Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

   Rose, that statement hits the nail on the head!

What is the "Definition" of "Work"!

I agree, that from a normal humans point of view, work is being done.

As far as physics, no work is being done.  Tough situation, but timely.

For the "Physics" definition, try this link....   
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Work_%28physics%29

This definition has nothing to do  with "Real World" working, but defines what physics calls the value "Work", just like volts, ohms, joules, amps, teslas, etc.  Just a defined value.

I'm sure I nit-picking, as I said, but it's a good exercise in critical thinking because both views are correct, depending on the type of "Work" you are referencing.  I guess it really is all relative.....

It's all very interesting Loner.  But I suspect there's not that much interest generally.  Which is why I'm delighted to see the thinking that the PaulDude and others - are showing us here.  Love it. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[exnihiloest]

Hello TK.  I'm afraid this is entirely off topic in this thread and will take the trouble to answer it on my own.

Regards,
Rosemary

I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.

[truthbeknown]

I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.

Yes, I agree that the QUESTION is on topic for this thread.


J.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I don't think so. TinselKoala show us his skepticism and the efficiency of the method: now we know there is a suspicion of fraud about the legitimacy of using IEEE references while IEEE doesn't support the paper in question and rejected it several times.

Exnihiloest - I think you'd do well to read this post very closely.

Under normal circumstances people are slow to point a finger at anyone at all to accuse them of fraud.  BUT, if you have proof of fraud then I seriously propose that you go the usual route and resolve this in Court - either in your individual capacity - or simply by reporting it to the CID or to any office that protects the public from internet scams.  But you would be well advised to be in a position to substantiate that claim.   

This is no IDLE allegation.  FRAUD is a criminal offense and it carries very serious consequences not least of which is jail.  And you, unlike TK - have breached a barrier here by actually stating your suspicion of fraud.  You have openly and publicly accused me of this.  Fortunately justice is a two way street.  Under usual circumstances I would be in the happy position to defend myself against both the allegation and the accuser.  And, because I know it's a load of crap I would immediately counter sue you for the slander.  That would carry a penalty that I hope would impoverish you.

I think you assume that you can dodge these consequences.  You can slander me to your heart's content and not be accountable.  This because you hide behind a forum identity.  We only know you as exnihiloest.  Who is he?  Just a sad spiteful little poster who tries to make everyone's life hell.  But you have forgotten exnihiloest - that my counter claim - which is more than justifiable - would be to those same parties that not only protect the innocent from fraudulent consequences but also protect the innocent from rampant slander.  And as I am, indeed, an innocent party as there is not a shred of evidence in support of your claim,  then as of now, I'm in a reallly strong a position to take action against you.  I doubt that your identity would be protected against a court order demanding disclosure.  In the face of a Court Order I very much doubt that any confidential information will remain confidential.  It may very well be that you'll need to duck for cover.

I promise you that if you do not retract that statement and if you insist that I have been culpable of fraud - or if you do not withdraw your 'suspicions' relating to this - then I will report you.  It's not the first time I've gone this route.  And clearly it won't be the last.

How dare you.  I would add that I delight in referencing the fact that the paper has never been published.  And if I have ever misrepresented the fact, even unintentionally - then it would be counter productive rather than otherwise.  It is the theme of this forum that the most of academia are entirely unaware of the progress made in these forums and it is my complaint that this is the consequence of the IEEE, TIE and IET not allowing the evidence to come forward.

Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes, I agree that the question is on topic for this thread.


J.

And I would assure you too, truthbeknown - that if you are publicly sharing these suspicions then you too must give some substantial proof of the allegation and I reserve my rights.