Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 06:28 "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:k9mdndwDh8-lBmPeRVn-ig(a)comcast.com... > > "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message > news:kykLf.71793$LF.35475(a)read2.cgocable.net... >> >> "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. >> >> There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty sure that >> Newtonian mechanics was correct as well. > > Yes, and they had every reason to be. They were only a little bit wrong, > after all. so a 'little bit wrong' is right Tom? > >> 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. > > Is the Pythagorean Theorem going to be overturned someday, do you think? > After all, it's only a theorem. Well, you could try applying it to curved surfaces of course Tom, that ought to be interesting. > > Or perhaps not. There's no telling what may enlighten any given person. > Or fail to enlighten them. A proposal which you prove to be right with each day. > > Let me know when you get your perpetual motion machine up and operating. Tom, do you *really* believe in perpetual motion machines? wow. Stupider (more stupid) than even I thought. A
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 10:28 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:1qyLf.90$8d1.37(a)read1.cgocable.net... > >> > "Kore" wrote >> >> How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when >> >> dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going >> >> towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works >> >> pretty well. > > "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote >> > But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that > .99999999 >> > = >> > 1 is incorrect. > > "Tom" wrote: >> Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of >> Wrong"? > > Ya, when I was 12. Then even so simple and clear an explanation is lost on you. Ah, well. > "Tom" wrote: >> Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be > considered >> wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly accurate >> approximations using the best evidence available at any given moment. >> The >> Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions. > > Very good Tom. Make sure you say that the next time someone denies the > reality of Global warming because it's not scientifically proven. Nothing at all is "scientifically proven". That was the point of the Asimov essay that you failed to comprehend. > You have missed the point entirely... But that was your point now wasn't > it? Let's see... Your point was that the first law of thermodynamics is wrong and therefore perpetual motion machines are not only possible but are up and running now, wasn't it?
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 10:36 "Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote in message news:ZSBLf.37674$H54.29139(a)fe03.news.easynews.com... > > "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$8d1.2(a)read1.cgocable.net... >>> >>> "Kore" wrote >>>> How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when >>>> dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going >>>> towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works >>>> pretty well. >>> >>> But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that >>> .99999999 = >>> 1 is incorrect. >> >> Have you ever read Asimov's little essay called "The Relativity of >> Wrong"? Here's a slightly abbreviated (even littler) version of it, but >> it gives you the gist. >> >> http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm >> >> Science isn't in the business of making statements that are to be >> considered wholly correct for all time. It is a series of increasingly >> accurate approximations using the best evidence available at any given >> moment. The Infallible Truth stuff is the province of religions. > > Science fiction is one of the great loves of Tom's life. Like many geeks. > Ask how many Star Trek events he has been to. Gee Tom, did Leonard Nimoy > actually shake your hand? I bet you didnt wash it for a week. Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than just science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 10:37 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:tmxLf.76$d9.51(a)read2.cgocable.net... > > >> > "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. Ah, and you, in your vast wisdom, know the complete truth about how the universe was created. I see.
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 10:41
"Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote in message news:I5CLf.213984$6Q3.139977(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... > > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:k9mdndwDh8-lBmPeRVn-ig(a)comcast.com... >> >> "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message >> news:kykLf.71793$LF.35475(a)read2.cgocable.net... >>> >>> "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. >>> >>> There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty sure that >>> Newtonian mechanics was correct as well. >> >> Yes, and they had every reason to be. They were only a little bit wrong, >> after all. > > so a 'little bit wrong' is right Tom? Some explanation are wronger than others, Archie. Didn't you read that essay I linked? No, I suppose you didn't. Reading isn't really a strong point of yours. >> Is the Pythagorean Theorem going to be overturned someday, do you think? >> After all, it's only a theorem. > > Well, you could try applying it to curved surfaces of course Tom, that > ought to be interesting. So let's just throw it out. It's wrong. Archie says so. Stupid old Pythagoras. |