This is not Psuedo science.
How is this going to change your life?
This is a good as man inventing the wheel or even better. I'm talking about the extraction of clean fuel from (almost) limitless supplies of salt water. (You can even use table salt in tap water)
Apparantly the application of radio waves makes the extraction of the fuel from salt water entirely practical for the purpose of in-situ fuel consumption.
Are YOU one of the following:
(1) Believe the story and expect to benefit from it soon.
(2) Know it's true but dont expect to benefit from it.
(3) Are totally skeptical. Its psuedo science and you probably could not extract enough to make the whole thing worth while.
(4) Other, You name it category 
NB:JUST TO ELABORATE ON THE ABOVE
A guy called John Kanzius discovered that his radio frequency generator could release the oxygen and hydrogen from saltwater and create intense flame.
Whilst being demonstrated it was shown that if it was in a car cylinder you could see the amount of fire that would be created in the cylinder.
A Company called APV Laboratory in Akron has checked out the invention/discovery. They were amazed.
They remarked:
"That could be a steam engine, a steam turbine. That could be a car engine if you wanted it to be."
Last edited by chasbeen on Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total I'm on 4. (Don't know how).
The problem is: How will it happens? The radio waves will broke the water molecules? To generate the radio waves will not spend more energy then will be absorved?
Well, until I can´t find more things about the subject, this video on youtube is a great kind of energy from water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU
[]'s
Ricardo Viana Its all well and good, but what powers the machine that creates the radio waves ?... I'm a 2
Before choosing the number I want to ask you if you thought it all up yourself or you a source for the information
that source identified will be useful
Type "burning sea water with radio waves" into any search engine and you get 1, 2, 3 or 4 "Types" of people ranting on about it.
Apparantly you cant get the same amount of energy out as you get in.
However there are a few guys with perpetual motion machines so (Like Mathematics) the law of Thermodynamics tries to mimic the real world but there never seems to be an exact fit.
Since their conception, however, the laws of Thermodynamics have become some of the most important in all of physics but i'm loosing faith in these "law corner stones" 
4, this is extremely vague. How can anyone decide on a number without some more details. I am assuming the "fuel" you speak of is hydrogen. But like others have posted, those radio waves have to come from somewhere. Maybe it could be possible to concentrate the suns energy strong enough to split water molecules on a large scale, but from your statement I have no clue what you are describing.
Thanks, I elaborated on the subject
I imagine you need a ton of saltwater and more to the point, a generator for the radio machine. I think the bacteria that turn CO2 and water into gasoline are much cooler. The provide fuel and combat global warming.
I'm not necessarily talking about "on board" manufacture of combustible liquid/gas but the generation of a "nearly free" fuel source that only needs salt water.
ok, I understand. But how will it works? You already know or you are just inventing the idea so we can discuss about and try to make it possible?
I don't think the discoverer has made any claim about free energy. At least not that I saw.
What he has managed to do is take salt water and put it in an electromagnetic field (13.56MHz it seems) and produce a plasma or flame that glows orange.
The orange probably comes from the sodium in the salt.
The uses are probably not going to be free energy in the same way as perpetual motion proclaims to be, but imagine if you wanted to cook your Sunday roast - you pop it in the microwave, put some salt water in the bottom and set it to 13.56MHz. Hurrah, you have heat (3000F apparently) and use no fossil fuel (assuming the microwave is powered by some renewable energy source).
Now imagine todays gas oven - you get a leak in the cable and your house fills up and you turn on the light and BOOM.
Now when the fuel is salt water, there is no fire hazard. When the oven is off the fuel source is totally harmless.
I see a lot of potential for this in a number of fields but think any benefit to me will be a long way off. So I suppose I'm a (2).
David.
Hmm, im 4 (dubious of everything).
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU . I watched the video in the link posted above and listened closely. 54 secs. Water. water + electricity! in electroloysis. Yes, electricity. To break down the water via
Electrolosis (Increadibly energy consuming, heance recycling aluminium schemes - aluminium uses electrolosis and aboslutely loads of electric)
So making the this super energy heat takes up lots of eenergy. Does the energy made out way the amount used, is there ways to harvest the energy of a 'cold flame'.
ALSO, I may be wrong here, but converts H2O to HHO. hmm. H = hydrogen. h2 =two hydrogens H20 = water, ice, steam. HHO dosent work
http://americanhistory.si.edu/kids/molecule/images/02h20.gif
2 H's attached to Oxygen
IONS!
Every element has a charge and to form a stable compound, needs to neutralise. Water is stable.
Hydrogen charge = + 1
Oxygen charge = - 2
To balance you need 2 hydrogensl. Simple really.
Tell me how you therfore get HHO. Yes...
Also, in the video
(turns a brass ball to Liquid metal)...Oh no it doesnt. After watching it heat that for 3 secs it most definetly was not close to liquid, hot but not liquid.
Secondly, no prove that was brass, could be cooled mercury (sarcasm) for all we know.
(Turns back to water) Blow on a window, rub the condesation, water right?
Also, wet whatever it was he was showng water on and freeze it, melts to water!
Cool to touch, tun that on and it wont be !(untouchable) for a good 20 secs.
I say this is your everyday gas welder.
All the car stuff is old news, read elsewhere
Yes dubiuos indeed.
Another link for you is: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk
I wont go into this video, but radia waves to kill cancer cell? Yes, indeed. Google/wikipedia Gamma radiation, cobalt 60, cancer and see what you find!
Thanks for reading. I tend to go on a bit when I hear (crap) new news. | liamthebof wrote: |
Every element has a charge and to form a stable compound, needs to neutralise. Water is stable.
Hydrogen charge = + 1
Oxygen charge = - 2
To balance you need 2 hydrogensl. Simple really |
O RLY? So hydrogen gas (H2) has a +2 charge? Oxygen gas a -4 charge? That's what you're suggesting, but it's not true!
An element is defined by the amount of protons in the nucleus. H has 1, O has 8, C has 6, etc. Each proton has a +1 charge. So the nucleus of O is charged 8+. In an O atom this is neutralised by 8 electrons (-1 each). In an ion the amount of electrons is different than the amount of protons, resulting in a net charge of either + (too little electrons) or - (too many).
Water is composed of atoms, not ions, so your reasoning is incorrect. Even though water has a dipole character because the electrons prefer to move near the O, the H atoms do not completely lose their electron (each H only has one) to the O.
There is however a certain chemical correlation between the -2 charge of the most common* oxygen ion, the +1 charge of the most common* hydrogen ion and the fact that water is H2O. If you look at the electron configuration of the oxygen element (1s2, 2s2, 2p4) you see that the second shell (L) has 6 electrons, but it can hold 8. Hydrogen has 1 electron of its own, and when oxygen binds 2 H atoms (covalently!), it has its outer shell completely filled up which is energetically favourable. Another way for oxygen to get its outer shell filled up is to take 2 electrons from another atom, thus forming the -2 charged ion. Usually this "other atom", the electron donator, is an element that has its outer shell nearly empty, making it easy to remove the few electrons still in there. For example lithium (1s2, 2s1) with only 1 electron in the L-shell and 7 empty "slots" (called orbitals). Or indeed H can lose its electron, resulting in H+ (which in fact is a single proton!).
* Other ions are also possible, e.g. H- with 1 proton and 2 electrons.
So there you have it all explained... next time be a bit more careful with your statements 
Arnie are you a
(1) Believe the story and expect to benefit from it soon.
(2) Know it's true but dont expect to benefit from it.
(3) Are totally skeptical. Its psuedo science and you probably could not extract enough to make the whole thing worth while.
(4) Other, You name it category
Most likely 2. The energy is certainly not free because generating radio waves costs energy.
| liamthebof wrote: |
Hmm, im 4 (dubious of everything).
Another link for you is: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk
I wont go into this video, but radia waves to kill cancer cell? Yes, indeed. Google/wikipedia Gamma radiation, cobalt 60, cancer and see what you find!
|
I don't have the time now to place a proper answer to the subject but, something caught my eye, and I need to straighten that out!
Just for the record, radiowaves aren't used to kill cancer. Gamma radiation is high energy radiation. It has a far higher frequency spectrum than radiowaves. Radiowaves are used for example for communication purposes and navigation etc. Radiowaves are relatively harmless to humans (less harmless than for example visible light, that carries more energy).
