<!--quoteo(post=1760107:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:58 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 08:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hence why it is only a claim, not a working prototype.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I understand what you're getting at. Just the spinning thingy is clearly not enough to prove anything, you need complex measurements and replication, but it's also... Well, it's just there.
<!--quoteo(post=1759814:date=Mar 18 2010, 09:02 AM:name=Panigg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Panigg @ Mar 18 2010, 09:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These have been around for some time now. Will see if I can find that video where they show how it works.
Quite complicated, but the explanation is well done....
Okay, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_Electromagnetic_Generator" target="_blank">THIS</a> would be the device I'm talking about.
And <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwlo0ym-rE&feature=channel" target="_blank">THIS</a> being the movie I was talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about a lot of this discussion, but I watched all 13 parts of that video series. Using transients for something useful is a pretty interesting idea. I'm not sure if I buy the idea of a energy ether, but if it does exist at all, I'd be inclined to think that it's due to electromagnetism. In such a case, it may not be violating thermodynamics at all, as I think someone pointed out earlier. Could be we just don't understand the fundamental forces as well as we think we do. And the guy makes a good point that we're not doing nearly enough wild-arsed experimentation with electromagnetism as we should be. I'm all for a researcher getting fried here and there in the name of science!
You're right. The claim is there. And the youtube video is there. Now I'll cover it with this sheet of velvet. See, it's just an ordinary sheet of velvet. Go on, examine it. Feel the texture. Just ordinary velvet, right? Well, now I will cover it all up with the velvet. Now, the claim and the youtube video are under the velvet, right? It's all right there. But now, I PULL THE VELVET BACK WITH A FLOURISH AND OH WOW, THEY'RE GONE! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN! Well, I'll tell you how: Psychic powers. That's right, I have psychic powers. Now, I know that everything we know about biology says that I can't have psychic powers, I understand that. But that doesn't chance the fact that I have psychic powers. Incredible, I know. I tell you, this is going to revolutionize the way we think about removing videos from youtube. We are going to do it with psychic powers. Well, at least I am.
<!--quoteo(post=1760116:date=Mar 19 2010, 09:37 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Mar 19 2010, 09:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760116"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know about a lot of this discussion, but I watched all 13 parts of that video series.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The painful thing about these documentaries is that they pretty much never provide any substantial info: peer-reviewed papers, schematics, in-depth explanations... Sigh. Does this one?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760117:date=Mar 19 2010, 09:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 09:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760117"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For someone with George Carlin in their sig, you have a very weird sense of humour.
The fun thing about fallacies is that you can use them to justify anything. In your case, you might want to do the same trick with Einstein's relativity or Lobachevsky's geometry."What is this? Parallel lines can cross in space? Right, and sum of all angles in a triangle is 270!"
<!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Spoiler: parallel lines do cross in parabolic geometry, sum of angles of a triangle on a spherical plane is 270.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
FALLACIES? You're just dismissing my psychic powers out of hand? That's very unscientific of you.
Draco, science means that no scientific understanding is exempt from re-examination, and that indeed correcting mistakes is the cornerstone of science itself. So it doesn't matter how much weight and public trust any theory has collected, one experiment to the contrary is still all it takes to disprove it. And I just removed a youtube video with my psychic powers.
It's important to have the intellectual guts to go ahead and say "I don't know" when you don't know, no matter the circumstance. No matter how psychologically tempting it is to suggest otherwise.
Well laws in physics can be broken. Physics are based on assumptions. Mighty good assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. And remember that two theories can coexist without being contradictory (Newtonian gravity vs General relativity, or the wave-particle duality); EVERYTHING is based on assumptions because (contrarily to math) it is not a construction but rather an observation of what was already there.
True, it sticks amazingly well, but once every so often, something comes in as a shocker in the world of science. And when that does, it usually doesn't contradict the previous theories; it usually completes it.
That being said, I still don't believe in this Orbo thing. What it can do, perhaps, is harness the electromagnetic waves from nearby sources (such as WiFi, cell phones, testing equipment, or even the mains) to seem apparently self-sufficient. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it can get plenty of practical use especially in our current world; but it doesn't generate energy out of thin air; it uses energy which is otherwise wasted.
I don't trust your telepathetic powers any more than I trust perpetual motion. Leave your mocking for a time when you have a leg to stand on.
<!--quoteo(post=1760129:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->True, it sticks amazingly well, but once every so often, something comes in as a shocker in the world of science. And when that does, it usually doesn't contradict the previous theories; it usually completes it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, great point. No proof to the contrary of anything invalidates existing observation, it's that simple.
<!--quoteo(post=1760129:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That being said, I still don't believe in this Orbo thing. What it can do, perhaps, is harness the electromagnetic waves from nearby sources (such as WiFi, cell phones, testing equipment, or even the mains) to seem apparently self-sufficient. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it can get plenty of practical use especially in our current world; but it doesn't generate energy out of thin air; it uses energy which is otherwise wasted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My best guess from practical standpoint is that it just has very little friction. Granted that'd still have to run out after a while.
<!--quoteo(post=1760129:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:14 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Mar 19 2010, 08:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well laws in physics can be broken.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That one's ALMOST correct. One small addition: If they're wrong. A law of physics is our way of describing a set of rules that we believe the universe to follow. If we can break such a rule, that means that the rule does NOT correspond to the way the universe works, which means that it is wrong. A rule that correctly describes how the universe works cannot be broken because to do so would be to do something that the universe isn't capable of doing.
I don't trust your telepathetic powers any more than I trust perpetual motion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then why do you dismiss one out of hand, but not the other?
<!--quoteo(post=1760131:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760131"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That one's ALMOST correct. One small addition: If they're wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You continue to draw a black and white line before true and false. This is not the case: all further observation does is improve knowledge. Per se, conservation of energy can work for some cases, and not others. We have never observed the latter, but that doesn't mean we never will.
<!--quoteo(post=1760132:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760132"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except you're willing to believe perpetual motion even though both concepts have the same amount of science behind them, that is to say none at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You just quoted me saying the opposite of that. What.
<!--quoteo(post=1760133:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then why do you dismiss one out of hand, but not the other?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because I don't. Right now you gave up discussing anything and are instead trying to clumsily get back at me for daring to correct you earlier.
You're dodging the issue. You dismiss one outrageous claim out of hand, but not the other. I am not trying to get back at you, I am trying to get you to set standards for yourself. Your inconsistent handling of claims is limiting your growth as a scientist.
<!--quoteo(post=1760136:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:28 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760136"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're dodging the issue. You dismiss one outrageous claim out of hand, but not the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm dismissing neither, just as I trust neither. I have a feeling they're both bull######, but I don't really know.
As far certainty goes, yours is more crap because you have no video, no exhibit, no papers, no prototype, no work, no replication and no defence to go with it. Or, to be more concise, because you made it up on the spot in attempt to reduce what I have to say to a more convenient strawman, which I do not appreciate at all.
Now, do you want to actually address anything I said, or press on with this nonsense?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760141:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:40 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 10:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760141"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have already addressed why you have no leg to stand on. I won't press on just for the sake of convincing you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bye.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
edited March 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1760140:date=Mar 19 2010, 08:37 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 08:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760140"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[..]yours is more crap because you have no video, no exhibit, no papers, no prototype, no work, no replication and no defence to go with it. [..]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh man, you're a tool.
Comeon Drako, admit that you're sad it isn't real. Tell the internet how your nerdgina got all warm and moist, but then someone told you it was a fraud.
Look me in the eyes while you do it, sit on my lap.
<!--quoteo(post=1760033:date=Mar 19 2010, 07:14 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 07:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760033"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wait... What? Corporations keep working technology secret all the time so that means it's not working?..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you missed it. I was switching gears and pointing out that the simplified claim that "IF it isn't published into the scientific community, THEN it must be fake/hoax/not working" isn't a valid claim. Instead, reproducibility and falsifiability are the ways to go.
<!--quoteo(post=1760149:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:13 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 19 2010, 11:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760149"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No, you missed it. I was switching gears and pointing out that the simplified claim that "IF it isn't published into the scientific community, THEN it must be fake/hoax/not working" isn't a valid claim. Instead, reproducibility and falsifiability are the ways to go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gotcha. In that case, precisely, yes.
I've mentioned a YouTube search earlier, but I've yet to find a replica that doesn't use a battery to run, or runs for any prolonged amount of time. Which is annoying, but not exactly surprising.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited March 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1760135:date=Mar 19 2010, 03:22 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 19 2010, 03:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Per se, conservation of energy can work for some cases, and not others. We have never observed the latter, but that doesn't mean we never will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually we have, in some sense. Energy conservation can be "violated" over very short time intervals (of order h divided by the magnitude of the violation) due to the uncertainty principle; this can be observed in e.g. quantum tunneling.
But this leads to another point. Earlier you presented Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry as examples of physical laws that turned out to be false. There's a difference. Newtonian mechanics still holds in the limit of small velocities and small gravitational fields. Euclidean geometry still holds in the infinitesimal limit on any manifold. That is how relativity and curved space did not contradict the existing body of empirical data.
Here we have a machine that is claimed to violate energy conservation, but it does so on "typical" scales of all relevant quantities (space, time, energy, field strength, etc.), where the entire body of empirical evidence indicates that such violations do not occur.
---
For my own part, I haven't even looked at the video, nor do I intend to. I'm dismissing it out of hand, which is not the same as rejecting it. I simply have no interest in wasting my time on something so improbable. It's the same approach I take to religion: I'm not going to bother reading some religious text even though I can't say for certain that its deistic claims are completely false. I'd rather wait until they can come up with some verifiable evidence.
<!--quoteo(post=1760152:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760152"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually we have, in some sense. Energy conservation can be "violated" over very short time intervals (of order h divided by the magnitude of the violation) due to the uncertainty principle; this can be observed in e.g. quantum tunneling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish I understood any of that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760152:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760152"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But this leads to another point. Earlier you presented Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry as examples of physical laws that turned out to be false. There's a difference. Newtonian mechanics still holds in the limit of small velocities and small gravitational fields. Euclidean geometry still holds in the infinitesimal limit on any manifold. That is how relativity and curved space did not contradict the existing body of empirical data.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is precisely correct. No amount of disproof towards any theory will invalidate observable facts. What usually happens is that, as you said, contradictory claims are simply used to enhance the theory, make it more precise.
I didn't mean to use Einstein or Newton as examples of outright cancelling knowledge, indeed, I rather meant to say this won't happen even if law of conservation is broken somehow... "Paradigm shift" could be a better choice of words here, maybe?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760152:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760152"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For my own part, I haven't even looked at the video, nor do I intend to. I'm dismissing it out of hand, which is not the same as rejecting it. I simply have no interest on wasting my time on something so improbable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly understandable, I normally wouldn't bother with this nonsense either: what caught my eye is that it seems to be working. Granted I'd be more amused if it didn't look like a simple battery-powered motor.
Comments
I understand what you're getting at. Just the spinning thingy is clearly not enough to prove anything, you need complex measurements and replication, but it's also... Well, it's just there.
Quite complicated, but the explanation is well done....
Okay, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_Electromagnetic_Generator" target="_blank">THIS</a> would be the device I'm talking about.
