DEBATE THREAD

[hansvonlieven]

depends what you think "nothing" is.

According to Omnibus: A nothing is a something you can pull energy from.   

How is that for an oxymoron?

Hans von Lieven

No, don't put words in my mouth. This is your interpretation because you think that there must always be a pre-existing energy source to pull energy from. You are about pulling energy from, not me. I've explained that when CoE is violated energy isn't pulled from anywhere but appears out of nothing, there;s no source to pull it from. Read what I write and don't fantasize.

Alright, I amend my statement.

Physics according to Omnibus: A nothing is a something energy can appear from as long as CoE is violated.

Did I get it right this time??

Still an oxymoron though.

I have an idea. We should call this significant finding in physics: The Moron's Oxymoron. That should give him the Nobel Prize he is after.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

depends what you think "nothing" is.

According to Omnibus: A nothing is a something you can pull energy from.   

How is that for an oxymoron?

Hans von Lieven

No, don't put words in my mouth. This is your interpretation because you think that there must always be a pre-existing energy source to pull energy from. You are about pulling energy from, not me. I've explained that when CoE is violated energy isn't pulled from anywhere but appears out of nothing, there;s no source to pull it from. Read what I write and don't fantasize.

Alright, I amend my statement.

Physics according to Omnibus: A nothing is a something energy can appear from as long as CoE is violated.

Did I get it right this time??

Still an oxymoron though.

I have an idea. We should call this significant finding in physics: The Moron's Oxymoron. That should give him the Nobel Prize he is after.

Hans von Lieven

Read on and think. More is needed to understand that. Go back in the thread, I've explained it. Might help (or might not if you don't try harder).

[gaby de wilde]

Gaby, I'll do that later. Can't spread out too thin. I remember, however, how sometime in December last year you proposed experiments very similar to what we're exploring now (@alsetalokin's rig) and @CLaNZeR took them to heart. There are a couple of threads devoted to that exploration here. So, you're not left unnoticed. Keep up the good work.

We have to keep flooding the farm animals with actual research.

The evidence is abundantly available.

There is so much documentation it really is impossible for little me to even look at everything. And yes, the documentation is a total mess. But thats what you get when everyone puts his effort towards making it go away.

The liars are here to keep you from doing anything useful.

Nothing would make them more angry as to see more smot like devices.

One day might have to give up on the entire Einsteinian science.

Or we will just wave at them from the space ship.

hahaha

[Bessler007]

Hello Da,

The idea of the thread is to bring what might happen in other threads to a place people can look at or ignore.  The whole point is to avoid the clutter in other threads.  So far it's doing a good job.

Omni has said this isn't peer review so you have to wonder why is he attempting to make a case here.  I wonder.  The proper place to make the case the SMOT violates CoE would be in a scientific publication.  Why does he argue here and not before his peers?  One guess is they wouldn't be his peers.  The real truth is (whether he's their equal or not) is they would tear his argument to pieces.

The real reason no publication would publish Omni is that his absurd point has no basis in reality.  If he's a professor he could easily publish his idea where he teaches.  I've read papers at different universities.

The sad truth is Omni is a fraud.  The good news is he's not asking for money. 



Bach, bach, bach-it-i bach.  No hair, just feathers!



Bessler007

[Omnibus]

Hello Da,

The idea of the thread is to bring what might happen in other threads to a place people can look at or ignore.  The whole point is to avoid the clutter in other threads.  So far it's doing a good job.

Omni has said this isn't peer review so you have to wonder why is he attempting to make a case here.  I wonder.  The proper place to make the case the SMOT violates CoE would be in a scientific publication.  Why does he argue here and not before his peers?  One guess is they wouldn't be his peers.  The real truth is (whether he's their equal or not) is they would tear his argument to pieces.

The real reason no publication would publish Omni is that his absurd point has no basis in reality.  If he's a professor he could easily publish his idea where he teaches.  I've read papers at different universities.

The sad truth is Omni is a fraud.  The good news is he's not asking for money. 



Bach, bach, bach-it-i bach.  No hair, just feathers!



Bessler007

Boy, oh, boy ...