Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

g4macdad said:
I must admit I do lack the ability to know exactly what is possible and true without actually experiencing it.
Click to expand...
Apparently so. This is an ability most people start developing around the age of four, so it's a bit of a worry.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Wow, yet one more in an ever growing list of unsupported assertions. No, G4macdad, you have not made people think more seriously about the subject. This subject is as silly as a belief in fairies living at the bottom of the garden. Everyone here seems to appreciate that this is not a serious topic of discussion.

You made some bold claims in the first several pages and many posters pointed out the errors in your claims. I suspect that you were so upset over the way you treated that you posted some nonsense in the last few pages with the sole intention of trying to annoy various posters. Of course, I could be wrong. Feel free to explain your behavior.
Click to expand...

Irony meter!?:eye-poppi

Where is the support of your assertion?
 
g4macdad said:
I must admit I do lack the ability to know exactly what is possible and true without actually experiencing it.

I guess I am just inferior to you.:D
Click to expand...

That's too bad. There's an old saying that three days in the library will save you three months in the lab.

The ability to learn from other people's mistakes as well as your own is one of the advantages of the scientific method.

Anyone serious about finding something should be interested in ways to rule out large areas where it will not be found, so as to narrow the search. OU proponents rarely seem interested, though.
 
TjW said:
That's too bad. There's an old saying that three days in the library will save you three months in the lab.

The ability to learn from other people's mistakes as well as your own is one of the advantages of the scientific method.

Anyone serious about finding something should be interested in ways to rule out large areas where it will not be found, so as to narrow the search. OU proponents rarely seem interested, though.
Click to expand...

Did Einstein take this approach?:boggled:
 
Yes, he did. Einstein worked using observations made by other physicists.

ETA: PixyMisa beat me to it.
 
Terry said:
in what way is that trolling?
Click to expand...

If you try to talk sense to a moron, sooner or later, they will put their fingers in their ears and start chanting "la-la-la..." Technically, this is what g4 is doing. Of course, he has to rationalize it one way or another so he's decided to call it trolling. (Regardless of the fact that it's he who's trolling.)

[In case you're interested, g4, here's the link to the definition of trolling.]

A coward's way out, to be sure, but fairly typical of his breed. :rolleyes:

ETA: Isn't it time for kittens yet? This is getting really boring.
 
From the video:
"...the similarity, however, ends when one measures the combined electrical and heat output while being rotated through the magnetic field..."

I for one have always had trouble making accurate measurements while I'm being rotated through magnetic fields.
 
g4macdad said:
Irony meter!?:eye-poppi

Where is the support of your assertion?
Click to expand...


Your insistance that 40 minutes of video is noteworthy in an OU thread.

Your bringing up the Frinsud device at all.

Your pedantic arguing over the semantics of energy and pendulums.

Your offer (in post 167) to eat crow if Steorn does not produce a working model followed up by your claim that OU is possible.

These items are not anywhere near being conclusive evidence: that is why I prefaced my claim with "I suspect that ..." and followed it immediately with the observation that "I could be wrong."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For the past 20+ years, OU inventors have been claiming that they are just on the verge of releasing their information and that they have working models that they have not yet shown to the public. They then claim that they just need another $100,000 or so to overcome all the obstacles that "Big Oil" is putting in front of them. It is a fool's errand.

If you want to believe, then go ahead and believe; but don't make ridiculous claims that you have forced JREF posters to think seriously about this topic.
 
g4macdad said:
I must admit I do lack the ability to know exactly what is possible and true without actually experiencing it.
Click to expand...


Look here and you will experience something which is false.


check



So, how do you distinguish between the things that you experience that are false and the things that you experience that are true?

There is only one path towards truth.
And it is not personal experience.
 
TjW said:
Yes, he did. Einstein worked using observations made by other physicists.

ETA: PixyMisa beat me to it.
Click to expand...

PixyMisa said:
Theories too. Maxwell's equations, for example.
Click to expand...



In fact, Einstein built on so much earlier work, there are some spoil sports who claim he didn't really do all that much that was new - he just pulled all the pieces together.

Not that I agree with that assessment, mind you, it just shows how much he did rely on earlier work.

That's what science does. If every scientist had to work everything out for themselves from first principles, we'd still be working on that pesky "lighting a fire" thing.....
 
Horatius said:
In fact, Einstein built on so much earlier work, there are some spoil sports who claim he didn't really do all that much that was new - he just pulled all the pieces together.

Not that I agree with that assessment, mind you, it just shows how much he did rely on earlier work.

That's what science does. If every scientist had to work everything out for themselves from first principles, we'd still be working on that pesky "lighting a fire" thing.....
Click to expand...

Boy you are completely full of ***** you know.

Do not use insults or personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
g4macdad said:
Boy you are completely full of ***** you know.
Click to expand...

Firstly, your comment, using asterisks or not, is uncalled for, uncivil, and an indication that you're now snarling and hissing for complete lack of any other intellectual recourse.

Secondly, the reaction to a rather innocuous post pointing out that Einstein may have actually worked his way through a body of knowledge and research done by others is a major clue......

So, you're of the genius-from-bolt-of-lightening school? Newton really put together the Theory of Gravity sitting under a tree and getting hit on the head with an apple? Columbus really sat on a beach and observed a ship disappearing over the horizon and surmised that the world was round? No one had ever done any work on either of these topics before them?

This is typically the mark of the bright guys who don't like to do any work.

"Whoa, man! Einstein and Newton and DaVinci, they were like geniuses, dude! Why they could just sit there and think while watching Star Search, and like solve all the problems of the world! Yeah, that's the life for me!"
 
Last edited:
g4macdad said:
The machine did not stop after 40 minutes. In fact there was no sign of slowing after well over 40 minutes.

Your "careful" reply is very "careful", but it really doesn't offer a good explanation of the energy source IMO. You are implying that there are many such low friction machines in existence. Please post a video link of at least one, so we can lay this to rest. There are many claims of such machines. The real difference here is the evidence.
Click to expand...

I say "you don't need energy to stay in motion" and you reply with "but it really doesn't offer a good explanation of the energy source IMO"?!! I don't get your "IMO" either. Is it your opinion that science is wrong and that energy is required for things in motion to remain in motion? I'll do better than a video link where a demonstration is measured in years rather than minutes. Even thousands or millions or more years. Just consider satellites. Yes our communication satellites can slow and fall to earth due to the friction of a very thin atmosphere in near Earth orbits. Larger orbits such as the moon have been there for billions of years. It takes exactly the same amout of energy to stop motion as it took to start it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom