Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Frozen Ocean wrote: I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Isn't that how I referred to it? Intelligent Design is the politically more palatable form of Creationism, at its heart it's the same bunkum.
I don't mean at heart, I mean entirely, completely synonymous!
Howard A Treesong wrote: However 'Intelligent Design', or more truthfully 'Creationism', doesn't account for current observations but is contrary to them. It simply isn't a scientific theory, it doesn't even try.
This confused me! Because you said "more truthfully 'Creationism'". More truthfully how, if they're both exactly the same? S'all I meant. <3 I see them as being interchangeable.
That's actually what I believe to be, if not the very origin of religion, the cause of its longevity - seductive false concepts. Life would be so much better if an all-loving, all-powerful being was looking out for us. Things would seem so much better if we knew that we, and everyone we like, are going to paradise and everyone we don't like is going to anti-paradise. I'd love that to be true. Unfortunately, fantasy and reality are separate things.
Its part of it, but unlike perpetual motion religion has the advantage of being able firmly place itself outside "normal" reality because it deals explicitly with things that cannot be observed.
Well, most of them do anyway. There are a few exceptions.
Frozen Ocean wrote: I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Isn't that how I referred to it? Intelligent Design is the politically more palatable form of Creationism, at its heart it's the same bunkum.
I don't mean at heart, I mean entirely, completely synonymous!
They're not synonymous though. Broadly, creationism follows from any Abrahamic faith. If you're talking to a Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Bahá'í you're talking to a creationist. Young Earth creationism is a particular form of creationism that involves a literal interpretation of the Bible and, concurrently, the rejection of large amounts of scientific data. Intelligent Design is basically a riff on the teleological argument for God's existence that is used to reject evolution by way of presenting a supposedly simpler explanation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/17 01:11:03
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
When I was a kid, I had no idea how there were monkeys on both sides of the world, and wolves, and bears, and most particularly, trees of the same species. It boggled my mind. Teachers never gave me a straight answer either. Being a kid was hard when the only questions you ever asked were the hardest ones.
And do NOT call Intelligent Design a "theory", when there is no evidence whatsoever to support it that cannot be refuted by Russell's Teapot.
It's still a theory, albeit an unproven one.
@Testify: I think you should look up the term "scientific theory" and then read my post again.
The fine-tuning argument, based on the anthropic principle, can be used to support ID. In as such, it can be considered a scientific theory.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I suspect that you're talking about a different anthropic principle.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I suspect that you're talking about a different anthropic principle.
Well, depends, the authors on the AP sure didn't make the subject easy to discuss. And in fact, any takes on the AP (except Bostrom's) could be used to support an Intelligent Design position, since it's basically the modern version of the aristotelico-thomist argument that for intelligence to exist in the world, it must have existed at it's inception.
And as far as evidence goes, since it's an argument based on the starting conditions of the universe, it'd be hard to provide some sort of evidence 'outside of broad theorizing'.
Anyhow, it's not like it's a position I care much to defend.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/17 18:33:07
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
To take this back to Perpetual Motion. I see ideas for perpetual motion machines all the time, proposed by smart people who don't realize that what they are talking about is a perpetual motion machine. Most of them "invent" better-than-perpetual-motion machines and don't seem to realize it.
I talked to a guy on a plane a couple months ago that is designing a windmill using what sounded like a ducted fan system and then a system of gears to run an alternator to produce power. He was really excited because the different gears could be used to speed up the alternator to whatever speed he needed for optimal efficiency/power output, so any wind at all would turn the blades, and produce power. "You could even put the thing in your garage and run it with a box fan!". Where do you get the power for the box fan? Well from the power produced by the windmill, of course! I don't know a lot about windmills and the latest designs, so the ducted fan idea may be a great idea for windmills. I know it helps produce more thrust as a fan, so maybe it will produce more power as a windmill. However, I know a perpetual motion machine when I see it.
By far, my favorite is the electrolysis system in your car, converting water to hydrogen gas, that you inject into your engine to increase the power. I have seen this on the news, I have heard very intelligent people talk about this and get excited. This system is supposed to burn less gas because the hydrogen is burning too and gives you more power, so your car will go farther on a tank of gas and burning the hydrogen produces water, so better emissions. All you have to do is add water to the water reservoir when it's running low. This can't be a perpetual motion machine, because you are adding water into the system, that's where the power comes from. True, but you had to use power to break up the water, then you put the hydrogen and oxygen back together to extract power, then you put water back out. So, you have setup a perpetual motion machine inside the system, power in to break up the water, power out to put the water back together, you can't get more power out of the system then you put in and in practice you put a lot more power in then you take out. That excess power has to come from somewhere, so it will either drain your battery or use more gasoline to keep the battery charged. So best case, your MPG goes up but your battery is dead (have to disconnect your alternator, probably) but more likely you burn more gas, so MPG goes down.
Now, is a perpetual motion machine possible? Yes, I think it is. Is it probable? No. In order to create a perpetual motion machine, you have to remove all loss from the system, which means conditions that allow super-conductors, etc. It's like cold-fusion, possible in ideal conditions but unlikely here.
I must refute this: the Anthropic Principle is absolute rubbish, no different than claiming it's God's will when you roll Yahtzee 3 times in a row. And as usual, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Anthropic Principle outside of broad theorizing despite contrary facts.
I suspect that you're talking about a different anthropic principle.
Well, depends, the authors on the AP sure didn't make the subject easy to discuss. And in fact, any takes on the AP (except Bostrom's) could be used to support an Intelligent Design position, since it's basically the modern version of the aristotelico-thomist argument that for intelligence to exist in the world, it must have existed at it's inception.
And as far as evidence goes, since it's an argument based on the starting conditions of the universe, it'd be hard to provide some sort of evidence 'outside of broad theorizing'.
Anyhow, it's not like it's a position I care much to defend.
I don't blame you. The AP argument ultimately reduces down to a faith-based argument as it attempts to explain why things are as they are, in contrast to basic principles of probability. However, as the core element is a faith-based argument, it cannot be considered a true scientific theory as it cannot give evidence leading to its principles being posited.
Well, calling it 'faith-based' isn't entirely correct. Yes, it seems pretty obvious that most of the fine-tuning proponents are scientists which aims at finding some compatibility between their beleifs and the scientific facts they have available. But the argument behind AP&fine-tuning is more along the line ''Look, amongst all possible outcomes to the universe, the chances that the randomly generated result supports life is actually infinitely small/only this model. Isn't it reasonnable to entertain the possibility that it wasn't a randomly generated result?''
Like I said, it's induction, so it'll never please any scientist. But it's not exactly faith-based either, since it's basically an 'which is more reasonnable' type of argument.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, calling it 'faith-based' isn't entirely correct. Yes, it seems pretty obvious that most of the fine-tuning proponents are scientists which aims at finding some compatibility between their beleifs and the scientific facts they have available. But the argument behind AP&fine-tuning is more along the line ''Look, amongst all possible outcomes to the universe, the chances that the randomly generated result supports life is actually infinitely small/only this model. Isn't it reasonnable to entertain the possibility that it wasn't a randomly generated result?''
Like I said, it's induction, so it'll never please any scientist. But it's not exactly faith-based either, since it's basically an 'which is more reasonnable' type of argument.
I'd call that a faith-based argument: the probability is so astronomical that it's easier to believe a wizard did it.
But between "a wizard did it" and sheer probability, no scientific argument would ever allow the former without direct evidence.
oki, well, I'll agree to that. That it's bad scientific form is absolutely sure.
Anyhow, I only read that book because I thought cool all the info on the initial conditions of the universe, and how it was much more likely that we ended up as a universal ball of iron...
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
My Natural Philosophy teacher had a hardon for Davies's.
Not quite Barrow and Tipler's. I didn't explain myself well, I learned AP as the notion that the universe must allow all things we perceive to exist to, in fact, exist. So in effect we can't live in a universe that doesn't support the existence of tables.
Consciousness never came into the matter.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Because its a seductive idea, much like cold fusion. In fact its basically the layman's version of cold fusion.
This. It's an appealing concept, and a lot of people want to think that they know better than those ivory tower intellectuals and their dusty old theories of how the universe works. They want to be the hero who solved the energy crisis and started a complete revolution in physics. After all, who wouldn't?
So, let's say you come up with a random idea one day, and you get that awesome feeling of discovery. And then you see that your invention is impossible, but you don't really like that, so it must be that all the scientists are conspiring against you to protect the oil companies from the threat of unlimited free energy. And then maybe you even build a prototype and it "works", except since engineering is part of the conspiracy you never bothered to learn about thermodynamics and realize that your prototype isn't a closed system and you're just drawing energy from somewhere outside the box. And then there's two ways it can go:
The smart inventor realizes that there are a lot of other people like them in the world, so they offer to sell the plans for their new invention and make a lot of money off gullible morons.
The stupid inventor never has this realization, and ends up wearing a tinfoil hat and spending all their money on buying perpetual motion machines from other people.
Kovnik Obama wrote: The fine-tuning argument, based on the anthropic principle, can be used to support ID. In as such, it can be considered a scientific theory.
Except the standards for a scientific theory are MUCH higher than that. You need way more than a single bad argument, you need empirical evidence and good arguments. ID has neither.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Well, calling it 'faith-based' isn't entirely correct. Yes, it seems pretty obvious that most of the fine-tuning proponents are scientists which aims at finding some compatibility between their beleifs and the scientific facts they have available. But the argument behind AP&fine-tuning is more along the line ''Look, amongst all possible outcomes to the universe, the chances that the randomly generated result supports life is actually infinitely small/only this model. Isn't it reasonnable to entertain the possibility that it wasn't a randomly generated result?''
Except that argument is nonsense. The chances of us being in a universe that meets all those conditions are 100%, because if those conditions weren't met we wouldn't be here to observe the universe. If the universe had been slightly different, we would have evolved differently and be talking about how THAT universe was so perfectly suited to our existence and what are the odds of that. Or, if the universe had been completely hostile to live, we wouldn't be here at all. In fact, who knows how many universes existed before (or parallel to) the current one in which the conditions weren't right and we didn't ever exist.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Disclaimer: I do not believe in perpetual motion, don't be silly.
I do, tthere is an argument to suggest we have already achieved it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/18 00:47:15
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I so want to say perpetual motion.....if its just constant movement...example...planets that orbit the sun...gravity can be fun...or painful
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
Ask yourself: have you rated a gallery image today?
Mr Nobody wrote: I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
You haven't. Either it's an isolated system and will eventually slow down and stop as friction slowly removes energy from the balls (and the video is just too short for this to happen), or it's drawing energy from outside (for example, a moving electromagnet hidden under the ball track and plugged into the wall socket).
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Mr Nobody wrote: I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
You haven't. Either it's an isolated system and will eventually slow down and stop as friction slowly removes energy from the balls (and the video is just too short for this to happen), or it's drawing energy from outside (for example, a moving electromagnet hidden under the ball track and plugged into the wall socket).
Fine, it was a role around for a very very long time machine.
Ask yourself: have you rated a gallery image today?
Mr Nobody wrote: Fine, it was a role around for a very very long time machine.
Which is not even close to a perpetual motion machine. It's trivially easy to build something with low friction so that it can move for a long time (especially where "long" is defined by the length of a youtube clip), but the result is just a pointless toy. You can't ever take energy out of the system (or it stops moving), so the only useful thing it can do is be some kind of sculpture that you can display in a gallery with no wall sockets available.
A perpetual motion machine, on the other hand, is something entirely different. It actually goes forever, and, ideally does so with a surplus of energy so you can get free energy out of the machine. The difference is the difference between living 100 years (which feels like a really long time) and living forever.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Mr Nobody wrote: Fine, it was a role around for a very very long time machine.
Which is not even close to a perpetual motion machine. It's trivially easy to build something with low friction so that it can move for a long time (especially where "long" is defined by the length of a youtube clip), but the result is just a pointless toy. You can't ever take energy out of the system (or it stops moving), so the only useful thing it can do is be some kind of sculpture that you can display in a gallery with no wall sockets available.
A perpetual motion machine, on the other hand, is something entirely different. It actually goes forever, and, ideally does so with a surplus of energy so you can get free energy out of the machine. The difference is the difference between living 100 years (which feels like a really long time) and living forever.
Well, he claimed it had been moving for a half decade, but there is some good in trying to break perpetual motion. It could lead to more efficient systems that keep their momentum longer. Mostly I think it's just a crazy hobby for old engineers.
Ask yourself: have you rated a gallery image today?
Mr Nobody wrote: Well, he claimed it had been moving for a half decade, but there is some good in trying to break perpetual motion.
At least you found the key point there. It's very easy to claim anything you like, especially when you're trying to sell something.
It could lead to more efficient systems that keep their momentum longer.
Except you can't DO anything with it, since the moment you try to do anything with it the machine slows down and stops. I don't really see much of a market for "machine that spins for a really long time as long as nothing is connected to it". And then you have the problem that the idiots trying to build perpetual motion machines probably aren't using a sensible test program, so the chances of them discovering some new breakthrough in friction reduction faster than a professional engineering department dedicated to the subject are pretty laughably small.
Mostly I think it's just a crazy hobby for old engineers.
A crazy hobby for incompetent engineers, since the laws of thermodynamics are one of the first things you learn as an engineering student. And the laws of thermodynamics pretty clearly state that perpetual motion machines are literally impossible. Not impossible in the sense that it's a difficult engineering challenge, but impossible as in "no matter how hard you try you can not build one". Because of this little fact any sensible engineer has nothing to do with perpetual motion machines, so the only people in the hobby are either idiots or scammers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/18 01:58:05
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
Disclaimer: I do not believe in perpetual motion, don't be silly.
I do, tthere is an argument to suggest we have already achieved it.
No there isn't.
Mr Nobody wrote:I've actually scene videos of a perpetual motion machine using a metal ball and magnets. You can't actually do anything with it, it just roles in a circle.
No you haven't.
Mr Nobody wrote:Well, he claimed it had been moving for a half decade, but there is some good in trying to break perpetual motion. It could lead to more efficient systems that keep their momentum longer. Mostly I think it's just a crazy hobby for old engineers.
People say all sorts of things that are not true. Perpetual motion is the dream of engineers the same way cold fusion is the dream of chemists and the fountain of youth is the dream of, uh, ...conquistadors?
Frozen Ocean wrote: I thought "intelligent design" and "creationism" were totally synonymous?
Creationism was the first idea, and was structured basically that there's parts of evolution we don't understand yet* and therefore the whole thing doesn't work, and therefore God made us, and therefore we should be able to teach the bible in school.
Over time it become clear the 'therefore God' part was problem in achieving their final aim - getting this stuff taught in schools alongside evolution. So they changed it to 'therefore something which may or may not be God (but is totally God)' and renamed it intelligent design.
*Being a really shonky pseudo-science, they didn't even bother to update their list of problems when we actually figured those bits out. When you get into a debate with a creationist/intelligent design advocate, they'll inevitably recite problems with evolution that were figured out decades ago.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/18 05:48:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Tye_Informer wrote: I talked to a guy on a plane a couple months ago that is designing a windmill using what sounded like a ducted fan system and then a system of gears to run an alternator to produce power. He was really excited because the different gears could be used to speed up the alternator to whatever speed he needed for optimal efficiency/power output, so any wind at all would turn the blades, and produce power. "You could even put the thing in your garage and run it with a box fan!". Where do you get the power for the box fan? Well from the power produced by the windmill, of course! I don't know a lot about windmills and the latest designs, so the ducted fan idea may be a great idea for windmills. I know it helps produce more thrust as a fan, so maybe it will produce more power as a windmill. However, I know a perpetual motion machine when I see it.
With the enery loss involved in blowing air from the fan to the windmill, that's just not a perpetual motion machine. In fact that can't be anything more than a really inefficient system that will quickly need a power injection from outside.
By far, my favorite is the electrolysis system in your car, converting water to hydrogen gas, that you inject into your engine to increase the power. I have seen this on the news, I have heard very intelligent people talk about this and get excited. This system is supposed to burn less gas because the hydrogen is burning too and gives you more power, so your car will go farther on a tank of gas and burning the hydrogen produces water, so better emissions. All you have to do is add water to the water reservoir when it's running low. This can't be a perpetual motion machine, because you are adding water into the system, that's where the power comes from. True, but you had to use power to break up the water, then you put the hydrogen and oxygen back together to extract power, then you put water back out. So, you have setup a perpetual motion machine inside the system, power in to break up the water, power out to put the water back together, you can't get more power out of the system then you put in and in practice you put a lot more power in then you take out. That excess power has to come from somewhere, so it will either drain your battery or use more gasoline to keep the battery charged. So best case, your MPG goes up but your battery is dead (have to disconnect your alternator, probably) but more likely you burn more gas, so MPG goes down.
At best, at perfect efficiency, combining and taking apart water is a zero sum game. What it takes to combine it you get back when you take it apart.
In your example above you're better off just using the car battery to supplement power usage.
Now, is a perpetual motion machine possible? Yes, I think it is. Is it probable? No. In order to create a perpetual motion machine, you have to remove all loss from the system, which means conditions that allow super-conductors, etc. It's like cold-fusion, possible in ideal conditions but unlikely here.
Well, that's the whole point of the concept. That with a perfectly frictionless environment you could have perpetual motion, but that no such frictionless environment can ever exist.
The best you can hope for is near frictionless environments, so the device will run for a very long time. Either that or have it supplemented by a small amount of power from some clever source.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
