|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2005 : 07:28:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well, here are a few quotes form the site:quote:
The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.
Yes, note the lack of anything concrete. Possibility (twice!), may, might and could have. These folks haven't demonstrated anything, and they know it. They may be dreaming, but they're not trying to sell their dreams.quote:
If the zero-point energy is real, there is the possibility that it can be tapped as a source of power or be harnassed to generate a propulsive force for space travel.
If and possibility again. Very nice. And what they say is true, given their uncertain qualifiers.quote:
A thought experiment published by physicist Robert Forward in 1984 demonstrated how the Casimir force could in principle be used to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (Phys. Rev. B, 30, 1700, 1984). Theoretical studies in the early 1990s (Phys. Rev. E, 48, 1562, 1993) verified that this was not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics (since the zero-point energy is different from a thermal reservoir of heat). Unfortunately the Forward process cannot be cycled to yield a continuous extraction of energy. A Casimir engine would be one whose cylinders could only fire once, after which the engine become useless.
And they neglect to say that building the engine would take more energy than you could hope to extract from it. So yes, one could make and fire (once!) a Casimir engine, and get energy from the vacuum. But you would have more available energy if you didn't do so, thanks to the laws of thermodynamics.quote:
So are guys like Bernard Haisch borderline 'kooks'? I tip my hat to guys like this who try and push the envelope.
So do I.quote:
It's clear to me that what is observed with UFOs, namely apparent freedom from gravitational and interial considerations, is entirely consistent with what Haisch and company are getting at.
It is, indeed, "entirely consistent," but unfortunately, nobody has yet produced evidence which consistently says that UFOs are actually free of gravity and inertia.quote:
It is also consistent with the proposal that UFOs extract energy from space for interstellar travel.
No, it isn't. We know of no way to extract more energy from the quantum vacuum than we put into the effort. Plus, there's no good evidence that UFOs perform any interstellar travel at all.quote:
Who might not like the idea of cold fusion?
A good question, since it's not as though a real cold-fusion power generator would supplant every other sort overnight. Even oil-company execs know that their product will not last forever.quote:
I have some guesses as to where the original, strongest dissenting voices regarding cold fusion came from.
There are some excellent books on the subject. You shouldn't have to guess.quote:
Sometimes the loudest voices of orthodoxy are heard over the whispers of emerging truth. Most skeptics I imagine prefer the loud and clear sounds.
Skeptics prefer evidence, of which there is very little regarding cold fusion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 21:05:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Skeptics prefer evidence, of which there is very little regarding cold fusion.
It's hard to explain away the results of the experiment I referenced. The nice thing is that (I suspect) the 'little' evidences like this will continue to accumulate to a suffienct weight, when even a skeptic might seriously consider that mainstream scientific opinion regarding what is necessary for fusion to occur is not entirely correct.
One would *think* that skeptics would be more empiricists at heart, giving preference to experimental findings over theoretical dogma.
The experimental findings may be far from consistent, but enough imo to indicate that something interesting is going on.
Sometimes there *are* 'shortcuts' in the natural world. Quantum tunnelling and chemical catalysts come to mind.
It would be interesting to follow the scent to see where the unduly hostile attitude towards cold fusion originated from. If I were to
*guess*, it may have been from some people employed in the hot fusion field.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 10:03:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One would *think* that skeptics would be more empiricists at heart, giving preference to experimental findings over theoretical dogma.
Does it comfort you at night to believe that skeptics "prefer dogma"? You are sounding like the evolution denying dimwits who spout such nonsense about the ToE.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 13:23:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The experimental findings may be far from consistent, but enough imo to indicate that something interesting is going on.
And that is the heart of the matter (pun intended).
If experimental findings are inconsistent, then something is not right. Either the theory behind the experiment is flawed, or the execution of the experiment itself is flawed. Predictability is a crucial part of a scientific theory. So far, experiments have not behaved according to prediction (otherwise they would have been consistent) and therefore I'm calling for scepsis against these "scientists" claiming partial success: they are either con-men out for a quick buck, or they are sloppy scientists who are more interested in creating a name for themselves rather than perfecting their theory/experiments before going public.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 15:42:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
One would *think* that skeptics would be more empiricists at heart, giving preference to experimental findings over theoretical dogma.
Does it comfort you at night to believe that skeptics "prefer dogma"?
No more than a skeptic is comforted at night believing that guys like me are comforted believing that skepics prefer dogma. ;) In other words, no, not at all of course. Science and religion alike would fare much better if there was less dogmaticism. And yes that goes for skepticism as well. Dogmatism says, "Fusion can only occur at extremely high energies, cold fusion experiments don't agree, thus cold fusion is bunk". Is that anything like the tentativeness that is supposed to characterize true skepticism (if there is such a thing)?
Many skeptics, it seems to me, are quite cozy with the well worn and common while suspicious of the new. It takes a truly great skeptic to seriously question what is commonly understood. Indeed it is often a question of the *object* of one's skepticism. Thus the scientists at calphysics.org or some cold fusion proponents are skeptical of certain mainstream scientific opinions, for what to them is sufficient reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude You are sounding like the evolution denying dimwits who spout such nonsense about the ToE.
I not sure that I understand the connection, but while you brought up the ToE let me indulge myself. You already know that *I* am skeptical of materialism, which essentially says that the universe is 'just about as one would expect' from mere mechanistic law. Evolution is a rightfully a material fact (imo), but please don't confuse that with the interpretive dogma that nothing but material mechanistic law is responsible for it.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 16:09:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The experimental findings may be far from consistent, but enough imo to indicate that something interesting is going on.
And that is the heart of the matter (pun intended).
If experimental findings are inconsistent, then something is not right. Either the theory behind the experiment is flawed, or the execution of the experiment itself is flawed. Predictability is a crucial part of a scientific theory. So far, experiments have not behaved according to prediction (otherwise they would have been consistent) and therefore I'm calling for scepsis against these "scientists" claiming partial success: they are either con-men out for a quick buck, or they are sloppy scientists who are more interested in creating a name for themselves rather than perfecting their theory/experiments before going public.
Certainly, as you say, there are flaws. Yet these scientists don't even *pretend* to have a firm grasp as to what is going on in theory, so when you say "Predictability is a crucial part of a scientific theory" it doesn't quite apply. The theory isn't developed. And predictability is statistical; results within 5 percent are usually acceptable, but really it is a continuum. When experiments are of the nature that the required environmental conditions aren't exactly known, and when there isn't the expertise yet to develop strictly controlled conditions *in all aspects*, that such experiments are not entirely predictable should not be met with cynicism.
*Ideal* science would 'perfect' their experiments before going public as you say, but as you and I know scientists are expected to produce in a timely fashion. Perhaps *some* cold fusion findings have been fudged, but I suspect that the majority are done in good faith.
Lack of expertise and experimental control in such a new field should be more readily forgiven imo. Why not take a more 'wait and see' attitude and, even better, give such potentially transforming technology some support.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
