DEBATE THREAD

[Bessler007]

Omnibus,

If you would do as I suggest and I can't notice any flaw I do have the ear of a rather impressive mathematician who might see something in what you have to say.  If you're looking for a substantial review of your idea then post it on a site and I can practically assure you a very serious review will happen.


Bessler007
Cmdr, BHS
mib HQ

edit:  You have no idea who among your equals is reading.  Unless you just so happen to be God; in that event I'll grant you no peers are reading this.

edit²:  Peswiki would be a good repository for this proof.

[Omnibus]

Peers for the purposes of evaluating scientific research are experts with proven track record and credentials in the field, appointed by the Editor of a peer-reviewed journal to evaluate the merits of a manuscript submitted for publication. This isn't the case here.

[Bessler007]

ic, you are afraid to have your idea rigorously examined.  Nice excuse but I wouldn't want to make a pot out of it.  It wouldn't hold water.


Bessler007

[Bessler007]

This is an absolute fact that everyone reading should be apprised of.  There is no proof of a violation of the 1st Law offered in any fashion by any degreed physicist in any peer-reviewed publication in the world at a level visible with the naked eye.  Not one.

Here is another fact.  Any physicist that had a cogent argument supporting any violation of CoE would (upon publishing such a proof) become a world renown physicist.

One final fact.  Any physicist claiming to have a proof yet refusing to publish is a liar.  There are a few corollaries to these facts.


Bessler007

[Omnibus]

Things are much more complicated than you present them. You should speak, for instance, with @Demosthenes fro Steorn forum to learn more.