I'd appreciated it if you'd ixnay the orgoneway references when my children are present. Thank you very much.
Apparently you guys are ignoring my factual references to Einstien and Maxwell, with attempts at humor and inane comments. Nothing new under the sun.
I'm not attempting to be rude, or engage in a fight of some sort, just be aware that your contributions to this thread, following my factual comments.... have been noted. 🙂
Ignorance, we can find anywhere. It is intelligence and reasonable logical thought, with open minded non-emotionally based positions and origins of direction attached to that -- these things are rare.
Let me put it this way. It is likely possible, to count on the fingers of one hand, places and times in History, where the discoveries in science, or science itself, were not culled and/or damaged, or altered - to be a slave of politics and power.
I'm not attempting to be rude, or engage in a fight of some sort, just be aware that your contributions to this thread, following my factual comments.... have been noted. 🙂
Ignorance, we can find anywhere. It is intelligence and reasonable logical thought, with open minded non-emotionally based positions and origins of direction attached to that -- these things are rare.
Let me put it this way. It is likely possible, to count on the fingers of one hand, places and times in History, where the discoveries in science, or science itself, were not culled and/or damaged, or altered - to be a slave of politics and power.
I studied free energy in chemistry.
Gibbs free energy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Thermodynamic potentials
Internal energy U(S,V)
Helmholtz free energy A(T,V) = U − TS
Enthalpy H(S,P) = U + PV
Gibbs free energy G(T,P) = U + PV − TS
edit
In thermodynamics, the Gibbs free energy is a thermodynamic potential which measures the "useful" work obtainable from an isothermal, isobaric thermodynamic system. When a system evolves from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy ΔG equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, less the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[1] The Gibbs free energy was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematical physicist Willard Gibbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
-----------------------------------
Main discoveries of Sadi Carnot that led to the foundation of thermodynamics :
* Carnot Cycle
* Carnot Engine
* Carnot's Principle
* Carnot's theorem
*
Carnot Cycle
The Carnot cycle is the most efficient cycle possible. It consists of four basic reversible processes meaning that the cycle as a whole is also reversible. The four reversible processes are:
1. Adiabatic compression from T2 to T1.
2. Isothermal expansion (by placing the system in contact with a heat reservoir with temperature T1).
3. Adiabatic expansion to T2 < T1.
4. Isothermal compression (by placing the system in contact with a heat reservoir with temperature T2).
Cycle Carnot
Back to top
*
Carnot Engine
Engine using a Carnot cycle of operations. This type of engine can serve as the model for a thermic or refrigerator engine. An "animation" facilitates a better understanding of the cycle :
Machine Sadi Carnot
1. Air at temperature T1 is held in a cyclinder, closed by an insulated piston (starting position: cd). A hot source A, with temperature T1, and a cold source B, with temperature T2, constitute infinite reservoirs of heat.
2. The cylinder is put in contact with A: the heat passes from the source to the air, that relaxes freely and pushes the piston to the position ef.
3. The cylinder is isolated from all source of heat. During its adiabatic expansion, the air pushes the piston until gh: its temperature falls to T2.
4. The cylinder, with temperature T2 then, is put in contact with the heat source B, with identical temperature. A "theoretical" experimenter pushes the piston downwards: this isothermal compression brings it to position cd. Heat passes from the air to the source B.
5. The cylinder is isolated from the outside again. The "theoretical" experimenter continues to push the piston until it reaches position ik, in such a way that the air temperature reaches T1.
6. The cylinder is put in contact with A, which delivers heat to the air: it expands until the piston comes back to its initial position cd.
Back to top
*
Carnot's Principle
An irreversible heat engine operating between two heat reservoirs at constant temperatures cannot have an efficiency greater than that of a reversible heat engine operating between the same two temperatures.
Another form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Carnot's Principle is that : It is not possible to make a heat engine whose only effect is to absorb heat from a high-temperature region and turn all that heat into work. That is, it is not possible to design a heat engine that does not exhaust heat to the environment. Or, it is not possible to design a heat engine that has an efficiency of 1.00 or 100%.
