Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83399
  • *Latest: SciAnt

  • *Total Posts: 510006
  • *Total Topics: 15198
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics  (Read 40777 times)

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #75 on: October 21, 2010, 09:32:31 PM »
Hello Mark.  Who's arguing?  And where are we being illogical?  I actually don't know that resonance is the only proof of 'more out than in' but it's a good example.  And I think we all concur that energy is in mass.  What we're trying to do here is find the constituent properties of that energy.

I am very impressed by your coils, by the way.  Very artistic.  But our essential 'drive' here is to see if we can get to a better understanding of the properties of the 'field' - or that's my interest, in any event.  You see, you guys, with respect, are exploring this potential 'dark' energy source - on a purely empirical level.  I think there's more than enough justification to try and establish some conceptual understanding of this.  Even if it's to enable some better control of it - and certainly to enhance it's predictive values which is essential if we're to put it to good use.  But let's first establish that it's both theoretically and logically required.  God knows.  We'd do well to get logic back into theory.

Regards,
Rosemary

@Rosemary

It's the logical GIGO factor Rosemary.

Mark's brain (which all of our brains work more like a computer than we even wish to admit) has come across illogical conflictions, even if his conscious awareness is unable to define any specific particulars. Therefore he has to some degree found error in base logic and has rebelled against common terminology, not wanting to pollute his thought processes. For terms which do not accurately apply in his mind-view, he invents or applies new terms to better suit his conceptions.

In doing so, he forgets the purpose of language, and finds himself often in conceptual conflict even when in actual mental agreement with others.

No word has any meaning to anyone else, unless it's meaning as put forth agrees with a common definition.

Language in any form can really suck at it's stated purpose, which is to accurately convey ideas and concepts from one individual to another.   

@Mark

I tend to analyze everything to death, and emotionally imply nothing by the outcome. The former reply to Rosemary was not meant or applied as an insult in any situation.

Emotionally, it is comparable to "This person has a specific hair color because of measurable melanin content." My statements are often emotionally confused as a verbal attack due to the "coldness" of pure logic.

Your statements I can mentally translate somewhat, and your views are interesting.

Paul Andrulis

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #75 on: October 21, 2010, 09:32:31 PM »

Offline Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #76 on: October 21, 2010, 10:34:13 PM »
@all

Well , i do not get insulted , but tent to insult other without noticing, i needed to make sure , i did not do it again .

Loner got most of what i was trying to explain .

It is harder for me to get my point across clearly , first because i am french second , because i did not study all of this , i never did hard maths , or physic . I have no clue of the specific terms for atom , proton and co.
But the knowledge is all around us .

I also try to explain so that everyone regardless of there education could understand , so it is harder for me to post .

I also try not to sound big brain geek , scary to some people .

Yes i did forget repulsion but everyone know how it goes .

All i am saying is you can extract more energy from mater at specific freq .

Or the same energy at lower input .

I will make video soon on how i came to this conclusion .

I also usually forget to put in details , i should star making list before posting.


Mark






   

Offline Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2010, 12:38:14 AM »
@all

I believe that its all vibration , let me try to explain my self .

We can all agree that most levels of reality  , galaxies , solar system , atom , etc , share behavior and content mostly void .

I state that for those system to exist they have to be harmonious , first freq root (the galaxy )makes the law for all sub system (solar,planets, atom) must operate under it since it is responsible for physical property .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2236988281579535067#

This is a demonstration , where you can clearly see my point .

We also vibrate in harmony with earth , because we are the salt , living in a world of salt .

earth is in tune with the solar system etc , harmony at each levels , god made a sound first .

Once that is in place , we see that we are sub system's living on the edge of planet system , and composed infinite sub system living in a infinite system world .

The vacuum , like in this demonstration   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6B8eK68AIg

The bottle is filled with water on the first try he did not succeed in creating a air pocket at the both of the bottle , once he did the bottle breaks apart , because of the void at the bottom is not coming from the top and has no air (vacuum) bang . To me this is analog to bemf , reaction from creating a void in a existing stationary field creating energy .


Next root of sub systems ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tqXgvCN0E

Exposing a glass to its own roots freq , releases the energy ..


I hope this time i made more sense , i did not take physics but my model is sound ,  ;D.

