DEBATE THREAD

[Bessler007]

You read what you want to see.  My point is this:

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

The idea that things once thought impossible that presently work isn't a case for any impossibility you care to cite.  In other words just because some crackpots were finally vindicated is no reason to think every crackpot should or will be.  Further in other words no crackpot was ever vindicated without some sound proof or reason to think otherwise.

Every time you fail to specifically quote something I've said and deal with an exact objection as opposed to the vague generalizations you often fall into I'll ignore you.



Bessler007

Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks.

Your "fact" said that if anyone finds proof for violation of CoE that they must be a liar. This is clearly implying that CoE is absolute, and you didn't object to that.

The Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy is (1) a toy without much benefit of overunity and (2) not a proof of a violation of the 1st Law.

I never said it was, but I said that just because it isn't of much benefit, doesn't mean it isn't over unity. Like omnibus said, you don't need a working free perpetual motion machine to violate CoE!

You seem to misunderstand the point I am making. I have never said and never will say that the smot provides free energy until I am absolutely convinced that it is, with heaps of proof.

What I HAVE been saying is that you cannot totally dismiss the smot, simply because many people have failed or simply because you have absolute faith in mainstream science.

Capitalists will fund ideas they're sold on.  No one has made a good case to people like Neil Moskowitz, chief financial officer of Credit Suisse First Boston or Michael H. Jordon, chief executive of EDS for cold fusion as Dr. Mills has.  (source:  Wall Street Journal)  The key point is academia doesn't run the world.

That does nothing to show that violation of CoE is impossible.

You must understand that for hundreds of years there were people discussing man made flight, and countless people threw themselves of buildings in search of it.

Just like the wiki site, and this one, there have always been nutty people trying to do the "impossible". History shows that there have been lots of "crackpots" who have turned out to be right, and many "impossible" things have been shown to be real.

Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media" or "If it was real I would have heard of it" it is the same as the "impossible" man made flight situation. The wright brothers didn't test their craft in secret you know.

Briefly the supernatural is above or beyond the present understanding of nature.  Since the answer from physicists is perpetual motion is impossible, any solution would be beyond or above that present scientific understanding or SUPER*natural.

I didn't imply any other definition, I meant that it is funny to see that you have been trying to achieve perpetual motion for 4 years yet you are somehow completely convinced that CoE is absolute.

In addition to you attributing conclusions to me, I never made this statement you attribute to me.  Your points are so riddled with fallacy of a similar nature it's not worth dealing with.


Bessler007

[Bessler007]

Omni, you can attempt to change the subject to what people know or don't yet it's clear you don't have a proof the SMOT violates CoE.  You don't seem to know the difference between overunity and a violation of CoE.

It would be prudent for you to take an early retirement before your employer realizes just how incompetent you are.


Bessler007

. . .
Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.
. . .

[Bessler007]

Free energy is "foreseeable"??  Good Lord.

Bessler007

[psychopath]

@Bessler,

I said like,

I said
Every time you say something like "If it was possible it would have been all over the media"

Not "Every time you say "If it was possible it would have been all over the media""

If you cannot understand this, I will simply give up.

I also said "Every time I quoted you, I copy pasted your words and wrapped it up in quotation marks"

not "Anything wrapped up in quotation marks are quotes of you"

[hansvonlieven]

Omnibus,

Have you ever thought how idiotic your idea of "Energy from Nothing" really is?

Logic dictates that if you can extract something from a nothing it was not a nothing to begin with.. But then you were never logical, were you?

Hans von Lieven