Roll on the 20th June

[capthook]

Any idea how to save Utube vid's?


Den.

http://www.save2pc.com/

The light version is free and works great... I use it all the time...

[therealrasta]

What are you guys planning to use as ferrite goes? Soft, hard? And do you know of any easy ways to get it without ordering it?

[spinner]

I have been asking that question several times on this thread as to why people keep referring to Newton and CoE. I have no idea why Newton is maligned when he didn't even write the laws of thermodynamics.  He wrote the Laws of Motion and if people want to get bent out of shape over somebody they might as well pick Carnot. But in fact lots of scientists have contributed to developing, refining and proving these laws for many, many centuries.

Absolutely! At the beginning, some of us were trying to point at this "misunderstanding", but to no avail...

Archer sees Newton as a representative of the "past, conservative and corrupt science", which was INTENTIONALLY keeping people in the dark.. You know, they were always telling us that "perpetual motion" is impossible. Yeah, sure.. 


Here's Archer's quote from his site (one of the latest versions...sorry if you've seen it already):

.....
The laws of objects in motion as written by galileo and then stolen by newton were used in conjunction with the laws of grvity as written by newton to form the law of thermodynamics that is titled to the effect conservation of energy. There is no part of the laws of conservation of energy that do not come from Newton's work. This is why my stand is against Newton, is it the fault of science for putting them together? No good scince would always take the word of a genius, however Newtons was a fraud, objects in motion, was Galileo, there was not one bit of differnce excepting Newton said unless affected by another force, i am pretty sure galileo thought that if you stand in front of a bullet the motion wuld cease or be slowed, Newton was one of those clowns that states the obvious after the event, like the weatherman who says its raining outside, and the idot at the newsdesk says yes, don't forget to take your umbrealla or you might get wet. Really!!!!! then there was Calculus, that was invented by Archimedes, and there was no difference at all in waht newton "invented" and the math system used and recorded by Archimedes, Achimedes used friut and objects , newton used symbols, a sybol of an orange or an apple is no different to a triangle or a sqaure or a letter of the alphbet, if they represent something else anyway. So science was mislead by a fraud, clever no question, but many don't know that Newton had tons of ideas all debunked except? you guessed it, the work of other people, so spare me the defence of this clown. Speaking of clowns....
.....

Nice. Even though there was a "previous work" (traceable way back to Antic philosophers and mathematicians), Newton did it first.
No, to be fair - calculus was almost simultaneously "invented" by Isaac Newton and G.W.Leibniz (and there were other great names heading in the same direction)- but Newton was the first in publishing findings... Math symbols, used in calculus, came from Leibniz, not Newton... As a sign of recognition for his contribution.

According to Archer, they were all just - clowns...

[exxcomm0n]

Chill out homeskillet, the term "anomaly" wasn't meant to be "generous," nor belittling.

Scientific progresses is founded on anomalies. First, we have our current paradigm. Then a discovery is made that does not fit this paradigm, termed an "anomaly." scientists investigate further, uncover new properties/principals that explain this anomaly, and a new paradigm is set. I read some literature a while back on scientific progress and the author went into detail about this process using these terms (can't remember his name though, back in my smoking days).

If anything it really was a generous compliment, inferring AQ may well lead us to a new paradigm in non-conservative magnetism!

-PurePower

Oh good to see your still awake.

Magnets aren't batteries. Ramps don't bank (not store) energy.

Those statements ring a bell?

Where again did I say your input was necessary, welcome, or beg your generosity??

Go back to skimming my posts..........please, as your accuracy still is questionable to put it generously.

I didn't ask for your appraisal.
I asked if anyone was willing to invest time and effort into furthering a concept.

God knows I wasn't appealing to just you.



If present scientific terminology and method didn't get this result, why should I try to shoehorn it into those definitions or practices?

That's your job.

[capthook]

Hey Exx - did you notice Archer's change in tone?  He actually was posting - which he hasn't done in awhile - and did so in a very civil, coherent, and even helpful manner.

Maybe he read Bombers post?   

Not wanting to rock the boat I didn't post my thoughts on his vid thinking another was to come...
that not being the case...

I found it................ well..... very unimpressive 

(better than my vids - seeing as to I haven't posted any  ) but guess we'll have to wait for something descent until next month (or then some)