Mary stated, "There is nothing in any discipline I know about suggesting that either of those tasks are doable." Your argument was OK up to this point because you qualified it with "[that] I know about...". I have absolutely no problem with that statement.
Then your subjective bias came in and stated: "There is NO evidence anyone has EVER done or could do it." [I've capitalized your sloppy wording] You are way too sloppy/liberal with your wording, and no good scientist nor engineer makes a habit of using those kinds of statements. How the hell do you know everything that has been tried? Have you studied all of the claims out there regarding those kinds of devices? I bet you haven't even looked into 1/100 of them to any sufficient detail, and I mean visiting the person making the claims and not reading about someone else's experience with the claimant. That statement of yours is PURELY rooted in a BELIEF that science has discovered all the fundamental laws with nothing really new out there to discover! I hate to burst your bubble, but that is an indefensible position... Let me give you an education about the laws you so faithfully believe are inviolate and all-encompassing... The 'law' of Conservation of Energy (COE) REQUIRES that you can IDENTIFY and MEASURE all forms of energy in a system. That is a key ASSUMPTION of COE. Since you CANNOT prove that some additional form of energy doesn't exist, you CANNOT rule out the possibility that the law could APPEAR to be violated by an unidentified form of energy; science would then find a way to IDENTIFY and MEASURE the new form of energy, and the COE would seem to be back to its good ol inviolate status (yeah, right). This is not a personal opinion; it is a fundamental aspect of the COE. We now have strong, repeatable evidence of the existence of the zero point field. I have personally met with and discussed the matter with one of the mathematicians who has done much of the fundamental math in this area, and who came up with a derivation for f=ma (if you do not understand the significance of that statement, then this is going to be meaningless to you). He agreed that he has not yet (theoretically) found a way to convert zero-point energy to one of the common forms of energy known to modern science, but, HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS NOT FOUND ANYTHING IN THE MATH TO PROHIBIT SUCH A CONVERSION. Now, unlike your sloppy phrasing, that is the CAREFUL and PRECISE wording that one sees commonly from someone who is not in love with the theoretical side of science. I've been around scientists and engineers all of my post-graduate and professional career (30 yrs), and I have come to some conclusions about how carefully a person phrases their statements (especially when talking tech), and just how good a scientist or engineer they are. Bottom Line: You cannot rule out other forms of energy, and thus, APPARENT violations of the COE. Thus, you cannot use violations of COE to invalidate a device, a priori. You then state: "Free energy generation from magnetic motors is incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics." If you do not now understand why that statement of yours is WRONG, then I'm just wasting my time trying to raise your awareness... you can continue living in that box, or you can choose to step outside every now and then and commit heresy... nothing to be afraid of... it doesn't hurt... and you can always go back inside if it gets too scary. -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 4:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kullander Nov. 23 lecture slides (mostly in Swedish) On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > > Mary wrote: > > If I call you to come see I can fly and I sit there and flap my arms, and I do this or different people do this a hundred times, are you going to come the hundredth and first? The example isn't quite so silly as it seems if you remember the claims for transcendental meditation and flight. > > Mary, this is such a pathetic analogy as to be laughable in your arm-flapping example youre dealing with macroscopic elements and classical physics. It is just laughable to compare that with what could be happening in cold fusion, or magnet motors or water as a fuel, where, certainly in the CF case we are likely dealing with quantum mechanical interactions, and this could also be involved in the latter cases. I disagree. Let's leave cold fusion out. As far as running a car on water and making a magnet-based device which yields "free energy", those do not deal with any known interactions, quantum mechanical or otherwise. They are pure fantasy or fraud. There is nothing in any discipline I know about suggesting that either of those tasks are doable. There is no evidence anyone has ever done or could do it. There is no reason whatever to believe it any more than that I could have discovered how to fly by flapping my arms. Free energy generation from magnetic motors is incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics. Could there ever be a compelling reason to consider those two claims? Sure. But it would have to be extraordinarily clear and compelling. What we know about nature and how things work make both claims exceedingly unlikely. And it doesn't help that most are made by known scammers, conmen, and convicted criminals.
