Tesla Switch

[crashsite]

Rambling Rose

I'd say just the opposite, in most cases. Once someone has picked a belief system, it's often next to impossible to get them to change their minds regardless of the evidence presented.

I didn't mean to imply that once people have "picked" (or, more usually accepted someone else's pick...usually a parent's), that they aren't absolutely dogmatic about the fantasy they've opted for.

A sundial is more accurate than a broken clock, and has the added bonus that you know *when* it's right. Looking at a broken clock to try to determine the current time does *not* work, not even twice a day, unless you have another time reference to compare it to. The clock might say 3:15 but when you look at it, it tells you nothing about what the current time really is.

Oh, gee...you want it to actually tell the correct time, too? Some people are just never satisfied. Besides, sundials are a pain in the tush what with the earth wobling and spinning a revolving and being yanked around by the moon. And, then there's those darn pesky clouds and night and the occasional solar eclipse to dick around with. Who cares what time it really is, anyway (as if we actually had a way to know).

Were you done addressing the actual point, then?

I'd have to say the answer is pretty obviously, "yes" (and quite some time ago, too).

 

[philba]

Oh, gee...you want it to actually tell the correct time, too? Some people are just never satisfied. Besides, sundials are a pain in the tush what with the earth wobling and spinning a revolving and being yanked around by the moon. And, then there's those darn pesky clouds and night and the occasional solar eclipse to dick around with. Who cares what time it really is, anyway (as if we actually had a way to know).

to be fair, if you know the latitude and longitude and have a table of compensations, a sun dial can be quite accurate. I suggest the use of a sundial for your example wasn't best choice. The "wobbles" are highly predictable.

 

[ArrowHead]

Hmmmmmm...Sounds to me quite a lot like what people are going for when they pray. Of course, they have a, "real" intermediary (God) who makes it all possible. I did a post here related to that (which I coined, the x-factor) quite some time ago (it was not very seriously received).

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/threads/the-x-factor.36547/#post285873

Aint it amazing how casually and capriciously we pick/reject our fantasies?

Why are you trying to turn this into a religious issue?

Do you really think free energy nonsense has a damned thing to do with religion?

I’ll admit that the fervour with which some idiots defend these scams does approach religious levels, but a religion it is not.

Oh, gee...you want it to actually tell the correct time, too? Some people are just never satisfied. Besides, sundials are a pain in the tush what with the earth wobling and spinning a revolving and being yanked around by the moon. And, then there's those darn pesky clouds and night and the occasional solar eclipse to dick around with. Who cares what time it really is, anyway (as if we actually had a way to know).

So, you all but concede that your broken clock analogy is BS, then. Just so we’re clear on that.

Were you done addressing the actual point, then?

I'd have to say the answer is pretty obviously, "yes" (and quite some time ago, too).

Good, then please leave.

 

[crashsite]

No Religion Here

Why are you trying to turn this into a religious issue?

I'm not trying to make anything a religious issue. I am, however, trying to make the point that peoples' perceptions of what's real and practical and what's poppycock is not restricted to the "perpetual motion dreamers". When someone has a religios fervor we tend to refer to them as, "Pope" or "your holiness" or "brother so-and-so" or "elder", etc. When they profess to know of secrets of physics that defy the classical perception of them, they are referred to as "nuts" and "crackpots" and "loonies".

As the old saying goes, "Poor people are crazy...rich people are merely eccentric".

I believe that I have a more honest viewpoint than most since I believe they are all nuts. But, by and large, the religious community has a weaker case since it truly is based on fantasy where the dreamers at least try to put up a facade of achievable physics.

So, you all but concede that your broken clock analogy is BS, then. Just so we’re clear on that.

You kind of missed the point. The clock points out that there can at least be a percepton of usefulness or accuracy, even in the absurd. Sort of like the x-factor. Like the way people are able to see the absurdity of one fantastic concept and not that of another (I'm sure you can see the linkage to both the intelligent, thoughtful, accurate religious folks and the pseudo-science nut cases)

Good, then please leave.

This argument is fair game for this thread. I was not he one who either introduced the unatainable Tesla Switch or one who was ragging on those who believe that such things can be done...if ya can but just open your mind to the full specturm possibilities of science and physics.

 

[ArrowHead]

I'm not trying to make anything a religious issue. I am, however, trying to make the point that peoples' perceptions of what's real and practical and what's poppycock is not restricted to the "perpetual motion dreamers". When someone has a religios fervor we tend to refer to them as, "Pope" or "your holiness" or "brother so-and-so" or "elder", etc. When they profess to know of secrets of physics that defy the classical perception of them, they are referred to as "nuts" and "crackpots" and "loonies".

Generalizing just a bit much, don’t you think?

As the old saying goes, "Poor people are crazy...rich people are merely eccentric".

Never heard that one, myself. I think anybody can be either one.

To me, “crazy” means that someone is strange or mentally ill to the point where it seriously affects their day-to-day life, and “eccentric” means strange, but relatively well-adjusted. That being the case, I can see poor people being eccentric and rich people being crazy easily enough.

But this is beside the point. Religious people generally don’t set out to do others harm. Free Energy scammers and True Believers do. That’s just one way do distinguish between the two, and I’m sure others can think of more.

I believe that I have a more honest viewpoint than most since I believe they are all nuts. But, by and large, the religious community has a weaker case since it truly is based on fantasy where the dreamers at least try to put up a facade of achievable physics.

Apparently you’ve never encountered apologists… and I really don’t see how putting up a façade to make a fantasy seem realistic is a good thing. To me, that just seems to be another level of delusion and dishonesty.

You kind of missed the point. The clock points out that there can at least be a percepton of usefulness or accuracy, even in the absurd.

A perception of usefulness is totally useless.

Sort of like the x-factor. Like the way people are able to see the absurdity of one fantastic concept and not that of another

No, just no.

This argument is fair game for this thread.

No, religion is completely off topic.

I was not he one who either introduced the unatainable Tesla Switch or one who was ragging on those who believe that such things can be done...

And yet you’re defending it.

if ya can but just open your mind to the full specturm possibilities of science and physics.

It is. But not so open that my brain has fallen out.

 

[philba]

I think this wikipedia entry is appropriate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

 

[crashsite]

It's still a nutcase issure...not a religious one.

Generalizing just a bit much, don’t you think?

Let's for a moment muse that, rather than a respected mathematician like, Einstein, some 18th or 19th century "nut" had a major brain cell epiphany and proposed that space and time would actually, physically change in order to accomodate the notion that some constant (such as an ultimate upper speed limit) could not be breached.

Let's further say that the "Steam-Tech-Offline", technical discussion group were analyzing that theory. Just what do you think the discussion would have been like? My guess is that the "nut" would have been rouindly and soundly placed in with the perpetual motion idiots. But, would that attitude have made the theory wrong or invalid?

So, no. I'm not defending the perpetual motion crowd but, I am saying that it may not be completely out of line to at least give their theories the benefit of doubt rather than rejecting them out of hand. After all, "Out of the mouths of babes and fools.....", as another old saying goes.

And, after all...even then nuttiest perpetual motion nut still isn't so crazy as to believe in the boogie man (insert name of favorite diety here). Okay...to be fair, I'm sure a lot of them do but, not usually as part of their perpetual motion schemes.

 

[philba]

Uh, that's not the way science works. Here's the process:
- some one makes a claim, theory, postulate, what ever
- some other or same person demonstrates experimental results of claim
- unrelated party reproduces experiment, shows same results
- scientific community examines initial claim, results and reproduction of results.
The community accepts or rejects based on the examination.

No where in this process do the terms "open minded" or "benefit of the doubt" arise. It's not the way of the scientific world and has no place in the discussion. period.

 

[crashsite]

I'm sure the Pope blesses you for your views, my son...

No where in this process do the terms "open minded" or "benefit of the doubt" arise. It's not the way of the scientific world and has no place in the discussion. period.

Except you forgot the part where old ideas are revisited as new information becomes available and old theories and postulates are re-evaluated. In your world of science, Newton would be king and Einstien would not have bothered to think about any of what he did. What's more, a lot of people would be a lot happier, smug in their knowledge that classical physics was immutable.

At no point do I say that credence should be given to the claims of the perpetual motion dreamers...just that consideration should be given to their ideas before rejecting them on the basis of known physical laws and, keeping open the possibility that new informatilon may require new thoughts (ie: perhaps "known physical laws" are not quite so well known as we may think).

So, I guess, I'm saying that I patently disagree with your conclusion that keeping an open mind (or even allowing some doubt) is unacceptable behavior for a person of science.

 

[ArrowHead]

More empty rhetoric and faulty assumptions from the village idiot.…

 

[philba]

Well, we definitely see things differently. New ideas always come along, That's what relativity was about. It was just a theory until there was enough evidence as to its validity that it became accepted. If some guy says Brown's Gas makes his car run more efficiently - he needs to prove it with experimental results. No results - no credibility.