But, I'll check back soon to post a decent answer to the original post.Lots of people dispute this however some of the most likely skeptics are converts because of a car Ford made for use in California back in 1998. These could only be obtained on a lease agreement and when the 5 years was up they were all recalled much to the prospective owners chegrin.
Why were they all so upset?
Would you be upset if you could not keep a vehicle that did not need gasoline and was powered by cells (battery)
This is not free energy but it sure beats paying for gasoline. It just seems like we are only able to drive vehicles powered by the designated power sources (and heat our houses for that matter).
It's a strong argument for these hard to find free energy sources. These are available but they are not supported. It's not that they do not exist 
So what are you a (1) (2) (3) or (4) 
Anyone seen the new Hybrid?
You can travel 40 miles a day with full expected power from a family saloon. As long as your driving is under 40 miles a day and you plug it in every night you save $3000 bucks a year minus the electricity cost for charging the cells. Not free energy but hey getting closer. Car cost 8.500 dollars more than the equivalent petrol/gas only. You got to be a (2) at least! This is not the energy derived from Salt water but it might indicate that there are much cheaper ways to get about.
Well, that's mostly because you're getting your energy from a different source. If it works out better than petrol, then it's because electricity is cheaper per mile. Fundamentally using another energy source will not lower the energy the car needs to operate. I guess coal-made electricity will be cheaper than (highly refined) petrol per J.
Only the process how the car gets that energy can be more efficient for one source than the other. Although electricity itself is very efficient, the production of it often isn't. To correctly compare it with petrol you should consider the production of electricity/petrol from the bottom up (starting with the mining of fossile fuels that are used, and including transport, refining, efficiency of the power stations, etc.) I wonder what will turn out better.
So the bottom line is you may save money because you're using a cheaper energy source, but I doubt it's environmentally beneficial in the total picture. Of course you don't have any CO2 emissions at your car, but they are only 'moved' to the power station! Although emission may be less indeed if that power station is nuclear / wind / whatever - the average of all global power production is still quite 'dirty'.
The same story for hydrogen, by the way. Production of hydrogen gas requires energy input (usually electricity on a small scale and CH4 + heat at a large scale), and where does that energy come from? These sorts of "clean" fuels can currently only be produced on a large scale using "dirty" methods, thus only moving the problem. As soon as we find a clean energy source that can replace coal/gas/etc. that's when these so-called clean cars really get clean. Although the energy has to be produced in a useful form as well, H2 production without fossile fuels is afaik only practical with electricity and you can't run a car on dissipated heat either.
Last edited by Arnie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:31 pm; edited 2 times in total
All you said I agree with. Theres obvious cost savings but just as much pollution occuring, We've both drifted off subject. Getting back to topic It sounds like your a (3)..
I've been here before... Oh yeah!It surprises me your a 2 though.
Anybody have any reliable source that says this occurs and is energy efficient?
I'm between 2 and 3... not convinced it really is true but it could well be possible (the waves thing). As for the electricity thing, that's totally different, and I already explained my view. I wonder why you're trying to fit everyone into one of four corners?
The fourth corner is a make your own category 
In that case, I'm in cat. 5 That video is amazing. I can't believe this isn't everywhere in the world at this time we need it the most.
| rvbarreto wrote: |
I'm on 4. (Don't know how).
The problem is: How will it happens? The radio waves will broke the water molecules? To generate the radio waves will not spend more energy then will be absorved?
Well, until I can´t find more things about the subject, this video on youtube is a great kind of energy from water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU
[]'s
Ricardo Viana |
| Arnie wrote: |
The same story for hydrogen, by the way. Production of hydrogen gas requires energy input (usually electricity), and where does that energy come from? These sorts of "clean" fuels can currently only be produced on a large scale using "dirty" methods, thus only moving the problem. As soon as we find a clean energy source that can replace coal/gas/etc. that's when these so-called clean cars really get clean. Although the energy has to be produced in a useful form as well, H2 production is only practical with electricity and you can't run a car on dissipated heat either. |
It is true that most methods of power production are still quite "dirty". However, production of hydrogen as a fuel can be done in off-peak hours, when electricity production is generally both cheaper and cleaner. Once hydogen becomes a common fuel, there will be more incentive to use wind, sun, and other technologies that are fairly clean and cheap but are not always available at the time needed. Either hydrogen production or recharging of auto batteries could be done between 3 am and 7 am, for example (with wind, obviously not with the sun). Because hydrogen fuel can be readily stored, it should be practical to store several day's supply, to reduce the cost and assure availability.
Back on the subject, the demonstration of "burning water" seems to be legitimate. While it is quite unlikely to be energy-efficient, this kind of experiment with energy conversion techniques is important in finding better solutions to energy problems. I would say number (2), but with a very real possibility that the phenomenon will lead to a new line of research which may help our energy efficiency.Very interesting posts, but remember we are all currently having to use the allocated energy sources. It's very hard to get a hold of these unlicensed fuel sources. I started this subject and i'm a (2). You guys sound like your a (1), which may prove to be correct.
I can imagine that this would make a ferocious naval weapon. A directed energy source (microwave generator) aimed at the water around a ship that engulfs it in hot plasma. Not very pleasant. Thankfully the energy requirements are likely to be prohibitive and so it won't be a practical weapon until llong after warfare has been abandoned (lol).
I still think it would be of much greater use in environments where heat is required instantly and the benefits of using a stable and safe fuel source outweigh the probably horrendous inefficiencies in electricity->microwaves->heat/light.
David.
As far as I am concerned, most established sciences are flawed for the simple fact that they think they understand things. And they like to turn on people that show them that they didn't know as much as they thought about things.
Plain and simple, we humans do not understand nearly as much as we thing we do about how things work. Proof is in the performance. What's the guy gonna do about his discovery? Who is gonna benefit? Will the same powerhungry mad men that have ran things for the last few hundred years simply use it to make more money?
I myself embrace anything I myself can do. I am currently designing a hydroxy generator. It is for my car. And nobody is trying to bend the laws of physics. Just trying to save on some gas with proven methods. So if this guy can do it then go for it. But he needs to not be greedy about it. Make the entire technology open source if you really wanna help the world with it.
Jusy my two cents..
| SonLight wrote: |
| It is true that most methods of power production are still quite "dirty". However, production of hydrogen as a fuel can be done in off-peak hours, when electricity production is generally both cheaper and cleaner. Once hydogen becomes a common fuel, there will be more incentive to use wind, sun, and other technologies that are fairly clean and cheap but are not always available at the time needed. Either hydrogen production or recharging of auto batteries could be done between 3 am and 7 am, for example (with wind, obviously not with the sun). Because hydrogen fuel can be readily stored, it should be practical to store several day's supply, to reduce the cost and assure availability. |
Here's some data I got from the professor of inorganic chemistry at our university. | Quote: |
World use of H2 in 1990, Mt/a
- Ammonia synthesis 25
- Oil refining 10
- Methanol 3
- Rest 2
- Total 40
Cf. Total energy consumption eq. 3000 Mt/a |
In other words, there's a long way to go to switch to the ideal hydrogen economy. To get all our energy via hydrogen we would have to produce 75 times more of it and these figures are from 1990.
And you're saying hydrogen fuel can be readily stored (highlighted red). Any idea what volume of uncompressed H2 gas you would need to have the equivalent of a present day full petrol tank? Or what pressure would have to be used to compress that hydrogen to the same volume of liquid petrol we currently use? This should be easy to calculate but with hydrogen being the lightest gas you can imagine where this is going. The pressures would be higher than those used in chemical reactors. Not something to let john doe drive around with in his car. Alternatively, the gas could be cooled down so it will occupy less volume. But that's a thermodynamic disaster, you can't maintain 10 K in your garage.
