Over Unity is No Longer Disputable

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...

Possible reasons why:

To troll the public.
To create an air of legitimacy.
As an advertisement scheme.
To showcase their ability to keep the attention of the public.
Simply for the lulz.
Simply delusional.

g4macdad said:
Why not make a video of a fake? Or stage a private bogus display with a paid audience?
Click to expand...

If they can attract attention as it is, is it really necessary to do all that?

g4macdad said:
C' mon skeptics make me believe.
Click to expand...

Because crow isn't that good of a dish, plus we have cookies.
 
What does globally and locally stable-states have to do with our universe... I honestly just don't get it?

What does this imply for our universe?


Also, what does "Decay of the vacuum" mean?
 
Horatius said:
Like no one could hide a battery in that thing.


Oh, and twelve days later, still no crow choking?

The beauty of a demonstration such as Finsrud’s is that all this crap for “scientific evidence” evaporates the moment he produces a working device and shows it directly to the public. No other evidence, scientific or occult or whatever else is needed for the society to be convinced that perpetuum mobile is real. That’s the beauty of such demonstration, killing every attempt of envious, mediocre, dishonest self-proclaimed scientist to push it aside. There is one final resort such “scientist” have – pronouncing it as fraud. Here’s the catch, however, the burden of proof is on the claimant. It is not up to Finsrud to prove there’s no fraud involved. Thus, whoever claims the functioning of Finsrud’s device is based on some hidden energy source, should come out and prove this claim conclusively. Otherwise, the perception of such claimants of being dishonest, envious, mediocre will persist while Finsrud’s device would continue to be a shining example of a machine invalidating the first law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
:cool:








Hmm...
Click to expand...
 
g4macdad said:
:cool:








Hmm...
Click to expand...



So that would be a no on proving me wrong, then.


As for your quote, what would you expect a fraud to say? And would he really allow me to walk up and dismantle his whole contraption?

I'd bet money the answer is no.

In fact, there is this little organization called the JREF that's betting $1000000 that the answer is no.


ETA:

No, there hasn't been such conclusion. There has been unsubstantiated speculation by some individuals that Finsrud has made an OU device. However, these individuals have to come out and prove beyond doubt that the device exhibits OU. The burden of proof is on them. Until these individual prove conclusively that Finsrud's device is an over unity device the perception that such claimants are dishonest, envious, mediocre will persist while Finsrud’s device would continue to be a shining example of a machine with great aristic and engineering value.
Click to expand...



See? I can quote other people too!
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
So that would be a no on proving me wrong, then.


As for your quote, what would you expect a fraud to say? And would he really allow me to walk up and dismantle his whole contraption?

I'd bet money the answer is no.

In fact, there is this little organization called the JREF that's betting $1000000 that the answer is no.


ETA:





See? I can quote other people too!
Click to expand...

Prove it. The burden of proof is on you. I cannot prove the negative. Or, you want to disobey logic and just take your word for it?
Click to expand...
:cool:

How old are you? " there is this little organization called the JREF that's betting $1000000 that the answer is no" Is that a lot of money to you? LOL I hope not.
 
Last edited:
Late to this thread, and I haven't read all the words. I am confused, though, about GMac's position here. Do you actually understand the physics and technology that are being touted? You demand that those who doubt it explain and understand it fully. Is that not backwards, for an extraordinary claim? I would expect that, all other things being equal, it would be up to the person making or defending the extraordinary claims to be the one who can understand and explain. Why should we ordinary folk, ignoramuses or not, be required to produce a treatise on physics to defend against every wild claim that comes down the pike?

I am perfectly willing to admit that I am ignorant, and if you want to put it that way, that I hide my ignorance behind skepticism. It is safer by far than selling out my skepticism to ignorance as it appears you have.

