Slashdot Mirror


Perpetual Energy Machine Getting Lots of Attention

Many users have written to tell us about a magnetic machine promising "infinite clean energy". Engadget has the first picture of the device and is reporting that the announcement (along with a short video) of this supposed device will be released later tonight. "CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.' He goes on to say 'It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real.'" In my experience if something seems too good to be true it generally is. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

965 comments

  1. As they say... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a sucker born every minute.

    Seriously, why is anyone outside of Art Bell and George Noorey even giving this guy the time of day?

    1. Re:As they say... by TuringBirds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. This is a disgrace for SlashDot. Someone remove this news item!

    2. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be funny if this machine worked? He couldn't patent the thing...

    3. Re:As they say... by whopub · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know about perpetual energy, but I've been working on perpetual lethargy for years. I wish I could publish a paper on it, but that would ruin years of research.

    4. Re:As they say... by stonecypher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously, why is anyone outside of Art Bell and George Noorey even giving this guy the time of day?
      Because several times, legitimate scientists have said this, really believing what they were saying, and the resulting systems were frequently quite difficult to understand in terms of deciphering the flaw.

      It's a lot like when people used to let high school math coaches claim to have solved Fermat's Little Theorem. We all knew they didn't, but there's a lot to be said for the puzzle of locating the coaches' mistakes.

      Now, like you, I think this guy is a snake oil shill, as opposed to someone making a legitimate error. Nonetheless, I find his device bizarrely fascinating specifically because I don't see his particular cheat just yet. And, as such, I'm glad to have exposure to the nonsense. It's fun.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    5. Re:As they say... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here is how you know when a perpetual energy machine is fake (aside from the fact that it is supposedly a perpetual energy machine):

      If you invented something like that, you would be in secret negotiations with governments, militaries and major corporations. You wouldn't be wasting your time with youtube demonstrations and internet articles. You'd be involved in secret demonstrations with signed NDAs all around and massive bidding wars.

    6. Re:As they say... by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ' (aside from the fact that it is supposedly a perpetual energy machine)'

      The outlook that makes you put this comment in, assures that governments, militaries, and major corporations wouldn't give you the time of day. They would never know you succeded because they would never look at what you produced in the first place.

      Youtube demonstrations and internet articles would likely be the only way you would be able to stir up enough of a buzz to get someone to take you half seriously in the first place.

    7. Re:As they say... by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      lol - I regret I have no mod points, but that's mighty funny.

    8. Re:As they say... by megaditto · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well, if you really invented something like this, the thing to do would be to openly publish the specs, and openly exhibit the engine. Also, openly explain how you think the machine works instead of spewing mumbo-jumbo (if you don't know how, say you don't know).

      What the scam artists do instead is allow only a very limited observation of the device, and ask for more money to 'develop' the idea. This is exactly what these guys also do: going to allow you to spectate the machine from the pre-defined angles only, and ask for venture capital to continue.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    9. Re:As they say... by MouseR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that...

        I bet the total energy output of this device's expected mtbf isn't big enough to cover the machine's construction in the first place. Thus, moot.

    10. Re:As they say... by DrLov3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Homer : Lisa, in this house we respect the laws of thermo-dynamics, go to your room!

    11. Re:As they say... by gumbright · · Score: 1

      I agree that is the more expected scenario, certainly. But there is a thing called altruism. Somebody could actually try to do something for the common good. That being said, I can't say I expect this to pan out. There are some possibilities that are interesting like perhaps they have stumbled on some new efficiency that is not PM but uses significantly less power, that would still be a good thing. So even if this is a load, perhaps there is some usable nugget buried within. I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and only expect the reasonable, though I do disagree with their methodology if for no other reason than it is suspect.

    12. Re:As they say... by slazzy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'm not sure sure - if only we could generate power from all the junk email I get...

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    13. Re:As they say... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Conservation of energy or perhaps your trying to approach absolute zero?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    14. Re:As they say... by Sosetta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fermat's Last Theorem was the hard one to solve. Fermat's Little Theorem isn't hard to prove.

      -Sosetta

    15. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Youtube demonstrations and internet articles would likely be the only way you would be able to stir up enough of a buzz to get someone to take you half seriously in the first place.


      It is the wrong kind of attention (buzz). It is the kind of attention that confirms to the people who matter that you're just another crackpot. If this were for real, he'd be going though a university or trying to get published in respected journal directly. But it isn't for real. So he just shrouds the device in secrecy in order to avoid the direct analysis that would expose the device for the hoax it most likely is.

      Bottom line is, if you've patented your idea, there is absolutely no reason to keep things secret and arrange for elaborate public "demonstrations." You just put the whole idea out there, drawings, equations, theory and all.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    16. Re:As they say... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is exactly what these guys also do: going to allow you to spectate the machine from the pre-defined angles only, and ask for venture capital to continue. The device is on display in a London art museum, and if I'm not mistaken, the museum is open to the public. It doesn't say anything about visitors taking photos, so maybe we'll have some high-res pictures online tomorrow?
    17. Re:As they say... by profplump · · Score: 4, Insightful

      unless acted upon by an outside force

      An outside force you say. Would someone trying to steal its kinetic energy to generate energy possibly be such a force?

      Just wondering.

    18. Re:As they say... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      If you found an infinite energy source, you'd probably be pretty mum about how it works so you can milk it for money as long as possible by selling energy.

    19. Re:As they say... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Bottom line is, if you've patented your idea, there is absolutely no reason to keep things secret and arrange for elaborate public "demonstrations."

      Isn't it true, though, that patents offices will automatically reject any and all "perpetual motion" related patents?

      If so, how do you patent an unpatentable invention?

    20. Re:As they say... by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

      I find his device bizarrely fascinating specifically because I don't see his particular cheat just yet. Uhh, there is no device, there is no video, there is nothing to see a cheat or no cheat on.

      Just saying it's all hype. So fascinating hype at best.
      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    21. Re:As they say... by PingXao · · Score: 0

      Where's my mod points when I need them?

    22. Re:As they say... by g0dsp33d · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically IIRC, this would not violate the laws. There is an outside force acting on it in the form of the magnetic fields. The real test of the devices is if it can create more power before the magnets degauss than it takes to create the machine and magnets.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
    23. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Altruism is a useful fiction. In reality it is a way of making oneself feel better by helping others.

    24. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would you want to remove a story you perceive as untrue? It sounds just as ridiculous as religious folks wanting to remove posts that God doesn't exist. The statement is made and now you either ignore it or deal with it. Don't call for this statement to be denied to others after you received it.

    25. Re:As they say... by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Piece by piece, patent everything that goes in to the machine, and no none else can build one. Kinda like software, you don't patent a website, you patent 1-click technology.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    26. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you publish a paper on perpetual lethargy, then the paper does not count as you have beaten your lethargy to publish it. So you are not an expert on perpetual lethargy anymore :)

    27. Re:As they say... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Uhh, there is no device
      RTFA. There are photographs. Just because the device doesn't do what's claimed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nearly every claim of a perpetual motion machine has been accompanied by a complicated device with a complicated explanation of what the inventor really wished it did. This is no different. The inventor goes into a long, specific explanation of his snake oil. It's really quite entertaining, and you shouldn't miss out on it just because you've jumped to the false conclusion that it isn't there.

      Just saying it's all hype.
      If only you were correct.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    28. Re:As they say... by bheading · · Score: 1

      It comes back to the overriding question. Why don't they show their ideas in public ? Instead they run away and hide. They won't explain how it works. They didn't publish their ideas in a scientific journal, they published in the mass media.

      This thing is a massive hoax.

    29. Re:As they say... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      You are correct, I had named the wrong theory by accident. Thank you for catching my error.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    30. Re:As they say... by megaditto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I accept that other opinions exist, but that's not the point here. The point I am making is that these guys are apparently pushing out a vaporware at best or more likely a large-scale scam:

      1) They fail to exhibit a schematic for the device. And no, this would not hurt their chances of getting a patent at least in US: they can get a provisional patent almost automatically, then spend a year improving their research.

      2) They fail to submit to peer review of any kind. Again, it's in their interests to publish this as soon as they can, since this would also automatically establish their priority and give them a year to continue research and apply for a patent (and will not count as prior art for their patent for that one year).

      3) They fail to do any kind of transparent demonstration of their claims. Now they won't even release a video that they filmed themselves! FTFA: "Well, 6pm London time has come and gone. However, Steorn's site now says that the video will go live at 6pm "Eastern Time.""

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    31. Re:As they say... by samkass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This brings up a funny question in my mind. Basically, there are very few fundamental sources of energy for us to use: solar (photovoltaics, oil, gas, ethanol, etc) and nuclear (fission, fusion). But the rotational energy of the solar system and our planet in particular seem more difficult to tap. Some of it might be partially represented by geothermal power, but you can't exactly tie gears to the planets and attach them to a generator. But your comment makes me wonder if the magnetic field of the natural magnets in Earth's crust may or may not form a kind of energy storage device for past rotational kinetic energy that formed the Earth's dynamo and created the magnets in the first place.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    32. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    33. Re:As they say... by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      There's a sucker born every minute.

      That's nothing. With my free energy and you minute, I can make a sucker be born every SECOND.

      Top that!

    34. Re:As they say... by megaditto · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. A picture of the 'device' is posted, the exhibit was pulled.

      This will probably turn out to be some kind of a Blair-Witch-crap project to see how many illiterates they could sucker in...

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    35. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing the concept with some of the practitioners.

      Not to worry, that happens a lot with main stream religions as well.

      Just ask Jebus.

    36. Re:As they say... by asuffield · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nonetheless, I find his device bizarrely fascinating specifically because I don't see his particular cheat just yet.


      We don't see anything of his just yet. This guy's made a lot of noise about how many people have been testing it but nobody seems to know anything about it. We don't even know if it really exists.

      On the off-chance that it does exist: from the pseudo-scientific babble that he's been putting out, I'm betting that he's reinvented the magnet engine. People have been mistaking that for perpetual motion for years (it actually turns out to be running on fixed magnets, which become gradually demagnetised by the process, but so slowly that you don't notice in a small lab demonstration that only runs for a few minutes). Magnets are like batteries, just not particularly efficient ones. Magnet-powered engines are sneaky things - all the math looks like you're getting energy for free, because nobody ever remembers to incorporate the energy of the magnet itself into the equation (it's not in any high-school textbooks).
    37. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now as to those making jokes about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. If an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... Is this not by definition perpetual motion? It keeps on doing whatever until forever.... Pretty obvious folks.
      This isn't really what is meant by a perpetual motion machine. Yes, what you have is something that will move indefinitely (through a change in reference frame); however, when people discuss PPMs they usually are trying to extract the energy, which is where the problem lies.

      Of course those who oppose the idea that we can arrive at energy by some means such as this, openly preach to us that the whole universe erupted out of the head of a pin, [Big Bang anybody?] and are quite happy for all of its mass and all of its energy to have erupted out of nothing in that event. [Logic anybody?] This should be fun. I haven't done anything here but skewer about a thousand sacred cows. No I haven't done anything but point out the truth and that isn't troll. Why don't people just get a life and accept that another opinion might exist.
      The claims about where the energy comes from vary greatly. It isn't necessarily coming out of nothing. Regardless, the conservation of energy derives itself from properties of this universe (time translation invariance); it doesn't have to hold before the universe was "created" whatever that means. You haven't skewered anything.
    38. Re:As they say... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Informative

      > This team is NOT following any of the "Fraud" or "Fake" technology pattern.

      Hmmm. I can think of two big perpetual energy machine scams and a couple of more down-to-Earth tech scams over the last couple of decades, and let me tell ya, this is is *absolutely* following the same pattern.

      First up, Joseph Newman. Newman was around back in the 80's and claimed to have a device that -get this- uses magnets to generate unlimited power. The company was completely privately funded by angel investors. Quite a bit of money IIRC. Enough to travel around the US giving down-home-revival style shows about the device. He even made it all the way to the Tonight Show. So little difference here it's hard to tell the stories apart.

      Next up, Madison Priest. Priest claims to have created a "magic box" (his words) that tapped into zero-point energy. He used this to create -get this- a video compression system! He planned on selling it to the cell phone companies, allowing them to send broadcast quality video over existing low speed channels. He worked up *serious* funding from a wide variety of investors, including Blockbuster, and gave numerous demos that were all apparently faked with hidden cables. Disappeared soon after.

      Then there was the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax. An Italian guy named Bonassoli approaches Elf with a device he claims is a gravity wave oil detector. Ends up fleecing them for about $150 MILLION before they finally catch on. Disappears with most of the money soon after.

      So:

      1) lots of funding
      2) public demonstrations
      3) often with patents

      Please demonstrate how this is any different, as you claim.

      > Is this not by definition perpetual motion?

      That's the clueless noob definition, yes. The real definition can be found on the wikipedia. Educate yourself.

      > haven't done anything here but skewer about a thousand sacred cows.

      Yes, I'm sure all the physicists out there are shaking in their shoes. "Oh no, someone on Slash called us dumb! Run for the hills, they're onto us!"

      > accept that another opinion might exist.

      I'm sure we're all perfectly aware that other opinions exist. After all, Shrub got re-elected.

      Maury

    39. Re:As they say... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. A picture of the 'device' is posted, the exhibit was pulled. According to some who have seen the video feed, "Looks like a ferris (ferrite?) wheel"

      There's something else earlier in the thread: "the self-rotating wheel will be housed in clear plastic, allowing members of the public to inspect it for a hidden battery", so it seems that the picture on Engadget is something else.
    40. Re:As they say... by 32Na · · Score: 1

      So, can someone else observe you in your perpetual lethargy and then write up the results?

      I just ask, because there might be some fundamental uncertainty relationship limiting the research: (size of couch)*(laziness) >= ??

    41. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "This device which is really nothing more nor less than the exact same technology that NASA uses for orbital flyby which is how we get probes into deep space is just an application in electromagnetic fields rather than G fields."

      How is that an analogy? When NASA obtains "free" energy via orbital flyby of planets, the planet is theoretically slowed down by an infinitesimal, but still real, amount. Energy is conserved. Slingshot billions upon billions of deep space probes the same way, and, theoretically, you would eventually change its orbit because of the energy transfer that is occurring.

      How in the heck is this analogous in the "electromagnetic field" realm? From what enormous electromagnetic field are they drawing off a tiny fraction? And if they are doing that, the field will be losing some energy as the device gains it.

      Is it the Earth's geomagnetic field? By that measure, an average compass is a "perpetual motion machine", from which the energy used to rotate the needle could be harvested, but it still wouldn't amount to much as a practical power source, and it wouldn't be a "perpetual motion machine" in the classical, "In this house we don't violate the laws of thermodynamics" sense, just a natural magnetic field harvester.

      And energy out of "nothing" is already known to exist (vacuum energy), but it seems that energy isn't easily harvestable, and may not be at all.

      "Is this not by definition perpetual motion? It keeps on doing whatever until forever.... Pretty obvious folks."

      But that is not in the sense that most people regard a perpetual motion machine -- i.e. more energy out than is put in.

    42. Re:As they say... by unablepostAC · · Score: 1

      The plastic company in my town, has a productivity rate of 3 suckers per second. :P

    43. Re:As they say... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perpetual motion, per se, isn't a problem. You're right -- any object will stay in motion perpetually unless some force acts on it. The problem is, perpetual motion as an energy source requires that something move perpetually even when you apply a force countering that motion, which is how you'd draw energy from the device.

      Sure, there might be a loophole in the universe that lets something like that work, but it's very, very, very unlikely.

      Space probes do not make use of conservation-of-energy-breaking perpetual motion, they draw energy stored in the angular momentum of the planet they're looping around. Yes, you could do the same thing with a magnetic field but it would not be perpetual motion. The guy's statement about this device BEING perpetual motion implies that

      a) he doesn't know what he's talking about or how the device actually works
      b) he does know how the device actually works and he's lying, probably to scam someone
      c) he's overthrown one of the very basic tenants of physics and we're going to have to go back to, oh, 1700 and start over.
      d) the device doesn't work

      Of those, d is by far the most likely, closely followed by a and b. C is, uh, unlikely.

    44. Re:As they say... by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

      The photo you mention is something that has been seen long before today.

      If I make something out of tinfoil and coat hangers and rant on about perpetual energy, the photos of my contraption make it no more real.

      Seriously, so far it's been NOTHING but hype. And I've been following this story since it began.

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    45. Re:As they say... by m50d · · Score: 1

      Erm, Fermat's Little Theorem is pretty easy to proove.

      --
      I am trolling
    46. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why don't people just get a life and accept that another opinion might exist.

      Physics is not a matter of opinion.
    47. Re:As they say... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      e. He is using a term most people associate with a device that won't stop.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    48. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perpetual lethargy also has the property of not going "Whoosh!" as it goes over your head...

    49. Re:As they say... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, most people associate "perpetual motion machine" with a machine that breaks the laws of conservation of energy. So your e is covered by, uh, whichever the scam options were.

      Note that he says this specifically:

      CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to "consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed." He goes on to say "It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."

      (boldface mine)

    50. Re:As they say... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because, posting articles like this is no different than posting an article every time some hick claims they saw a UFO or were abducted by aliens. It's really not news and it's just promoting a total nut-job (or alternately, sham-meister).

      Or maybe I'm just overly tired of that Alex Chiu douchebag and his special life ring or whatever that Slashdot blathered on about for a solid four years.

    51. Re:As they say... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      1) lots of funding
      2) public demonstrations
      3) often with patents Steorn has been actively rejecting funding offers during its "validation" phase. Since 2001, the company has acknowledged massive losses, standard among tech startups. The extent of their publicity efforts so far has been a series of advertisements... they haven't been traveling the world demonstrating it.

      It's not like public demonstrations guarantee it's a hoax. The three attributes you list also apply to every other new product development program, legitimate or not. Don't tell me the combination of funding, patents, and demos is unique.
    52. Re:As they say... by immel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We do harness the kinetic energy of the larger bodies of the solar system for practical use. One more obvious use of this is tidal power (generated by slowly affecting the kinetic energy of the Moon, IIRC, and harnessed by small turbines in coastal areas). One less obvious use of this is the planetary flyby technique used by spacecraft. By decreasing the velocity of Jupiter by [insert mathematically insignificant number here], a small space probe can go into a Jovian orbit at one velocity and exit this orbit at a significantly higher one in a different direction while using virtually no fuel.

      I'm not sure what you mean by the "energy storage" with natural magnets and rotational kinetic energy (Remember, the vast majority of ferrous material on this planet, and thus the source of the Earth's magnetic field, is in the core, not the crust), but there are techniques for using the Earth's magnetic field to produce energy. I saw a test of an apparatus on the NASA channel (Now that's good television) which used the spacecraft's movement through Earth's magnetic field to induce a current in a tether outside the spacecraft, which they then used to power stuff on board the spacecraft. But this was still not "free energy", because the magnetic field generated by the current interacted with that of Earth and decreased the spacecraft's velocity and altitude (as expected by NASA engineers and the law of conservation of Energy). This was mostly recoverable, though, because feeding current the other way through the cable increased the spacecraft's altitude again. The only way to get current out of a magnetic field is to move charged particles through it, which is convenient, because everything is made of charged particles. Energy must be expended to get those charged particles in motion in the first place, and once the current has been generated, the kinetic energy of the charged particles drops to zero.

      My point is, even by harnessing the kinetic energy or magnetic properties or what have you of the cosmos, you do affect them in a small way. Try that fly-by trick enough, and Jupiter will fall out of orbit. Some energy in space looks "free", but in actuality it's really just "insanely cheap" energy.

      --

      10 Bits= $.25
      100 Bits= $.50
      110 Bits= $.75
      1000 Bits= 1 byte
    53. Re:As they say... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Just working on it? I know many masters.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    54. Re:As they say... by thue · · Score: 1

      It's a lot like when people used to let high school math coaches claim to have solved Fermat's Little Theorem. We all knew they didn't, but there's a lot to be said for the puzzle of locating the coaches' mistakes.

      I actually independently formulated and proved Fermat's Little Theorem just after high school, using only high school math.

      Perhaps you meant Fermat's last theorem.

    55. Re:As they say... by Daedone · · Score: 1

      And for those that don't RTFA.....

      Getting published is probably right up on top of his list, since he's paying 22 scientists to review the device and provide their findings back to him (a peer review, if you will)

      http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001

      ...22 were appointed to test Steorn's claims. The review process began in January 2007 and is still ongoing. Steorn will publish the results of the process following its completion.

    56. Re:As they say... by Hucko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Steady on, that has nothing to do with the perpetuity of energy creation. If the output energy is greater than initial input, it would not matter that it takes 3 times the initial input energy to create the device. The only thing that matters is that the output energy is greater than the drag forces bringing said device to a stop without further energy input.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    57. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent down,

      if you really RTFA you would have seen that on the site they clearly state that they have 22 scientists reviewing it right now

      http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001

      posting as AC because i don't want to waste the mod points i already gave out to people who deserved them

      -daedone

    58. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Care to name a single public demonstration of a breaking our understanding of physics that wasn't a hoax?

    59. Re:As they say... by ruinous · · Score: 1

      You grossly misunderstand big bang theory. It doesn't state that the universe erupted out of nothing; I believe the term that physicists use is a 'singularity'. And it's not 'erupting', it's 'expanding'. It's like blowing up a balloon, you're not creating more rubber, you're expanding it.

    60. Re:As they say... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Ahh grasshopper, so you see he is not yet a master... for in true zen-enlightenment style, the more one works on lethargy, the further one is from achieving it.

    61. Re:As they say... by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Galileo.
       
      Note that I'm in no way endorsing this current chap's claims. But the answer to your question was too obvious to pass up.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    62. Re:As they say... by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      This thing is a massive hoax.

      Yes laws of thermodynamics blah blah...

      I'm sure that comment came up when we redrew the solar system to have the sun at the center instead of the earth or when we tried to pitch the concept of the earth being round instead of flat.

      Let's see what the scientists come back with before dismissing it as a hoax hmmm kay? It's important to be critical, but one needs to consider that laws are only laws until they are disproven.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    63. Re:As they say... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      > We don't see anything of his just yet.

      NO SHIT.

      Unless this thing takes unbelievable levels of technology to produce, it should be relatively simple to provide blueprints so the rest of us can duplicate and verify what happens. He doesn't have to worry about his IP, because he's got a patent, hasn't he.

      And for all the people who continually scream about stuff being "buried" by "big oil" - why don't you simply publish complete accurate blueprints on the internet. It's IMPOSSIBLE to "supress" something on the internet. Exactly the opposite, the more it's "suppressed" the wider and faster it spreads. Look at decss or the HDDVD key.

      Fuck video - Blueprints or it doesn't exist!

    64. Re:As they say... by kiyoshilionz · · Score: 1

      It's a lot like when people used to let high school math coaches claim to have solved Fermat's Little Theorem. We all knew they didn't, but there's a lot to be said for the puzzle of locating the coaches' mistakes.
      Fermat's Little Theorem was proved pretty early on. From Wikipedia:

      Euler first published a proof in 1736 in a paper entitled "Theorematum Quorundam ad Numeros Primos Spectantium Demonstratio" What you're thinking of is Fermat's Last Theorem
    65. Re:As they say... by MouseR · · Score: 1

      It matters if the device breaks down before it's total energy output equals that wich was required to build it in the first place.

    66. Re:As they say... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      AHAHHAhahahahaha - look at this story (if the f'ing javascript redirect doesn't piss you off) - http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:V8jNRXh7364J:w ww.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/050602/met_9 326453.html+madison+priest+%22magic+box%22&hl=en&c t=clnk&cd=2

      I'd say Madison Priest is a bloody GENIUS! It's all the other people giving him literally millions and millions of dollars that are blooming IDIOTS. I mean look at the "Mark Strong" guy. He kept believing even after he and a physicist opened up one of the earlier boxes and found it was empty!

      What I think is always telling is when the big real companies like Intel call their bluff and say "okay, we'll give you a million dollars the week after you hand a prototype over to our lab" but - ooops - for some reason or other there's always an excuse as to why the prototype got destroyed by an act of nature or wasn't ready.

      "Strong, who said he is now 90 percent sure the entire affair was a hoax".

      90 percent sure.

    67. Re:As they say... by Phil+Karn · · Score: 4, Informative
      Geothermal power is actually a form of nuclear power. It comes from the radioactive decay of potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232 inside the earth.

      Actually, there is a way to "tie gears to the planets". Tidal power extracts the kinetic energy of the earth's rotation using the moon as a brake.

    68. Re:As they say... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      This team is NOT following any of the "Fraud" or "Fake" technology pattern.

      Perhaps not but they are incredibly ignorant of basic physics. The law of conservation of energy comes from the symmetry of space-time i.e. the laws of physics are the same here as they are where you are. For energy non-conservation you would have to find a region of space-time with different laws of physics. I think that this would likely be a heck of a lot more noticeable than managing to develop a perpetual motion machine.

      Of course those who oppose the idea that we can arrive at energy by some means such as this, openly preach to us that the whole universe erupted out of the head of a pin, [Big Bang anybody?]

      Actually you are quite wrong there, the head of a pin would be massive in size compared to the initial size of the universe.

      and are quite happy for all of its mass and all of its energy to have erupted out of nothing in that event. [Logic anybody?]

      This is called an initial condition i.e. the universe started with X amount of energy. Since conservation of energy comes from the translational symmetry of space-time and most models have space-time created by the Big Bang (though there are some interesting cylical models I've recently heard of which do not have this feature) it is perfectly logical for conservation of energy to apply only AFTER the Big Bang. Since we currently have no clue what happened before who can say where this energy came from. Ignorance of what set up our initial conditions does not invalidate what we know of the universe since then any more than your ignorance of where the last can of coke you drank was made invalidates its existence. Clearly the can existed and so therefore had to come from somewhere.

      The conditions of the Big Bang were such that energy conservation may not have applied because we cannot be sure that space-time had translational symmetry then. The conditions of a simple table top experiment are extremely unlikely to produce similar conditions! You might find it illogical because you don't know enough physics but that does not mean that it IS illogical!

    69. Re:As they say... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? If I were to invent something like this, it would be easy for "big oil" to bury it. $1,000,000,000. After taxes. That's enough for me to live well the rest of my life, doing the things that are interesting to me. I'm no marketing guru to be able to turn this into oodles of money on my own. Any attempt I make would likely result in much less money for me, and much more time spent. People on here are always talking about how no one ever laid on their deathbed and wished that they had spent more time working. This gets the best of both worlds.

      I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, either. It may be impossible for "big oil" to kill it without your consent, but they've got the money to make you consent.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    70. Re:As they say... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Giving credibility to stories like this lowers the signal-to-noise ratio.

      There might be some really cool power-generating (or storage) technologies being developed, but if you have to wade through all the stupid "perpetual machine" scams to get to them, you probably won't recognize the good stuff when you see it.

      It would be better if such stories were not splashed around by the general media until the technology has gone through a few cycles of independent (not by the inventor), controlled, peer-reviewed testing. If there's a real effect, then multiple independent people will be able to reproduce it.

      Frankly, if someone tries to conceal the details of their technology "to protect my secrets", you can pretty much take it to the bank that they're running some kind of scam. At that point, it's better just to ignore any technobabble they're spouting and get away before you find their hands in your pocket looking for your wallet.

    71. Re:As they say... by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Aristotle was hardly still accepted as current in the 16th and 17th centuries. Google John Philoponus -- "As regards the natural motion of bodies falling through a medium, Aristotle's verdict that the speed is proportional to the weight of the moving bodies and indirectly proportional to the density of the medium is disproved by Philoponus through appeal to the same kind of experiment that Galileo Galilei was to carry out [approximately 1000 years] later."

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    72. Re:As they say... by Hamilton+Lovecraft · · Score: 0

      How much is the contribution of gravitation (weight->pressure->heat) to geothermal activity? I would have guessed it exceeded that of radioactivity.

      --
      step 3: god dammit, it doesn't work
    73. Re:As they say... by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Physics is not a matter of opinion. Hear, hear!
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    74. Re:As they say... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      It's not a complicated sentence. Read carefully.

      " Just because the device doesn't do what's claimed doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "

      I shouldn't have to repeat myself over something that short.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    75. Re:As they say... by SEMW · · Score: 1

      My dear fellow, if you were to invent a free energy device, Big Oil would be rendered entirely irrelevent. No matter how much they offered you to keep quiet it would be a pittence compared to how much you (or they) could make by selling electricity to the World's governments directly, undercutting oil prices. More likely the oil companies would try to buy it off you -- after all, whichever company gets it would have an effectively instant monopoly on global energy, because they'd be able to undercut everyone else -- but any amount of money they offered you for it would be far less than you'd be able to make yourself, unless they offered you something equivalent to their entire revenue for the rest of your life.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    76. Re:As they say... by ldpercy · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering about this particular aspect of magnetism for a while - ie demagnetisation, magnets as energy stores etc - are you able to supply any further information/links etc with regards to this? Cheers, percy.

    77. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      ..22 were appointed to test Steorn's claims. The review process began in January 2007 and is still ongoing. Steorn will publish the results of the process following its completion.


      And there's the huge red flag right there: *Steorn* will publish the results. Not the scientists who review it. The reviewers are probably under some kind of NDA. This isn't peer review, this is a hoax.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    78. Re:As they say... by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. If an oil company were to acknowledge they had such a device, the government would take control of it under the auspices of "the public good" or other such nonsense. This government would then have complete control of energy production, effectively killing the oil company. Therefore, the best option for the oil company would still be to pay off the inventor and keep the device a secret.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    79. Re:As they say... by ectotherm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Brought to you by P.T. Barnum, and the fine folks over at "Cold Water Fusion, Inc."...

      --
      "Nature bats last..."
    80. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      If so, how do you patent an unpatentable invention?


      If you have no trouble breaking the laws of physics, how are a few patent laws going to stand in your way?

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    81. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      22 employees are not peers.
      (but I ack that the company says they will communicate with peers)

    82. Re:As they say... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      How much money do I really need? My needs and wants are actually fairly simple. Nice house. Decent car. Good food, which I sometimes wish to cook myself, and I sometimes want to have provided to me by a restaurant. Computers, at least one of which should be above average, the rest just need to be functional for my purposes (testing, mostly). High speed internet. Travel. Getting fixed when I break.

      With an excess of time and money, I'd probably go back to school, take classes that interest me. But I don't need the kind of money you're talking about. Quite honestly, I don't want it. I like my life quiet, I don't want to deal with interviews and reporters and all the other crap that comes with the kind of fame that crushing Big Oil like a tiny bug gives you. I'd put some clause in the contract that involves my design being open-sourced after however many years, just so people can try to refine it, and to keep monopolies from continuing into perpetuity, no pun intended, but I don't want fame, and after a certain point, I don't want the money either.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    83. Re:As they say... by Refenestrator · · Score: 1

      Is it like generating electricity from aluminium?

    84. Re:As they say... by SEMW · · Score: 1

      If you make a machine that violates the first law of thermodynamics, thus turning pretty much the whole of Physics and our current understanding of the universe on its head, I think fame is something you're going to get regardless of whether you want it...

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    85. Re:As they say... by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technically IIRC, this would not violate the laws. There is an outside force acting on it in the form of the magnetic fields. The real test of the devices is if it can create more power before the magnets degauss than it takes to create the machine and magnets. That depends. From the description it sounds like just another impossible machine. The only way it could both operate as described and fit what you are saying is if they are tapping into the Earth's magnetic field and drawing energy from it.

      On a side note, the demonstration has been canceled due to technical issues. I suppose "is impossible" would qualify as a technical issue.
    86. Re:As they say... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Doesn't have to violate anything. Don't forget about things like mining the past, utilizing Hawking radiation, utilizing vacuum energy, pulling energy from other universes, converting dark matter to energy, and a whole slew of things that seem stupid/impossible right now, but mathematically should be possible.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    87. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Giving credibility to stories like this lowers the signal-to-noise ratio."

      Agreed. But who decides what is signal and what is noise? Majority? This machine is most likely a stunt or scam. But so is the "Global warming" myth but that doesn't stop articles about it.

      Wading through the noise is not pleasant but you get to choose what is noise and what is signal. It is this wading and deciding that truly makes you informed. Not right but informed. The alternative is that a few censors get to rule what is noise or signal. Decisions based on the views of an uninformed majority (The earth is flat) or the views of a few with an agenda. Either way, without noise you never know what the signal is.

    88. Re:As they say... by jcr · · Score: 1

      A couple of billion years ago, you'd be right, but the heat inside the earth today is sustained by radioactive decay. There's also some heating due to tidal effects as the planet gets tugged on by the sun and moon as it rotates. Heat from solar radiation doesn't really penetrate, but the warmer the ocean and the atmosphere are, the less heat escapes from the interior.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    89. Re:As they say... by trelayne · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're basically implying that anything that seems to good to be true means that it's chief proponent is a con artist. It's no wonder innovation and gobs of new revolutionary technologies have been far and few between since the 50s.

      In a matter of a year or so, we'll see who the suckers are. The jurors who are currently looking at the technology (and that means being able to build it from scratch) are not small-time scientists. I've been in correspondence (since before the Steorn claim) with a respected scientist who has published in many of the top peer-reviewed physics journals and he has at least one colleague who is a juror in the process. They are world-re-knowned and respected. They (and 21 other labs/scientists) are under contractual obligation to publish their findings (whether yay or nay and all of the details).

      So this will be quite interesting----hoax, misunderstanding, or real.

    90. Re:As they say... by weighn · · Score: 1

      Here is how you know when a perpetual energy machine is fake...secret negotiations...NDAs so what you're saying that if we are not aware of it - it is genuine?
      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    91. Re:As they say... by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Doesn't have to violate anything. If it is what they claim it is, it does. It's not as if they're even ashamed of it: from http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/ [steorn.com]:

      "The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy"

      "The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%"

      As for the rest of your list... Forgive me, but it seems to me like you're rather throwing out a lot of semi-science-fictiony buzzwords which sound like they have something to do with free energy. For example, Hawking radiation subtracts from the mass of the black hole (E=mc^2) perfectly in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics (theoretically, at least; AFAIK it's never been measured). And "Pulling energy from other universes" -- the only thing I can think of that this could refer to is the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and pulling energy from other worlds in that interpretation is most definitely forbidden -- mathematically, no information can be transferred, let alone energy. Etc, etc.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    92. Re:As they say... by trelayne · · Score: 1

      Here we go again with a douche bag who hasn't does his homework. They claim that they DID approach a university that tested it for three years. After all of that, they refused to put their signature on it because they felt that it would kill them, even though that university felt it was the real deal.

      Realizing that they could not even get a university to give them the stamp of approval, they knew they would have to go for the jugular and demand that the scientific world test their technology.

      There has not been a SINGLE attempt to solicit or call for investors since they began this process in August of last year. In fact, they have made a point that they are not accepting any money until the jury has accepted and publish their results. These are not small-time labs. These are well-known and respected scientists and labs who are under contractual obligation to publish their results. I have been in contact with a respected scientist (since before this Steorn thing) who has confirmed to me that he has colleagues who compose one of the jurors. They are no small operation and they simply want a piece of history if this is real.

      So stop bickering about how the earth is flat and open your mind a little.

    93. Re:As they say... by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Yes, my list was a steaming load, plus a Douglas Adams reference. The Hawking radiation one does subtract from the mass of the black hole, and follows the laws of thermodynamics, and thus could be a valid free energy mechanism, if we knew it existed, and could gather it, and could utilize it efficiently.

      Everything else was just off the top of my head crap that didn't immediately seem completely implausible.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    94. Re:As they say... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Bottom line is, if you've patented your idea, there is absolutely no reason to keep things secret and arrange for elaborate public "demonstrations."'

      'If you have no trouble breaking the laws of physics, how are a few patent laws going to stand in your way?'

      When you combine the two statements you effectively use your own attitude to prove the GP's (aka my) point. There is no accepted course of action that would lead respected individuals to consider this invention seriously even if it were legitimate. It is sad that this is the farse the passes for science these days but it is. There are no laws in physics, only theories that await the next breakthrough that completely revolutionizes our view of the physical world.

    95. Re:As they say... by Senjutsu · · Score: 1

      "X revolutionary energy technology is/was buried by Big Oil" is one of the biggest bullshit claims that snakeoil salesmen make, and it doesn't stand up to a half second of scrutiny.

      If I'm a big oil company CEO, and it comes to my attention that Fred Fuckwit of Westbuttfuck, Indiana has invented a car that runs on water, what am I going to do? Kill him and bury it? No. I'm going to beg, borrow, steal, or kill my way to securing him and any patents on it before anyone else, because once I have him and those patents, I have a 20 year monopoly on an engine that everyone in the goddamn world is going to want. That's a license to print billion dollar bills.

      The whole Big Oil Conspiracy shtick is just a narrative that scam artists use to prey on people's greed by suggesting that they need to get in now before the bad guys get to the technology first; to actually believe that it is true requires a retarded backwards view of economics which imagines that an oil company would love making money off of oil more than simply making money, and would reject an opportunity to monopolize an incredibly desirable commodity.

    96. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      When you combine the two statements you effectively use your own attitude to prove the GP's (aka my) point.


      It was a tongue in cheek.

      There is no accepted course of action that would lead respected individuals to consider this invention seriously even if it were legitimate. It is sad that this is the farse the passes for science these days but it is.


      The problem in this case in patent law, not science.

      Anyway, I'm of the opinion thatt a potential breakthrough like this is too important to be owned by any one person. Just release the damn blueprints for the device and spread the love!

      There are no laws in physics, only theories that await the next breakthrough that completely revolutionizes our view of the physical world.


      On the other hand, there are a load of hucksters, charlatans, and crackpots out there just waiting to sucker a few investors into giving them some money.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    97. Re:As they say... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      To be fair to Art and George, they frequently get calls where some idiot claims to have a working zero point device or engine that runs off water. Their response every time is pretty much: "yeah, i've heard this before, but every time I ask for SOME kind of proof, they fail to pony up any kind of evidence or follow through. send me an email or arrange a demo for me or stfu."

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    98. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      There has not been a SINGLE attempt to solicit or call for investors since they began this process in August of last year. In fact, they have made a point that they are not accepting any money until the jury has accepted and publish their results. These are not small-time labs. These are well-known and respected scientists and labs who are under contractual obligation to publish their results. I have been in contact with a respected scientist (since before this Steorn thing) who has confirmed to me that he has colleagues who compose one of the jurors. They are no small operation and they simply want a piece of history if this is real.


      From TFA: "...22 [scientists] were appointed to test Steorn's claims. The review process began in January 2007 and is still ongoing. Steorn will publish the results of the process following its completion."

      Doesn't sound like he's going to let the "jury" publish their results. Sounds like Steorn has them under NDA and is going to filter the results... possibly misrepresenting them. Sorry, but that smells mighty fishy to me. If you're so confident of you work, just put it all out there. Blueprints, equations, theory, everything. This elaborate scheduled demonstration... picking scientists to review the device... it reeks.

      -matthew

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    99. Re:As they say... by fredklein · · Score: 1

      You don't need anyone to 'take you seriously' in order to make money.

      I can think of a ton of ways to make money without anyone even knowing you are using a 'perpetual motion machine'.

      Put it in an electric car. Sure, someone will eventually notice that you never actually have to recharge the (nonexistant) batteries, but you can add a fake recharging cord for that.

      Buy/start a company that sells generators. This is riskier, because people WILL notice they never have to fuel the genny.

      Buy an old power station, and gut it. Set up your machines, and sell electricity.

      etc.

    100. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually he's right. If you didn't get a warm fuzzy feeling of "doing the right thing" when you were altruistic, you wouldn't do it. Well, that or people who help others out of a sense of duty, who do it to avoid the guilty feeling they get if they don't. It all boils down to feeling better after you help someone than beforehand, at which point you're back at the start - it's a purely selfish act. We're made that way.

    101. Re:As they say... by jon287 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the "magnets and wires" crowd have been doing quite well at bliking "investors" for the last 50 years or so. There is just so much room in all those voltage, current, phase transitions to hide "the catch". Anybody remember that Joseph Newman fellow from a few years back?

      --
      To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
    102. Re:As they say... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      So if I have a perpetual *lack* of energy, and the universe is tending toward equilibrium, then somewhere out there there has to be a perpetual store of energy. Otherwise, what's going to neutralise my energy void?

      See? It's all perfectly logical.

      Inifinite laziness is the proof that an infinite supply of energy exists. We just gotta keep looking for it (well, you do, I'm too tired).

      (Wait a moment ... if people *keep* looking for the infinite supply of energy, won't they use it all up?)

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    103. Re:As they say... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      I guess no one will survive the day when Jupiter finally collides with Mars. But it will be in the far future, so who cares.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    104. Re:As they say... by maskedau · · Score: 1

      I'm suprised anyone get the time of day other than such since what was done to Nikola Tesla. I have lost all hope in types that can't accept innovation.

    105. Re:As they say... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      This brings up a funny question in my mind. Basically, there are very few fundamental sources of energy for us to use: solar (photovoltaics, oil, gas, ethanol, etc) and nuclear (fission, fusion). But the rotational energy of the solar system and our planet in particular seem more difficult to tap. Some of it might be partially represented by geothermal power, but you can't exactly tie gears to the planets and attach them to a generator. But your comment makes me wonder if the magnetic field of the natural magnets in Earth's crust may or may not form a kind of energy storage device for past rotational kinetic energy that formed the Earth's dynamo and created the magnets in the first place.

      Lets say it works, and thats exactly what it does. Energy always comes from somewhere and if you get energy out of the momentum of the planets.. tapping that is a very very bad idea for obvious reasons.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    106. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, on the other hand, wouldn't mind being the king/dictator/bigwig of a smallish sovereign state. With a population handpicked by me. And its own patent system....

    107. Re:As they say... by gurkha711 · · Score: 1

      No. The laws of thermodynamics were not developed until well after the concept of the heliocentric model of the Solar System was well established, and a few thousand years after the Earth was proven to be spherical.

      "We" redrew the model of the Solar System based on observations that did not match the predictions of the current model. This is what tempted Copernicus to abandon the old Ptolemaic model and adopt a heliocentric model. His version was better, but still not right.

      But you are correct: laws are hypotheses that have been thoroughly tested and have never been found to be wrong. Since we have never found an exception to the laws of thermodynamics, it is a safe bet that this device, if it works, is converting one form of energy into another, even if its is not obvious to the observer(s) what is transpiring.

      --
      Stephen R. Schaffter schaffter@schaffter.org http://www.schaffter.org
    108. Re:As they say... by MrNiCeGUi · · Score: 1

      This is getting to be goddamned annoying. This is the exact same thought process that creationists use to create doubt about evolution. It's just a theory. It can't really be a law, and laws and theories got changed in the past so this one will certainly change too.

      Well, it's not like this. These theories and laws and etc are use to describe and predict reality as it is known to us. The heliocentric model was simply better at describing the observed movement of the stars and planets. It wasn't revolutionary as much as evolutionary, and only religious preconceptions made it so controversial. The same with the flat earth.

      If you want to go with experience, each and every one - each and every one - of these type of claims were false. No ifs and buts about it. There's absolutely no reason to believe that the laws of thermodynamics, which were tested and tested probably beyond your capacity to comprehend, both empirically and theoretically, are going to be proven wrong by a wheel with magnets attached to it made by some nobody without any scientific credit, standing or history.

    109. Re:As they say... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Yes. This is a disgrace for SlashDot. Someone remove this news item!

      Well, at least this isn't running on coldfusion...

    110. Re:As they say... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, those stories are usually posted with a negative blurb accompanying them; I think the main reason why nonsense like that gets posted is because it's entertaining to watch the user base ridicule the article and/or proposed wonder device.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    111. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [...] so is the "Global warming" myth but that doesn't stop articles about it.

      You've been living in a cave for the last few years, haven't you?

      The Maldive islands will disappear under the sea in less than 50 years. Why? Because icebergs melt, slowly but most surely. Why? I'll let you try and answer this last question.

    112. Re:As they say... by david.given · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia, as always, has some info on these, but it's a pain to find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMOT

      I'd like to build one one day. They sound cool.

    113. Re:As they say... by SamSim · · Score: 1

      We actually do this is in a very tiny way when space probes use planet fly-bys to get speed boosts. The space probe zooms around the back of the planet and a small amount of momentum is exchanged - the probe leaves at a higher absolute speed while the planet's orbit is slowed down very very slightly.

    114. Re:As they say... by trelayne · · Score: 1

      Remember that the press itself is never completely accurate when dealing with a complicated situation or science (I know this from frustrating experience).

      The Jurors themselves will be identified. If the results are completely negative, the results will have to be published.

      So far they have carried themselves well. I am not sold either; I am waiting for the jury process to end, and then, and only then I will be able to afford skepticism. The process at hand has been selected because it will (assuming it's real) result in shorter time to market. Steorn has publicly stated that my contact's lab (although not a juror) has signed an NDA (because I know that they are in touch with another lab that IS a juror and wishes to collaborate) but Steorn has explicitly stated that this does not mean this contact gives them any stamp of approval. That is a sign of integrity and for the following reasons, we should be patient:

      1) there is no doubt that there are landmark discoveries to be made in the future that will challenge current conservative, scientific dogma. There is no mechanism in place to protect/encourage the future Einsteins. Indeed it took one of the greatest scientists of Einstein's time to realize the brilliance of his relativity work before other physicists stopped laughing at his suppositions. Steorn has selected their unorthodox approach because they are trying to avoid the Pons and Fleischman witch-hunt of the 80s. The DOE outright rejected Cold Fusion then and decades later has softened its view because of the intriguing CF work of U.S. Naval Research (among many others). If Steorn truly believe it's real, then it would make sense that they don't want to wait decades for the scientific community to begin to look at something that works. They need the support of science to get investor interest in a technology that the world really needs. Anyway, they know that they cannot tamper with the results or it would look bad for them and defeats the purpose of the process.

      2) they have spent 8 million pounds on R&D. Yes, THEY claim this, but when you look at how much they must have paid on the full-page ad on the economist and world-wide patent applications, you will see that they are either the best cons ever or the most credible "free energy" claim in history. Or it could be the most amazing misunderstanding.

      But we owe it to ourselves to be patient otherwise we are stating that there is no place for ANY breakthrough innovation which would radically change our understanding of physics. We already know that there are problems in current models of the universe. With global warming at our heels, we cannot afford to toss out ideas.

    115. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I don't see a violation of the law of thermodynamics if it is magnetically powered. A lot of people have played around with permanent magnet motors myself included. They work, but yes, the magnets get weaker over time because they are always based on the repulsion of like magnetic poles. Think of a manufactured magnet more as a magnetic field battery and it makes the concept easier to grasp. Now, if these permanent magnet motors could use the attraction of opposite poles, then the magnets would become more permanent and have a life an order of magnitude longer. Remember, it's all about the alignment of atoms. Maybe they cracked the attraction problem?

    116. Re:As they say... by networkBoy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      with me

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    117. Re:As they say... by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      But your comment makes me wonder if the magnetic field of the natural magnets in Earth's crust may or may not form a kind of energy storage device for past rotational kinetic energy

      The magnetic field of the earth is produced by the dynamo effect. The field comes because of convection currents in the liquid core of the earth. The convection currents are driven by heat from the core conducting up to the crust. So the energy source is geothermal, primarily. (The rotation of the earth is also involved in creating the field, but energy from the earth's rotation is not being lost into creating the field - as this would violate conservation of angular momentum.) The field is not due to magnetized ferromagnetic material, like a refridgerator magnet.

      There's tons of usable energy out there - geothermal, solar, tidal, etc, etc. The trick is harnessing it cheaply, effectively, and safely on a large scale.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    118. Re:As they say... by Absimiliard · · Score: 1

      So if I have a perpetual *lack* of energy, and the universe is tending toward equilibrium, then somewhere out there there has to be a perpetual store of energy. Otherwise, what's going to neutralise my energy void? Ah, so you've met my nephew the Almost-Four year old?

      He's a definite source of infinite energy. (Moreso on family get-togethers)

      -abs
      "This is not a sig"
    119. Re:As they say... by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Pretty much.

    120. Re:As they say... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Then there was the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax. An Italian guy named Bonassoli approaches Elf with a device he claims is a gravity wave oil detector. Ends up fleecing them for about $150 MILLION before they finally catch on. Disappears with most of the money soon after.

      Damn, smart Italian guy. I'd love to have the income off a very large finite money machine such as that!

    121. Re:As they say... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      he's overthrown one of the very basic tenants of physics

      The basic tenants of physics? Are those the bearded, flustered looking guys who never leave the lab and are suspected of living somewhere in the science hall?

      ("Tenets", people. Tenets.)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    122. Re:As they say... by Wookietim · · Score: 1

      I think by now we all realize that these types of things aren't allowed by the basic rules of this universe. So why are so many people still taken in by this stuff.

      --
      http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
    123. Re:As they say... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Maldive islands will disappear under the sea in less than 50 years. Why? Because icebergs melt, slowly but most surely. Why? I'll let you try and answer this last question.

      Thanks for the laugh. With luck I'll still be around in 50 years to see that your wrong. The IPCC, which is cited by Global Warming alarmists as the symbol of scientific consensus suggests that by 2100 sea levels will rise between 9-37cm from 1990 to 2100. Check the report yourself here if you don't believe me. The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean.
      It's ridiculous claims like yours that causes people to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, since arguments like yours have as much scientific basis as the notion that global climate is actually cooling.

    124. Re:As they say... by metamatic · · Score: 1

      The outlook that makes you put this comment in, assures that governments, militaries, and major corporations wouldn't give you the time of day.

      Oh, you should read about some of the crackpottery the US government has invested money in. Try The Men Who Stare At Goats by Jon Ronson.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    125. Re:As they say... by Drachemorder · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to remove a story you perceive as untrue?
      Because there are lots of gullible fools out there who will believe it, and I can't be bothered to sit around refuting snake oil all day for their benefit.
    126. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Shannon, a signal bering maximal information is (to a naive receiver) indistinguishable from noise! http://email.eva.mpg.de/~lachmann/papers/physicalL imits.pdf (PDF warning)
      -ACtion_at_a_distance

    127. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      The Jurors themselves will be identified.


      They haven't even been identified yet? WTF? That is another red flag.

      So far they have carried themselves well. I am not sold either; I am waiting for the jury process to end, and then, and only then I will be able to afford skepticism.


      I'm waiting for the theory and blueprints to be published publicly. Until then, there is not only room for skepticism, but outright suspicion. The secrecy is a huge red flag. This isn't how science works.

      1) there is no doubt that there are landmark discoveries to be made in the future that will challenge current conservative, scientific dogma. There is no mechanism in place to protect/encourage the future Einsteins. Indeed it took one of the greatest scientists of Einstein's time to realize the brilliance of his relativity work before other physicists stopped laughing at his suppositions.


      Thousands of scientists volunteered to examine Steorn's work. Only 22 were hand selected and probably put under NDA. Scientists aren't just laughing at this, they've already dismissed it due to the secrecy. Just put the damn research out there for EVERYONE to review. All this hype and secrecy is a mockery of the scientific process.

      Steorn has selected their unorthodox approach because they are trying to avoid the Pons and Fleischman witch-hunt of the 80s. The DOE outright rejected Cold Fusion then and decades later has softened its view because of the intriguing CF work of U.S. Naval Research (among many others).


      So you're saying that Steorn is trying to avoid being outed as a fraud? Nobody could reproduce Pons and Fleischmann's work. Is Steorn afraid that other's wouldn't be able to reproduce his?

      But we owe it to ourselves to be patient


      We don't have much of a choice, do we?

      otherwise we are stating that there is no place for ANY breakthrough innovation which would radically change our understanding of physics. We already know that there are problems in current models of the universe. With global warming at our heels, we cannot afford to toss out ideas.


      Sorry, but we've been burned by far too many crackpots with very similar veils of secrecy surrounding such "amazing" breakthroughs. This whole thing just screams "crackpot" to me. Ever little bit of it.

      Wake me up when the theory and blueprints are public and someone (preferably many people) has actually reproduced the device(s). Until then, this just another crackpot with a perpetual motion machine. Sorry.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    128. Re:As they say... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      On a side note, the demonstration has been canceled due to technical issues. I suppose "is impossible" would qualify as a technical issue.

      Actually, I think the issue was that the power went out in the presentation room.

    129. Re:As they say... by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      With global warming at our heels, we cannot afford to toss out ideas.

      Global warming is definitely problematic, but an even better reason to not toss new energy techniques (whether perpetual or not) is solving the Peak Oildilemma. Granted, solving that problem may still throw the world into an economic depression, but it beats the collapse of modern civilization.

    130. Re:As they say... by careysub · · Score: 3, Informative
      > How much is the contribution of gravitation (weight->pressure->heat) to geothermal activity? I would have guessed it exceeded that of radioactivity.

      A couple of billion years ago, you'd be right, but the heat inside the earth today is sustained by radioactive decay. There's also some heating due to tidal effects as the planet gets tugged on by the sun and moon as it rotates. Heat from solar radiation doesn't really penetrate, but the warmer the ocean and the atmosphere are, the less heat escapes from the interior.

      A neat paper on the Earth's heat budget is located at http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo519.071/lectu res/Heat_Budget_Earth.pdf.



      The capsule summary:
      * A variety of sources heated the Earth immediately during formation: gravitational collapse, adiabatic compression, and short lived radioactivities that quickly disappeared. Gravitational collapse may not have contributed much heat to the inner Earth because it could have been mostly dissipated during accretion, but this is uncertain.
      * Today decay of U, Th and K produce something like 40-75% of the observed total heat flux from the Earth. Solidification of the core (heat of fusion) produces about 10%. Cooling of the ancient heat deposited in Earth's formation is 15-50% of the flux.
      * So - there is a lot of uncertainty here. It is most likely that radioactive decay dominates over simple cooling of ancient heat today, but this is uncertain. If one includes core solidification as a form of ancient heat (it is latent heat of formation) then the likelihood of radioactive decay dominance diminishes and it becomes possible that ancient heat still dominates today.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    131. Re:As they say... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      perpetual motion would prove the existence of God actually. Because it certainly isn't within the realm of science.

      The people on the Spanish programming channel want to sell me a talisman of good fortune, it has 21 symbols of good luck, guaranteeing good fortune. It really works, sounds too good to be true, but it's true.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    132. Re:As they say... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      OMIGOD!!! They Degaussed the Earth!!!

    133. Re:As they say... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'You don't need anyone to 'take you seriously' in order to make money.'

      You realize that you can't do any of the things you just suggested without a buttload of money. Unless the inventor happens to have some serious cash in his pocket he will have to get someone to take him seriously in order to finance any of those little projects.

    134. Re:As they say... by sproggo · · Score: 1

      I must concur, posts like this should automatically cause a temporary suspension on the user's ability to post. And the more stupid posts by a user, should result in longer and longer suspensions on that user. This is a technical news website, so one should have at least a measurable IQ in order to post news stories. Its sad, more and more, I'm seeing slashdot start to look a little more like cnn, the 24 hour news tabloid. Shame on you ScuttleMonkey.

    135. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was mostly recoverable, though, because feeding current the other way through the cable increased the spacecraft's altitude again. The only way to get current out of a magnetic field is to move charged particles through it, which is convenient, because everything is made of charged particles. Energy must be expended to get those charged particles in motion in the first place, and once the current has been generated, the kinetic energy of the charged particles drops to zero. So the only way to generate a current in a magnetic field is with a current (hint: moving charged particles = current) in a magnetic field? NASA TV might be good and all but it clearly isn't an adequate substitute for a good book. This whole statement is FUD/poorly worded/BS/notscience - but at least your point at the bottom is valid.

      I'm pretty sure the mission you're referring to is STS-75 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-75) where a tether dragged behind the shuttle generated a current by moving a metal through a magnetic field. You shame all of Slashdot by not knowing of STS-75, since it was the first time Linux was used in orbit.
    136. Re:As they say... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Wind, tidal power are ways to harvest rotational energy. And I wager that the largest energy contribution of current space probes is from gravity assists.

    137. Re:As they say... by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      Also, consider many of the Big Oil companies are working on Hydrogen fuel cells so they can continue to provide fuel (hydrogen) and it looks like a gallium-aluminum mixture reacting with water is a very promising means of getting hydrogen. An argument could be made that Big Oil is working on a car that runs on water right now.

    138. Re:As they say... by socz · · Score: 1

      But even if the post, article and or reason for posting is ridiculous, we can learn a lot from it. I just learned that the moon could basically be separated from earth if we leech too much power from it! That is cool!

      Also, i got some ideas for my own invention! bad ass

      One last thing is, if these guys can actually prove anything that they are claiming, then that is awesome! This whole "that isn't possible" reminds me of my Public Education!
      "You can not multiply or divide, that doesn't exist" - First Grade Teacher
      "It doesn't matter where you are, newton's law doesn't change" - Elementary Teacher, in response to a question regarding space
      "We just don't know enough about it" - Honest answer from a physics teacher in highschool

      Most people won't admit we don't know crap! We only like to fool ourselves into believing that we know about something, anything. With enough time everything can be proven wrong.

      Anyhow, you can never say never...

      This does remind me of a philosophy teacher i had, who said that in Wisconsin they had a machine similar to this one that worked off of a radiator under pressure. I don't know what ever happened to that idea, but from how he described it it seemed it could have worked. Then again, he was a little crazy, talking about the NWO and all (search the U.N.s website for that "craziness.")

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    139. Re:As they say... by graft · · Score: 1

      If you're going to post the IPCC numbers on sea level rise, you ought to know that when the report was released, there was a HUGE outcry from people who did science on the subject of sea level rise because they felt the numbers in the report vastly underestimated the expected rise. RealClimate has an extensive discussion of the numbers, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 /03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

    140. Re:As they say... by andrew_0812 · · Score: 1

      Another possibility is tapping into other magnetic fields. I remember hearing of a device that appeared to produce free energy. The creator new this was impossible, but there it was. He took the device to a friend to demonstrate it and it didn't work. They finally figured out that it was his house's proximity to high voltage lines that made the device work. It was tapping energy from the changing magnetic field from the lines. By no means free, and often illegal if used to steal energy from the system.

    141. Re:As they say... by Fizzog · · Score: 1

      "The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean."

      Actually that will depend on the size of the waves coming in.

      A 2.1m wave now will likely crash on the beach. A 2.1m wave in 50 years might be crashing against the buildings inland.

      That would be fairly equivalent to 'disappearing under the ocean'.

    142. Re:As they say... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      The IPCC's results have always seen a HUGE outcry, from both sides. On the whole though, they are overly pessimistic not sugar coating things. The particular issue you link to is only in regards to the differences between the 3rd and 4th reports the IPCC has presented. The only people arguing for a significant correction(up to 100cm) are from the fringes and even that 1m won't see entire Islands under water in 50 years as per parent post.
      I guess my point is, if we want to debate the accuracy of IPCC findings we're at least talking science. Pulling out blatantly false hyperbole like 50 years seeing islands disappear is just fear mongering. Better still, fear mongering running contrary to scientific evidence.

    143. Re:As they say... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      A 2.1m wave now will likely crash on the beach.
      LOL, unless the tide is in. Or it is a 2.3m wave, then you've got a problem right now. Basically, the conditions that have existed on the island since people first started living on it. If it's not considered under the ocean right now, why should 20cm make a difference?

    144. Re:As they say... by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

      "... If this were for real, he'd be going though a university or trying to get published in respected journal directly."


      At the very least, he'd skip the university eggheads and be trying to cash-in here!
      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    145. Re:As they say... by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      OMIGOD!!! They Degaussed the Earth!!! YEah...now it looks better from space...

      Cheers!
      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    146. Re:As they say... by danpsmith · · Score: 1

      Technically IIRC, this would not violate the laws. There is an outside force acting on it in the form of the magnetic fields. The real test of the devices is if it can create more power before the magnets degauss than it takes to create the machine and magnets.

      Yeah, it's funny how bullshit always involves magnets or "sonic waves".

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    147. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try to find a shitty little piece of land that lies even lower? Let's say 10cm above sea level. Now we have panic because it will happen in the next 10 years!

      People are incredibly stupid and arrogant to think the world will behave according their short term views. Sea levels have been going up and down slightly for millions of years due to all sorts of causes.

      For god sake. My country of origin "The Netherlands" IS partly under sea level. Luckily is it filled with people who can think for them selves and who are pragmatic about it. Put up with floods, move away or build a dyke. I hope they don't read slash dot because your well informed warning will cause major panic to break out.

      In addition to all this. Try your hand at some basic maths and see if you can calculate how much ice you need to melt to raise the world sea levels by 1 meter. You'd be amazed. Actually, you probably only know how to watch TV so here it is:

      Let's work with the following facts and assumptions

      The earth radius on the equator is 6378KM
      Assume the earth to be round
      70% of the planet is water 30% is land
      Assume that the volume of melted ice is the same as that of water
      Area of the Antarctic is 14.4 million square kilometres

      Ok, let's take the assumed sea level radius of 6378 KM
      and calculate the earth total volume.

      Sphere volume : 4/3 r

      This gives us a volume of 1.0868e+12 cubic KM

      Now let's assume the ocean levels rise by 1 meter. If ice melting were to cause a raise in sea level we will assume we are talking about melting ice above sea level.

      The difference in volume represents the volume of ice required. So if we would increase the earth radius by 1 meter we can calculate that the new volume will be 1.0873e+12 cubic KM

      1.0873e+1 minus 1.0868e+12 gives us a difference of 500000000 cubic KM or 500 Million Cubic KM. But only the sea level will rise not the the land so since only 70% is sea we only need
      350 million Cubic KM of ice to melt for the sea to rise by 1 meter. (I am ignoring the fact that sea percentage has now increased which would require even more ice)

      Now lets visualise how much ice we are talking about here. The largest ice mass by far is the Antarctic with a land/ice area of roughly 14.4 Million square KM. If we were to spread
      our ice over this entire area you get a layer that is 24 KM thick.

      Mount Erebus is the highest mountain on the Antarctic and is only 3.794 Km high and most of that is NOT ice.

      So how much rise can we expect due to ice melting. Well, the average altitude of the antarctic is said to be 2 KM. If we incorrectly assume that all of that is ice and if all of this ice would melt we would get a sea level rise of a lousy 10 cm if we are lucky. Hardly enough
      to turn my house into beach front property.

      THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ICE ON 10 EARTH PLANETS TO LET THE SEALAVEL RISE BY 1 METER DUE TO ICE MELTING

      So can we finally stop the rising sea level argument. Right here?

    148. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 1

      So and in all your wisdom you feel you are in a position to decide who should believe what? And if you can't be bothered to refute snake oil then why the hell are you posting in this thread?

    149. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you add thermal expansion of the water column to your calculations?

    150. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 1

      I knew someone would say this. So the melting ice argument doesn't hold so we now go for thermal expansion? OK. To keep things simple. You need to heat water from 0 to 35 degrees Celsius in order to get an expansion of 1% in volume. Water at a balmy temperature of 35 degrees Celcius needs to be heated to 70 degrees to get another 1% expansion ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-pr operties-d_162.html ) So that is a lot of temperature increase. Let's go for a stupid 10 degree global water temperature rise that would represent a water expansion of 0.3%. The average global water depth on earth is 3720 Meters. Let's assume for simplicity sake that all shores in the world are vertical. So water has nowhere to go but up. That would represent an 11 meter rise of sea level. Roughly every degree of water temperature rise causes the sea level to go up 1 meter but... It takes a hell of a lot of energy and time to cause a global water temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius. This temperature rise should not only occur in the top layers of the water but also at the ocean floors which is in places 16 KM deep. It would take thousands of years of solid solar radiation in order to accumulate enough heat to achieve such a temperature rise. So, you'd say "Think about the children" yeah and theirs, and theirs and so on. But... If we observe sea level rises today. What do you think would have caused it? Definitely not melting ice. Absolutely not the minuscule global temperature rises which would take tens of thousands of years to affect all of the water in all oceans. The global thermodynamic machine is a huge slow moving mechanism. It survived millions of years. It had massive meteor impacts and other huge devastating events. Here is some math again. A square meter of earth surface retains 5057953.92 joules per year of energy. Approx 43% of the solar energy. A lot is reflected back into space and some energy is used for the water circulation system (Convection). Anyway, back to our average water depth of 3720 meters. Over an area of 1 square meter that is 3720000 litres of water. Roughly 1 litre is 1 KG. It takes 2108 joules to raise the temperature of 1 litre of water by 1 degree Celsius. So the annual energy provided by the sun of 5057953.92 on a square meter can at best cause a temperature rise of 0.00064 degrees or 0.6 degrees Celsius per 1000 years. It will take 1500 years for the oceans to receive enough energy to cause a thermal expansion of 1 meter in a worst case scenario. The truth is, this planet is inherently stable. The massive ocean is a huge carbon sponge soaking up more carbon as it gets warmer. Releasing it as it gets colder. It is a stable control system. The tiny ants called humans are totally insignificant to the shear scale of this mechanism and your 10% emission reduction on your hybrid has absolutely no effect whatsoever either way. (And nor does my neighbours 1970's V8 engine)

    151. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so proud of our knowledge of the universe or the laws that govern it, there is more going on then science will EVER be able to prove. There is simply some things that no equation or language can express and this is why science and philosophy should never be separate. These days science seems to have no room for philosophy or faith. Science is our attempt at knowing the path...but it takes faith to walk the path, without it we are truly lost. Before your ego tells you to bash me take a moment and look at this photo by Luis Royo, it speaks without language. http://www.lucamondini.it/wp-content/images/royo_f allenangel.jpg

    152. Re:As they say... by drix · · Score: 1

      Have you been to the Pacific Islands? I lived there for a little while. There are thousands of them and the effects of a rise in sea level will vary greatly depending on where you are. But as little as a .2m rise could easily have a deleterious effect on a lot of people. There are many avenues by which this could occur, the "ocean swallowing the whole island" being perhaps the least likely. Waves are essentially just repeated draws from a probability distribution; if you alter the sea level, you will affect the mean. Flooding and erosion become slightly but measurably more likely. Even if an area is still "livable", regular flooding one more more times a year will often cause entire villages to pack up and move inland. Sometimes even one event is sometimes enough. The entire northeastern coast of Savaii became depopulated following Typhoon Ofa in 1990; fishers turned into farmers, and all the villages went uphill. Another problem is increased silting due to erosion, which will kill the fringing reefs and with them, a major source of food for many islanders.

      But why speak hypothetically? This already happened two years ago in Vanuatu--Google "tegua"--and if you listen to the villagers who lived there, they paint a very consistent and lucid picture: flooding never occurred before the late 1980s. Within twenty years, the sea encroached 15m. Now, their homeland is unlivable. These people are leading indicators, and we would do well to heed their cries.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    153. Re:As they say... by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      I'm actually betting there is no net positive energy coming from this machine either - I quite understand the laws of thermodynamics too, all I'm saying is I have an open mind. Laws are disproven all the time.

      I'm not thinking the same as creationists ( and am quite offended at the thought of being compared to those pseudo-scientists too btw ). I just have an open mind and am willing to hear what others come back with after examining the device. I am skeptical but not dismissive. I'm in the "I highly doubt it" camp myself.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    154. Re:As they say... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      You have interesting math.

      Let's just take the simple approach here, shall we, and not worry about concentric spheres? At the scales we're talking about (1 meter added onto 6700 km) the increased sphere area will be trivial.

      Now, Google tells me that earth's water surface area is 362 million sq km. To cover all that with one meter of water will take 3.62e14 m^2 * 1 m = 3.62e14 m^3 = 362,000 cubic kilometers. Wikipedia tells me that Antarctica and Greenland between them hold basically all of the ice on the planet, with a grand total of 30,000,000 cubic km of ice.

      What that says to me is that there's enough ice locked up to flood the bottom 100 meters of land. Which would cover pretty much every last piece of dirt for 300 kilometers from where I sit. The Wikipedia article on the Antarctic ice sheet basically agrees with me, citing an increase of 70 meters.

      The problem, came from your calculation of the volume of the difference of the concentric spheres. You came up with 500 million cubic km to cover 362 million square km with one meter thickness. Looks like you added an extra _kilometer_ to the radius, not one meter.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    155. Re:As they say... by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Only if you are worried about efficiency or environmental concerns. If you buy the product with the kinetic energy already stored, you only care that it is putting out more energy than you put in, or it is convenient to you to use. That total output doesn't justify the existence of the device is only relevant to those concerned with environmental impact.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    156. Re:As they say... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Next you're going to tell me there isn't an up in space. It's been what 50 years that we've understood that? Almost like finding out the world is round.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    157. Re:As they say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no. Next time you repeat fanciful tales of which you know naught, check your mythbusters. The amount of coiled wire required to induce current from the magnetic fields generated by high voltage line is in the TONS.

    158. Re:As they say... by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      But why speak hypothetically? This already happened two years ago in Vanuatu

      And this is were we need to step back and look at the forest again. The argument was that Global Warming is going to be responsible for putting the Maldive's under the ocean in 50 years. The clear implication being that without any sea level rise, the Maldive's won't be under the ocean in 50 years. That 19cm is the difference between status quo and being under the ocean is a joke and a deceptive argument. The truth is that if 19cm is going to put you under the ocean, you've already got massive problems. The next Tsunami or Hurricane to come through could just as easily put you under.

    159. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      Next you're going to tell me there isn't an up in space. It's been what 50 years that we've understood that? Almost like finding out the world is round.


      What are you talking about?

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    160. Re:As they say... by dinther · · Score: 1

      Damn, I hate to admit it but I indeed stuffed up big time. Very stupid but thanks for putting me straight. That volume of ice translated to a layer over the antarctic (14 million square km) is only 25 meters thick.

      It does make me accept the potential possibility of sea level rises but it won't throw me into a global warming panic frenzy.
      I better check my math a few more times before I post next time.

      Cheers

    161. Re:As they say... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      You seem to believe in perpetual energy, about the only way I can reconcile that is by reminding myself that revolutionary discoveries do happen.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    162. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      What gave you the idea that I "believe in perpetual energy?" I believe that there are some pretty well tested laws in physics which perpetual energy would violate. I believe there is a scientific process that new discoveries generally go through, in which Steorn is not participating. In fact, their claims and behavior have all the signs of either a hoax or a fraud. The boldness of the claims, the secrecy, the staged public demonstration (which didn't even happen), the hype...

      Wake me up when they release their "discovery" to the public so anyone can try to reproduce the results. This hand selected "jury," private evaluation, and NDA stuff is bullshit.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    163. Re:As they say... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      The problem in this case in patent law, not science.
      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    164. Re:As they say... by misleb · · Score: 1

      The problem in this case in patent law, not science.


      I was talking about the trouble patenting the device in that particular quote, not the probability of the device being authentic. That is, *if* they can't patent it because perpetual motion machines are unpatentable, that is a problem with patent law, not the scientific process.

      Context, context, context.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    165. Re:As they say... by fredklein · · Score: 1

      DO I have to think of everything for you?

      Attach your machine to a generator. Poof, you aren't paying electric billsanymore. In face, in many states, you are MAKING money for all the electricity you pu back into the grid.

      Use that money to buy a cheap alectric car. Put your machine in it and take out (sell) the batteries. Sell the car to someone.

      That person recommends you to their friends. COnvert their electric cars to run off your machine.

      Etc, etc.

      Sheesh, use your imagination.

    166. Re:As they say... by jinxidoru · · Score: 1

      As a result of your poor math, your comment actual had the opposite affect from its intention. When you do the CORRECT math, and you compare the output with the size of Antarctica, you find that it won't take all that much melting (relatively speaking) to cause a drastic increase in ocean levels.

    167. Re:As they say... by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Well we all knew it would come down to that, Aka, utter BS.

  2. Sure. by GWLlosa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hear there's gonna be a demo on the Brooklyn Bridge. It just so happens I have purchased a deed to said bridge. Where's my cut?

  3. Not really perpetual motion, though. by SteveWhitty · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it draws power from fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field, it isn't perpetual motion any more than a tidal generating station, for example. It draws power from an external source, therefore it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    1. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by Tatarize · · Score: 3, Funny

      If that's true than we can't really use em. Wouldn't that drain off the magnetic field a bit? Wouldn't that get us bombarded with radiation?

      *puts on tin foil hat*

      Must protect myself from radiation! Is there nothing this thing can't do!

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    2. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by Tatarize · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, really, it would seem that the Earth's magnetic field is probably too weak to really provide much power. However, if this individual managed to convert sunlight (very energy rich) into electric power... that would be amazingly useful and would have near limitless potential.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    3. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

      Exactly, he even said it's powered by earth's magnetic field in the last article. What an idiot to say it violates the basic laws of energy now. Oh and I suppose magnetic compasses run on magic too and that's why they create their own energy to turn all the time.
      But more importantly, wouldn't this like stop the Earth from turning or screw with its magnetic radiation shield effect if everyone builds generators powered this way all over the planet?

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    4. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      However, if this individual managed to convert sunlight (very energy rich) into electric power... that would be amazingly useful and would have near limitless potential.
      There's nothing wrong with having a dream.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    5. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by ParaShoot · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Isn't that called a solar panel?

    6. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by iOsiris · · Score: 1

      Perpetual motion has already been invented. Attach this device to a rotary and we have perpetual energy! http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fantigrav itym2b6d7c4kg0.gif

    7. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I can not help but think that if anyone could harness the earth's magnetic field in a simple form, then maybe the device, what ever it is named, could be of some use. Has anyone put this on YouTube yet?

    8. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by catbutt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the same sense that windmills change the climate by slowing down the wind, I suppose you are right.

    9. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      In other words it's a compass?

      (which technically would be a perpetual motion machine... if the parts were somehow resistant to erosion and exposure, since the poles flip once every hundred millenia or so)

    10. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by students · · Score: 1

      That is impossible. Any introductory textbook on electrodynamics will tell you that magnetic fields can do no work. There is a simple loophole -- a magnetic field can induce an electric field, which does work.

    11. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have not just one but SEVERAL methods for converting sunlight into electrical energy. I will share plans for these devices with you for a low fee.

    12. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fuck's sake, at least try to be funny.

    13. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, but don't forget to change your sheets.

    14. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      I too have trees in my back yard.

    15. Re:Not really perpetual motion, though. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      That is impossible. Any introductory textbook on electrodynamics will tell you that magnetic fields can do no work. There is a simple loophole -- a magnetic field can induce an electric field, which does work.

      Technically, static magnetic fields can do no work. A changing field can do work, but then you're losing energy somewhere else to make up for it. Electrical potential, for example, if the field is due to an electric current, or the potential energy in a "permanent" magnet as it degausses over time. As for your "loophole", the energy isn't coming from the (static) magnetic field, but rather from the motion of the charged particles within the field; the field is essentially a catalyst for changing mechanical energy into electrical potential energy.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  4. Breaking the Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Breaking the Law of Conservation of Energy is a serious offense. One could find themselves in Guantanamo very quickly for breaking this law. The oil companies will not let this stand!

    1. Re:Breaking the Law by SengirV · · Score: 1

      Yep, watch out for that boogie man around every corner.

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

    2. Re:Breaking the Law by Ballinasloe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someday someone is going to create a real perpetual motion machine and no one is going to believe them.

    3. Re:Breaking the Law by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Someday someone is going to create a real perpetual motion machine and no one is going to believe them. "+1 Insightful"? More like "-1 too stupid to understand basic of physic".

      It's really very simple: THERE...IS...NO...FREE...LUNCH! You either pay going in, or you pay coming out. Work doesn't happen without energy, and energy can't be created from nothing.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Breaking the Law by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Easily dealt with.
      Build a working model, and offer it and the plans to build more for public inspection by a variety of scientists.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Breaking the Law by m50d · · Score: 1

      No, they're not, because it's, you know, impossible.

      --
      I am trolling
  5. Wrong month. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's the 4th of July not the 1st of April.

    Nice try, though.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    1. Re:Wrong month. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the 4th of July not the 1st of April. Meh.... same thing. *ducks*
    2. Re:Wrong month. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's the 4th of July not the 1st of April.

      April is when you laugh at them; July 4 is when they go up in smoke.

    3. Re:Wrong month. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what I was thinking.

  6. Lisa, get in here! by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Funny

    In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:Lisa, get in here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the fellow(s) responsible for the device are very much aware of the second law of thermodynamics.

      to quote their CEO: "It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."

      Both this invention and proofing the existance/nonexistance of god are logically impossible, so I'm thinking this must be a publicity stunt. Maybe they're fool-bating?

    2. Re:Lisa, get in here! by The+Hobo · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  7. A better analogy by sanborn's+man · · Score: 0, Troll

    it is like Microsoft paying you for using Vista...oh! wait

  8. Mr. Madison... by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 5, Funny

    What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

    1. Re:Mr. Madison... by ZombieWomble · · Score: 5, Informative
      That was the impression I got from reading the various blurbs their PR people have put out. I mean...

      "The law of conservation of energy has been very reliable for 300 years, however it's missing one variable from the equation, and that's time," said McCarthy. That's just completely incoherent - the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy in a closed system is constant OVER TIME. How can it possibly leave out time?
    2. Re:Mr. Madison... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it One of the few times I haven't RTFA, and I find I'm glad...
    3. Re:Mr. Madison... by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      This is one of those stories that doesn't deserve to be read but folks comments are about it are pretty funny. There are far too many of these kinds of articles on /.

    4. Re:Mr. Madison... by Hoplite3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mod the parent UP! This is the time when I agree that they should make stupidity more painful.

      "That's just completely incoherent - the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy in a closed system is constant OVER TIME. How can it possibly leave out time?"

      Hell effing yes. dE/dt = flux through the boundary, that's conservation of energy. If the system is isolated, the righthand side is zero, but it is still a statement about energy AND TIME.

      Rock on, you crazy thermo-knowing poster. Rock on.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    5. Re:Mr. Madison... by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's just completely incoherent - the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy in a closed system is constant OVER TIME. How can it possibly leave out time? Worse yet, the law of conservation of energy actually spills out as a consequence of Noether's theorem, and the time symmetry of the laws of physics -- that is, the fact that the laws of physics should be the same today as they will be tomorrow. CoE is, in a sense, a consequence of time.
    6. Re:Mr. Madison... by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      That guy was the best movie-based high school principal EVER. They nailed the casting on that one *perfectly*...even better than stevie as a postal worker.

    7. Re:Mr. Madison... by ZombieWomble · · Score: 4, Informative
      Even more fun... I did some more research, and found out that they're apparently exploiting some inherent time variation in the strength of something over time - it's not clear exactly what, though. Initially I thought it was the strength of a given magnetic interaction, which was sort of feasible, but then he went on a bit more...

      http://quthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/06/steorn-it-j ust-keeps-going-and-going.html

      He gave a talk in UCD the other week, this blog has links to the youtube videos. Check out the second video. About 4 or 5 minutes in, he switches over to talking about some unsolved questions in physics. Turns out, there is no dark matter or dark energy. Apparently it's trivial to fix this problem by incorporating "time variance" in Newtonian Mechanics, which is what they had done with their Orbo deviece. What exactly the nature of this time variance is, or what the nature of the solution is is unfortunately not forthcoming though.

    8. Re:Mr. Madison... by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      and the time symmetry of the laws of physics -- that is, the fact that the laws of physics should be the same today as they will be tomorrow

      Huh?

      I could be way off on this, but...I always understood time symmetry to mean that laws of physics obedient to time symmetry are invariant relative to the direction of the arrow of time. Which, unless I'm missing a logical step (and I could be), is an entirely different proposition from them being unchanged across a given period of time.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    9. Re:Mr. Madison... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 4, Funny

      CoE is, in a sense, a consequence of time. As opposed to the Orbo, which is simply a waste of it...
    10. Re:Mr. Madison... by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      I could be way off on this, but...I always understood time symmetry to mean that laws of physics obedient to time symmetry are invariant relative to the direction of the arrow of time.

      You're talking about two different symmetries: time translation symmetry, and time reversal invariance. Not all physical laws obey time reversal invariance (CP violation in weak interactions imply violation of time reversal invariance if we assume CPT invariance, for instance), but time translation symmetry (the laws of physics don't change over time), is generally accepted, and leads, via Noether's theorem, to conservation of energy.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    11. Re:Mr. Madison... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      two drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff...

    12. Re:Mr. Madison... by joefitz · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you look in the comment section of the post, nleseul gave me a few pointers about what Sean was talking about. He seems to be completely neglecting the microscopic description of the magnet, in favour of hand-wavy, deeply flawed, thought experiments.

    13. Re:Mr. Madison... by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Simple. They are 'borrowing' energy from the future. We'll be running up a huge temporal energy deficit in a few short years. Luckily, much like the national debt of the USA, we have no requirements to ever pay it back.

      We observe the effect of the past borrowing our current energy as entropy. We aren't the only inteligent species in the universe to have discovered this fatastical power source.

      Let's just hope we don't discover how to borrow energy from the past. If we were to go back too far we might disrupt the events that started life on this planet and then where would we be?

    14. Re:Mr. Madison... by lysse · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just means that the time aspect got stuck in a cube somewhere...?

  9. Not the only game in town by PacoTaco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately no one is interested in my machine that produces infinite dirty energy. :(

    1. Re:Not the only game in town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am. I pay these machines in $1 dollar bills.

    2. Re:Not the only game in town by idsfa · · Score: 1

      I find your ideas very interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter

    3. Re:Not the only game in town by adrianmonk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unfortunately no one is interested in my machine that produces infinite dirty energy. :(

      Is your machine called "the internet"?

    4. Re:Not the only game in town by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Actually, the pornonet.

  10. What a complete waste of everyone's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we really need to have a post for every single perpetual machine story that gets out there?

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE. NEVER EVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER. Can we, as a species, please get over it?

    Let's move onto the next topic, such as cold fusion or man-made global warming.

    1. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Seumas · · Score: 1

      At least they seem to have stopped posting things about that Alex Chiu time travel idiot.

    2. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by HexRei · · Score: 1

      alex chiu was the magnetic ring guy i thought. maybe you're mixing him up with john titor?

    3. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by MrHappy123 · · Score: 1

      If this way released earlier, there was no need for the Iraq War, another joke!

    4. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Electrons in orbit?

    5. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Brad1138 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE. NEVER EVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER. Can we, as a species, please get over it?

      Although I agree with your statement for the most part, It is short sided to say "NEVER EVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER". There have been a lot of things that scientist (and others) claimed could never happen, just to be proven wrong in the future (ie we can never go faster than the speed of sound). We have a few hundred years,if that, of "modern" science under our belts. In a few million years, our level of knowledge will be a lot closer to a caveman then a scientist. Never say never.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    6. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that we don't actually know what Reality herself permits and doesn't permit?

      The "Laws of Physics" are human inventions (they're actually just the mathematics of our scientific models), and we change them all the time, whenever we come up with another scientific model.

      In contrast, any "Laws of Reality" that might exist are entirely fixed and unchanging, as far as we know. The only problem is that we don't actually know what they are. We can only approximate them with our own theories, by observing the behaviour of reality. It's pretty indirect.

      So, never say never. We've been at this science thing for only a few hundred years, and we have billions of years of development ahead of us. The likelihood that our primitive ideas will survive into the distant future is extremely small.

    7. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Is it short-sighted, too?

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    8. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your example to support your point is misguided. It was not "scientists" making a scientific thesis that humans were incapable of traveling faster than the speed of sound, it was engineers making an engineering pronouncement. And at the time, they were correct. It had nothing to do with it being impossible to travel that fast, their claims were based on the strengths of the materials and the sources of power available at the time. With their technology, it was not possible. But they did not have any mathematical proof of that, nor did they claim it would never be possible in the future.

      However, the Law of Conservation of Energy is in fact a scientific, mathematical proof. It is not based on any engineering principles or current-generation technology, it is an universal statement about how the laws of physics work. It is perfectly safe and valid to say, "NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER".

      How someone who cannot distinguish "scientific" from "engineering", or even "then" from "than", got modded +5 Insightful is beyond me.

    9. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by uncreativ · · Score: 1


      I think your point misses something somewhat important about the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. They are about as good as fact as one ever will get in science. In fact, the idea of a perpetual motion machine being an impossibility can be proven conclusively by showing that every thermodynamic process results in at best getting as much energy out as you put in, with the universal (at least as we know to date) result that available energy is lost to entropy. We can get close to perfect energy conservation--like moving electricity through a superconductor--but the point is we will never get more out than we put in..

      This can be proven mathematically, much like mathematics can prove there is no possible solution to certain types of problems. At base level, there has to be some assumption. In mathematics, the well ordering principle is one such assumption--that is that there exists numbers, and these numbers are required to have the property that all numbers can be ordered in increasing (or decreasing) value without two different numbers being the same. It would be absurd to suggest the well ordering principle is a faulty assumption.

      OK--so what principle assumptions are involved in proving all thermodynamic processes result in at best conservation of available energy (rest lost as entropy)? First, I suppose we have to cite the existence of this quantity called energy. Second, we have to define what energy is. We can define energy as a quantity that descibes a capacity to do work (as a physicist would definne work) and a capacity for changing temperature (as a physicist from a statistical thermodynamics perspective would define temperature). Using only these assumptions and mathematics, one can prove energy is conserved.

      This is not like the long held assumption that the speed of lighht would be different depending on how fast you were moving relative to the source of light--which assumption Einstein famously shattered. The assumptions necessary to prove energy conservation are so fundamental, that to think the assumptions are wrong would be absurd. This is not the same kind of level oof science that asserts theories of evolution, shows that the world is not flat flat (it's a cubic time sphere, you silly :) You would have to refute logic and reason as methods for determining facts in order to disprove conservation of energy.

    10. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest problem in understanding here is we are dealing with people that think in linear terms and do not understand the concepts of limits and boundaries. For example the idea that the faster you go the harder it gets to go that little bit faster is beyond many - we need better education instead of just churning out barbarians in suits that still think slavery is viable so long as it is done offshore.

    11. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In normal cases you would be right, but we could wonder about for instance the origin of the universe still, which is a rather strange event and might not obey physics as we know it. Basically once we leave this universe behind us I'm not quite as convinced that entropy violations remain impossible. (Of course, dragging other universes into this might turn out to be impossible, either because they don't exist or it is simply impossibl to get at them)

    12. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by uncreativ · · Score: 1


      No doubt...and to think that there will always be some people who get fooled by this. If these people represent a publicly traded company, I'd be tempted to short their stock. However there are so many ill informed people in the world willing to throw money at get rich quick scams, I'm not sure how high the stock price would be pumped up before it deflated(I'm thinking of all the stock pumping/dumping that happened with SCO and their strategy to sue their way to profitability).

      Some earlier comments cited previous hoaxes that roped in real investment money--millions of dollars, some from established businesses. My god, you'd think executives with a college degree in business should be more careful to look behind the curtain, or at least think to talk to a science expert.

      I heard one science journalist posit that in the world we live in today, science is becoming what literacy was hundreds of years ago. The point was not to suggest that everyone become scientists, but that a science literacy that enables people to evaluate scientific findings/assertions and use science effectively is a necessity to be successful in a world increasingly impacted by scientific developments.

    13. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by kreyg · · Score: 1

      We have a few hundred years,if that, of "modern" science under our belts. In a few million years, our level of knowledge will be a lot closer to a caveman then a scientist. Never say never.

      I've heard that statement a number of times, and while I sincerely hope it's true, is there actually any reason to believe that is the case?

      The problem is that we don't know exactly how much stuff we don't know about the fundamental mathematics of the universe. We seem to be pretty close to a complete picture, but there's not really any way to tell whether we're almost there, or whether we're as mistaken about being close to the answer as people were at the end of the 19th century were about Newtonian physics being close to a full theory of the universe.

      If we are close to a complete and correct theory, it may be the scientific method has already produced all of the "easy" answers, or that a complete theory may demonstrate as many limitations as it provides answers.

      I like to believe that scientific progress will continue at a linear or exponential pace, but it doesn't seem to be certain.

      --
      sig fault
    14. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by dbIII · · Score: 1

      My god, you'd think executives with a college degree in business should be more careful to look behind the curtain, or at least think to talk to a science expert.

      One common aspect of a lot of these scams is to make it look like they are challenging the established order and that they will be opposed by those that are not willing to accept new ideas, do not want to look silly by not seeing what in hindsight would be obvious if it was real, are jealous or are in the pockets of an established industry that has a lot to lose. This way they isolate the mark from those that would tell them that there is a scam. A perfect example is Scientologists and their demonising of psychologists and to a lesser extent demonising of other medical professionals.

    15. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      This can be proven mathematically, much like mathematics can prove there is no possible solution to certain types of problems. At base level, there has to be some assumption. In mathematics, the well ordering principle is one such assumptions...

      I hate to play Devil's advocate here, but one has to be careful with physics and maths. All our knowledge of physics is based on the developing of models; the results of mathematical operation on these are exact and well defined, but only as accurate as the model that describes the physical process. Remember that before the developement of quantum physics, for example, a lot of physicist really thought that our knowledge of the universe was complete - that is, that Newtonian mechanics covered every single possible interaction, only because no one observed anything that contradicted it.

      First, I suppose we have to cite the existence of this quantity called energy.

      Now, the physics crowd of /. will jump at my jugular here, but energy is another mathematical construction. Energy, in its core, is defined as work per unit of time, with work (for a force) being defined by W = F x D. That energy is a massively useful concept is not something that i'm about to discuss, but it all boils down to the same Newtonian force interactions we're based on from the start. It just simplifies concepts and calculations - same with fields, for example. A charged particle doesn't "spawn" a field, per se, but it's an useful concept that allows us to work on force interactions when another charged particle comes into play. Chemical energy, thermodynamics, same deal - all based on the very same model which describes physical interactions.

      What i'm trying to say is that one has to be very careful when demonstrating things mathematically. The only thing maths can probe beyond a shadow of a doubt is math problems; this doesn't mean that your conclusions are bad, but it does mean that they might very well be not precise, or even incomplete.

      As for the free energy claims, i always take them with loads of scepticisim. I'd love to see some truth to this claims, to be honest, but incredible claims need conclusive proof. I'm open minded, just not gullible.

    16. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Energy, in its core, is defined as work per unit of time

      Woops, brain fart! Make that E = delta W.

    17. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by insignificant1 · · Score: 1

      So at least by the 1920s scientists knew that something man-made could break the sound barrier:

      In the early 1900s, some scientists wondered whether a whip's crack came from a sonic boom. That is, perhaps part of the whip moves faster than the speed of sound, around 750 miles an hour, and the clap of noise comes as the sound barrier is broken. Presumably the cracker creates the crack. By the 1920s, high-speed photography revealed that a whip's cracker can indeed break the sound barrier.
      http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDet ail/assetid/17894
    18. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by uncreativ · · Score: 1

      actually, change in energy is defined by dE = dW + dQ . You forgot about heat.

      You are correct that physics is based on models which then use mathematics. So assume for the moment the math proves out conservation of energy. As I mentioned in my posting, the only assumptions made in that proof are the definition of energy as a capacity to do work or affect temperature (a.k.a. heat). In mathematical form, that definition is dE = dW + dQ . You would have to throw out what is meant by the term energy to do away with its conservation because the conclusion that it is conserved is only based on the definition of energy--and that conclusion is based on mathematical derivation. If the definition of energy is not either a capacity to do work or affect temperature (heat), then it's not energy either in a physical sense or a layman's understanding of the term. The perpetual motion machine "inventors" are claiming to have a device that creates energy in mechanical form more than any energy inputs into the system. There really is no room for them to be correct.

      Also you bring up the topic of quantum physics--which contrary to your assertion actually came into being in large part because of phenomena that did not comport with known observations ( look up topics such as ultraviolet catastrophe or the photoelectric effect--just two reasons for why quantum physics was necessary and were problems well known before quantum physics was able to explain observation). Anyway, there is a principle known as the correspondence principle whereby it is observed that all of these "modern physics" formulae reduce to the exact form of classical newtonian forms when appropriate conditions are met. You can use relativity equations for mechanics at slow speeds--not just for things moving realy close to the speed of light. And yes, you can use Schroedinger's equation to solve classical physics problems if you are a glutten for punishment.

      More to the point, all the new physics that has come into being in the past century is consistent with newtonian physics in the sense that netwonian physics is a special case. In newtonian physics, we assume a frame of reference moving slow relative to the speed of light and we assume quantum numbers are very large as is the case for large objects (relative to atomic scale objects). There are still a lot of assumptions built into classical, netwonian physics. Enough to allow for future work to be done in the field of physics--mostly because it was developed from typical human experiance which is limited to our direct human observation. That was why quantum phisics for the atomic scale and special relativity for the fast moving came to be. What about other extreme conditions--lot's of possibilities to expand on classical mechanics. Conservation of energy however has no assumptions other than the definition of energy. There is no other angle from which to attack the conclusion that energy is conserved.

    19. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

      *Corrections* short-sighted / scientists / our current level of knowledge

      Sorry about that, tired.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    20. Re:What a complete waste of everyone's time by Rock-n-Rolf · · Score: 1

      I can do time travel easily. I lie down in my bed, close my eyes and count slowly to 3. When I open my eyes it's eight hours later with no time lost. Actually, I do it daily.

      --
      In Korea, all your base are Only For Old People
  11. Stop It by asolipsist · · Score: 3, Funny

    If these asses are pulling energy from Earth's magnet field (and if it looks like free energy, they probably are), somebody please stop them, we need it.

    1. Re:Stop It by Egdiroh · · Score: 1

      If these asses are pulling energy from Earth's magnet field (and if it looks like free energy, they probably are), somebody please stop them, we need it.
      But if we don't know any plausible consequences of the technology, the energy is free, clean, and green right?
      There is no free energy. If we take energy from the machinery that keeps the planet habitable, we will cause changes. While change isn't necessarily bad it's also not necessarily reversible, so maybe we want to tread a bit more lightly, until we really can plot the changes we are setting into motion. Energy efficiency is more important then energy sources.
    2. Re:Stop It by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      'If these asses are pulling energy from Earth's magnet field (and if it looks like free energy, they probably are), somebody please stop them, we need it.'

      We need a magnetic field. But isn't like there is a finite amount of energy stored that you are using up like a battery. The magnetic field is powered by a gravity generator and that generator is going to keep running whether you utilize the energy output or not.

      The big question is how much energy would you have to draw from the earth's magnetic field it makes any significant different. When you consider how tiny the global energy demands are compared to the actual energy stored in the stable matter of earth, I have a feeling that the result will be a very substantial amount.

    3. Re:Stop It by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If these asses are pulling energy from Earth's magnet field (and if it looks like free energy, they probably are), somebody please stop them, we need it.

      I for one think it would be cool to have the magnetic pole in Ecuador.

    4. Re:Stop It by asolipsist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was being slightly facetious and spelled magnetic wrong, however the principal is important. I'm not sure what you mean by 'gravity generator', the magnetosphere is a complex thing and is theorized to be powered by convection of iron in the Earth's mantle and needs three things to operate:
            1. there must be a conducting fluid;
            2. there must be enough energy to cause the fluid to move with sufficient speed and with the appropriate flow pattern;
            3. there must be a "seed" magnetic field.

      The magnetosphere is also the reason we're all still alive, and why Earth has an atmosphere. I can think of almost nothing more environmentally unsound than monkeying around with this field, of course this silly 'perpetual motion' machine will have a de minimis effect, but it's a bad precedent. If the field ever changes enough to endanger reason #3, we're cooked.

    5. Re:Stop It by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      Quite - harnessing energy from fluctuations in the magnetic field isn't perpetual motion. The machine will exert opposing forces back, and the more energy you draw, the bigger the opposing force. Of course it's probably just a fake anyway.

    6. Re:Stop It by jedie · · Score: 1

      I bet thousands of years ago somebody said: "yes, burning wood may be a good means of creating heat, but we might end up burning all the wood and then we're doomed..."

      --
      "The majority is always sane, Louis." -- Nessus
      http://slashdot.jp
    7. Re:Stop It by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Of course, the fact that thousands of years later, such a person would look like having been right, reinforces the GP's argument.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    8. Re:Stop It by dbIII · · Score: 1

      "yes, burning wood may be a good means of creating heat, but we might end up burning all the wood and then we're doomed..."

      Easter Island. Next?

    9. Re:Stop It by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I can think of almost nothing more environmentally unsound than monkeying around with this field

      Don't worry! If it stops, we'll just drill a hole down to the center of the earth and set off a nuclear bomb to make the core start spinning again. We'll have plenty of advance notice, as when the core slows down, pigeons will be unable to navigate, and 32 people with pacemakers will drop dead in Boston -- unfortunate, but a small price to pay! (Don't believe the part about the Golden Gate Bridge collapsing... that's just hooey!

    10. Re:Stop It by anilg · · Score: 1

      I'll get right on it, Sir. Lets start PETMaT, People for the Ethical Treatment of thermodyamics

      --
      http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
    11. Re:Stop It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The magnetosphere is also the reason we're all still alive, and why Earth has an atmosphere. I can think of almost nothing more environmentally unsound than monkeying around with this field, of course this silly 'perpetual motion' machine will have a de minimis effect, but it's a bad precedent. If the field ever changes enough to endanger reason #3, we're cooked."

      Mmmmm not really. Things would probably not be as plesent, cancer rates may be high, communications hampered etc, but the magnetosphere has weakened, dissapeard, flipped and reappeared many many times while life evolved on the planet.

  12. older story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's an older story on Slashdot covering the same company and technology.

    1. Re:older story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeated stories like this divert us from discussing something more practical like increasing the efficiency of the combustion engine and why, politically, this isn't happening. In fact, automobiles are getting worse mpg than in the past. My '83 car got 33 mpg. My 2000 gets 43, yet today it's "big news" when a car gets 26.

  13. Two Words by TheSlashaway · · Score: 1

    COLD FUSION

    1. Re:Two Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOT GRITS!

  14. Typo by mhannibal · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a typo - "allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce power" should be "allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce revenue".

    1. Re:Typo by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Of course. First you get the money, then you get the power. And then you get the women.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  15. Because Slashdot exists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot greenlights an average of 12 perpetual-motion-machine stories per year. That's in perpetuity.

    1. Re:Because Slashdot exists? by Poltras · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you make energy off these? If you create and aliment a flame-war, for example?

    2. Re:Because Slashdot exists? by weighn · · Score: 1

      Can you make energy off these? If you create and aliment a flame-war, for example? no, silly, no one can MAKE energy - that is the whole point.

      However, I am working an a redesigned keyboard that captures the kinetic energy from the user's keystrokes. Flame away - its helping the poor heat their baked beans. :)

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  16. Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alright, prove it works and become a billionaire. Go on. Keep everything above board.

  17. As if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a chair sized bunch or junk could provide more power than a massive power plant or hundreds of acres of wind mills...

  18. No I didn't RTF Article... by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

    But really, they should almost have a permanent ban on perpetual motion machine stories. That may be one instance in which free speech can be rightly squashed.

    Cheers

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
    1. Re:No I didn't RTF Article... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Eh... people like to bash on the free-energy loons every once in a while. It's a slow news day anyway. Think of it as a kind of puzzle, trying to find the flaw in their theory. It's like Where's Waldo for nerds, except a lot easier.

      They get their say about their somewhat novel takes on the laws of physics, and get to call them morons. Everybody wins.

    2. Re:No I didn't RTF Article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ScuttleMonkey, you are a shame for all /.ers

    3. Re:No I didn't RTF Article... by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      by 'they', do you mean /. editors or some government body? because you don't have free speech on private property.

    4. Re:No I didn't RTF Article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by 'they', do you mean /. editors or some government body? because you don't have free speech on private property.

      No, you don't have constitutionally protected free speech on private property. If the owners of said property wish to have a free speech policy, they're perfectly entitled to do so.
    5. Re:No I didn't RTF Article... by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      certainly true, but of course you have no recourse should they decide to revoke such a policy, nor do you have actionable cause against them should they not follow their own 'free speech' policy.

  19. How is this not flamebait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I saw "Orbo" and thought of the stuff from Witch Hunter Robin, which seems to be made from witches ala Soylent Green. Great name, guys.

    But, really, this is such flamebait. "The time variance in magnetic fields"? delta H/delta t? Who are you kidding? If it really does work that way, then you're getting your energy from the Earth's magnetic field in much the same way a spacecraft using a planet's gravity to get into a higher-energy orbit is actually decelerating the planet in question.

    TANSTAAFL.

  20. Kernel of truth in this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Clearly energy generation systems that turn alternating magnetic fields into energy are possible without violating thermodynmics. I just doubt that they could produce useful amounts of energy or we would be hooking generators to our compass needles.

    1. Re:Kernel of truth in this by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Clearly energy generation systems that turn alternating magnetic fields into energy are possible without violating thermodynmics. I just doubt that they could produce useful amounts of energy or we would be hooking generators to our compass needles. Ummm... How exactly do you think generators work? Or transformers?

      The reason we can't produce useful amounts of energy from compass needles is that the Earth's magnetic field isn't alternating; it's static. (Well, technically, it is changing; but it's doing so over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, so the energy you'd get would be very, very small).
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  21. do we want to end up like Mars? by Dster76 · · Score: 4, Funny

    everyone knows that by creating Orbos, the natives of Mars lost their magnetosphere and ensured their civilization's premature demise.

    (fake science makes for fun ingredients for science fiction!)

    1. Re:do we want to end up like Mars? by IgLou · · Score: 1

      But it wasn't creating Orbos that destroyed the natives of Mars it was the illegal war that the Cydonias declared against the Tholusians over fabricated evidence that Tholusians were about to produce their own Orbos... Really, brush up on your Martian history!

      Now excuse me while I drive off in my car that runs on sea water.

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:do we want to end up like Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say that's what destroyed Venus -- which revolves very slowly, and probably has a lot to do with why that planet's atmosphere is so inhospitable. Wouldn't a machine that tapped into the magnetosphere slow the rotation of the planet?

    3. Re:do we want to end up like Mars? by theorem4 · · Score: 1

      ..which then turns around and eventually becomes scientific fact.

  22. pft by do_kev · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anything that truly allows you to get something for nothing would so drastically alter our understanding of reality such that many things we take as absolute truth would become unreliable (predictability and statistics would be meaningless.. we would have to accept the possibility of spontaneous creation of radiation and perhaps even matter..)

    I don't know where they're getting their energy from, but I cannot even fathom the possibility that it defies the law of conservation of energy.

    1. Re:pft by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 1

      While I have no doubt that the stoy is nonsense, isn't the Big Bang an instance of the "spontaneous creation of radiation and perhaps even matter"?

    2. Re:pft by SEMW · · Score: 1

      I'm not a cosmologist, but from what I understand, if you assume general relativity you get a singularity at the Big Bang; a "pre-big bang mass" is not part of any theory I've ever heard about. A Google search only brings up a Legend of Zelda forum and the Holy Bible Message Board. Could you elaborate on what theory you're using that assumes a pre-big bang mass?

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  23. Perpetual energy investors! by nodvin · · Score: 0

    I have a Bridge in Brooklyn for sale, cheap!

  24. Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >>"The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."

    There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. There's no strong evidence that PPM work. In fact, there's a number of things about the universe which strongly suggest that PPM are impossible, just as there's some things which strong suggest God is impossible. Really, even from a 'making an analogy' point of view: this machine is like having proof God exists.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    1. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. And, at the risk of burning karma, I'll say there's quite likely a statistically significant correlation between those who believe in god and those who believe in the possibility of perpetual motion machines.

      What's interesting isn't whether either can exist, but what causes some people to believe them, and the belief apparently being strengthened in face of logical arguments to the contrary. I find it fascinating.

    2. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by untaken_name · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How do you apply logical arguments to an illogical premise? (Note that I am not stating that the premise is faulty, just that it seems rather illogical to apply logic to this particular discussion)

      Also, most 'logical arguments' I've seen against God aren't really very logical. They're based either on a poor understanding of the Bible (which is certainly not limited to non-believers!) or assumptions which haven't been granted. Please don't flame me, as I'm not saying anyone is 'right' or 'wrong' about their faith. (yes, 'logical' 'rational' atheists also base their beliefs on faith, just as much as 'logical' 'rational' theists do.)

    3. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 5, Funny
      God is real unless explicitly declared as integer.

      Sorry --- old Fortran joke.

      (For the youngsters out there: in "traditional" Fortran, variables didn't need to be explicitly declared. Those starting with the letters i to n were integers. The rest were reals.)

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    4. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real."
       

      Really? I'm not saying he does, but I'm really interested in this evidence, can you give some examples?

    5. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (yes, 'logical' 'rational' atheists also base their beliefs on faith, just as much as 'logical' 'rational' theists do.)

      I'm doubtful. At least in my experience, most modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God, but merely do not accept theistic world views. Absence of belief does not require faith.

    6. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by feepness · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And, at the risk of burning karma, I'll say there's quite likely a statistically significant correlation between those who believe in god and those who believe in the possibility of perpetual motion machines. These are quite different. Many accepted scientific theories have been blown out of the water in the course of human history.

      I think it would be more accurate to group those who believe their science is the ultimate truth with those who believe their religion is the ultimate truth.
    7. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by suv4x4 · · Score: 0, Troll

      There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real.

      What do you mean. Where's that evidence. The only evidence we have is that most religious books like the Bible and the Koran are childish, naive and wrong.

      We don't know if there's no intelligence somewhere up the chain that caused what's down the chain. We're not even quite sure about what the bing bang is (start of time? how come it started. anything before it? or was it the beginning, or end and beginning is the same thing? and so on)

    8. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adrianmonk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real.

      I've been thinking intently about that subject for about 20-25 years now. I've even changed "sides" once (and haven't changed back). I daresay I've thought about it more than many or even most people. I only feel like I can maybe claim that because of how startlingly ignorant many people on either side of the issue seem to be of the other side. The theists I've known have typically had their minds completely closed to the other point of view, sometimes unwilling to think about themselves, and in a few cases ready to attack and/or ostracize someone who thinks too far outside the box. And the atheists I've known, for their part, have often rejected Christianity (which religion I mention because I live in the US, where it's the dominant religion) without having a good understanding of it, often naming some element of Christian theology as the reason they can't accept it when it turns out that element is something most mainstream Christian theologians wouldn't say is a legitimate part of Christianity.

      I have a hard time thinking there is "really strong" evidence that God isn't real. "Really strong", to me, sounds too close to "compelling". I'm not saying there aren't some very good arguments in favor of the idea that God isn't real. But all the ones I've seen are based on some metaphysical assumptions (usually hidden assumptions) that someone is taking as self-evident even though there are logically defensible alternate views.

      In case anyone thinks I'm saying the above because I support the other side, I should mention I don't think there is any "really strong" evidence for the existence of God either, which is part of why I'm an atheist.

    9. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 2, Informative

      Absence of faith, or the belief that it's not possible to decide on the given evidence, is agnosticism. Belief that God does not exist is atheism. If you mean the former, don't use the term "Athiest"

    10. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So God is real but iGod is not ? And what about the iPhone ?

    11. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Silly Fortran. Try an untyped language. Then God is whatever you first assign to it. Why, God could be a string!

      Actually, I hear there are people who think believing in strings is equivalent to believing in a god.

    12. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Years ago, I did not believe in God. I was young, and thought I knew everything. Slowly, as I've matured (I'm 24, going on 25), I've realized that what I know is a minuscule fraction of what the universe has to offer. I'm not saying I believe in God now, but I am saying that I'm not ruling out that there are things across the universe I may not know or understand, nor will I in this lifetime.

    13. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Informative
      Wrong. Atheism is the lack of theism. A-theist. Non-theist. I know many atheists and when pressed we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god. If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      Agnosticism is more properly defined as the belief that god is unknowable, or that the question of whether or not there is a god is not a proper question. Sort of a "we can't know so don't ask" position.

      The definitions are quite often mangled such as you have done. Start hanging around on Pharyngula.org to get a better idea of what atheists are all about.

      --
      This space available.
    14. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by be-fan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spinoza (a devout believer in God, btw) made a pretty convincing argument that if God does exist, he couldn't take the form of the traditional Jewish/Christian/Muslim diety.

      The gist of the argument is thus: the premise of most monotheist religions is that God is singular, perfect, and omnipotent. However, the Torah/Bible/Quaran also ascribes to him qualities such as loving his creations and wanting them to live a just life. These views are contradictory. First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite. The premise that God is finite screws up a lot of assumptions. If God is finite and separate from his creations, then the two must be contained in some greater thing, and this greater thing would be more perfect than God, by virtue of being a superset of him. Moreover, if he's finite, that opens up the possibility that he is not singular. Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable. Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with. Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability. Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change!

      It's very hard to logically reconcile these concepts while still believing that God sent his son to die for our sins, because he wants humanity to be saved. The traditional mono-theistic religions basically give up on the idea of God as perfect and omnipotent in order to maintain the "big man in the sky" idea. Spinoza couldn't deal with that, he posited instead that God was infinite and immutable, not just being a separate entity in the universe but being the entity of which the universe itself was an expression. The problem with this idea, though, is that you can't expect such an entity to answer your prayers, to offer opinions regarding reproductive practices, etc.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    15. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

      There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real.

      Really? To believe that God is NOT real, then you have to believe that the entire universe spontaneously exploded into existence from nothing 14 billion years back, that life forms spontaneously arose in a primordial soup here on Earth from self-assembling bio-molecules, and that the fundamental relations that constrain the universe were accidental, coincidental or 'just are'. That's difficult to believe, but maybe your proof would make it easier.

    16. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 2, Informative

      Absence of faith, or the belief that it's not possible to decide on the given evidence, is agnosticism. Belief that God does not exist is atheism. If you mean the former, don't use the term "Athiest"

      It's really semantics. Even agnosticism can imply two considerably (logically speaking) different positions. Classical agnosticism also makes an epistemologically unsound assertion: that one cannot know whether or not god exists. Modern agnostics however tend to simply say "I don't know based on available evidence." So now we have two definitions of agnostic.

      One can be an atheist and still not assert the non-existence of god (a so-called weak atheist). In fact, it is not a contradiction to be both a theist and an agnostic, when one applies the classical definition of agnostic. I've also learned that, to some, agnosticism implies that one gives equal probability to the existence or non-existence of god, which is why I've begin to shy away from applying the term to myself.

      It's therefore still possible for an atheist to conclude there is insufficient evidence to believe, and accordingly would adopt a world view that doesn't include God. This sounds a lot like agnosticism except when you consider that someone who says "I don't know if God exists but I believe he does" could get away with calling themselves agnostic, because agnosticism deals with the matter of knowledge, not of belief.

      This essay represents my opinions decently. I've lately begun shying away from labels like these because people have such differing notions.

    17. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adiposity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. In other words, it is not possible to have knowledge of God, period...not that there is just insufficient evidence.

      Atheism, however, is not restricted to those that assert the nonexistence of God. Its original meaning ("ungodliness") is no longer in common use. It has been applied to those that lack a belief in God, as well as those that assert the nonexistence (sometimes referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism). Depending on your dictionary, you may have any of several definitions, but here's one that disagrees with you, and one that agrees:

      wordnet: atheism

      # S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

      # S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

      Another word has come into use which perhaps more accurately reflects the second postion: nontheism (literally, "not theism"). This essentially equates to "weak atheism" or a lack of belief in God, without assertion. However, the "a" prefix is commonly used to mean "without," so "without theism" is a reasonable definition of atheism.

      It would be nice if everyone used the same word to mean the same thing...but they don't. Most self-described atheists I know do not assert the nonexistence of God. Most theists I know consider atheists those who do assert the nonexistence (although from a Christian judgement point of view, the distiction is basically meaningless). Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism."

    18. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1
      Rubbish. There is no evidence at all that God doesn't exist, just like there is no evidence at all the he does.

      No observation about the world is sufficient to either prove or disprove the existence of a god being.

      I've always been fond of "the problem of evil" as an argument against the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god: there is evil in the world, god allows evil to happen, god could stop evil (being omnipotent) and if god exists, he would stop evil (being omnibenevolent) but evil exists therefore god does not. The trouble with such arguments, and indeed, the whole class of metaphysical arguments is that they go beyond what we can sensibly talk about. Outside the normal bounds of well-known science, or mathematics or everyday experience, our ability to reason about things that cross these boundaries is really non-existant. For example, in the case of the "problem of evil", a Theist can simply claim that God is infinitely smarter than I am, and in some sense that god appreciates and I do not, the world is either not evil or perhaps even just as lacking in evil as it is logically possible to be. Not being infinitely wise, or a god-being myself, I can't come up with any real response to that, other than "that's a really crap argument". The trouble is, that does not sway the Theist - who has faith - because my arguments are powerless to strike at that faith - it is the faith that motivates his belief, and faith cannot be argued. Faith isn't true or false, it just is. Not being something which exists in the universe of logic, it is impervious to it

      Systems of reasoning - such as logic and mathematics, have limitations (something that Godel showed) - push them too far to their boundaries, and they start falling over. There are at least two ways in which this can occur - the formal systemic way in which complex systems become unable to prove somethings they can express, or express things they cannot prove (a la Godel) or in the simple "category error" manner in which a system is asked to process something which simply makes no sense. E.g: in maths, "1 + 1" is a valid sentence which makes sense. "1 + sqrt(-1)" is a valid sentence which might make sense (depending on which mathematical model you employ) "the number 1 is nice" is not a valid sentence at all in mathematics - it just doesn't work, even if there are various senses in which this might be a meaningful sentence to a human being. "1 is nice" or the question "what is the smell of 5?" are both sentences which exhibit "category error" - they are not even meaningful questions because they are asked in a context in which they cannot be processed (let alone make sense).

      Metaphysical questions are like that - they seem meaningful, but when we get right down to it, we have no mechanism for resolving such questions. If you ask me "what is 1+1?" I can answer you, and we all know the system to use to resolve such a question. If I ask you "does God exist?", we have no such system to resolve the question. Our best tool so far for questioning the universe - science - can falsify theories. But the existence of God is completely unfalsifiable since Theists can simply switch the goalposts in response to ANY attack on the idea (note the way that Evolution can be absorbed into a Theistic viewpoint with no change in the core belief)

      We should argue the things we can sensibly speak about - and those are the things that our best tool (science) lets us falsify. And science is mute about the metaphysical nature of the universe (just as it would have to be mute about any "brain in a jar" kind of scenarios - there is no test that goes beyond what we can experience). Therefore, arguments about God are fruitless and pointless. In reality, we can have such "arguments", but we should realise that when we do so, we cross over the bounds of reason and into the world of fairy tales where we can make up anything we like (although, given the same set of fairy tale assumptions (metaphysical axioms) then we can argue f

    19. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Atheism is the lack of theism. A-theist. Non-theist.

      Perhaps the word the GP was looking for is Antitheist: A disbeliever in the existence of God. (Of course, the term "disbeliever" needs to be nailed down, as I 'disbelieve' in the existence of God in the common sense, but not in the absolute sense.) Of course, Atheism is really a spectrum, in opposition to the GGGP's assertion that Atheists are just as nutty as he is. But then, Theism is really quite a spectrum, where probably the majority of Westerners who claim to be Christians are really Agnostics.

    20. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I think you need to limit that to something like "There's strong evidence that Genesis isn't literally accurate, and if you require it to be in an all-or-nothing sense then there's strong evidence the Christian God isn't real."

      Once you get into the realm of metaphyiscs like souls, heaven and hell, karma and reincarnation etc. or allow interpretations like that God created the Universe and the laws of Nature then there's just no disproving that.

      As for PPM, I think the claim that something exists (energy) but can neither be created or destroyed is an extrordinary claim that requires extrordinary evidence, and it's in the form of a negative too. What do we have? We have tons of evidence suggesting energy is always preserved across space and time and matter from basic kinetic, temperature and spring experiments via electric, magnetic and gravity fields to E=mc^2.

      While it would certainly be an extrodinariy claim because you've found a way noone else has does, a PPM isn't fundamentall incompatible with the Universe as we know it. For one there's many theories of multiverses and such, that we infact draw energy across the system boundary.

      The other alternative would be that we've figured out the mechanism of Big Bang, how to create energy from what we today observe as "nothing". It certainly wouldn't be any more "impossible" than trying to explain Big Bang today - suddenly out of nowhere popped time and space and energy. Now we've figured out the how, we're still working on the why...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real.

      There is none. However, there is overwhelming evidence that God is both superfluous and extraneous to everything that we understand about reality. There is also good evidence that all religious canon is simple made up out of thin air. (People seem to forget that this latter item can be studied scientifically.)

    22. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      If atheism is similar to not collecting stamps, why is there not a specific word for people who do not collect stamps ?

      In any case, weak atheism (lack of belief in a god) and strong atheism (belief that there is no god) are quite different, so referring to them both as "atheism" is very likely to lead to this kind of pointless arguments over semantics. Consequently I recommend either using the word "agnosticism" for weak atheism and preserving the word "atheism" for strong atheism only, or always specifying whether one is speaking of weak or strong atheism when talking about them. It will cut off the etymological crap and allow us to jump right to the religious flamewar ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The trouble is, that does not sway the Theist - who has faith - because my arguments are powerless to strike at that faith - it is the faith that motivates his belief, and faith cannot be argued. Faith isn't true or false, it just is. Not being something which exists in the universe of logic, it is impervious to it

      One angle of enlightenment for such people is to point out that every assertion that they can make about their God can also be made about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They cannot disprove the FSM, so according to their logic on such things, they are Pastafarians. The assertions can also be made about Santa Claus, so they are grown-ups who still believe in Santa Claus.

    24. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Really? I'm not saying he does, but I'm really interested in this evidence, can you give some examples?

      Mankind.
    25. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is there not a specific word for people who do not collect stamps? Because stamp collectors aren't powerful cults challenged by non-stamp-collectors. Anyway, there is - an aphilateler doesn't collect stamps.

    26. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man: Hey, aren't you a string?
      String: No, I'm a frayed knot.

      *ducks*

    27. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite.

      No it doesn't. The set of positive integers is separate from the set of negative integers, and both are infinite.

      If God is finite and separate from his creations, then the two must be contained in some greater thing, and this greater thing would be more perfect than God, by virtue of being a superset of him.

      This of course assumes that size - or the total amount of qualities - equals perfection. I can think of many qualities which would lessen, not increase, perfection. Gluttony, for example.

      Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable. Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with.

      Assuming that there is only one perfect state. There is no reason to assume such a thing, or can you give any ? And if there is more than one perfect state, an entity could flip between them without losing or gaining any perfection.

      Look, just give it up. The logical arguments for or against God has been made for the past few thousand years, and they've failed to prove anything. It simply can't be done, especially without first defining what "perfection" and "omnipotence" mean.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    28. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Bah! We already know Santa Claus is a robot. No human could deliver presents that fast.

    29. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Scientific theories, yes. The whole point of it being a theory is so it can be disproven and/or replaced.
      But there are no free energy machine theories. A scientific theory is a way to explain what happens. In this case what happens is nothing, and there's plenty of theories to explain that! :-)

      Science isn't "the ultimate truth" -- that's a straw man argument from your side. It's a method to approach truth, and requires no belief. In fact, taking belief out of the equation makes science work better, whether the belief is in super strings, deities or one's own infallibility. Thus the requirements for reproducibility and falsifiability.

      To recap: There's no theories for why a perpetuum mobile works, and there's no theories for why god works. Any and all empirical data indicate that neither works. That doesn't imply that it's impossible for either to exist, but until either is substantiated with more than unverifiable claims, it's pointless to try to explain either.

    30. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. I'm guessing your strong evidence for the non-existence of God is based on flawed assumptions, in the manner of proof of perpetual motion.
    31. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      From Websters:

      Main Entry: atheist
      Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
      Function: noun
      : one who believes that there is no deity

    32. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least in my experience, most modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God

      I'm guessing you havent been on the internet very long. The majority of all online forums appear to contain atheists vehemently asserting the non-existence of God. It's like there's a Godwin's Law, but for atheistic evangelism.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    33. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that there are differences within labels - usually relating to differences about how we arrive at our beliefs. But, Websters defines Atheist like so:

      Main Entry: atheist
      Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
      Function: noun
      : one who believes that there is no deity

      From Oxford:

      Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

      atheism /aythi-iz'm/

            noun the belief that God does not exist.

          -- DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

          -- ORIGIN from Greek a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

      So... I'll stick to my use of the terms, as they match up with the most authoritative sources.

    34. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Agnosticism and atheism are orthogonal categories. I am both. I currently lack a belief in invisible friends in the sky (atheist) and am also unwilling to assert that there are not one or more invisible friends in the sky (agnostic).

      I simply find it improbable to the point that it's not worth considering in my philosophy or daily life.

      The religious wish to claim that everyone is slightly religious by making the definition of atheist as indefensible as their own belief system (thereby requiring it's own kind of "faith") and then claiming agnostics as potential believers. I intend to resist this rhetorical game by using the definition that makes the most etymological sense: atheist - a-theist - lack of theism - lack of belief in deities.

      An earlier poster provided a better term for "hard atheism" -- antitheism. I think I'm going to begin using that as a retort to those who claim I'm not an atheist or who would pretend that atheism is "anti-Christianity".

      Regards,
      Ross

    35. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      From Oxford dictionary:

      atheism /aythi-iz'm/

            noun the belief that God does not exist.

          -- DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

          -- ORIGIN from Greek a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

        So again, you're wrong.

    36. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have to have an active belief that there is no god to be an atheist.
      I don't have an active belief that there's no purple women with three breasts in the Andromeda galaxy either. That doesn't make me an agnostic.

    37. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Both websters and oxford dictionary define atheism as the belief that there is no god.

      Ofxford:

      atheism /aythi-iz'm/

            noun the belief that God does not exist.

          -- DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

          -- ORIGIN from Greek a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

        I'll take those sources over Princeton's wordnet (which is a language project, not a dictionary)

    38. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      You do according to Oxford and Websters dictionaries. Some people use the terms differently, but they're wrong :o)

      What's important is not so much the labels as the belief systems - my point goes to those who actively believe in the non-existance of God, not whether agnostics call themselves atheists.

    39. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I believe in God. The difference with PPM, however, is that I know my belief in God is based on faith. I don't claim it is science. God is simply outside the realm of science and the observable material universe. Obviously, I am not a creationist. Creationists make the mistake of pretending their faith is not faith, but science.

      There's not much difference between creationists and PPM believers (and Truthers, for that matter). They are wrapping their faith in a blanket of pseudo-science. Like creationists, you will NEVER dissuade them from their belief.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    40. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Yes! I quite endorse that approach. Unfortunately, those in the throes of faith aren't swayed by that kind of logic either, but it makes the silliness of faith all the more obvious to the rest of us.

    41. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traditional Christanity does not say that God is "omnibenevolent". Instead, there are typically the following omni's defined:

      omniscient
      omnipresent
      omnipotent

      None of which precludes evil or bad things happening to good people. Then there's the whole "God is Love" (so why does he let bad things happen)... well, no, scripture doesn't say that either.

    42. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      There is none. However, there is overwhelming evidence that God is both superfluous and extraneous to everything that we understand about reality. There is also good evidence that all religious canon is simple made up out of thin air. (People seem to forget that this latter item can be studied scientifically.)

      God is superfluous and extraneous to everything that an atheist understands about reality. God is intrinsic and inherent in everything a theist understands about reality. Both have overwhelming evidence. One of them is very wrong in their understanding.
    43. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I believe there is no God... by your definition the terms atheism and agnostic wouldn't apply to that belief... so what name should be used? I'm not sure that "I believe there is no God" is the same as "I don't believe there is a God" (which would be atheism)... but I'm open to correction...

    44. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Science isn't "the ultimate truth" -- that's a straw man argument from your side. It's a method to approach truth, and requires no belief. In fact, taking belief out of the equation makes science work better, whether the belief is in super strings, deities or one's own infallibility. Thus the requirements for reproducibility and falsifiability.

      That belief is in fact extremely common.. I've heard it called scientism - science as religion. It's understandable.. we aren't told scientific method in school, or the true meaning of 'theory', just that science will solve everything and make an eventual utopia (ref: star trek). Look at all the hair product adverts... 'now here's the science...' meaning here's a lot of pseudoscientific gobbledygook that will make you by the product because 'science' says it's better.

      There's even the standard joke of 'it must be true because the man in the white coat said it' that crops up in comedy.. we know it's stupid but we do it every day.

      Slashdotters are not the general population (I'd reckon they have a higher average IQ and a college education at least).

    45. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traditional Christanity does not say that God is "omnibenevolent". Instead, there are typically the following omni's defined: [...] None of which precludes evil or bad things happening to good people. Sure, 'omnibenevolent' is an imprecisely defined word of recent origin. I think it makes more sense to say that God is just and God is merciful. But, 'omnibenevolent' notwithstanding, traditional Judaism and traditional Christianity are nevertheless very much concerned with the problem of evil. See also: Genesis (in particular, Creation + The Garden of Eden), The Book of Job, Ecclesiastes, etc.

      Then there's the whole "God is Love" (so why does he let bad things happen)... well, no, scripture doesn't say that either. Not sure what you mean by this, but...

      "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
    46. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The premise of most monotheist religions is that God is singular, perfect, and omnipotent. However, the Torah/Bible/Quaran also ascribes to him qualities such as loving his creations and wanting them to live a just life. These views are contradictory. First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite.

      On the contrary, God being infinite and creation being finite necessarily separates Him from His creation. God being infinite is part of the essential definition of God. Being infinite also makes Him necessarily singular.

      Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable. Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with.

      Yes, as is confirmed many times in the Bible (and probably Koran and Vedas). God is unchanging.

      Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability. Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change!

      I'm not sure how he made this leap, but probably from temporal thinking. God's consciousness is infinite and transcends time, while we progress linearly through time. God's actions in the finite world, like the creation itself which comes from Him, are finite manifestations of the infinite. God's love and God's actions don't imply change in Him, only a change in us relative to Him.
    47. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      [QUOTE]No it doesn't. The set of positive integers is separate from the set of negative integers, and both are infinite.[/QUOTE]

      Spinoza predates Cantor's work on set theory, so he didn't know that. But that's a fair point that hadn't occurred to me. That said, both positive and negative integers are contained within the set of real numbers, which are also infinite, but have a higher cardinality. If God is infinite then he must either be completely disjoint from the corporeal world (which brings into question how you can have human Son of God), or he must be part of a greater thing.

      [QUOTE]This of course assumes that size - or the total amount of qualities - equals perfection.[/QUOTE]

      Obviously it depends on your definition of perfection. But the way he's traditionally presented, being all-encompassing is part of the basic perfection of God. You can give up on the "all-encompassing" aspect, but that brings you to: "so, what encompasses God?"

      [QUOTE]Assuming that there is only one perfect state. There is no reason to assume such a thing, or can you give any ? And if there is more than one perfect state, an entity could flip between them without losing or gaining any perfection.[/QUOTE]

      You could admit the existence of a multiplicity of perfect states, though that's very weird to conventional reason, but that introduces a fundamental moral ambiguity. It allows the existence of multiple qualities that are equally as good as each other. Beyond that, there are some things you can't skirt around. For example, God is presented as wanting certain things for humanity. A perfect entity could not possibly want anything, because that would imply that he is in a less perfect state, and that fulfilling that want could move him to a more perfect state.

      [QUOTE]Look, just give it up. [/QUOTE]

      It's not my argument, nor is it an argument against the existence of God. It's an argument that has been made by a very eminent philosopher that I find greatly limits the ways in which you can logically view God, if he exists.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    48. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      I find it hilarious (and rather sad) when atheists try to debunk religion by debunking Christianity.

    49. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Not gonna argue the existence of god. As to perpetual motion, it may indeed be impossible if you define perpetual as infinite. But if you look at our solar system in motion.. and consider the amount of time it has been in motion.. well that's pretty close to what your trying to achieve with a PPM is it not ? So maybe as an absolute PPM is impossible, but maybe it is possible to get "close enough" to what you want in a machine like this.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    50. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      There is no god.

      There. Now you know one.

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
    51. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I find it weird to see many modern atheists try to give significant thought to the question "Does God exist?" and try to answer it in a rational, logical, and scientific manner. But the problem as it is, is not to answer the question, but to realize it's not a valid question. It's not even a question!

      First of all, use of the word "God" implies a certain concept that, for most people and most versions of the question, would imply the 3 O: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Any of those necessarily defies temporal causality, the law of the conservation of energy, and the second law of thermodynamics. It's a pretty bad start for a rational argument. But even worse, those properties also defy the basic laws of logic (aristotelian OR modal). Which essentially means that discussing such a "thing" or considering its properties is necessarily pointless: you will get into contradictions and/or tautologies.

      The second part of the question asks whether the thing in question called "God" "exists". Existence is often by theologians defined as a property. But property that entails WHAT isn't clear. Many people would theorize that it entails actualization in the spatio-temporal universe, but that wouldn't fit the idea of a God that created the universe (I'm not entering into pantheist interpretations here as those discuss something else entirely when they talk about "God") or make any sense in conjunction with the 3 Os. Thus it must entails something "outside" the Universe. But how can we surmise about what existence outside of space-time means? How can we test either logically or epistemologically such a property? How can we even suppose "existence" even means anything outside of a spatio-temporal cadre?

      This is (a short version of) why I don't even consider the question "Does God exist?" a meaningful, useful, answerable question. My only answer to the question is mu.

      What's more, the most often used argument to prove the "yes" answer to the question is the ontological one, which is essentially a tautology, as it argues that God must possess the property of existence within its nature. So they're arguing that asking the question implies that the subject of the question ("God") necessarily possesses the property being asked. In other words: "He exists because my definition of God says he must exist". It's like saying the answer to the question "Is a blee blue?" is "yes" because I defined a blee as being blue.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    52. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. A scientifically verifiable knowledge of God, you mean. Otherwise, it philosophically amounts to atheism, because a God who is completely "unknowable" does not hold any theological grounds.
    53. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the "you must be new here" sleight. (I'm not.) Well, seeing as I've not, unlike yourself, personally visited the majority of all forums on the Internet, I will have to cede your point.

    54. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      That seems like a weak definition to me. Yes, I know it's the OED, but it seems lacking.

      The prefix "a-" means not, without whereas the prefix "anti-" means opposed to, against.

      Someone who is against belief in religions would be an antitheist, and someone who doesn't hold any belief in religion would be an atheist. That seems like the same definition (certainly it agrees with your point), but the dictionary has it wrong here. Atheism is not a position of belief, it's the absence of belief. The word is correct, but the meaning is wrong.

      I argue that dictionaries, coming from the days when belief in God was part of the fabric of society, generally have a poor definition of atheism. They keep putting it as a position of belief, when it's exactly the opposite. Belief in 'no god' always reminds me of the original Hitchhiker's Guide game - Arthur carries an item in his inventory called "no tea." It's completely irrational to maintain negative beliefs, as there's an infinite number of things we can choose to not believe in. Still, it'd pad out the 'A' section of the dictionary if we define them all. Now if I could only think of a word for someone who doesn't believe in Bertrand Russel's orbiting teapot...

    55. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by SEMW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      both positive and negative integers are contained within the set of real numbers, which are also infinite, but have a higher cardinality. Careful with what you're trying to imply there. Both the positive and negative integers are also contained within the set of all integers, which has exactly the same cardinality as the positive integers and the negative integers. The cardinality of the union of two sets of cardinality aleph-null is aleph-null. So your next sentence doesn't follow.

      Not that trying to apply set theory to the question of the existence of God isn't just a bit ludicrous, IMHO. The same goes for the Axiom of Choice, Godel's incompleteness theorem, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; all of which I've seen dragged into and horribly misused in philosophical and theological arguments.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    56. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by 241comp · · Score: 1

      I thought that String Theology was as of yet unproven?

    57. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by rejecting · · Score: 1, Funny

      You just told a guy with a 4 digit slashdot ID, That he must be new to the internet. As we say in the gaming world. GG.

    58. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      God is intrinsic and inherent in everything a theist understands about reality.

      Um, I was talking about actual reality. "Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing."

      The Theistic "reality" is identical in structure whether you believe in the Abrahamic God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Greek Gods, or Santa Claus. These cannot all be true simultaneously without more superfluous and extraneous contortions of the concept of reality. Are all individual Theistic realities absolute reality or only yours?

    59. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      God is intrinsic and inherent in everything a theist understands about reality.

      Um, I was talking about actual reality. "Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing."

      Me too.

      The Theistic "reality" is identical in structure whether you believe in the Abrahamic God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Greek Gods, or Santa Claus. These cannot all be true simultaneously without more superfluous and extraneous contortions of the concept of reality. Are all individual Theistic realities absolute reality or only yours?

      There is only one absolute reality. No human understanding can mirror it exactly, but some understandings are truer reflections than others. While there are obviously vast differences in understandings, I would generalize that those whose concept of reality is based upon an infinite, transcendental God (which would include the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the majority of so-called polytheists, such as Hindus and ancient believers in the Greek and Egyptian gods) is necessarily a better reflection of reality than that of those whose with no conception of the source of nature other than nature itself (such as atheists, pantheists, and any so-called theists whose conception of God is finite rather than infinite).
    60. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by catprog · · Score: 1

      self-assembling bio-molecules

      See lab experiment where they created life. Over billions of planets and over billions of years eventualy the right chemicals must of come together.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    61. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean AGNOSTIC.
      From google...
      An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable. Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge. "Agnostic[ism] [CE] was coined by Professor TH Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."

      Agnostics thinking they're atheist is a pet peeve of mine, monk.

    62. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I've realized that what I know is a minuscule fraction of what the universe has to offer.

      Good. You've come to the conclusion that Man doesn't know everything yet, and have further realized that simple ignorance does not imply the existence of God. That's all you really need to know. The rest will come in time, even if we never live to see it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    63. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      which would include the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the majority of so-called polytheists, such as Hindus and ancient believers in the Greek and Egyptian gods) is necessarily a better reflection of reality

      Do you have any particular reason for saying this other than that it doesn't match anything that we can observe about reality? Show me this "overwhelming evidence" of the existence of God that you spoke of earlier. Clearly, this overwhelming evidence is simply what you believe, whereas the overwhelming evidence that God is superfluous and extraneous is all of observable reality. There's quite a bit of that.

      How do respond to the allegation that all religious canon was simply made up?

    64. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Which law of physics is it again which allows unknown entities the ability to fiddle with all aspects of life? Which permits the spontaneous creation of organisms in extremely complex forms which resemble closely what organisms should look like after a billion years of evolution or the like? How is it that an all-good all-knowing god exists while suffering, pain, rape, genocide, natural disasters and all manner of things which are well enough to spring even the most feeble among us to action, aren't deemed worthy by the infinitely strong and infinitely good of some alleviation?

      The strong evidence, as I suggested is that this universe, with the trillion trillion stars and one known life-holding planet, with naked apes filled with ego (with large power consuming brains which when damaged causes massive changes to personality) is exactly what we should find in a universe coming into existence by itself 14 billion years ago and undergoing a billion years of evolution. Which, coincidentally is also a universe in which PPM should be impossible.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    65. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      That said, I reject Christianity because it is based on the idea of blood sacrifice. That in order to clear the original sin of all people who originally didn't sin themselves (but get credit by way of parents), God needed to sacrifice Himself to Himself, to wash away this baggage of a crime against Him that the people themselves never did. And those who did do, didn't know right from wrong at the time.

      And to a lesser extent, I am opposed to the idea that this suicidal deity didn't stay dead. I'm to believe that All Mighty God lost the metaphysical equivalent of a round of counterstrike then screams "You did this"-- and I am suppose to love this character for it? And if I don't, he's going to rejoin the server someday 'soon' (though that was a few thousand years ago) and pwn everybody.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    66. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is all based upon taking a rather more limited view of God than is strictly necessary, isn't it?

      First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite.

      Before I address this, I need to clarify it, since obviously this is not a conclusion that would be reached by any modern logic (since, as mentioned there can be multiple infinite things). If, however, you assume that God has volume and takes up space, and "infinite" equals "encompassing all that exists" (which appears to be the kind of conclusion that a lot of early theologians seem to reach), then this is a lot more interesting a claim.

      However, I see no real problem here. God could be present in every single atom and watching over every single particle interaction, but choosing not to participate in some - letting creation do its own thing, so to speak. In essence, creation would be made up of part of God, who chooses not to exert control over that part of himself, and instead let it work on its own. The major religions you speak of have no trouble with the idea that God can incarnate - how is this much different?

      I don't see at all how the rest of the arguments follow the first one, but having addressed that first claim, we can move on.

      Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with.

      Or that you're definition of "state" is wrong. Time and space are one thing. If God is omnipresent, then he should be omnitemporal as well. All of the "states" of time could be one state - the perfect state in which God exists.

      Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability.

      Obviously the argument is for immutability, not perfection. It is taken as a given that perfection implies immutability.

      This is a much better thought out argument, but still, ignores the omnitemporality of God. The *change* in those things implies change. Over the course of all time and space (which as I have said, could encompasses one "instant" of existance for God), there would be just one state. One set of thoughts, one set of emotions, one desire for the creation - in essence, one picture of all that is, was or will be. Of course, I can't really picture what exactly that means for an omnitemporal being, so I can't say how it works, other than that your definition of perfection can hold.

      Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change!
      I think I've pretty well established the flaw in this part.

      It's very hard to logically reconcile these concepts while still believing that God sent his son to die for our sins, because he wants humanity to be saved.
      I don't see a problem...I can draw in two dimensions, though I am three dimensional, and perceive a single point in a fourth dimension. The effect I can exert on a dimensionality less than my own shows a very different aspect than one would see if they could observe me in full. So in our religions, we see a God who cares about us in a specific moment - which is perhaps a limited aspect of reality.

      It can be correct from the limited point of view that is available, though not enough to show a complete picture.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    67. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Websters also agrees with the Oxford dictionary. I'd claim that between them, they constitute as good an authority on meaning as your likely to get.

      Absence of belief is "agnosticism" -

      Websters: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

      Oxford: a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.

      You see, there are perfectly good words for what you want to say, you're just using the wrong ones :o)

    68. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many people come to the conclusion that God isn't real before actually investigating both sides of the argument.
      Mostly this happens because people don't want God to be real because they don't want consequences for the way they live.

      Have a read of www.answersingenesis.org Have a read of Josh Mcdowel (who set out to disprove Christianity) http://www.josh.org/
      likewise read Lee strobel's books http://www.leestrobel.com/

    69. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > none I know will say with belief that there is no god.

      I will. Or at least, I'll say that there's as much probability of a god as there is a shapeshifting invisible rhinoceros under my chair, i.e. zero. Not asymptotically zero, but absolutely zero, at least within the frame of reference I call reality, which itself isn't falsifiable. I tend to sleep okay knowing that regardless.

    70. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by bberens · · Score: 1
      Just for shiggles, I'll quote a fellow /.er. Pardon me for not knowing who the original author was:

      Far be it from me to dispute the scientific belief that there is a magical dead jew on a stick who was his own father; who created the universe and will sometimes grant you wishes if you telepathically communicate with him to tell him how great he is.
      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    71. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      Most of these posts about god seem strikingly familiar with mass.

      Maybe I'm wrong =)

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    72. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      God's consciousness is infinite and transcends time, while we progress linearly through time.

      Which, of course, nullifies any concept of free will. For example, take the story of Eden. If what you say is true, God tempted Eve with the apple, but he did so knowing full well what her decision would be, because, hey, he transcends time. IOW, knowing the outcome already, he manipulated her into sinning (why he would do that is another question entirely).

      And this principle applies universally. The bible claims that humanity was given free will, that we would come to God of our own chosing. But God, being transcendant of time, knows every choice and every action I will ever perform, and can manipulate me as he sees fit. Therefore, I can't possibly have free will, as all my choices, from God's perspective, are entirely predetermined.

    73. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are these atheists and where can I find them? Most people I know who claim to be atheist emphatically insist that there is not and cannot be a god, and in fact constantly try to tell other people that there isn't. They're just as annoying as the evangelical religious people. Most of the people I know who simply are not part of a religion, and realize that there could be a god, but it's unlikely, call themselves agnostic.

    74. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      >>we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god.

      The idea of God is beyond wildly improbable given the evidence. There is no God. I so define God as to be the Abrahamic sort, which categorically does not and can not exist. In the Spinoza sense, the Scipan sense, or the sun worshiper sense... there may be reason to conclude something else (existence or preference toward non-belief rather than disbelief). But, given the under the general colloquial understand of God, it is absolute fiction. Just as the idea of Santa Claus is wildly improbable enough to justify an active disbelief in such a character.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    75. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by yters · · Score: 1

      Why'd this get modded up so high? Seems pretty easy to pick apart all the arguments...

    76. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      I am always amazed by this tu quoque. As if the greatest insult the religious can muster against the non-religious is to call them, religious. The irony is sadly lost to most.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    77. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      >>I believe in God.

