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.
Of course you can prove a negative.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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...
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...
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]
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..
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 have no argument. You have nothing of substance. Every argument has you have presented has been demonstrated to be false.
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...
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...
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
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.
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.
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...
reply to post by hawkiye
Please quote specifically my supposed intellectual dishonesty?
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...
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.
Originally posted by hawkiye
Hate yo break it to you but you already lost the debate a long time ago.
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.
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.
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?
Quite a necrobump. Why post a video of so many fakes? The only thing not fake is the double cone rolling downhill that looks like it's rolling uphill due to optical illusion, and it's not perpetual. All the other things that look perpetual are fake.
originally posted by: C-JEAN
Hi, perpetual fans !
[Search] did not find it, sooooo. . .
What about:
youtu.be...
Blue skies.