Re: our science replaced by their journalism
- From: "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:47:30 -0500
<gdewilde@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4cbb4719-fbad-4a3b-9b9c-01d4a1f76ebc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I would like to know at what stage of the analysis the actual data is
allowed into this system. Then if you go as far as to disallow the
actual data to be reviewed, how can you still continue to pretend it
is science?
It's very simple: Produce a working perpetual motion
machine and that would be the stage where the data is
relevant.
Nothing else would suffice. Close does not count, because
any system could theoretically be tweaked until frictional
losses are below an arbitrary level. You need either zero
losses or negative losses (energy created).
If you do come up with a perpetual motion machine you
will have violated one or more of the fundamental laws
of thermodynamics, thus destroying essentially all of
current physics theory in one fell swoop. Good luck
with that.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: our science replaced by their journalism
- From: Edward Green
- Re: our science replaced by their journalism
- From: gdewilde@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: our science replaced by their journalism
- References:
- our science replaced by their journalism
- From: gdewilde@xxxxxxxxx
- our science replaced by their journalism
- Prev by Date: Dark Energy
- Next by Date: Dark Matter
- Previous by thread: our science replaced by their journalism
- Next by thread: Re: our science replaced by their journalism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading