• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged whirlpower /another whirlpool thread

I recall a scene from an old film about Babe Ruth in which a women (who knows little and cares even less about baseball) helps him realize why he is not dominant pitcher he once was. Because of her " IGNORANCE " it only took her 10 seconds to figure it out. In other words I agree that I have been guilty of being ignorant enough times that I should know better than to act arrogant please forgive me. But I believe sometimes too much knowlegde of one subject can bound the mind . So don't punish me for being ignorant of trivial info. Albert Einstein himself admitted he could'nt tell you off hand how many feet are in a mile because he didn't like cluttering his mind with minute details, but he knew where to find the answer in his notes. I admit I suffer from beaten poster syndrome , so I know I am asking for it everytime I click submit reply. But will all you professional skeptical intellectuals cut a bricklayer some slack, on second thought, BRING IT ON its only way to refine my Whizdumb.

By the way the Great Bambino holds the record for most strikeouts. Its the price you pay for aiming far.

There is not one thing that you have posted that defends your actions.

Having a brand new idea is fine but you have to prove it and support it with proper logic and evidence. Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of.
 
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?
 
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?
The mathematics says yes. The observation of black holes says yes.

It looks like you are proud of your ignorance.
 
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?

Do you know the connection between the following?

1) Electron beam focusing in a cathode ray tube

2) Telemetry systems (i.e. GPS)

3) Long distance telecommunications

The answer is that they all work with the principles of Einsteins beautiful mathematical framework called relativity. My examples are only uses in technology. I could list dozens of pure science experiments that also validate relativity in different ways.

Relativity predicts the existence of black holes which light can enter but never leave. Obviously, we don't have a black hole in a lab where we can test it. I would still believe they exist without all the indirect evidence that's become available. It isn't a leap of faith but instead a logical conclusion of Einstein's theory and all it's supporting experiments. If you want to claim that BH's don't exist then you would have to explain why my cell phone's GPS works on a principle that says BH's should exist.
 
Last edited:
"Claiming something based solely on your own ignorance is not something to be proud of. "

Do you believe light can reach a black hole but can never escape?

The relevant belief does not concern black holes, it concerns the theory that predicts them. If that theory (Einstein's general relativity) is correct, black holes exist. If it is not, they may not.

There is very strong experimental and theoretical evidence for general relativity. Moreover it is the only theory we know of that correctly describes many of the phenomena science has observed so far. Therefore, we believe that is it probably correct with pretty high confidence. Since we also observe black holes (indirectly, via their accretion disks), that's yet another reason, and one independent of the theory.

It doesn't have much to do with anyone's ignorance except yours.
 
I recall a scene from an old film about Babe Ruth in which a women (who knows little and cares even less about baseball) helps him realize why he is not dominant pitcher he once was. Because of her " IGNORANCE " it only took her 10 seconds to figure it out. In other words I agree that I have been guilty of being ignorant enough times that I should know better than to act arrogant please forgive me. But I believe sometimes too much knowlegde of one subject can bound the mind . So don't punish me for being ignorant of trivial info. Albert Einstein himself admitted he could'nt tell you off hand how many feet are in a mile because he didn't like cluttering his mind with minute details, but he knew where to find the answer in his notes. I admit I suffer from beaten poster syndrome , so I know I am asking for it everytime I click submit reply. But will all you professional skeptical intellectuals cut a bricklayer some slack, on second thought, BRING IT ON its only way to refine my Whizdumb.

By the way the Great Bambino holds the record for most strikeouts. Its the price you pay for aiming far.

So which are you Babe Ruth or Einstein?
 
Is angular momentum responsible for how half a revolution of motion from one magnet caused hundreds possibly thousands of revolutions upon another magnet

Yeesh, what is it with nuts and their so-called "angular momentum"? As if such a thing even makes sense. Some kind of magic force (sorry, should that be pressure?) that keeps things spinning even when there is nothing around pushing them? Please, even Babe Ruth could see the very idea is ridiculous and is only accepted by the public because of lies and mind control drugs being pushed by Big Momentum. Everyone knows that spinning is actually caused by invisible fairies. When you wave one magnet near another, some of the fairies jump from one magnet to another and start pushing it in the same direction, only in circles. No-one knows exactly why this is, but current theories suggest that they are trying to steal the second magnet to add it to their collection.

Seriously though, it's fairies.
 