      My condolences.

      >>The difference with PPM, however, is that I know my belief in God is based on faith.

      One could believe PPM would work based on faith.

      >>I don't claim it is science.

      PPM are not science.

      >>God is simply outside the realm of science and the observable material universe.

      Many supporters of PPM quite commonly claim that their energy comes from some place outside the realm of traditional science, from outside the observable material universe. And, as such, we have no evidence or reason to suppose that there is anything outside the observable material universe. In fact, the idea seems to be rather absurd, though slightly less absurd than to have a reason to suppose that there is something there that does something here, when by definition that isn't what happens.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    78. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      PPM are not science.

      Yes, that is my point. Glad you finally discovered it among you snarkery.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    79. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Spinoza's point about infinity was that part of the universe wasn't a part of God -- namely us. Presumably, God should be the set of all numbers of any type if we want to use that analogy. Why should we though? This is a gobbledygook argument that reminds me of Wallace Shawn's Iocane Poison diatribe in The Princess Bride. Let's drop this pedantry and give Spinoza kudos for having the guts and acumen to discredit the personified God (that doesn't actually exist even in pure form -- whoops! did I just say that aloud?) of Judeo-Christian-Islam-dom. I'd like to give a shout-out to my homie Baruch...

    80. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know many atheists and when pressed we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god. Tell that to Richard Dawkins. As for the stamp thing, you're right, not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, and for many atheists, not believing in God is good enough. But if you read books about how great not collecting stamps is and go to meetings about not collecting stamps, then not collecting stamps is a hobby, and, unfortunately, some people feel the need to bastardize true atheism by turning it into a pseudo-religious belief.
    81. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Yes. I have actually read all those works. And the Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon. Now can I say that the very concept of God is so absurd as to not even be amusing? At least concepts like Santa Claus are vaguely coherent. AiG is a joke and anybody who understands the smallest amount of science will join me in chuckling at their nonsense. If you do not, I recommend http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html as a great response to all of their claims. I wouldn't call sitting there with ones fingers in their ears and eyes closed a valid side to an argument. Also, would it be true to say that you do not believe in the Koran because you do not wish the implications of Allah to be brought to bear the way you live? I hear he has fruit like molten metal which the unbelievers are to choke upon in the hereafter for those who make partners unto Allah. Shouldn't that qualify as a side of the argument?

      The idea that Christianity and not Christianity are the only sides which exist is nothing short of naive. Really, there is non-religion and thousands of highly silly and contradictory faiths. In short, you are being extremely unfair to the Flying Spaghetti Monster side of the argument. Have you read the Cookbook?

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    82. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      A few amino acids aren't life, I don't think we've gotten a spontaniously generated protien out of lab work.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    83. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I hear there are people who think believing in strings is equivalent to believing in a god.

      I've always had a hard time believing in strings... but I know some brass players who believe they ARE God.

    84. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Strings all think they're god too. The oboist knows he is though.

    85. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by evought · · Score: 1

      ...

      And to a lesser extent, I am opposed to the idea that this suicidal deity didn't stay dead. I'm to believe that All Mighty God lost the metaphysical equivalent of a round of counterstrike then screams "You did this"-- and I am suppose to love this character for it? And if I don't, he's going to rejoin the server someday 'soon' (though that was a few thousand years ago) and pwn everybody. I'm sorry, I am a devout Christian, but I have to say this is one of the most amusing ways I have ever seen it put. That and the "magic dead Jew on a stick" from a few posts below had me nearly spewing my drink on the keyboard. Obviously, that isn't the way I see it, no. Christianity has gathered a lot of epistemological cruft over the last 2K years, much of it in the early Middle Ages, which makes things hard to unravel even for studied Christians, let alone outsiders. Even worse, much of the cruft is what rabid believers bandy about with the most energy without giving a lot of thought to what they are really implying. Reactions like yours are exactly what people sometimes need to force the incongruity.

      The focus on "Salvation" began with Paul's ministry after Christ's death. The detailed focus on the "Blood Sacrifice" was a construction of the early Middle Ages. These are present in Jesus' teachings, but are blown out of proportion and lose their context. When these are banked down some, the teachings become a good bit more coherent, subtler, and more disturbing: disturbing in the sense that they require one to change one's life and make tough moral choices to follow. This last I think is why many people prefer *not* to put that much thought into it. It is much more comforting to think you can make a feudal bargain with an irrational God and get immortality out of the deal. That is largely the way our government seems to work, why not the universe?

      Context is everything. The Bible, Old and New Testament, has an enormous amount that goes along with it, some of which is quite confusing or even contradictory, and is not for the faint of heart.
    86. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know many atheists and when pressed we all will say we think the idea of a god existing is wildly improbable given the evidence, but none I know will say with belief that there is no god.

      An irrelevant distinction. If you were talking about anything other than a deity, I'm sure you'd use "belief" to mean "something with such high probability that I assume it to be true as a matter of convenience." Most people know/believe that the sun generates light by the process of nuclear fusion, but few have performed any tests or analysis, let alone have absolute proof.

      The key difference is that you look at scientific results and reason "this data suggests that there is no god," whereas a religious person will think "X says there is a god, therefore there is."
    87. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      That said, I reject Christianity because it is based on the idea of blood sacrifice. That in order to clear the original sin of all people who originally didn't sin themselves (but get credit by way of parents), God needed to sacrifice Himself to Himself, to wash away this baggage of a crime against Him that the people themselves never did.

      Ah! Perfect example! The concept you're talking about is called "penal substitutionary atonement". When I was a Christian, the idea never sat well with me, even though it was what my particular church taught the whole time I was growing up. Fast forward to several years ago, when I was dating an utterly charming girl who was a student at the local Presbyterian seminary. Somehow we got on this subject, and I said something like, "Some people will think I'm a little odd for this, but penal substitutionary atonement doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think it's true." Her response? "I think if you asked around, you'd find most of the people around here would agree with you on that." Translation: We don't want to toot our own horns, but we specialize in thinking about topics exactly like this, so we are relatively confident in our views, and most of us agree with you. So don't feel like your opinion is far out.

      The point is this: penal substitutionary atonement is by no means an essential aspect of Christianity. Some people who don't know much about Christian theology might say it is, but then I had a bad algebra teacher in high school and I didn't believe everything she said about algebra, and I don't think her teaching style is a reflection on math. :-)

    88. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      space space space space space space space

      what a silly language :D

    89. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be tragic for you to base your conclusion on a mere two decades of "experience" and a lack of "strong evidence."

      Christian theology is clear that not everyone will find God and for those who do, it will not be easy (before or after). It's also clear that Christian theology encourages growth both spiritually and mentally. If it didn't, or Christians strayed from the original doctrine, Christianity might have died centuries ago. Anti-Christians have nothing to fear though, as we are witnessing many liberal Christians in America today, redefine Christianity. This is made evident through their reinterpretations of such major moral issues as marriage, homosexuality, and in some cases, even the very core of Christianity. That is just one minor source of confusion for people who think they know the true definition of Christianity. This is why it can be difficult to defend Christianity. Would it be unreasonable of me to expect you to clarify point-for-point the Christian theology you refer to? Did I clarify enough?

      Please also consider Newton, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Einstein. All prominent scientists who believed in a supreme being and whose thoughts on atheism and religion are quite prolific.

    90. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2.

      Isn't it amazing that three, four, and five can relate that way? Kind of a miracle don't you think? It's at least a spooky coincidence right? Well, it's only "trippy" if you're young and have just taken a bong-hit. Physical constants are the same way. There is no magic coincidence that they have specific values that work together. The Universe is here and happening. The speed of light and Planck's constant are what they are because that's how it works. There's no magic in adding two to three to get five and the Golden Gate Bridge wouldn't stand if it were made of lead. Playing fudge the constant to see how harmonious it all is might be intellectually beautiful, but seeing God in those numbers is almost like peering over a sharp cliff just to be thankfull you've got solid ground to stand on. Yeah, the fall would kill you. What else did you expect?

      If you want to see divine intervention in self-assembling bio-molecules I say why stop there. Under the right conditions, Hydrogen and Oxygen will spontaneously self-assemble into water.

      As for the Big Bang it's quite reasonable to see God's Cue Stick in a Prime Mover. But why assume there ever was a first cause? Right now, cosmology/physics posits a "time zero". Asking what came before that point is like trying to walk to the horizon. There is no "time -1". There also is no first cause -- only causation.

    91. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by demallien2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, pharyngula has moved over to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

    92. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the atheists I've known, for their part, have often rejected Christianity (which religion I mention because I live in the US, where it's the dominant religion) without having a good understanding of it

      You say that like it matters. I don't need to know the name of your imaginary friend to come to the conclusion that he's made up. I certainly don't need to know his favourite songs or what you claim he thinks about matters.

      Are you intimately familiar with Greek mythology? Norse mythology? Yet I bet you dismiss them out of hand without subjecting them to an in-depth analysis. So why isn't it valid to do the same for Christianity? Because it survived while the other two died out?

      often naming some element of Christian theology as the reason they can't accept it when it turns out that element is something most mainstream Christian theologians wouldn't say is a legitimate part of Christianity.

      No, when atheists pick out bits of a religion that they can't accept, they tend to point out the bits that they can't accept other people condoning. Most atheists disagree with the fundamental notion of a god, not the specifics.

      I have a hard time thinking there is "really strong" evidence that God isn't real.

      No. There's two different arguments. One is that God doesn't exist. The other is that no gods exist. When you use the word "God" as a proper noun, you're referring to a particular god, presumably Abraham's god. There's no "really strong" evidence against the former. There is against the latter, because it has all kinds of self-contradictory baggage.

    93. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      Which law of physics is it again which allows unknown entities the ability to fiddle with all aspects of life?

      This question assumes things about metaphysics. Laws of physics most certainly do not allow or disallow anything. Instead, they describe patterns. "When I let go of this apple, it moves towards the earth." It's not "it MUST move towards the earth". It's "it DOES move towards the earth". Laws of physics are therefore not fundamentally inconsistent with some outside force intervening. By its very definition, the supernatural is "super" relative to the natural. I can make a CPU that operates in a perfectly orderly way for billions of clock cycles consecutively, but if I should decide to take out the BIOS and reflash it, the order will be temporarily suspended when intervene and will resume again when I stop intervening.

      Which permits the spontaneous creation of organisms in extremely complex forms which resemble closely what organisms should look like after a billion years of evolution or the like?

      This doesn't need to be accounted for because a belief in evolution has been a mainstream belief within (at least) Christianity for quite some time. If you don't believe me, ask Pope Pius XII, who in 1950 officially declared evolution and Catholicism to be compatible. Or ask Cardinal John Henry Newman, who said essentially the same thing in 1868, only 9 years after The Origin of Species was published.

      How is it that an all-good all-knowing god exists while suffering, pain, rape, genocide, natural disasters and all manner of things which are well enough to spring even the most feeble among us to action, aren't deemed worthy by the infinitely strong and infinitely good of some alleviation?

      That's a tougher question, but there are reasonable answers to it. One is that a policy of non-intervention has some purpose, such as allowing those who do evil things (which would include everyone) to understand the true consequences of their actions so that they, too, can learn to hate doing evil. Some suffering isn't a result of evil choices and seems to be simply a part of living. That's a tougher nut to crack, but one answer is that even with God, there is no such thing as a perfect world. Instead, there is merely the best of all possible worlds, and as long as God has given us that, he has given us the best that ever could be. Then, morally, for God it comes down to a choice of whether creating an imperfect -- but valuable -- world is better than creating nothing at all. And as Voltaire said, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

      Hopefully it's clear here that the point is not to convince you, but merely to show that there are some good pro-God arguments that counter the good anti-God arguments, which is why I don't see the whole thing as super clear cut.

    94. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Time and Space didn't appear out of nowhere. It just happened to be really small once. As for perpetual motion machines... we all live in one.

    95. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      What makes a pantheist god finite?

    96. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by weicco · · Score: 1

      Just a side notice, nothing to do with TFA...

      Everytime I speak with some religious folk I start to wonder this same thing. You mention "absence of faith" and some other folks here talk about "lack of faith." Well now english isn't my native language (finnish is) so I don't know if english as language has some limitations here but when people say "lack of faith" it sounds awkward to me. Like there is some container for faith in humans and some people's containers are just a little empty, like they need refilling. This makes rational conversation absolutely impossible since you first have to acknowledge existence of God/Faith (or gods, what ever religion is under discussion), then you can start discussing about "lack of faith" or something like that.

      Why not try other way around? Religious folk are "lacking common sense." (That's my opinion.) Then we can start discussing about if there's any solid proof that some superbeing(s) exists at all. From my point of view, it is impossible to attest that something-which-is-not doesn't exist. It's Catch 22! :)

      But I've given up on this subject a long time ago. If you are religious, you couldn't care less about any proof that God exist. All the proof you need is Faith. I'll try to forget about this whole bs but unfortunately my ex-wife is brainwashing my son to be a sunday believer (she drinks, curses etc. but on every other sunday she crosses her fingers prays for something) and that's really pissing me off.

      Yes, and that stupid thing TFA is talking about cannot work or some famous people are rolling around in their graves :)

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    97. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Those definitions are both positions of belief, not positions of 'unbelief.'

      I still think these dictionaries use a poor definition of the word atheist.

    98. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by catprog · · Score: 1

      I was actually talking about molecules that grew by absorbing light and split up.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    99. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      I don't think that'll burn any karma. To the contrary it is pretty obvious, is it not ?

      Arent's you just saying: "Those that are (for whatever reason) predisposed to believing unlikely claims in the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever, are more likely to believe unlikely claims despite the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever"

      Sounds very unsurprising to me.

    100. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may be full of shit, but I see at least two problems with his argument. Both boil down to making assumptions about the meaning of words, and pretending that how we define something is the same as the thing itself.

      For example, "If God is finite and separate from his creations, then the two must be contained in some greater thing, and this greater thing would be more perfect than God, by virtue of being a superset of him." Why is the superset more perfect than the components? Say I have a perfect cake, and a ton of bullshit. I would argue that the result of mixing both would be less perfect than the cake by itself. A world in which both Hitler and Mother Theresa exists seems to me less perfect than a world in which only Mother Theresa exists, even if it is "smaller" (Of course, this is a biased opinion. In the full scope of the universe, perhaps both are necessary for perfection)

      Also, the old argument that perfection must be immutable. Why? There may be many different perfections. This assumes that there's a single perfect thing, and all perfect things must be identical. For me, this is a problem with how we define perfection, rather than with the object itself.

      Rationalism is a very tempting idea, but we must not forget that it depends on two unreliable and imperfect tools: Language, and reason.

      For the record, I am not religious myself, though I have given the questions some (amateur) thought.

    101. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by The_reformant · · Score: 1

      "and this greater thing would be more perfect than God"

      A man with a chopstick in his eye is a superset of a man but I wouldnt argue that it is more perfect. Im sure there are numerous other errors but couldnt think of any other amusing counter examples :)

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
    102. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Well, Christianity is a religion... the largest religion in fact. I dare say debunking Christianity is about 30% of the job. Also, have you seen the beliefs? Might as well start off with the easy pray (pun intended) first.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    103. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      >>>>PPM are not science.
      >>Yes, that is my point. Glad you finally discovered it among you snarkery.

      You were attempting to draw a distinction between the analogy of PPM and God. Neither are science. That's not a distinction, that's a... what do you call it when things are the same... similarity. I hate to be snarky, but apparently your point is that you are wrong. You should make points which further your own goal in the future, that or get different goals.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    104. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Classical agnosticism also makes an epistemologically unsound assertion: that one cannot know whether or not god exists."

      There's no such things as "classical agnosticism", because the term was first used in the 19th century by T. H. Huxley (a notable proponent of Darwin's theories) to describe himself. He defined agnosticism in the following way:

      "...it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

      Note that Huxley included _everything_ in this, not merely spiritual matters. It was therefore as much a critique of what he termed "ists" (members of the scientific community who accept certain propositions because they satisfy their preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe, and are therefore matters of faith) as those who believe in gods.

      The viewpoint you are describing was not therefore a part of agnosticism, so the following assertion is just plain wrong:

      "In fact, it is not a contradiction to be both a theist and an agnostic, when one applies the classical definition of agnostic."

      "This essay represents my opinions decently."

      Unfortunately, that essay is based on a common straw man definition of agnosticism which only seems to exist among intellectually dishonest atheists who are trying to present their ideas as being the only logical ones. It's interesting how this parallels the tactics that ID proponents try to use as a refutation for evolution...

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    105. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      The point of a dictionary is to show how a word is used in general. If enough people misuse a word it should have that definition added. As such, some dictionaries cite a definition of atheist meaning 'wicked'. It isn't the job of dictionaries to provide definitions of how those people who describe themselves with a word use the word. Even though weak atheist is categorically not agnosticism and agnosticism is a completely disconnected claim from one of theism/atheism that isn't the way it is generally understood and thus isn't the way the dictionaries have the word listed. Atheism is without a theistic belief, whether unbelief or disbelief (as disbelief automatically assumes unbelief). Whereas agnosticism is a knowledge claim which, by and large, says nothing about belief in God (one can be agnostic and atheist or theist).

      http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/ overview.htm

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    106. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ttnuagmada · · Score: 1

      I was a christian for say the first 19 years of my life. I then noticed something one day that I cant seem to get my head around. In the Bible Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Jesus 3 times. Doesn't that invalidate the Bible completely more or less? In the Bible it states that at the end of time we will all be judged. My basic question is: why would a God who created everything KNOWING its everythings outcome in COMPLETE detail need to judge anyone? This may sound like questioning what we couldn't possibly understand about how an all powerful God works. However wouldn't the actual foretelling of someones future to their face more or less make how God perceives time to be irrelevant? It ultimately means that however he DOES perceive time it amounts to a LINEAR frame of view as far as we are concerned. If he could tell peter his future, wouldn't he not be able to tell everyone their future? Lets say a man has gun that shoots magic bullets that the man makes himself. These bullets fly out of the gun and then hit whatever target they want with no influence from the shooter. Another property of these bullets however is that the shooter still knows what the bullets will hit. Would that give the shooter the right to judge the bullet for the consequences when the shooter is the one who fired the gun knowing who/what would get shot? Notice I'm not contradicting free will, just the fact that Gods foreknowledge of that free will makes having it irrelevant thus making the bible pointless. Because hey, how can choosing something your creator already knows you will choose possibly be "right" or "wrong"? Everything you do has consequences we have to deal with already no? Why would life also have another set of consequences to deal with in being judged by some whacko creator who knew exactly what was going to happen while also decided to insert these set rules he knew you would or wouldn't follow. Then he judges you like he DIDN'T know if you would or wouldnt follow them. Does that seem totally screwed up to anybody? Nigga Please that Christ shiz is whack. I'm mostly only familiar with christianity, but after being able to finally get outside of the box and step back for a look i cant see how any other religion would possibly be true either. I guess I just don't need any outside force to help me cope with my existence like so many other people do. Anyone see what im sayin?

    107. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God."

      It is you who is incorrect. The term "agnostic" was invented by T. H. Huxley, and (to use your own canard) in layman's terms, can be described as "Don't claim it if you can't explain it". Huxley did not restrict this to religious matters, but also scientific ones, because he was just as dismayed by those who accept laws and theories because they are based on some "authority", or for their conformance with a preconceived world view, as he was with religions that expect people to believe in them for precisely the same reasons.

      "Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism.""

      While I agree that agnosticism is not the same as weak atheism, it is not complicated, because it can in its entirety be summed up by two sentences, which are Huxley's "positive" and "negative" definitions:

      Positive definition: "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration".
      Negative definition: "In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

      Note that this isn't what most modern people _think_ an agnostic is, or for that matter, what many people who describe themselves as agnostics believe, but it's the real definition of the term, irrespective of what some dictionaries say (because dictionaries are records of common usage, and not, as many seem to think, authoritative definitions of a term. I think therefore that Huxley would be rather amused by any who would use dictionaries to refute his own definition of a term he invented, because it's precisely the sort of blind appeal to authority that agnosticism rejects!).

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    108. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "the Axiom of Choice, Godel's incompleteness theorem, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; all of which I've seen dragged into and horribly misused in philosophical and theological arguments"

      This is generally because the people doing the dragging don't understand the things they're dragging, and neither do their audiences.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    109. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by dkf · · Score: 1

      First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite. No it doesn't. The set of positive integers is separate from the set of negative integers, and both are infinite. I suspect that your refutation is a load of cobblers, since the Spinoza argument is using a different definition of "finite". In particular, he was probably taking the viewpoint that "infinite" means that there are absolutely no boundaries at all. By contrast, mathematical infinities relate to the cardinality of sets and it's usually (always?) possible to construct entities that aren't in a particular set (IIRC the assumption that there is a set of all possible sets leads through trivial reasoning to a contradiction.) Given the "no boundaries at all" definition of "infinite", that part of the Spinozan argument is a lot harder to defeat.

      If you're going to hold philosophical/theological arguments on slashdot, please take care with your definitions!
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    110. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Time and Space didn't appear out of nowhere. It just happened to be really small once."

      The GP is actually more correct than you, because space and time didn't exist until after the Big Bang, so the terms "where", "when, and indeed "really small" had no meaning. It is thus literally true that the time and space appeared out of nowhere, because there was no "where" in the singularity.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    111. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by ttnuagmada · · Score: 1

      im a new poster here, i guess it didnt like my formating.

    112. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Some suffering isn't a result of evil choices and seems to be simply a part of living. That's a tougher nut to crack, but one answer is that even with God, there is no such thing as a perfect world. Instead, there is merely the best of all possible worlds, and as long as God has given us that, he has given us the best that ever could be. Then, morally, for God it comes down to a choice of whether creating an imperfect -- but valuable -- world is better than creating nothing at all."

      A best of all possible worlds that includes creatures such as the ichneumon wasp, whose entire life cycle depends on causing horrible, prolonged suffering to another animal. Observing these was a major reason for Darwin eventually rejecting the Christianity that he'd previously believed in, because he found it impossible to reconcile their existence with the concept of a god that was "good" or "loving" according to any reasonable definition of those terms.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    113. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't pass the math exam. Did you?
      Something could be enclosed and be infinite,and things could be infinitely small, or infinitely large.

      E.g all numbers bigger than two is infinite, or there are an infinite number of real numbers between two diferent integer numbers.

      God existence could not be proben, or their existance. Now we see more than 1000 years ago, we see galaxies cumulus and atoms, but to extrapolate that there is no something bigger or smaller because we don't see it is that, and extrapolation, not a proof.

      And you being finite, could be part of something infinite.

    114. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by benmcdavid · · Score: 1

      This is going way off topic.

      My philosophy teacher in college (Debra Nails, http://www.msu.edu/~nails/, used to teach at Mary Washington) swore up and down that Spinoza was a closet atheist, and that the only way he could carry on conversations with his comptemporaries was to discuss God.

      There is some evidence. If you take the premise of his theory about God, then there is no perceived difference between a reality with Spinoza's God existing as the immutable whole of the universe, and a reality that doesn't involve God at all.

      Certainly makes me want to break out my copy of Ethics again to see if I remember what I think I read about Spinoza correctly.

    115. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      So Christ didn't die for the sins of mankind. Whew. Because that would have been stupid.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    116. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 1

      "...it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

      Interesting. Thanks, I will investigate this some more. However there are still two common uses of the word: existence god is not knowable, or existence of god is not known (discussed here). So it seems as if I've got my notion of "classical agnosticism" completely backwards from how Huxley defined it compared to how it is used in modern "scientific literature in psychology and neuroscience."

