Of course I know Tesla, his name heralds the magnetic field flux.

Names of inventors and discoverers are entirely arbitary to me; it is the substance of what was discovered that counts.

I couldnt' care less who discovered the radio, or who discovered relativity.

I do not know much about general relativity but what I do know is that special relativity has been tested many times (using half-life decay times for various particles travelling through the atmosphere) and finding HIGHLY ACCURATE results...

I do not know how familiar you are with it, but I'll approach it from the basics;

You have a factor gamma, which is given by (1-(v/c)^2) ^ -1/2

And then governing different frames, Ro and R', t' = gamma (or y) to.

Measuring the velocity of a particle is no real problem, and thus, working out how far it has travelled from creation from a cosmic ray is no problem.

We can thus work out the time using simple non-relativistic formula, and then compare this to the theoretical result --- all of which have been highly accurate.

However, I am under the impression general relativity has been held rather true.

Perhaps there is a reason most of the academic community believe in it? And only the laymens who don't?

If conservation of energy is wrong, I'll gladly reanalyze everything I've ever held true.

Thank you your feed back Henry, first of all please clarify why my Galileo claim is ignorant, was he not persecuted by the catholic church for presenting ideas contrary to what was accepted as fact in those times? This is all that I am saying regarding this example, please don’t misinterpret or purposefully distort the point. If you read my passage carefully you’ll note that my point regarding Galileo and the scientific method are taken completely out of context by your response.

            Are you also saying that science no longer uses the scientific method to validate a theory before admitting it as fact? I am not a scientist but this would defiantly be news to me.    

             Now, you are right in qualifying me as a layman because I don’t posses a specialization in physics which is the subject in discussion here, but where I discern from your comment is my understanding of math. I did take Unified Calculus I in college and obtained a B+, so I am not completely ignorant in this area. I also have a background in electronics and automotive mechanics and I am currently a business student at Rutgers State University in New Jersey.

A math model is only a more precise description of a theory, what is more important than the math model is the fundamental principal it describes.

            Henry, please refrain from insults or diminishing comments, just because you happen to have views that may differ from mine does not give you the right to insult me or anybody, lets not allow our passions to undermine this free platform for the exchange of a views and ideas. If I made any comments that offended you or anybody else, I apologize, it was not my intent.    

I'm sorry if I did offend you --

The main thing that irritates me is when people are happy to assume and do presume that physicist have a set concept of the universe in their mind, and would like to adapt the universe to their concept. It's quite the opposite.

I watched a film recently, about a ficitonal assassination of the president, and false forensics, etc, and one of the 'forensic scientists' interviewed, as such, said that the FBI had picked their criminal, and wanted to find the evidence to match to him, rather than find the evidence to pick the criminal.

I'm not saying science doesn't get it wrong, but modern theories are slowly but surely converging towards an absolute picture of correctness (i'm not saying this will ever be achievable, it may take literally an infinite amount of time, but if you compare our current knowledge to, say, 100 years ago, we paint a far more accurate description of the universe over a far wider... say, region?)

The important thing to remember is that scientists are open minded, things like a perpetual motion machine would be AMAZING, because it means we could, say, create energy at no mass loss, sit there all day and not have to run power plants to power homes, economically I'd imagine it'd be a massive financial breakthrough (being able to create something for nothing!)

However, it's been rigorously tested time and time again, and there always are dissipative losses.

Let's take the example of a fly wheel, you'll lose energy to air resistance, energy will be lost to spinning on the axis (e.g. friction on it), etc. There are always dissipative losses -- whilst a perpetual motion machine may be possible in theory, there are empricial reasons it will never happen.

With respect to the Gallilean claim, the methods used back then were of ill science - not comparing evidence to models, they held the core system so strongly that anything outside was blasphemous
-- Admittedly this could be a situation with science today, but considering some of the breakthroughs we've had, I'd like to think, and I imagine all scientists would, that we're open minded enough to see them and give it serious thought.



The main point I'm bringing this back to, I guess, is that in science we are in an age of new found openess, with stunning breakthroughs (Newton's work was amazing - he completely contradicted thousands of years of science [though, that science was not to the same degree of scientific method as we experience today]. The important thing, I guess, to remember, is that alot of physicists are receptive to things like this, hopefully all, I recently did a project + presentation on cold fusion, looking into the viability of it, and exploring criticisms of past results.

Just for reference, I am actually, despite being heavily cynical, wanting to go into a career of exploration down these routes, of ZPE and Vacuum energy, because they are interesting fields, but I do so knowing hundreds of scientists have gone before me, and not yet found anything as amazing as some of the claims made here (under rigorous scientific method and conditions).


Also, for reference, Cold fusion itself (generally cold fusion) is considered highly impossible, at the moment, the main reason for which is due to the lack of repeatability with the results, and the lack of consistency with the repeatability.

Your apology is accepted Henry, thank you.

 Now regarding the opinion you have concerning the opinion most people have about modern physicists, I believe you are absolutely right, that is the way most people think, but I don’t share that view particularly. In my opinion what may be holding science back is the professional unwillingness to admit openly that we might have to revisit some of the concepts we have built our understanding of the natural world on, but no formally accredited scientist will do this because it would be professional suicide. I believe that since most physicists agree that they don’t know it all and will never know it all, there should be some kind of a “professional haven” for those who seem to have committed an experimental blunder such as with Martin Fleichmann and Stanley Pons because even though their experimental set up may have been wrong does not mean that they did not stumble onto something significant. The fact that it has been confirmed in a laboratory setting  even just once should be more than suficient to motivate further investigation in order to unsderstand what is really going on here. I applaud your interest in this field Henry, don’t hesitate just go in with an open mind.

By the way, I know I may not sound it at times, but I am also skeptical of over – unity devices, but for the sake of open mindedness lets allow time to speak for itself, if Steorn doesn’t deliver then its business as usual. 

You are mostly right about my Galilean claim, the scientific situation then was a lot different than it is now, but there is some resemblance to our modern day dilemma in that those who speak out against what is established don’t get treated very nicely, so to say. Just remember the Wright brothers, they were ridiculed by physicists, up until they were able to make their machine the “airplane” fly, after many failed attempts of course, or take the case of Nicola Tesla, one of the greatest geniuses to ever walk the earth, he was ridiculed many times by others for concepts that ultimately worked, Newton is another case, just as you mentioned. All I am saying is that we should be extremely open minded and not be afraid of having the floor pulled out from under our feet, for this would ultimately catapult us forward.

p.s. regarding the first and second laws, well only time will tell I guess.