Free Energy prize money

[profitis]

You seem pretty certain about that.you're saying that if I get published in a journal above ratings 1.8 with a 2lot bust i'm guaranteed a nobel? What does it take to get into a 1.8 journal? What makes you so sure that a nobel will be awarded for overunity in the first place after what I said about the status quo.

[sarkeizen]

You seem pretty certain about that.you're saying that if I get published in a journal above ratings 1.8 with a 2lot bust i'm guaranteed a nobel?

I'm confident enough to lay a few thousand on it.  Maybe more.

What does it take to get into a 1.8 journal?

Good science.  Something you know very little about.

What makes you so sure that a nobel will be awarded for overunity in the first place after what I said about the status quo.

Because you didn't make a compelling argument...or any argument really.  In order to erode my confidence you actually have to provide something of substance.   Funny how that works.

Anyway the facts are:  Nobody has published.  There is good reason to publish (there is at least a chance at a Nobel as well as career).  Everyone - according to you can publish a perfectly unarguably unambiguous paper. 

....but no such papers exist.   Sooooo either you are wrong about the ease that unambiguous evidence can be produced or OU is for morons.

[profitis]

Idono @sarkeizen idono.you've got guys like sheehan and ahern and others who are  capable of publishing absolute proofs,yet they shy away from that.why are they not going for the noble gold.and that's just 2 guys,both in far better position to get into a 1.8journal than myself(due to their circles of friends within science elites)what about the others out there.the time may not be ripe for such a noble.anyway,what would the consequences be for society if a nobel were to be awarded for such absolute proofs?for example,how would this affect the stockmarket?

[profitis]

And a billion people can publish yes,if all billion are a)copycats b)electrochemists c)aware of my proofs d)prone to publishing e)in the mood for publishing f)able to publish

[sarkeizen]

for example,how would this affect the stockmarket?

Again, if you are correct then there are billions of candidates who can prove this in an absolute and utterly unambiguous way from which there is no reasonable doubt.   The expectation is: We should see unambiguous published proofs.

We don't.  Hence it' is not easy or believing in OU is for people who have had icepick lobotomies or their non-surgical equivalents.

Your counter argument:  Each and every one of the billions of people are actively looking out for the stock market instead of wanting a reasonable chance at money equivalent to them working at least twenty-two years. (OECD avg annual salary is around 1/22nd of $1M USD).  Even in countries like Cambodia where the GDP is less than $1M where about 1 in 2 children are chronically undernourished.  Of the 10 Million adults there every single one of them cares more about the stock market than watching children starve?

The likelihood of that is next to nothing. 

Also don't you find it interesting that you are now making up excuses for not making money with your idea.  I've offered you two-thousand dollars.  I could probably even go up from there if I was motivated.  All you have to do is get your article published in a journal with a SJR rank greater than 1.8 and fail to win a Nobel prize in two years.   Again you said your evidence is absolutely perfect.  Right.  No possible reasonable doubt but it's all excuses now. LOL! loser.