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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

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 Posts: 521725
  • *Total Topics: 15548
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics  (Read 44380 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #90 on: October 24, 2010, 04:54:36 PM »
If you want to avoid personal attacks then you should try and make your observations less personal.  I take it very personally when people accuse me of fraud.  I also take extreme exception to claims that FE is being discussed when it is absolutely NOT the subject under discussion.  And to then pass an opinion on that discussion is entirely void of sense if it also bears no relation to the subject under discussion - which is the case here.

Your point - as you put it - was actually NEVER made.  All you did was make a generic dismissal of  our dialogue which you described so eloquently in the use of the words BLAH BLAH.  I have a four year old granddaughter who's got a better vocabulary.  Your assumption was that we were talking FE or OU.  THAT was an assuption.  In fact the subject is and was entirely irrelevant to this discussion. 

I suffer from many things exnihiloest but 'too much ego' as you put it,  is certainly not one of them.  Else I would certainly NOT persist in posting on any forum at all.  And when my attacks become ad hominem - as you put it - then you are really well justified in your comments.  My attack in this instance is against the substance of your posts.  And I have absolutely NEVER claimed FE - anywhere - EVER.

We have detailed our experimental evidence in two papers both of which are widely referenced.  The last paper has the experimental evidence of COP>7 and it's unarguable.  But I grant you that the text of the paper would be as obscure to you as the theme of this thread.  You would not be able to understand it if it was translated into words of one syllable.  But.  My thesis - as it relates to that paper is NOT the subject under discussion.  And again.  You would not be able to realise this without first reading the context in this thread and then, which is probably more demanding, understand what's written here.  And that's not because any of us are inarticulate.  And frankly Exnihiloest - there is absolutely no gratification in dealing with 'like minds'.  Else there would be no discussion.  But I do, indeed, prefer thinking about a subject then passing an opinion on it.  That's your particular brand of genius.

I have also not presumed to DEMAND you stay away.  I simply strongly recommend it.  When and if I demand it then please point me to that post.  I'll gladly edit it out.

Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #90 on: October 24, 2010, 04:54:36 PM »

Offline spinn_MP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #91 on: October 24, 2010, 09:21:30 PM »
Mary, you're still kicking around??

Uauu...?



Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #92 on: October 24, 2010, 09:47:30 PM »
Mary, you're still kicking around??

Uauu...?

Spinn?  Is that really a question?  I think I'll pass.

R

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #92 on: October 24, 2010, 09:47:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #93 on: October 25, 2010, 06:16:43 AM »
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

Critical thinking IS the methodology of this thread dedicated to the topics of "free energy", "critical thinking", and "skeptics".....

Using critical thought, I deduce you have made many assertions.

1. critical thinking is "gone away" from this thread
2. this thread is somehow "dedicated" to FE methodology
3. the thread is turning into "vague digressions"
4. as well as "pompous blah blah"
5. as well as "incantations for free energy"
6. you have some sort of bullshmeter
7. it is malfunctioning in some manner

1.

First of all, critical thinking has neither "left", "ceased", nor "departed" in any appreciable manner. I myself do not agree with many oof the concepts proposed, yet it is a complete untruth to state critical thinking was not employed or demonstrated by the various posters. Your statement is based upon emotion and personal opinion, not science nor scientific methodology.

2.

I started this thread, and nowhere did I "dedicate" this thread as you have asserted to "FE Methodology". Blatantly a falsified statement.

3.

As for the entire thread turning into indefinite, indistinct, or "not clear" deviations (vague digressions)....  Some of the ideas are not definitively established, confirmed, or "known"... But that is the nature of working with concepts which can not be proven by firsthand witness, and I apologize for the introduction of QM into the mix, as well as relativity due to their vague nature..

Yet I think critical thinking can still apply even to those aforementioned unpopular and often unfalsifiable topics.

4.

I offer several online dictionaries and thesaurus to help your inability to express yourself due to this self admitted personal problem. Ego can be overcome, and such is necessary to critical logical thought. However, I must point out your post has been the only recent one demonstrating such, so I think your estimation of it applying to the "entire thread" is an unreasonable conclusion..

5.

As to "incantations to free energy"......? I remember quite little about any free energy posts, except where I asked Mary for more info, or a few brief mentions. Now exactly what an "incantation to free energy" is, is any-ones guess. Incantations are religious chants used to conjure in magic. I have heard no one anywhere chanting to make something appear, either in this thread or in science, except maybe Heisenberg.. This is not a place for discussion of scientology, or other "science" based religions.  If you are looking for incantations I suggest you look elsewhere. say a google or yahoo search.

6.

You make it unclear what this bullshmeter of yours is. I suspect this is a personal problem which you need to address. Otherwise I would have to state it unbased and biased sarcasm, which is the refuge of a weak mind incapable of a particular logical argument. Therefore, both an illogical and unfalsifiable empty assertion for the obvious purpose of enjoining the readers negative emotions.

This concept deserves further examination in concept though. You make two assertions in one.
A. a supposed BS meter exists, and
B. you have one.

Noting that the mere existence of such a things "mere existence" is more than in doubt: Do you claim to be the inventor? How was such a device built? How do you measure it's accuracy? How was it calibrated? By what measure does it work?

I state this as conjecture, but I suspect it is, just as you implied, a malfunctioning internal device.

7.

Advice for a personal problem:

Remove it, or get it fixed. I suspect it may have been malfunctioning to some degree, as is usually true with any device, for possibly a very long time before it "broke". Some devices come from the factory flawed, a simple fact of life I am afraid.

-------------------

Now that you have gotten this load off of your chest and all have had time to logically examine your concepts, please remember the purpose of the thread. Critical Logical Thought.

If you make an assumption, please be clear in your stating in some manner. Also, make sure it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you must make an assertion, give the base logic by which it may be logically examined, as otherwise needless misunderstandings may result.

Valid topics for this thread:

Free energy concepts examined with critical thought

Critical thinking, examples of its use, or demonstrative usage thereof

True skepticism and the demonstrable difference from most self proclaimed "scientific skeptics" and equally towards self proclaimed "believers".

Therefore, most anything anyone here would be interested in is truly fair game, AS LONG as critical thought is the basis for both conceptual explanation and concurrent examination.

Such things as insults, sarcasm, vague inuendo, and rhetoric, combined with inferred reference demonstrates (equates or =) ZERO critical thought, and is therefore not a suitable subject for discussion.

Paul Andrulis
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 06:39:18 AM by pauldude000 »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #94 on: October 25, 2010, 06:54:55 AM »
Critical thinking IS the methodology of this thread dedicated to the topics of "free energy", "critical thinking", and "skeptics".....

Using critical thought, I deduce you have made many assertions.

1. critical thinking is "gone away" from this thread
2. this thread is somehow "dedicated" to FE methodology
3. the thread is turning into "vague digressions"
4. as well as "pompous blah blah"
5. as well as "incantations for free energy"
6. you have some sort of bullshmeter
7. it is malfunctioning in some manner

1.

First of all, critical thinking has neither "left", "ceased", nor "departed" in any appreciable manner. I myself do not agree with many oof the concepts proposed, yet it is a complete untruth to state critical thinking was not employed or demonstrated by the various posters. Your statement is based upon emotion and personal opinion, not science nor scientific methodology.

2.

I started this thread, and nowhere did I "dedicate" this thread as you have asserted to "FE Methodology". Blatantly a falsified statement.

3.

As for the entire thread turning into indefinite, indistinct, or "not clear" deviations (vague digressions)....  Some of the ideas are not definitively established, confirmed, or "known"... But that is the nature of working with concepts which can not be proven by firsthand witness, and I apologize for the introduction of QM into the mix, as well as relativity due to their vague nature..