Image:Tionesta_whirlpool.JPG
 
[qimg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tionesta_whirlpool.JPG[/qimg]

Because your post came up entirely blank, I was going to say that was the most intelligent thing you've posted so far. But I see now that it was simply another instance of a defective link, so I guess intelligence is once again not a factor.
 


Notice how the whirlpool prevents light from traveling underneath it.

I 'm not implying light can or can not escape its gravity, just that it can't get close enough to get trapped due to the turbulence generated from the blackhole .
 
h.g.Whiz,

Do you understand this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_curvature_tensor
What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature
And this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity)
This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

If not, then just what do you think you're doing? Why do you think you can challenge General Relativity armed only with your bathtub and zero knowledge of General Relativity? You can't talk about black holes in terms of bathtub whirlpools because black holes are not defined in terms of bathtub whirlpools.

The "black holes" you're thinking of have nothing to do with the black holes studied by physicists; theirs come from a mathematical model you're completely unfamiliar with, and yours come from your imagination.

Why do you believe you can do theoretical physics with no physics or mathematics training? Do you also believe you'd be able to perform neurosurgery with no medical training? Can you see how insane that is?

You cannot gain any understanding of black holes by reasoning about whirlpools; the two have nothing to do with each other. If you want to understand black holes, you must first understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
 
Last edited:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2084548b4c97da16c4.jpg[/qimg]

Notice how the whirlpool prevents light from traveling underneath it.

I 'm not implying light can or can not escape its gravity, just that it can't get close enough to get trapped due to the turbulence generated from the blackhole .

Do the waves have to be whirling around? Have you never observed the effect of non-vortical waves on the bottom of a pool?

Imagine that you were able to cast a clear glass or plastic replica of an instantaneous state of that whirlpool. In other words, to make a distorted lens, which duplicated the shape of the water in the whirlpool, but which would not be in motion as the whirlpool is. What do you think would happen to the light that passes through that lens, and how do you think it would differ from the whirlpool?

Does a lens have to be in motion to alter the light that passes through it?

A shadow in a pool may be a good metaphor for something, but the whole point of a metaphor is that it isn't really what it stands in for. The only black hole here is in your understanding.
 
*sigh*

Again:

Whirlpools do not create energy. They use it. They use it to convert the waters motion to a vortex. This can potentially be harnessed for power. A bit of gravity leading the water downwards will add to the power output. But the whirlpool is still getting its power from elsewhere! Specifically, gravity.

This added energy is the same reason that dams have a reservoir with a higher water level than the outflow. The water can flow down the intake pipes, gaining momentum from gravity (that'd be a form of potential energy, for you non-physics-inclined-types) as it does so.


Additionally, you're questions about the shadows beneath disturbed water have been answered. Although appearantly you didn't see fit to read the responses on the first page.
For your convenience, I will quote three posts which answer the "shadows" query below.

It's called caustics.

If you look closely, you'll notice that for whatever dark portion there is, there is an equivalent lighter portion. The total amount of light is constant (excepting small differences in light absorption and reflection).

- Dr. Trintignant

Why, other than analogy, should we consider a shadow to resemble a black hole? Just saying it is not enough.

Have you considered reflection and refraction to explain why the light of your flashlight is not transmitted evenly through turbid water?

Refraction, refraction, and, as mentioned, caustics.

The shadows under your whirlpool are there for the same reason you see differences in light distribution under water in pools, ponds, lakes and oceans.

<snip>



Remember, this is your claim.
The burden of proof is on you to show that physics is wrong (i.e. that whirlpools do not use outside energy, but instead generate energy), and that the patterns of light and dark you see are not caused by caustics, reflection and refraction.
These phenomena are well explained by accepted science.

You want us to consider alternatives, provide the evidence!

Your questions have been answered. Now please stop asking questions and start answering the ones put to you.
Or if you don't, at least provide me with a good reason for not ignoring you from hereon out.
 
*sigh*

Again:

Whirlpools do not create energy. They use it. They use it to convert the waters motion to a vortex. This can potentially be harnessed for power. A bit of gravity leading the water downwards will add to the power output. But the whirlpool is still getting its power from elsewhere! Specifically, gravity.

This added energy is the same reason that dams have a reservoir with a higher water level than the outflow. The water can flow down the intake pipes, gaining momentum from gravity (that'd be a form of potential energy, for you non-physics-inclined-types) as it does so.




Additionally, you're questions about the shadows beneath disturbed water have been answered. Although appearantly you didn't see fit to read the responses on the first page.
For your convenience, I will quote three posts which answer the "shadows" query below.









