Steorn Announces Public Demonstration of Orbo Technology

page: 19
83
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
its pointless trying to convince a mad man that he is mad just wipe the drool from his chin and walk on by. Some people just want to believe what they want to believe. Some of you have tried your best to explain it to them and yet they still refuse to see the light.

Anyway who are we to dictate what anyone should believe.

Remember there is a sucker born every minute.




posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Divided By Zero

Does free energy exist?

Sure. Just start a thread like this one on ATS and watch the meter spin.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by dereks
 


dereks, are you joking? I'm really getting the feeling that you know nothing about physics at all. You keep asking "what vacuum?"

THE VACUUM THAT IS ALL AROUND YOU, the one that radiant energy comes from. You obviously do not realize that the earth floats in the vacuum of space, and that physics operates in this vacuum. Particle and energy physics does not depend on the atmosphere of the earth. I am not talking about the simplistic idea of an atmospheric vacuum (which seems to be what you are referring to), but rather the PHYSICS concept of the ethereal vacuum of space, of which science has confirmed is not empty at all, but is filled with "dark matter", "dark energy", etc.

How do you think satellites or space shuttles work if electronics depends on an atmosphere? Please stop arguing from such a position of ignorance and get on the same wavelength, if you can.

It is very hard to explain anything to you if you refuse to educate yourself about anything that surpasses simple 7th science class of 30 years ago.


"Ethereal vacuum of space", huh?. Even the 7th grade texts of 1979 knew that the ether had been disproven in 1887. The ether, or aether, was the stuff that supposedly filled the vacuum, and allowed the transmission of light waves. As such a physics expert, you surely know of the Michelson-Morley experiment. And as such an expert, perhaps you can explain how these vacuum energy machines evade the obvious problems resulting from the annihilation operator in the Bogoliubov transformation. Please.
Oh yes, and please show the mathematics for the computation of the average energy densityof both the Dirac vacuum and the bare vacuum.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by dereks
 


dereks, are you joking? I'm really getting the feeling that you know nothing about physics at all. You keep asking "what vacuum?"

THE VACUUM THAT IS ALL AROUND YOU, the one that radiant energy comes from. You obviously do not realize that the earth floats in the vacuum of space, and that physics operates in this vacuum. Particle and energy physics does not depend on the atmosphere of the earth. I am not talking about the simplistic idea of an atmospheric vacuum (which seems to be what you are referring to), but rather the PHYSICS concept of the ethereal vacuum of space, of which science has confirmed is not empty at all, but is filled with "dark matter", "dark energy", etc.

How do you think satellites or space shuttles work if electronics depends on an atmosphere? Please stop arguing from such a position of ignorance and get on the same wavelength, if you can.

It is very hard to explain anything to you if you refuse to educate yourself about anything that surpasses simple 7th science class of 30 years ago.


"Ethereal vacuum of space", huh?. Even the 7th grade texts of 1979 knew that the ether had been disproven in 1887. The ether, or aether, was the stuff that supposedly filled the vacuum, and allowed the transmission of light waves. As such a physics expert, you surely know of the Michelson-Morley experiment. And as such an expert, perhaps you can explain how these vacuum energy machines evade the obvious problems resulting from the annihilation operator in the Bogoliubov transformation. Please.
Oh yes, and please show the mathematics for the computation of the average energy densityof both the Dirac vacuum and the bare vacuum.


I did not say aether, I said "ethereal" in order to make sure than any "geniuses" out there didn't think that when I said vacuum I was talking about a artificial vacuum chamber, but rather the cosmic vacuum, which is a standard feature of the universe and physics. If you don't know that, then I have nothing further to say to you because you are obviously not in touch at all with REAL physics, or what is happening in the very best physics labs around the world.

You want math formulas? I'll do you one better... I'll give you a whole system of unified physics that is so cutting edge it is only now being seriously considered by top physicists and the British government science establishment. It is blowing people's minds because it really does seem to not only be the elegant mathematical basis for all true traditional physics, but it also explains the real observed world much better, and also predicts many exciting new possibilities in what man can achieve.

ECE Unified Field Theory - Byron Evans

Listen, okay, just listen... all through scientific history there has always been this same drama played out over and over, and there is no reason why this time will not be the same. Whenever a new theory is put forth that causes "disruptive" advancement, it is ALWAYS met with ridicule and violence before it is finally accepted as self-evident. In every innovation there are early-adopters and there are those who lag behind. It is human nature. Most people are not early adopters, since most people really don't like the discomfort that goes along with drastic change. If Evans is correct, and at this stage there is a growing number of physicists who are seeing that he just might be, this will mean a major rethink for everyone, and that is a scary proposition for most people. Everyone realizes that, and that is just the way it goes.

Plus, there is the problem that if an innovation is such that it will render whole sectors of the economy to fail, the governments and their main corporate benefactors become very nervous and usually work to suppress the advancement.

So, if you want to just poo-poo what I've linked you to, and not take the time to work it through yourself, only because you think that you know better, or that Evans is wrong because he says things that greatly conflict with your present understanding of physics, then you are just behaving like one who is not an early-adopter, and you are one of the ones who will come along by-and-by at some point in the future. That's okay if you are that way, but please don't waste time trying to discuss a new physics advancement until you first go through and study it out. Only then will you be able to point out the specifics of what you may object to, and only then can an exchange of ideas occur.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
So has Steorn provided any proof yet...?

Didn't think so.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Proof is meaningless to the blind. Steorn has released the first short presentation among a total of four which shows some characteristics and the idea behind the motor.

If you are not willing to do the science step down and let someone else do it. A lot of people here are armchair babies, using "scientists" would be giving too much credit, who besides twitter and facebook know nothing about true science.

Build a small home lab and do your own science if you want to do anything of value for this planet in your life time, besides selling crap.


[edit on 20-12-2009 by broli]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by broli
reply to post by seethelight
 


Proof is meaningless to the blind. Steorn has released the first short presentation among a total of four which shows some characteristics and the idea behind the motor.

If you are not willing to do the science step down and let someone else do it. A lot of people here are armchair babies, using "scientists" would be giving too much credit, who besides twitter and facebook know nothing about true science.

Build a small home lab and do your own science if you want to do anything of value for this planet in your life time, besides selling crap.


[edit on 20-12-2009 by broli]


Sorry, the science as done by these liars, who are not scientists, btw, but designers... and altruistic designers that have decided to CHARGE PEOPLE for their humankind changing technology, but guess what, even if you pay the 419 for their kit, Steorn owns whatever you invent, if it contains their "tech".

Sounds like scientists to me.

Really though, this falls in the category of:

Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

---

In this case, every single ZPE has been shown to either be a hoax, bad science or a scam... and guess what these guys are known to lie...

so, yeah side with the liars and the hoaxers over science... because you want to believe... good plan...

--and btw., I'm not a salesman, or a scientist, but I know how to not be lied to buy the same scam artists repeatedly...

something you should learn how to do...

[edit on 20-12-2009 by seethelight]

[edit on 20-12-2009 by seethelight]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
So has Steorn provided any proof yet...?

Didn't think so.


The real point is not whether Steorn did any proof. You and others seem to say that Steorn can't provide any proof because ZPE is not possible, so that is why I don't center on Steorn because I don't think they really know why their machine works, if indeed it does. There are MUCH better examples of reputable companies out there who have made ZPE work, companies that understand why they work, they understand the science behind their machines, and are much farther ahead than Steorn. For example:

Over Unity Generators by Hungarian company

They are installing a big unit in a Canadian power company, according to their video. Obviously, this company has a lot invested in their work, and they are moving full steam ahead. Their machines are based on the science developed by Byron Evans, and his new ECE Unified Field Theory, which is gaining a larger scientific following all the time. Evans IS a scientist who has had peer-reviewed papers published, and who engages in theoretical arguments with top scientists all over the world. The fact is, even those who think he may be wrong in some things (just like many thought Einstein was wrong) seem to respect him as a legitimate scientist.

Here is Evans website:

Byron Evans website with scientific papers


[edit on 20-12-2009 by downisreallyup]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by seethelight
So has Steorn provided any proof yet...?

Didn't think so.


The real point is not whether Steorn did any proof. You and others seem to say that Steorn can't provide any proof because ZPE is not possible, so that is why I don't center on Steorn because I don't think they really know why their machine works, if indeed it does. There are MUCH better examples of reputable companies out there who have made ZPE work, companies that understand why they work, they understand the science behind their machines, and are much farther ahead than Steorn. For example:

Over Unity Generators by Hungarian company

They are installing a big unit in a Canadian power company, according to their video. Obviously, this company has a lot invested in their work, and they are moving full steam ahead. Their machines are based on the science developed by Byron Evans, and his new ECE Unified Field Theory, which is gaining a larger scientific following all the time. Evans IS a scientist who has had peer-reviewed papers published, and who engages in theoretical arguments with top scientists all over the world. The fact is, even those who think he may be wrong in some things (just like many thought Einstein was wrong) seem to respect him as a legitimate scientist.

Here is Evans website:

Byron Evans website with scientific papers


[edit on 20-12-2009 by downisreallyup]


so you know, there's a LOT of people that also think that's a big hoax...

Sorta the way ethanol is in the states; give a politician or two enough money and even bull# will be seen as sound.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by seethelight
So has Steorn provided any proof yet...?

Didn't think so.


The real point is not whether Steorn did any proof. You and others seem to say that Steorn can't provide any proof because ZPE is not possible, so that is why I don't center on Steorn because I don't think they really know why their machine works, if indeed it does. There are MUCH better examples of reputable companies out there who have made ZPE work, companies that understand why they work, they understand the science behind their machines, and are much farther ahead than Steorn. For example:

Over Unity Generators by Hungarian company

They are installing a big unit in a Canadian power company, according to their video. Obviously, this company has a lot invested in their work, and they are moving full steam ahead. Their machines are based on the science developed by Byron Evans, and his new ECE Unified Field Theory, which is gaining a larger scientific following all the time. Evans IS a scientist who has had peer-reviewed papers published, and who engages in theoretical arguments with top scientists all over the world. The fact is, even those who think he may be wrong in some things (just like many thought Einstein was wrong) seem to respect him as a legitimate scientist.

Here is Evans website:

Byron Evans website with scientific papers


[edit on 20-12-2009 by downisreallyup]


Not everyday you see a scientist's website with a donate by PayPal button.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Wow! Nice find! hmm But all those scientist, documented results, and government backing has to be a hoax. It goes angainst all scientific laws we follow! lmfao Its just amatter of time before all the "debunkers" eat their words. But what do I know im just a blind follower that puts my hopes and dreams into "fairy dust".



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Respond to the facts... all scientists get money to do their work. Einstein was broke much of the time, as were many other great men of science. That is just deflection!

Answer the facts. Answer the facts. Answer the facts.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Stop looking for reasons to not have to address the facts. That is just the kind of stuff I've been talking about in my other thread. People don't discuss, they just spew epithets and think that qualifies as meaningful discussion.

I gave you two links. Did you watch them? If not, then WHY NOT? Are you afraid you might see something that you would have to respond to?

Come on... be a man and RESPOND to the FACTS



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by dereks
 







ECE Unified Field Theory - Byron Evans



.


I thought the disgraced ex chemistry teacher who coattailed onto Einstein and Cartan was Myron Evans. Who in the wide world of physics is Byron Evans. Surely your not talking about the middle linebacker for the Philly Eagles. I looked at the website and it is nothing but a self-aggrandizing shill piece for Evans, complete with an online store.
Right now I am posting from Fermilab, where the Cyrogenic Dark Matter Search Experiment team is giving a seminar on the results of the experiment. I am already familiar with Cartan, since his theories had some interesting takes on electron spin, or the electromagnetic angular momentum field. Evans, on the other hand offered nothing more than second level derivations of the Cartan equations.
BTW, they found it. Dark matter, that is. 2 different events, both right in the area predicted by supersymmetry. The official release of the paper containing the results will be at the end of today's session, or about 5 PM CDT. Anyway, this seminar is a lot more productive than this thread, so I guess I'll listen to some real physics for a while.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePeoplesSoldier
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Wow! Nice find! hmm But all those scientist, documented results, and government backing has to be a hoax. It goes angainst all scientific laws we follow! lmfao Its just amatter of time before all the "debunkers" eat their words. But what do I know im just a blind follower that puts my hopes and dreams into "fairy dust".


at least you're honest about it



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by seethelight
 


Stop looking for reasons to not have to address the facts. That is just the kind of stuff I've been talking about in my other thread. People don't discuss, they just spew epithets and think that qualifies as meaningful discussion.

I gave you two links. Did you watch them? If not, then WHY NOT? Are you afraid you might see something that you would have to respond to?

Come on... be a man and RESPOND to the FACTS




What facts?

The FACTS the discredited hoaxers at Steorn refuse to let anyone see?

Those facts?

Or the random other scammers who are claiming the same lie?

Are far as I can tell, the only thing you see capable of doing isa saying, "look other people are lying about the same thing, some none of them are lying", which is a combination of:

Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.

Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

# Demanding negative proof: attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by seethelight
 


Stop looking for reasons to not have to address the facts. That is just the kind of stuff I've been talking about in my other thread. People don't discuss, they just spew epithets and think that qualifies as meaningful discussion.

I gave you two links. Did you watch them? If not, then WHY NOT? Are you afraid you might see something that you would have to respond to?

Come on... be a man and RESPOND to the FACTS




What facts?

The FACTS the discredited hoaxers at Steorn refuse to let anyone see?

Those facts?

Or the random other scammers who are claiming the same lie?

Are far as I can tell, the only thing you see capable of doing isa saying, "look other people are lying about the same thing, some none of them are lying", which is a combination of:

Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.

Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

# Demanding negative proof: attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim




I knew it! Another troll! See, you are incapable of actually watching or reviewing linked information that I gave to you and then commenting on it. Clearly someone not worth one more second of effort on.

Okay people, move along, nothing to see here...




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by seethelight
 


Stop looking for reasons to not have to address the facts. That is just the kind of stuff I've been talking about in my other thread. People don't discuss, they just spew epithets and think that qualifies as meaningful discussion.

I gave you two links. Did you watch them? If not, then WHY NOT? Are you afraid you might see something that you would have to respond to?

Come on... be a man and RESPOND to the FACTS




What facts?

The FACTS the discredited hoaxers at Steorn refuse to let anyone see?

Those facts?

Or the random other scammers who are claiming the same lie?

Are far as I can tell, the only thing you see capable of doing isa saying, "look other people are lying about the same thing, some none of them are lying", which is a combination of:

Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.

Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

# Demanding negative proof: attempting to avoid the burden of proof for some claim by demanding proof of the contrary from whoever questions that claim




I knew it! Another troll! See, you are incapable of actually watching or reviewing linked information that I gave to you and then commenting on it. Clearly someone not worth one more second of effort on.

Okay people, move along, nothing to see here...



Sorry mate, but you have NO FACTS.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Steorn has posted a recording of the demonstration they gave yesterday afternoon. (5:00 GMT) It's an interesting introduction, but they are only showing one side of the system in this. They say they'll be posting another soon to show the other "half" of the story to show where a gain in energy production is made. It is interesting how the motor does not consume more energy when a load is introduced to the rotation of the motor.

www.steorn.com...

I've actually been pretty intrigued with Bedini's ideas and simplistic systems, and have been considering building a bare minimum "School Girl" style motor just to see if the concept does work as advertised.

peswiki.com...
(That URL was a royal pain to put in here... Why do webmasters find the need to use characters like semi-colons in their urls!? Sorry, rant off...)



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Hi downisreallyup

I just wanted to say that you've presented a lot of great information in this thread and I applaud your efforts.


Do you really think you'll ever be able to get the skeptics to change their tune though?

There comes a point in every Free Energy thread where all the useful information has been posted and any further arguing back and forth with skeptics becomes an exercise in futility, and you may be just about there


I remember when an ATS member did the Bedini "School Girl Motor" experiment and got a COP of around 1.3 - indicating Overunity - and, you could have heard a pin drop in the thread. What should have been huge news - "Wow, an ATS member with an overunity device!" - was met with complete and utter silence.

Bottom line, yes ZPE and Overunity devices do exist, and there are a small handful of people such as Bedini who really have something. The problem is that the people in the world with the requisite money and power to actually start producing large quantities of these things refuse to do it.





new topics
top topics
 
83
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join