| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2006 03:20:12 PM |
| Object: |
Free Energy |
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Can anyone give me some advice on how to build a prototype of this
design?
.
|
|
| User: "Karipidu Marianna" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
21 Feb 2006 09:41:44 PM |
|
|
<virtualadepts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140554934.606426.312280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy.
Hmmm...Free sources of energy? The air or the
sun. The wind-generators exploit the speed of
the wind to produce electric energy with the
rotation of their coils. Or we can get free energy
from the solar radiation with photovoltaics.
How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Can anyone give me some advice on how to build a prototype of this
design?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
21 Feb 2006 05:32:33 PM |
|
|
<virtualadepts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140554934.606426.312280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Why store it? Just sell it back to the grid. Heck you might even make money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Bell" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
21 Feb 2006 06:54:51 PM |
|
|
In article <lqNKf.271767$i83.8709307@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
<virtualadepts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140554934.606426.312280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Why store it? Just sell it back to the grid. Heck you might even make money.
If you are connected to the grid, there is no reason to generate electricity
with waste heat from your woodburning stove. While it is not renewable,
burning coal at a central generating plant for your electricity is far less
polluting than generating your own electricity from a wood fire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
22 Feb 2006 03:44:18 AM |
|
|
"Richard Bell" <rlbell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:dtgcor$n7a$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
In article <lqNKf.271767$i83.8709307@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
CWatters <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
<virtualadepts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140554934.606426.312280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Why store it? Just sell it back to the grid. Heck you might even make
money.
If you are connected to the grid, there is no reason to generate
electricity
with waste heat from your woodburning stove. While it is not renewable,
burning coal at a central generating plant for your electricity is far
less
polluting than generating your own electricity from a wood fire.
I wasn't really being serious. I mean his free energy wasn't even free.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sulayman" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
21 Feb 2006 03:25:55 PM |
|
|
<virtualadepts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140554934.606426.312280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Can anyone give me some advice on how to build a prototype of this
design?
The power company already does all this, except they use coal.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
22 Feb 2006 12:52:11 AM |
|
|
<virtualadepts@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140554934.606426.312280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and
free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and
boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from
the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which
generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery,
which is used to power your home.
Can anyone give me some advice on how to build a prototype of this
design?
It's been very extensively explored.
Most physicists are pretty sure a "free energy" machine can't work because
it violates the first law of thermodynamics.
However, that hasn't stopped the eternal procession of perpetual motion
machine inventors.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
But if you don't choose to let a little detail like the fact that your
machine doesn't actually work get in your way, you could be a successful
free energy poineer in your own right. Check this out.
http://www.phact.org/e/con_man.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
23 Feb 2006 09:36:17 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote
Most physicists are pretty sure a "free energy" machine can't work because
it violates the first law of thermodynamics.
There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty sure that
Newtonian mechanics was correct as well.
It is entirely unclear to me why anyone would expect the laws of statistical
mechanics to apply to a realm where the laws of mechanics do not apply.
Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom.
I await your response with baited breah.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kore" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
23 Feb 2006 11:39:12 AM |
|
|
"There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty
sure that Newtonian mechanics was correct as well."
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well. In this world as well, I have yet to encounter anything
free, that is, which doesn't have a price or a cost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
23 Feb 2006 01:46:44 PM |
|
|
"There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty
sure that Newtonian mechanics was correct as well."
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that .99999999 =
1 is incorrect.
"Kore" wrote
In this world as well, I have yet to encounter anything
free, that is, which doesn't have a price or a cost.
Then perhaps you should start a movement to banish the word from the
English Language.
Stupid... Stupid... Kore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
23 Feb 2006 11:49:11 PM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:5doLf.16$8d1.2@read1.cgocable.net...
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that .99999999
=
1 is incorrect.
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of Wrong"?
Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but it gives you
the gist.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be considered
wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate
approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment. The
Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 05:13:01 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6vGdnbU-OqnFA2Pe4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:5doLf.16$8d1.2@read1.cgocable.net...
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that .99999999
=
1 is incorrect.
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of Wrong"?
Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but it gives
you the gist.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be
considered wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly
accurate approximations using the best evidence available at any given
moment. The Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
Science fiction is one of the great loves of Tom's life. Like many geeks.
Ask how many Star Trek events he has been to. Gee Tom, did Leonard Nimoy
actually shake your hand? I bet you didnt wash it for a week.
A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 09:36:14 AM |
|
|
"Archangel" <Archangel@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:ZSBLf.37674$H54.29139@fe03.news.easynews.com...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6vGdnbU-OqnFA2Pe4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:5doLf.16$8d1.2@read1.cgocable.net...
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that
.99999999 =
1 is incorrect.
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"? Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but
it gives you the gist.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be
considered wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly
accurate approximations using the best evidence available at any given
moment. The Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
Science fiction is one of the great loves of Tom's life. Like many geeks.
Ask how many Star Trek events he has been to. Gee Tom, did Leonard Nimoy
actually shake your hand? I bet you didnt wash it for a week.
Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than just
science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not
surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 10:27:23 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RoadnQibt8dzumLenZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Archangel" <Archangel@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:ZSBLf.37674$H54.29139@fe03.news.easynews.com...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6vGdnbU-OqnFA2Pe4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:5doLf.16$8d1.2@read1.cgocable.net...
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that
.99999999 =
1 is incorrect.
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"? Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but
it gives you the gist.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be
considered wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly
accurate approximations using the best evidence available at any given
moment. The Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
Science fiction is one of the great loves of Tom's life. Like many geeks.
Ask how many Star Trek events he has been to. Gee Tom, did Leonard Nimoy
actually shake your hand? I bet you didnt wash it for a week.
Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than just
science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not
surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111
Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar.
A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:53:56 AM |
|
|
"Archangel" <Archangel@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:KtGLf.217284$6Q3.31845@fe07.news.easynews.com...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RoadnQibt8dzumLenZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Archangel" <Archangel@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:ZSBLf.37674$H54.29139@fe03.news.easynews.com...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6vGdnbU-OqnFA2Pe4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:5doLf.16$8d1.2@read1.cgocable.net...
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it
works
pretty well.
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that
.99999999 =
1 is incorrect.
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"? Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but
it gives you the gist.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be
considered wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly
accurate approximations using the best evidence available at any given
moment. The Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
Science fiction is one of the great loves of Tom's life. Like many
geeks. Ask how many Star Trek events he has been to. Gee Tom, did
Leonard Nimoy actually shake your hand? I bet you didnt wash it for a
week.
Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than
just science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not
surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111
Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar.
You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary, that you never wrote that?
Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just
appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 02:28:45 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote
You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary, that you never wrote that?
Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just
appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
It is not often that I come across someone as prolific as you in this
field.
Are you a self taught Liar Tom? Or were you trained?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 12:03:13 AM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:FWJLf.125$8d1.34@read1.cgocable.net...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote
You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary, that you never wrote that?
Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just
appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
It is not often that I come across someone as prolific as you in this
field.
Are you a self taught Liar Tom? Or were you trained?
Practice makes perfect.
A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 03:31:37 PM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:FWJLf.125$8d1.34@read1.cgocable.net...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote
You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary, that you never wrote that?
Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just
appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
Hey, it's another Archie sock-puppet!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 12:03:50 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AZadnRKUsoOk5mLenZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:FWJLf.125$8d1.34@read1.cgocable.net...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote
You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary, that you never wrote that?
Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just
appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
Hey, it's another Archie sock-puppet!
Decoded: There cant be 2 people who think I am a stupid liar. Can there?
Nah!
A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 04:28:31 PM |
|
|
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
Hey, it's another Archie sock-puppet!
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
Are you self taught?
Or have you been trained to Lie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 09:34:21 PM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:WGLLf.132$d9.121@read2.cgocable.net...
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
Hey, it's another Archie sock-puppet!
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
Uh oh. He's perseverating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 10:19:07 PM |
|
|
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 08:57:04 AM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:APQLf.162$8d1.118@read1.cgocable.net...
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
No, Nuddly. You can't avoid having people notice that you're perseverating
by simply snipping out the part where I noted that you are perseverating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 09:18:56 AM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:74adnQonteqi7Z3ZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:APQLf.162$8d1.118@read1.cgocable.net...
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
No, Nuddly. You can't avoid having people notice that you're
perseverating by simply snipping out the part where I noted that you are
perseverating.