So only chemical ways of storage remain. The hydrogen has to be bound in a substance that's more convenient to store and transport. The professor and his group are researching such compounds... but did you even think of this?? | Arnie wrote: |
| SonLight wrote: | | It is true that most methods of power production are still quite "dirty". However, production of hydrogen as a fuel can be done in off-peak hours, when electricity production is generally both cheaper and cleaner. Once hydogen becomes a common fuel, there will be more incentive to use wind, sun, and other technologies that are fairly clean and cheap but are not always available at the time needed. Either hydrogen production or recharging of auto batteries could be done between 3 am and 7 am, for example (with wind, obviously not with the sun). Because hydrogen fuel can be readily stored, it should be practical to store several day's supply, to reduce the cost and assure availability. |
Here's some data I got from the professor of inorganic chemistry at our university. | Quote: | World use of H2 in 1990, Mt/a
- Ammonia synthesis 25
- Oil refining 10
- Methanol 3
- Rest 2
- Total 40
Cf. Total energy consumption eq. 3000 Mt/a |
In other words, there's a long way to go to switch to the ideal hydrogen economy. To get all our energy via hydrogen we would have to produce 75 times more of it and these figures are from 1990.
And you're saying hydrogen fuel can be readily stored (highlighted red). Any idea what volume of uncompressed H2 gas you would need to have the equivalent of a present day full petrol tank? Or what pressure would have to be used to compress that hydrogen to the same volume of liquid petrol we currently use? This should be easy to calculate but with hydrogen being the lightest gas you can imagine where this is going. The pressures would be higher than those used in chemical reactors. Not something to let john doe drive around with in his car. Alternatively, the gas could be cooled down so it will occupy less volume. But that's a thermodynamic disaster, you can't maintain 10 K in your garage.
So only chemical ways of storage remain. The hydrogen has to be bound in a substance that's more convenient to store and transport. The professor and his group are researching such compounds... but did you even think of this?? |
Wow...nice source to be read ^^
So hydrogen fuel can be easily to store...No it can't, that was my point. 
But with water being easy to store and safe to transport we need to rethink how things are done.
Who needs all this infrastructure. Never make more than you are going to use at one time. Hydrogen fuel can be made on demand from water. Not hard to store water. Not dangerous either.
Seems people are thinking inside the big oil company box of mass distribution. Mass profits not being the object of a cleaner fuel, then there is no reason to think like the big oil companies. No need to do things like they do.
No need to make mass hydrogen storage and production plants. Just water purification stations.
I think Hydrogen on demand is the answer. For now and into the future.
This thinking of course is along the same lines as chemically binding the hydrogen for storage.
Lucky for us it already comes conveniently bonded in water. Nature is a wonderful thing.
| Quote: |
| But with water being easy to store and safe to transport we need to rethink how things are done. |
The energy is NOT in the water. If you introduce energy you can release hydrogen from water. Hydrogen (+ ˝ oxygen to be precise) in a sense is a full energy "basket" and water is the empty basket. (Of course water has intrinsic energy by E=mc˛ but that's physics, not chemistry, and totally irrelevant here. Only in very specific conditions can mass be 'converted' to energy, which is what happens in nuclear fusion. And in chemistry there are very little lower-energy systems than H2O with those atoms, I'm sure... unless you want to count "poly-water"...)
| Quote: |
| Who needs all this infrastructure. |
The energy mentioned above has to come from somewhere so your suggestion of making hydrogen locally still means that there has to be energy distribution to all those local sites. Which basically is nothing different from today's energy distribution.
| Quote: |
| Lucky for us it already comes conveniently bonded in water. Nature is a wonderful thing. |
Very "conveniently bonded" indeed, in fact the electron distribution in H2O is so convenient (from a quantum chemical point of view) that the molecule has very low energy. Which means a lot of energy has to be introduced to release hydrogen and this is much less practical on large scale than e.g. CH4. | Arnie wrote: |
And you're saying hydrogen fuel can be readily stored (highlighted red). Any idea what volume of uncompressed H2 gas you would need to have the equivalent of a present day full petrol tank? Or what pressure would have to be used to compress that hydrogen to the same volume of liquid petrol we currently use? This should be easy to calculate but with hydrogen being the lightest gas you can imagine where this is going. The pressures would be higher than those used in chemical reactors. Not something to let john doe drive around with in his car. Alternatively, the gas could be cooled down so it will occupy less volume. But that's a thermodynamic disaster, you can't maintain 10 K in your garage.
