Don't think that I'm just picking on EU. I think there are huge discrepancies with establishment scientism as well, and they are rooted in common sense reasoning. For example I will cut and paste the very first sentence of the geology webpage on Wikipedia and show where they go off the deep end:
Geology (from the Greek γῆ, gē, i.e. "earth" and -λoγία, -logia, i.e. "study of, discourse"[1][2]) is an earth science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which they change.
Rocks are stable. They don't change all that much. What geology should really be is the study of how the Earth came to be mostly solid, a gargantuan structure resulting in the formation of the chemical compounds which comprise rocks and minerals, from earlier stages of evolution when it was much hotter and gaseous/plasmatic.
That's a badass definition, one that gives an enormous amount of room for interpretation, and allows for geologists to expand their horizons to outer space BEYOND being forced to study only other rocky objects. The magic happens inside of the evolving star as it cools and dies, and studying other end result objects is only a tiny fraction of the big picture.
What happened is that the astronomers/astrophysicists claimed their territory and began making up nonsense, without regard to the FACT that Earth is an astrophysical object. See? Geology in its purest essence is astrophysics. But lets not bother the establishment people with the obvious. The modern astro people are not trained to look at the obvious. Go figure.
The definition is also quite specifically relating to solid materials. That means a certain level of specialization in the materials examined, furthermore, it implies the use of analogies where material from one planet may be compared to another to infer similarities of some type of condition presumed in the similarities found by analogy.
In other words the logical fallacy of correlation vs causation being at the heart of the science.
The definition is also quite specifically relating to solid materials. That means a certain level of specialization in the materials examined, furthermore, it implies the use of analogies where material from one planet may be compared to another to infer similarities of some type of condition presumed in the similarities found by analogy.
In other words the logical fallacy of correlation vs causation being at the heart of the science.
In the theory I'm developing, I try my best to steer clear of ambiguities and ideas which cause reader too much trouble to understand. Making clear what a correlation and causation are is a huge issue as I'm finding out as well. For the people who are reading this thread, I've understood (before I discovered what the Earth is), that General Relativity or gravitation being warped spacetime, to be rooted in the correlation of mass and gravity. Mass and gravitation are correlational, not causative. Nobody can convince me of the latter either, something being heavy causing it to pull? Nonsense. Newton drew up a correlation, he did not find causation. Unfortunately the paradigm of astrophysics is of placing correlation above causation, as it is easy to do so... just draw up a math formula. Most math formulas are correlational anyways, math doesn't do causative stuff that takes intuition.
I have found that if I cannot express myself clearly (explicitly) then I have no reason to be doing natural philosophy. Unfortunately, thousands of individuals are not trained to express their thoughts unambigiously, they are told that understanding/explaining nature takes lots of math abstraction, years of schooling and credential forming as well requires extensive training in dealing with others who have the same.
Mathematics is indeed about modeling relationships, If the relationship has causality or any other meaning, they are implied as per the reasoning behind the model.
And indeed any reasoning depends on the first principle foundations as observable in physics or engineering. For example, do you know how and why this works?
There are permanent magnets in the system and they are naturally attracted to the steel bolts.
The motion of the rotor attracted to the bolts then induces a current in the coils that charges a capacitor (in the lever). That capacitor then discharges back into the coils permitting the permanent magnets on the rotor to "break" its attraction to the steel bolts momentarily.
The position of the lever effect the device because of the secondary coil in the lever (right near the capacitor there are two or three wraps). When that coil is in closer proximity to the primary coil it delays the capacitor feedback just long enough for the position of the rotor to move passed the bolts, at the moment it moves passed the bolts, the current inducted by the primary coil has fallen to zero. The delay mechanism prevents the capacitor discharge from occurring until the rotor has moved just passed top dead center of the bolts.
The LED's in the circuit introduce a resistance factor that effectively limits current during the capacitor discharge event such that the duration of the discharge is long enough for the permanent magnets in the rotor to escape that moment of attraction with the steel bolts.
So is it a free energy device?
Insofar as we accept the permanent magnets as free magnetism, perhaps it is.
But really? Well, I am willing to venture that the magnets will wear down over time and become much weaker. In that sense it is no more a free energy device as hydrogen is a source of energy. Just as hydrogen needs to be produced, the permanent magnet also needs to have the field introduced.
The reasoning behind the creation of a model or interpretation of what is observable is key to understanding the correlation vs causation relationship appearances can give.
PS
"something being heavy causing it to pull" is an interesting statement. I was unsure if you where referring to gravity or inertia.
Last edited by lcam88, 21st January 2016 at 16:43.
"something being heavy causing it to pull" is an interesting statement. I was unsure if you where referring to gravity or inertia.
Well, establishment has been able to convince thousands of bright young minds of absurdities. The absurdity stands, "something that is heavy will pull on something else because space and time bend."
Or that how it supposedly goes.
I tell you what. If bright young minds can be convinced so strongly that space and time are physical, then they don't stand a chance at understanding nature to its fullest extent. Which is why I'm slowly coming to terms with how great of a position I'm in at being able to work on theory. If I was a part of those groups, I wouldn't know the difference between up/down, or sane/insane because I would be surrounded by like minded people. As someone who can work on theory on their own, without some authority figures bearing down on papers/ideas because they would threaten the egos/livlihoods of journal editors/other professionals, I can honestly say I'm blessed in more than one way.
To work on ground breaking theory, you can't do science in a professional setting (get paid to do it in other words). You have to do it for free, because you LIKE it. *gasp* As well, to be able to point out some serious issues through the eyes of a seasoned researcher and philosopher in an amicable setting such as this forum, is also a blessing. Just speaking negatively of current dogma will get you banned in other forums, such as cosmoquest. Its so ironic. They propose that scientific revolutions have happened, yet a revolution could never happen to them... they'd be the first to figure something out! I have found that to be quite the opposite of our development. If anything, researchers in large groups are the last to know, because the group essentially shields new ideas.
Last edited by Jeffrey W., 21st January 2016 at 20:55.
What did you think about the concept I shared regarding the states of matter and levels of fluidity?
Can compression indeed be viewed as an aspect of fluidity in that it introduces a new variable of freedom?
What about the level of intermolecular structure in a gaseous medium?
I have thought about this for some time but really haven't gotten much feedback from anyone.
Regarding states of matter and levels of fluidity, I really don't know. I mean, I got a hold of my father's older mechanical engineering/aerodynamics books, one entitled Strength of Materials and the other Theory of Wing Sections, and they are pretty dense. Airfoils and how they behave are much more complicated than I previously expected, as well understanding the different types of stresses solid material undergoes such as compression, torsion, sheer, and compound stresses for example are turning out to be very complex. Not only that, but in reference to theory development, I have found that the majority of the stellar evolution understanding will require chemical reactions under extreme temperatures and pressures not afforded at STP (standard temperature and pressure). It feels as if we haven't even begun to understand what nature really is. It feels as if the collective understanding was just thrown together haphazardly just so courses could be designed to mold people into collective societies.
I think its funny though how they try to place math formulas in relation to the types of stresses in the materials book and equations in the wingsections book...lol... as if a formula brings understanding! haha So I suppose the hundreds of years of metal working and smelting accumulated through time and the many thousands of trial and error engineering feats aren't to owe our understanding to! Nor the basic theory of airfoil design being directly associated to the fact that we looked at birds and tried to mimic them... (no it was math that brought understanding!) hhaha
In the previous posting you make mention to engineering literature. Thinking of aerospace, it be quite dense indeed as calculating airframe loads requires consideration of the lift surfaces and the load bearing structures, drag, weight and so many other variables.
Since engineering is fundamentally about reducing estimations and providing methods for consideration and calculations on key conceptual issues; it boils down to a realm where the variables are all known values based on well established concepts and principles that are well understood and even where the presumptions are well established. Following the "best principles" suggestions is great because a lot of stuff is already baked and so a lot of it doesn't need to be derived from first principles.
So while engineers must know all there is to know about materials, structures and principles or practices used, Physics comes from a place where some of the pieces may not yet be fully understood. Theories are developed to try and better understand...
Engineering new technology is about taking measurements and examination of the underlying physics where it is required for the final engineering analysis to be complete.
As you say, STP does not apply when the sheer coincidence of natural creation happens during the process of planetary or stellar creation. Occam's razor.
Perhaps engineering is only useful in the expansion of physics when an engineering implementation exhibits unforeseen characteristics that need explaining or study. That happens to be the case when, for example, 1930's electrical engineers in Germany measured phenomena that are not explained by conventional electric theory leading to theories that elaborate specific exception to the standard model. Joseph P Ferrell.
In the previous posting you make mention to engineering literature. Thinking of aerospace, it be quite dense indeed as calculating airframe loads requires consideration of the lift surfaces and the load bearing structures, drag, weight and so many other variables.
Since engineering is fundamentally about reducing estimations and providing methods for consideration and calculations on key conceptual issues; it boils down to a realm where the variables are all known values based on well established concepts and principles that are well understood and even where the presumptions are well established. Following the "best principles" suggestions is great because a lot of stuff is already baked and so a lot of it doesn't need to be derived from first principles.
So while engineers must know all there is to know about materials, structures and principles or practices used, Physics comes from a place where some of the pieces may not yet be fully understood. Theories are developed to try and better understand...
Engineering new technology is about taking measurements and examination of the underlying physics where it is required for the final engineering analysis to be complete.
As you say, STP does not apply when the sheer coincidence of natural creation happens during the process of planetary or stellar creation. Occam's razor.
Perhaps engineering is only useful in the expansion of physics when an engineering implementation exhibits unforeseen characteristics that need explaining or study. That happens to be the case when, for example, 1930's electrical engineers in Germany measured phenomena that are not explained by conventional electric theory leading to theories that elaborate specific exception to the standard model. Joseph P Ferrell.
Thank you for the response, it is always nice to see that people are willing to interact so that we can help each other grow as individuals. It is helpful for me to have people just jump right in and help out, as opposed to those who just watch from a distance, afraid to say anything for fear of ridicule. If I'm not mistaken this is a forum of open minded ness over ridicule and closed minded thinking right?
STP does not apply to processes involving stellar evolution on the whole. Nothing is standard temperature/pressure when it comes to stars. Very high and very low pressures, as well as very high/low temperatures are involved. STP is suitable for people who work in industry to establish standards for communication, but when it comes to stuff so foreign such as stellar evolution, it is no wonder there is no standard. Our engineering capabilities simply do not allow for us to study in depth the required temps/pressures necessary for the understanding we require on the whole. If there is such as diamond anvils and the like, they tend to be focused on use in industry and not the application of the theory to explanation of Earth formation... as the industry is so far removed from basic theory currently. sigh.
Reply With Quote
Originally posted by lcam88
Bookmarks