Yet I think critical thinking can still apply even to those aforementioned unpopular and often unfalsifiable topics.

4.

I offer several online dictionaries and thesaurus to help your inability to express yourself due to this self admitted personal problem. Ego can be overcome, and such is necessary to critical logical thought. However, I must point out your post has been the only recent one demonstrating such, so I think your estimation of it applying to the "entire thread" is an unreasonable conclusion..

5.

As to "incantations to free energy"......? I remember quite little about any free energy posts, except where I asked Mary for more info, or a few brief mentions. Now exactly what an "incantation to free energy" is, is any-ones guess. Incantations are religious chants used to conjure in magic. I have heard no one anywhere chanting to make something appear, either in this thread or in science, except maybe Heisenberg.. This is not a place for discussion of scientology, or other "science" based religions.  If you are looking for incantations I suggest you look elsewhere. say a google or yahoo search.

6.

You make it unclear what this bullshmeter of yours is. I suspect this is a personal problem which you need to address. Otherwise I would have to state it unbased and biased sarcasm, which is the refuge of a weak mind incapable of a particular logical argument. Therefore, both an illogical and unfalsifiable empty assertion for the obvious purpose of enjoining the readers negative emotions.

This concept deserves further examination in concept though. You make two assertions in one.
A. a supposed BS meter exists, and
B. you have one.

Noting that the mere existence of such a things "mere existence" is more than in doubt: Do you claim to be the inventor? How was such a device built? How do you measure it's accuracy? How was it calibrated? By what measure does it work?

I state this as conjecture, but I suspect it is, just as you implied, a malfunctioning internal device.

7.

Advice for a personal problem:

Remove it, or get it fixed. I suspect it may have been malfunctioning to some degree, as is usually true with any device, for possibly a very long time before it "broke". Some devices come from the factory flawed, a simple fact of life I am afraid.

-------------------

Now that you have gotten this load off of your chest and all have had time to logically examine your concepts, please remember the purpose of the thread. Critical Logical Thought.

If you make an assumption, please be clear in your stating in some manner. Also, make sure it is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you must make an assertion, give the base logic by which it may be logically examined, as otherwise needless misunderstandings may result.

Valid topics for this thread:

Free energy concepts examined with critical thought

Critical thinking, examples of its use, or demonstrative usage thereof

True skepticism and the demonstrable difference from most self proclaimed "scientific skeptics" and equally towards self proclaimed "believers".

Therefore, most anything anyone here would be interested in is truly fair game, AS LONG as critical thought is the basis for both conceptual explanation and concurrent examination.

Such things as insults, sarcasm, vague inuendo, and rhetoric, combined with inferred reference demonstrates (equates or =) ZERO critical thought, and is therefore not a suitable subject for discussion.

Paul Andrulis
;D As ever Paul.  Very well said. Definitely deserves repetition in a copied post.  LOL

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #94 on: October 25, 2010, 06:54:55 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #95 on: October 25, 2010, 08:23:11 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

Rosemary, I am not critical of either your or Mark's insightful concepts. The dipole concept I often drift back to on many logical inquiries. Since you propose this as a question, I shall answer in two specific manners to suit the purpose of this thread. 1. Critical thought examining the evidential basis for various viewpoints, and 2. Critical thought applied speculatively.

1. Since all evidence outside the existence of many fields (we see demonstrable affects which tells us something is happening) or particles proving the various specifics behind such fields or particles are only secondarily inferred, and not considerable as truly evidentially demonstrable, merely evidentially hypothesized, we can truthfully state nothing as absolute, definitive, or "true".

Any statement made by any persona (including myself) concerning these two subjects is to a large degree unfalsifiable by very nature of the evidence measurable or quantifiable by any scientific means. Application of critical though yields that all concepts concerning such are largely speculation, and therefore the entire field is still largely hypothetical in nature.

If such is true, then my concepts take no precedence in my own mind over any others, unless observable evidence demonstrates one concept more accurately then the other.

2. Speculatively speaking, I truly have not yet heard even one hypothesis that truly ounds like a logical "bulsleye", so to speak.... INCLUDING my own. If this were the game of darts, I would say many are hitting the board, as this or that aspect adds qualification of any particular theory, nut none has any particularly high score. Some though have particularly low score, like many of Heisenburg's notions. They explain away (logical diversion) instead of quantify.

I have seen some awesome proposed mathematical and/or logical explanations, yet when examined closely, one datum might qualify the concept, and the next datum deny it.

Accepting the fact that we lack critical data necessary for en exact statement of qualification, we must also then logically assume our concepts as at BEST a working hypothesis.

Neither the particle Aether, or the "as definitively described" (not "as claimed") fluid space/time models are backed up by all data...... That is why I state, in essence, "take your pick".

The hypothetical model I build in my minds eye, is one of a literal "sea" of energy occupying all of space, from which "matter" itself, and all known forms of "energy" both emerge and return to after a given amount of entropy has occurred. I perceive a universe where the concept of "matter" is somewhat of a misnomer, as I perceive what we designate "matter" as being confined discreet packets of energy. Loner stated a "standing wave"... I guess suitable for conceptual understanding though something doesn't seem quite right. My perception is of moving flowing energy fields, whose angles/vectors of flow combined with quantity/specific frequency determine the various observable field effects. It is constantly both creating and absorbing matter.

Consider a bathtub full of water in which a little quantity of dye is added, also in which you swirl your hand through the water. You then observe static areas, areas of definite rhythm (oscillation), areas of complex motional interaction (swirls, eddies, etc.), and areas of constant flow (linear). All these effects are visible from just ONE substance, with but a simple action applied.

If NO dye is added, you see but the obvious surface effects or strong effects. You could logically state that these are the ONLY evidential effects. In this scenario, the dye provides the ability to observe and quantify that which is hidden from observation. 

The "dye" in science is the ability to measure. Yet our measuring instruments for the extremely small have resolutions that are relatively large, or in certain cases even dubious. I cannot remember who it was, but one scientists working with a particle accelerator gave essentially this description "It is similar to dropping a watch from the top of the empire building, then guessing at what function the pieces you find at the bottom performed." Concerning our best microscope, how many electrons must be reflected before a picture can even be displayed? (IE what is the resolution)

Yet we speak with confident certainty of sizes we cannot measure, of conceptual objects far too small for even our artificial senses let alone our gross senses to even detect with absolute certainty. We, as a being, tend to speak confidently out of arrogance and not definitive knowledge or QUALIFIABLE proof. Let alone FALSIFIABLE proof when considering the micro or the macro scales of reference.

Understand that until evidence to the contrary is provided or discovered, I consider our viewpoint qualifiably equal and therefore equal in possibility or probability.

Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #96 on: October 26, 2010, 01:49:52 AM »
TING......Ting....ting...ting..ting.ting.............. dead silence

The sound of a pin dropping.

Paul Andrulis

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #96 on: October 26, 2010, 01:49:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #97 on: October 26, 2010, 02:10:44 AM »
TING......Ting....ting...ting..ting.ting.............. dead silence

The sound of a pin dropping.

Paul Andrulis

Someone will be back...they won't leave you on needles and pins.

 ;)
J.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #98 on: October 26, 2010, 06:39:36 AM »
 ;D great posts guys.  Something to get the teeth into - so to speak.  I've got a lot to do this morning.  Hopefully I'll get time to read these in depth - later this afternoon. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #98 on: October 26, 2010, 06:39:36 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #99 on: October 26, 2010, 09:01:46 AM »
If you want to avoid personal attacks then you should try and make your observations less personal.
...

What was "personal" in what I said:
"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."?
Nothing!

But you replied:
"I'm afraid exnihiloest that your own critical faculties are entirely tainted by your evident desire to believe..."
I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread..."