So only chemical ways of storage remain. The hydrogen has to be bound in a substance that's more convenient to store and transport. The professor and his group are researching such compounds... but did you even think of this?? |
Of course, storage of hydrogen is one of the critical points for this technology. As you say, storing it in a chemicallly bonded form seems to be the only feasible way. I have not studied this issue, but I understand that they have developed means to bond it as a hydride compound or through adsorption. The hydrogen stored in your "gas tank" obviously cannot be stored as water, but must be in a less stable form in order to be usable. There is no need to store huge amounts of hydrogen, but I'm sure more research is needed to find the best way to store it in bulk, since at least two or three days supply should be kept on hand because of the variability of wind and sun energy.All I know is that an on board generator will simply be using energy that would have been wasted to produce it's desired results in my car. I can go to any store and buy the water. And it burns the dirty fuel I currently use more cleanly.
Not the prefect answer. But I can do it right now and without waiting for the perfect answer. Who knows maybe I will accidently discover something useful.
| Modern_Martial_Arts wrote: |
| All I know is that an on board generator will simply be using energy that would have been wasted to produce it's desired results in my car. I can go to any store and buy the water. And it burns the dirty fuel I currently use more cleanly. |
I don't get this. What generator is this? Are we talking about using the alternator to electrolyse water? If so then basic thermodynamics tells us that the amount of energy required to 'turn' the alternator depends on the energy being taken out. Try it with your car if you like. Take the spark plugs out and turn the engine by hand. Now switch on the lights and turn it again - it's harder because the alternator is under more load and is therefore more difficult to turn...SonLight: exactly, but this guy I'm replying to constantly refers to water as if that's the fuel. It's so easy to store, so easy to transport, so cheap, it comes falling from the sky, etc. That's misleading because water isn't the fuel and things aren't as easy as he presents them.
You can take water (nearly) anywhere, but it's useless unless you have some form of energy on the spot as well. So you need a way to transport that energy. But wasn't hydrogen (in a high-energy bond) to be used as an energy 'transport agent' in the first place? So with water you haven't solved anything. In the whole hydrogen fuel concept water isn't that important. But of course it's a very appealing image to present to the public, because hydrides etc. are scary chemicals and water is 'natural'.
Example: | Quote: |
| I can go to any store and buy the water. |
and various quotes in my previous replies and the other topic, where he complains I'm attacking him personally (for each shot at his open goal).
When nuclear fusion would turn out the power source we're hoping it will, water may be the best source to make hydrogen from. But until then it's not feasible on mass scale. And even with fusion a high-energy chemical bond would be required to transport the hydrogen. This seems less of a problem because research is going quite well at the moment. Appears to me that anything I have to say is gonna be attacked. And nobody is interested in much more than whining about how stupid I am.
Sorry, not a big shot scientist.
So enjoy your little thread. I can live without it.
| Modern_Martial_Arts wrote: |
| Appears to me that anything I have to say is gonna be attacked. And nobody is interested in much more than whining about how stupid I am. |
In science it is assumed that everything you propose will be 'attacked'. That is how the enterprise works. You propose an hypothesis and open it up for criticism from your peers - the process is called peer-review. Whilst this forum does not properly represent the process of peer-review it can, at least, try to embody the principles. If you simply want people to agree with what you say, then a religious forum might be a better choice.
Having said that, it is not correct to attack people, only what they say. If anyone is accusing you of being stupid then they are out of order. It is perfectly in order to attack what you say, however.
| Quote: |
| Sorry, not a big shot scientist. |
I suspect that no posters on this forum would regard themselves as 'big shot scientists'. That does not mean that we can't try to behave in a scientific manner..Modern Martial Arts
Don't use gonna use "going to" 
By the way, I think I was wrong here: | Arnie wrote: |
| Only in very specific conditions can mass be 'converted' to energy, which is what happens in nuclear fusion. |
It's the fusion of nuclei itself that releases energy in fusion. Because there is more nucleon-nucleon interaction in one nucleus than in two separated nuclei with the same amount of nucleons, a lower energy state is achieved through nuclear force attraction. This means that energy is released when going from the higher state (two seperate nuclei) to the lower (one fused nucleus). No mass is converted to energy in this fusion process because the amount of nucleons doesn't change.
Nobody noticed but hey, this isn't my field anyway... Hehe...yes they did notice - but you were on a roll so...
It's the binding energy that is released in fusion rather than a conversion of mass to energy (as you say).
The only method I can think of that would convert mass directly to energy would be matter-antimatter anihilation, although we could argue that relativistic mass is another example....
