|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Waiting for my old avatar to dry off. And to quit stinking, too. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
And usually the simpler ideas are the better ones. Kind of like Heroscape!
Follow the adventures of Agent Minivann
http://agentminivann.blogspot.com/ http://opensourcevolleyball.blogspot.com/ |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
I agree guys, if you dont put yourself in the position where you contract something, the disease doesnt spread and dies out.
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
yeah, but there are always stupid people out there.
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Wow. Ok, to get this thread back on track:
All you dudes who claim this is feldercarb (and it probably is, for the record) must realize that the only proof you can offer is that which is based on the current theories of physics. You can slap all the formulas and equations down that you want, but the only thing it really says is "if our current theories of physics are accurate and complete, this technology is impossible." How many of you out there honestly believe that we know everything that there is to know about physics, and that 100% of our theories are correct beyond question, with no exceptions? <crickets chirp> Yeah. That's what I thought. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Our current theories very well may need to be updated in our lifetime, but I don't think that a single observation is enough to be even a blip on the radar. The theories we have have held up for a while with no serious challengers. I would imagine there was some observational error, or something that someone is missing. It happens all the time. Theories don't become theories from just a single set of data. There needs to be a lot of independent scrutiny, so it isn't all chalked up to a great big "duh" moment. Cold fusion anyone?
Follow the adventures of Agent Minivann
http://agentminivann.blogspot.com/ http://opensourcevolleyball.blogspot.com/ |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, I totally agree with that sentiment, Minivann.
But the one of the things I love about the scientific method (as opposed, in particular, to religious beliefs) is that true scientists admit that they very well may be wrong. You won't find too many religious folks to admit the same thing. I certainly don't want this to derail this thread into a science vs. religion debate, but I wanted to point out that the very nature of pure science involves the admission of possible alternative theories. So the dudes on this thread that seem to be claiming that they know for certain that such a thing is impossible are violating the very premises upon which they base their claims. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Heh, I don't know everything, but I'll interupt those crickets.
This is feldercarb. If it is true, we would have to start over from square one, and the theories that we've built the last 150 years of civilization on are complete garbage. Quote:
I would be happy to give you a list of things we don't know about physics, and there are a startling amount of them, but this is something we are sure about. Also, the guy is going about it all wrong, from a social perspective. This isn't the way things are done to gain academic respect. This is the way things are done to make a profit and scam investors, which is exactly this guy's goal. well, here's an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion Argh. Stop believing in free energy people! You can believe in free energy when I meet elves and fairies and Klingons and a lich and a great frost wyrm and .... |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
hehe, read the Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, and you'll find out just how unbiased scientists are.
Read the equally good Karl Popper if you want a better outlook on science and the evolution of the scientific method. I mean, I admit that conservation of energy could be flawed, but it would take a LOT more to convince me than one scam artist. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Its not discrediting the scientific method, only people that use it are human, so.....
One of the points is that people see what they want to see. Its a double bladed sword. I see the situation as feldercarb because it doesn't adhere to the current paradigm. Their scientists, if in fact they have any young'ns that believe their own lies, are blinded the other way and will have trouble admitting wrong. The other point, which is a bit cynical, is that old generations must die off for a new paradigm to be instituted. So Kuhn was saying that the majority of the scientific body would literally have to die for perpetual motion to be accepted as truth. I know I'm sorta arguing your side here, but you'll have to kill me before you can have your free energy On another note, if you want something that can overturn current paradigms, try incorporating gravity or neutrino oscilations into the standard model, or explaining entangled electrons. I just saw some news the other day about how the speed of light is perhaps not constant over time. Which means its not constant over space either. way cool. These are some accepted observations that could overturn the foundations of physics once we are able to come up with a consistent model including them, and no matter how much it flips our current understanding of physics, I'm ready for the headtrip. But when it comes to this article, its still complete feldercarb. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|