know this one, although the appearance w/the cribbed horse picture is a bit more fun.

does anyone know if tom is going to release anything soon? don't believe he's done much since the r&rhf induction (also very entertaining).

"better a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy" - t. waits

I agree. It explains the inefficiency (for now) of inductive charging that most people don't realize, and that at the current technology, the more it grows, the more burden it will have on the current grids.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Mordhaus.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by cricket. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Levitation-melting-induction-furnace

Thought it looked familiar. Dupe http://videosift.com/video/Levitation-melting-induction-furnace

Speaking as a philosophy graduate, Karl is basically my to go guy for philosophy of science.

He cut away of a lot of nonsense in the subject by thoroughly refuting the idea of inductivism, which is unfortunately how most non-scientists seem to think of scientific "truth".

Science can't make true statements, it can only refute untrue statements.

This is the only way for empiricism to get around the problem of induction. (& even then it just avoids the problem rather than solving it)

We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow, but we can attempt to refute theories that suggest that it won't.

Thus any theory which is not falsifiable is not truly scientific.

(I realise I'm restating some of the above, but dammit that expensive university education has to be useful for something!)

The problem of induction has been a well known issue for hundreds of years. The gist of it is, we cannot rationally justify inductive reasoning. The significance of that is that virtually all of our knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is arrived at by inductive reasoning. Here is a good overview of the problem:

https://faculty.unlv.edu/beisecker/Courses/Phi-101/Induction.htm

So, when you say your worldview is designed to show reality, do you have any rational basis for your claim? Even an insane person will make the same claim that you have, so how do you know that you are not one of those? The problem of induction reveals that underlying any knowledge claim there is a series of unprovable assumptions, and that everything, even rationality itself, is subject to change. If you are just a blip on a computer screen somewhere, the whole thing is kind of moot isn't it?

You see my worldview as rigid because you don't appear to believe in absolute truth. Have you ever pondered that the claim "there is no absolute truth" is actually an absolute truth claim? The whole idea of relative truth eats itself at a certain level, but those who believe in only relative truth don't follow the evidence where leads. Aren't you willing to take these ideas to their logical conclusions, newtboy? You're the stubborn type, but not the intellectually incurious type.

I only know what I know because of what God has revealed to me, otherwise I wouldn't know anything. I would say the same thing as most of you do, that "I don't know" is the most rational position to take. That's the position I took before; I have been convinced of the truth because God, through His love and supreme mercy, revealed Himself to me. I don't deserve it, believe that much. It's not because I am so special, it is because of His grace.

What I absolutely believe newtboy, is that He doesn't love you any less than He does me. He didn't truly reveal Himself to me until I was in my 30s. I don't know what He has shown you, but I know He has shown you something. Perhaps you won't put it together until later in life, and there is a reason for that too, although I couldn't tell you what that is. I just know that He loves you the same and is faithful to show you the same kind of revelation that He has to me. If you are truly open to that, if you would want to know the truth regardless of your personal preferences to the contrary, then you won't fail to find out what I've found out; that there is meaning and purpose to life, because you were created on purpose for a reason:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

The difference being my lenses are designed to show reality, and can self correct when a flaw is discovered. Religion glasses are fixed lenses that distort what you see intentionally.
You can't prove it only because you can't examine everything you can apply the scientific method to, but every time it's been applied to a problem/question, it has been the best method tried to answer the question, no matter what other methods are tried.
Please, explain the 'assumptions' you speak of. The assumption that reality is real, and what we measure is also real? I'm happy to make that assumption, and will admit that it is one, but a base one must assume if you wish to have a chance of understanding the real world. If you don't believe reality is real, you have little place in science, as it only attempts to explain reality.
The 'problem of induction' sure seems a misunderstanding of science, which does NOT say the laws of physics are immutable, or that a series of measurements PROVES a pattern that will continue. The laws of physics were different at and near the big bang, and patterns change. Science knows this, and accounts for it, in fact, science discovered it.
Of course I have a world view, but it is not rigid as your is. I can assimilate new information to modify my world view as it becomes available, you can not, you must modify the information to fit your view.
When my 'sources of information' are data from random experiments and studies of phenomena, they are NOT selected because they agree with my assumptions, they just happen to agree with them (usually) because I had good teachers that give me a good base to make assumptions from, and when I see the assumption is wrong, I toss it. It happens...just not about religion.
You don't listen to me seriously, because you're mind is made up, I don't listen to you seriously because you're a fallible human and can't possibly know the things you claim to 'know', nor can you prove the unprovable, and trying is a total waste of time.
Tell god to get off his ass and show me then, and we can stop all this BS...until he proves the unprovable to me, it will remain unproven.
Your awe at reality is not proof of anything except your awe, no matter how much you wish it to be proof of god. My awe at beauty is simply awe, nothing more.
I'm not looking at your last video link, I've spent WAY too much time on this already, for nothing. You can't admit you even might be wrong, and can't ever prove you're even partially right (I've explained why)...so Good night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&redirect=no

Newtboy, I know that I am wearing glasses. The problem is that you don't think you're wearing any. I see everything through the lens of the word of God, you see it through the lens of humanistic naturalism. We both have what is called a worldview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

Your worldview is grounded on your belief in certain axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

A belief such as the scientific method being the best way to understand the natural world is an axiom. The problem with that belief is that you cannot prove that using the scientific method. It isn't a self-evident truth, it is based on unprovable assumptions. That is the fundamental issue which creates what is called the problem of induction which "calls into question..all empirical claims made by the scientific method"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

If you don't think you have a worldview, or don't know what the axioms of your worldview are, then I am sorry to break this to you but you sir are the one walking around completely blind. You believe your filter is wide when it is actually very narrow.