Scientists should come to a conclusion based on the theory and experimental results. A scientist is a skeptic - he needs to see it proven. Faith and open mindedness are simply not part of the equation and have no place in the scientific process.

 

[Torben]

Except you forgot the part where old ideas are revisited as new information becomes available and old theories and postulates are re-evaluated. In your world of science, Newton would be king and Einstien would not have bothered to think about any of what he did. What's more, a lot of people would be a lot happier, smug in their knowledge that classical physics was immutable.

At no point do I say that credence should be given to the claims of the perpetual motion dreamers...just that consideration should be given to their ideas before rejecting them on the basis of known physical laws and, keeping open the possibility that new informatilon may require new thoughts (ie: perhaps "known physical laws" are not quite so well known as we may think).

So, I guess, I'm saying that I patently disagree with your conclusion that keeping an open mind (or even allowing some doubt) is unacceptable behavior for a person of science.

Actually, I agree that an open mind is vital to science. However, that does not mean that an idea should be entertained when there is already a mountain of experimental evidence to show that the idea will not work.

In Einstein's case, there was no experimental evidence to say his ideas would not work--that's why he did the work in the first place, to try to explain existing results which could not be explained by the theories of the time. His ideas were found to be testable. They were tested. The test results confirmed what his ideas predicted. After enough repetitions of the tests, the ideas were accepted as valid theories.

What you are forgetting is that the scientific method starts from an observation, not a hope. You observe something, make a prediction (hypothesis) about it, then devise an experiment to test that prediction. If the experiment is negative, you make another prediction and test that. If the experiment is positive, you repeat the test to make sure it wasn't a fluke. If it's still positive, you try to get other people to examine the test methodology, reproduce the test, and confirm the results without your involvement. If the results are still positive, and an experiment cannot be devised which shows the hypothesis to be false, then you can accept the hypothesis--at least until it is disproven.

What crackpots do is break this chain, have no independently verifiable results, and then bellyache that the "establishment" is against them. Part of the problem is that to get the results they attempt to get to in the first stage, several other stages are skipped along the way. Instead of formulating hypotheses and testing them independently and thoroughly to ensure that the ideas are sound, they consistently wibble on about what they hope to achieve but offer no sound experimental evidence on which to base their claims.

If any part of the idea presented contravenes current understandings and theories, that part must be subjected to thorough testing to ensure that it performs as predicted by the presenter. If the results appear to break any existing rules, then all possible reasons for this must be eliminated until only the impossible remains. (By "impossible" I mean that it is performing in a way which cannot be currently explained.) On the off chance that the device is performing in an unexplainable way then the search would be on for an explanation. That doesn't happen a lot for crackpots.

The typical crackpot methodology is to simply decide that some idea really seems like it should work, then announce that they're building WonderDevice 2009. They offer no testable hypotheses nor experimental results to explain why the device might work, but instead dive right in to start building it. Even worse are the people who actually sell these ideas, and perhaps even the people who buy them and then think that the reason they can't get help about them is that the old boys' club or establishment is against them, when the reason is really that nobody wants to waste their time on ideas which have an obviously fatal flaw which hasn't been experimentally addressed.

Of course our current theories do not explain everything. However, these crackpot ideas do not address the things which are not understood. They just try to get something for nothing because "jeez dude, that really seemed like it would work".


Torben

 

[crashsite]

Tsk Tsk...

More empty rhetoric and faulty assumptions from the village idiot.…

In your mind it's empty rhetoric. In my mind it's a desire to keep an open mind to new ideas. I suspect, from your posts, that you don't learn much from anything but rote learning. Me? I tend to learn the most from the sources I least expect. I am often amazed and delighted when some crackpot idea jostles some brain cells and I suddenly "understand" something I thought I understood.

Yes, I realize that you've already concluded that the above statement is an unabashed and glowing endorsement of any and all crackpot theories and, far be it for me to spoil your fun by trying once again to say that it's not.

I guess maybe I pity you just a tiny bit for your steady, plodding fealty to conventional science. Yeah, I know...your mental methods are so highly superior to mine that no pity is necessary but, hey...allow me this one indulgence, okay?

I don't usually get into this kind of disclosure but, since it's somewhat germain, I'l make an exception here. I was a technical instructor for a large aeropace company. Of course, just in general, I never taught a class that I didn't learn vastly more than the students. But, sometimes I'd be explaining somelthing that I thought I was pretty familiar with when a little light would come on, right in mid-sentence..."ah ha! THAT'S how that works!!!". Oh well, if you've never been there, that probably doesn't impress you too much......