Remember, this is your claim.
The burden of proof is on you to show that physics is wrong (i.e. that whirlpools do not use outside energy, but instead generate energy), and that the patterns of light and dark you see are not caused by caustics, reflection and refraction.
These phenomena are well explained by accepted science.

You want us to consider alternatives, provide the evidence!

Your questions have been answered. Now please stop asking questions and start answering the ones put to you.
Or if you don't, at least provide me with a good reason for not ignoring you from hereon out.

Check out this site http://www.feandft.com/
thanks to all of you I found it
 
Check out this site http://www.feandft.com/
thanks to all of you I found it

So not only are you going for a total disregard of General Relativity, but you are also going to throw out thermodynamics?

Honestly, those are two of the most supported theories/laws in science right now.. I hope you have some evidence for this(and no, that site isn't evidence, at best it is conjecture)
 
I lost interest with "discussing" this dishonest fella a long time ago. He's not interested in a debate or learning at all. He's only interested in foisting his delusional beliefs onto others.
 
Check out this site http://www.feandft.com/
thanks to all of you I found it



I waded through part of that site.
When I got to this:

If Arab terrorists really "hate our freedoms" as president shrub tells us and wanted to destroy us on 911, they could have crashed the four jets they are accused of hijacking into four Nuclear reactors in the North East, killing tens of millions of Americans and destroying the habitat for countless eons. That is, if they really did it!

How did they wire the world trade centers with explosives for the demolition, implosions we saw on 911? And, why do they keep telling us a hijacked airliner was flown into the pentagon, when all of the evidence found, contradicts this flimsy, pathetic lie. The engines found at the scene of the crime and the false flag pentagon attack are 737 engines, not the 767 engines according to the Bush/Cheney/Rice islamic fundamentalist conspiracy propaganda hawked to us daily by the zionist media, end of story!


I stopped reading.
Outright lies tend to make me adjust my estimation of a websites credibility to suit.


That website is long on verbosity, and far too short on actual evidence.
The authors seem to think that claiming that modern science is a conspiracy to keep the man down constitutes proof of their ideas.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Provide evidence of your claims, please. Not rediculous websites that happen to agree with you.
Because, asd I'm sure you are aware, you can find anything online. Just because a sympathetic website exists does not mean that it constitutes evidence.
 
Last edited:
on second thought, BRING IT ON its only way to refine my Whizdumb.
Or you could do some research yourself.

By the way the Great Bambino holds the record for most strikeouts. Its the price you pay for aiming far.
Ruth is 86th on the career strikeout list and not in the top 100 on the single-season list.
 
Last edited:
Of course, for fun, if you really were serious about this - choose the best link that backs up your 'theory' and describe how you believe it works, or describe the evidence in your own words.
Still not prepared to do this?

Because pointing to a dark patch under a whirpool and going "Look!" is not really quite the same as providing a robust theory of physics poised to overturn conventional wisdom about energy generation.
(Especially when you also ignore all the perfectly clear explanations regarding the already well known reason for such a dark patch).
 
Check out this site http://www.feandft.com/
thanks to all of you I found it
Oh that site is great:
By scrolling rapidly through this page the reader will be able to grasp an understanding of where all of this timely information is leading and the great future it offers all of us.
Scrolling rapidly through will certainly be more beneficial for your scientific knowledge than actually reading it.

The entire infrastructure of canals and pipes that move our water on this planet will have to be replaced if we want to reverse the present plague of Cancer.
Just to check HG - do you think Cancer can be cured by replacing our canals and pipes?

Actually the more I read of that page the more I am unsure as to whether it is a joke. All those completely random drawings with technical sounding names that have nothing to do with the text - then all the weird new age stuff ("Quarks and Lucky Charms Fruitcakes"?)... I'm not sure now.
 
From that (*giggle*) site.

feandft said:
The "over-unity" system I have proposed using would be a just means of redistributing the wealth of this country, whose time is long overdue! For reasons of National Security all homes would by law be required to have a free energy machine and sell their excess energy to industry. Interest free government loans would be provided for all Americans to purchase these machines for this Patriotic project. Industry would not be allowed to produce it's own power and by law would have to buy their electricity from households, specifically for the purpose of creating wealth, strength and prosperity for every home and family in our country. Just building all of these machine would be a massive source of new work for Americans. Then, tearing down all of the worthless corporate energy structure that stands presently would be another massive source of work. Think about all of the salvaged metals and other expensive materials which could be reclaimed from the current wasteful system of energy production. These "scarce resources" would no longer be considered "scarce" once their abundance was reclaimed from the grid. Therefore, less mining, less needed water for processing, less environmental destruction, less energy for recycling, etc... It's a win-win situation for the Planet!




