It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, Steorn was a hoax after all

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
So, Steorn did not deliver a free energy machine after all, did they?

It was a hoax. It was clear to me from the beginning. Just like all other people that claim they have a free energy machine...they are con artists.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Prove it.

I can prove that free energy exists. Want me to? The Sun, that is free energy. BAM your laws of physics are shattered.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Prove it.

I can prove that free energy exists. Want me to? The Sun, that is free energy. BAM your laws of physics are shattered.


To use your logic...OIL bam free energy you just have to dig it up and refine it!!!

There are plently of sources of energy around that are cheap to tap into but the Sun and solar cell technology is far from being useful currently. The cells cant pump out enough current relative to their size and cost compared to Oil and other fossil fuels like Gas.

Free energy is something that you can pull out of nothing and use enmasse to sustain a city...not some wind power bank of fans that takes up the whole country side to power up a few houses!.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
To use your logic...OIL bam free energy you just have to dig it up and refine it!!!


You are wrong. You don't have to dig up and refine The Sun so how is that even near my logic? The Sun is always availible 24/7 around the world, and does not have to be refined.


Originally posted by mazzroth
There are plently of sources of energy around that are cheap to tap into but the Sun and solar cell technology is far from being useful currently.


KEYWORD: Currently. Also, I never said anything about solar cells. AT ALL. Didn't even mention them. Yet you are to believe "that is the only way". I feel bad for you, and your scientists.


Originally posted by mazzroth
Free energy is something that you can pull out of nothing and use enmasse to sustain a city...not some wind power bank of fans that takes up the whole country side to power up a few houses!.


No actually, that would be FREE ELECRICITY. Not FREE ENERGY. Do you know the difference?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Alliswong

Your answer was "I can prove that free energy exists. Want me to? The Sun, that is free energy. BAM your laws of physics are shattered.


LOL the SUN ??? how is that free ? you never bothered to explain...and its exploitation for energy around now is solar cells



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
No steorn wasn't a hoax, they figured that releasing the technology to the world would not be a good idea, so just gave it to a few people. Infact, i have my house, car and laptop running on their technology right now, but it will cost you $100,000 for the secret to this free energy technology



Free energy is possible in other ways, you certainly dont have to pay for sunlight, wind, or the tide to come in, however much companies tell you it costs (think about that one
). But you cant get energy by means of a perpetual motion device like steorn claimed, that certainly is not possible.

However if by 'free energy' you literally mean creating energy out of nothing, that is definately not possible. That would be violating the very foundation of modern physics.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Prove it.

I can prove that free energy exists. Want me to? The Sun, that is free energy. BAM your laws of physics are shattered.


OMG - the IQ of this place is falling through the floor. Please tell me you aren't serious in this statement.

[edit on 1-30-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
LOL the SUN ??? how is that free ? you never bothered to explain...and its exploitation for energy around now is solar cells



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp

It was a hoax. It was clear to me from the beginning. Just like all other people that claim they have a free energy machine...they are con artists.






Please don’t call me a con artist.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
i can prove that free energy exists... the creation of the universe... where did that energy come from?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Hmm, another person saying hoax with absolutely no evidence. How unusual. Yes Steorn is still around, as there forums are still very active.

Let me ask you, where is the exact evidence which lends support that Steorn perpetrated a hoax? Anyone?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Prove it.

I can prove that free energy exists. Want me to? The Sun, that is free energy. BAM your laws of physics are shattered.


Heh! Love it!

Mind you, think the OP is correct in their assessment.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

The Sun is always availible 24/7 around the world, and does not have to be refined.


What, even at night?!



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
No steorn wasn't a hoax, they figured that releasing the technology to the world would not be a good idea, so just gave it to a few people.


Please! So instead of presenting evidence to back up their astonishing claims we should just take it on blind faith?

And of course, even if your premise were correct (which it clearly isn't) then none of these people wanted to become a billionaire?

When people make claims of something they invented, it's for them to prove that to be the case rather than others to prove they're false!



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
Hmm, another person saying hoax with absolutely no evidence. How unusual. Yes Steorn is still around, as there forums are still very active.

Let me ask you, where is the exact evidence which lends support that Steorn perpetrated a hoax? Anyone?


Wow! Traffic on an internet forum. Sure fire sign of a proof of concept eh?

I refer back to my other post - its for those making the claims of such an invention to prove it. It's impossible to prove a negative, don't you know that.. and less of the silly smilies when you're making childish points!



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103

Originally posted by Freezer
Hmm, another person saying hoax with absolutely no evidence. How unusual. Yes Steorn is still around, as there forums are still very active.

Let me ask you, where is the exact evidence which lends support that Steorn perpetrated a hoax? Anyone?


Wow! Traffic on an internet forum. Sure fire sign of a proof of concept eh?

I refer back to my other post - its for those making the claims of such an invention to prove it. It's impossible to prove a negative, don't you know that.. and less of the silly smilies when you're making childish points!


I never said that proves it, but they didn't just up and disappear. Just as I can't prove it was real, you can't prove it was a hoax.. Sure you can make a thread with no evidence and rip on them, thats surely possible as we have seen here.

