The homotenna (homopolar motor + antenna).

[spinn_MP]

Doh...
Theories are - just theories? And math is just - math? Ok.
You should distinguish between a NEW theories (BigBang, singularity, string, Black stuff, branes..) and a (currently) WORKING "laws", based on what used to be theories...

Newtonian laws are - a theory?
Ohm law is a theory? Kirchhoff, Lenz, Faraday,...

Tell me, what kind of method you use for backing up your claims? Since Math is just math, etc.


Wilby, you're a thinking person, that's what I understood through our conversations in the past..

"yes, a verifiable proof that your claim is correct is needed."

Read whatever you can get your hands on. And, please, start at the beginning, with the basics.

[WilbyInebriated]

Doh...
Theories are - just theories? And math is just - math? Ok.
You should distinguish between a NEW theories (BigBang, singularity, string, Black stuff, branes..) and a (currently) WORKING "laws", based on what used to be theories...

Newtonian laws are - a theory?
Ohm law is a theory? Kirchhoff, Lenz, Faraday,...

Tell me, what kind of method you use for backing up your claims? Since Math is just math, etc.


Wilby, you're a thinking person, that's what I understood through our conversations in the past..

"yes, a verifiable proof that your claim is correct is needed."

Read whatever you can get your hands on. And, please, start at the beginning, with the basics.

and what of pythagoras? why then is his still a theory?

regarding ohm, kirchoff, lenz and faraday... upon what are these 'laws' based? i know the answer, i want to hear you say it...

indeed spinner, start at the beginning where the assumptions were made.

[WilbyInebriated]

spinner, why do all your 'laws' have paradoxes associated with them?

ohm's law (charge decay) paradox.
kirchhoff's rule and the two capacitor paradox.
lenz (dungey's paradox, sweet's paradox)
faraday's paradox.

etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam...

[spinn_MP]

and what of pythagoras? why then is his still a theory?

regarding ohm, Kirchhoff, lenz and faraday... upon what are these 'laws' based? i know the answer, i want to hear you say it...

indeed spinner, start at the beginning where the assumptions were made.

Pythagoras's? You have some problems with him?
Lol, it's "just" a theory? From which planet are you, really? a2+b2=c2? Tough... Let us all hear your explanation, how would you calculate the Pythagorean stuff...

You claim you know where The "laws" are based? GOOD for you! I tried to told you (and the gang) several times in the past (repeating the obvious), but you were all too much  self-confident about your own level of "understanding".. And the result is known. If I remember correctly, you defended everyone (no matter how his/her thinking was off, if that person exhibited at least a noticeable rate of hate towards current "science"). Plus you haven't produced anything of a (real) value during this time. Or maybe you have?
Just tell us.

Idiot!
Sorry. Apologise. You're not dumb, as it seems on a first sight, you're just completely lost...

[WilbyInebriated]

Pythagoras's? You have some problems with him?
Lol, it's "just" a theory? From which planet are you, really? a2+b2=c2? Tough... Let us all hear your explanation, how would you calculate the Pythagorean stuff...

no i have no problem with him. i am asking you WHY after thousands of years and hundreds of proofs is pythagoras' theorem not called a 'law'? i thought my point was obvious...

You claim you know where The "laws" are based? GOOD for you! I tried to told you (and the gang) several times in the past (repeating the obvious), but you were all too much  self-confident about your own level of "understanding".. And the result is known. If I remember correctly, you defended everyone (no matter how his/her thinking was off, if that person exhibited at least a noticeable rate of hate towards current "science"). Plus you haven't produced anything of a (real) value during this time. Or maybe you have?
Just tell us.

yes, the 'laws' are based on assumptions... theories... and shoddy math. and no, you don't remember correctly. furthermore, what i have or have not produced is irrelevant. this is just another one of your logical fallacies as a response.

Idiot!
Sorry. Apologise. You're not dumb, as it seems on a first sight, you're just completely lost...

more logical fallacy from you as usual. why are you avoiding the simple questions i posed to you?