Angry at Free Energy YouTubers...

[IanB]

*clicks on thread about free energy*... *reads posts arguing about religion*... 

All threads, if they go on long enough, turn into arguments about religion or politics.

Ergo, if you are going to click on a thread that has already run into several pages then do not expect a thrilling conclusion at the end of it.

[rolycat]

*clicks on thread about free energy*... *reads posts arguing about religion*... 

All threads, if they go on long enough, turn into arguments about religion or politics.

Ergo, if you are going to click on a thread that has already run into several pages then do not expect a thrilling conclusion at the end of it.

Perhaps it would be more productive to argue about the (over)use of those animated emoticons?

Normal emoticons are useful, but the animated ones remind me of the early nineties, when Netscape Navigator created the <blink> element and thousands of amateur web pages suddenly sprouted acres of horrible flashing text.

[zapta]

Science is not a belief system, nor an opinion, nor a matter of taste or preference. It is our most committed and successful way of understanding the real world and its wonderful inner workings beyond the limitations of our senses, prejudices and tendencies to self delusion.

So you say that your view of reality is the correct one. That's a first.  ;-)

There is no "my view". Again, science is not a preference, not an opinion. It is a system and a methodology for our species to do the best it can to represent reality. It has taken us this far with remarkable results. It is the best we have. Beyond this, I have no idea what you mean.

That's what they all say, with a few fill in the blanks, and their like minded buddies agree with them just the same,  and they are just as frustrated that you don't get it.

One day you may understand. It doesn't have to be today

[suicidaleggroll]

Evolution says it does no good to jump on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers. Yet men will willingly do just that...  Its a mystery.

Humanity abandoned what was "good" for evolution as soon as we started healing the sick and sending our strong men to die in pointless political wars.

It'll be interesting to see what effect this has on the species as a whole in a million years, assuming we're still here (we'll probably all be dead from some super drug-resistant flu by then).

[hamster_nz]

The one thing I can't understand with religion is that they can't all be right, and they are largely mutually exclusive (you can't hold two faiths at the same time). Whichever one you pick, you are calling at least two thirds of people on the planet misguided.

"The demographic study – based on analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers – finds 2.2 billion Christians (32% of the world's population), 1.6 billion Muslims (23%), 1 billion Hindus (15%), nearly 500 million Buddhists (7%) and 14 million Jews (0.2%) "

I see the rational logical resolution to this dilemma is that people have a deep seated need for religion belief, and the religions themselves have evolved, based on the needs of the people and to actively compete to gain converts to survive the deaths of followers. Some very socially great religions must have died out, and some very bad ones have been rejected. You can see this somewhat in that the religions that fight hardest for followers is usually the most oppressive.

I find it very ironic how religions have evolved to prey on most people's need for faith, and then asks followers reject evolution in favour of everything being preordained.

[hamster_nz]

Evolution says it does no good to jump on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers. Yet men will willingly do just that...  Its a mystery.

The need to do things for the greater good is an advantage to you and your kin. To go "meh" and let you and your fellow soldiers die is stupid both for you and your wider group.

What would be a mystery would be if the person who threw the grenade didn't do so, and just held it in his or her hands rather till it exploded rather than kill others.

[zapta]

So, if you believe in evolution but not Genesis, you're picking and choosing. It's the same the other way around too. Either way it's hypocritical.

I don't see the contradiction, It's possible that the universe was created 5K years ago (or even yesterday) in a state that science and our senses interpret as a much longer history. Also, since that creation, the universe progressed in a sequence that is compatible with the evolution theory.

(that's not my own belief, I am just examining your assertion).

[zapta]

I find it very ironic how religions have evolved to prey on most people's need for faith, and then asks followers reject evolution in favour of everything being preordained.

I read once an article that examined religions from evolution perspective. How come that almost every human society developed some religion. The conclusion of the author was that religions themselves had evolutionary advantage (group identity, behavior control, risk taking, being able to deal with crisis, home, optimism, scarifies for the common good of the group, etc) and thus they survived. It was interesting to see the evolution theory applied not only to specifies but also to cultural patterns.

[Mechatrommer]

How do you (and other religious posters) deal with things like evolution?

evolution is based on lose statistics and guesses. i wonder today..... we have men around, we have monkeys around, but.... where is the half breeded monkey+man around just as pictured in the evolusinism graphics?

