Roll on the 20th June

[MrKai]

I know that I DON'T KNOW.
Is that a hard concept to conquer?

I base this on Socrates teachings, and we all know what a loser he was. In fact, he taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who is credited for the birth of scientific method.

BUT....BUT

Philosophy IS...NOT...SCIENCE...and like many of your assertions, challenges and "proofs" you seem to mix and intermingle the two.

Stoners, hippies, the fringe, the non-technical and the under-educated are WELL KNOWN to suffer from this.

You are making a philosophical argument...against MATH. MATH.

"I feel the numbers blah blah blah...because one cannot know what they do not know or see with their own eyes..."

Using this leap, David Copperfield really disappeared the Statue of Liberty and walked thru the Great Wall. Millions "saw" this with their own eyes...so it had to have happened, ne?

Sigh.

There is no REASON to debate you "point by point" on ANYTHING based in Science, Physics or Math because YOU shift everything into a different discipline: Philosophy.

We aren't discussing the *merits* of the *concept* of OU...we are discussing the science and physics of this lever thingee...and no matter how much is thrown at it, your BS replies are always the same:

"I want to believe. You cannot prove it will not work unless you build that thing and it does not work...even tho there is more than enough data from the VIDEO that once you apply solid math and science to it, it doesn't resolve."

And THIS...THIS is why you fail at what you keep trying to say is "science"...when it is merely tinkering and "experimentation".

Science, TRUE REAL SCIENCE, as opposed to this psuedo junk-science babble that keeps getting bandied about is *c-r-i-t-i-c-a-l* of itself, and its conclusions.

See exx, if you were truly down with the game you would be trying to DISPROVE ARCHER'S THEORIES and DEVICES.

If you COULD NOT, then you have half of the validation; the other being replication. Ask a scientist, they will tell you. The first thing they do when a colleague publishes is try to rip it to shreds six ways from Sunday to see if it stands up. They look at THE DETAILS, not the Executive Summary. They aren't buying it, even if they are proponents...because that would make them BAD SCIENTISTS.

That is how Real Science? works. Doubt, observation, experimentation, hypothesis, controls...the whole shebang.

What you basically do is toss that out the window, and half-ass it in a blanket of confirmation bias.

There is post after weary drag-ass post of you doing this, and when you are backed into a fact-crammed corner, you punk out with some "meta" BS.

Ask an "-ologist" that isn't Cokeologist how this works.

It is one thing to have a mind open to possibilities, and another thing entirely to have an "open mind"...to things you believe in.

If the above doesn't resonate with you then I just feel bad for ya.

-K

[purepower]

@exxcomm0n

What?!? My video is down!?! I would never take it down, must be something with the Tube. I'll put it up as soon as I am home.

You are still not understanding leverage. All that matters is weight and distance. I had to put my counter weight out on an extension because it did not weigh enough to balance it if I pit it under. It also allows me a great deal of control in the balance by sliding it up and down the grey rods. Its location makes no difference as long as the weight is reduced accordingly. If you are still strggling with this rather simple concept, then maybe its time to put the bong down...

I will repost my video when I am home. If after a day of "metal clarity" you still don't understand, I will try to find some heavier weights to place under the lever to show you the EXACT SAME results.

To All

In a previous post, I mentioned controlling gravity or magnitism would enable overunity. I have an idea for an ou device that does just this. I'm discussing the possibilities with another individual to allow the concept to mature. Once a few kinks have been worked out, I will release it to the forum for open discussion.

-PurePower

[MrKai]

To All

In a previous post, I mentioned controlling gravity or magnitism would enable overunity. I have an idea for an ou device that does just this. I'm discussing the possibilities with another individual to allow the concept to mature. Once a few kinks have been worked out, I will release it to the forum for open discussion.

-PurePower

No. NO. NOOOOOOO.

You *totally* have to write an incoherant manifesto of some fashion first, astroturf some forums, add several rants to your website and insult anyone that had the tools to debunk your findings...

What is the "concept maturing" and "kink out-working" of which you speak?!!

[purepower]

@MrKai

Thank you for that wonderful rant. You pretty much said everything I had been wanting to but didnt want to say to maintain my image. Thank

There's something I would like to add to it. Even if exx had put together an amazing video to disprove my statements (which he clearly didnt), this does not prove Archer's OU lever. Simply debunking the debunker proves absolutly nothing!

Again, this would be if I had been debunked. Any user thinking clearly (which I think is everyone except exx and AQ at this point) knows better...


-PurePower

[Evg]

Reading these posts makes me feel more and more humble about the things I don?t know.
So a few times a day I have to remind myself of all the useful inventions so far discovered by the non-scientific community. May it be a log over a creek or a basic bed and pillow or a device that allows shifting of a heavy object (the wheel or round stump), even the normal lever was used well before a scientist explained why it should work. Most of the things we use today are invented by the non-scientific community and although they can put a name to it and verify why it does work. Even today, the tinkerer can hold his head up high and not unlike the scientific community the outcome of their discovery is not assured or written in concrete. So the message is if you are a tinkerer don?t stop, if you don?t invent, a lot of scientist be out of a job, they have than no reason to say ?WHY IS IT SO?