And <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwlo0ym-rE&feature=channel" target="_blank">THIS</a> being the movie I was talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about a lot of this discussion, but I watched all 13 parts of that video series. Using transients for something useful is a pretty interesting idea. I'm not sure if I buy the idea of a energy ether, but if it does exist at all, I'd be inclined to think that it's due to electromagnetism. In such a case, it may not be violating thermodynamics at all, as I think someone pointed out earlier. Could be we just don't understand the fundamental forces as well as we think we do. And the guy makes a good point that we're not doing nearly enough wild-arsed experimentation with electromagnetism as we should be. I'm all for a researcher getting fried here and there in the name of science!
The painful thing about these documentaries is that they pretty much never provide any substantial info: peer-reviewed papers, schematics, in-depth explanations... Sigh. Does this one?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760117:date=Mar 19 2010, 09:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 09:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760117"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For someone with George Carlin in their sig, you have a very weird sense of humour.
The fun thing about fallacies is that you can use them to justify anything. In your case, you might want to do the same trick with Einstein's relativity or Lobachevsky's geometry."What is this? Parallel lines can cross in space? Right, and sum of all angles in a triangle is 270!"
<!--coloro:#696969--><span style="color:#696969"><!--/coloro-->Spoiler: parallel lines do cross in parabolic geometry, sum of angles of a triangle on a spherical plane is 270.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Draco, science means that no scientific understanding is exempt from re-examination, and that indeed correcting mistakes is the cornerstone of science itself. So it doesn't matter how much weight and public trust any theory has collected, one experiment to the contrary is still all it takes to disprove it. And I just removed a youtube video with my psychic powers.
It's important to have the intellectual guts to go ahead and say "I don't know" when you don't know, no matter the circumstance. No matter how psychologically tempting it is to suggest otherwise.
True, it sticks amazingly well, but once every so often, something comes in as a shocker in the world of science. And when that does, it usually doesn't contradict the previous theories; it usually completes it.
That being said, I still don't believe in this Orbo thing. What it can do, perhaps, is harness the electromagnetic waves from nearby sources (such as WiFi, cell phones, testing equipment, or even the mains) to seem apparently self-sufficient. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it can get plenty of practical use especially in our current world; but it doesn't generate energy out of thin air; it uses energy which is otherwise wasted.
That's enough of that, thank you.
I don't trust your telepathetic powers any more than I trust perpetual motion. Leave your mocking for a time when you have a leg to stand on.
<!--quoteo(post=1760129:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->True, it sticks amazingly well, but once every so often, something comes in as a shocker in the world of science. And when that does, it usually doesn't contradict the previous theories; it usually completes it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, great point. No proof to the contrary of anything invalidates existing observation, it's that simple.
<!--quoteo(post=1760129:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM:name=Cereal_KillR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cereal_KillR @ Mar 19 2010, 10:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760129"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That being said, I still don't believe in this Orbo thing. What it can do, perhaps, is harness the electromagnetic waves from nearby sources (such as WiFi, cell phones, testing equipment, or even the mains) to seem apparently self-sufficient. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it can get plenty of practical use especially in our current world; but it doesn't generate energy out of thin air; it uses energy which is otherwise wasted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My best guess from practical standpoint is that it just has very little friction. Granted that'd still have to run out after a while.
That one's ALMOST correct. One small addition: If they're wrong. A law of physics is our way of describing a set of rules that we believe the universe to follow. If we can break such a rule, that means that the rule does NOT correspond to the way the universe works, which means that it is wrong. A rule that correctly describes how the universe works cannot be broken because to do so would be to do something that the universe isn't capable of doing.
I don't trust your telepathetic powers any more than I trust perpetual motion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except you're willing to believe perpetual motion even though both concepts have the same amount of science behind them, that is to say none at all.
I don't trust your telepathetic powers any more than I trust perpetual motion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why do you dismiss one out of hand, but not the other?
You continue to draw a black and white line before true and false. This is not the case: all further observation does is improve knowledge. Per se, conservation of energy can work for some cases, and not others. We have never observed the latter, but that doesn't mean we never will.
<!--quoteo(post=1760132:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jimmeh @ Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760132"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Except you're willing to believe perpetual motion even though both concepts have the same amount of science behind them, that is to say none at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just quoted me saying the opposite of that. What.
<!--quoteo(post=1760133:date=Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 19 2010, 10:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then why do you dismiss one out of hand, but not the other?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I don't. Right now you gave up discussing anything and are instead trying to clumsily get back at me for daring to correct you earlier.
I don't appreciate it.
I'm dismissing neither, just as I trust neither. I have a feeling they're both bull######, but I don't really know.
As far certainty goes, yours is more crap because you have no video, no exhibit, no papers, no prototype, no work, no replication and no defence to go with it. Or, to be more concise, because you made it up on the spot in attempt to reduce what I have to say to a more convenient strawman, which I do not appreciate at all.
Now, do you want to actually address anything I said, or press on with this nonsense?..
Bye.
Oh man, you're a tool.
Comeon Drako, admit that you're sad it isn't real. Tell the internet how your nerdgina got all warm and moist, but then someone told you it was a fraud.
Look me in the eyes while you do it, sit on my lap.
No, you missed it. I was switching gears and pointing out that the simplified claim that "IF it isn't published into the scientific community, THEN it must be fake/hoax/not working" isn't a valid claim. Instead, reproducibility and falsifiability are the ways to go.
Gotcha. In that case, precisely, yes.
I've mentioned a YouTube search earlier, but I've yet to find a replica that doesn't use a battery to run, or runs for any prolonged amount of time. Which is annoying, but not exactly surprising.
Actually we have, in some sense. Energy conservation can be "violated" over very short time intervals (of order h divided by the magnitude of the violation) due to the uncertainty principle; this can be observed in e.g. quantum tunneling.
But this leads to another point. Earlier you presented Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry as examples of physical laws that turned out to be false. There's a difference. Newtonian mechanics still holds in the limit of small velocities and small gravitational fields. Euclidean geometry still holds in the infinitesimal limit on any manifold. That is how relativity and curved space did not contradict the existing body of empirical data.
Here we have a machine that is claimed to violate energy conservation, but it does so on "typical" scales of all relevant quantities (space, time, energy, field strength, etc.), where the entire body of empirical evidence indicates that such violations do not occur.
---
For my own part, I haven't even looked at the video, nor do I intend to. I'm dismissing it out of hand, which is not the same as rejecting it. I simply have no interest in wasting my time on something so improbable. It's the same approach I take to religion: I'm not going to bother reading some religious text even though I can't say for certain that its deistic claims are completely false. I'd rather wait until they can come up with some verifiable evidence.
I wish I understood any of that.
<!--quoteo(post=1760152:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760152"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But this leads to another point. Earlier you presented Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry as examples of physical laws that turned out to be false. There's a difference. Newtonian mechanics still holds in the limit of small velocities and small gravitational fields. Euclidean geometry still holds in the infinitesimal limit on any manifold. That is how relativity and curved space did not contradict the existing body of empirical data.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is precisely correct. No amount of disproof towards any theory will invalidate observable facts. What usually happens is that, as you said, contradictory claims are simply used to enhance the theory, make it more precise.
I didn't mean to use Einstein or Newton as examples of outright cancelling knowledge, indeed, I rather meant to say this won't happen even if law of conservation is broken somehow... "Paradigm shift" could be a better choice of words here, maybe?..
<!--quoteo(post=1760152:date=Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (a_civilian @ Mar 19 2010, 11:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760152"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For my own part, I haven't even looked at the video, nor do I intend to. I'm dismissing it out of hand, which is not the same as rejecting it. I simply have no interest on wasting my time on something so improbable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's perfectly understandable, I normally wouldn't bother with this nonsense either: what caught my eye is that it seems to be working. Granted I'd be more amused if it didn't look like a simple battery-powered motor.
Locked.