Mark
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #77 on: October 22, 2010, 12:38:14 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #78 on: October 22, 2010, 06:46:13 AM »
Hello Mark, 

May I say - at the outset - that I'm blown away by the fact that you speak French and yet can write English.  It's the kind of language skill that I envy.  I live in a multi-lingual country and have only ever managed to speak and write in english.  It seems to be a flair that you share with many Europeans.  Like you I have also never 'done' physics - in the sense that I never had a formal training in it.  And no doubt it shows and shows.  I'm sure that the likes of Paul and Loner - wince through the most of my posts. 

Your illustrations of sound impacting materials are very interesting.  The thing about sound is this.  It does not propogate in a vacuum.  However matter first 'happened' it must, therefore, have preceded sound - because without matter - then sound waves are impossible.  I think we may be rather grateful for this fact because if our exploding suns and colliding galaxies could be heard - then our little world may well have disintegrated - very much as that exploding glass disintegrated.  At the very least we'd have been deafened.

I agree with you about the extraordinary energy available in 'resonating' frequencies - the precise pitch being able to explode that glass with the efficiency of a bullet.  And you then, very appropriately, show us the picture of those patterns created by the varying pitch.  Very elegantly illustrated.  I wonder if those patterns that are generated at those varying pitches - also somehow match the cyrstalline structure of the materials exposed to it.  So that, every so often, when there's a precise synchronicity - or enough synchronicity - that the material can no longer hold that synchronous pattern.  It sort of 'marries' and then needs to incorporate the new pattern and 'expand'.  And it cannot - so it breaks through the bonding barriers.  That's how I see it, in any event.

And at the risk of going on and on - and I realise I'm probably stressing everyone's patience, in the event that this is even being read - then I would also propose this.  The atoms in glass are very symmetrically arranged - very precise crystals.  If those atoms are held in place by those very small 'fields' of invisible particles - then it is they that would have first determined the 'crystalline pattern'.  And the consequence is that they would 'unravel' and then redistribute themselves through space.  But first they would need to break away from the 'bonding' of those atoms.  And this maybe is the cause of that exploding glass?  Just a thought.

In principle I absolutely agree that sudden changes in voltages, heat, pressure, whatever, seems to be the key to exposing this energy - whether we think of it as dark energy or aether energy or simply confirmation of classical concepts of energy.  The difference is that careful measurement actually exposes the fact that it exceeds classical expectations.  The results are not that easily resolved in terms of what is understood as the equivalence principle.  Classicists deny this and claim that all is measurement error - or poor observation.  But my own experience here is that it is the classicists themselves who are obliged to keep changing their goal post - because the evidence definitely speaks to a breach. 

And again.  I am blown away by the vast variety of shapes that you explore in your coils.  VERY artistic and very NICE.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #79 on: October 22, 2010, 07:05:42 AM »
@Rosemary

I did it again , to me sound is freq , like it could me light for someone else .

The way a learned it was trough music , and yes its a good thing our ears aren't that good .

Like the light spectrum is divided by colors (if like music 12) coming from its root color 1 , the music scale is the same divided in 12 notes coming from one root note. Actually the scale is divided in 8 notes 8 and 1 being the same but 12 half steps ...

The light spectrum is divided in 8 only


It's the system of life ,from seemingly random number/freq/vibration/sounds create melodies . And more important recognizable patterns out of nothing.
The beauty is that there is no way change it or modify the interpretation it just is .

Mark

How different would the world be if you could see infrared of ultraviolet ...
 

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #79 on: October 22, 2010, 07:05:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #80 on: October 22, 2010, 07:16:02 AM »
@Rosemary

I did it again , to me sound is freq , like it could me light for someone else .

The way a learned it was trough music , and yes its a good thing our ears aren't that good .

Like the light spectrum is divided by colors (if like music 12) coming from its root color 1 , the music scale is the same divided in 12 notes coming from one root note.


It's the system of life ,from seemingly random number/freq/vibration/sounds create melodies . And more important recognizable patterns out of nothing.

Mark

Hi Mark - nice to see we're on line at the same time.  Must be 'European' and must be your early morning.  I always get here at 'wake up' and then buzz out on the forum.

Yes.  I absolutely agree.  At a very profound level there's a geometry - a pattern - or a whole series of patterns that all speak way more eloquently than language or even mathematics.  And I think you're very in tune - as I've said.  It shows up in your extraordinary designs of your coils. 

