Hi Paul, > No offense, but IMHO this conversation is silly and a waste of time. I generally prefer to converse with people at Vo that are primarily interested in research geared toward generating so-called "free energy." Are you are working on such research? If it's fine with you, lets try and put an end to this conversation.
Funny how focused and serious you become when it is your work being criticized isn't it? You seem not to think much about giving me a long list of other theories that I have to explain with my work, but such requirements don't apply to you. You think you are special, and above the system. For some reason (and you'll come up with another long list, I'm sure), the rules don't apply to you. > I am researching technology that would move energy contained in ambient temperature as a source of usable power. This has already been "proved" as impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics You are wasting your time and making a fool of yourself for questioning the establishment. Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. You might as well spend the next three years in seclusion, if necessary, and not waste anybody else's time with your unwanted theories. > No offense, but for the moment I have zero interest in an Aether theory. No offense, but at the moment I think your theory is a total waste of bandwidth, since even the wikiwizzes know that what you want to do is impossible. BTW, do you suppose your zero interest in the Aether Physics Model has anything to do with your long list of goals for me that will take years to flesh out? Are you actually admitting that you wouldn't even read my work if I did work out a complete comparison between the Aether Physics Model and all known physics theories? That rather puts your genuineness into proper perspective, doesn't it? > People often confuse technology, theory, and interpretation of a theory. My primary focus is on designing a so-called "free energy" machine based on magnetic avalanche theory. It's my goal to design a machine that is self-running, provides appreciable continuous usable power, and requires an appreciably small amount of energy to start such a machine. That is a technological goal. Second focus is to explain the technology in terms of physics. Talk about a hypocrite! You have this wild-eyed concept of breaking known laws of physics and you haven't even worked out the math, yet. I have presented a fully quantified Aether (which means I have worked out the math), and also provided new testable physics laws and a fundamentally important electron binding energy equation. Yet, you tell me I have to solve all of the Universe before you will listen, and you want us to listen to your wild dreams? > I see that as fuzzy logic. For you, it should be called hypocrisy and dreaming. > There always has and will be individuals that make breakthroughs in technology, theories, etc. etc. Not if you can prevent it, right? >>> No, I go by the laws of probability. > >> And the laws of probability prevents you from sounding like a conspiracy >> theorist because...? It didn't catch that. You're still sounding like a >> conspiracy theorist. > Allow me to clarify. I place high probability the U.S. government would try and prevent new technology that could easily lead to weapons of mass destruction. I place high probability there are highly intelligent people within the U.S. government. I place high probability such intelligent people are attempting to prevent such technology. Your clarification makes it absolutely evident that you imagine a conspiracy. Dave