I have nothing against "believers". I am against "belief". It has been proven over and over again that the process of science is the best way to investigate and understand the universe. The process of science has produced medicines, materials, machines, and for mostly for all a better life. Belief has produced babies dying of AIDS, people getting their heads cut off, schools being burned to the ground with the students inside, 6 million Jews slaughtered

talking about "wrong belief", if you want to be nitpick about the bad thing..... science has created mass destruction weapon that kills millions, science cannot cure AIDS or any viruses. science dont deal with moral. science produced medicine just to be later realized that caused cancer, science has caused obesity due to lazy people relying too much on technological devices etc etc.... religion is the one to make people stay away from prostitution industry and hence AIDS poll, religion is the reference of moral conduct, good behaviour and saveness. etc etc...

some people said religion (not "belief") is the cause of destruction? because:
1) they dont understand what a religion is they never read the book, they made statement without proof, or dont study carefully the cause of it. just as science procedure laid out earlier
2) the people who do destruction they admit they are religious, they maybe somebody else not religious, or not fully understand religion.
case: if someone fanatic shouts "i'm atheist and i will kill anybody who dont" say eventually killed millions.... is it fair for people to say.... "atheism is all about killing"? is that right? is it fair to blame the tool rather than the user? religion is just a tool, like science, its has procedures you need to follow. the problem is not the tool, the problem is the people who uses it, and the people who are ignorant about other things... the peoblem is the "people".

it is agreed science is the best and one of "formalized" tool so far... but before you making a statement about religious madness or anything, have you done the proper procedure before making the accusation? here re-quoted again...

The scientific method is simply:
1) Question something
2) Make a hypothesis/guess at the answer
3) Come up with a test or series of tests to verify the validity of that hypothesis
4) Analyze the results of the test(s)
5) Re-visit step 2 if necessary

if not, i think you are not both religious and not scientism, you just somebody else with lack of references.

The scientific method is simply: (above)
What limitations do you believe this process is subject to?  Of course it can't be used to test something that is untestable,

you answered your own question thanks.

as much as i want to avoid religious discussion... free energy subjects leaked into "design and technical section" very well....

blind faith religion is wrong.
blind faith atheism/agnotism is just as well wrong.
blind faith scientism is just as well wrong.
prejudice is wrong, following what friend/master/teacher's saying without investigating is "blind faith"
and blind faith is wrong...

thats why i entered the thread with the conclusion...

[Mechatrommer]

and then... i'm the fruitloopery one 

[Corporate666]

evolution is based on lose statistics and guesses. i wonder today..... we have men around, we have monkeys around, but.... where is the half breeded monkey+man around just as pictured in the evolusinism graphics?

That's actually not true at all.

Evolution is one of the most solid and tested theories out there.  It is provable, testable and observable through experimentation.  Saying "where is the half breed monkey+man" just shows you don't understand evolution. 

When does a child cease to be a toddler?  Is it on a specific date?  Of course not - but everyone would agree a 2 year old is a toddler and a 10 year old isn't... but there is no line where it transitions from one to the other - it's a gradual progression.

Same with evolution.  There is no half man-half monkey.  There is no animal whose parents were monkeys but it is a man.  It is a gradual progression only visible when you see the gradual changed that have taken place over a long period of time.  Saying "evolution is just guesses because there is no man+monkey" is equally ignorant of the theory as saying "current doesn't follow the path of least resistance because I had 2 wires... and both of them shocked me... when only one of them should have shocked me - the one with lower resistance".  It just shows the speaker doesn't understand resistance, not that resistance theory is wrong.

[Corporate666]

Sorry, I can't resist...and apologies to Dave for throwing fuel on a religious debate.... but....

talking about "wrong belief", if you want to be nitpick about the bad thing..... science has created mass destruction weapon that kills millions,

Science itself is not moral or immoral... or ethical or unethical.  It is simply knowledge and information.  Knowledge isn't inherently bad, it can be used for good or bad.  Religion is different - religion claims to be good, thus it is fair to judge the morality and ethics of religion.

science cannot cure AIDS or any viruses.

And religion can't bring people back to life - therefore it is completely false, right?  There are many things science doesn't do - that has no bearing on whether what it can do/know is accurate or correct, nor does it mean religion is correct.

science dont deal with moral. science produced medicine just to be later realized that caused cancer, science has caused obesity due to lazy people relying too much on technological devices etc etc.... religion is the one to make people stay away from prostitution industry and hence AIDS poll, religion is the reference of moral conduct, good behaviour and saveness. etc etc...

Yes, science does not deal with morality.  But neither does religion, unless your idea of "moral conduct" includes stoning your daughter if she is not a virgin or if she does not do as she is told, condoning slavery, murder, infanticide, genocide, etc, etc.  And if you feel science causes obesity, then religion causes slavery - which is worse?  And if you think science causes cancer... religion causes genocide - which is worse?  As for being saved... you mean the part where you are born evil and bad and the only way you can become good is to follow the letter of religion to a "T", or else you will be tortured for all eternity - not just your whole life, but for all time.  Doesn't sound too moral to me.

some people said religion (not "belief") is the cause of destruction? because:
1) they dont understand what a religion is they never read the book, they made statement without proof, or dont study carefully the cause of it. just as science procedure laid out earlier
2) the people who do destruction they admit they are religious, they maybe somebody else not religious, or not fully understand religion.

So anyone who does bad things isn't "really" religious?  That is called the "no true scotsman" fallacy.  There were a lot of popes who order lots of murder - they were not "really" religious?  And if bad things aren't "really" religous, what about when you look in something like the bible itself where it advocates slavery? 

case: if someone fanatic shouts "i'm atheist and i will kill anybody who dont" say eventually killed millions.... is it fair for people to say.... "atheism is all about killing"? is that right? is it fair to blame the tool rather than the user? religion is just a tool, like science, its has procedures you need to follow. the problem is not the tool, the problem is the people who uses it, and the people who are ignorant about other things... the peoblem is the "people".

Atheism isn't a belief system - it is the rejection of belief systems.  Atheism cannot be responsible for anyone's actions anymore than not believing in Santa Claus can be responsible for someone's actions.

The same cannot be said of religion.  Religion gives specific instructions on various things - including who you are allowed to have as your slave, when you may (or must) murder your children, when you should commit infanticide and genocide, etc.  Not to mention what you wrote above is a classic "middle ground" fallacy.

it is agreed science is the best and one of "formalized" tool so far... but before you making a statement about religious madness or anything, have you done the proper procedure before making the accusation? here re-quoted again...
The scientific method is simply:
1) Question something
2) Make a hypothesis/guess at the answer
3) Come up with a test or series of tests to verify the validity of that hypothesis
4) Analyze the results of the test(s)
5) Re-visit step 2 if necessary

if not, i think you are not both religious and not scientism, you just somebody else with lack of references.

You agree that science is the best formalized tool so far - therefore if you discount science in favor of something else, you are being irrational by your own admission.

blind faith religion is wrong.
blind faith atheism/agnotism is just as well wrong.
blind faith scientism is just as well wrong.
prejudice is wrong, following what friend/master/teacher's saying without investigating is "blind faith"
and blind faith is wrong...

blind faith atheism is an oxymoron.  As is blind faith 'scientism'. 

Religion does not deal in facts therefore it is all about faith.  It is incomparable to science or atheism in any way.

[Lightages]

@Mechatrommer

I would really like to know something: Is there anything that could change your mind about your following of your holy book?

If you answer yes, then I would love to discuss this with you in private, or public, your choice.

If the answer is no, then good luck with your life and I hope someday you answer yes to the question.

[bills]

Wow guys can you really except to have rational conversations about religion?
How about we get back to the topic?
I will never convince you to believe what I believe and I believe that we are wasting time and bandwidth arguing about it. i thought this was a great site to discuss electronics not spiritual matters, But I have been wrong before. 

[Wytnucls]

@Mechatrommer

I would really like to know something: Is there anything that could change your mind about your following of your holy book?

If you answer yes, then I would love to discuss this with you in private, or public, your choice.

If the answer is no, then good luck with your life and I hope someday you answer yes to the question.

Good luck with that.
In Malaysia, once a muslim, always a muslim. And not just any muslim, Sunni muslim only.
If you want to marry a muslim, you have to convert first.
Apostate Malays lose all their privileges, like easier access to university, discounts on real estate and car purchases. Death threats are not uncommon.
For muslims, ISLAM is written on the ID card, as Shariah laws apply, even though the country is supposed to be secular.

[EEVblog]

evolution is based on lose statistics and guesses. i wonder today..... we have men around, we have monkeys around, but.... where is the half breeded monkey+man around just as pictured in the evolusinism graphics?

Your ignorance is stunning 
All of your evolution doubts can be answered, just go and study it.

Please don't turn this into a religious debate Mechatrommer, you have been borderline to being banned before because of it.

[Zero999]

disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be

How does this relate to the the topic of free energy?

What part of your faith tells you it may be possible to make something out of nothing?

As far as I'm aware, making something from nothing (money, gold, etc.) is not accepted by any of the formal religions. In the past, people who have claimed to be able to do this have always been labelled con artists, heretics, witches etc.