Scott, for Gods sake ask the nerd what 'perseverating" means. He just came
across it in a pop-psychology book and this is his first opportunity to trot
it out. He's been waiting for weeks for the opportunity...
It will make him feel better, honest. Be nice to the afflicted...
However annoying they are.
A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 07:09:40 PM |
|
|
You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 11:42:28 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ReqdnSOivdGp1WLeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than
just science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not
surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111
Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar.
You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary, that you never wrote that?
I never wrote that uranium ore isnt radioactive you mendacious lad. Show us
all where I did.
Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just
appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
I seem to be fooling you right now Tom. In the sense of making you look like
one.
Of course I had a natural advantage. You *are* a fool.
A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
25 Feb 2006 09:00:31 AM |
|
|
"Archangel" <Archangel@nulldev.com> wrote in message
news:87SLf.30864$Id3.14026@fe04.news.easynews.com...
"Tom" <askpermission@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ReqdnSOivdGp1WLeRVn-jg@comcast.com...
Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than
just science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not
surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111
Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar.
You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the
contrary, that you never wrote that?
I never wrote that uranium ore isnt radioactive you mendacious lad. Show
us all where I did.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111
Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just
appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
I seem to be fooling you right now Tom. In the sense of making you look
like one.
I don't think that one fooled anybody at all, Archie. Not even you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 01:23:01 AM |
|
|
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that
..99999999
=
1 is incorrect.
"Tom" wrote:
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of Wrong"?
Ya, when I was 12.
"Tom" wrote:
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be
considered
wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate
approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment. The
Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
Very good Tom. Make sure you say that the next time someone denies the
reality of Global warming because it's not scientifically proven.
You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now wasn't
it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archangel" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 05:13:57 AM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:1qyLf.90$8d1.37@read1.cgocable.net...
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that
.99999999
=
1 is incorrect.
"Tom" wrote:
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"?
Ya, when I was 12.
Funny that, you read it at a mental age of 12. Tom read it last week...
"Tom" wrote:
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be
considered
wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate
approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment.
The
Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
Very good Tom. Make sure you say that the next time someone denies the
reality of Global warming because it's not scientifically proven.
You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now wasn't
it?
No it wasnt.
A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 09:28:11 AM |
|
|
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:1qyLf.90$8d1.37@read1.cgocable.net...
"Kore" wrote
How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when
dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going
towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works
pretty well.
"Scott Nudds" <void@void.com> wrote
But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that
.99999999
=
1 is incorrect.
"Tom" wrote:
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"?
Ya, when I was 12.
Then even so simple and clear an explanation is lost on you. Ah, well.
"Tom" wrote:
Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be
considered
wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate
approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment.
The
Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
Very good Tom. Make sure you say that the next time someone denies the
reality of Global warming because it's not scientifically proven.
Nothing at all is "scientifically proven". That was the point of the Asimov
essay that you failed to comprehend.
You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now wasn't
it?
Let's see... Your point was that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong
and therefore perpetual motion machines are not only possible but are up and
running now, wasn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Nudds" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Energy |
24 Feb 2006 02:25:30 PM |
|
|
"Tom" wrote:
Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of
Wrong"?
Scott Nudds wrote:
Ya, when I was 12.
"Tom" wrote in message
Then even so simple and clear an explanation is lost on you. Ah, well.
That would be a pretty good response if it actually made sense. But since
it doesn't, it isn't.
You are quite the moron.
Scott Nudds wrote:
Very good Tom. Make sure you say that the next time someone denies the
reality of Global warming because it's not scientifically proven.
"Tom" wrote:
Nothing at all is "scientifically proven". That was the point of the
Asimov
essay that you failed to comprehend.
An odd statement given that I have corrected you on your demand that
scientific proof be provided on a variety of issues.
You do like contradicting yourself now don't you Tom.
You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now
wasn't
it?
"Tom" wrote:
Let's see... Your point was that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong
and therefore perpetual motion machines are not only possible but are up
and
running now, wasn't it?
Nope, that's your ignorant assertion given the reality that the laws of
thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to violation,
and 2. that the laws of thermodynamics need not apply to the quantum world.
You see your problem is Tom... That you just aren't very smart.
You are however, a perfectly good source of nutrients for flowering
plants...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