Of course, if I'm wrong, and you do understand the physics, and can explain what is going on coherently, I apologize, or I will as soon as I see the coherent explanation.
 
bruto said:
Late to this thread, and I haven't read all the words. I am confused, though, about GMac's position here. Do you actually understand the physics and technology that are being touted? You demand that those who doubt it explain and understand it fully. Is that not backwards, for an extraordinary claim? I would expect that, all other things being equal, it would be up to the person making or defending the extraordinary claims to be the one who can understand and explain. Why should we ordinary folk, ignoramuses or not, be required to produce a treatise on physics to defend against every wild claim that comes down the pike?

I am perfectly willing to admit that I am ignorant, and if you want to put it that way, that I hide my ignorance behind skepticism. It is safer by far than selling out my skepticism to ignorance as it appears you have.

Of course, if I'm wrong, and you do understand the physics, and can explain what is going on coherently, I apologize, or I will as soon as I see the coherent explanation.
Click to expand...

Follow the video link above. That is what is being discussed. The one a couple of posts back.
 
g4macdad said:
How old are you? " there is this little organization called the JREF that's betting $1000000 that the answer is no" Is that a lot of money to you? LOL I hope not.
Click to expand...



Well, if it's such chump change to Your Exalted Self, why don't you call Randi up and offer to match him, dollar for dollar? If it isn't fake, you walk away with the money, if it is, we do.

Unless that is, you're afraid you'll lose.


Or you're just a troll.


Or both.
 
Never make or take bets, sorry.

I can see why you need the money now. ;)

Presently people tend to think, that the only laws of the universe that affect everyone, are laws of nature that have a physical character. In turn all other laws that people know, e.g. social, legal, ethical, etc., are only executed from people when there is a policeman around who makes sure that everyone obeys them. But the most recent research reveals, that independently from laws of physics, in our universe do exist and operate so-called "moral laws". These moral laws cause, that everything that is moral must climb uphill in the invisible moral field . Thus every moral work requires from us a significant effort and costs us overcoming various difficulties. But these moral laws have rewards and punishments build into them. Therefore, if we obey moral laws and in our activities we climb uphill in the moral field, then we are always lavinishly rewarded for this. In turn, when we act immorally, then we are severely punished for this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
g4macdad said:
If there is no working demonstration in the next few days then I will gladly choke down my crow.:D
Click to expand...
I think by most anyone's reckoning, 2 weeks >= a few days. So, are you going to admit that they have no OU device?
 
I love the comments on that Google video!

Rational person:
[SIZE=-1]It's not perpetual. It's a pendulum system that manipulates the track to keep the ball in motion. Record the sound and analyze the wave. You'll see that the ball is slightly slower at the end (2 hundredths of a second per revolution). The ball is almost irrelevant - this is just a pendulum system. Focault pendulums can run for YEARS once they've been started. Efficient clocks can run for months. The builder even SAYS it runs down after a few days. It's art - not over unity or perpetual.
Click to expand...
True Believer:
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]The fact that machine stops after many hours and days of work doesn’t prove it’s not perpetuum mobile.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:[/SIZE]
 
Grimoire said:
I think by most anyone's reckoning, 2 weeks >= a few days. So, are you going to admit that they have no OU device?
Click to expand...

Something seems very fishy over there.

http://www.eskimo.com/%7Eeresrch/Steorn/final_report.text

This guy says they seem honest but are simply overlooking something, that they are merely delusional.

BS! This guy knows that they have claimed to have at least 3 functioning machines running continuously and they are not simply claiming a theory on magnetic viscosity. I am following this to the end now. We will know the truth soon enough.
 
PixyMisa said:
I love the comments on that Google video!

Rational person:

True Believer:
:rolleyes:[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Rational person? Clocks run on springs, and are not claimed to be OU. What is the energy source in Finsrud's machine?

C'mon rational person.:rolleyes:
 
Hey, did anyone notice "g4macdad" arranged in binary code looks like this:

00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000

means nothing, it appears.
 
g4macdad said:
Rational person? Clocks run on springs, and are not claimed to be OU. What is the energy source in Finsrud's machine?

C'mon rational person.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You really ARE "last century" on this, aren't you! And by that I mean 19th century - electric clocks have been around for a while now...

Troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom