Talk:Binary economics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reversal of deletion of paragraph on interest-free loans for possible alternative clean energy generation

This paragraph was deleted but it very clearly says that it is hoped that these technologies (and there are a lot of them -- please do some research) could become viable. To encourage their development interest-free loans are proposed. So I have reversed the deletion -- if it is binary policy to encourage such research and development it is binary policy and that is a fact. I fail to see any clear reason for why the deletion was made. Rodney Shakespeare.

Rodney Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.49.13 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need sources for that, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball per WP:CRYSTAL. Brusegadi 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So when I provide one hundred sources the problem is solved. I propose one source with one hundred sources within -- This Week in New Energy -- top 100 technologies. Rodney Shakespeare. 12th September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.155.251 (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you determined to contradict the the page on Conservation of Energy it's 1st grade physics and an insult to intelligence that undermines the article. It draws connection between credible economics and theories in the domain of obscure minorities and crazytalk. Anyone who disagrees with the deletion should take it up with those that study physics, this is not the place to discuss what amounts to consipracy theories about the supression of free energy technology. There are no free energy technologies that violate the conservation of energy, and the whole of mainstream science agrees THERE NEVER WILL BE. Science is based, suprisingly for some, on EVIDENCE. Such technologies violate all the evidence we see in the physical laws of the universe. 88.108.136.7 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This link illustrates the point nicely too... 88.108.136.7 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegardi, a) If it is binary policy to encourage something it is binary policy and not your personal view of what the policy should be. b) You asked for sources and I provided one hundred for you. c) Whatever is your personal view of the science and technology involved, the technologies referred to are in Wikipedia. I did a Wikipedia search and the very first one turned up pages for Thomas Bearden and Motionless Electromagnetic Generator. I then soon found Randell Mills and Blacklight; and then Searl Effect Generator. There is also Steorn and possibly a number of others. If Wikipedia has pages on these matters, it has pages on them and it is obviously decided Wiki policy to include pages on these subjects just as it is decided binary policy to encourage their investigation. d) However, you have alerted me that the passage could be better written and I shall re-write it.

Rodney Shakespeare, 12th September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.160.32 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. If it were binary economic policy to fund a hamster wheel powered rocket to the moon, then that simply is the policy and as long as it's sourced I cannot disagree. If you can't source it you could use weasle words and effectively say 'a very small minority of proponents suggest increased funding into what are currently considered to be suppressed technologies for free energy that the wider scientific community considers to be nonsense and in violation of fudamental laws, purported by either outright con men or the craziest and least educated of the consipracy theorist minority who have as yet no evidence or working models to support their obscure ideas, which most certainly have never passed a single peer review or substantiated any of the claims made in the extremely sketchy patents' then I'd be happy. But it's a bit of a mouthful so you could just leave it out :) 88.108.136.7 23:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes and don't forget to mention that the teams working on these projects always need just a bit more funding, time and verification just to get the next prototype working before final public release and a world revolution. And there's always 'technical dificulties' just before a demonstration. 88.108.136.7 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried my best to make it a bit more NPOV and less crystal ball. Also drawn the distinction between 'alternative' (i.e. scientifically unverified) technologies and those on the top 100 list, some of which are existing, practical and verifiable. Hope you like! 88.108.136.7 09:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly trying to implement the spirit and intent of your alterations -- a statement about skepticism, and degrees of skepticism, is important but, as you point out, it's all a bit of a problem because some may be fraud, others are improvements on existing technology etc. Anyway, let's keep working it it until we are both satisfied there is a nice clear, if possible, simple paragraph. Rodney Shakespeare, 13th September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.112.163 (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, definately an improvement. I've re-added the bit about research funding, as I think that's the key bit that relates it to binary policy. Also added reference to the conservation of energy, which means you can see what is being suggested when just reading quickly through it, as opposed to investigating each of the 'alternative' technologies. Happy to keep working on it :) Thanks! 88.108.136.7 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The MEG, searl and steorn definitely violate conservation of energy, and there's not point citing specific controversial examples which we disagree on so much, when the top 100 list provides many good and practical technologal examples. 88.108.136.7 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how does the use of the force in permanent magnets breach conservation of energy? If it is binary policy to help research (for example) on a magnet-using technology (and, after due consideration, it might be) why should you object? Moreover, by arbtrary assertion you are trying to force your views about CoE onto the article. Wikipedia has articles on magnet motors and other subjects and, if you want to object to those articles, please object to them in Talk at the proper place (which is not here) and, when you have successfuly done so, you will be in a better position to argue that there be no reference to them in an article on binary economics. Please tell me -- have you attempted to object to the Wikipedia articles on these subjects?

Moreover, the paragraph carefully points out that some of the technologies are within, on the edge of of and outside existing science -- it just keeps an open, rather than a closed, mind about the subjects.

