NationStates Jolt Archive

Soooooo.....

You gotta laugh really. So much hope....so much bollocks.

I understand the profit motive idea regarding of keeping control. When claims of a scientific nature are made an opportunity must be afforded to prove those claims (and be allowed to be replicated by independent tests). The idea of money is understandable as it was an independent company.

Of course the fact that the model was predicated on a controversial technology also adds to the lure of the 'dirty lucre'.

So these guys say that they could not keep their promise to prove the claims today due to the heat of cameras.

Well.

You know what?

TURN THE FUCKERS OFF YOU DAFT BUGGER!

I mean really.

So...no surprise....I claim an authentic fraud.

Hello Inspector Knacker! LOL

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/article2737932.ece

Hmm thats a piss poor title really.

Bugger.

riiiiight...

riiiiight...

Pray tell....

Suuuuure.

It doesn't seem like they tried publish any false scientific results, and as such, no harm done. Anyone can make a commercial stunt - and anyone can make a magnetic field adding net energy to a charge travelling it in a closed path. Magnetism is not a conservative force. You just have to counter the induction from the circulating charge by increasing the magnetic field - which cannot cost less than exactly the energy you add to the charge.

Harmless bullshit - the world has seen it before and shall see it again.

It doesn't seem like they tried publish any false scientific results, and as such, no harm done. Anyone can make a commercial stunt - and anyone can make a magnetic field adding net energy to a charge travelling it in a closed path. Magnetism is not a conservative force. You just have to counter the induction from the circulating charge by increasing the magnetic field - which cannot cost less than exactly the energy you add to the charge.

Harmless bullshit - the world has seen it before and shall see it again.

Only problem is that they had investors. Hence the possible interest of Inspector Knacker.

Fraud is pretty serious.

They say they have investors.....

Well it was on their much vaunted 'balance sheet'.

I wonder about bank loans made on the back of private money having already been 'paid'...*ahem*

There ain't no free lunch.

There ain't no free energy.

Not in this century atleast.

Um
Doesn't anything that produces energy by definition produce heat?
Curious.

Who saw this coming? Who knew this was impossible? Who knew they were lying the whole time? I did! I did!

It's a fuckin' violation of the fuckin' laws of thermodynamics you frog-fuckin' sons o' whore's!

Da-shiang bao-tza shr duh lah doo-tze!

Who saw this coming? Who knew this was impossible? Who knew they were lying the whole time? I did! I did!

It's a fuckin' violation of the fuckin' laws of thermodynamics you frog-fuckin' sons o' whore's!

Da-shiang bao-tza shr duh lah doo-tze!

WTF LOL

So that's why Rhaomi disappeared...he's so embarrassed over having endorsed this he couldn't stand to show up here anymore.

WTF LOL
It means "The explosive diarrhea of an elephant" in chinese (mandarin).

This whole free-energy thing is getting old fast, it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be impossible and anyone who claims otherwise, especially those trying to make money off of such claims, are frauds.

Firstly. Steorn are not making money they are loosing it.

Secondly, this disproves nothing.

Thirdly, why is it cause for celibration if a potential crisis solving machine gets destroyed?

Firstly. Steorn are not making money they are loosing it.
The purpose of a company is to make money. Patents on such impossible devices have been outlawed because the devices cannot do what they claim and investors have been suckered into them in the past and lost lots of money to snakeoil salesmen.

Secondly, this disproves nothing.
It proves they can't deliver what they promised. Science has proven more times than can be counted on your fingers and toes that free energy does not and cannot exist. If you can drop a ball on a hill and have it roll up and get it on video with witnesses I'll pay you a hundred dollars. I know that I'll never have to fulfill my end of that because you'll never be able to do it.

Thirdly, why is it cause for celibration if a potential crisis solving machine gets destroyed?
It never worked to begin with and never could do what it claimed. There is no reason to waste time and resources on the impossible. This desk toy would have solved nothing.

The purpose of a company is to make money.

So there is no reason to call it a fraud if they based on the fact they are trying to make money.


Patents on such impossible devices have been outlawed because the devices cannot do what they claim and investors have been suckered into them in the past and lost lots of money to snakeoil salesmen.


Patents can't be made because it's far too risky and extremely unlikely, it's not explicitly stated that it's because it's impossible.


It proves they can't deliver what they promised.

No it doesn't.


Science has proven more times than can be counted on your fingers and toes that free energy does not and cannot exist.

theoretically. It's difficult to actually empirically prove something like this.


It never worked to begin with and never could do what it claimed. There is no reason to waste time and resources on the impossible. This desk toy would have solved nothing.

Assumption.

No, it's not difficult to prove something like this, and you are arguing with an engineer. You are not going to win. Dosuun is correct on this.

Now, that said, there is no reason to ignore alternative energy sources, and that is not what Dosuun is suggesting. He is simply saying that free energy is impossible, which it is, and if it wasn't, we couldn't exist anyway.

No, it's not difficult to prove something like this, and you are arguing with an engineer.

I said empirically, proof by exhaustion cannot prove that something is universally true, ever.

Well, I guess that's that. Needless to say, it was a wise decision to hold on to my alternative energy stocks...

The thing is, if it was real, they wouldn't be arseing around
here (http://www.colorado.edu/ArtsSciences/british/images/hibernia-med.jpg) but instead would be in the land of milk and honey (http://www.rockymtnintl.com/Images/Global/usa-flag.gif)

Well, I guess that's that. Needless to say, it was a wise decision to hold on to my alternative energy stocks...

If it was needless to say, why did you say it?

Hydes: Look, the point is, free energy completely and totally goes against everything we know about physics, and no matter how often it has been attempted, it cannot be done! It is literally impossible. Not absolutely everything is possible, Hydes. Yes, there are plenty of possibilities we have yet to conceive of, but that does not make every single thing we think up possible!

If it was needless to say, why did you say it?

Because then people won't need to wonder what was needless to say.;)

Hydes: Look, the point is, free energy completely and totally goes against everything we know about physics, and no matter how often it has been attempted, it cannot be done! It is literally impossible. Not absolutely everything is possible, Hydes. Yes, there are plenty of possibilities we have yet to conceive of, but that does not make every single thing we think up possible!

This is a break down of my viewpoint:

1) Free energy can only be disproven mathematically

2) Mathematical proof is often changed or updated, and can be shown to be wrong. Theoretical physics and mathematical proof go hand in hand.

3) It's impossible to prove something is universally true with anything other then maths. Thus you can't use empirical scientific proof to say it's impossible. Just extremely unlikely (which it is).

I remember the full page ad from last year. This is wonderful whether it is a hoax or not.

Because then people won't need to wonder what was needless to say.;)
But the very fact of being needless to say proves they already know it!
This is a break down of my viewpoint:

1) Free energy can only be disproven mathematically

2) Mathematical proof is often changed or updated, and can be shown to be wrong. Theoretical physics and mathematical proof go hand in hand.

3) It's impossible to prove something is universally true with anything other then maths. Thus you can't use empirical scientific proof to say it's impossible. Just extremely unlikely (which it is).

1. Bullshit. Plenty of experiments have been run that disprove it.

2. True, true, but not in this case, not unless you've somehow figured out something that turns everything we know completely upside down and slantways.

3. Is it? I wouldn't know as I have not exactly studied the subject. Have you? Because I'm going on word of Dosuun and other scientists and engineers here, not my own work.

But the very fact of being needless to say proves they already know it!

Damn.

1. Bullshit. Plenty of experiments have been run that disprove it.


Like what?


2. True, true, but not in this case, not unless you've somehow figured out something that turns everything we know completely upside down and slantways.


Well the laws of physics have been updated/changed before.


3. Is it? I wouldn't know as I have not exactly studied the subject. Have you? Because I'm going on word of Dosuun and other scientists and engineers here, not my own work.

Why are you asking I thought you thought it was impossible. But yeah it looks extremely unlikely as it would have to break a major law of physics.

I realize that a logic approach will tell you that if something has never been observed, then that does not necessarily imply that it does not exist. However, this case is slightly different... I find it difficult to express in layman's terms why it is so, but let me say that an entropy-neutral process, or indeed an entropy consuming process, corresponds to a spontaneous shift in the direction of time. The creation of free energy is equally probable as the event that people returned to their mothers' wombs.


If you make a device which violates Maxwell's equations, then Maxwell's equations have a problem.


If you make a device that violates quantum mechanics, please tell me how you made it.


If you make a device that violates the second law of thermodynamics, then you are either dreaming or have never existed.


Shit happens. Free energy doesn't.

PS: I'm also an engineer.

Damn.

Have I actually bested the great Vetalia?


Hydes: Listen to Temurdia. He knows what he's talking about.

Have I actually bested the great Vetalia?

Blasphemy.
You cannot best my god.

The creation of free energy is equally probable as the event that people returned to their mothers' wombs.


Stranger things had happened, like the guy who eats his own head... wait... that was Team America.

Stranger things had happened, like the guy who eats his own head... wait... that was Team America.
Actually that was David Blaine on South Park.