Free energy!

bonkey wrote:

You've been told wrong.


While I'm not entirely sure that yoru example is a violation of the laws you mention, we know that Newtonian physics is - strictly speaking - incorrect.

To be more accurate, Newtonian physics give us a relatively accurate model within certain boundaries and tolerances. This is good enough, for example, to build a car, but probably not to put a satellite into orbit.

That we generally refer to Newtonian Physics as "Newton's Laws" is just a form of nomenclature.

I was reading an article from SciAm recently, where I came across what is perhaps the best clarification of this point I have seen yet:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Taking the comment about what a law is, I am then prompted to remember a comment I first heard from Rvd. Ian Paisley to the effect that "all generalisations are suspect".

Finally, I would point out that we have no way of enforcing laws, nor of being 100% certain that they are enforced. We can be almost 100% certain that within certain boundaries and so forth that they hold true, but thats about it.

If I say that there is Bonkey's Law which states that in any scientific conversation, terminology will be misused at least once, does this mean that it must happen? Just because I said its a Law? What if it became a widespread, accepted generalisation (like the more-well-known Godwin's Law)? Does this make it true?

In science, the very idea of 100% certainty of positives cannot exist. I believe we can be 100% positive that something is not the case, but that anyone who states positive with 100% certainty is over-reaching at least slightly.

Ultimately, I think thats partly because of my background in Applied Mathematics. In pure mathematics, we can be 100% certain of certain things. However, this requires that we define clearly all influences. If I say that the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees, I could be wrong. If I say it holds true on a Cartesian plane, then (unless my memory is fading or I've forgotten something) I cannot be wrong. In the real world, however, everything in science is based on observation (and thus, to a degree on assumption) rather than declaration. We cannot declare that things are the way we need them to be, we can show that they very much appear to be that way, and on the assumption that our interpretation of this appearance is accurate, we can then go on to draw conclusions.

But there's always those assumptions, no matter how tiny we consider the possibility of them being (even slightly) wrong to be.

Thus, if you've been told you cannot break scientific laws, you were told wrong. You cannot break the laws of physics. However, whether our stated laws of physics are the actual laws of physics is something we cannot state with 100% absolute certainty.

Going slightly further...lest someone think I'm supporting Steorn here...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. What we understand to be the laws of physics are - if not 100% certain - extraordinarily well tested within the boundaries that are currently possible. What Steorn are claiming is that we got it wrong. The possibility that they have found something exists...but it will not be accepted until and unless they credibly establish their claim to the satisfaction of those they are saying are wrong. Thats they way science works.

If someone has an idea of what might be the "trick", then the onus is on Steorn to show that this person is wrong. Note - they have to show, not merely state, that this person is wrong.

For example, if someone says "they're just using a magnetic motor", they can't say "no, we're not", but rather they have to allow third-party, independant validation by anyone who cares to test this claim.

Thats how it works. Science is where it is because modern science has taken this champion/challenger model to extraordinary lengths. Steorn are not playing that game. They're hiding their validation process rather than making it as open as possible. They're explainaing that with reasons that are simply not acceptable to the scientific community. The way in which they approach this is the same as many scam artists who've tried to make a quick buck from similar claims in the past.

So yes, Steorn could be right. They may have found something. But the correct position of the scientific community should be "convince me" and Steorn refuse to do that, seeking some sort of public acceptance instead. Thus, the odds of the skeptical scientific position being correct that this is not the real deal are increased.

My current guess is that Steorn will soon declare that they've run out of funds, and that this "best hope for mankind" will unfortunately never see the light of day unless they abandon their previous position of "no funding till we've proven ourselves", and will "reluctantly" seek outside investment to bring this revolutionary product to market. This will be necessitated in part by the unforseen technical problems that their current "demonstration" encountered.

Son Goku wrote:

No, Newton's laws really needed to be expressed in Hamiltonian and Lagrangian format before they were very useful. In terms of return-to-cost Maxwell's Equations were far more productive.

Really? In what sense did they show Newton's Laws to be incorrect and is it truly analogous to what Steorn are doing?

I would say it isn't. Newton's Laws indicate the natural limit of their regime and have a clear set of axioms upon which they rest. For instance in the first section of Principia Newton claims space to be "unmoved", in anticipation of the fact that it would be possible to affect it.

The law of conservation of energy, on the other hand is not the same as this as it is not a theory, rather a principle used to build theories. If it was wrong everything would be wrong. Now while it is possible that it is wrong, it's extremely unlikely to be wrong at human energy scales, which Steorn are still operating at. Newton's Laws also still work at human energy scales, you have to move to Stellar energies before you see it. Steorn have not "moved" to a point/energy scale where they stand a chance of seeing new physics. So the analogy does not hold.


Every crank does not gain a veneer of respect simply because science is tentative. For instance "Cups don't fall up usually, but you never know".