Or perhaps the nucleus simply has a lower mass than the sum of the masses of all the separate nucleons. I'm not sure, never had relativity (generally not that important for chemists). But I figure the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass comes into play here and that's too off-topic (both for this topic and my focus).
| Quote: |
In science it is assumed that everything you propose will be 'attacked'. That is how the enterprise works. You propose an hypothesis and open it up for criticism from your peers - the process is called peer-review. Whilst this forum does not properly represent the process of peer-review it can, at least, try to embody the principles. If you simply want people to agree with what you say, then a religious forum might be a better choice.
|
I really like this explanation. Never realized what peer-review was about, and yes such a simple explanation. I think they used to do this during Plato and Aristoteles times as well. With wine goblets in the hand open up a topic for discussion and then have it investigated by everyone.
About joining a religious forum for a place where everyone agrees, when I last checked in there it looked even more contentious than over here. I actually like different points of view. I believe that for every point of view there has to be an off-setting counter point of view, and at the point where the two offset one another there is an opening of the mind. I struggle to get there most of the time, but when I do, it always feel of the "Eureka!" variety. | deanhills wrote: |
| Quote: | In science it is assumed that everything you propose will be 'attacked'. That is how the enterprise works. You propose an hypothesis and open it up for criticism from your peers - the process is called peer-review. Whilst this forum does not properly represent the process of peer-review it can, at least, try to embody the principles. If you simply want people to agree with what you say, then a religious forum might be a better choice.
|
I really like this explanation. Never realized what peer-review was about, and yes such a simple explanation. I think they used to do this during Plato and Aristoteles times as well. With wine goblets in the hand open up a topic for discussion and then have it investigated by everyone. |
Well, similar but not the same. In the time of Aristotle/Plato et al the main technique was rhetoric - which I suppose is similar to these (and other) forums (fora?). That is a useful technique for examining a viewpoint, to be sure, but in the science era we rely on evidence. The greeks did not have the benefit of empirical science and relied on philosophical reasoning to explain things. I should say that I have a great admiration for the philosophers of that era and would in no way wish to denigrate their achievements - I just think we can do better nowadays. That is why I normally ask for citations and references when someone posts a 'fact'. It is good practice in any science forum to back-up opinions and statements wherever possible.
| Quote: |
| About joining a religious forum for a place where everyone agrees, when I last checked in there it looked even more contentious than over here. I actually like different points of view. I believe that for every point of view there has to be an off-setting counter point of view, and at the point where the two offset one another there is an opening of the mind. I struggle to get there most of the time, but when I do, it always feel of the "Eureka!" variety. |
The difference is that a purely religious forum is 'belief' based rather than 'evidence' based. You can, therefore, select a religious forum which corresponds to your particular belief and find a large measure of agreement and support. The internet is full of such forums. The forum here is combined with philosophy so atheistic posters such as myself contribute, as do posters with non-Christian belief systems - the result is, not surprisingly, not as consensual as you would find on, say, an evangelical Christian forum...Although the "agreeing with and being agreed to" works quite well on forums like this as well. Take for example the famous "which browser do you use" topics. They're like Firefox fanboy lounges and when once in 500 years a IE user has the guts to enter, the lounge lizards have got themselves a mutual enemy.
| Quote: |
The difference is that a purely religious forum is 'belief' based rather than 'evidence' based. You can, therefore, select a religious forum which corresponds to your particular belief and find a large measure of agreement and support. The internet is full of such forums. The forum here is combined with philosophy so atheistic posters such as myself contribute, as do posters with non-Christian belief systems - the result is, not surprisingly, not as consensual as you would find on, say, an evangelical Christian forum...
|
Thanks Chris. I get the point/s: (1) You prefer scientific proof of factual statements; (2) Plato, Aristoteles & Co. had a rhetorical type system which was effective in its time, but less effective than our modern system of scientific proof; and (3) Religion is not factually based, but has to do with faith, and so that requires a different kind of dialogue based on the consideration of value statements rather than factual statements. Think I get the latter point of view.
