mooeypoo

It's called peer review, and it's an essential part of science. We are supposed to try and rip your theory to shreds, it's like playing "devil's advocate". The stronger the theory, the better it stands this trial by fire. If it fails, it's obviously not good enough, and you go back to the drawing board. If it succeeds, we go on to the next steps. The problem with formulating an idea without knowing the current theories is that you are very likely to run into a problem you don't know about, that the current theory actually solves. The current theories were not invented out of convenience or luck, they took years (and sometimes decades and more) to formulate, going through changes and adaptations because of phenomena that were discovered and caused a problem with previous theories. When you know why the theory is considered to be working, you know where its "holes" are too - you have much better chance of trying to figure out a competing theory that can actually be BETTER than the current one. If you're just throwing out an idea without knowing what the current theories are, you're likely to be shot down by complex issues that exist in current theories and that current theories solve. ~moo

Uh, no. There are many more types of energies, not just kinetic and potential. Elastic Energy, for instance (used usually in motions that involve springs). It's true that you can split energies to the very broad thinking of "potential" and kinetic but that's not to say there really are two types of energies. These are two broad categories. Broadly stated, yes, but it's not always linear. There's also a magnetic energy, related to the magnetic moment of the object and the magnetic field. You should try to avoid splitting the energies into the two groups of potential and kinetic because then you might miss the less commonly known energies that are relevant here. Magnetic energy can be viewed to belong under the "Potential" energies category, but it's not exactly the potential energy that people usually refer to.. It might just end up being more confusing than helpful, is the point I'm trying to make. ~moo

Do you mind sharing with the rest of us? What's BMD?

Forgive me for being pedantic, but do you have any supporting evidence for this?

Sanandra, you're asking a question, you're given an answer, you're being asked to check out the background of the theory because it's quite clear you don't quite understand it, you ignore that request and post another question as if no one can answer your question to begin with. That's an unfair misrepresentation of what people are telling you. Special relativity is REPEATEDLY proven by experimental evidence and valid mathematics that produce *VALID* predictions. Here's a tidbit: Source: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html and this: (emphases not in original) Source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html The above issue with the GPS explains how this is a valid experiment using atomic clocks. This shows you that not only was an experiment conducted with clocks, but that it is CONSTANTLY being "conducted" by the GPS satellites. The mere fact we predicted precisely how much delay the clock would have relative to Earth clock -- and successfully! -- is your requested experimental evidence using clocks. You should read a bit about Special Relativity. It's very interesting, and it will likely solve some of the misconceptions you seem to have about the theory. ~moo

No, no, infinite energy won't help you here even if there was a viable way of getting it (which there isn't, as there isn't any "infinite" anything in the physical universe). The main "problem" with the speed of light is the fact that space-time is connected which means that anything travelling at the speed of light cannot have mass. And if you would have read insane_alien's response before you posted your comment, you'd have seen he answered it already. What's your proposed allergory for the "bubble" of gas inside the "medium of space" that supercavitation requires? ~moo

The problem with this is that the description leads to an action or inaction. When I state that something I don't understand is "magic", I am essentially satisfied with not knowing. Magic implies that it's something I *CAN'T* know (temporarily or not, doesn't matter) so if I state that something I don't know is magic, I essentially stop asking more questions about it or researching it. That's not how science works, and not how science is supposed to work.

Sananda, stop making extravagant claims that have nothing in them. Which mechanisms are understood but ignored? Gravity is understood but ignored? How is gravity like magic? What, in all that is sciency are you rambling about?? Stop posting just for the sake of posting. This thread has a very clear subject to it, stick to the subject coherently or stop wasting our time. ~moo

Luck has nothing to do with it, sananda. Some of us just seem to actually know how to do the proper research for our claims. You should follow.

I prefer to avoid treating a book that says the world is flat or that light was created before the sun (among other things) as valid in a scientific discussion. Move along now, folks, there's nothing to see here.

We have to admit nothing other than scientific evidence, sananda. If an analogy fits, it will be used to make a point. You should be thankful that people take the time to try and explain complex physics to show you where you might be wrong, as opposed to just sending you along to read some basic (and not so basic) physics. I recommend you give some respect to the people who take the time to answer you and actually care enough to help you understand. ~moo

I think we do understand the effect, we just can't immediately categorize it in everything. In the effect of prayer, for instance, it's not categorically true that it's working -- for some it works, for some it doesn't. That's not quite accurate. If your intention is to say that magic can fall into the category of placebo, then it's quite a broad generalization - I'm not sure all what people consider supernatural or magic fall into that category. Some might, sure, but some is outright proven false. Astrology is proven false, for instance. There is no "maybes" in it. Voodoo is also something we can safely say is not something "we don't understand yet". Same goes with leprecauns. If you have a phenomenon you want to research, you have a very clear methodology by which to figure out its efficacy in reality. Most of the supernatural and "magical" claims have been tested and proven false. They no longer fall under "we don't understand yet" but rather under the discarded beliefs that preceded actaul scientific endeavor. There are, indeed, things in science that we "just don't understand yet" but they have support in reality, in experimentation and in mathematics, they produce valid predictions and we can test other phenomena by them. We might not be 100% clear on their process - which is why we still have research - but we do not just drop the subject into that category randomly. Scientific phenomena need to have merit, period. So far all magical and supernatural claims that were made either have no merit or were proven to have no merit or were shown to be something entirely different - realistic, rather than "supernatural". Indeed. And yet, it didn't. ~moo

Another note here: There's a very good reason for our skepticism (to say the least ) in this type of machine. Not only is it a well tried (and repeatedly failed) attempt - specifically with magnetics, as you propose - but also, it defies a very important principle in physics that is the preservation of energies. For such a machine to be truly perpetual - and for it to have viable commercial outcome - it needs to produce more energy than it's using. Since it's considered a closed system, that's just not possible, physically. The energy must come from somewhere -- there's no such thing as a random production of energy. If you have an output of it, you somewhere in it have an input of it. I can see why you would think galaxies and planet orbits are perpetual motion (I remove the word "machine" here, though) - they certainly seem to be moving undisturbed forever. But they're really not. First off, they do not move forever. They do lose energy and the general orbit decays. It's true that this effect takes time -- a lot of time -- so we don't notice it as much, but that just shows that they still obey the laws of physics, conservation of energies and the laws of thermodynamics. Second, these systems are not producing new energy output. Their movement depends on conservation of energy, so that makes them absolutely NOT a perpetual motion machine. For that matter, if I were to kick a baseball into space, it would continue moving with its initial speed forever, unless something stopped it. Theoretically,since it's moving forever, will that be a perpetual motion machine? It will move (motion) forever (perpetually) so I guess one could make the case for it, but that's definitely not what is being proposed usually when people talk about perpetual motion machines. The movement of this baseball does not output any energies you can use, so it's irrelevant. It's moving forever until stopped, and in that aspect it's perpetual motion - great, but it doesn't give you anything useful. Your proposed machine will start moving and output energy out of the system. If you do not input more energy into the system, the movement will decay and die. ~moo

If F(net) is the red arrow, then your image is incorrect. It should be: [math]F_{net}=F_{2}cos(\theta) + F_{1}cos(\alpha) [/math] Where [math]\theta[/math] is the angle between F2 and F(net) and [math]\alpha[/math] is the angle between F1 and F(net).

That's not what you claimed so far, you are aware of it, yes? If there's only one reality, then the measurement of reality produces the answer about reality. Which means that if prayer was proven false in "objective reality" of science, then it's false in any reality. I'm not sure I philosophically agree with that, by the way, but since we finally agree that we're not having a philosophical discussion, we can move on. No, you're missing the point. Mathematics describe the same reality as physical theories do. They go together. If math leads us to something that physical experiments show as false, then there's something wrong with the math - it's not describing reality as it should. Saying that reality is the same for everyone but different in the way you describe it is meaningless. It's either the same or it isn't. If relativity is producing valid predictions (and it does) then it doesn't matter through "whose eyes you view reality", it will produce valid predictions and describe reality. That's the meaning of a scientific theory. If you have a theory that only works if you view it through a particular set of "eyes" and fails in physical tests, then it's not a valid scientific theory. And in this case, prayer, which is the subject of our discussion for the past few pages, is completely ineffective practically. In reality. Proven. Do you disagree? Excellent; produce evidence otherwise, but the evidence need to be *as valid* (or more valid) as the evidence that show it ineffective. Otherwise, just concede that this is a philosophical issue that may or may not have to clash with modern science. You can believe in it if you wish, but understand that any sort of empirical debate about it is going to meet problems. As you can see in this current debate. First, please don't tell me what i believe. It's not just about not being pretencious, it's also about the wording. I don't use belief when I discuss science becuse belief - in science - is not relevant. If I need to use "belief" to support a claim or a position, then I am aware that it is not scientific. I have those, like anyone else, but I don't pretend these are scientific. Any scientific matter - from Neutrinos to Dark Matter - has valid empirical basis to them. They might not be 100% proven, but they are quite close to it. They are supported by experimentation, by mathematical description, and they produce valid predictions. You cannot say that about Spirits or cosmic energy. The comparison is invalid. You seem to not get what science is about, tar. Science is about empirical, methodological description of reality. It requires support - physical, realistic support, not imaginatory pretenda-support. Dark Matter is supported by evidence. Can it be proven to not exist? doubtful (*something* is there for sure,the question is what) but possible. That's the corrective nature of science. But if it is proven to not exist, then the predictions we ARE MAKING right now by using its existence will have to be adjusted. It will need to be adjusted because we manage to predict behavior in uor universe using the existence of Dark Matter and actually produce *TRUE* predictions! You can't say that for ghosts. You can't say that for spirits. You can't say that for leprecauns. You cannot say that for prayer. That's the difference. And, by the way, tar, as a scientist, I will argue against points that seem illogical to me, but I will be looking forward to the day I am shown to be wrong, because that means I am growing as a person and as a scientist. It also happened before, and will undoubtedly happen again. I am not just not afraid of being shown to be wrong, I welcome it. tar, coming to the chatroom and announcing you're not going to be reading any of this and then leaving suddenly without allowing anyone to answer you is not very much open minded, is it? What are you afraid of? ~moo

How is it relevant to the discussion at hand, tar? You were given an answer that crushes some of the claims you made. Instead of dealing with it, you produce a "red herring" - an unrelated question that is SUPPOSEDLY related to the subject but only serves to divert the attention away from the fact you were just shown to have problems with your claims. Stop, seriously. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, this thread is scientific. We are not measuring philosophy because philosophy cannot be measured. We discuss science. Scientifically speaking, prayer was measured. Why? because they scientists got grants for it, obviously. Scientifically speaking, prayer completely failed the measurement tests. Not only was it shown to have no effect, it was shown to sometimes have ADVERSE effects. You can twist it as much as you want, that will not change the fact it was shown to be completely ineffective. Scientifically speaking Prayer is proven to be utterly ineffective, tar. Stop changing the discussion from philosophy when you feel like it to science when you feel like you're losing. SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING prayer has as much merit in it as an indian rain dance, worship of the invisible pink elephant, goat sacrifices and wiccan ghost dance. Stop diverting the argument to philosophy when we are talking about empirical science.

Good question. Remember I said that it's irrelevant in my first posts? Read up. Technically, the effectiveness of prayer is as "scientifically relevant" as measuring the effectiveness of wiccan winter dance. However, since this subject is VERY VERY popular, scientists took it up. Good for them. We ended up having empirical results. If you feel like it, you can pick up wiccan winter dance and see if you get any results, too. I wouldn't recommend it, but if you think it has merit in reality - strong enough merit to "waste your time" in measuring it - then go for it. The results will tell the story. In the case of prayer, obviously enough people claimed it worked - like the cases of ghosts, lepracauns (yup, science checked a few stories of that too, go figure) and bigfoot (same here, my my)- to have scientists get grants to actually test if it works. Woo hoo. Pick a subject and research it, the fact it's researched does not give it validity, it just means it's popular enough to get money. tar, philosophy is not the same as science! Remember I said you're moving the goal post? We either discuss science (which we're supposed to) or we don't. If you want a philosophical debate about whether or not all of reality is measurable, then we will have to redefine the debate to be philosophical and not scientific. We will also have to switch forums for that. This is a science forum. Empirical reality is what we discuss here, not imaginative explanations for possible other subjective perceptions. That's philosophy. You're mixing a bazillion different subjects here, each can be discussed SEPARATELY, measured for its validity and discussed scientifically. Either it will be "discarded" as *proven false* (like prayer was) or regarded as irrelevant for it's unfalsifiable nature (like prayer, even if it wasn't actually empirically proven not to be effective) or measured objectively and regarded by the OBJECTIVE scientific results it produces. You can't mix all those things together to prove your point, each of those is absolutely different. If you think they're alike, *and* that they are all objectively measurable in physical reality (PHYSICAL reality, tar, not abstract philosophy) then go ahead and discuss each separately, or show why they're all related exactly the same. But in this case you will need to speak scientifically. You will need to follow the scientific method. You can't mix science and philosophy and come out with a science answer. If you mix the two, you'll come out with a philosophical answer. A scientific answer will be one that actually is relevant to the collectively accepted objective reality. The one that we can undeniably measure. The one by which F=ma, E=mc^2, etc, because they were PROVEN *objectively* regardless of what subjective thought anyone may have on them. You can have subjective thoughts or opinions against E=mc^2, but those are absolutely irrelevant to science until you actually show any real physical effect that falsify E=mc^2. If you don't, it's philosophical thought exercise, that is may be totally interesting and entertaining, but is utterly irrelevant to science. Science,tar. Science. Empirical, objective, methodological empirical measurment and description of reality. Objective reality. Even if a subjective reality exists, we know that an objective one exists as well otherwise my 100lb brick would take a different time falling to the ground from same heights than your 100lb brick from the same height. SOME of reality may be subjective, but that's not to say all of reality is subjective. Or that is not to say that we cannot discuss objective reality. That's crap - proven. All the theories that are actually successful in making valid predictions (like evolution, gravity, relativity, etc) PROVE that reality can be treated objectively. Science deals with the objective part of reality, because the other part is irrelevant to it. If we were to argue if Mars was a planet or a poopalooza ball, we'd never get away with actually making progress. That's what I'm talking about when I tell you to stop talking science while actually talking philosophy. It's meaningless because it's a *TOTALLY DIFFERENT* discussion. ~moo

I don't understand why you keep insisting inserting prayer and God into this, tar. I do agree that there's a philosophical issue with "consciousness" and perception of reality. We solve this in science by relating to an EMPIRICAL version of reality -- hence, reality that we can measure. If we can't really measure or test it, we leave it for the realm of philosophy. Which is a great and interesting subject, but is NOT empirical. You can't mix empirical data - and empirical scientific subjects, with their methodologies - with subjects that by definitions cannot be measured. For that matter, why not replace "prayer" and "God" with "wiccan ceremony" and "Zeus" ? Is it the same result? if not, why? How would you judge that it isn't? Is there any way to judge so? etc. In other words, tar, I don't quite get the relevancy here.. we're discussing empirical science and you insist on inserting a subject that not only is not empirical but cannot be empirical. We can discuss it, but we have to redefine the discussion from science to philosophy, and not mix it. Scientifically speaking, empirically tested reality shows that prayer is not effective. Philosophical speaking, reality can be subjective and lord Xenu can exist. Trust me, I can make that argument philosophically and stay in the realms of logic, if we frame the argument in philosophy and not science. Stop mixing the two. ~moo

...

We have no objective way to measure subjective reality; if reality is STRICTLY subjective, there's no meaning to "empirical evidence" and science is irrelevant. Seeing as we know for a fact that at least some things are objective, because we successfully use them to predict how our reality "behaves", it is quite safe to state that anything subjective can stay the realm of philosophy, and science is safe and sound dealing with the objective, empirical reality. ~moo

First off, if you're already bothering to put up a quote, the least you can do is give us its source. Second, that quote is quite ridiculous. There are definitely things we can -- and do -- know about our universe. There are things that are empirically and objectively testable. Going on your so-called scientific hypothesis with a thought that you can't really know anything is not helping you devise a method for actually finding something.

I'll bite, but I must reiterate: Subjectively speaking is a problem when you try to reach an objectively empirical answer. Fair enough. We all do that, when we are in possession of an insight. However, when individual (subjective!) insights "bump" against each other, how do you recognize which insight is better in representing reality? If I disagree with you just as passionately as you disagree with me, then how do we judge which of us is right -- or, for that matter, whether either of us is right? The only way to reach such a conclusion is by transforming this subjective insight to an objective research and discuss objective reality. That is the point in science. Great! But of whose reality do you speak? You subjective perception of reality, or the objective empirical fact of reality? Pick one, and don't mix the two. How did you judge that? How did you reach the conclusion that magic is false? I happen to agree with you on that, but I agree because objectively speaking, magic does not work. When we test anything supernatural (or, to be fair, anything supernatural that was so far claimed to exist supernaturally) it simply fails all any any empirical testing. Some fail even before that, on the lack of merit of the logic or for the simple fact that they are impossible to handle objectively - for example, they are unfalsifiable. When you discuss personal appeal, it is subjective, and isn't science. When you discuss how reality really work, you must transform into an objective few and examine your claims and their efficacy on objective reality. Not stipulated - evidenced. You have clear evidence that whenever the efficacy of prayer was tested empirically, it failed. That is quite clear. I agree with you that there was another mechanism, because clearly *something* was working to the individuals that practiced prayer, otherwise they wouldn't have practiced it. We differ on how to test it. To be fair, tar, what we have is a story by an individual. I'm not sure what, exactly, people are doing when they pray, and if all those who claim it worked for them (subjectively) do the same thing. I am also not sure if it actually worked. Can you be sure that the resulting "success" was really logically a success of praying? Let me give you an example. Person A goes through a terrible accident and is now lying in the hospital in a coma. The doctors are fighting for his life. His friend decides to pray for him. Person A goes through a lengthy, complicated operation where the doctors manage to save his life, but they must take out his leg. He comes out of the operation alive with a great potential of a good life with good health but without a leg. The friend claims his prayer worked. He prayed for his friends life, the friend is alive, prayer worked. Person A claims the prayer failed miserable. He has no leg, that's no way to live for him. Who's right? How will you be testing who is right? And how do you know that it's the prayer? I claim it has nothing to do with the prayer, but rather with the doctors, and their skill. Whether the friend would be praying or not, would have no effect on the outcome whatsoever. How do you test to see which one of us (me, the friend, or Person A) is actually right in his and her representation of reality? Do you see the problem? One of the biggest problems with prayer is that pretty much *ANY* solution that isn't death (and there are a lot of possible ones) considered to be a success. The only way to measure these and how much efficacy they truly have on reality is to shift to an objective testing of reality. You don't anymore, which is great, but you did before, and here's why: It seems to me that your treatment to the efficacy of prayer isn't necessarily the prayer itself but rather accompanying issues. For instance, we also spoke about this in the chatroom, but if a possible effect on an individual (positive or negative) results from someone's positive (or negative) thinking, and prayer made that person think positively (or negatively), then the actual effect stems from positive thinking, and not directly from the prayer. That means that if you switch "prayer" to anything else that causes someone to think positively in the same level - and there ARE things like that - you achieve the same goal. That means that it's not PRAYER that has efficacy, but rather positive thinking. That's a completely different conclusion, do you see? So what we have here is a story by someone who, at some point, used prayer and it resulted in something good happening. Do you know for a fact how many previous times that failed? What if it failed 100 times and only succeeded once? That makes the efficacy of prayer 1 in a 100, which is less than chance, even, which makes prayer completely uneffective. You don't have enough information -- or rather, enough RELIABLE information -- to reach a conclusion about prayer by one persn's story. And because human beings have subjective memories (you remember only certain things, and in a certain way, and you might remember them differently than how they actually occured, depending on your biases and experience) then when a person tells you of his or her experience, it is UNRELIABLE as an evidence. You can use it to start an objective trial, or to support an already evidenced phenomena, but as a stand-alone evidence, anecdotal information is ranked one of the LOWEST ones. If you ask my sister about her 10th birthday, she will tell you a horror story about how her friends never showed up and the food turned out to be spoiled. If you ask me about her 10th birthday, I will tell you about her friends showing up for a while until it started raining and they all went home. If you ask my mom how my sister's 10th birthday went, she will tell you that everyone had a lot of fun, the parents were cooperative, the kids enjoyed the games until they had to leave, THEN it was raining while we were cleaning up, and that my sister caught a nasty stomach bug the next day at school. Memory is unreliable, and so are personal anecdotes. I can understand that you see a lot of people claim that prayer helps them, and so you want to see why, but then your course of action should come from first checking what, exactly, those people do -- do they all pray the same? Maybe one person sees prayer as "thinking positively about someone" and another sees prayer as a massive cult-thing (there are lots of cults who define their cultish activity as prayer..), and maybe another will tell you he only pray for himself while another will tell you it only works if a Rabbi blessed the pillow he's praying on, etc etc etc. The first step is to define what it is you are about to test. If you start with a conclusion that prayer must be working because some people claim it's working, you are essentially ignoring data (from all the people who prayer did NOT work for, and there are many - ask religious folks who lost a loved one; they prayed for him for sure, and failed) and starting with a conclusion (that prayer works!) without having enough information to support that conclusion. Then, you continue in a fallacious method of trying to fit a mechanism to this poorly defined and poorly supported conclusion. Do you see the problem we have with this subject, tar? It's not about ignoring something that ahppens, it's about defining it well enough to be able to figure out what REALLY happens. Objectively. When you do that, by the way, you can also make further predictions about the future --- if you know X works, then you know that if you do X when you need to, it will work. The power of prediction is one of the biggest advantages (and necessities!) in a scientific theory. ~moo

Adrian, alternative -- more efficient -- ways to use energy are being researched. don't think they're not. Quite frankly, the entire attitude of "big pharma / big corporation" conspiracy is crap. People DO research those. They just use science to research and not baseless claims. We told you that you are wrong because gravity does NOT behave the way you presented it, electromagnetism does NOT operate the way you presented it and planets do NOT orbit the way you said they do. Those are FACTS. Your innuendo that we're closed minded is ridiculous. ~moo

Saying you're wrong does not intend to offend you, Adrian B, it's meant to tell you the truth. If you read on, there were a few attempts to actually *SHOW YOU* where and how you were wrong. People will keep pointing out that you're wrong and that you're missing evidence as long as you keep stating wrong physics with such a conviction and refuse to cite or reference anything. I mean, really, what do you expect, that we accept what you say when it's nonphysics and totally baseless because we don't want to offend you? As a physicist, I can tell you would *LOVE* it if free energy existed, because it would compltely revolutionize physics as we know it, which will give me a much better potential to research something no one has touched before and win a Nobel prize. I'm DYING to have a change in physics, and I am not the only physicist, I can promise you. That doesn't mean I'll accept nonsense. Either support what you're saying, or accept the fact you're speaking nonsense, AdrianB. You seem to have a big problem presenting even the most fundamental physics correctly, so really, you can't possibly expect us to accept any of this outright without evidence, can you? As iNow said so aliquently in another thread - You are the one making a claim, you are in need of supplying evidence. It's time for you to put up or shut up. ~moo

I agree, padren. I think you did a good job clarifying what I intended to say. Another case in point here is that the "failed hypotheses" often lead to actual REAL discoveries. By trying to prove X, you sometimes, inadvertently, find the real cause behind some phenomena which is (often) exceeding your expectations. I think I actually saw a book about failed hypotheses that lead to actual science, once, but I will need to look up my resources on that one and get back to you.