It's easy to think that you're getting a good overall picture when actually you have simply selected sources of information which agree with your underlying assumptions about what you already believe. You are then simply living in an echo chamber.

You also forget that I used to be an agnostic and I understand that point of view. It's not my failure to understand the atheist and the agnostic, it is that I understand them all too well. I rejected that point of view when I found out there was a God. When you find out there is a God your entire worldview will shatter and fall into itsy bitsy little pieces, and you'll marvel that could be so ignorant as to miss the complete obvious:

Which is that It's completely obvious that the Universe was created and is maintained by an all powerful Creator, it isn't something anyone has to strain to look for. The majesty of Gods creation is constantly surrounding us, and our very existence at this moment is proof positive of that fact.

The theory of Intelligent Design looks for design features in the "code" of the Universe. For a good overview for the application of Intelligent Design to many other fields of science, check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM&list=PLC805D4953D9DEC66

Your video, a knife blade heated by an induction coil, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

scientism is really like truthieness. It's a made up word, with a made up definition, that has no bearing on, or connection to reality.
Science is not about belief.
If data 'proves' that science can't ever answer any question about reality (not about human insanity, although it already goes a long way towards explaining that too), scientists would concede instantly. If it were a belief, they could never change it based on evidence, but science does change.

No one is asking you to 'bow' to any 'theory'. They are simply the 'rules' that 'science' has produced to explain how the world/universe works. They work just fine without your 'belief' in them or knowledge of them. That's just one thing they have over the supernatural.

Please give an example or two of scientific 'truths' that were half baked ideas. I think if you look throughout history, carefully, you will see the scientific method was developed mostly around the 12th century as explained here:

Amongst the array of great scholars, al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method. His scientific method involved the following stages:1.Observation of the natural world
2.Stating a definite problem
3.Formulating a robust hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis through experimentation
5.Assess and analyze the results
6.Interpret the data and draw conclusions
7.Publish the findings

but it's widely held that it was not solidified to the modern scientific method (eliminating guessing and 'induction' and requiring repeatable experimentation) until Newton. That means any example you might give should come after 1660 or so at the earliest, or you aren't talking about the same "science" that the rest of us are.

I think most scientist would say it is 'possible' that supernatural events happen, but incredibly unlikely, and constantly less so the more we know about the world and it's rules. It's just as likely that if I only eat the right color yellow foods I'll eventually 'magically' crap gold. I can't prove it won't happen (because I'll never know if I ate the 'right' color foods, if I ever tried), but I can use science to show it's absolutely unlikely to a NEAR certainty (no matter how one misunderstands quantum physics).
The supernatural is right there with my golden poops....and I can't tell which smells worse.

Scientism:

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

The idea that science has all the answers is a particular faith of some atheists and agnostics, with no evidence actually supporting the claim. The problem of induction alone throws that idea out of the window. I love science and I amazed by what we are able to do, technologically. I've studied astronomy quite a bit in my lifetime. Just because I love science does not mean that I must bow before any theory because it is accepted by the mainstream scientific community as being the current idea of what is true and real.

If you look through history you will see many of these ideas held to be truth by the scientific community turned out to be half-baked ideas based on pure speculation. Somehow, people think we have it so nailed down now that the major ideas we have about the cosmos have to be true. It's pure hubris; our knowledge about how the Universe actually works or how it got here is infinitesimal compared to what there actually is to know.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper and say that represents all of the knowledge it is possible to know. What percentage of it could you claim that you knew? If you're honest, it isn't much. Do you think that knowledge of God and the supernatural could be in that 99 percent of things you don't know? If you really think about this you will see that to rule these things out based on limited and potentially faulty information is prideful and it blinds you to true understanding.

Very neat idea!

If you replaced the magnets with a non-magnetic material conductively glued onto the magnet, it would still work. From wikipedia on 'electromechanical solenoid',

Electromechanical solenoids consist of an electromagnetically inductive coil, wound around a movable steel or iron slug (termed the armature). The coil is shaped such that the armature can be moved in and out of the center, altering the coil's inductance and thereby becoming an electromagnet. The armature is used to provide a mechanical force to some mechanism (such as controlling a pneumatic valve). Although typically weak over anything but very short distances, solenoids may be controlled directly by a controller circuit, and thus have very quick reaction times.
The force applied to the armature is proportional to the change in inductance of the coil with respect to the change in position of the armature, and the current flowing through the coil (see Faraday's law of induction). The force applied to the armature will always move the armature in a direction that increases the coil's inductance.