10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Contrary to what most people think, the scientific theory of evolution does not meet the criteria most people set for what entails a scientific theory.
BS
Punctuated Equilibrium is the name for a specific mechanism inside the proposed theory of evolution, proposed to explain the fossil record. Fact is, in debates with creationists, Stephen Jay Gould was eventually forced to admit that there is no evidence for evolution as it was being taught until that time.
False claim by creationists, has long been debunked.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but evolution was supposed to explain what we find in the fossil record and it doesn't
Wrong
You can ignore what Skippy says when he posts on this issue. As with most things, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Says the right guy here.
This evolutionary adaptation has never been witnessed and is indeed, outside the realm of observation because of the vast periods of time over which is is supposed to occur.
Again, wrong!
Why do you think there are now anitbiotic resistant bacteria?
There has never been, nor will there likely ever be an observation of this mechanism, and obviously the evidence of "transitional forms is entirely missing, so if this theory could be falsified, it would have been long ago.
Creationist BS.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

303 wrote:e-cat looks like crap, like a bunch of plumbing parts badly welded together sourced from the local tip
Image

Fronti nulla fides

polyill
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:29 am

Post by polyill »

chrismb wrote:
Image

Fronti nulla fides
I would really like to know what that is :)
Pardon me my ignorance, if this is a well know... umm... thing in these fora. Please, do educate me.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »


ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

You can ignore what Skippy says when he posts on this issue. As with most things, he has no idea what he's talking about. Evolution specifically stipulates that given time, and mutation and environmental pressure often described as "survival of the fittest" but what is better called the "un-survival of the unfit", living creatures will generate new structures with new capabilities. This evolutionary adaptation has never been witnessed and is indeed, outside the realm of observation because of the vast periods of time over which is is supposed to occur. Insects changing color has nothing to do with the kinds of structural creation that evolution proposes. There has never been, nor will there likely ever be an observation of this mechanism, and obviously the evidence of "transitional forms is entirely missing, so if this theory could be falsified, it would have been long ago.
Not to pile on, but this has been observed repeatedly over several generations of E. Coli so unless you're refuting 30-40 years worth of experimental observation with some kind of backing and avidence, I'm going to go with the researchers ont his one who have samples of each generation.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Not to pile on, but this has been observed repeatedly over several generations of E. Coli so unless you're refuting 30-40 years worth of experimental observation with some kind of backing and avidence, I'm going to go with the researchers ont his one who have samples of each generation.
Yepp!

Enginerd
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:29 am

Post by Enginerd »

polyill wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Image

Fronti nulla fides
I would really like to know what that is :)
Sortof reminds me of the engine for a pop-pop boat I made with my daughter some years ago...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Darwin proposed a theory regarding it which further accumulation of data has falsified.
Facts?
Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is helpful in many cases. But principle that everybody can edit an article means that not all information provided there is reliable.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

Skipjack wrote:
Contrary to what most people think, the scientific theory of evolution does not meet the criteria most people set for what entails a scientific theory.
BS
Punctuated Equilibrium is the name for a specific mechanism inside the proposed theory of evolution, proposed to explain the fossil record. Fact is, in debates with creationists, Stephen Jay Gould was eventually forced to admit that there is no evidence for evolution as it was being taught until that time.
False claim by creationists, has long been debunked.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but evolution was supposed to explain what we find in the fossil record and it doesn't
Wrong
You can ignore what Skippy says when he posts on this issue. As with most things, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Says the right guy here.
This evolutionary adaptation has never been witnessed and is indeed, outside the realm of observation because of the vast periods of time over which is is supposed to occur.
Again, wrong!
Why do you think there are now anitbiotic resistant bacteria?
There has never been, nor will there likely ever be an observation of this mechanism, and obviously the evidence of "transitional forms is entirely missing, so if this theory could be falsified, it would have been long ago.
Creationist BS.
As some detailed factual basis to debunk the creationist BS, consider the eye. This was long touted by creationists (whoops - let me be PC - "intelligent designers") as evidence against evolution, because intermediate forms could not possibly be viable or selected.

However fossil and genetic research shows that eyes share many biochemical features across all animals, but that lenses have have evolved completely independently in many different living creatures! The many intermediate forms are clear and exist in the fossil record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

The details of this are fascinating. Unfortunately ID types (yes I'm not being polite, I do not feel polite about people who lie in such a pernicious way, not those who are taken in by liars and when challenged do not check facts but continue to spout easily refutable rubbish) do not like to research details, except to cherry-pick isolated facts that out of context appear to support their case.

One of the key (subtle) mechanisms in evolution, which has been validated from explicit genetic investigation, is that of switching on an off specific genes coding for traits. This allows a much greater variety of evolutionary pathway than would otherwise be possible. For example:

trait A evolves in one sub-species for purpose X

trait B evolves in another sub-species for purpose Y

Traits A and B are incompatible until well developed. however at some level of development traits A+B can approximate a solution to purpose Z. Once this happens straightforward evolutionary optimisation takes over and the trait (A+B) for putpose Z creatures adapt more and more.

Gene encoding in DNA is particularly good at this type of switching, where genes can code for proteins that allow whole sequences of other genes to express (and otherwise they would lie dormant, and inactive).

I suppose I feel so strongly about the ID people is that evolution is a truly surprising and magnificent scientific theory. It explains extraordinary complexity with great simplicity - and yet the details of that explanation are both susceptible to investigation through genetic exploration of the biochemical pathways determining the exegesis of phenotypes from genotypes - and incredibly complex.

A lovely, beautiful, and compelling scientific theory.

So to have people, for political reasons, make false statements about it based on superficial thought is so sad. Especially when it seems they can convince much of the US population and some of its legislature.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

GIThruster wrote:There is no significant consensus as regards what qualifies as science and what does not. Most empiricists require falsifiability in a scientific theory for it to qualify as such, but evolution is not especially falsifiable nor is is repeatable nor even in the strictest sense, directly observable--yet people generally have no trouble accepting it as science.
Maybe not amongst philosophers, but there is amongst scientists.

Scientific theories are compelling because they have explanatory power. That is, they predict things which are not known and in the absence of the theory would be unlikely. Future discovery of these things provides strong evidence for the theory (or some variant).

This can be thought of in terms of Bayesian priors. The explanation (theory) is much simpler and therefore more likely than the wealth of evidence it explains. Form this POV the explanation need not be in advance of the observations. Something that makes sense of weird observations is scientifically valuable.

However, prediction of new observations which are otherwise unlikely is stronger evidence because it avoids arguments about the relative complexity of the observations and the theory that explains them.

Actually a theory can be falsifiable but not highly predictive, and therefore not good science. For example I can state that a given very large not obviously factorisable number is prime. This is falsifiable, not necessarily true, but difficult to falsify. And probably no-one will bother to do this. As a scientific theory this statement has no explanatory power, and is not much good.

So - why is falsifiability desirable?

Where a theory makes specific predictions, it is likely to have explanatory power. Also the specific predictions allow falsifibility (if they are found not to be true). So there is a strong connection between predictive power and falsifiability. Usually, no falsifiability => no predictive power.

However evolution is a theory where predictive and strongly explanatory power exists with less capacity for falsifiability.

Best wishes, Tom

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

And therefore is ID science?

No. It is a cheat. it appears explanatory, but in reality because the mechanism of the intelligent designer is not specified ther eis no explanation.

A version of ID in which precise predictive details of the designer's structure and operation were specified might be science, providing that that specification were simpler than the evolutionary explanation of the same facts.

No ID proponent has yet advanced such a detailed theory. However if one did it could be considered proper science.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Apart from the pleasure of agreeing with tomclarke for a change, what has this got to do with LENR?

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Andrea Rossi
August 27th, 2012 at 4:20 AM

Dear Larry Jameson:
Thank you for your important question.
My speak in Zurich will regard the report of the tests made on the 16th of July and on the 6th of August made basically for the product certification in course for the Hot Cats. This report will be published by thechnical and specialistic publications after the 9th of September, by the scientific journalists who will attend the meeting.
The rigorous publication deriving from the third party validation that we will make, as I said, within October by a University will be made by the professors who will make the validation, so I do know where it will be published. Please do not ask me which will be the University, I am under NDA and, by the way, three Universities are candidates for this work, should the one that has been chosen since now will retreat for any reason. We have to respect the rules and the decisions of the Universities, who, obviously, do not depend from us. I can anyway say that the test made on the 16th of July has been made with 6 professors of 2 Universities, but unofficially: it has been a preparatory test.
I am under a strict NDA for this test, whose results will be published in the context of the Certificator’s work, not of the Universities.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

High resolution video of the Celani reactor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN4VK82Mngc

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

This is August 27th, 2012 at 4:20 AM
parallel wrote:Dear Larry Jameson:
Thank you for your important question.
My speak in Zurich will regard the report of the tests made on the 16th of July and on the 6th of August made basically for the product certification in course for the Hot Cats.
...........................
...........................
Warm Regards,
A.R.
But in April of 2011
What You Can Do
Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
Join the H-Ni_Fusion technical discussion group to explore the details of the technology.
Once available, purchase a unit and/or encourage others who are able, to do so.
Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology.
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
Consider investing in Rossi's group once they open to that in October.
Help us manage the PESWiki feature page on Rossi's technology.
You can answer me that "once available" does not mean that plant was available for purchase that time?
Ok
How about Rossi's quotation provided by him to one of this board's member? So, "1 MW plant" was available for sale in April, May of past year?

Post Reply