Re: Free energy???

On Mar 3, 10:13 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 1, 10:33 am, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 28, 8:42 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi.

Why say thatfree energyis impossible? We do not know everything, and
we should never pretend to.Free energymay still be possible, it's
just that nobody has found out how to do it yet.

Of course it's possible. And you are *perfectly* entitled to expend
any and all resources available to you to demonstrate that it's
possible.

However, if you want to conscript or recruit *others* to the effort,
then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it.
Presently, the patent office has taken the position that any
application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation
is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it.

And I'm supposed to get all this proof _myself_? Few if any research
projects can be done on one's own.

Precisely. But those that conscript others also have to demonstrate to
those same others that there is a reasonable risk of success. The time
and resources of others are valuable, and they try to choose wisely in
which directions to invest them. There certainly are many individuals
who are not able to gather enough rationale (what you call "proof") to
convince others of reasonable chance of success, or who are simply
willing to gamble more. These individuals do devote their own
resources to do it on their own -- or at least give it a go.


Why aren't they able to gather enough rationale/proof? Is it because
their theory is wrong (which is an acceptable reason), or because they
need others to give them the means, and thus by denying them that they
cannot even gather enough rationale even if their idea works and _is_
worth
the risk (the Ed's Coral Castle problem, see below)?

So you have a simple choice: gather the rationale sufficient to
convince others to buy into a reasonable risk, or invest enough of
your own resources to do it yourself. Please don't whine to me that
the choice is unfair.


So then basically you say I should do it myself, ALONE???? Ok. Let's
say I need a particle accelerator, a big one, to demonstrate or test
some
crank theory I devise one day. So you expect me, alone, like Ed the
guy who built Coral Castle, to build the whole accelerator ring,
everything,
all on my own to gather enough starting evidence ("rationale" as you
call it)? No construction workers, no bankers, no nothing. Just me and
my
own two hands. Progress is never going to be made that way!
You _need_ to have other people come into the equation at some point.
Yes, the burden of proof is on the proposer, but if the proposer is
seeking to see if his proposal really is true, and willing to admit if
it is wrong,
he is supposed to do that, totally, completely, _alone_?! Literally,
like Ed
the guy who built Coral Castle?



What "risk" are you referring to? You mean, because the scientific
community ridicules them so much?

No, not at all. Ridicule doesn't come into it very much at all.
However, the risk of *wasting time and resources* without a reasonable
expectation of success is a daunting one for most responsible adults.


Even if it ends up proving that free energy in any form is totally
impossible,
we have still gained knowledge. Questions, in my view, are never, ever
wrong. Science requires true freedom.

And I did not say anything about
patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not
about
patenting/selling anything.

Still doesn't defray the risk.


To me, the "risk" does not exist. If it turns out that the answer to a
question,
like "Is free energy possible?" is no, then it's been answered.
Knowledge
has been gained.

And the risk in the case of free energy is definitely worth it.
Consider the
energy crisis. I'm not asking, "does device X work?", but rather "Is
free
energy possible, yes or no?". Energy crisis could be solved if the
answer
is yes.



What I am trying to say is that science can never pretend to have all
the answers, this is a fundamental precept. Therefore we should be
free to question absolutely every doctrine, every theory, every
experiment, search for any evidence for/against any claim, etc.
Questions are of the utmost importance in science, and without them
there can be no scientific progress.

Of course. The matter is, "Which questions are worth tackling?" There
are far too many interesting questions to tackle them all, and so
there is a natural prioritization that must occur. This is simple
economics and a basic reality of life. The priority is partially based
on a benefit-risk analysis, where *both* of those words ("benefit" and
"risk") are balanced. There simply isn't an endeavor where you can
say, "Screw the risk, the benefits are worth ANY risk." If you attempt
that argument, you will find few that are convinced, and even fewer
with anything of value to lend to the cause.

Does this come as a surprise to you, Mike?



I think that one should not be slammed by their peers when they
try out an unorthodox line of investigation. You say that they should
have to invest their own resources. Then why go and slam them when
they try to do just that just because in your opinion the question is
worthless?

Free energy has the possibility to benefit all humanity. Anything that
does
that _is_ worth the risk, like it or not.




Or did you think that other people's time and effort is just as free
as energy?




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Free energy???
    ... then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it. ... is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it. ... See below following your particle accelerator example. ... Even if it ends up proving that free energy in any form is totally ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Free energy???
    ... then you're going to have to demonstrate that the risk is worth it. ... application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation ... is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it. ... those same others that there is a reasonable risk of success. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Free energy???
    ... application that involves violation of the rule of energy conservation ... is not worth the risk of assigning personnel resources to it. ... patents, I was talking about simply searching for free energy, not ... What I am trying to say is that science can never pretend to have all ...
    (sci.physics)
  • OT: Business As Usual? Scary....
    ... lifting the ban (who gets to determine exactly what 'public opinion' ... this pressure to find ways to maximize our energy efficiency. ... creative) and its extensive national resources were not enough to save ... in Business As Usual only dooms us to failure at a more severe level, ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: OT: One more for the deniers
    ... But what's so fucking wrong with trying to make Earth a better place? ... forms of energy be established, ... Are they more economically efficient that oil? ... But they acted as if resources were infinite. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
Loading