Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Martin Swain on 23 Feb 2006 18:45 Scott Nudds wrote: > "Martin Swain" wrote > >>I didn't read your post, but I did scan through it. No links. > > > Of course you didn't. That would take effort and some thinking and we can't > have you exert yourself now can we? You presented something controversial and I asked for evidence. You refused to provide it, presumably because you have none. Not my fault if you've never been dealt with so speedily before, but I simply haven't time to waste playing childish games. If you decide to produce some evidence I will pay attention, but until and unless consider yourself as having fallen off the edge of the planet. Bye now.
From: Scott Nudds on 23 Feb 2006 20:49 "Martin Swain" wrote > You presented something controversial and I asked for evidence. There is nothing controversial about zero point energy at all. It's an integral part of quantum physics and is becoming more and more obvious that it is the reason for everything from the expansion of the universe to the property of momentum. You will die as you live. In complete ignorance.
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 00:35 "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. > 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. > Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom. Or perhaps not. There's no telling what may enlighten any given person. Or fail to enlighten them. Let me know when you get your perpetual motion machine up and operating.
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 00:37 "Richard Tobin" <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:dtkp4d$2brp$1(a)pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk... > In article <kykLf.71793$LF.35475(a)read2.cgocable.net>, > Scott Nudds <void(a)void.com> wrote: >>I await your response with baited breah. > > It's more common to wait with bated breath. Or have you been eating a > lot of cheese? Minnows?
From: Tom on 24 Feb 2006 00:37
"Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:haoLf.17$d9.15(a)read2.cgocable.net... > > "Richard Tobin" <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message >> It's more common to wait with bated breath. Or have you been eating a >> lot of cheese? > > Yes... Yes I have as a matter of fact. And thank you for asking. > > I also have a nice crop of fruit flies growing in my kitchen. > > Mmmmmmm Yummy, Yummy Fruit Flies. > > Oddly, and contrary to popular sentiment, my fruit flies don't like > banannas. I think they are the decendents of native Floridians. They probably prefer oranges, then. |