Interestingly, Bell (mathematician) proved that if the 'structure' of everything was not symmetrical - then we would have absolute chaos everywhere.  Not those words - but that was his sense.  And I agree.  We all share this understanding on a very, very, very deep level.  I think even insects respond to it.  I ABSOLUTELY agree with you.  It's just that I personally think that this pattern is first presented to us in a magnetic field.  And again, as a purely subjective observation - I don't need to go much further than a binary system which is best evident in a magnetic field.  Somehow most of what I write is entirely incomprehensible.  And it's rather lonely - looking at this without being able to persuade others to share the view, so to speak.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Offline Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #81 on: October 22, 2010, 07:32:13 AM »
@Rosemary

We all share about the same views , but can't agree on the words . ;)

Of course its binary other wise it would not vibrate .

I go to bed really really late ...

Most of the arguing in the world is language based . ::)

Mark




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #81 on: October 22, 2010, 07:32:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #82 on: October 22, 2010, 07:47:19 AM »
@Rosemary

We all share about the same views , but can't agree on the words . ;)

Of course its binary other wise it would not vibrate .

I go to bed really really late ...

Most of the arguing in the world is language based . ::)

Mark

 ;D We're definitely on the same page here Mark - if not on the same time line.  LOL.  Just on a personal note - I often think that the kind of work you do is also a kind of vocation - like a mission.  I think what I'm trying to say is that you're somehow 'driven'.  Certainly that's what I see in your design reach.  It's extraordinary.  I'm rather expecting much more to follow.  Very intriguing.

But I think we're both drifting off topic.

Again - all the best. 
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #83 on: October 23, 2010, 10:08:56 PM »
Hi Paul, Hope you're still here.  I saw Art's comment regarding dark energy which may be the aether as proposed.  Here's my question.  Let's assume that there's a field of particles that belong to a permanent magnet - and that these particles literally form up in into those 'lines of force' that Faraday proposed.  In other words - the fields themselves belong to the structure of the magnet but they do not belong to the atoms in that structure. 

Leaving alone the actual arrangement of those proposed bipolar particles - which admittedly are only 'speculated' here - the question then is - why do we not see them?  And what I propose is this.  We depend on light to expose the existence of any particles.  Effectively light would need to bounce off a particle to determine it's existence at all.  If such a particle existed it would need to be too small and too fast for light to ever find it.  And in theory this particle has already been proposed - in a tachyon.  Therefore?  Surely?  Our 'field' may comprise tachyons that exceed light speed and therefore remain 'dark'.  Just possibly?

Anyway.  That's the question that I'm throwing out there.  I sort of get it that neither of you are actually that keen on getting into a discussion of fields.  It's a branch of theory that is very seldom referenced.  But my own take here is that its properties can be very readily deduced from even a superficial study of a magnetic field.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #83 on: October 23, 2010, 10:08:56 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #84 on: October 24, 2010, 05:57:12 AM »
Hi Paul, Hope you're still here.  I saw Art's comment regarding dark energy which may be the aether as proposed.  Here's my question.  Let's assume that there's a field of particles that belong to a permanent magnet - and that these particles literally form up in into those 'lines of force' that Faraday proposed.  In other words - the fields themselves belong to the structure of the magnet but they do not belong to the atoms in that structure. 

Leaving alone the actual arrangement of those proposed bipolar particles - which admittedly are only 'speculated' here - the question then is - why do we not see them?  And what I propose is this.  We depend on light to expose the existence of any particles.  Effectively light would need to bounce off a particle to determine it's existence at all.  If such a particle existed it would need to be too small and too fast for light to ever find it.  And in theory this particle has already been proposed - in a tachyon.  Therefore?  Surely?  Our 'field' may comprise tachyons that exceed light speed and therefore remain 'dark'.  Just possibly?

Anyway.  That's the question that I'm throwing out there.  I sort of get it that neither of you are actually that keen on getting into a discussion of fields.  It's a branch of theory that is very seldom referenced.  But my own take here is that its properties can be very readily deduced from even a superficial study of a magnetic field.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Let us put this into perspective. There exists a small particle/packet we call an electron which from the manner in which it be4haves leads us to believe it is particulate matter. However, this object is SO small it has never been seen, nor CAN it be examined with the instruments we have now. The electron microscope is the device we currently use to view extremely tiny particles, yet it's greatest resolution, which is unattainable is only one electron wide.

A photon is much larger in "size" than an electron.

When you examine particulate theory, much of the "hard data" we have is extrapolated, NONE is from first hand witness. This problem leaves the entire area rife with speculation. Much of what is put forth as fact, truthfully only qualifies as either assertion or hypothesis, as secondhand data is not really "hard evidence" by definition.

As for fields? Depends upon whom you ask. A relativist would equate them with a type of warped space/time. An Aetherist would equate them with flows of the basic aetheric particles. Personally, I couldn't care less which view a person holds, as they are logically the same thing, just some of the effects differ.

In this case, as a for instance, the former view has the substance making up what we call "space" bending, the other states space flows, but both refer to a substance which has characteristics combinative of both energy and matter.  It can "bend", or "move", develop "holes" or "bubbles". Characteristics of matter. Yet both are stated to be energy at the source from which particles are derived.

You then have the classic notion of the Aether, and it's new face lift of space-time. You can take a corvette, change the paint, dashboard, and some of the suspension, yet it is STILL a corvette, and in fact is still the same car.

You might say concerning these two views of thought that although neither side claims the other, close examination of the car shows the serial numbers match. :-)

In science, you can now call me a heretic of the first order, the type nobody is happy with.  ;D

Now, I am sorry I have not responded sooner, and have not posted. Life has dealt me somewhat of a punch to the solar plexus.

My strep infection in my foot..... is not strep. The initial diagnoses was wrong, and I was notified Friday it is in fact MRSA.

Yay!    :(

Paul Andrulis

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #85 on: October 24, 2010, 06:47:46 AM »
Paul.  That's a nasty number you've got.  I've just looked it up. You'll need some expert treatment there I think.

From one heretic to another - I'm not sure that describing the field as 'flowing' or 'bending' is really sufficient.  As I understand it - mainstream ALL consider that there's a 'carrier' particle for all the forces.  Something that interacts with the forces on a profound level - that then determines the particle's behaviour.  The forces themselves are in the field.  So.  The field 'force' has a sympathetic particle - such as the electron for electrical fields - and so on.  Then.  While the field itself is not explained - the behaviour on the particle is.  But the downside is that there are no gravitons found for gravity nor darkons for dark energy - and so on.  However, they have found the electron.  This is absolutely not speculated as they have also photographed it.  I've seen the photographs.  It looks something like this '*****'.  A discontinuous series of lights.  It's that 'discontinuous' nature that surprised the theorists - I think.  As this implies that it also decays and then restructures so to speak.  Not unlike a virtual particle - that can first come from particle interactions and then they disappear or  decay back into the void or the vacuum.  Who knows?

I think, by the way, that our string theorists propose that the vacuum of space comprises strings arranged in a kind of 'scaffolding' - but like our classicists, they also propose that this field is steady.  The only ones proposing that it's massively energetic are the aether theorists.  But as they variously describe the field being filled with virtual photons or even electrons - then they're imposing a field condition on particles that - in their essential nature - are not able to generate fields.  Electrons are negatively charged - and would not be able to amass in any kind of coherent structure.  And photons only irridate outwards in straight lines.  My own preference is close to Ed Leedskalnin's proposal which is that the 'carrier' particles are monopoles - except that, here too, monopoles would not be able to amass as a field.  But dipoles would.  Therefore do I think that the quintessential construct is a dipole - which would give it the precise properties of a standard permanent bar magnet - both individually and 'en masse'. 

My own proposal suggests that particles, such as the photon and the electron all have a moment where they 'decay' into the field.  That's when they're 're-energised' in a sort of way - and then they come back out of the field - decay - and so it goes.  Essentially the energy in the particle would be almost nothing.  The energy would be the result of the movement of the field that supports it.  And, therefore, in effect the actual energy that we see in the movement of particles - essentially relies on a continual interaction with the field that surrounds it and, in it's way, supports it.  That would certainly account for the 'discontinous' nature of the particle. 

But I do see a difference in the time line between manifest and hidden states of that particle.  Here's why.  If the field stays hidden as a result of it's velocity and mass - then, by contrast - what's visible is also the result of it's velocity and mass.  By this I mean that if small and fast and cold - is invisible - then big and slow and hot - is visible.  We CAN see the big and slow and hot - even if that big, slow, hot is still relatively too quick for our eyes.  It can, at least, be seen by photons.

By the way, I believe that the particulate nature of photons has also be proved.  I think it's to do with shining focused light beams on the blade of a rotor that is then able to turn that rotor.  But I'm open to correction here.  I just seem to recall reading an experiment related to this - some time back. 

