Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

g4macdad said:
Proof?
Click to expand...

Proof of what? That stupidity isn't a crime? I'll leave that for you to figure out. Proof that they did what they did because of stupidity? No, I've got no proof of that, nor do I think that's necessarily the cause. But that's my whole point: there IS no proof about what drove them to claim they could accomplish the impossible, and absent proof, you're not going to convict anyone of anything.

But it's quite ironic that you are now demanding proof, given that you're the one who started touting their nonsense without any proof in the first place. And their claims are a hell of a lot more extraordinary than mine.
 
g4macdad, it seems your certainty that the Orbo works rests solely on the fact that the good people at Steorn are not in jail.

You can put these free energy people in with alot of others: astrologers, psychics, homeopaths, dowsers, etc. Deluded, yes. Malicious, no, not usually. And they don't throw these people in jail either.

[daydream]What would the world be like if they did throw all these clowns in jail?[/daydream]
 
g4macdad said:
You realize they will go to prison for this?
Click to expand...


I realize they should go to prison for this, but whether they will or not is still an open question. Such an eventuality would require one of their stupid investors being smart enough to realize they were scammed, and complaining to the police about it. The only problem is, they'll be stupid. Hence the long process of driving away any potentially non-stupid potential investors.




g4macdad said:
BTW I have no money invested in this. If the claim is true, money won't have much value anymore anyway. Not a good investment.
Click to expand...


So quaint. Money won't have value? You do realize that energy is only one of the costs of producing goods?



g4macdad said:
Who is dumb again? LOL
Click to expand...


I've leave that as an exercise for the readers.
 
Ziggurat said:
But it's quite ironic that you are now demanding proof, given that you're the one who started touting their nonsense without any proof in the first place. And their claims are a hell of a lot more extraordinary than mine.
Click to expand...

Well put. The "Proof/Evidence?" is a trite ploy by woo's who are facing obvious defeat. Instead of allowing that they were wrong, all of a sudden they're interested in evidence or proof even for the most banal or obvious of statements. Despite swallowing whole the most improbable premise, they stubbornly demand overwhelming evidence for laws and rules that have been proven ad nauseam.

g4, repeat after me: "I was wrong. I made the mistake of ___________." You have to do the introspection necessary to fill in the line. Really, you'll find that, although you don't want to say it, it's not that difficult once it's out of your mouth. I've said it lots in my life and, every time, it's educated me to the point where I thnk you grow as a person more from being wrong than being right. (This, of course, is limited to academic discussion and not to actions that result in irreversible damage to someone or something.)

You don't have to be a physicist to reaslize that over-unity is impossible. The universe, as we know it, is predicated on the laws of energy. If we disprove any, you are taking away one of the most important underpinnings of our understanding of reality. You can trust the engineers and physicists who make everything you use in life to have some correct perception of how things work. Not that there aren't maybe some wrinkles to still be discovered or defined, but the laws of energy are pretty much axiomatic. If any of them were wrong, the flaw would permeate everything we experience.

"If it's too good to be true, it usually is" is a pretty good concept to take away from this. There are many forms of this but one of my very favorites was written by Mark Twain in Roughing It:

A gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar on top
Click to expand...
.
 
You know, to the guy who stated that even if zero point energy worked it would suck energy out of another universe and possibly destroy it. I had thought of that before... but I never thought of asking the question figuring it would be considered mental masturbation.

But... would that happen? Would you ultimatley destroy another universe?
 
There has been speculation (not very serious) that if our universe is in a locally rather than globally stable state, some possible act could knock it out of that local minimum and precipitate the decay of the vacuum. I speculate further (also not very seriously) that extracting zero point energy from the vacuum could be such an act.
 
Haven't read the whole thread, so if this is repetitive, haven't read the whole thread.

Before I bought my house, I was able to go to the utility company and at least get the average cost of the utilities bill. Since this video gives so much information about the location of the plant, can't the utility bills be found which show a sudden elimination of power consumption?
 
Schneibster said:
There has been speculation (not very serious) that if our universe is in a locally rather than globally stable state, some possible act could knock it out of that local minimum and precipitate the decay of the vacuum. I speculate further (also not very seriously) that extracting zero point energy from the vacuum could be such an act.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between a locally stable state or a globally stable state?

Anso what does "decay of the vacuum" mean?
 
INRM said:
What's the difference between a locally stable state or a globally stable state?
Click to expand...

Usually the issue is framed in terms of local or global energy minima. Diamond, for example, is not the lowest energy state for carbon at atmospheric pressure. Therefore, carbon should prefer not to be in the diamond state, but should instead prefer graphite. But diamond is a local energy minima, meaning any small distortion away from the diamond structure costs energy, and quite a lot of it actually (which is why it's so hard). The energy barrier between this local minima and the global minima (meaning the minimum energy state out of all possible states) is huge. Diamond is thus what is sometimes termed "metastable": in principle, decay from the diamond state to graphite is possible, but the probability is so low that it basically doesn't happen. Decay from the global minimum energy state is not possible, however, and so the globally minimum energy state is truly stable.

(Note to pedants: I've brushed under the rug the distinction between energy and enthalpy, because I don't think that level of sophistication is necessary here, but I'm aware of it)
 
INRM said:
What's the difference between a locally stable state or a globally stable state?
Click to expand...

Think of a domino:
one standing on end, one laying flat.
Both are stable (not moving).

Now if you tap both of them very very gently, both will remain in thier respective positions.

However, as you start to increase the force of your tapping, eventually you will make the upright domino tip over and assume a flat position. The upright domino was in a locally stable position. the flat domino, no matter how much you tap it, it won't move from the flat position. It is a globally stable one.
 
Ziggurat said:
(Note to pedants: I've brushed under the rug the distinction between energy and enthalpy, because I don't think that level of sophistication is necessary here, but I'm aware of it)
Click to expand...
What's your concern? Are you expecting massive pressure changes any time soon?:D
 
g4macdad said:
I am completely confused. If I was running a scam. I would not set up 4 cameras in a public display and never produce anything at all. Why?

What is the gain?

Why not make a video of a fake? Or stage a private bogus display with a paid audience?

C' mon skeptics make me believe.
Click to expand...

I have the same question, but I can only come up with a few answers.

For some people, the will to believe is very strong. Even after cold fusion was demonstrated to be without foundation, there were people offering government funding. It looked so cool, and the politicians funding it really, really, wanted it to be true. It wasn't, but it got funding even after people demonstrated that the experiments hadn't really worked.

For me, the question that keeps coming up is why are they measuring heat output? What's the point? If I get to count heat as "energy output", then I can get to energy in =energy out every time. In fact, I will get to that every time, without fail. That's conservation of energy. If I then make some mistake in my energy calculations, I can look like I'm gaining energy from someplace.

The problem is that I can't use that heat to do anything. It isn't useful energy. That's what the second law of thermodynamics tells us. So, why bother measuring it?

Some possible answers:

1) They're frauds, and it looks good.
2) They are honest, but deluded, and they haven't realized the implication of the waste heat.
3) They are really doing something other than what the video implies.

Those are the only explanations that I can come up with.
 
g4macdad said:
I am completely confused. If I was running a scam. I would not set up 4 cameras in a public display and never produce anything at all. Why?

What is the gain?
Click to expand...


This is the point where you turn to the mirror and ask yourself that question. After all, we're not the ones who fell for Steorn's BS...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom