Debate on "what is Energy"

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > Debate on "what is Energy"

2024-11-28, 16:53:56
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

Author Topic: Debate on "what is Energy" (Read 3302 times)

Allcanadian	Debate on "what is Energy" « on: 2020-12-28, 16:58:44 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	Quote For example, fusion in the Sun can transform a massive amount of energy simply by exciting hydrogen. Then the many excited hydrogen nuclei can combine to form helium having a different number of atomic nuclei. In the transformation a great deal of energy is radiated as the atomic motion of two entities has now been transformed to become one. So we know as a fact matter contains energy and that this internal energy can be transformed into external energy. I thought this was an interesting energy concept... The atomic motion of two entities has now been transformed to become one and radiated external energy in the process. We have one atom with internal energy X and another atom also with internal energy X and when we combine them it becomes energy Y and radiates excess external energy Z. It begs the question, are 2 magnets stronger than 1? Two magnets together will be slightly less than twice as strong as one magnet. When magnets are stuck entirely together (the south pole of one magnet is connected to the north pole of the other magnet) you can add the magnetic fields together. So two magnets are slightly less than twice as strong as one magnet however they failed to recognize the fact that the field is twice as large. That is while the force is as expected the distance has changed and distance follows the inverse square law. There is also another law to consider beyond the mere strength of something. The total energy in a system is the sum of all the individual energies present in the system. Which begs the question... what are all the individual energies present in the system and how did they change when the two magnets joined to become one?. This line of reason follows the notion that things often become more than the simple sum of it's parts when transforming into something larger in scope than the individual parts. That is the sum of all the individual energies present is often larger than the individual energies in themselves. It's simply a matter of accounting for all the changes (which is energy) which took place when the system changed. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

muDped	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #1 on: 2020-12-28, 19:52:59 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Magnets can be arranged to produce tailored fields: Halbach Arrays Video: Assembly of Halbach Arrays Halbach Array Pull Force Demo At times Magnets seem to be Magical. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #2 on: 2020-12-29, 16:50:41 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	Doing some research on Alfred Hubbard, he had working technology when he was 16 years old and demonstrated a 20 Kw generator by the time he turned 19. Can you imagine that ... 16 years old. He was 16 years old when Hubbard accomplished something most can only dream of. 16 years old when he built the first generator capable of outputting near 4 kW and that output with a battery bank to handle peak load could easily power an average house. How is it that a 16 year old in 1920 could accomplish something most all of the self-proclaimed experts cannot?. Look at the picture below, he's just a kid and yet apparently he knew many scientific facts most have yet to learn. I think that's amazing and I want a piece of that technology in the new year. If he can do it at 16 years of age then we can do it. Regards AC ------------------------ Debate on "what is Energy" Hubbard.gif (135.87 kB, 433x618 - viewed 578 times.) --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

muDped	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #3 on: 2020-12-30, 01:59:28 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Alfred Hubbard at a young age did put together a device which seemed to "mysteriously" produce substantial Electrical Energy at its output. Alfred M. HUBBARD Coil Generator The Hubbard energy transformer Hubbard, Al (1901-1982) Alfred Hubbard’s Generator The energy it seemed to produce was indeed real and was witnessed by many. For some very strange reason, in spite of its simplicity, not a single soul has been able to replilcate its apparent performance. Surely there must be a Scientific Reason for its lack of replication. What do you think? --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #4 on: 2020-12-31, 18:53:34 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	I think your just choked that a 16 year old accomplished something you can only dream of. In fact Hubbard claimed Hendershot copied his technology and many other inventors obviously did as well. I also intend to copy it in the new year and can't wait to be off grid...woot. --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

muDped	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #5 on: 2020-12-31, 20:55:44 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: AC I think your just choked that a 16 year old accomplished something you can only dream of. In fact Hubbard claimed Hendershot copied his technology and many other inventors obviously did as well. I also intend to copy it in the new year and can't wait to be off grid...woot. Excellent! It will be a superb Learning Experience for you! We trust that you will keep us all Truthfully apprised. You may indeed affirm where the energy really does come from. And how/why. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Smudge	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #6 on: 2021-01-01, 15:32:58 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	It seems that Hubbard was quite a shady character. He admits to his invention using radioactive material, and that along with the various descriptions of a rod within the inner core, then that core surrounded by other cores, suggest to me the following modus operandi. It is known that ferromagnetic material has the ability to magnify an applied field many times. For Fe that magnification (the relative permeability) can be as high as 100,000. To use this magnification for an overunity machine requires some “field” injection that doesn’t come directly from a primary coil. One such injection can be from a current of spin-polarized electrons entering the core, and elsewhere on this forum I have suggested a spin-polarized transformer where two permanent magnets create two sources of spin-polarized electrons, one source having the opposite polarization of the other. Injection at opposite sides of a ring core switched so that the ring core receives alternating magnetization allows an alternating voltage to appear in the secondary wound onto that ring core. Unfortunately this scheme has not yet been taken up by anybody. It now appears to me that Hubbard used a radioactive rod inserted into the center of his inner core, and that radiated Beta particles (fast electrons) into that core. I think that core was connected magnetically to his outer cores, as depicted in the image below, the outer cores being the return path for the flux in that core. That requires the inner core to have projections connecting to the outer cores, easily achieved by making the core like a bobbin whose flanges encompass the outer cores. Electrons flow from the inner core to half of the outer cores cores, and if the inner core is magnetized then those electrons become spin-polarized. That spin-polarized injection will then add to the outer core magnetization coming directly as the magnetic return path from the inner core. By driving the primary coil with alternating current the current flows then have alternating spin-polarization, adding to the alternating magnetic return. The connecting magnetic path for those cores requires good electrical contact across the mating surfaces, involving careful machining. For the outer cores that are not connected electrically there are small “air” gaps across the mating surfaces by the use of some thin insulating material. By careful design the magnetic return paths of all the outer cores, either directly or through the air gaps, are made the same. It seems from the description that Hubbard had the air-gapped cores interspersed around the machine between the contacting ones. By connecting the coils on the outer cores in series, but with alternate ones counter-wound, the total induced voltage only came from the enhanced magnetization, the normal transformer coupling being cancelled. That explanation seems to fit all the known facts. Good luck to AC if he can experiment with radioactive material. Smudge ------------------------ Debate on "what is Energy" Hubbard.JPG (47.33 kB, 623x386 - viewed 459 times.)

Smudge	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #7 on: 2021-01-02, 15:25:15 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Taking this Hubbard scheme further, the DC current could be supplied separately not involving radioactive material. This is outlined in the modified image below. Here I have thinned down one magnetic path from inner to outer core to illustrate that its reluctance must be matched to the gapped path to the other core. Thus all satellite cores obtain the same flux from the primary core. Then, without the DC source there the total voltage induced into the series secondary windings is zero. The primary AC source sees only a high inductance, it does not see the secondary resistive load. But with that DC source connected the spin-polarized electron flow to half the satellite cores adds to the flux, hence there is then secondary voltage and current. I would call this a form of spin-injection transformer. Whether the AC source or the DC source sees any of that secondary load remains to be seen. Smudge ------------------------ Debate on "what is Energy" Hubbard2.JPG (44.03 kB, 623x386 - viewed 419 times.)

partzman	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #8 on: 2021-01-02, 17:16:28 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1808	Quote from: Smudge on 2021-01-02, 15:25:15 Taking this Hubbard scheme further, the DC current could be supplied separately not involving radioactive material. This is outlined in the modified image below. Here I have thinned down one magnetic path from inner to outer core to illustrate that its reluctance must be matched to the gapped path to the other core. Thus all satellite cores obtain the same flux from the primary core. Then, without the DC source there the total voltage induced into the series secondary windings is zero. The primary AC source sees only a high inductance, it does not see the secondary resistive load. But with that DC source connected the spin-polarized electron flow to half the satellite cores adds to the flux, hence there is then secondary voltage and current. I would call this a form of spin-injection transformer. Whether the AC source or the DC source sees any of that secondary load remains to be seen. Smudge Smudge, I fail to see why there would be no induction to the secondaries without the DC core bias? regards, Pm

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #9 on: 2021-01-03, 06:18:42 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	Smudge Quote It seems that Hubbard was quite a shady character. He admits to his invention using radioactive material, and that along with the various descriptions of a rod within the inner core, then that core surrounded by other cores, suggest to me the following modus operandi. Yes Hubbard was very shady and the time line is telling... Hubbard first attributed the energy gain to the atmosphere, then to an electro-magnetic effect and finally to Radium. However he only claimed he was using Radium after selling 75% of his interest in the technology to the Radium Chemical Corporation. Can you see the conflict of interest?. As well some researchers contacted the Radium Chemical Corporation and they were not aware of any affiliations, any patents nor any employees with prior knowledge of the technology. So I suspect the Radium link is a red herring as most similar technologies do not require radioactive material. It's more likely that some in the management of the company had an interest in burying the technology for unknown reasons and they succeeded. Much of this is about doing the research and connecting the dots. For example Hubbard made public claims that Hendershot may have stolen his idea but then said there was more than enough money to be made by everyone so it wasn't a concern, ergo it was about money. We also have a link between both Hubbard and Hendershots technology and Hendershot made no claims to using radioactive material, ergo the radium claim was probably false. We can also deduce that if Hubbard saw Hendershots device or heard about how it works and claimed he may have stolen his idea they must be similar and they are. So using deductive reasoning we can reach some logical conclusions about how all this may have actually played out so many years ago. Not to imply too much, but many like Cater, Patrick and such seem more interested in applying there own theories than actually trying to understand what Hubbard accomplished. When I look at someone's work I try to take it at face value and try to understand it from there perspective versus my own. As such the internet version of what Hubbard did and why is very different than what the series of events would suggest. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Smudge	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #10 on: 2021-01-03, 08:57:18 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: partzman on 2021-01-02, 17:16:28 Smudge, I fail to see why there would be no induction to the secondaries without the DC core bias? regards, Pm Looking at the image which shows only two cores, we have two secondaries connected in series (not shown, but I perhaps wrongly assumed the reader would have looked at the Hubbard device in detail). But one secondary is counter-wound (or connected in reverse) so that the two induced voltages cancel, hence there is no secondary current into the load. Regards Smudge

Smudge	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #11 on: 2021-01-03, 11:11:32 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Here is another image to show the secondary connections in series opposing, in this case just for two satellite cores. As this is AC's thread perhaps continuation of this discussion should be moved to my spin injection transformer thread that has been dormant for about four years? Smudge ------------------------ Debate on "what is Energy" Hubbard3.JPG (39.57 kB, 623x451 - viewed 388 times.)

Smudge	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #12 on: 2021-01-03, 14:17:27 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Whoops!! Dropped a clanger with that last image, had the wire connecting the two secondaries shown connected to the primary. Here is the corrected image. ------------------------ Debate on "what is Energy" Hubbard3.JPG (39.63 kB, 623x451 - viewed 365 times.)

partzman	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #13 on: 2021-01-03, 14:44:39 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1808	Quote from: Smudge on 2021-01-03, 08:57:18 Looking at the image which shows only two cores, we have two secondaries connected in series (not shown, but I perhaps wrongly assumed the reader would have looked at the Hubbard device in detail). But one secondary is counter-wound (or connected in reverse) so that the two induced voltages cancel, hence there is no secondary current into the load. Regards Smudge Smudge, OK, I see now, thanks. Pm

partzman	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #14 on: 2021-01-04, 00:23:01 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1808	Quote from: Smudge on 2021-01-03, 14:17:27 Whoops!! Dropped a clanger with that last image, had the wire connecting the two secondaries shown connected to the primary. Here is the corrected image. Smudge, Upon further consideration, I think there will be induction into the bucking secondaries that will reflect back to the primary at a magnitude dependent on the coupling factors. Regards, Pm Edit: This arrangement somewhat resembles a three coil transformer that I've seen slight gains of ~10% on the bench. I have never been able to determine the cause of gain but perhaps electron spin alignment is the answer. I will try to bias the core with DC to see if any positive results occur.

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #15 on: 2021-01-04, 21:24:04 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	Smudge With respect to your pictures, the connections and geometry are not correct. The Hubbard device had four external leads as two wire pair. The first pair was for starting the device with what Hubbard claimed was an LRC oscillator and the second pair was connected to the load. Hubbard claimed the LRC oscillator was the reason why nobody else could start his device as the frequency and current must be correct. Which was brilliant because the starter oscillator was a key of sorts to protect his technology. As well, the correct geometry is shown in the pictures of Hubbard's device and known in the art. As it stands your rendition of the device could not work as Hubbard described for several reasons. What throws many people off is that they cannot understand the construct of energy flow. That is the flow of energy in and around a device versus something as simplistic as voltage or current. Understanding energy is the key... Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Smudge	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #16 on: 2021-01-05, 12:10:00 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021-01-04, 21:24:04 Smudge With respect to your pictures, the connections and geometry are not correct. With respect I think perhaps you may have viewed my picture through selective lenses. Quote The Hubbard device had four external leads as two wire pair. The first pair was for starting the device with what Hubbard claimed was an LRC oscillator and the second pair was connected to the load. I understand all that, and I did not attempt to display those four wires. The AC drive source and DC source in my image could all be contained within an enclosure, being powered from the free energy available. Then only four wires would be needed coming out of that enclosure, for the purposes as you mention. Quote Hubbard claimed the LRC oscillator was the reason why nobody else could start his device as the frequency and current must be correct. Perhaps that frequency and current would be a requirement to get my "AC drive source" to start. And that "AC drive source" could well be some internal feedback so that the frequency is determined by the coils and cores, not the separate oscillator that my picture suggested. Quote Which was brilliant because the starter oscillator was a key of sorts to protect his technology. And what form do you think this starter oscillator took in 1919? A classical oscillator having some form of amplifying element would employ a vacuum tube requiring both a low voltage and a high voltage source, what I remember here in the UK as an LT and a HT battery. Do any of the accounts of his demonstration mention those? Quote As well, the correct geometry is shown in the pictures of Hubbard's device and known in the art. As it stands your rendition of the device could not work as Hubbard described for several reasons. What are those reasons? Quote What throws many people off is that they cannot understand the construct of energy flow. That is the flow of energy in and around a device versus something as simplistic as voltage or current. I think I have a full understanding on energy flow and I try to get to the bottom of where excess energy comes from. What do you think of Barbat's version of Hubbard's device (European patent EP2505807A2) where alpha particles (fast electrons) from a radioactive source obtain an energy amplification of 59 from photoelectric emission stimulated by those particles. He says (quote) "that such low-mass electrons must have originated in a thin-film coating of cupric oxide (CuO) on the antenna wire. CuO is a dull-black, polycrystalline, semiconducting compound that develops in situ on copper and bronze wire in the course of annealing the wire in the presence of air" He points out that copper wire of that historical time would have that oxidized surface, whereas modern wires don't. Quote Understanding energy is the key... I couldn't agree more. Regards Smudge

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #17 on: 2021-01-05, 17:31:00 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	Smudge Quote Perhaps that frequency and current would be a requirement to get my "AC drive source" to start. And that "AC drive source" could well be some internal feedback so that the frequency is determined by the coils and cores, not the separate oscillator that my picture suggested. I would agree, a common mistake many make is trying to force oscillations in these devices. In many respects it's like a joule thief where the frequency is always changing dependent on the load and external forces. In many cases a fixed AC drive source is not helping but hindering the process. Quote And what form do you think this starter oscillator took in 1919? A classical oscillator having some form of amplifying element would employ a vacuum tube requiring both a low voltage and a high voltage source, what I remember here in the UK as an LT and a HT battery. Do any of the accounts of his demonstration mention those? I would suspect a simple trembler/interrupter circuit, a small portable device able to be operated in one hand from a small low voltage battery. As usual there is very little documentation other than Hubbard claiming only he could start the device with what he called an LRC oscillator. Quote I think I have a full understanding on energy flow and I try to get to the bottom of where excess energy comes from. What do you think of Barbat's version of Hubbard's device (European patent EP2505807A2) where alpha particles (fast electrons) from a radioactive source obtain an energy amplification of 59 from photoelectric emission stimulated by those particles. He says (quote) "that such low-mass electrons must have originated in a thin-film coating of cupric oxide (CuO) on the antenna wire. CuO is a dull-black, polycrystalline, semiconducting compound that develops in situ on copper and bronze wire in the course of annealing the wire in the presence of air" He points out that copper wire of that historical time would have that oxidized surface, whereas modern wires don't. I'm not sure what to think of Barbat's device, I suspect he knew of Hubbards device and tried to copy it using what information he had. Like many he may have assumed a radioactive source when none was actually used but given the patent may have got his device working anyways. However, I have seen no literature showing Barbat's patent was ever built or proven to work unlike Hubbard's device. I have also tried replicating the effects in some devices and my experiments showed completely new effects I had never considered. That's the great part of experimenting because we never know what we could discover. Like many I build and experiment hoping to stumble onto something unknown to me and the trick is to stumble as fast as we can to learn as much as we can. Here's a hint, if we are designing or conceptualizing a new device and don't know what's going to happen given the nature of the process involved... we should build it and see. However if it's the same old thing using the same old process everyone else has tried were probably wasting out time. It must be new and unique in some way to yield a different result. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

forest	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #18 on: 2021-01-05, 17:37:37 »
Sr. Member Posts: 472	Where do you find all those info about Hubbard device? Hubbard device was just a lot of coils nothing more, it was precisely noted that once started it produced current (probably DC because once he connected it wrong and got opposite polarity - boat motor run in opposite direction which will not produce trust) without any other means. The same for Amman brothers.

Smudge	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #19 on: 2021-01-05, 19:34:16 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: forest on 2021-01-05, 17:37:37 Where do you find all those info about Hubbard device? Hubbard device was just a lot of coils nothing more, it was precisely noted that once started it produced current (probably DC because once he connected it wrong and got opposite polarity - boat motor run in opposite direction which will not produce trust) without any other means. The same for Amman brothers. Use the links in reply #3 in this thread. The account says that he modified the motor for use with his energy device, so may not have been DC. Smudge

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #20 on: 2021-01-06, 18:04:42 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	Smudge With respect to driving these kinds of devices... Many have said they see feedback to the source and the source current starts falling even under load, what do you think this means?. Logically it means some part of the device started producing a gain and since it had nowhere else to go it was reflected back to the source. However what if the source was no longer present?, where would the energy go?, it must go somewhere. What many can't seem to wrap there mind around is that many of these devices had no source because once started they had no beginning or end to the circuit. There was no source, no oscillator section or driver to be found because the circuit was configured as a loop or circle. A circle has no beginning nor end to it. It makes sense doesn't it?, why induce unnecessary losses when we could simply force the energy around and around in a circle. Then as it goes around we could take what energy we needed producing a void in the circuit the energy present would rush into producing more energy. You see, if everything is energy and if we remove some of it the inrush to fill the void produced is also energy. There is no beginning or end, nothing truly lost or gained only the flow of energy. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Paul-R	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #21 on: 2021-01-06, 23:07:12 »
Hero Member Posts: 1579	Quote from: forest on 2021-01-05, 17:37:37 - boat motor run in opposite direction which will not produce trust For the record, yes it will - the same thrust backwards but not as much motion because most hulls are not symmetrical. viz some ferries. « Last Edit: 2021-01-06, 23:41:25 by Paul-R »

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #22 on: 2021-01-08, 17:16:45 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	Paul Quote For the record, yes it will - the same thrust backwards but not as much motion because most hulls are not symmetrical. viz some ferries. Good catch, logic and reason must prevail. It's easy to be deceived by our beliefs or a flawed perception of things not based on factual evidence. We should always use critical thinking to determine the truth of something versus just following others beliefs as many seem to. It's kind of amazing that like Tesla we could just sit and think rationally about a problem and formulate some kind of solution based on the facts. It's not easy because all of us have so many inherent biases were not even aware of. The trick would be to recognize our own perception of things must be flawed and try to move beyond them. The fact remains that other people much more knowledgeable than ourselves understood how free energy works over 100 years ago. They didn't get to that point of understanding and building a free energy device by believing in fairy tales. Above all else they were dedicated to finding the truth of the matter based on the facts they knew which could be demonstrated as facts. All this hearsay and conspiracy theories is a complete waste of time in my opinion. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Allcanadian	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #23 on: 2021-01-08, 19:33:51 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2735	I found this interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle Quote The free energy principle is a formal statement that explains how living and non-living systems remain in non-equilibrium steady-states by restricting themselves to a limited number of states. It establishes that systems minimize a free energy function of their internal states, which entail beliefs about hidden states in their environment. Interesting, systems remain in non-equilibrium steady-states by restricting themselves to a limited number of states. Not unlike Casimir plates which are just metal plates until we bring them together with a gap and EM energy appears between them. In producing a gap we have minimized the number of states the EM energy can have and in doing so concentrated the energy like a waveguide. Wala... free energy. They also make the error in assuming free energy entails "beliefs" about hidden states in nature. No beliefs are required and anyone who has seen a person, animal or plant knows that all living things concentrate energy through there own actions, growing for example. It's not hidden because it's found everywhere in nature. All they have to do is look in the mirror to see a self-organizing system... are they in self-denial?. Quote The free energy principle has been criticized for being very difficult to understand, even for experts. Discussions of the principle have also been criticized as invoking metaphysical assumptions far removed from a testable scientific prediction, making the principle unfalsifiable Of course I can see how some experts would be critical of something like a tree which is self-organizing and possibly deemed metaphysical by some, not. Are trees so difficult to understand?, how could they think the principal of how a tree grows is unfalsifiable or untestable?. How they could have come to these false conclusions given the evidence in plain sight is beyond me. It's like walking outside, taking a good look around then claiming everything they just saw is hidden, hard to understand and untestable... what the hell?. Regards AC « Last Edit: 2021-01-08, 20:26:42 by Allcanadian » --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

muDped	Re: Debate on "what is Energy" « Reply #24 on: 2021-01-09, 03:53:45 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	The Force of Life is something that Institutional Science (whether Real or Paid For) cannot explain or even comprehend. They want us to believe that Life is able to arise Spontaneously. Institutional Science has not the integrity to admit what it Secretly KNOWS to be True. The Force of Life (or The Life Force) is indeed Meta-Physical. Institutional Science will DENY this Secret Truth in favor of the Deception of Darwinism. This "Belief" will be Parroted by all who are Deceived by Institutional Science. The Few Real Scientists who Admit this Truth about Life have no voice in Institutional Science. Institutional Science has been Corrupt for quite a long time. Not to worry. In its Due Time Truth will always Prevail. Quote from: AC Are trees so difficult to understand?, how could they think the principal of how a tree grows is unfalsifiable or untestable?. When we observe ALL that takes place within the Living Tree as it Grows, Sustains Itself and even to some extent Repairs Itself we are in awe. What Intelligence within the Tree controls all of the Numerous Processes in its Living Existence to take place synchronously and at the correct time? The Tree is very, very complex. The Tree is able effortlessly to produce all of its needed Nutrients, Sugars and Other Chemicals that it needs. While we in our Laboratories can synthesize those same Chemicals the processes we must use are very difficult, energy intensive and extremely inefficient. What the Tree is able to accomplish with Water, Air, Carbon Dioxide, the Minerals of the Soil and Sunshine at ambient Temperature is nothing short of Miraculous. How is it that the lowly Tree is able to do all of this? Where does its Life Energy or Life Force actually come from? Can you answer that question AC? --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-28, 16:53:56

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2