[franksanderdo]

Hey Shahriar

Interesting to read how quick a (more or less) technical problem derivates in to a religious discussion 

You asked half way why this foolish videos don't get forbidden. Please allow me an attempt on that:
Yes, ignoring science and its result is stupid. Many of the people trying to do so (no matter for which reason) do not realize where they would be without science.
Yes it is extremely frustrating to argue on a regular (daily?) base against a tremendous amount of ignorance in this world.
There is some difference between questioning science results and just blindly ignoring them.
Here is the point: As soon as we start forbidding stupidity we need some body to define the borderline. Will he, she or it have the education to define that thin line properly? Can this borderline be described in a way that we don't throttle enthusiastic scientist (like you) from doing their job? Isn't the freedom of thoughts exactly what allows science?

You are totally right, this "free" energy thing is going extremely weird by now. Unfortunately a lot of people fall into traps there as they forget to use their sense. Can we help them?
I personally believe that we have to trust in Darwin a little more 

Even though I technically don't understand most of your Videos (just a matter of missing education I hope  ) I watch each of them. My motto is: "Never give up hope to learn some more!"
Please keep running and keep your enthusiasm 

All the Best
Frank

[hamster_nz]

disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof... and if one is to say "i dont have any religion", he doesnt understand what "religion" is, that simple. so what do you have to say? i need a "capacitator" i disbelieve with proof! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J56MiB4CFWY&feature=youtu.be

How does this relate to the the topic of free energy?

I think Mechatrommer's question was "how can you be so sure that there is no free energy, when you can't definitively prove it" - I guess he is hoping for a "black swann event", where something completely unlikely actually occurs.

Today my horoscope at http://www.astrology.com/horoscope/daily/virgo.html said:

You are capable and intelligent, and you know it -- so why do you feel the need to prove it to anyone else?...

I am sure it was referring to this conversation.

I have faith in horoscopes, although I must admit sometimes my interpretation has been lacking (but usually due to my lack of skill in seeing the true meaning).

So for me that settles it - there is no free energy. I am sure in time my faith will be rewarded and the horoscope will yet again be proven accurate.

[atferrari]

I was looking for something and came across a YouTube channel with nearly 44 THOUSAND subscribers with videos like this:     

You are responsible of how you waste your time. Exactly as those ranting about audiophools.

Not worth the effort AND time.

[HighVoltage]

disbelieving without proof is just as much as believing without proof...

I think this discussion is not about future energy that might look very differently from today and we have no idea of what might be invented.
Historically each generation brings new technology.
So may be one day we have something totally new, who knows.

But, this is more about the fact that some people place a few magnets on on a fan and believe they have invented the next great thing.
I do not need proof that this stupid thing will not work.

[EEVblog]

The problem with free energy and beating the laws of thermodynamics is that they have been so well proven time and time and time and time again across a whole range of fields (so many times you average person would need a lifetime to investigate them all), that the chances of someone in their back shed with a few magnets and motors etc getting greater energy out than they put in is essentially zero.
A free energy nutters desire and persistence to believe it's possible and make it happen does not change the likelihood at all, it's still essentially zero.
People have been working on this stuff for over a hundred years, devoting their lives to it, and no one has ever shown anything the least bit credible, ever!
To think it's going to happen just around the corner is demonstrable nonsense.

And it's fueled by not only belief, but recent real scientific examples like that LED that gets 230% efficiency. But the nutters will not understand that these things do not scale well, you can't magically go from a 50pW LED to a 50W generator. And there are very good thermodynamic law abiding explanations for how you can get that 230% efficient LED. Yet it continues to fuel their hope and provides "evidence" for them. Just like they find "evidence" and hope in every free energy youtube video that gets put it.
 

Why can't they put their energies toward making more efficient renewable energy systems?

[franksanderdo]

...Why can't they put their energies toward making more efficient renewable energy systems?

I am wondering if there is a way to harvest their energy!?
That would be an almost unlimited source  O0

All the Best
Frank

[smjcuk]

Giant hamster wheels filled with hundreds of them!

[void_error]

We need more videos like this --->

As for the Free Energy crap, it's not impossible to have - if someone just gifts you a bunch of solar panels with all the electronics (inverter/batteries/etc.) and installs them for free then you have free energy, free for you at least. Now for something more practical - charge your phone/tablet/laptop/etc. at a location other than where you pay the electricity bill yourself...

Jokes aside (or not),  Free Energy... yeah sure... and I ate a quantum potato yesterday.