Back to top
*
Carnot's Theorem
During one part of the cycle performed in an engine, some heat is absorbed from a hot reservoir. During another part, a smaller amount of heat is rejected to a cooler reservoir. The engine is therefore said to operate between these two reservoirs. It is a fact of experience that some heat is always rejected to the cooler reservoir. Because of this, the efficiency of an actual engine is never 100%. The first cycle we will look at is the Carnot cycle.The processes that make up this cycle are either isothermal or adiabatic.
For an ideal gas Carnot cycle, the four steps are shown below:
1. Isothermal expansion from Va,Pa to Vb,Pb at Thot absorbing heat Qh.
2. Reversible adiabatic expansion from Vb,Pb to Vc,Pc as the temperature falls from Thot to Tcold.
3. Isothermal contraction from Vc,Pc to Vd, Pd at Tcold exhausting heat Qc.
4. Reversible adiabatic contraction from Vd,Pd to Va,Pa as the temperature rises from Tcold to Thot.
The system has returned to its initial state and an amount of work, W, has been done to the system. By the conservation of energy,
W=Qh-QcEquation (1).
The PV diagram for this cycle is shown in Figure (1) below.
Carnot cycle
The thermal efficiency, n, of a cycle operating as a heat engine is defined as
n=(W/Qh)Equation (2).
The absolute value sign was used to eliminate any confusion about which way the heat is flowing and whether Q is positive or negative. We can use conservation of energy in the form of Equation (1) to find the efficiency of the cycle in terms of the Qc and Qh.
1-(Qc/Qh)Equation (3).
Equations (2) and (3) apply to any cycle. The Carnot cycle is useful in studying real engines and refrigerators largely because one can derive the efficiency of the ideal gas Carnot cycle in terms of the temperatures of the heat reservoirs.
(Source: Chad J. Wieseler, 1997)
Back to top
Copyright � 1998-2000 Fondation Carnot. All rights reserved.
Revised: January 17, 2000.
http://www.carnot.org/ENGLISH/carnot cycle.htm
-----------------------------
The closest thing you can get to a Carnot cycle type heat engine in real life and in practice are steam engines, steam turbines, gasoline engines and diesel engines.
Gibbs free energy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Thermodynamic potentials
Internal energy U(S,V)
Helmholtz free energy A(T,V) = U − TS
Enthalpy H(S,P) = U + PV
Gibbs free energy G(T,P) = U + PV − TS
edit
In thermodynamics, the Gibbs free energy is a thermodynamic potential which measures the "useful" work obtainable from an isothermal, isobaric thermodynamic system. When a system evolves from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy ΔG equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, less the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[1] The Gibbs free energy was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematical physicist Willard Gibbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
-----------------------------------
Main discoveries of Sadi Carnot that led to the foundation of thermodynamics :
* Carnot Cycle
* Carnot Engine
* Carnot's Principle
* Carnot's theorem
*
Carnot Cycle
The Carnot cycle is the most efficient cycle possible. It consists of four basic reversible processes meaning that the cycle as a whole is also reversible. The four reversible processes are:
1. Adiabatic compression from T2 to T1.
2. Isothermal expansion (by placing the system in contact with a heat reservoir with temperature T1).
3. Adiabatic expansion to T2 < T1.
4. Isothermal compression (by placing the system in contact with a heat reservoir with temperature T2).
Cycle Carnot
Back to top
*
Carnot Engine
Engine using a Carnot cycle of operations. This type of engine can serve as the model for a thermic or refrigerator engine. An "animation" facilitates a better understanding of the cycle :
Machine Sadi Carnot
1. Air at temperature T1 is held in a cyclinder, closed by an insulated piston (starting position: cd). A hot source A, with temperature T1, and a cold source B, with temperature T2, constitute infinite reservoirs of heat.
2. The cylinder is put in contact with A: the heat passes from the source to the air, that relaxes freely and pushes the piston to the position ef.
3. The cylinder is isolated from all source of heat. During its adiabatic expansion, the air pushes the piston until gh: its temperature falls to T2.
4. The cylinder, with temperature T2 then, is put in contact with the heat source B, with identical temperature. A "theoretical" experimenter pushes the piston downwards: this isothermal compression brings it to position cd. Heat passes from the air to the source B.
5. The cylinder is isolated from the outside again. The "theoretical" experimenter continues to push the piston until it reaches position ik, in such a way that the air temperature reaches T1.
6. The cylinder is put in contact with A, which delivers heat to the air: it expands until the piston comes back to its initial position cd.
Back to top
*
Carnot's Principle
An irreversible heat engine operating between two heat reservoirs at constant temperatures cannot have an efficiency greater than that of a reversible heat engine operating between the same two temperatures.
Another form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics or Carnot's Principle is that : It is not possible to make a heat engine whose only effect is to absorb heat from a high-temperature region and turn all that heat into work. That is, it is not possible to design a heat engine that does not exhaust heat to the environment. Or, it is not possible to design a heat engine that has an efficiency of 1.00 or 100%.
Back to top
*
Carnot's Theorem
During one part of the cycle performed in an engine, some heat is absorbed from a hot reservoir. During another part, a smaller amount of heat is rejected to a cooler reservoir. The engine is therefore said to operate between these two reservoirs. It is a fact of experience that some heat is always rejected to the cooler reservoir. Because of this, the efficiency of an actual engine is never 100%. The first cycle we will look at is the Carnot cycle.The processes that make up this cycle are either isothermal or adiabatic.
For an ideal gas Carnot cycle, the four steps are shown below:
1. Isothermal expansion from Va,Pa to Vb,Pb at Thot absorbing heat Qh.
2. Reversible adiabatic expansion from Vb,Pb to Vc,Pc as the temperature falls from Thot to Tcold.
3. Isothermal contraction from Vc,Pc to Vd, Pd at Tcold exhausting heat Qc.
4. Reversible adiabatic contraction from Vd,Pd to Va,Pa as the temperature rises from Tcold to Thot.
The system has returned to its initial state and an amount of work, W, has been done to the system. By the conservation of energy,
W=Qh-QcEquation (1).
The PV diagram for this cycle is shown in Figure (1) below.
Carnot cycle
The thermal efficiency, n, of a cycle operating as a heat engine is defined as
n=(W/Qh)Equation (2).
The absolute value sign was used to eliminate any confusion about which way the heat is flowing and whether Q is positive or negative. We can use conservation of energy in the form of Equation (1) to find the efficiency of the cycle in terms of the Qc and Qh.
1-(Qc/Qh)Equation (3).
Equations (2) and (3) apply to any cycle. The Carnot cycle is useful in studying real engines and refrigerators largely because one can derive the efficiency of the ideal gas Carnot cycle in terms of the temperatures of the heat reservoirs.
(Source: Chad J. Wieseler, 1997)
Back to top
Copyright � 1998-2000 Fondation Carnot. All rights reserved.
Revised: January 17, 2000.
http://www.carnot.org/ENGLISH/carnot cycle.htm
-----------------------------
The closest thing you can get to a Carnot cycle type heat engine in real life and in practice are steam engines, steam turbines, gasoline engines and diesel engines.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
"Although it looks like a yo-yo, this portable generator from Potenco has been selected as the power source for the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, and all you have to do is pull its cord for one minute and it'll crank out the electricity for a few hours.
Its creator, Colin Bulthaup, has been recognized by MIT Technology Review Magazine, calling him one of the top innovators under the age of 35. Bulthaup says this device can be used to power all kinds of small electronics, and says it delivers five times more power per pull than conventional hand-cranked generators that tire you out before you got enough electricity out of them.
We'll believe it when we see it. At this point it just looks like a 3D rendering, but it's a cool-looking form factor, and if the OLPC organization chose this unit to power all those low-cost laptops that might just change the world, that adds some street cred, too. One to watch."
http://www.potenco.com/index.html
You free-energy folks amaze me. Clearly you have studied the writings produced by the "inventors" to the point where you can spout the same sort of meaningless gibberish they use. If you put 1/2 as much energy into studying REAL science like thermodynamics you would understand why all the perpetual motion/free energy machines are complete and utter nonsense.
I can't believe anyone would be so gullible to think that "secret" equations by Heaviside or anyone else (the illuminati?) legitimately sell for $5k. I also can't believe anyone would be so foolish as to pay money to the free energy/perpetual motion machine inventors, but apparently there are enough of you guys out there to fertilize the field with enough cash that a new crop of charlatans can always be counted on to grow and soak it up.
Not one of these devices has ever been proven to work, ever.
I_F
I can't believe anyone would be so gullible to think that "secret" equations by Heaviside or anyone else (the illuminati?) legitimately sell for $5k. I also can't believe anyone would be so foolish as to pay money to the free energy/perpetual motion machine inventors, but apparently there are enough of you guys out there to fertilize the field with enough cash that a new crop of charlatans can always be counted on to grow and soak it up.
Not one of these devices has ever been proven to work, ever.
I_F
KBK said:
Please excuse my ignorant, closed minded, emotional position on this subject.🙄
While this topic sparks interesting discussion, it will NOT get you any closer to "free energy" than before it was started.
If you do yourself a google search on the subject; you will find countless posts on countless forums of the same type of pointless discussion. They are mostly filled with people who's ability to piece together pseudoscience in and almost digestible way; out weights their basic common sense.
This will be my last "inane" comment here, as to let the TRUE pioneers of our future continue their ever so valiant quest of the "truth".
Keep chasin' that rainbow my brothas'.
Amen.
If we could just find a way to harvest the energy that the free-energy people keep expending only to increase the entropy of the universe, without doing any useful work, we'd be half way to free energy!
I_F
I_F
I_Forgot said:
Most folks would do well to remember that the earth's garvitational field is a polarized gradient. With a twist. One visit to the equator, with a bowl with a hole in the middle and a bottle of water, is enough to know that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
huh? The book I speak of, is nothing more than Maxwell's original treatsie on Electromagnetics. Not the Heaviside sourced garbage of current electromagnetic models.
I'd be interested in finding the 'pulled' work that constitutes 30 years of work by one man, the same man who wrote the theory of special and general realtivity.
How can that, as two points of fact, be crazy?
Scientists can, and sometimes do posess a thing which is to their detriment. And it can be called 'pathological disbelief'. Stick in the mud ground pounders. Materialists of the worst order. A cabal of the most insane kind.
Engineers and book readers, not scientists, as many of them mis-label themselves as being. Their own psychotic religion. The altar of science. Doing everything they can to forget the common existence of 10,000 years of steamrolling change that was the foundation of their scientific 'revolution'. Forgetting that the steamroller of change, stops for no one. And that most emphatically includes them.
Darwin, BTW, was merely the guy who was heard at a point where the ideas were accepted, and won the moment of fame. And a interestingly large part of what he proposed has been found to be wrong. Such is life. Change is the norm.
I_Forgot said:
Dude. You have NOT been reading this thread well enough. It's right there - Orgone energy. How could you have missed that? 😉
Oh, yeah. Thanks to Bluebeard for the Big Dog thing. Amazing. Put fur on it and you'd swear it's alive. Very strange. Watching that video I felt a little like the Indains seeing the Iron Horse for the first time. "It must be alive!" They way it recovers from a kick in the side - wow!
KBK said:
KBK, you're letting your game slip! 🙂
That old saw about water going down the pughole in different directions depending on which hemisphere you're in has been disproven so many times. In my touring days, I even tested it myself and found it faulty.
Well, if a pughole is a toilet, I'll agree. The water in my bathtub and sink however, tends strongly to go clockwise.
I thought about this a while .
If you look at the drain hole ( in the Northern hemisphere) , the bottom part ( closer to the equator ) is moving faster than the top part ( the Earth is rotating !) . Hence the water below should move upward and so start an anti-clockwise motion as it is ahead of the water movement above.
In the Southern hemisphere it should be the other way round ( clockwise).
Sounds reasonable ?
If you look at the drain hole ( in the Northern hemisphere) , the bottom part ( closer to the equator ) is moving faster than the top part ( the Earth is rotating !) . Hence the water below should move upward and so start an anti-clockwise motion as it is ahead of the water movement above.
In the Southern hemisphere it should be the other way round ( clockwise).
Sounds reasonable ?
Ok, assuming a 1.5" plughole, you should be able to work out the maths and tell us exactly how much faster the water is moving on the equatorial side. I'll let you ignore the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere for this calculation. 😉
pinkmouse said:
I calculate 5.452342342475445 cm/s faster on the equatorial side, but I was using an old "solar powered pughole drain speed calculator"; in the dark.
I agree with KBK entirely in his assessment of the scientific community. Science is a belief system just like Christianity, Budd ism and all the rest. It must be said that its model of the universe is superior to all the others, but it does have problems. It en bodies many inconsistencies. Yet it has its own powerful set of Dogmas which are used as a stick to beat everyone in opposition to the scientific Zealots world view.
Take dark matter for example, as intangible as God and yet nearly essential to explain such phenomena as the rotation of Galaxies. How about the hunt for the Graviton (rather like the hunt for the snark). Yet both these physical substances are essential props to the maintenance of a purely material explanation of the universe. Will they ever be found, I have my doubts.
The nice thing about science is that it works in nearly all cases, but not quite all.
Then there is the field of quantum mechanics. So troubling that Einstein spent the best part of his life trying to disprove it. And yet quantum mechanics seems to work. One troubling essential of quantum mechanics is that the very presence of the observer and his instruments alter the outcome of the observation. When Physics spends so much of its time measuring things at the subatomic level this is a troubling boggy man in the closet as it suggest that the ideas you approach an experiment with will have an effect on the outcome of the experiment. Also what about quantum entanglement - we're starting to sound like mystics and magicians when we discuss this one.
The model that current science presents us with is purely that - a functional model. If a society independently constructed an alternative model with different fundamentals and and jargon, which predicts outcomes - isn't that model equal to, or superior than our science. A useful though experiment if nothing else.
By its very nature science is sceptical of phenomena which it doesn't have an explanation for. There are two ways to deal with this. Dismiss the phenomena out of hand, or file it in the draw labelled for future investigation. Science is all to ready to dismiss and fight its corner with typical mammalian viciousness.
Chinese medicine falls into this latter category. It has been demonstrated with brain scans that acupuncture produces measurable changes in the pain centres of the brain. Yet there were a few people here who dismissed it as placebo or just plain rubbish. The same for Chi. Yet every culture throughout history has a substance which fits the description of Chi (organe been the modern western counterpart). Remarkably many ancient burial mounds in Britain and Ireland are built to the principle outlined by Reich in building an orgone accumulator. Mere coincidence or delusion, I don't know for certain.
Are the zealot scientists willing to say that the the functional conclusions of a whole culture, of the size and complexity of China, are all wrong. That's a pretty big windmill to be tilting at.
Not all scientists are knee jerk materialists. Infact of those scientists who produce original work - a surprising number of them report mystical experiences which could be lifted out of any religious text. Remarkably these mystical experiences seem to have a direct correlation to the "discovery" of new theories and machines. The world is indeed stranger than fiction.
Anyone who is a zealot isn't worth having a discussion with because there can never be a middle ground. In the matter of over unity machines, I think that we are dealing with a way of tapping into pre-existing energies which probably haven't yet been described by science (but they inevitably will be), and using another energy source to pump prime the process- Think of the starter motor in a car. Not free energy at all then. If you cool a substance down to zero kelvin there is more energy left than predicted without the use of zero point energy as a model, and just because we haven't found a useful way of tapping into it yet - doesn't mean we never will. I feel certain there are other "hidden" energy sources yet to be discovered. All it will take is an open mind.
Stephen Brightwood
Take dark matter for example, as intangible as God and yet nearly essential to explain such phenomena as the rotation of Galaxies. How about the hunt for the Graviton (rather like the hunt for the snark). Yet both these physical substances are essential props to the maintenance of a purely material explanation of the universe. Will they ever be found, I have my doubts.
The nice thing about science is that it works in nearly all cases, but not quite all.
Then there is the field of quantum mechanics. So troubling that Einstein spent the best part of his life trying to disprove it. And yet quantum mechanics seems to work. One troubling essential of quantum mechanics is that the very presence of the observer and his instruments alter the outcome of the observation. When Physics spends so much of its time measuring things at the subatomic level this is a troubling boggy man in the closet as it suggest that the ideas you approach an experiment with will have an effect on the outcome of the experiment. Also what about quantum entanglement - we're starting to sound like mystics and magicians when we discuss this one.
The model that current science presents us with is purely that - a functional model. If a society independently constructed an alternative model with different fundamentals and and jargon, which predicts outcomes - isn't that model equal to, or superior than our science. A useful though experiment if nothing else.
By its very nature science is sceptical of phenomena which it doesn't have an explanation for. There are two ways to deal with this. Dismiss the phenomena out of hand, or file it in the draw labelled for future investigation. Science is all to ready to dismiss and fight its corner with typical mammalian viciousness.
Chinese medicine falls into this latter category. It has been demonstrated with brain scans that acupuncture produces measurable changes in the pain centres of the brain. Yet there were a few people here who dismissed it as placebo or just plain rubbish. The same for Chi. Yet every culture throughout history has a substance which fits the description of Chi (organe been the modern western counterpart). Remarkably many ancient burial mounds in Britain and Ireland are built to the principle outlined by Reich in building an orgone accumulator. Mere coincidence or delusion, I don't know for certain.
Are the zealot scientists willing to say that the the functional conclusions of a whole culture, of the size and complexity of China, are all wrong. That's a pretty big windmill to be tilting at.
Not all scientists are knee jerk materialists. Infact of those scientists who produce original work - a surprising number of them report mystical experiences which could be lifted out of any religious text. Remarkably these mystical experiences seem to have a direct correlation to the "discovery" of new theories and machines. The world is indeed stranger than fiction.
Anyone who is a zealot isn't worth having a discussion with because there can never be a middle ground. In the matter of over unity machines, I think that we are dealing with a way of tapping into pre-existing energies which probably haven't yet been described by science (but they inevitably will be), and using another energy source to pump prime the process- Think of the starter motor in a car. Not free energy at all then. If you cool a substance down to zero kelvin there is more energy left than predicted without the use of zero point energy as a model, and just because we haven't found a useful way of tapping into it yet - doesn't mean we never will. I feel certain there are other "hidden" energy sources yet to be discovered. All it will take is an open mind.
Stephen Brightwood
pinkmouse said:
The fact that it spirals at all, is a dead giveaway.
How abou this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get ready to position yourself for the game of the millenium. Be there or be square.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3102044726280108434&q=laurence+gardner
1hr 21min long.
If commenting, please remember have seen the video to it's last second. It is only a basic introduction to what is now the 'cutting edge' of what has been going on in the background, for the last decade or so, slowly snowballing to the point where it is going to soon enter the conciousness of the general public. It is not quite the cutting edge of what has been going on, but it is close enough for most people to get a general grasp.
However, remember, when commenting, the video represents, comparatively speaking, only a few letters of the alphabet-compared to knowing the whole alphabet and what it is used for. So angry vitrolic responses to it are not really in order. Comments are definitely welcomed, but remember it is similar to any subject in that aspect. Few are real experts, so it is mostly the usual story of arguement and debate.....that of folk with an orifice, which we all have, exercising that orifice. We are all guilty of that, at times. 😀
Yes, but...
Where can I get some? And how much should I eat/use?
Can I make super conducting speaker cables from it?
I'm not letting anyone teletransport me until I'm sure the sample rate and bit depth are high enough.
Hyper dimensions I believe in, magic monatomic gold? Just tell me where to get it or how to make it.
Where can I get some? And how much should I eat/use?
Can I make super conducting speaker cables from it?
I'm not letting anyone teletransport me until I'm sure the sample rate and bit depth are high enough.
Hyper dimensions I believe in, magic monatomic gold? Just tell me where to get it or how to make it.
Skepticism
I enjoyed this from James Randi's site ( http://www.randi.org/ ) today.
A 1935 quote from Bertrand Russell:
"I wish to propose a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and our political system; since both are at present faultless, this must weigh against it. I am also aware (what is more serious) that it would tend to diminish the incomes of clairvoyants, bookmakers, bishops, and others who live on the irrational hopes of those who have done nothing to deserve good fortune here or hereafter. In spite of these grave arguments, I maintain that a case can be made out of my paradox, and I shall try to set it forth."
This entire piece can be viewed at: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell4.htm Very interesting reading given the times.
I tend to follow the skeptic way of looking at things: It looks good, sounds like a good idea, interesting concept, etc. - now prove it with sound scientific reasoning. I also consider: Is someone going to make loads of money off the crap they're peddling? Is the concept based on existing technology, or is it just loads of hyperbole and made up quasi-scientific words describing something completely unprovable (Joe Cell). Does the claim involve a patented technology, yet the patent referred to is unrelated (LEA 200% over unity motor - the patent is for "A System for Controlling a Rotary Device") and just to add credibility? Is the technology "surpressed by the government or big business" otherwise, the world would be a better place?
If it sounds too good . . ., well, you know the rest.
I enjoyed this from James Randi's site ( http://www.randi.org/ ) today.
A 1935 quote from Bertrand Russell:
"I wish to propose a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and our political system; since both are at present faultless, this must weigh against it. I am also aware (what is more serious) that it would tend to diminish the incomes of clairvoyants, bookmakers, bishops, and others who live on the irrational hopes of those who have done nothing to deserve good fortune here or hereafter. In spite of these grave arguments, I maintain that a case can be made out of my paradox, and I shall try to set it forth."
This entire piece can be viewed at: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell4.htm Very interesting reading given the times.
I tend to follow the skeptic way of looking at things: It looks good, sounds like a good idea, interesting concept, etc. - now prove it with sound scientific reasoning. I also consider: Is someone going to make loads of money off the crap they're peddling? Is the concept based on existing technology, or is it just loads of hyperbole and made up quasi-scientific words describing something completely unprovable (Joe Cell). Does the claim involve a patented technology, yet the patent referred to is unrelated (LEA 200% over unity motor - the patent is for "A System for Controlling a Rotary Device") and just to add credibility? Is the technology "surpressed by the government or big business" otherwise, the world would be a better place?
If it sounds too good . . ., well, you know the rest.
GOOD NEWS FOLKS!!!!
Now you too can have your daily dose of monatomic gold!!!
AND, they accept PayPal!!
http://www.monatomicgold.co.uk/
This link is interesting.....
http://www.monatomicsuperstore.com/
Click on "buy it now", then read the content of the window that pops up and click on it.
Their site seems to have been hacked and redirected to a video game site.
Now you too can have your daily dose of monatomic gold!!!
AND, they accept PayPal!!
http://www.monatomicgold.co.uk/
This link is interesting.....
http://www.monatomicsuperstore.com/
Click on "buy it now", then read the content of the window that pops up and click on it.
Their site seems to have been hacked and redirected to a video game site.
Good find Anonymous Crane.
PayPal and a secret handshake.
But that stuff's the wrong color - someone is trying to rip us off!! 😱
Anyhow, I decided to read thru the book of Exodus more carefully. Weird stuff! No wonder people freak out on it. But now we're getting to close to the R word, methinks. Better stop there.
PayPal and a secret handshake.
But that stuff's the wrong color - someone is trying to rip us off!! 😱
Anyhow, I decided to read thru the book of Exodus more carefully. Weird stuff! No wonder people freak out on it. But now we're getting to close to the R word, methinks. Better stop there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.