ANTIcarrot wrote:Seastallion,
You are correct that naturally occuring fission and fusion reactors exist. All stars are examples of the latter, and the Earth's core is an example of the former. There are a few closer to the surface, but they're more along the lines of 'half a degree warmer than normal' rather than anything you'd normally think of as a reactor. But electricity doesn't work that way. The reason we're pulling faces at your opinions is because there are several large holes in your knowledge, and the conclusions you are comming to due to these holes appear very foolish to us.
I understand what your saying and do appreciate it. However, I wasn't
just referring to electricity, although that is certainly part of it. My main point of concern is the fact that the Earth is a very large scale (and somewhat contained) energy system unto itself. That involves forces more than just electromagnetism as I know you well understand. I think people got sidetracked with the whole pyramid thing, which I regret bringing up now, as it ended up being nothing but a distraction from the main point.
ANTIcarrot wrote:
I don't understand how the so called "Physio Electrical effect" is supposed to work, and I did look for an explanation. It may be nothing but bunk, but I have no proof of that either.
There are two very important ideas you need to understand here:
1) Fundamentally, if you don't understand something, then you shouldn't be expressing an opinion about it. If you don't understand something at all, in even the slightest amount, the only opinion you should be expressing is, "This makes no sense to me." Which is either a request for assistance or a strong condemnation of the idea, depending on your knowledge of surrounding subjects.
As to the so called "physio electric effect", I do understand the outcome of the supposed effect, I just don't understand the actual mechanics in terms of generating an electrical charge. I certainly understand the idea of a magnet being moved through a coil to generate electricity. The physical movement of the magnet, combined with interaction of the magnetic field with the coil generates an electrical current by process of induction. This is because electricity and magnetism are the same force (Electromagnetism), and to have one, is to have the other. I also understand how LENR is supposed to work, and generate energy, whether you are referring to the process using Palladium, or Sonoluminesence, or even other means, where you effect change on a material in order to release electrons, ultimately altering the material in the process until it eventually becomes useless. I do get that. I'm simply unclear on the specific mechanism by which the physio electric effect is supposed to work, although to me personally, is sounds similar to a piezo electric effect. I'm still looking for an explanation about the mechanics of it.
ANTIcarrot wrote:
2) Because they didn't explain this to you in school, I'll tell you this now: Science isn't about making up ideas, science is about brutally torturing them until they break. The ideas that endure years of honest attempts to disprove them are assumed to be correct. One of the steps of being a scientist or rationalist in any reguard, is taking an idea (by preference the more deeply held the better) and honestly trying to break it as hard as possible. "People are easy to fool, and the easiest person to fool is yourself." If you make no attempt to test/disprove any claims you read before you repeat them, people will assume by default that you have been fooled. Or that you're a Troll.
If you want to fix these holes properly, you could do worse than The Magic of Reality or Unweaving the Rainbow, by Richard Dawkins, the James Randi institute online, or any number of other sources.
I do understand the difference between Scientific Theory, as opposed to Scientific Fact or Law. I also understand that any "Fact or Law" is ALWAYS open to re-evaluation when new information becomes available that might rewrite a previous scientific notion. I'm also aware that many scientist, particularly in the nuclear field, are HIGHLY territorial with their theories because of the intense competition for money to fuel their work OR to maintain their own prestige. I do understand the process of peer review by scientist to get validation for their theories, as I'm distinctly aware that the process is also somewhat flawed. Precisely because many of those doing the reviews are also competing for the funding needed to work with their own theories.
I'm very well aware that science does NOT have every answer, and that we still have a LONG way to go. I think that people who believe that science
does have all the answers are as fooled as those who ignore it. Science is very relevant but it is only as good as our ability to observe, and process those observations. Old theories sometimes have a way of coming back, when new information is found and confirmed. So you can't always write things off, just because the academic establishment tells you should. I believe in science, yes, but I also believe in other things as well. I actually do believe in spiritual forces, and I agree with Einstein that faith and science should not be seen as opposing forces, but rather as an alliance of ideas to find a greater truth. I believe that both are needed to truly understand the world and the universe. I see no problem with believing in a God that created a universe capable of self evolving, with perhaps the occasional interference.
I'm a fan of Michio Kaku, Burkhard Heim, Nikola Tesla (who considered himself a discoverer), and others. I loved Stephen Hawkings' Illustrated Universe in a Nutshell, one of my favorite books. I also enjoyed the 'The Science of God' by Gerald L. Schroeder. I suppose I do enjoy walking on the fringe of science, but only because I DO question the accepted ideas of academia. I think that accepted science is wrong about as many things (if not more) than the things it is right about. Or, if not wrong, then at least incomplete. I like to remain open to new ideas, rather than being rigid with distrust and bound to the 'accepted only' ideas. There are plenty of skeptics (I've been known to indulge in it from time to time), so I don't think there is any danger of accepted science just falling apart.
I agree I have many holes in my knowledge, but I don't think they are as great as has been imagined. I study about physics and cosmology for my own interests, and don't claim to be an expert at all. I do however, have a fair grasp on the principles of technology and scientific theory. I did quite well in science in school, and also took two years in 'the principles of technology' course, getting a physics credit out of it. I'm no expert, but I'm not an idiot either. I also understand the idea of psuedo science, as I made a hobby of it in my favorite fan forums for my favorite scifi shows. I was well known for being an 'answer man' about how things MIGHT work. That is because I understand that even psuedo science needs to be grounded at least somewhat, in real life science. It's one of the reasons I love Fel's work, as he too is grounded in the tenets of making good psuedo science. Or magic, as the case may be.
On that note, I suggest we get back to the main point of this thread... Fel's work is awesome..!