Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpet his overwhelmingly polite and good natured posts


    You know one hit a nerve when the other aprty start to rewrite history to support their own groundless argument.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpet
    Simulations exist. No simulation is perfect. It's perfectly possible that a simulation shows a gain. It's even more probable that any gain is a result of error somewhere along the line.


    It's not 'probable' - it's an absolute certainty. A simulation correctly programmed with the known laws governing motion, charge and magnetism cannot show a gain.
  1.  
    @quant

    Note the use of the qualifier "overwhelmingly". This is different to "exclusively", a word that I didn't use. My statement stands. You seem to be enjoying a bit of frigging about with the truth yourself.

    @pcstru

    I'll stick with probable.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: timetrumpet
    @pcstru

    I'll stick with probable.


    Of course you will. That's because you are ignorant when it comes to the (known) laws of physics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpetI'll stick with probable.


    You will then be wrong. It is a mathematical certainty. Since the models are mathematical it is a certainty. Reality may do something different, but a disconnect between mathematics and reality has yet to be shown.
  2.  
    As I say, I'll stick with probable. I'd be more cautious making claims of absolute certainty when it comes to predicting what can be determined by a theoretically perfectly modelled system where the underlying laws are sufficiently reflexive if I were you. You might come a cropper. Greater minds than any on this forum have.

    And that's just theory. In practice, the qualifier that it is "perfectly modelled" falls on it's arse for any forseeable model or simulation, easily including the results of any simulation Tinker may have had access to.

    @angus

    Define "disconnect" as you're using it in this context.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: GrowlerNo - but if any information is going to appear, it's going to appear first in the skdb. Steorn have recruited an ensemble of tinkerers and wannabe inventors in the vain hope that one of them will trip over the holy grail, and be stupid enough to post it first inside the 'magic club'.

    If such information was ever discovered, it would be valuable beyond measure, which is why certain members of the SKDB have formed allegiances with other outside agencies, in order to enhance their chances of profiting substantially should Steorn actually have anything to offer.

    Take this for instance. I'm not a member of the SKDB, so not bound by any NDA. A member of the SKDB provides me privately with information available on a public forum. (The SKDB is still public, since there's no vetting in place to identify any of its members). I send that to a fourth party who has access to a decent R&D team. They in turn take ORBO and prove it works, turn it into a marketable product and make gazillions. Who exactly is Sean going to sue?
    There is nothing to indicate that Steorn ever thought they have what they claim, nor that they think a bunch of whackado tinkerers are going to overturn physics as we know it. What there is substantial evidence for is that Steorn have a lot of contempt for their "fuels, fools, and tools" followers as they like to call them.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpetSimulations exist. No simulation is perfect. It's perfectly possible that a simulation shows a gain. It's even more probable that any gain is a result of error somewhere along the line.

    Relating that a high end simulation appears to show a gain requires neither lies nor stupidity. In contrast, acting the way you act requires you to be a bore and a cunt, both areas in which you're admirably qualified.
    Anyone who constructs a simulation who does not understand how to test the simulation for validity is incompetent.
    •  
      CommentAuthortimetrumpet
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010 edited
     
    Anyone who makes the assumption that his simulation is correct in all circumstances is an idiot (with the exception of relatively trivial cases)

    Anyone who finds his simulation yields unexpected results and fails to quantify the reason for that divergence is similarly an idiot.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpetAs I say, I'll stick with probable. I'd be more cautious making claims of absolute certainty when it comes to predicting what can be determined by a theoretically perfectly modelled system where the underlying laws are sufficiently reflexive if I were you. You might come a cropper. Greater minds than any on this forum have.


    Indeed that has happened. However the operative word is "reflexive" (by which I think you mean "self-referential"). What is reflexive about the underlying laws upon which the mathematics is based?

    And that's just theory. In practice, the qualifier that it is "perfectly modelled" falls on it's arse for any forseeable model or simulation, easily including the results of any simulation Tinker may have had access to.


    But the point here is that, just in theory, you cannot correctly predict energy gain from a device of the type Steorn has touted. If they ever prove they are right, it can only be experimentally, and we will use the results to change the theory.

    @angus

    Define "disconnect" as you're using it in this context.

    A situation where it is mathematically provable that no mathematical model can describe a given physical system. Note that random and chaotic events are ok here.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpetAnyone who makes the assumption that his simulation is correct in all circumstances is an idiot (with the exception of relatively trivial cases)

    Anyone who finds his simulation yields unexpected results and fails to quantify the reason for that divergence is similarly an idiot.
    Neither statement refutes my point. A simulation is in error if among other things it is inconsistent with the underlying rules on which it is supposedly built. Since all modern physics assumes CoE, any physical simulation is by necessity wrong if it fails to enforce that assumption. ERGO, no competent physics simulation can show a CoE violation. QED.

    The only way that we would ever find that the assumption of CoE is wrong is through experiments that defy it.
  3.  
    @angus

    There are a few interesting points here.

    Kicking off with @tinkers claim that a sophisticated simulation on a powerful computer predicted a gain, the point is that his claim to have found a situation where a simulation yields an unexpected result isn't the same as a claim that the result is correct. There's nothing particularly outrageous about claiming to have found a case where a simulation appears to be in error.

    I don't quite get your wording here:

    "What is reflexive about the underlying laws upon which the mathematics is based?"

    it seems a bit arse about face.

    But what I think you're asking is:

    "What evidence do you have that the currently understood laws of physics constitute a system which is reflexive to a degree that makes it susceptible to the limitations that can plague other purely theoretical frameworks?"

    Is that about right?
    •  
      CommentAuthortimetrumpet
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010 edited
     
    @joshs

    I don't think we disagree too much on this. But every non-trivial simulation is resource constrained in some way that makes the expression of errors or unexpected results a certainty if you know which edge-cases to exercise (or you exercise it inadvertently)

    eta note I'm explicitly separating out @tinkers claim to have found a result of this sort from any claim that it "proves" COE doesn't hold. In the absence of any other empirical data I'd also be looking hard at the accumulation of errors or invalid assumptions somewhere.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    @tt

    I don't quite get your wording here:

    "What is reflexive about the underlying laws upon which the mathematics is based?"

    it seems a bit arse about face.

    But what I think you're asking is:

    "What evidence do you have that the currently understood laws of physics constitute a system which is reflexive to a degree that makes it susceptible to the limitations that can plague other purely theoretical frameworks?"


    Well you were the one who brought it up:

    I'd be more cautious making claims of absolute certainty when it comes to predicting what can be determined by a theoretically perfectly modelled system where the underlying laws are sufficiently reflexive if I were you.


    Maybe you can define what you mean by reflexive.

    Joshs has summed up my position very well.
  4.  
    @angus

    Yes, by reflexive, I mean "self-referential" and I think we mean it in the same way.

    But I'm still having trouble parsing your sentence as I quoted above. Can you expand on what you mean by it?

    Is my attempt at restating it miles out?
  5.  
    @Angus

    My primary confusion here is that your original sentence reads as if you imply that the mathematics is underpinned by the laws of physics when I believe you mean to state the reverse - at their root, the laws of physics are underpinned by mathematics?

    Not an attempt to score a point I just want to make sure I get what you're saying.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpet@angus

    Yes, by reflexive, I mean "self-referential" and I think we mean it in the same way.

    But I'm still having trouble parsing your sentence as I quoted above. Can you expand on what you mean by it?

    Is my attempt at restating it miles out?


    It's too long. I would have said: "What evidence do you have that the currently understood laws of physics constitute a system which is self-referential?"
    • CommentAuthorenginerd
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    It may just be semantics, but the mathmatics are merely made-up descriptions that can be applied to real things, like the facts of physics. The "laws of physics" are generalizations developed from the facts (perhaps observations is a better word) of physics.

    We use mathematics that we invent to model reality. Often are models are imperfect, or only valid in certain regions.

    You can make a simple model that predicts the position of a mass falling toward the center of the earth. It will predict incorrectly if the surface of the earth gets in the way.
  6.  
    With a bit of googling, it's apparent that a fair few people have already been down this route: mathematics underpins physics; mathematical systems of sufficient complexity to underpin physical laws are necessarily inconsistent or incomplete; the laws of physics (at least WRT TOE) are necessarily inconsistent or incomplete.

    There is some dissension, but a fair few well qualified people weigh in with this point of view

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything at the end.


    So, despite assertions that it should be certain if perfectly modelled, I stick with "probable".
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
     
    Posted By: timetrumpet

    So, despite assertions that it should be certain if perfectly modelled, I stick with "probable".


    Wiggle.

    The question was whether the MODEL could predict a violation of the conservation of energy, using a calculation that was mathematically correct, and consistent with the MODEL. We know that is not possible except under a condition that is not met in reality, to the best of our ability to detect it. Whether REALITY might do something unexpected is a different question.