For me everything is possible. For every statement there is an offsetting opposite statement. For every truth there is an offsetting falsehood. Today's fact is tomorrow's fiction. My existence has an offsetting non-existence - the moment I am borne, my death is written in who I am. Not sure what one would call this - fatalistic? Maybe open-minded? Get a sense that you are much more savvy in this.
For every beginning there is an end. Nothing can be exact, finite or proven completely scientifically. 1+1 is not 2. Everything is relative. The same scientific methods that can be used to prove someone right, can be used to prove someone wrong. Depends on how good the arguments are. I am thinking of the law in this instance. You cannot have justice without embracing injustice, the two are completely back to back to one another. Today's justice can easily become tomorrow's injustice just by adding a different part of the truth or a value system (despotic or free country).
Think doubt is the only truth for me. As certainty can only exist within doubt. Same with faith in God. You cannot have faith without going through the fire proofing of doubt. So maybe Descartes had a good spin on things when he said I think therefore I am, I doubt therefore I am. Scientific proof probably has a place in all of it, but to me sometimes when you focus overly on the scientific proof of things you may get side-tracted in it and loose focus on the real truth. Scientific proof is like a flash light that lights up one face of the truth, and by lighting the one face only may create a falsehood out of not lighting up all the other faces. I also believe that life is chaos, our thoughts are chaotic and perhaps we are using all these thought systems to create some order so that we can feel secure. For me the easiest to accept chaos and that everything is possible. Therefore to me scientific proof is only a tool and not finite. | deanhills wrote: |
| For me everything is possible. For every statement there is an offsetting opposite statement. For every truth there is an offsetting falsehood. Today's fact is tomorrow's fiction. My existence has an offsetting non-existence - the moment I am borne, my death is written in who I am. Not sure what one would call this - fatalistic? Maybe open-minded? Get a sense that you are much more savvy in this. |
I don't really understand this... | Quote: |
| For every beginning there is an end. Nothing can be exact, finite or proven completely scientifically. 1+1 is not 2. Everything is relative. The same scientific methods that can be used to prove someone right, can be used to prove someone wrong. Depends on how good the arguments are. I am thinking of the law in this instance. You cannot have justice without embracing injustice, the two are completely back to back to one another. Today's justice can easily become tomorrow's injustice just by adding a different part of the truth or a value system (despotic or free country). |
Scientific methods do not depend on argument - they depend on experimental (independent) observation. You can use all the purple prose you like in proposing an hypothesis. Until you can make experimental predictions that can be tested then your prose is not worth a damn. Everything is NOT relative. It is true that nothing can be 'proven' in science but that does not mean things cannot be disproven - they are, routinely. The question whether 1+1=2 is not a scientific question but a question in logic/math/philosophy. You can construct a logical system in which 1+1=2. That system is consistent and appears to correspond to observation. That is good enough for me. | Quote: |
| Think doubt is the only truth for me. As certainty can only exist within doubt. Same with faith in God. You cannot have faith without going through the fire proofing of doubt. So maybe Descartes had a good spin on things when he said I think therefore I am, I doubt therefore I am. Scientific proof probably has a place in all of it, but to me sometimes when you focus overly on the scientific proof of things you may get side-tracted in it and loose focus on the real truth. Scientific proof is like a flash light that lights up one face of the truth, and by lighting the one face only may create a falsehood out of not lighting up all the other faces. I also believe that life is chaos, our thoughts are chaotic and perhaps we are using all these thought systems to create some order so that we can feel secure. For me the easiest to accept chaos and that everything is possible. Therefore to me scientific proof is only a tool and not finite. |
I think you may wish to reconsider that last statement - it makes no sense to me anyway (something not finite is infinite). You seem to think that truth is 'relative' and that there can be multiple truths of which scientific 'fact' is only one. This is the ultimate relativism and is a viewpoint I reject totally. You may well create 'truths' in your own mind - and others may do so. Unless, however, those truths have some objective basis in observable reality (ie they can be checked by others at will and the results can be repeated at will) then I prefer to think of such 'truths' as artifacts of consciousness - delusions.Thanks for the explanations. A razor sharp mind with razor sharp scientific reasoning. Good stuff!
I believe and doubt in everything at the same time. I also doubt scientific proof! I do not believe it is conclusive. Science fiction is good for me. I like to stretch my imagination as far as it can go, and it is not far enough for me.