Woo hoo!

And why do so many crackpots mix physics and Taoism?​
 
I find it strange so many astonishing breakthroughs in science are only distributed via badly formatted web pages.

When did peer reviewed research and publication in respected journals go out of fashion?
 
I lost interest with "discussing" this dishonest fella a long time ago. He's not interested in a debate or learning at all. He's only interested in foisting his delusional beliefs onto others.

I am interested in learning.

Is this correct ?

Million's of years ago Earth's atmosphere had a lot of carbon dioxide which induced euxinic (anoxic, sulfidic) conditions in the oceans killing all life(except Chromatiaceae) \because decomposition couldn't take place because bacteria was also killed carcasses accumulated on the ocean floor then got covered up ,years go by its recovered by us . Then we harness the stored energy from the fossils giving us access to additional stored energy such as coal for example. Carbondioxide goes back in the atmosphere heating the earth increasing hurricanes. So fossil energy begat engine energy begat hurricane energy. I think its ironic that we have a desperate need for something we have to much of. Its like we dying of thirst in an ocean of drinking water. I realize that energy is conserved, meaning it cannot be created nor destroyed. We have enough energy and water in this world to satisfy our present day population but past day physics can't figure it out without being ammended not thrown out the window just ammended.

I'm investigating these topics for clues


Einstein’s derivation of E=mc^2
Sonic Superradiance in Bose Einstein Condensates
Legendre transformation
equivalence principle
emergent gravity
relativistic fluid dynamics
Lagrangian perturbation theory
back reaction
modelling Dissipation
Israel–Stewart approach
Carter’s canonical framework
 
We have enough energy and water in this world to satisfy our present day population but past day physics can't figure it out without being ammended not thrown out the window just ammended.

You do realize the earth has (and had) an external source of energy, I hope?

You've been outside at least once in your life during the "day"?
 
I am interested in learning.

Is this correct ?

Million's of years ago Earth's atmosphere had a lot of carbon dioxide which induced euxinic (anoxic, sulfidic) conditions in the oceans killing all life(except Chromatiaceae) \because decomposition couldn't take place because bacteria was also killed carcasses accumulated on the ocean floor then got covered up ,years go by its recovered by us . Then we harness the stored energy from the fossils giving us access to additional stored energy such as coal for example. Carbondioxide goes back in the atmosphere heating the earth increasing hurricanes. So fossil energy begat engine energy begat hurricane energy. I think its ironic that we have a desperate need for something we have to much of. Its like we dying of thirst in an ocean of drinking water. I realize that energy is conserved, meaning it cannot be created nor destroyed. We have enough energy and water in this world to satisfy our present day population but past day physics can't figure it out without being ammended not thrown out the window just ammended.
No it is not. Here is a list of your mistakes:
  1. Read fossil fuels.
  2. Coal is also a fossil fuel.
  3. Hurricanes are not created by "engine energy" (whatever that is) nor by the amount of carbon dioxide that we have released. There is a small possibility that there may be stronger hurricanes due to future global warming but that point has not been reached yet.
  4. There is not "so much" fossil fuel - it is a finite resource.
  5. Energy is conserved in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system.
  6. Energy can be created or destroyed.
The nearest you come to a correct statement is "We have enough energy and water in this world to satisfy our present day population" but the problem is the distribution is uneven leading to people starving to death in various places around the world.

So the questions are:
What can "past day physics" not figure out?
Or is it something that you cannot figure out?
 
I would say someone needs to go back on his meds. He has been writing this stuff for years. Example from 2008 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33768-time-energy-theory/

Other examples of the same text.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/stephenhawkingunplugged/message/302
http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/All-Energy/message/15391

There was a theory with same name back in 2004

http://www2.mmae.ucf.edu/~rgm/ . However what it contained has been lost to history.

Edit. The link in the OP appears to be from 2008 and not recent as I had assumed.
 
Last edited:
[*]Energy is conserved in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system.
[*]Energy can be created or destroyed.[/LIST]The nearest you come to a correct statement is "We have enough energy and water in this world to satisfy our present day population" but the problem is the distribution is uneven leading to people starving to death in various places around the world.

So the questions are:
What can "past day physics" not figure out?
Or is it something that you cannot figure out?

Energy can be created or destroyed.:confused:
really
 

Back
Top Bottom