 

[crashsite]

Actually, I agree that an open mind is vital to science. However, that does not mean that an idea should be entertained when there is already a mountain of experimental evidence to show that the idea will not work.

Well, I'm not going to quote your whole disertaion and I don't disagree with what you say about scientific methods or the "cry baby" nature of the crackpots. But, there is something to be said for continuing to explore those things that, as you say, "just seem like they should work". Thankfully, Einstein did just that. I mean, honestly...he really did go right to the teetering edge of science fiction with that relativity stuff.

Magnets are one of those things that seems to capture the imaginations of the perpetual motion dreamers and, there's no denying that there is a "force" there that just seems like there should be a way to exploit in some sort of feedback loop to create perpetual motion. It's not that I think there will ever be the break-through theory that solves perpetual motion but, I do have a fairly high confidence that some crackpot will come up with some theory or hypothesis or method that will get somebody else thinking in a direction they may not have explored in order to come up with some new, unique or novel use of magnetic fields or energy.

Who would have predicted the hall effect or the MRI or electric motors or even radio communications a couple hundred years ago (even though the magnet was pretty routinely being used for various things at that time)?

So, as Mr. ArrowHead might say..."The village idiot has spoken".

 

[philba]

I think we should define the term "open minded". It gets misused a lot, I believe. Perhaps even by me. If it means "considers things for critical evaluation" then I will agree that scientists need to be "open minded". If it means "accepts what others say as the truth" then NFW.

As long as I'm posting, the Wikipedia article on the scientific method is a decent summary of the process - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Note that Einstein didn't just come up with relativity out of thin air. There were certain discrepancies that Galilean Relativity (aka Newtonian Physics) couldn't explain. In particular, the experiments of Michelson and Morley in the 1880s showed that the speed of light was constant no matter what direction you were traveling. By the theory of the day, there should have been a difference based on the relative speed of the source and the observer. Albert came up with an elegant theory that fit the observations. So, using Einstein as an example is just plain specious - there was a problem with accepted theory and people were trying to explain it.

 

[ArrowHead]

crashsite, do you mean to say that basically, you’re playing Devil’s Advocate?

 

[crashsite]

Playing Divil's Advocate

crashsite, do you mean to say that basically, you’re playing Devil’s Advocate?

No, I'm not much for playing board games.

Okay...that one was stolen directly from the Simpsons (although I think it may have been a pinball machine there).

I think we should define the term "open minded". It gets misused a lot, I believe. Perhaps even by me. If it means "considers things for critical evaluation" then I will agree that scientists need to be "open minded". If it means "accepts what others say as the truth" then NFW.

Being "open minded" doesn't mean you have to agree with anything. It just means that you need to give fair and honest consideration to all views and theories. Once you've done that, you are free to accept or reject them as you see fit...but, keeping open the possibility that new information may require revisiting them in the future.

In fact, being open minded often means NOT agreeing with something even when pressures may be brought to bear on you to agree.

Regarding Einstein and relativity. Even now, 100+ years later, it's still kinda freaky and, if there was ever a "God-send" for science fiction writers, that was (and still is) it.

 

[ArrowHead]

Being "open minded" doesn't mean you have to agree with anything. It just means that you need to give fair and honest consideration to all views and theories.

I’m glad that you understand that.

Now you should try to understand that, if I bash something, it’s usually because I’ve already given it a fair and honest consideration (and concluded it’s a load of @#$%).

 

[Torben]

I’m glad that you understand that.

Now you should try to understand that, if I bash something, it’s usually because I’ve already given it a fair and honest consideration (and concluded it’s a load of @#$%).

A very fair and concise way to put it.


Torben

 

[philba]

Being "open minded" doesn't mean you have to agree with anything. It just means that you need to give fair and honest consideration to all views and theories. Once you've done that, you are free to accept or reject them as you see fit...but, keeping open the possibility that new information may require revisiting them in the future.

In fact, being open minded often means NOT agreeing with something even when pressures may be brought to bear on you to agree.

Sure, however when some one posts about HHO or some perpetual motion gizmo being a load of hooy, they usually get accused of not being open minded. That is, in fact, not a lack of open mindedness but rather an opinion that has been drawn from an understanding of physics and chemistry. So when I hear some one ragging on about people not being open minded I think that the lady doth protesteth too much.

Instead of ragging on about closed mindedness, they should be presenting results. They never do. At least, results that are actually experimentally reproducible. But I am harking back to the scientific method...