MEG power. Infinite power in your home?

[sunama]

...energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That alone is enough to tell you that this thing is drivel.

So, you are saying that the energy that we see/feel around us on a day-to-day basis is the only energy available?

Who is to say that in a few hundred years or less we won't discover a technique by which we can extract energy from the very air that we breathe?

 

[Tefal]

Wasn't it only a few 100 years ago when it was acknowledged that the World was flat?

nope not even a few thousand or even a few tens of thousands.


it's never been a common belief.

 

[Tefal]

So, you are saying that the energy that we see/feel around us on a day-to-day basis is the only energy available?

Who is to say that in a few hundred years or less we won't discover a technique by which we can extract energy from the very air that we breathe?

painful misunderstanding of what he said.

WE already produce energy from the air we breath, from the energy released during the burning of fuels. (or you know wind turbines)

what energy cannot be created or destroyed means that you can change it's form but can't destroy it or create it.

You could turn the mass of the atoms in the air into pure energy ( E=mc^2)but would have still not created any simply changed it's form.

 

[Vonhelmet]

So, you are saying that the energy that we see/feel around us on a day-to-day basis is the only energy available?

Yes.

Who is to say that in a few hundred years or less we won't discover a technique by which we can extract energy from the very air that we breathe?

There's already ways of doing that, but none of them are viable enough to be exciting.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Wasn't it only a few 100 years ago when it was acknowledged that the World was flat? It was only when another person questioned this thinking that it was discovered that the World was actually a sphere.

I think this perfectly illustrates the level of knowledge shown by people who argue that because science does not have a complete knowledge of how the universe works, devices that break fundamental laws of physics should be taken seriously without any evidence they work.

There is no clear evidence that anyone ever thought the world was flat. There's some indirect evidence in the form of religious writings that might not have been intended literally (e.g. a reference to the four corners of the world) and ancient 2D depictions that might have been symbolic or simply a result of art not being developed enough to allow a 3D object to be shown on a 2D surface.

It was proven to be spherical at least as far back as early on in ancient Greece and it was thought to be spherical before that. Its size was measured over 2200 years ago.

 

[Destination]

Don't be stupid.

Indeed, the device will not break the law it claims to, it will break feeble minds.

 

[shroomz]

painful misunderstanding of what he said.

WE already produce energy from the air we breath, from the energy released during the burning of fuels. (or you know wind turbines)

what energy cannot be created or destroyed means that you can change it's form but can't destroy it or create it.

You could turn the mass of the atoms in the air into pure energy ( E=mc^2)but would have still not created any simply changed it's form.

Taking something out of the fridge and leaving it to get warm is another example where energy is extracted from air.

 

[Fusion]

Wasn't it only a few 100 years ago when it was acknowledged that the World was flat? It was only when another person questioned this thinking that it was discovered that the World was actually a sphere.

No, it's a pretty common myth that people have regarded the Earth as flat until relativly recently. Copernicus introduced his heliocentric theory in 1543 detailing planetary bodies as spheres, and the Pythagoreans postulated a spherical planet in the 5th Century BC.

 

[sunama]

According to the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

The Flat Earth model is a view that the Earth's shape is a flat plane or disk. Most ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1]

The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.[2][3][4][5]

It would appear that different societies/cultures/countries had their own theories, but until a few hundred years ago, there were some countries which believed that the Earth was flat.

I stand by my original comment, that only a few hundred years ago, many believed that the Earth was flat.

 

[shroomz]

According to the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth



It would appear that different societies/cultures/countries had their own theories, but until a few hundred years ago, there were some countries which believed that the Earth was flat.

I stand by my original comment, that only a few hundred years ago, many believed that the Earth was flat.

There are still some people who believe the world is flat, what exactly is your point?

 

[Glaucus]

He likes to believe in the impossible and says everyone else is closed minded. Rather than looking at scientific results and experiments.

 

[Freakbro]

He likes to believe in the impossible and says everyone else is closed minded. Rather than looking at scientific results and experiments.

That's a bit harsh. The point is if people/scientists didn't question traditionally held beliefs of what is or isn't possible, we wouldn't have developed as far as we have.

The flat earth example wasn't a particularly good one, but there are plenty of others.

 

[Glaucus]

That's a bit harsh. The point is if people/scientists didn't question traditionally held beliefs of what is or isn't possible, we wouldn't have developed as far as we have.

The flat earth example wasn't a particularly good one, but there are plenty of others.

That's not the point as no one disagrees with that, he just tries to use it as a hide behind. Then uses stupid examples to say people are closed minded.

 

[Meridian]

Taking something out of the fridge and leaving it to get warm is another example where energy is extracted from air.

Not exactly. A better way of phrasing it would be that energy is moved from one place to another in a broad approximation of a closed system, leaving an overall increase in entropy. Work could be done by that warming, but less work than would be required to cool the cold item in the first place.


M

 

[Fusion]

I stand by my original comment, that only a few hundred years ago, many believed that the Earth was flat.

Maybe amongst those that were poorly educated, but not amongst prominent scientists and thinkers.

 

[Tefal]

It would appear that different societies/cultures/countries had their own theories, but until a few hundred years ago, there were some countries which believed that the Earth was flat.

I stand by my original comment, that only a few hundred years ago, many believed that the Earth was flat.

how about the rest of your comment which kinda demonstrated your lack of knowledge in physics?

 

[shroomz]

Not exactly. A better way of phrasing it would be that energy is moved from one place to another in a broad approximation of a closed system, leaving an overall increase in entropy. Work could be done by that warming, but less work than would be required to cool the cold item in the first place.


M

You are 100% correct, but I think that the principle of maximisation of entropy is beyond the scope of this thread

 

[sunama]

That's not the point as no one disagrees with that, he just tries to use it as a hide behind. Then uses stupid examples to say people are closed minded.

I'm not hiding behind anything.

It is my belief that as a human race, we must question the status quo. This is the only way that we shall make strides forward.

By all means, look at previous/older theories. This is important. But to simply take each of these older theories as 100% correct, with no room for manoeuvre (for special cases/circumstances which have not yet been discovered), is not the right way to go about things.

That's my opinion...take it or leave it.

 

[Glaucus]

It is my belief that as a human race, we must question the status quo. This is the only way that we shall make strides forward.
.

that's an integral part of science anyway. Your belief that this isn't done is very odd and that you jump on random "inventions" which are blatant scams and provide no data and won't allow investigation, says a lot.

 

[daz]

The flat earth example wasn't a particularly good one, but there are plenty of others.

Can you elaborate on this?

Most scientists would love to discover something new and change our fundamental understanding of the world - it's not in their interest to be wilfully ignorant of potential avenues of experimentation and investigation. It's what scientists and mathematicians are doing every day when they're working on their research papers.