Young Bangladeshi Scientist's success story Power generation without fuel

[Grumpy]

@Pennies:

Keeping an electric meter for show is a wonderful ruse, wouldn't you say?  As clever as the other ones I mentioned.  Even better with windmills as you could sell all of that to the electric untility since you don't need it.

My electric bill was $48 last month, but auto's are where the real consumption is   

So, go along your merry way, believing that the world is flat and that big oil is the only way.  When you are paying $10 a gallon, just remember that it didn't have to be that way, but it is the way you wanted it.

Grumpy, my position is simple and rational:  If anyone wants to claim a "free energy" source, a new energy source, violation of CoE or any other claim that runs in contrast to current understanding, the burden is on them to provide the credible, verifiable evidence for their claim(s).  Your espoused fervent belief in things for which you have no evidence is faith, not science. 

Since you believe that free energy is readily available, where can one see it?
Since you believe that free energy is readily available, what was your energy bill last month?
Since you believe that there are folks who pay electricity bills "just for show" ( the utility does read that meter for billing old chum ), wouldn't that make them the real suckers?

Rant on, curse on.  Since you like the idea that speaking up rationally against blind faith keeps your secrets for you, I am happy to oblige.  If pretending you are 10 years old makes you happy, more power to you. 

[utilitarian]

2 plus 2 IS NOT 4.
2 plus 2 IS 2 plus 2
YOU call it 4 for short...

"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

Van Goethe was a novelist and poet, not a mathematician, and frankly, I do not know what he is going on about there, and I suspect you don't either.  By your logic, there is no mathematical answer for anything, and if that's the way you want to live, fine, good luck at the checkout counter.

[WilbyInebriated]

Van Goethe was a novelist and poet, not a mathematician, and frankly, I do not know what he is going on about there, and I suspect you don't either.  By your logic, there is no mathematical answer for anything, and if that's the way you want to live, fine, good luck at the checkout counter.

yup he was, and his math is better than yours... your 'bistro math'
"By your logic..."  thats quite an assumption isn't it. i tell you your math is nothing more than verbal knowledge and you make some wild asinine leap to how there is no mathematical answer for anything. LOL

and what of albert? was he 'JUST'  a novelist and a poet? meh, i'll leave that asinine leap for you.

more poetry...
"Mathematical knowledge is, in fact, merely verbal knowledge. "3" means "2+1", and "4" means "3+1". Hence it follows (though the proof is long) that "4" means the same as "2+2". Thus mathematical knowledge ceases to be mysterious." (Bertrand Russell)

[pennies_everywhere]

Wilbylnebriated, just like every unique number, the symbol 4 is a representation of a unique quantity.  There are an infinite number of relations that all result in the unique quantity we call 4.  You seem to be confusing mathematical identity for symbolic expression.

Mathematics is a set of precise and rigidly consistent logical rules for representing the relationships between quantities.  Those rules are tremendously useful in constructing models that help us to understand the world around us.  The fallibility of models lies in the simplifying and often incorrect assumptions used when constructing those models.  They are not a result of math.

2 plus 2 IS NOT 4.
2 plus 2 IS 2 plus 2
YOU call it 4 for short...

"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its propositions are absolutely certain and indisputable, ... How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality." (Albert Einstein)

[WilbyInebriated]

hrrmmm, so bertrand russell seems to be confusing the same...

"Mathematical knowledge is, in fact, merely verbal knowledge. "3" means "2+1", and "4" means "3+1". Hence it follows (though the proof is long) that "4" means the same as "2+2". Thus mathematical knowledge ceases to be mysterious." (Bertrand Russell)

silly me, i should have known that the likes of you would trump the likes of einstein, russell and feynman...