The Anti Perpetual Motion Conspiracy

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 



Of course you can prove a negative.


Then by all means please demonstrate that the Jolly Green Giant is "NOT" the secret ruler of the Universe.... Knock yourself out...


This won't happen though because of your intellectual dishonesty. You've had the term "scientific theory" explained to you yet you still persist in insinuating they are wild guesses.


Please quote specifically my supposed intellectual dishonesty? Then perhaps you should look up the definition of "theory". Speaking of intellectual dishonesty pot meet kettle of course I did not call scientific theory a wild guess. But in order for you to be able to set up your intellectually dishonest straw man argument you had to try to assign that to me which is typical of most of your arguments.


Honestly, replace the words "perpeptual motion" with "creationism" and "laws of physics" with "evolution" and the True Believers argue in their ignorant, intellectually dishonest and scientifically illiterate way indistinguishable creationist zealots.


And here we go again with more intellectual dishonesty... Sigh! Notice folks how he has to change the words into his own straw men words in order to make his straw man argument work because otherwise he has nothing... Funny thing is he still has nothing but is apparently to inept to realize his false argument is no argument at all...


They stick their fingers in their ears and ignore any evidence or explanations that refute their arguments only to repeat the same tired, refuted arguments over and over like a broken record. Yet still not a single shred of evidence has been presented for their fantastic claims, instead always trying to pass off their personal faith as scirntific fact. It really is quite laughable.


What's laughable is you claiming to have refuted anything.
Please post a quote of any specific argument and you refuting it? So far all you have done is make blanket statements of that's impossible or you don't know science. Show us an electron that has stopped its motion? None of the cultists can but still claim perpetual motion is impossible. We have explained how it is possible yet does not violate the laws of physics.

Like true cultist the followers have made up their own dogma that not even their cult leaders they claim to revere preach and claim it is the true doctrine... It amounts to you resorting to making things up as your pathetic false arguments get swatted down like worthless pesky flies...

Gotto love it when these armchair pseudo scientist start to squirm and get more desperate as their arguments crumble in the face of simple reason and logic and out come the straw man arguments...
Can't wait to see what unrelated strawman argument he comes up with next and tries to pathetically associate it to me or others..


edit on 28-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


What's laughable is you claiming to have refuted anything. Please post a quote of any specific argument and you refuting it?

 


I have done that already for you in another thread., I've even done so in this one, but you ignore anything that laid out in simple math and english that goes against your position, so what's the point?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye


Of course you can prove a negative.


Then by all means please demonstrate that the Jolly Green Giant is "NOT" the secret ruler of the Universe.... Knock yourself out...

I can prove our sun didn't explode yesterday. We're alive, I just proved a negative. Now, go ahead and prove these scientific laws wrong by showing us your perpetual motion machine. Oh wait, you don't have one.



This won't happen though because of your intellectual dishonesty. You've had the term "scientific theory" explained to you yet you still persist in insinuating they are wild guesses.


Please quote specifically my supposed intellectual dishonesty? Then perhaps you should look up the definition of "theory". Speaking of intellectual dishonesty pot meet kettle of course I did not call scientific theory a wild guess. But in order for you to be able to set up your intellectually dishonest straw man argument you had to try to assign that to me which is typical of most of your arguments.

Implying a scientific theory is "just a theory" like a layman theory when you have had the term explained to you is either intellectually dishonest or stupid. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.



Honestly, replace the words "perpeptual motion" with "creationism" and "laws of physics" with "evolution" and the True Believers argue in their ignorant, intellectually dishonest and scientifically illiterate way indistinguishable creationist zealots.


And here we go again with more intellectual dishonesty...

You clearly don't know what intellectual dishonesty means. Here, let me help you out:


When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.



Sigh! Notice folks how he has to change the words into his own straw men words in order to make his straw man argument work because otherwise he has nothing... Funny thing is he still has nothing but is apparently to inept to realize his false argument is no argument at all...

And clearly you don't know what a straw man argument was. Here, let me help you out again:


A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4]

I made an analogy, an apt one at that as it shares many demonstrable similarities. Please ensure you understand the logical fallacies you accuse others of in future.



They stick their fingers in their ears and ignore any evidence or explanations that refute their arguments only to repeat the same tired, refuted arguments over and over like a broken record. Yet still not a single shred of evidence has been presented for their fantastic claims, instead always trying to pass off their personal faith as scirntific fact. It really is quite laughable.


What's laughable is you claiming to have refuted anything.
Please post a quote of any specific argument and you refuting it? So far all you have done is make blanket statements of that's impossible or you don't know science. Show us an electron that has stopped its motion? None of the cultists can but still claim perpetual motion is impossible. We have explained how it is possible yet does not violate the laws of physics.

You have nothing of substance to refute. We can, however, point out obvious lapses in knowledge and understanding of the True Believers and demonstrate their scientific illiteracy, as has been done numerous times throughout this thread alone.


Like true cultist the followers have made up their own dogma that not even their cult leaders they claim to revere preach and claim it is the true doctrine... It amounts to you resorting to making things up as your pathetic false arguments get swatted down like worthless pesky flies...

...and now you're not making any sense whatsoever.


Gotto love it when these armchair pseudo scientist start to squirm and get more desperate as their arguments crumble in the face of simple reason and logic and out come the straw man arguments...
Can't wait to see what unrelated strawman argument he comes up with next and tries to pathetically associate it to me or others..

You have no argument. You have nothing of substance. Every argument has you have presented has been demonstrated to be false. You fail to counter any retorts made because, quite frankly, you can't. You have nothing to bring to the table except ignorance and unsubstantiated conjecture. Lots of hot air but no evidence at all.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Current theory is that there was no "big bang" The universe is made up of multiple moving membranes. Where these membranes intersect, this intersection manifests as matter. No energy was created.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 



I can prove our sun didn't explode yesterday. We're alive, I just proved a negative. Now, go ahead and prove these scientific laws wrong by showing us your perpetual motion machine. Oh wait, you don't have one.


You proved nothing those things are observable occurrences by any living being waking up in the morning as is perpetual motion. Where is that the electron that has ceased motion again for what the 4th time now? Can't find one can you...


Also you didn't even try to take my challenge you just posted the ridiculous BS above to avoid it because you know there is no way you can prove a negative so you have to pathetically try and change the rules so you can continue your nonsense...


Most of the rest of his BS deleted for ridiculous redundancy...


You have no argument. You have nothing of substance. Every argument has you have presented has been demonstrated to be false.


And here we are at the crux of the matter and he contradicts himself. He claims I have nothing of substance and then claims it has all been refuted. Why would he need to refute it if it had no substance? Of course he fails to quote any specific argument he has refuted when asked because he has done no such thing, I think Boncho is his alter ego. A typical troll tactic to just ignore his argument being destroyed in every exchange so he just sets up strawman arguments in very general nonsensical terms and tries to associate them with us then knock them down and claim false victory. Even tries to say we do not understand what a straw man is and posts a definition that describes his tactic to a tee... LOL!


I am sure he will post a bunch more non-sense in response to this... Still waiting on that electron that has ceased motion... Not holding my breath though...



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye


You proved nothing those things are observable occurrences by any living being waking up in the morning as is perpetual motion. Where is that the electron that has ceased motion again for what the 4th time now? Can't find one can you...

 


I guess it's a question of whether or not you consider electrons "moving".

Perpetual motion regarding planets:


You proved nothing those things are observable occurrences by any living being waking up in the morning as is perpetual motion. Where is that the electron that has ceased motion again for what the 4th time now? Can't find one can you...


Regarding electrons:


Well, even ignoring the fact that you can't
*see* an atom -- it isn't "macroscopic" by any stretch of the imagination
-- there is one small problem with "perpetual motion" in an atom that
emerges from the quantum-mechanical haze: specifically, if you consider an
atom with a single electron (that is, hydrogen), according to quantum
mechanics its ground state has no angular momentum associated with it. In
other words, the electron doesn't "go around" the nucleus -- indeed, there
is no definable or measurable "motion" at all.

I don't know if this answers your question, or if it just leaves you with
more issues than answers. I recommend that you look at any college physics
textbook, as a starting point. Look especialy at sections relating to Work
and Energy, Friction, the Laws of Thermodynamics and (if it is included)
models of the atom


www.madsci.org...

But again, here you go arguing semantics. Unrelated the point you are trying to prove...


The picture you often see of electrons as small objects circling a nucleus in well defined "orbits" is actually quite wrong. As we now understand it, the electrons aren't really at any one place at any time at all. Instead they exist as a sort of cloud. The cloud can compress to a very small space briefly if you probe it in the right way, but before that it really acts like a spread-out cloud. For example, the electron in a hydrogen atom likes to occupy a spherical volume surrounding the proton. If you think of the proton as the size of a grain of salt, then the electron cloud would have about a ten foot radius. If you probe, you'll probably find the electron somewhere in that region.


van.physics.illinois.edu...
edit on 29-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Since this thread wasn't clear from the get go, I made a new thread with the intent to clarify the meanings in this one.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Since this thread wasn't clear from the get go, I made a new thread with the intent to clarify the meanings in this one.


Translation: you made a new thread because you got tired of getting your ass whipped on this thread so took your ball and went else where to continue your BS...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by boncho
Since this thread wasn't clear from the get go, I made a new thread with the intent to clarify the meanings in this one.


Translation: you made a new thread because you got tired of getting your ass whipped on this thread so took your ball and went else where to continue your BS...


No I wanted to consolidate all the things we had covered in this one. Since you haven't really added anything to the conversation. You have done absolutely nothing to back your position with facts, figures, or even have proper discourse. Your made a half-hearted attempt in the beginning but once you realized you couldn't win the crowd over by throwing "Tesla" and "free energy" into the same sentence a few times, you went on to attack everyone who has posted in your thread.

You've been calling people cultists, accusing them of all the actions you are exhibiting and now claiming to have won the argument. But when asked simply, and very clear to address concise questions, you simply ignore it as if it were never posted.


reply to post by hawkiye
Please quote specifically my supposed intellectual dishonesty?


No need, I did so here in this post, in the other thread.

You claimed that oil production uses more energy put into it, than you get out of it. (Which doesn't even make sense because it would be a spiralling negative number).


post by hawkiye
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty pot meet kettle of course I did not call scientific theory a wild guess.


post by hawkiye
You conveniently forgot to mention that these are all just theories that may or may not be correct...


What exactly were you calling it.. An educated guess?
edit on 30-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
this guy ^^^ always has to write a book to try and justify his nonsense... Sigh! No boncho you have not proven a thing I and others have have in in fact destroyed your arguments many times over with simple logic and reason but you just continue on like a fish in the ocean proclaiming there is no such thing as water even though you live in it...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Support your argument with facts, figures and evidence. Otherwise you look like a fool.

You claim I'm writing a book, when I'll I have done is link information to support my stance, in your replies you simply call people names, lie, and ignore anything that contradicts you.

When faced with one item/issue/talking point, that contradicts you, you grasp or jump into an alternative subject immediately. It's a frantic struggle to keep up with you because you cannot talk about a simple subject without trying to pile a million more in as soon as you are contradicted.

You have the mental capacity of someone in early high school/late grade school. If you want to have a simple debate I'm up for it, as are others in the thread.

Note: Simply saying something doesn't make it reality.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Support your argument with facts, figures and evidence. Otherwise you look like a fool.

You claim I'm writing a book, when I'll I have done is link information to support my stance, in your replies you simply call people names, lie, and ignore anything that contradicts you.

When faced with one item/issue/talking point, that contradicts you, you grasp or jump into an alternative subject immediately. It's a frantic struggle to keep up with you because you cannot talk about a simple subject without trying to pile a million more in as soon as you are contradicted.

You have the mental capacity of someone in early high school/late grade school. If you want to have a simple debate I'm up for it, as are others in the thread.

Note: Simply saying something doesn't make it reality.


Hate yo break it to you but you already lost the debate a long time ago. You link to a few sites and think that proves your non-sense
. I can link to a site that believes the earth is still flat that doesn't prove it is. Simple logic and reason has destroyed your non-sense time and again you just can't accept that you are clueless and have never had an original thought or are not bright enough to recognize it so you drone on repeating the same crap over and over... Perhaps a time out get outside the basement and get some fresh air for a change?...



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hate yo break it to you but you already lost the debate a long time ago.


What thread are you reading? It obviously isn't this one if you think you've done anything other than make a fool of yourself.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hate yo break it to you but you already lost the debate a long time ago.


What thread are you reading? It obviously isn't this one if you think you've done anything other than make a fool of yourself.


Well im posting in here aswell...Not claiming to be anything.
Just a bystander, and i have NO faith whatsoever in Boncho.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by Dashdragon

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hate yo break it to you but you already lost the debate a long time ago.


What thread are you reading? It obviously isn't this one if you think you've done anything other than make a fool of yourself.


Well im posting in here aswell...Not claiming to be anything.
Just a bystander, and i have NO faith whatsoever in Boncho.


I never asked for faith, I asked for a rational debate. Perhaps you thought you were in the religious forum?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by Dashdragon

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hate yo break it to you but you already lost the debate a long time ago.


What thread are you reading? It obviously isn't this one if you think you've done anything other than make a fool of yourself.


Well im posting in here aswell...Not claiming to be anything.
Just a bystander, and i have NO faith whatsoever in Boncho.


I never asked for faith, I asked for a rational debate. Perhaps you thought you were in the religious forum?


Wait, im NOT?
Damn...Sorry..


sorry, forgot...
You DO sound and look like a preacher boncho..
"Iiiits carved in stone he tellz uz"
edit on 2012/11/1 by Miccey because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join