Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Render

People reject science because...

236 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mikko-kun

Oh and though a lot of us may be selective towards what parts of science we question, things like finding out that alcohol is actually bad for you are probably considered the good achievements of science, at least when you consider how in the last century professional athletes who went to international competitions took a fair bit of liquor of their choise during the race to boost their performance. Think about Usain Bolt having a whole bottle of sharp one before going on track... :w00t: I'm glad we have science to warn about stuff like that. And science argues with itself all the time if you think of it, or at least those who practise it. Both may genuinely strive to be scientific, but no one has an inherent nor authoritative claim which makes you be on the right. Truth isn't something you own, it's something you discover.

To me anything which is a form or tool of seeking truths, also something that keeps evolving and providing new and more useful results, as well as having the integrity to question itself, is science. It doesn't need to have anyone's stamp of approved on it, though it helps if you're not alone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

As to the biblical thing, IMO anyone who takes the bible literally needs some mental examination.

As to theoretical physics, I don't think it's doing fine. Sorry about this, but there are quite a few misinterpretations, exemptions and outright lies involving quantum mechanics, along with assumptions that are way beyond reality. Some of these are such that they affect the very basis of theoretical physics. Further, theoretical physicists and/or their popular reporter counterparts make statements about who proved what that simply aren't true, as in the case of Michaelson/Morley and Hubbel. They also assert such nonsense as 'without quantum mechanics, we wouldn't have the laser,' a statement which is patently false, since if one applies Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem to the laser, the machine becomes impossible to construct.

It is interesting, to a small degree, that after a hundred years of farting around with quanta, theoretical physics appears to be doing a 180 and rethinking ether, although under different names. Naturally, no one in the field wants to admit that those scientists back then (1800s - early 1900s) actually knew much of anything, even though their research/theories are the basis of modern physics in all respects, but use the transforms. As with any reinterpretation (such as language translation) there are errors introduced, and theoretical physics is not exempt.

Although I tend to think Einstein was somewhat off base, I do tend to agree with one of his statements (made c. 1953 or thereabouts), to paraphrase: 'The more quantum mechanics advances, the sillier it seems.' If you want the exact quote, I'll look it up.

I haven't heard that the laser wouldn't be possible without quantum mechanics but modern electronics including the computer would be. There are many different schools of thought and various theories concerning the true nature of reality and the beginnings of the universe but I find this healthy and as it should be and I trust in the scientific method to sort it all out as more data is gained. Einstein worked for years trying to discredit QM and failed. That to me is a testament to it's validity, as is the fact that it is the most successfully experimentally confirmed theory in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Oh and though a lot of us may be selective towards what parts of science we question, things like finding out that alcohol is actually bad for you are probably considered the good achievements of science, at least when you consider how in the last century professional athletes who went to international competitions took a fair bit of liquor of their choise during the race to boost their performance. Think about Usain Bolt having a whole bottle of sharp one before going on track... :w00t: I'm glad we have science to warn about stuff like that. And science argues with itself all the time if you think of it, or at least those who practise it. Both may genuinely strive to be scientific, but no one has an inherent nor authoritative claim which makes you be on the right. Truth isn't something you own, it's something you discover.

To me anything which is a form or tool of seeking truths, also something that keeps evolving and providing new and more useful results, as well as having the integrity to question itself, is science. It doesn't need to have anyone's stamp of approved on it, though it helps if you're not alone.

There is a difference between questioning the validity of certain scientific theories and rejecting science, which I take to mean rejecting the scientific method. Questioning theories is healthy and the essence of science. Questioning the scientific method in favor of mysticism is not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

I see a "perspective" problem: science and religion are often presented as "either-or" choices. Both sides often expect their adherents to choose one or the other.

I'm convinced that science and religion are the same thing. As we learn more about both, the two ends of the spectrum will be drawn closer together.

Edit to add:

A better way to state my position might be to say, "Scientific Truth and Religious Truth" are the same thing. Scientific opinion and false religion will always be at odds.

Well, I think you make a good point Truth is truth. I see the difference in methods for arriving at truth. I prefer the scientific method of drawing rational conclusions from observation to relying on revealed knowledge from a divinity. Though it is possible to draw false conclusions from observation and possible to arrive at truth accidently from supposed revelation even if the divinity is imaginary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

No, Einstein did not. If this is what you think, perhaps you should read some more of Einstein's history, along with his letters to various physicists, up to near his death. One other thing is that there has never, ever been consensus except in the minds of those who actually don't understand qm. You'll find, if you're willing to look, that some camps embrace Heisenberg, others embrace Schroedinger's waves, still others are involved in Dirac etc and on and on. I've had my discussions with Feynmann (was a personal friend) and still I can't agree with his virtual photon energy transfer. It is, IMO, much more reasonable to assume Schroedinger's standing waves are more correct, since said energy transfer is easily explained. Still, there is the conundrum of qm violation of Newton's third, along with several tons of other problems. If you aren't familiar with those, then you should fix your own knowledge before accusing others of their lack of it.

What you call my ignorance of it is probably far less than yours. If you were to read some of the dissenting opinions on quantum mechanics, and if you were familiar with the Bell tests (en toto), and if you were familiar with all the transformations, et cetera, along with the actual dissentions within qm, perhaps you would alter your opinions. It's my personal belief that science of any sort should be based upon fact rather than whiteboards filled with statistical gyrations and approximations. While there are some things we simply have difficulty in measuring, such as your "dark matter/dark energy" or ether or whatever you want to call it or measurement of longitudinal fields vs. transverse fields, most stuff we can measure.

I've also had my experiences with such outfits as Sandia Labs, Lockheed and other subliminal research organizations, something which you probably lack. In this experience, I've learned that qm and its transformations are not acceptable as substitutes for real measurements, especially with the skunk works: those people don't deal with approximations very well, they want physical measurements. So whatever you've read in your popular science stuff isn't necessarily what happens within reality.

Moreover, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If I sat down here and started describing some of the things I've done on the bench, along with the math, theory and factual measurements, just about everyone I've read here would be lost in minutes. This isn't to say I'm some damned genius so far above anyone else, because I'm not, but it is to say I'm unwilling to simply accept what everyone else believes to be factual without some form of verification. That leads to a very different outlook on your beloved science.

I have no problem with you questioning quantum mechanics or any other theory in the manner you describe as this is what science is about. Rejecting science because it conflicts with what some bronze age mystics thought is a different matter. I still maintain that QM has been experimentally confirmed more than any other theory though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Exactly, the current thinking is that the older one gets the less effective a vaccine will be due to the fact that an older immune system just isn't as active. But, (and here's the mystery) most of the time even very elderly people get a better success rate than 9%. Personally speaking, I've come down with flu despite having the shot (and I'm not quite 'elderly' yet but definitely 'long in the tooth'). Just perhaps our notion of who should be heavily vaccinated should change? If the population that has the most contact with the public is zeroed in on then that may serve to protect the older people (who may not be very well protected despite having shots themselves). I wonder what the thinking is over at the CDC?

I'm not sure about CDC thinking about the elderly per se but I found out their thinking about mandating vaccines. It seems vaccines are safe but not perfectly safe as a percentage of those vaccinated will have an adverse reaction. This leads to a tension between what is best for the individual and what is best for the community. Though no one who is not immunized is 100% safe from infection, as long as a large enough percentage of the community is immunized the individual is relatively safe from infection from the "herd effect" as well as being safe from any adverse reaction to the vaccine. So it might be in the individual's bet interest not to be vaccinated. If enough individuals do this however the herd effect is lost and infectious outbreaks occur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

cancer already considered as death?!

Is that what I said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crimson089

Is that what I said?

uhm no but... it was like

Disease that has no definite cure is death.

Cancer is a disease that has no definite cure.

Cancer is death.

I think it's a fallacy :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

uhm no but... it was like

Disease that has no definite cure is death.

Cancer is a disease that has no definite cure.

Cancer is death.

I think it's a fallacy :o

Some cancers with no cure are definitely death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crimson089

Some cancers with no cure are definitely death

can u put this on, "science cannot find definite cure for death"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

can u put this on, "science cannot find definite cure for death"

I don't know about that. I think science is working on finding a cure for death though I fear this could have dire consequences for the human species

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crimson089

I don't know about that. I think science is working on finding a cure for death though I fear this could have dire consequences for the human species

sigh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

I haven't heard that the laser wouldn't be possible without quantum mechanics but modern electronics including the computer would be. There are many different schools of thought and various theories concerning the true nature of reality and the beginnings of the universe but I find this healthy and as it should be and I trust in the scientific method to sort it all out as more data is gained. Einstein worked for years trying to discredit QM and failed. That to me is a testament to it's validity, as is the fact that it is the most successfully experimentally confirmed theory in history.

Ah, yes,more of the propaganda about qm. I've read that the transistor developed by Schockley et al would not have been possible without the sputtering developed by a couple of particle physicists back in the mid-1930s. Among other nonsense. Just for information about things like that, I have in my posession two reprint manuals, the 1872 Wagner Chemistry Manual and the 1907 Handbook of Experimental Physics. Both those books show laboratory methods of sputtering just about anything that can be sputtered, assuming you know what sputtering is. Further into that little myth, the first transistor was demonstrated at the Chicago World Fair in ~1930 - a fact most people either won't state or don't know. More, germanium diodes were in widespread use in the early 1900s, well before the Copenhagen papers on qm. As a further disproof, Schockley's transistor, as demonstrated, was nothing more than a piece of galena with some gold leaf contacts. You're welcome to look that up, but for your own sake, find it somewhere other than wikipedia, which is useless except to find real reference material, sometimes. Having spent much of my life in electronics engineering, including working with intel, Fairchild, Chips, AMD and others, I can assure you that there isn't a single one of those companies that placed faith in qm in order to do their development. The fellows that left Schockley's labs to form Fairchild (considered the great granddaddy of integrated circuits, since they produced the first viable ICs) weren't in the least concerned about qm, and were too busy doing real work to bother with it.

The awestruck writers of qm seem to thrive on putting words into people's mouths, so I suggest you never listen to those writers except for entertainment. Those writers neither know particle physics, nor do they understand it.

Einstein didn't really "work" for years to discredit qm, since qm utilizes Einstein's theories to the point of weariness, what with their relativistic approachs, time dilation/contraction and all the rest of that crap. What he did state on several occasions was that he considered qm a "silly" pursuit, and considering the gyrations used to "prove" things, I'd be forced to agree. Even such stuff as the fundamental Bell test has major flaws, specifically that it belongs to the tester to determine the statistical probability of his theoretical stuff, whatever that might be. Frankly, if any engineer designed anything the same way, he/she wouldn't be an engineer very long, more likely flipping burgers at McDonald's. You design something electronic, you damned well better know almost exactly what it's going to do, all of it, or you and your company just bought a pile of carbonized parts. There are, of course, times when things happen unforeseen, but those things are many times better explained by something other than qm, since those many times qm simply ignores that sort of thing since the qm people can't explain them. And yes, I can provide examples.

As to the other you mentioned, I don't give much of a rat's ass how the universe started, if in fact it did have a beginning, which I doubt. I have no problem with the concept of a universe that has always been and always will be, nor do I have any problem with an infinite universe. I do have a problem with people telling me that initially the universe was an infinitesmally small point of condensed matter than somehow exploded, and yea, verily, came about the universe as we know it. That strikes me the same way it struck Hubbell in one of his last communiques, which qm has changed so that Hubbell claimed to prove the red shift was due to the big bang. What Hubbell actually said was that in his opinion, there was no big bang, and the universe is infinite, and the red shift is due to something other than an expanding universe. I can find the quote if you wish, but what's been done is that qm writers claim something that is simply untrue.

So long as there are egos and money involved, the effectiveness of the revered scientific method is limited. While it is true that it can be effective, it is not now so. I can relate stories of building stuff that defies the so-called "laws" of physics, having those devices instrumented by well qualified engineers and scientists, and then having those same witnesses tell me the stuff didn't really work. In other words, if it goes against the current paradigm, it cannot be, even though that paradigm is filled with contradictions itself.

You see, my reputation was that of a troubleshooter who could make things work, albeit somewhat unorthodox. And that, sir, is why I never wanted for contract work. It is also why I refused, for all those years, to prostitute myself in favor of some company profit nonsense. And there are stories about that, too.

As stated, I will not attempt to convince anyone of anything, other than to actually learn about something and then make his/her own decision as to the validity thereof. To do otherwise makes no sense. And I will guarantee that there have been many times I've discovered phenomena that have rattled my own scientific foundations, something which is no fun at all, but does come with the territory. My problem is with the ones who know everything is as stated. 'Cause it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

uhm no but... it was like

Disease that has no definite cure is death.

Cancer is a disease that has no definite cure.

Cancer is death.

I think it's a fallacy :o

I think you should read. I said "That's like saying they can't find a cure for death."

You realise there are many ways to die? There are also many cancers.

However saying people reject science because they can't find a cure is asinine. Science covers a wide area of research, should geologists be looking for a cure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Some cancers with no cure are definitely death

Not so; sometimes the cancer goes away on its own for unknown reasons. Remember that cancers are living tissues and have to adapt or die just like all other living tissues. Most of the time they die long before anyone is aware they even existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Ah, yes,more of the propaganda about qm. I've read that the transistor developed by Schockley et al would not have been possible without the sputtering developed by a couple of particle physicists back in the mid-1930s. Among other nonsense. Just for information about things like that, I have in my posession two reprint manuals, the 1872 Wagner Chemistry Manual and the 1907 Handbook of Experimental Physics. Both those books show laboratory methods of sputtering just about anything that can be sputtered, assuming you know what sputtering is. Further into that little myth, the first transistor was demonstrated at the Chicago World Fair in ~1930 - a fact most people either won't state or don't know. More, germanium diodes were in widespread use in the early 1900s, well before the Copenhagen papers on qm. As a further disproof, Schockley's transistor, as demonstrated, was nothing more than a piece of galena with some gold leaf contacts. You're welcome to look that up, but for your own sake, find it somewhere other than wikipedia, which is useless except to find real reference material, sometimes. Having spent much of my life in electronics engineering, including working with intel, Fairchild, Chips, AMD and others, I can assure you that there isn't a single one of those companies that placed faith in qm in order to do their development. The fellows that left Schockley's labs to form Fairchild (considered the great granddaddy of integrated circuits, since they produced the first viable ICs) weren't in the least concerned about qm, and were too busy doing real work to bother with it.

The awestruck writers of qm seem to thrive on putting words into people's mouths, so I suggest you never listen to those writers except for entertainment. Those writers neither know particle physics, nor do they understand it.

Einstein didn't really "work" for years to discredit qm, since qm utilizes Einstein's theories to the point of weariness, what with their relativistic approachs, time dilation/contraction and all the rest of that crap. What he did state on several occasions was that he considered qm a "silly" pursuit, and considering the gyrations used to "prove" things, I'd be forced to agree. Even such stuff as the fundamental Bell test has major flaws, specifically that it belongs to the tester to determine the statistical probability of his theoretical stuff, whatever that might be. Frankly, if any engineer designed anything the same way, he/she wouldn't be an engineer very long, more likely flipping burgers at McDonald's. You design something electronic, you damned well better know almost exactly what it's going to do, all of it, or you and your company just bought a pile of carbonized parts. There are, of course, times when things happen unforeseen, but those things are many times better explained by something other than qm, since those many times qm simply ignores that sort of thing since the qm people can't explain them. And yes, I can provide examples.

As to the other you mentioned, I don't give much of a rat's ass how the universe started, if in fact it did have a beginning, which I doubt. I have no problem with the concept of a universe that has always been and always will be, nor do I have any problem with an infinite universe. I do have a problem with people telling me that initially the universe was an infinitesmally small point of condensed matter than somehow exploded, and yea, verily, came about the universe as we know it. That strikes me the same way it struck Hubbell in one of his last communiques, which qm has changed so that Hubbell claimed to prove the red shift was due to the big bang. What Hubbell actually said was that in his opinion, there was no big bang, and the universe is infinite, and the red shift is due to something other than an expanding universe. I can find the quote if you wish, but what's been done is that qm writers claim something that is simply untrue.

So long as there are egos and money involved, the effectiveness of the revered scientific method is limited. While it is true that it can be effective, it is not now so. I can relate stories of building stuff that defies the so-called "laws" of physics, having those devices instrumented by well qualified engineers and scientists, and then having those same witnesses tell me the stuff didn't really work. In other words, if it goes against the current paradigm, it cannot be, even though that paradigm is filled with contradictions itself.

You see, my reputation was that of a troubleshooter who could make things work, albeit somewhat unorthodox. And that, sir, is why I never wanted for contract work. It is also why I refused, for all those years, to prostitute myself in favor of some company profit nonsense. And there are stories about that, too.

As stated, I will not attempt to convince anyone of anything, other than to actually learn about something and then make his/her own decision as to the validity thereof. To do otherwise makes no sense. And I will guarantee that there have been many times I've discovered phenomena that have rattled my own scientific foundations, something which is no fun at all, but does come with the territory. My problem is with the ones who know everything is as stated. 'Cause it's not.

I don't believe anyone claims to know everything is as stated. Einstein did try repeatedly to discredit QM without success. Without electrons behaving both as particles and waves electronics would not work. This is fact..The inventors of the transistor may not have been aware of that fact, but that doesn't change it's truth. Many inventors don't know the theory behind why their inventions work until after they were invented. Doesn't make the underlying theory any less valid. I do give a rat's ass about how the universe got here just out of curiosity if for no other reason and I don't think it possible that at least the part of the universe that we can observe had no beginning. There are also problems with postulating an infinite universe though I doubt it could be ruled out.QM has been experimentally confirmed time and again. That speaks volume to me about it's validity. Please name one invention you have seen that defied physical law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

Not so; sometimes the cancer goes away on its own for unknown reasons. Remember that cancers are living tissues and have to adapt or die just like all other living tissues. Most of the time they die long before anyone is aware they even existed.

Sometimes yes and sometimes people die with no hope of a cure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crimson089

I think you should read. I said "That's like saying they can't find a cure for death."

You realise there are many ways to die? There are also many cancers.

However saying people reject science because they can't find a cure is asinine. Science covers a wide area of research, should geologists be looking for a cure?

I think you should comprehend than just reading. My response to the thread's title was a joke, nobody took it seriously until you stated like was finding a cure for death. I was talking about cancer, not the other ways to die, which leads me to the reason why I said your response was inconclusive. If you consider it as asinine, then I respect your opinion. This is getting off-topic now.

Edited by crimson089

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

There is a difference between questioning the validity of certain scientific theories and rejecting science, which I take to mean rejecting the scientific method. Questioning theories is healthy and the essence of science. Questioning the scientific method in favor of mysticism is not

What is scientific method and what is mysticism? Who decides it and why? I know we individually decide it for ourselves in the end, but apart from that. I'm just asking, where do you draw the border and how do you justify that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

What is scientific method and what is mysticism? Who decides it and why? I know we individually decide it for ourselves in the end, but apart from that. I'm just asking, where do you draw the border and how do you justify that?

Rational conclusions drawn from observation=scientific method. Knowledge derived from divine revelation=mysticism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

How do you know divine revelation is untrue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S2F

How do you know divine revelation is untrue?

We don't. We just know that they can't be substantiated and/or proven. As such it has no purview in scientific reasoning.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

How do you know divine revelation is untrue?

As I said before, it is possible for science to be wrong by drawing faulty conclusions or having inaccurate data. It is also possible for the revelation to be correct by accident even if God is imaginary. But science is self correcting. If better data shows an idea wrong it is abandoned and a new idea takes it's place. Religion is incapable of this and must continue to cling to outmoded beliefs or admit that it's omniscient God was mistaken. In my view this makes science the superior tool for seeking truth. As David Hume said, a wise man apportions his belief to the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

Religion can be that, often seems to be aye, but it doesn't have to. The fault of the kind of religions you speak of is they assume they know the truth better than they might, that it's all been discovered. Who says god should really be omnipotent? Though no one can blame you for not doing science based on the assumption there is or might not be god, I dont think everyone has to assume that when they do science, as long as they maintain a good level of integrity. As long as they keep in mind that it's their theory, because that's what things tend to be in science. Evidence is good but there's alot of different kind of evidence, some are more or less or much less verifiable and repeatable than others but are they all true or false? To me it's a great possibility...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidCat

I don't believe anyone claims to know everything is as stated. Einstein did try repeatedly to discredit QM without success. Without electrons behaving both as particles and waves electronics would not work. This is fact..The inventors of the transistor may not have been aware of that fact, but that doesn't change it's truth. Many inventors don't know the theory behind why their inventions work until after they were invented. Doesn't make the underlying theory any less valid. I do give a rat's ass about how the universe got here just out of curiosity if for no other reason and I don't think it possible that at least the part of the universe that we can observe had no beginning. There are also problems with postulating an infinite universe though I doubt it could be ruled out.QM has been experimentally confirmed time and again. That speaks volume to me about it's validity. Please name one invention you have seen that defied physical law.

It is in your court to prove Einstein eventually accepted qm, as I stated. Yes, he did not just try, but was ultimately successful in persuading many physicists against qm, but naturally many of those were already doubtful. I have no idea, other than through blind acceptance of popular science and ignorance, why it is so many of you seem to think qm is the ultimate answer in physics. I might also add that it would be a very good idea for you to do some simple things, such as checking out the flaws in the Bell tests, as previously suggested. You might also do some checking into relativistic qm and its acceptance, along with the uncertainty theorem. On that last, if you take Heisenberg to the ultimate end, by this time in my life with all the walking/running I've done, I should have fallen through the earth by now. Heisenberg's theorem is of no use whatever, same as most other qm/qed et cetera.

Re particle/wave, it is my opinion that you haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Sputtering transistors and ICs is a matter of mechanics and chemistry, and there is no wave/particle duality at all. In actual fact, electrons having wave/particle duality was only postulated by Feynmann, and this was the subject of several discussions I had with the man. Wll this sort of junk science is nothing more than a feeble attempt by qm to make some sort of sense out of all these statistical theoretical approximations that don't actually lead anywhere. Maybe you should go study something like the Phi wave theory for a while, get your teeth into it. It's pretty obvious that you don't really have anything more than a surface knowledge of either electronics mechanics or qm. If you did, you would not have made your massively ignorant statements.

And I suppose you're familiar with invention, yes? You might enlighten us all as to your inventions, or even enlighten us as to some of those inventions you claim were done without theoretical knowledge. You're fighting an uphill battle, and you're not going to win it. It's pretty obvious that you don't really have anything more than a surface knowledge of either electronics mechanics or qm. If you did, you would not have made your massively ignorant statements.

What shining problems are there with an infinite universe, pray tell? I find it much easier to think there is no end, for logical reasons, such as just what do you suppose is outside that so-called end? Is there perhaps a gigantic brick wall out there? This sort of discussion is terribly silly, since in a logical sense, you can't win, nor can Einstein. You will provide nothing more than a batch of equations that, in the final analysis, are nothing more than assumptions and approximations. As stated, I don't deal with unproven junk, or Bell tests that rely on the whim of the scientist's point of view, or Feynmann's virtual particles, or any of the rest of that crap. I rely on facts, on things I can prove exist, and phenomena I know are real, not some math someone came up with after a wet dream And when any science simply ignores natural functions that are shown to exist, simply because those functions don't fit the math, then that science is not a science, it is a pseudoscience.

So tell ya what. For close to a hundred years now, qm has been claiming that what can't be measured can't exist (except for more recently: now they claim there's dark matter and dark energy, which, of course, can't be measured - something wrong there?). So why don't you build yourself a Caduceus coil and a drive that will pulse the thing at, oh, say 10 - 20 kHz with a nice square wave, with lots of power. In case you're not aware of it (which you probably are not, based on previous statements you've made), the Caduceus coil is wound with opposing windings connected together; preferably, a single wire is wound in both directions starting from the wire center. Since you probably aren't aware of it, what this will do is cause opposing H (magnetic) fields to be generated, supposedly cancelling out. At any rate, you won't detect H fields around the thing if you've wound it correctly. So, since energy cannot be destroyed, what exactly happened to the energy generated by the windings? Betcha you can't really tell me that, nor can any particle physicist. Anyway, if you build the Caduceus as stated, you will find out. Go ahead, take a chance.

I think in a previous post you asked about other things. I'll take a little time and steer you in a direction so you can experiment yourself. First, find out what switched reluctance is. Second, look up Ecklin generators, build one, then test it: instrument inputs and outputs at various stable loading, to make it easy. When you've done that, come back here and explain to all of us what happened. Thirdly, look up switched reluctance motors. You can find some good theory and practice in Texas Instruments archives. Look up SPRA420A, February 2000 application report. It'll give you a good basis of knowledge of how they work, be be very aware of what you read there. There is a clue in that report that if you can find it and follow it, you can do something amazing with one of those, assuming you build and program the control system.

Got some really bad news this am, I'm tired, I'm tired of bs, and I'm retiring from this discussion until something worthwhile is printed for me to chew on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.