Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Perhaps that's how we get to find all those incredible organic molecules in gas clouds in interstellar space.

And then a proto-planet passes through one of these clouds and life starts. We are not only stardust, we are also space garbage.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

or Lewis Padgett.

You may be right. But I just tried some Googling on Mr "Padgett" and got no results either.

 

[Jono]

Of course, your corrections just go even further to prove the point everyone was making: none of these peopel did 100% of their own work. Lorentz relied on earlier work, and Einstein made the realization regarding his transforms.

Yes, some people simply take the fact that since Einstein didn't work or produce his work out from a vaccum, he plagiarised or stole or so forth.
Einstein recognized Lorentz for what he had done, but moreso James C. Maxwell who was possibly "the man" of theoretical physics prior to the 19-20th century shift.
In "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", Einstein also quite clearly referenced Lorentz on the treatment of the electromagnetic field.

In "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content? Einstein wrote;

I base that investigation on the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space, together with Maxwell's expression for the electromagnetic energy of space, and also the following principle: The laws according to which the states of physical systems change are independent of which one of the two coordinate systems (assumed to be in uniform parallel-transnational motion relative to each other) is used to describe these changes (the principle of relativity).

When already known formulations/theories/tools are used to derive new equations then that derivation is a unique entity, if not then Newton, Oppenheimer and so forth would be major plagiarizers along with a heap of others. SR (Special Relativity) basically established that the relativity principle is fundamental to physics in the sense that the laws of physics; in all inertial frames, must be identical. Since Einstein discarded a privileged frame; this was given, Henrí Poincaré et al didn't discard it and the french mathematician (likely the best in buisness in those days) in fact based his assumptions and predictions on a privileged frame.
The space and time transformations improved by Poincaré from Lorentz were therefore based a set of "fictitious" transformations in a sense; since they had obtained them based on systematic errors during their measurements.

On some level Lorentz grasped the superiority of the purely relativistic approach, as is evident from the words he included in the second edition of his "Theory of Electrons" in 1916 (it pretty much layes out the sum of the hum):

If I had to write the last chapter now, I should certainly have given a more prominent place to Einstein's theory of relativity by which the theory of electromagnetic phenomena in moving systems gains a simplicity that I had not been able to attain. The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time, and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity.

 

[CORed]

This is not an acceptable answer.

What specific claims do you dispute? Just because you don't understand something does not automatically make it incorrect.

If you want to dispute something, please feel free to do so, but replies like that show only ignorance.

I dispute any claims of "over-unity" "perpetual motion" "free energy", etc. as a matter of course. The laws of thermodynamics have not so far been shown to have any exceptions. If you want to claim that a device defies those laws, or derives energy from some hitherto unknown source, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that it works. You-tube videos of alledged scientists making unsubstantiated claims do not constitute "evidence" or anything remotely resembling it.

If you claim to have discovered a means of producing energy from nothing, most likely you have either made an error, or you are trying to swindle money from gullible people. No exceptions have been found so far.

 

[CORed]

Finally, this thing fails one of the basic tests for such things: The test of scope. If you had invented a device that could actually produce free energy, would you:

1) Advertize it on YouTube, and private websites, hoping for private investors.

2) Take it to governments and big power companies, where the big buck is.

3) Set myself up as a co-generator, and sell electricity to the utilities.

 

[SdogV]

Amen. There is no free lunch.

 

[BillyJoe]

I get my vitamin D free. I don't pay for it. I don't work for it. In fact, I just lie around lapping it up.