Are Misinterpretations of Thermodynamics Limiting Our Understanding?

[LocktnLoaded]

the laws of thermodynamics are going to be exposed as something terribly missinterpreted by those who have purported its values and constraints.
To ponder a wisdom expounded as fact, and to fully believe in it, we have excluded probability of contagious thought, we then fail to see as a child might, elementary solutions, in other words, people you might consider highly intelligent, might be overtly thinking to pragmatic, thus missing the full indulgence of their being?

When they turn the pages of history
When these days have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow.

Neil Peart, RUSH
sorry for the spelling errors...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So is this just wild speculation or do you have something of substance to add?

 

[LocktnLoaded]

yes they quote, but have you no other opinion?
Shall we absorb this iniquity without persperation?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ther point is that speculation needs to be supported either with facts, or logic based on known facts.

 

[LocktnLoaded]

(SIC),Ther point is that speculation needs to be supported either with facts, or logic based on known facts.
Known facts are sometimes fictitious boundaries, and have possible and probable conclusions that change with understanding of its last consideration.
With full indiffererance to be considered logical , whom do we defer a new ponderance?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that the "facts" can change, however, this is the nature of science which, as you have pointed out, has proven to be self correcting given enough time. So if I understand your point, and I'm not sure that I do, the answer is that we defer to the new generation of scientists. Because no matter how much we might wish that the great questions can be answered with philosophy, the Greeks have already proven otherwise. And even though in the end all of science has its roots in philosophy, and even though philosophy plays a role in any human endeavor, the cold harsh reality of empirical evidence and hard science is all that we have that has ever worked.

 

[LocktnLoaded]

What are your views towards pm, over unity, zero point energy, do you think they are topics that deserve to be looked at with a more open mind by todays top thinkers, or do you think it's a waste of their time, and their justified to shun the subject?
Another question if you don't mind, in your opinion what will be realized first, the above, time travel without going into space, the means for true invisibility, teleportation of humans, or the undeniable true scope of gamma ray burst will be understood?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What are your views towards pm, over unity, zero point energy, do you think they are topics that deserve to be looked at with a more open mind by todays top thinkers, or do you think it's a waste of their time, and their justified to shun the subject?

This depends on what you mean by "looked at". Most such arguments depend on supposition, wild speculation, and bogus claims. This is what gets rejected. For example, some would argue all day long about Huchison's alleged effects, when all that is needed is one verifiable demonstration. This is why you will find Huchison in the closed subjects list above. There is no need to waste time with claims when what is required is the proof.

I don't think its a matter of being unwilling to look, there is simply nothing to look at. Were a physical model to emerge which predicts that something like a useful zero point energy engine could be made, then you can be sure that everyone in physics and engineering will be talking about it.

Another question if you don't mind, in your opinion what will be realized first, the above, time travel without going into space, the means for true invisibility, teleportation of humans, or the undeniable true scope of gamma ray burst will be understood?

I have no idea, but personally, I expect to live to be a type IV being.

I think one day [and one mind] can change everything - you just never know. So I keep the dreams alive.

 

[LocktnLoaded]

Ivan >I don't think its a matter of being unwilling to look, there is simply nothing to look at. Were a physical model to emerge which predicts that something like a useful zero point energy engine could be made, then you can be sure that everyone in physics and engineering will be talking about it.
Hypatheticly speaking, if someone does have an idea, and would like to reach a top scientist to confer with, who do you think would be the prime candidate?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

if someone does have an idea, and would like to reach a top scientist to confer with, who do you think would be the prime candidate

I don't. I would suggest that you start asking the critical questions in the physics forum. And note that I did not say to post theories, I am thinking that any questions that you have about the physics can be answered. If you have a working hypothesis, then begin to study the requirements to post a paper in our new Independent Research subforum here. If the idea can't get past our forum, it would never make it outside of this forum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note to readers: Alternate discussion moved to Being Types as discussed by Michio Kaku

 

[russ_watters]

So is this just wild speculation or do you have something of substance to add?

I don't even see coherent speculation, just a bad prediction based on an incorrect understanding of how science works:

the laws of thermodynamics are going to be exposed as something terribly missinterpreted by those who have purported its values and constraints. To ponder a wisdom expounded as fact, and to fully believe in it, we have excluded probability of contagious thought, we then fail to see as a child might, elementary solutions...

What you fail to understand about science is that the "laws of thermodynamics" (not really a correct name) are not expounded as fact, but are theories that must be continuously proven in order to remain. Even if science worked by making arbitrary assumptions about the universe and tailoring our theories to fit the assumptions (Einstein has been accused of that with SR), it still would not be able to avoid the requirement of experimental evidence.

LL, this funamental misunderstanding of science that you have explains much about your belief in conspiracy theory and crackpottery. Sorry, science doesn't work the way you think it does and that means that reality isn't what you want it to be.

 

[russ_watters]

Hypatheticly speaking, if someone does have an idea, and would like to reach a top scientist to confer with, who do you think would be the prime candidate?

The vast majority of such ideas are based on severe misunderstandings of science and would be a waste of time for a "top scientist" to spend effort talking to people with ideas like that. We can easily handle such inquiries here. We used to answer questions on those topics all the time, though we've restricted the tone of such discussions that we will allow.