Personal attacks and psychological digressions are only from you, Rosemary Ainslie.
Rosemary Ainslie, please stop flooding posts for threads domination and stop insulting who are skeptical about your not proved claims.

Your attitude is unworthy and dishonest.


Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #100 on: October 26, 2010, 09:08:25 AM »
What was "personal" in what I said:
"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."?
Nothing!

But you replied:
"I'm afraid exnihiloest that your own critical faculties are entirely tainted by your evident desire to believe..."
I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread..."

Personal attacks and psychological digressions are only from you, Rosemary Ainslie.
Rosemary Ainslie, please stop flooding posts for threads domination and stop insulting who are skeptical about your not proved claims.

Your attitude is unworthy and dishonest.
what? no response from you to pauldude000's reply to your post ???  you're a cherrypicker who stands upon one theory to discredit another... and you talk about other people's attitudes. ::)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #100 on: October 26, 2010, 09:08:25 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #101 on: October 26, 2010, 10:15:52 PM »
Paul, very nice...

The "Sea" of energy, as you described it, pretty much exactly coincides with how I look at that situation.  (Difficult to explain, isn't it.)  I noticed you used my "Standing Wave" as an example that doesn't seem quite right, and I Agree, 100%.

============

If such a concept were true, I can easily understand the reasoning for suppression.  Following any of this to real-world applications offers the possibility for mistakes (or intentional misuse?) that could be quite dangerous, beyond little things like nukes.  Would forming a small "Singularity" cause much damage?  I have thought this through for too long, and am obviously biased, so a little input would be greatly appreciated.  Especially some "Critical" input, just to ease my mind...

Thanks

Art

I am a critic and a skeptic of the worst kind concerning my own theories and hypothesis, holding myself to logical standards I cannot even hope to achieve. Yet, bias always tries to work it's way in. The more one invests time and effort logically pondering, the more vested they tend to become, cherishing this idea or that concept. All are guilty to some degree.

Many aspects of reality qualify the concept, very true.

However, the "surface skin effect" is where everything seems to break down, and the same problem plagues many of the various theories out there, including aether and relativistic space/time. The illogical concept of wave effects or warpage upon the SURFACE of a medium. These logical concrete effects which require a liquids property of the "skin effect", when all said concepts we reference are immersed, or completely enveloped within the medium in all 360 degrees. There is no logical "surface", excepting the possible boundary of logical displacement..

There is no ease for your troubled mind I am afraid. I have gotten night sweats and many sleepless nights from some of the implied and probable possibilities. From the "sea" base energy concept, many things otherwise impossible become not only possible but probable. Through such a concept all manifestations and fields become logically linked together, and therefore manipulable by secondary influence.

A wormhole, or "small singularity" as you put it, is only the tip of that nasty iceberg so to speak. In ways, I truly hope I am wrong concerning the conception, and that much time has been wasted building an elaborate logical abstract fairytale.

One thing I abjectly cannot trust is human nature, as concrete data provided throughout history demonstrates the logical conclusion of the matter.

Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #102 on: October 26, 2010, 11:05:56 PM »
Just a quick "thought to make you go hmmmm..."

As soon as humanity self-adopted the term towards themselves of  "homo sapiens sapiens", they in fact became...

homo arrogantia arrogantia

Edit ADDED:

Or more precisely:

Homo debilitatus arrogantia

Paul Andrulis

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #103 on: October 26, 2010, 11:56:39 PM »
@Loner

Something I forgot to add into my previous reply. A qualification with inherent far reaching implications. A logical chain.

A gravitic field interacts with a photon. From this it can directly be deduced that gravity interacts with electromagnetism. Therefore a magnetic field is affected by gravity. No interaction is strictly "one way" (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).

You can take it from there, and probably had already made the logical connection yourself.

Paul Andrulis

Offline exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #104 on: October 27, 2010, 02:15:03 PM »

Science knows how to convince skeptics.
If you don't, your OU claims are delusions, change occupation.


 

OneLink