I can understand that if someone makes a big claim, and they want people to fund them or give them money, yes you need to prove it. No conflict there.

If I ever created an over-unity device, I certainly wouldn't share it with the world, and people like you. Not worth the doubt, ridicule, anger, frustration, denial, outright rudeness and lack of respect for a fellow human being. I would share with people I felt deserved it, not some skeptical, armchair critics who deny that such things are possible. Why would any inventor with such power want to go through that? Some learn the hard way seeking money, only to find disappointment down the road. Fortunately we have very bright individuals who are willing to open-source their hard earned knowledge for those willing to listen, not just talk.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by Freezer]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
I never said that proves it, but they didn't just up and disappear. Just as I can't prove it was real, you can't prove it was a hoax.. Sure you can make a thread with no evidence and rip on them, thats surely possible as we have seen here.


As i've said, you can't prove a negative. I've seen nothing to prove or disprove their claim. What i do know is that unless they explain the specifics the only way to disprove it is to try every possible method of inventing yourself. Of course, if it were real and you didn't have the idea they had you would be on forever. The only way to verify their claim has to come from them. No ifs, no buts. Until they can prove it then of course most people aren't going to buy their idea!



I can understand that if someone makes a big claim, and they want people to fund them or give them money, yes you need to prove it. No conflict there.


It's more fundamental than that, if they want people to simply believe them then they have to prove it.


If I ever created an over-unity device, I certainly wouldn't share it with the world, and people like you. Not worth the doubt, ridicule, anger, frustration, denial, outright rudeness and lack of respect for a fellow human being.


So you'd rather hold the world to ransom than do something cathartic? That's a very mean view of the world.

Personally, If I had the skill, talent and knowledge to invent something which could improve the lives of 6BN people I'd give the thing away if I had to!

Wouldn't you rather leave a lasting legacy like some of the greats from history than just anonymous? Even if not, the satisifaction of helping countless generations of people and avert potential climactic catastrophe should be enough for even the most cold hearted cynic?


I would share with people I felt deserved it, not some skeptical, armchair critics who deny that such things are possible.


Don't see anyone denying anything other than that there is no proof that the claims made by Steorn are true or even partially true.


Why would any inventor with such power want to go through that?


Don't you think said inventor would be totally vindicated if they were telling the truth? Don't forget Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons who claimed to have invented Cold Fusion at the back end of the 80's. People are right to be sceptical of such claims!


Some learn the hard way seeking money, only to find disappointment down the road. Fortunately we have very bright individuals who are willing to open-source their hard earned knowledge for those willing to listen.


Hmm. I'm confused, one minute you're saying you wouldn't share such an idea and now you're advocating open sourcing something.. ok, but if it's open source you don't get to pick and choose who benefits from it.

Anyway, this is all hypothetical until there is some evidence to indicate their claims were true.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by phoenix103]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by phoenix103
 


Let me clarify what I mean. Lets say you have just created a working prototype of a rotor driven soley on magnetic energy. Now lets say you do something in the name of humanity, and release a plans and a video of that device for all to have freely. Think you will be met with open arms and a pat on the back? Not quite. In the case of a magnetic motor there exist many variables, of which makes replication very difficult if not almost impossible, unless you have hands-on access to the actual device. Take for instance this recent individual from the Steorn forums, named Alsetalokin (NikolaTesla reversed). Another individual released his idea for magnet motor on the Steorn forums, in which this individual Alsetalokin actually got off his butt, went out and built it. He released a video showing this. The response? Lets just say he deleted the video from his account very shortly. Fortunately he came back and is now working with replicators through the Steorn forum.

www.youtube.com...

For the record I would give my ideas away happily to people that are on the same road and want free power for all. A community of such people wouldn't not criticize before testing themselves. I would not "claim" anything, I would simply give it out freely and whatever becomes of it, so be it. I certainly wouldn't want to try and convince people. What motivation does a person have to release their hard-earned knowledge freely to a pack of wolves, who want to shred anything that goes against the grain.

There's two different audiences. The optimistic, and the skeptic. For me, it's screw the skeptic, could care less what they think, as they contribute nothing but telling how it can't work. As for the optimistic, those are the people who will get it done. These people don't bash, ridicule, or generally have a negative attitude, they will do the research, experiment themselves and figure out if its a real before coming to any conclusions.

One example of this type of person who actually experiments.
www.youtube.com...

Here's the latter.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkey
i can prove that free energy exists... the creation of the universe... where did that energy come from?


The big bang never happened. Very few scientists believe in the big bang anymore. This list gives a good indication of where most scientists stand on it now; cosmologystatement.org...

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang


Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang
Lerner, E.J.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 31, Issue 6, Dec. 2003 Page(s): 1268 - 1275
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPS.2003.821478
Summary: Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of /sup 4/He, /sup 7/Li, and D are more than 7/spl sigma/ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10/sup -14/. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2/spl sigma/ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   
i haven't seen any theory that explains the origins of the energy in the universe.. either energy has always existed like time or it spontaneously appeared (but that would indicate a beginning)

oh and another thing.. what is the current definition of a universe... i use to think it meant every that exists... but why would you have two universe if one universe is everything that exists.. wtf? my understanding is pretty limited.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join