You might think of taking copious quantities of vitamine C to supplement any medication.  It may help. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #85 on: October 24, 2010, 06:47:46 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #86 on: October 24, 2010, 10:27:56 AM »
Hello Loner,  I've just got back in and have also just seen your post.  It's likely this reply will reach you - your tomorrow.  In any event.

I have no quarrel with the term particle.  It's the part of the whole.  And essentially the smallest part that has - thus far been seen.  I saw your comments regarding a potential reconciliation of everything through standing waves.  Not sure how this is managed.  But quantum and classical physics requires both - and I see no essential difference.  Except obviously that the particle is never stationery unless it's held - suspended - in a bubble chamber or somesuch.  And when it's stationery it has no relevance to it's 'wave state' - or none that can be entirely determined.  Isn't that the basis of Heisenberg's imponderable?  In any event.  The fact is that the particle can be shown as as both but measured against different evident parameters. 

I depend on the wave manifestation to prove the interactive moment with the field.  It's the only way one can reach any kind of time constant.  But it'll take a while to explain.  I'll try it later on today and would love the opportunity.  So Art.  You guys must be patient.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #87 on: October 24, 2010, 12:32:54 PM »

Critical thinking is gone away from this thread initially dedicated to FE methodology and now turning in vague digressions, pompous blah blah blah and incantations for free energy.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.
 ;D


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #88 on: October 24, 2010, 02:12:57 PM »
Critical thinking is gone away from this thread initially dedicated to FE methodology and now turning in vague digressions, pompous blah blah blah and incantations for free energy.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.
 ;D

This is rich.  This from a man whose own critical faculties incline him to  use wild allegation as proof of fraudulent culpability.  Whose only contribution to critical thinking is a poor unsubstantiated essay related to some wild claim that our classicists base all theory on proven evidence.  LOL. 

I'm afraid exnihiloest that your own critical faculties are entirely tainted by your evident desire to believe that all OU claims are false.  You can uphold this opinion but only against the evidence.  But indeed, it's your right to do so.  It is, unhappily however, NOT proof of critical thinking.  Nor is it the topic of this thread.  It's only proof of YET more of your own unsubstantiated OPINION - and that seems to be the limit of your intellectual reach.  But more to the point.  There is not ONE CONTRIBUTOR to this thread - who has ARGUED FE or OU or any other term related to challenging thermodynamics.  Perhaps, before you give us your OPINIONS you could take the trouble to read the text.  It usually better qualifies those opinions which you share so gratuitously and which are so embarrassingly inappropriate.

I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread.  It's always your option.  And it will CERTAINLY continue to offend you.  But not because it's BLAH BLAH.  But because you, yourself, have entirely MISSED THE POINT.  LOL

Rosemary

I've just re-read this post and I realise now that I need to make it simpler for you so that you can understand it.  This thread was NEVER 'initially dedicated to FE methodology' as you put it.  What class idiocy did you use to assume this?  Actually, why am I even asking? 

Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #89 on: October 24, 2010, 04:30:00 PM »
...This from a man whose own critical faculties incline him to  use wild allegation as proof of fraudulent culpability...
...NOT...YET...ONE CONTRIBUTOR...ARGUED FE or OU...MISSED THE POINT...
...
I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread
...

Please avoid personnal attacks. My point was general and about what is said and not about people who said it. You should leave your ego at the door of the forum (as well as your capital letters) when you come here. If you really believe that your ad hominem attacks against skeptics will give credibility to your not proved claims of FE, you are wrong.

Visibly you make a personal matter and confuse methodology and opinion. Even if you think sincerely there is FE in your simple circuit, and I agree that you are probably sincere, from a scientific viewpoint the sincerity proves nothing at all.
Therefore to elaborate fuzzy theories about not proved facts and not confirmed observations is what I said: blah blah blah, the same as theorizing about angels to know if they are male or female without having seen one.

About the methodology - Note that I only affirm there is no OU in FE claims (like yours) until proof of the contrary, i.e OU is only a hypothetis not a fact, both options being not yet definitive. Consequently I'm waiting for further duplications, and trying myself, because skepticism implies also open mind. It is the second time you demand me for leaving a thread; an open mind prevents such an attitude, so if you have one, you should exert it. If you are afraid by free speech, you should stay on your own site with your only own version, and censoring objections from others. What fun it would be for you, Rosemary, to deal only with followers having your opinion. Delightful, isn't it?   ;)



 

OneLink