Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 11:27 "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:RoadnQibt8dzumLenZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "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 > Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar. A
From: Archangel on 24 Feb 2006 11:27 "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:QdCdnVp-XOKQtGLeRVn-tQ(a)comcast.com... > > "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. No, stupid old Tom. A
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 12:53 "Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote in message news:KtGLf.217284$6Q3.31845(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... > > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:RoadnQibt8dzumLenZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> >> "Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote in message >> news:ZSBLf.37674$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 > > Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar. You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary, that you never wrote that? Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling?
From: PD on 24 Feb 2006 13:34 virtualadepts(a)gmail.com wrote: > I'm designing a free energy machine that uses totally renewable and > free sources of energy. How it works is your burn wood in a stove, and > boil water using the heat generated from the wood fire. The steam from > the water that is being boiled is used to power a steam turbine, which > generates electricity. The electricity is then stored in a battery, > which is used to power your home. > > Can anyone give me some advice on how to build a prototype of this > design? http://www.clubcivic.com/board/archive/index.php/t-43858.html
From: Scott Nudds on 24 Feb 2006 15:28
"Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote > You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the > contrary, that you never wrote that? > > Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just > appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling? You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom. It is not often that I come across someone as prolific as you in this field. Are you a self taught Liar Tom? Or were you trained? |