of having a plausible "theory of everything". We simply work and do better. Evolution theory is no exception to the scientific process. On the contrary it is perhaps the best example of the power of science to penetrate truly difficult questions.

Long ago people used your argument Ratch to call other scientific questions "nonstarters", or "beyond science" or other words to scare the public off the sensitive topic. It seems there will always be people that try to dull the blade of the most powerful weapon man has ever put in the intellectual arsenal.

 

[tcmtech]

Okay if living organisms can't evolve or change over time then where did all of our domesticated plants and animals come from?

 

[JoeJester]

On the topic of global warming ....

We are in the infancy of the climate data record, as it's not very old (< a century) and the number of probes are scarce. In fact some of the temperature probes are influenced by environmental conditions, near heat generating devices.

There is a book by Watts, at this site, that looks at the various temperature probes and the potential problems associated with them. This can be found at https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

I know the true believers in global warming ... wait ... I mean climate change will disagree with the findings but I have not found anyone refuting the finding.

Yes, there is climate change. Did the industrial revolution cause the latest one? Who knows. What "revolution" caused the last one? We've had the ice age and the little ice age in the past. We have few probes calling the shots for "global" climate change. We have temperature/climate probes installed near heat generating sources and the data is contributing to the "global warming" data.

Ok, now on to an earlier time. Funny I should say time, because, it has changed over the years. https://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/ has a good summary of the solar system. The religious text predates all of that. No one to my knowledge has created a conversion routine to convert "God's time" as specified in the bible or other religious references and "human time" a scale we are more familiar with. After all, time is an agreed upon notion.

On the topic of evolution, since we evolved from Apes, according to the theory, you would think we would have "remembered" how to open the banana.

 

[Ratchit]

="steveB, post: 1207699, member: 114168"]Nothing in science is a nonstarter. Sometimes it is a non finisher, in that no good answers are found and maybe that questions can be attacked in the future when more knowledge is obtained.

The origin of life is not science, it is beyond science. Even so, you still have to have a solid foundation before you can proceed. And not being able to explain how life started "naturally" is a significant deficiency for a scientific explanation of evolution.

You don't have to do anything before you can claim something is scientifically explainable. The scientific method works off the premise that all natural phenomenon are describable, and it works to make progress in the direction of providing better and better descriptions of nature.

One can claim anything, but if the claim cannot be shown to follow the facts, what good is the claim? Being able to describe something is not the same as understanding how it works. Saying that future understanding will happen is a hope and dream which may or may not happen.

There is no requirement to fully answer the final most difficult questions related to a phenomenon. One simply works and makes progress. Then theories are established and held to the fire of "agreement with observations" and "predictions of future findings". Over time, as theories prove that they agree with observations and provide accurate predictions of future findings, they are collectively considered by the scientific community to be good working theories, and the work continues.

One has to have a understanding of the basics, or else any further postulation is a house of cards.

No theory is final, and improvements are always sought. Even physics does not have a correct and final "theory of everything", and hence other fields have no hope of having a plausible "theory of everything". We simply work and do better. Evolution theory is no exception to the scientific process. On the contrary it is perhaps the best example of the power of science to penetrate truly difficult questions.

A theory is an explanation of why things work, and corrections can be made. But if the foundation is not correct, some wild and incorrect theories can result and propagate.

Long ago people used your argument Ratch to call other scientific questions "nonstarters", or "beyond science" or other words to scare the public off the sensitive topic. It seems there will always be people that try to dull the blade of the most powerful weapon man has ever put in the intellectual arsenal.

Yes, long ago folk thought that geese came from barnacles. If fact, there is a breed of geese called "barnacle geese". Thank goodness some folks called that thinking a nonstarter.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Okay if living organisms can't evolve or change over time then where did all of our domesticated plants and animals come from?

Why don't you ask a hard question? Who said that organisms cannot change? Obviously, they do have an ability to change within a certain range. Look at the variety of dogs and cats. But no matter how much you breed a dog, it will never be a donkey. Domesticated plants and animals came from the wild, and the compatible ones were welcomed into our society.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

On the topic of global warming ....

We are in the infancy of the climate data record, as it's not very old (< a century) and the number of probes are scarce. In fact some of the temperature probes are influenced by environmental conditions, near heat generating devices.

There is a book by Watts, at this site, that looks at the various temperature probes and the potential problems associated with them. This can be found at https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

I know the true believers in global warming ... wait ... I mean climate change will disagree with the findings but I have not found anyone refuting the finding.

Yes, there is climate change. Did the industrial revolution cause the latest one? Who knows. What "revolution" caused the last one? We've had the ice age and the little ice age in the past. We have few probes calling the shots for "global" climate change. We have temperature/climate probes installed near heat generating sources and the data is contributing to the "global warming" data.

Ok, now on to an earlier time. Funny I should say time, because, it has changed over the years. https://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/ has a good summary of the solar system. The religious text predates all of that. No one to my knowledge has created a conversion routine to convert "God's time" as specified in the bible or other religious references and "human time" a scale we are more familiar with. After all, time is an agreed upon notion.

On the topic of evolution, since we evolved from Apes, according to the theory, you would think we would have "remembered" how to open the banana.

How do you conclude we evolved from apes? How do you know evolution is a viable process? Did you read my answers to steveB?

Ratch

 

[steveB]

So sad. LOL

 

[Ratchit]

So sad. LOL

?????

Ratch

 

[tcmtech]

But no matter how much you breed a dog, it will never be a donkey. Domesticated plants and animals came from the wild, and the compatible ones were welcomed into our society.

Actually genetic tracking and comparison techniques used in archaeology and anthropology have shown how many of todays species are related through past ancestry.

https://www.geneticarchaeology.com/
and
https://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/anthrogenetics-website/
For easy starters.

 

[MrAl]

Hi again,

Interesting discussion here and i am happy to see that most are keeping it civil and real.

There is too much to say in one post, so i'll summarize my own thoughts on these topics.

First, whatever we believe partly depends on how we collect our data and who we get it from. Someone claiming anything out of the blue is hard to believe these days because there are so many different motives, money of course a big one. People lie so it's hard to believe anyone when there are big stakes involved, but at the same time we do have to go with what we believe to be the most true at the time.

Second, climate change could be influenced by man if not directly caused.

Third, there has to be as least some validity to evolution even if it has not been scientifically proven to be a "self starter", and not all things HAD to evolve. A possible explanation for the starting mechanism could simply be advanced civilization initialization, or perhaps panspermia. Most scientists now believe that intelligent exo-life exists somewhere else in the universe, and this can be taken to be God or just a more intelligent life form. Many also believe that non intelligent dormant life or the starting elements of life could have been deposited from space.

As far as basic universal structure goes, small things can grow to be more complex things. We see this enough to know how it works. Small particles have to obey laws too, and these laws mean they have to behave in a certain ordered way, and that leads to higher complexity. I did not realize the power in this myself until a few years ago. When we look at how particles arrange themselves when they are around other particles, we start to see patterns. These patterns evolve into other larger patterns. It's amazing. Experiment with magnetized steel balls, see how they only have certain patterns they will arrange themselves into, yet each pattern could be different. It would not be uncommon to see a 'hex' shape form, and certainly a 'square' shape. It goes without saying a triangle shape. But who would think that a circular shape of almost any length can form, and still be somewhat stable. How about a figure 8 ? Sure, it's easy.

 

[JoeJester]

How did you jump to the conclusion I believe in evolution? I never addressed my beliefs as they are mot germane to my statement.

Who can say with absolute scientific certainty that God did or did not have a hand in the evolution of man. Does anyone really have a clue the number of minutes in God's day? I know, by agreements, man's day is 1440 minutes in length

 

[Overclocked]

Just a thought (more an idea) that Ive always had regarding the big bang and the origin of species-What if Life only exists because it needs to exist, because It has to exist. The Universe makes it so. There is no logical reason behind this, It just "is". In the beginning there was nothing, but then the nothing said "I want to become something" and something it became. As time went on, that something become everything we know; you, me, every tiny little atom has a part of that something. That something is the universe itself. We only exist because we chose to exist, because in order to sustain the universe, we need to exist. When we die, our atoms are still part of that something. That something lives continues on into the atoms of something else. We are all omnipresent and omnipotent. All life is god and we are god.

Evolution took place because it needed to. Quite possibly, in another alternative universe, there is no such thing as evolution, and so that universe died off because it's species didnt evolve.

This is all pure philosophy and possibly not what I may or not believe.

 

[steveB]

Evolution took place because it needed to. Quite possibly, in another alternative universe, there is no such thing as evolution, and so that universe died off because it's species didnt evolve.

This is all pure philosophy and possibly not what I may or not believe.

You are hinting at the anthropic principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

It's interesting that physics has hit this principle hard in recent years. Without a real clear explanation of how or why the universe must exist, they resort to this principle and the multi-universe concept. Either serially, or in parallel many universes, with varying laws of physics, are postulated. Only those universes with laws compatible with conscious beings will have conscious beings asking why the universe is compatible with life and consciousness.

I have to say it's an idea that I'm not comfortable with because it abandons a key principle of science, but it is interesting nonetheless.

 

[steveB]

Even so, you still have to have a solid foundation before you can proceed.

Why? How do you create a foundation if you don't proceed using the principles of science. This is why science does not label any subject a non-starter. All things in nature are a subject for science. If you have no foundation, you start building one.

Did Copernicus have a solid foundation for a sun-centered universe? No, because his model did not even work as well as the Ptolemy earth centered model. It was an idea that gradually gained traction as new experimental data came in. Eventually, Kepler figured out that the orbits were not circular, but were eliptical which made the model match perfectly and then a solid foundation was established. Then Newton fully described the theory of gravity and mechanics which made it all understandable. But, there were people trying to supress Copernicus' ideas because the subject matter was "outside the perview of science", and "in the domain of the creation by God".

And not being able to explain how life started "naturally" is a significant deficiency for a scientific explanation of evolution.

It's not a deficiency, it's a motivation to keep working. Copernicus did not know why planets would go around the sun, and Kepler didnt either. Newton made significant strides there, and Einstein did even better. But still we contemplate a quantum theory of gravity and we know we still dont have it all figured out yet. Even gravity might be controlled by God on a daily basis. Who can say, but that is not the question science can deal with. Science simply tries to describe how nature works. Whether it works as the end result of creation by God, or existance by accident is not the question science deals with. Humans deal with those harder question by different methods.

Saying that future understanding will happen is a hope and dream which may or may not happen.

Total understanding will never happen. Partial understanding does happen gradually. But, if we follow your lead and label any question or field as "a non-starter", then it never will happen. My prediction is that science will uncover the explanation of how basic laws of physics and chemistry lead to the formation of life under the right conditions. The explanation will not require the "active hand of God", but I won't object to anyone who wants to believe that the laws that guide the formation of life might involve a God. Call it a hope or dream if you like, but really I have no hope or dream about it. It's just something I feel with confidence based on the past history of science. Every time someone tries to draw a line in the sand and say science stops here, and God starts there, they are eventually proved wrong and the line is moved a little farther.

To me the issue of creation of life is relatively small compared to the creation of the universe itself. We can figure out the details of how life originates and evolves within the laws of physics and chemistry. The real mystery will continue to be how the fundamental laws themselves exist and conspire to create a universe. After that happened, the rest is all just details.