Rodney Shakespeare, 15th September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.45.128 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We're getting closer, but the fundamental issue remains. The MEG page says "The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG) is a proposed device which is most notable for claims of over-unity operation, a feat which would violate the first law of thermodynamics." The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is conserved, not created or destroyed. The Searl and Steorn claim to be over-unity devices too. I AGREE it may well be binary policy to investigate violating the physical laws of the universe, but suggesting that the MEG, Searl and Steorn may be viable with a bit more funding undermines the credibility of the article without any good reason. These specific technologies aren't central issue to binary economics. By mentioning the specific technoligies, the paragraph suggests that violation is possible. I vote to remove the specific examples of the MEG, Searl and Steorn. 88.108.136.7 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting better, but I can't be bothered arguing any more. I hope this discussion is kept and archived. If you honestly believe that people have built devices that create unlimited energy (from magnets etc.) that no-one has ever managed to recreate, and you want such laugable physics explicitly suggested in your article, then that's your call. Clearly, graduating with a BSc in physics didn't qualify me to educate a pioneer of binary economics about the basic physical laws of our universe. I'm done. 88.108.136.7 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegardi, I -- and many others-- wish to keep an open mind about technologies which are within existing science, on the edge of it and, as the paragraph admits, outside but which might, just might, at some future time, be viable (and on that viability the future of the world may depend). Like you, we will believe these technologies when there is a cheap, reliable working example on the table or in a car but, in the meanwhile, we intend keeping an open mind. In order to keep the balance, my vote is formally recorded - I vote to keep the specific examples of the MEG, Searl and Steorn.

I also record that you have helped to make a considerable improvement to the paragraph for which I express thanks and hope we can leave the mattter at that. Rodney Shakespeare, 15th September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.45.128 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

One last thing... I've added the philosopher's stone to the list of viable technologies. Mainstream physacists and chemists unanimously agree that the existence of the philosophers stone is contrary to all the laws of physics that we have come to understand over the last 10,000 years. However, just as the MEG, Searl and Steorn, there are still fringe 'researchers' searching for the possibility of its existence, and if it's binary economics policy to give the MEG, Searl and Steorn more research funding, then the search for the philosophers stone is equally worthy. If it exists it could also make a huge difference to humanity, and apparently we must keep an open mind. The MEG, searl and steorn are just as viable as alchemy according to the opinion of mainstream physics. If this philosophers stone is not to be included, then the MEG, Searl and Steorn must be removed also, until they are approved in just one single respectable peer reviewed journal. Hope this helps :) 88.108.136.7 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:SYN. I dont think you can do what you just did. If the proponents of bin argue that x tech may become feasible simply quote them as saying so and then quote a physicist saying that it is impossible. That should be fine. Worst case scenario, your changes will not get in and this article will be taken as seriously as a chair sandwich. Brusegadi 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your alteration amounts to vandalism

You are indulging yourself in what amounts to vandalism -- and I was under the impression that you are a senior Wikipedia editor. Apparently, that is not so. The 'alternative' technology paragraph is all about keeping an open mind and, very obviously, your mind is closed. There are Wikipedia articles on blacklight, Randell Mills, MEG, Thomas Bearden, Searl and Steorn about which you have not complained and all of those articles sensibly use words like "claim". Because the articles exist it is very obviously Wikipedia policy to keep them. Consequently, equally obviously, at some point your apparent determination to suppress all references to those articles is likely to become a matter of general Wikipedia concern.

Rodney Shakespeare, 16th September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.108.31 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not vandalism! I'm trying to use the logic you suggested! There is indeed an article for the MEG, and it clearly states if the MEG worked as claimed it violates well established theory. Thermodynamics isn't something theory that a drunk scientist came up with one night, violating it is like saying... sorry NASA, Cern, ITER and any other respectable researchers, you're wasting your time. The fact that you've never noticed any of MEG effects is because your equipment is too precise, too well designed and too expensive!

So, I thought, there is also an article on Alchemy, and it is equally clear that mainstream science sees it as equally impossible. There are 100 Technologies from the list, and you insist on listing the MEG, number 15 from the 'Other, Not Ranked' category. I assumed, wrongly it seems, that if you're open to claims that violate very basic established theory, then alchemy, astrology and witchcraft also deserve funding too. Thanks! :) 88.108.136.7 07:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rodney, is your apparent determination to suppress all references to the possibility that alchemy might work likely to become a matter of general Wikipedia concern? What's the difference? 88.108.136.7 07:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegardi, references to alchemy are out and an open mind is in -- and that requires at lesst some reference to the more prima facie unlikely of the technologies. Fraudulent or not (and I am not aware that has been alleged), blacklight is raising millions of dollars from people (and I expect a number of them will have science degrees) and with steorn the jury is still out -- literally. This 'jury' has twenty two members and they have certainly, as individuals, put their careers on the line (as has Steorn) but the results of the investigation are still awaited. So MEG and Searl can go as also alchemy but blacklight and steorn must remain to show that an open mind is being kept. I am making the alteration and hope that this matter can now be left alone. Rodney Shakespeare. 17th September, 2007.

Excellent! I'd like to apologise again for this taking up much of your time, but the importance of the scientific method can never be understated. It's a shame I had to resort to such indelicate means of persuasion! You may find Russell's teapot an interesting and relevant read, or perhaps the article on Falsifiability - although some of the physics section could do with claifying. Keep up the excellent work with the Binary Economics! 88.108.136.7 14:04, 17 September 2007

Thanks, Brusegardi

Thanks for spotting those alterations. I am trying to improve the logical order. There is now a Loans section and an Income section (which is separate because I suppose that is what most people are directly interested in). Estate Duty has been put at the bottom of the loans section but no place seems perfect for it. Rodney Shakespeare

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3