David Thomson wrote:
> 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?
Show me where I was not as focused and series in your thread. No, really. Lets
do this and get it out of the way so perhaps one day you'll get a glimpse how
you warp things to fit your desires.
> You seem not to think much about giving me a long list
> of other theories that I have to explain with my work
Seriously, can you comprehend the simple concept that your extensive Aether
theory needs to at least predict present experiments and effects?
> , but such requirements
> don't apply to you.
Can you understand the difference between my research focused on capturing
usable ambient temperature energy and your extensive Aether theory?
>> 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 need to learn the difference between theory and interpretation.
Furthermore, please read the Wikipedia page to see a well accepted 2nd law
quote, by Physicist P.W. Bridgman, "There are almost as many formulations of the
second law as there have been discussions of it."
It's a simple fact that a measuring instrument such as an oscilloscope has input
capacitance and when thermal voltage noise is measured you are seeing voltage
stored in a capacitor caused by such thermal noise? There's nothing to dispute
or theorize about that, unless one has the mind of a child.
> You are wasting your time and making a fool of yourself for questioning the
> establishment.
LOL, are you kidding me? Is this really Dave the Aether theory guy, lol.
> Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and
> something new, nobody is going to take you seriously.
Sorry, you are the one with the Aether theory. I make no such claims. :-)
>> 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.
Let me know anytime you want to challenge the simple fact that thermal noise can
charge a capacitor Dave.
> 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?
Just trying to help you brother, as several other people here.
> 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?
This is silly because you need to have basic concepts explained to you. Allow
me to explain. I will have no interest in your Aether theory until you can at
least claim your theory accurately predicts the small list provided. Yes, it is
a small list in comparison to what you would need to predict.
>> 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.
No, you are the one with the wide-eyed concept called an Aether theory in the
year 2007. First you need to understand the difference between a theory and an
interpretation. For example, there are many interpretations to QM, such as MWI.
There are a lot of interpretations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> 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?
Please show me where I said you have to solve all the universe. One has to
wonder how all these fictitious ideas enter your mind. I provided a small list
in comparison to what QM has already solved. Can you not comprehend why
physicists would want your Aether theory to at least equal QM?
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
