Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 00:49 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:5doLf.16$8d1.2(a)read1.cgocable.net... > > "Kore" wrote >> How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when >> dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going >> towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works >> pretty well. > > But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that .99999999 > = > 1 is incorrect. Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of Wrong"? Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but it gives you the gist. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be considered wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment. The Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions.
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 01:10 > > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote > >> Most physicists are pretty sure a "free energy" machine can't work > >> because > >> it violates the first law of thermodynamics. "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message > > There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty sure that > > Newtonian mechanics was correct as well. "Tom" wrote: > Yes, and they had every reason to be. They were only a little bit wrong, > after all. Just like you and your comments about thermodynamics. Only a bit wrong. Just enough to allow the creation of the universe. Just a bit wrong.... > > It is entirely unclear to me why anyone would expect the laws of > > statistical > > mechanics to apply to a realm where the laws of mechanics do not apply. "Tom" wrote: > Is the Pythagorean Theorem going to be overturned someday, do you think? > After all, it's only a theorem. We know it is wrong, for most surfaces that are curved. Now are you trying to imply that the laws of statistical mechanics apply to non-mechanical systems? Please prove why this is the case. You were asked earlier, and failed to respond. > > Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom. "Tom" wrote: > Or perhaps not. There's no telling what may enlighten any given person. Or > fail to enlighten them. Why avoid answering the question if you are so sure your statement is correct Tom? "Tom" wrote: > Let me know when you get your perpetual motion machine up and operating. Zero point energy has nothing to do with perpetual motion Tom. It is a well defined sea of energy that exists in space as a continuous wave function over all tested frequencies and over all fields. It is the medium through which and by which all forces propagate and all fundamental particle reactions occur. It is the source of momentum and most probably the origin of the cosmological constant. Its existance has been proven by direct experimentation and inferred through millions of direct experiments. Without zero point energy the transistors in your computer would not transist, the photons in the optical fibers carrying this message would not propagate, and the universe as you know it would not exist. Bzzzt.... fool... your time is up....
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 01:13 "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > They probably prefer oranges, then. They seem to. They don't like apples much either.
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 02:23 > > "Kore" wrote > >> How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when > >> dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going > >> towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works > >> pretty well. "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote > > But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that ..99999999 > > = > > 1 is incorrect. "Tom" wrote: > Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of Wrong"? Ya, when I was 12. "Tom" wrote: > Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be considered > wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate > approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment. The > Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions. Very good Tom. Make sure you say that the next time someone denies the reality of Global warming because it's not scientifically proven. You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now wasn't it?
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 06:13
"Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:6vGdnbU-OqnFA2Pe4p2dnA(a)comcast.com... > > "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message > news:5doLf.16$8d1.2(a)read1.cgocable.net... >> >> "Kore" wrote >>> How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when >>> dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going >>> towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works >>> pretty well. >> >> But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that .99999999 >> = >> 1 is incorrect. > > Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of Wrong"? > Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but it gives > you the gist. > > http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm > > Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be > considered wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly > accurate approximations using the best evidence available at any given > moment. The Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions. > > Science fiction is one of the great loves of Tom's life. Like many geeks. Ask how many Star Trek events he has been to. Gee Tom, did Leonard Nimoy actually shake your hand? I bet you didnt wash it for a week. A |