On 8/31/2011 10:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I don't think it takes long to charge up a flux capacitor
I think they only take milliseconds to charge up. In fact if I remember
rightly an ideal source of power was found to be a large lightning strike!
The only problem is knowing just when
On 9/22/2010 1:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if
they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller
should stop turning.
Maybe I am missing something.
Yes what an interesting puzzle! But knowing that it can be done
On 11/12/2011 11:50 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
I think Steorn stumbled upon a real anomally but they erred in
assuming that measurement alone was sufficient to demonstrate the
reality of energy creation.
Since there seems to still be some belief around here that Steorn
stumbled upon a real
On 11/13/2011 1:39 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Even if it is a loss, why is one direction better at turning motion
into heat?
Conventional theory predicts the same loss.
This is a good question because I have heard the same claim - that of an
energy discrepancy which is different if you rotate it
On 11/13/2011 2:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
I have a print-out of Steorn's report dated Oct. 31, 2008. At the
moment I can't locate the pdf file, but I downloaded it from their
website two or three years ago, and the name Mr. Rice does not appear
in this report. The title is _Asymmetry and
On 11/13/2011 4:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
... With just a moment of thought, I can remember some of the most
prominent recent scams promoted by Allan on his site. One of these
is, of course, Steorn. ...
Allan (or at least Hank) is still promoting Steorn. Checkout this
fairly recent and very
On 11/17/2011 8:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
This is the English version:
http://www.gammamanager.com/index.html
2011/11/17 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com
His representative in Switzerland is very, to put mildly, suspicious:
Indeed - this company is in
Hi Jed,
What you wrote is true when there is liquid water and steam together in
a container - the combination cannot be heated to a temperature higher
than 100 deg C without raising the pressure. However once all the
liquid has turned to gas there is no longer any limit to what
temperature
On 4/24/2011 6:13 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 04/23/2011 06:57 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Perhaps you have overlooked a key point. How do you propose to
synchronize clocks which are spatially separated? That's not a trivial
question.
Indeed, as Stephen rightly points out, that is the very
On 5/25/2011 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson wrote:
Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective...
In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular
to each other?
The answer to the question is really quite simple and it comes from our
definition of what these fields
On 1/01/2013 2:47 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
... I have still to encounter a statement in
the Bible that science has found to be categorically false.
I challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong on this. But do it one at a
time so that I can respond properly to it. Do not cut and paste a blog from
On 2/01/2013 4:59 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
First, you came up with the opinion of a man and proceeded to demolish
it. If this is not a clear example of a Strawman argument, I don't
know what is. I won't even bother to rebute this argument as it is
clearly fallacious. I said provide a statement
On 2/01/2013 4:44 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
My friend, you can not debate with someone by putting-
the words in his mouth and proceed to demolish it. That a strawman
argument. I never believed in geocentrism
We were not supposed to be discussing what you *believed*. We were
supposed to be
On Jan 2, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am aware of the excesses of the catholic papa, but what did John
Calvin do? Please educate me.
He had the scientist Michael Servetus (who contributed enormously to
medicine and was the first European to describe pulmonary circulation)
put to
On 15/11/2013 12:44 AM, David Roberson wrote:
...Since we knew the original distance to the star was 10 light years,
it suggests that we should reach it within 1 year our time at our
calculated velocity. Is this what should actually occur?
Yes this is correct and this is the essence of the
On 16/11/2013 6:04 AM, David Roberson wrote:
jwinter says:
/*That is correct. However for us to measure how fast our signal
leaves our ship, we need 2 clocks - Say one at the back of the ship
where the signal is launched from and one at the front of our ship to
time how long it takes
On 16/11/2013 12:25 PM, leaking pen wrote:
/*However if we consider ourselves using our initial clock
synchronisation, then we know our true accumulated speed because we
can see that the light pulse is only just travelling a bit faster than
us (it takes the pulse a very long time to travel
On 16/11/2013 12:25 PM, leaking pen wrote:
/*However if we consider ourselves using our initial clock
synchronisation, then we know our true accumulated speed because we
can see that the light pulse is only just travelling a bit faster than
us (it takes the pulse a very long time to travel
On 8/01/2014 1:03 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
...
The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism
by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set Free
http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927
...
Worth taking a look at the Sheldrake interview relating to the
On 8/01/2014 5:26 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
My suspicion is that many of Sheldrakes 'non-materialist' ideas, such
as the idea that memories are not just physical traces in the brain
will turn out to be true, but will also turn out to be materialist and
grounded in the science that we already
On 16/08/2014 12:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
...It is the inherent unreliability and irreproducibility of the
methods themselves that is causing a lot of controversy.
I don't know why you think radio-nucleotide dating is unreliable (unless
you only listen to the YECs!). Take a look at figure 1
I'll try one more time although there is little hope for one as
radicalised as you. Take a lesson from the high priests who would not
believe Jesus' message even when he rose from the dead but would rather
bribe the guards to stop others believing the truth. Don't try to
destroy evidence like
On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence
for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It
took me some time to find it but here are some:
I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies.
On 27/08/2014 12:43 AM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
This summer I read On the Origin of the Species from cover to cover
for the first time. I had not realised what a truely remarkable book
it is. It covers the dogs/wolves question in great detail.
I bought a copy but still haven't got around to
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for your erudite and interesting answers. However I don't think
you really answered the question I was interested in because you are so
saturated with the current paradigm. I sense from your answer that you
are happy with the idea that given an *actually* simple (in
On 27/08/2014 9:09 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
In my previous existence here, Nigel and I engaged is quite a long
discussion about evolution. We did it offline. At that time, I asked Nigel
to provide evidence of what he considers to be clear proof of evolution.
I don't believe he has satisfied that
Hi Nigel,
Thanks again for your reply but it seems like you were answering someone
else's query. I did not remotely suggest recent creation and did not
think that I promoted alien impregnation. The alien impregnation that I
spoke of was of the sexual variety and is a well known case that
Hi Nigel,
Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I
am after in all the interesting information you have provided! So I
will try again.
Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human
body. It starts at conception having many embryonic
On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis.
Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma
You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever.
If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my
On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then
evolution _can not be reversible_, since it is _unlikely_ that a
random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random
mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to
On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350
million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell,
what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years
old?
I don't know how these particular
On 28/08/2014 7:42 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in
a feature that is useful enough is astronomical.
If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only
needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my
On 28/08/2014 6:22 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
On 28/08/2014 11:14 AM, jwinter wrote:
If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it
only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my
suspicion of how the process might work.
This process my friend, is called
On 28/08/2014 6:25 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed
only one or two anomalies.
But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that
Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian
Evolutionists are beginning to
, jwinter wrote:
If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then
it only needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This
is my suspicion of how the process might work.
This process my friend, is called micro-evolution or variation or
adaptation. The genetic
I don't know why Rossi doesn't do this. I think he must hardly have any
ingenuity - or the scientists/engineers that are in a position to advise
him! (Or you could think of more insulting terms).
To convert the output heat to electricity, and then convert it back to
input heat would have to
On 18/10/2014 10:30 AM, John Berry wrote:
Did you read/understand Paul's analysis?
I didn't need to! Did you read/understand mine!?
This is impractical and maybe impossible unless he can improve efficiency.
Carnot conversion just isn't great enough to turn the heat into usable
electricity.
On 18/10/2014 10:51 AM, James Bowery wrote:
Active cooling would work as well as active heating so you don't need
to worry about carnot efficiency. Start it up and then keep it just
hot enough by pumping a liquid, under controlled rates, with an
appropriately high boiling point and decent
38 matches
Mail list logo