      The viewpoint you are describing was not therefore a part of agnosticism, so the following assertion is just plain wrong:

      "In fact, it is not a contradiction to be both a theist and an agnostic, when one applies the classical definition of agnostic."

      If we accept the definition of agnosticism as the one you quoted from Huxley (who is obviously authoritative), then we remove the word 'classical' from my sentence above (or leave it in, because we're using Huxley's definition which is clearly the classical one), this still seems perfectly consistent to me. Theism refers to a belief in god, whereas agnosticism speaks to the question of knowledge, or the truth about a belief. I therefore maintain anyone who says "I don't know if god exists, but I believe that he does on faith" is both a theist and an agnostic.

      Unfortunately, that essay is based on a common straw man definition of agnosticism which only seems to exist among intellectually dishonest atheists who are trying to present their ideas as being the only logical ones.

      Please elaborate. Given the definition of agnostic in that essay, I don't see anything glaryingly contradictory when compared to what you quoted above.

    117. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      So why bother with the whole death thing? I understand the added baggage of the blood sacrifice, but the entire exercise seems futile if it's done for no reason at all. Wouldn't it have spared people a lot of grief to just ascend to heaven without the whole death thing. I understand the desire to ignore the stupid parts, but they do seem to tie together in the larger theology. And the entire death for sin sake seems to require a literal Adam and Eve story, a literal Jesus, and a literal death (at least for a couple days). There's something noble about remaking your religion into a form you can show your neighbors without too much embarrassment, but I've always thought that if you're throwing out the baby... there's no point keeping the bathwater.

      It isn't that this seems to be a small subsection of Christian theology... it seems to be the core.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    118. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      I was not referring to the unbelief in a deity. I was referring to things like faith in big bang theory, the existence of quarks, string theory, theory of life evolving from primordial soup, things like that. I'm not saying that all atheists share the same leaps of faith, of course, and I hardly gave an exhaustive list just then. You get the idea, though, I hope.

    119. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by andy55 · · Score: 1

      Well, Christianity is a religion... the largest religion in fact. I dare say debunking Christianity is about 30% of the job. Also, have you seen the beliefs? Might as well start off with the easy pray (pun intended) first. I think that you missed the point of what was actually an insightful statement made by the GP. Namely, that debunking *any* particular religious establishement or denomination is somehow equivalent to debunking all religion.
    120. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism is not a religion, but secular-humanism is one. Since most atheiest are secular-humanists, that is their religion.

    121. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by mpitcavage · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the word "atheist" is like the the word "ethnic", but I doubt many atheists can tell you if they're weak/strong implicit/explicit, or really agnostics who don't know how to use a dictionary...
       
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

    122. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Oh, I've seen some goodies. ...

      The entire core of Christianity is that it is unreasonable to believe that Joseph could have just stepped up rather than have his wife stoned to death (the punishment to for adultery). It is thusly much more likely that his wife gave sexless birth to a magical wizard.

      So that years later Mel Gibson could make a snuff movie about how awesome Drippy McBloodspurt was for dying as horrifically as he could (even though he could have avoided it, but didn't care to... though he wasn't above asking himself why he forsook himself).

      Though, if I thought the Jews killed God, I'd worship the Jews.

      As an atheist, I feel it is my duty and honor to help Christians be as Christlike as possible, even though I am unduly hampered by insufficient quantities of lumber. ...

      Certainly there is a lot of focus on sacrifice and Christ, and certainly if you focused less on incoherent beliefs like the main story of Gospels. Certainly one could focus on philosophy as there are smatterings of it here and there in the Gospels, but I don't see why it deserves any special credit above say Buddhist or even Marxist philosophy. Sure, it's there, if you read between the bizarre story or just skip to the Sermon on the Mount. As for making tough moral choices, I daresay becoming a Jaine would be far more moral and more difficult than following the few things the Bible gets right (and those few things can usually be found in other earlier sources).

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    123. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      I'm doubtful. At least in my experience, most modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God, Obviously a point of some dispute amongst atheists, given the above posters comment:

      There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

      but merely do not accept theistic world views. This position ( or more correctly, semantic manipulation) is indefensible - because it completely ignores the question of the actual existence of a deity. A person who merely rejected theistic world views is open to the possibility of there being a deity, just not one resembling that worshiped by deistic religions. In other words, God can exist, as long as no-one believes in him. Somewhat ridiculous.

      Absence of belief does not require faith. Your assumption is that your position doesn't demand belief from you - demonstrably false.
    124. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree. "Lack of faith" sounds like there's something wrong with you, like you're defective in some way. You're right to notice the nuances of the language - the manner is which people frame arguments often shows a lot of insight into how they think and your observation about lacking faith is spot on in that regard :o)

      I think religious people really need to say why they have faith in any particular thing. Faith itself is unassailable, but as someone else pointed out - you can have faith in the Invisible Purple Flying Unicorn, and it's in the same class (proof-wise) as belief in God. Describing why one of those beliefs is better supported than the other is a tricky thing to do :o)

      I understand you giving up with the subject - arguing religion is often frustrating. I find it more fruitful to look at HOW people justify their beliefs, rather than what their beliefs are.

    125. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Those definitions are both positions of belief, not positions of 'unbelief.' Not really. The belief that agnosticism is "meta" belief - belief about belief, so to speak. Theism or Atheism involves belief or non belief in a deity, agnosticism is a belief that it's not possible or reasonable to form those kinds of belief.

      I still think these dictionaries use a poor definition of the word atheist. Well, I think that if the Oxford dictionary and Websters both disagree with you, then it's you who is wrong and not the dictionaries. If you want to express something else, use a different term. It sounds to me that "agnostic" is probably the term you should be using.

    126. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      Ahh, but there's the rub. Yes, accounting for contemporary physics and cosmology we can work backwards to a certain point that's amazingly (preposterously) specific and say there was a time zero, then a mystery, then (1x10^-43 seconds, right?) a Big Bang and the arrival of Time and Space. Why is this considered the birth of the Universe out of nowhere?

      It's difficult to keep this subject a matter of Science and not Philosophy. So let's skip the Science and point out that you're assuming our somethingness appeared out of a nothingness. Perhaps there is no nothingness to provide us with amazement at the Universe's existance. Claiming it's literaly true that Time and Space appeared out of nowhere would be like claiming it's literally true that one can't fly a plane off the edge of the East.

      Then again, I think that's what you mean.

    127. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by andy55 · · Score: 1


      Far be it from me to dispute the scientific belief that there was a magical singularity 13.7 billion years ago that was the source of all matter/energy and had no father; that created what we know as the universe and will sometimes grant you wishes if you perform certain subatomic interactions in sufficient quantities.


      Full disclosure: I'm a physcial science and math person, and I used to be a strong non-denominational Christian. Point being, that framing any kind of view, scientific or religious, in a distracting and disingenuous fashion ("jew on a stick", "telepathically communicate", "grant you wishes") does not contribute anything to the discussion/debate. If you were just going for a laugh, it's all good--I'm just sayin'.

    128. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Very good. Did they make any organic chains/rings that way? Might be an interesting way to create oil. It's a big leap from all sorts of life like replications to actual life. Even single celled organisms are unfortunatly complex. I don't think there is enough evididence that we can be sure just how we all got here.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    129. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      More to the point, all people, including atheists, go around believing in answers to more or less trivial things that are inherently impossible to prove or disprove.
      Such as "Does it really matter if I get out of bed today?"

      Questions which can be approximately answered empirically (a.k.a scientific questions) are the tip of the iceberg. Some people wanted to get around this by asserting that all the other questions were meaningless, but a funny guy pointed out that this assertion was itself an answer to a non-empirical question, the question of which questions we should care about.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    130. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 1

      How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

      It can be reconciled when you take the view that atheism is "an absence of belief in deities." Therefore one who says "I believe there is no God" and one who says "I cannot disprove God but I don't believe one exists" are quite different views, but both atheism.

      A person who merely rejected theistic world views is open to the possibility of there being a deity, just not one resembling that worshiped by deistic religions. In other words, God can exist, as long as no-one believes in him. Somewhat ridiculous.

      I'd say that depends entirely on your interpretation of "does not accept theistic world views" or "rejects theistic world views." I argue the latter is held by one whose belief precludes the existence of god, whereas the former is held by one who accepts the possibility, but doesn't currently believe. (The difference can be clarified by comparing "does not currently accept" with "will never accept.") That is to say there is a logical difference between not accepting and rejecting.

      Your assumption is that your position doesn't demand belief from you - demonstrably false.

      No, my contention is that atheism of the form "I do not believe god exists" doesn't require faith because you're not asserting a position on the existence or non-existence of god. In contrast, the atheistic view "I believe God does not exist" I accept does require faith.

    131. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Spinoza notwithstanding, it is questionable whether the question of the existence or nature of God can properly be approached in this fashion.

      For example the Spanish Kabbalists, the community from whose stock Spinoza sprung, envisioned the world as originating in zimzum a kind of contraction in which the transcendent, universal, inconceivable God created a space void of him/her/itself. That void is the world as we know it, and the ignorance of the transcendent God in the view of some extends to the divine presence itself, the Shekinah, which suffers an exile from its greater self mirrored by the Jewish exile from Eretz Yisrael. Experiencing alienation, the Shekinah is capable of love.

      This is really just an alternate working out of the same concerns as Spinoza, but to different conclusions.

      Neither view has much claim upon anybody's belief. When we argue about God, we simply have Wittgenstein's "Beetle in a Box". Suppose everybody had a box, whose contents he alone could examine. Furthermore lets say everybody agrees to refer to the thing in the box as a "beetle". Since nobody knows what is in the boxes of others, the word "beetle" doesn't really name the thing in your box, which could be anything, or even nothing at all. The thing in the box is something that you really can't communicate to other people. This is kind of the zimzum model turned inside out: that which is unknowable to the world is within, not without.

      Statements about the existence and nature of God are not statements about the outside world; they are mystical in nature, which means they're about the thing in the box, which we can experience personally but can't share with anybody else. That's why mysticism is so full of statements like "The way that can be spoken of is not the way."

      The problem of the existence of God is, from a philosophical viewpoint, a meaningless one. This does not preclude the provable falsehood of certain "religious" ideas like Biblical Inerrancy or Creationism, which are statements about the shared world of sensation. These forms of faith are demonstrably false.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    132. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If God is finite and separate from his creations, then the two must be contained in some greater thing, and this greater thing would be more perfect than God, by virtue of being a superset of him."

      This needs more reasoning to be supported. For example, if I take an exam of 100/100 (perfect) and create a superset with another exam of score 50/100, the superset is not "more perfect" than the set of just the perfect exam.

    133. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tack · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that "I believe there is no God" is the same as "I don't believe there is a God" (which would be atheism)... but I'm open to correction...

      Both stances are atheism, which some might call strong atheists ("I believe there is no god") and weak atheists ("I don't believe there is a god"). Although people of the latter category often call themselves agnostics. (Agnosticism cannot apply to those of the former category.) As is demonstrated by the debate in this thread, there is varying opinion as to what the definition is. Indeed many people consider all atheists to hold the position that there's no god.

      Nowadays I generally avoid using labels like "atheist" or "agnostic" because the terms have different implications to different people. People can't communicate effectively unless they agree first on language. Years ago, I had a friend insist that she knew god existed, and after minutes of back-and-forth getting nowhere, she added, "I know in my heart god exists." Her definition of "knowledge" was considerably different from mine, which only ended up resulting in frustration and general miscommunication between us.

    134. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which, of course, nullifies any concept of free will. For example, take the story of Eden. If what you say is true, God tempted Eve with the apple, but he did so knowing full well what her decision would be, because, hey, he transcends time. IOW, knowing the outcome already, he manipulated her into sinning (why he would do that is another question entirely).

      And this principle applies universally. The bible claims that humanity was given free will, that we would come to God of our own chosing. But God, being transcendant of time, knows every choice and every action I will ever perform, and can manipulate me as he sees fit. Therefore, I can't possibly have free will, as all my choices, from God's perspective, are entirely predetermined.

      If you gave me a true list of everything you did yesterday, does my knowledge of your actions nullify the free will you had in doing them? Of course not. What if I invented a time machine and traveled back to the beginning of yesterday? Does my time machine nullify your free will? It would only nullify your free will if I shared that information with you (which is why God doesn't typically share that information with us). The idea that foreknowledge implies determinism is based solely on the experience of our temporal life, since for OUR knowledge, that correlation DOES usually exist. But it is a fallacy to extrapolate that correlation to one transcendent of time.

      To put it another way, distinguishing between God's past knowledge and God's future knowledge is an artificial distinction. The challenge in thinking about God is in the constraints we put on our thinking that arise from our close association with time and space.
    135. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Emperor+BMA · · Score: 1

      Following Spinoza's logic here would be like saying the author of a book must be the book itself. We are effectively living in the pages of the book, so that all of our evidence can only come from the book itself and what the author chooses to reveal of Himself (both in describing the way we are created and in what He has chosen to reveal of Himself directly).

      This is the basis of Judaic, Christian and Islamic theology, we operate on the understanding of what God has done and continues to do. For we Christians at least, the highest exposition of this fact is Paul's discourse on the Unknown God (agnostos theou) to the Athenians on Mars Hill.

    136. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      What makes a pantheist god finite?

      Because a pantheist god is one with nature, and nature is finite.

      (Glancing at the wikipedia article, there is also the term "classical pantheism" which would appear not to have that constraint, but only perhaps imply that God is manifest in everything of nature.)
    137. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. The set of positive integers is separate from the set of negative integers, and both are infinite.

      Different sense of "infinite". There's also an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1. And actually, Spinoza would have known about this--after all, infinite divisibility dates back to Zeno of Elea and his infamous paradoxes.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    138. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I wasn't trying to be helpful at all. I thought it was funny.

      Cheers

    139. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Experiment+626 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      That's a catchy quip, but suppose someone doesn't just happen not to collect stamps. Rather, they go around ridiculing and/or debating stamp collectors, lobbying the postal service to stop printing collectible stamps, encouraging others to start hanging around wehatestampcollecting.org to get a better idea of what anti-stamp-collectors are all about, and so on. It's what they like to do with their free time, kind of like... a hobby. Likewise, if you hold to the belief that there are exactly zero gods, and base your actions in life on that theological assertion, some people might describe that as your belief system.

    140. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about 'spirits' Do spirits exist? Some say each of us has a spirit guide to protect and guide us in this lifetime. Dust to dust? Or is there more?

    141. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      And the atheists I've known, for their part, have often rejected Christianity without having a good understanding of it, often naming some element of Christian theology as the reason they can't accept it when it turns out that element is something most mainstream Christian theologians wouldn't say is a legitimate part of Christianity.

      I think this has more to do with the fact that many, perhaps even most Christians have no idea what theology is, apply no logic at all to their beliefs, and practice their religion in astoundingly stupid ways. This is why you get fundies that believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, despite the fact that all the sane theologians would tell you that Genesis is clearly a parable. And why you see even intelligent, thoughtful Christians believing silly things like "God is good by definition, thus all God's rules are good, even if there are no obvious reasons for them, and they're clearly about hating people that are different than me," a philosophy that has been proven silly a hundred years ago by real theologians. And then there are people who blindly follow scam artists like Jerry Falwell. Clearly, Mr. Falwell has never paid any attention to theology in any way, shape, or form, or statements like how 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina were the result of America making God mad, would never have come out of his mouth.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    142. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And an "anti-philateler" actively seeks out and destroys stamps!

    143. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      If you gave me a true list of everything you did yesterday, does my knowledge of your actions nullify the free will you had in doing them?

      That's a flawed analogy. God knows precisely what I've done, and what I will do with respect to any stimuli, as he is, apparently, temporally omniscience. Thus, God *knows* precisely what I will ever do. To him, it's simply a tapestry laid bare. And since God is the one which dictates the starting conditions, he, in effect, rigs the game to accomplish whatever outcomes occur. Therefore, it may *appear* that I have free will, but in reality I don't.

    144. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      If God is omnipresent, then he should be omnitemporal as well.

      That makes sense, and it allows for God to seem imperfect and flawed at any moment since it would require an understanding of all his moments to even begin to judge his perfection. Something no one is capable of.

      That being said, I've never understood the need to personify natural forces. If I had no cultural awareness, I doubt I would have ever thought to attribute the universe around me to the workings of some personality somewhere. I always get lost in the definition of God.

    145. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "However there are still two common uses of the word: existence god is not knowable, or existence of god is not known (discussed here)."

      The first sentence in the Wikipedia entry is wrong, because the "Gnostic" part of agnostic refers to Gnosticism rather than gnosis, i.e. those who claim to have knowledge about that which is mysterious. This is clear from Huxley's writings on the subject:

      "So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant"

      This confusion about the derivation of the term has led to the common misperception of what agnosticism is, because an agnostic isn't a person who doesn't know, but is someone who does not claim to have any knowledge of, or belief in, things that cannot currently be known.

      N.B: I stopped reading at that first sentence, as it's hard to take any article which begins with such an obviously erroneous statement seriously.

      "Theism refers to a belief in god, whereas agnosticism speaks to the question of knowledge, or the truth about a belief"

      This quote from Huxley's, "Agnosticism: A Symposium" makes it quite clear that what you are saying is incorrect:

      "... Thus it will be seen that I have a sort of patent right in "Agnostic" (it is my trade mark); and I am entitled to say that I can state authentically what was originally meant by Agnosticism....

      1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

      2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not."

      "I therefore maintain anyone who says "I don't know if god exists, but I believe that he does on faith" is both a theist and an agnostic."

      Please see above, because one cannot be a theist and an agnostic any more than one can be an atheist and an agnostic, because agnosticism is antithetical to having any firm opinion on topics that cannot be proven or falsified.

      "Please elaborate. Given the definition of agnostic in that essay, I don't see anything glaryingly contradictory when compared to what you quoted above."

      This part:

      "Agnosticism and gnosticism are dealing with knowledge, i.e., knowing or not knowing"

      An incorrect definition of gnosticism leads to an incorrect definition of agnosticism, and the rest of the article builds its arguments around this incorrect definition. Gnosticism isn't "knowing", but claiming to have knowledge of that which is currently both unknown and unknowable; agnosticism is a negation of this, i.e. a recognition of the fact that the only reasonable and logical statement one can make about something that is both unknown and unknowable is that we don't know anything about it!

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    146. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also add the argument of multiple parallel universes where your other selves may make different choices perhaps under slightly different circumstances. So God gets to know you infinitely well, through the choices you and your other selves make ;)

    147. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point being, that framing any kind of view, scientific or religious, in a distracting and disingenuous fashion ("jew on a stick", "telepathically communicate", "grant you wishes") does not contribute anything to the discussion/debate.

      Oh, but it does. Christianity is absurd. But the majority of Christians have been taught the same thing, in the same way, ever since they were children. Words like "miracle", "prayer", etc aren't evaluated by their literal meanings, only in context of it being Something Really Super that God Did. It's something writers call suspension of disbelief.

      By choosing not to use those terms, but synonyms instead, the absurdity is exposed. Unfortunately, most people think the absurdity is caused by the person unmasking it, rather than realising that it was there all along and their indoctrination hid it from them.

      If you really think it's derogatory, please explain how miracles aren't magical, prayers aren't telepathy and people praying aren't asking for their wishes to be granted. Is there really a difference, or were you brainwashed into giving the traditional terms a free pass?

    148. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You were attempting to draw a distinction between the analogy of PPM and God. Neither are science.

      Except that PPM believers (and Trutherism, creationism, etc) CLAIM it is science. They go to great lengths to put on airs of scientific and logical respectibility.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    149. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Well, the simple answer is that the "perfect" and "infinite" stuff is all just trash-talk. They're human words that represent concepts that are logically meaningless; but from the standpoint of reverence and worship, are meaningful. Considering the primitive, superstitious origins, it wouldn't be surprising. Whether or not God exists, religion does fulfill important cultural and psychological functions. And human languages used for common discussion don't have the precision of mathematics - so it's kind of absurd to make them stand together as equals, for the purposes of logical deduction. That was like, in chapter 1 of my Discrete Math textbook.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    150. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Yes, accounting for contemporary physics and cosmology we can work backwards to a certain point that's amazingly (preposterously) specific and say there was a time zero, then a mystery, then (1x10^-43 seconds, right?) a Big Bang and the arrival of Time and Space. Why is this considered the birth of the Universe out of nowhere?"

      Because, as I said previously, the fact that there was no space until the singularity exploded means that the term "where" had no meaning, ergo the singularity had no where and was thus nowhere, and than space happened, at which point nowhere became somewhere. Thus, it is perfectly correct to say space and time came from nowhere (and nowhen), because there was no where or when before Big Bang.

      "So let's skip the Science and point out that you're assuming our somethingness appeared out of a nothingness"

      The only problem with this is that I'm not assuming it came from "no thing", only "no where", and "no when", hence the fact that this is what my post talked about. It is you who is assuming this is what I meant -- I said nothing remotely like it.

      "Claiming it's literaly true that Time and Space appeared out of nowhere would be like claiming it's literally true that one can't fly a plane off the edge of the East"

      It's actually more like trying to say how hot three miles is. The term "where" expresses one's position in terms of something else _in space_, e.g. "Where am I? 5 miles NE of Calcutta". Because the singularity had one dimension, there was no space for it to exist in, so concepts that are defined in terms of both space and the existence of more than one point within it are completely nonsensical.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    151. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by evought · · Score: 1

      So why bother with the whole death thing? I understand the added baggage of the blood sacrifice, but the entire exercise seems futile if it's done for no reason at all. Wouldn't it have spared people a lot of grief to just ascend to heaven without the whole death thing. I understand the desire to ignore the stupid parts, but they do seem to tie together in the larger theology. And the entire death for sin sake seems to require a literal Adam and Eve story, a literal Jesus, and a literal death (at least for a couple days). There's something noble about remaking your religion into a form you can show your neighbors without too much embarrassment, but I've always thought that if you're throwing out the baby... there's no point keeping the bathwater.

      It isn't that this seems to be a small subsection of Christian theology... it seems to be the core.

      Well, as I said, the whole "Blood Sacrifice" thing grew up in the Middle Ages, so it is not a matter of remaking the religion to make it acceptable, but a matter of trying to get rid of some baggage that was laid on top of it. There is some connection with Jesus as sacrifice in the New Testament itself and is important, but it is connected to Old Testament symbolism of the Passover and the Temple and meaningless out of context. Part of the reason the "Blood Sacrifice" doctrine came along is that it was much less work for medieval theologians to explain the crucifixion by that route, and the whole original sin-blood sacrifice-redemption doctrine fit very well with a centralized, guilt-operated, hierarchical church.

      Even as a sacrifice, Jesus' death was horrible, but not unique. People die horrible deaths every day. Some perhaps even worse than being tortured and crucified (though how you rate things at that level I am not sure). Many of these people could certainly be considered "innocent" in many ways, particularly, say, infants starving to death. Without a nebulous concept of "original sin" tainting even these, Jesus' sacrifice, again, is not unique. In fact, it might be noted that good people, especially activists, such as Gandhi and MLK, suffer violent deaths more often than not. Terrible, often undeserved, suffering is part of the human condition.

      As for "Salvation," I don't believe in it as the easy way out many people take it as. Whether death leads to the Long Night or Immortality, it is bound to be transformative and lead to a type of existence now unknown to us and which we are incapable of understanding from this side of the door. Like birth or the transformation from caterpillar to butterfly, much of what has gone before becomes irrelevant or immaterial. Our need to preserve "self," our personality, and our fear of the destruction of the ego, is not served by a promise of life after death. No matter what we believe in, we need faith, trust, courage, whatever, to face the darkness with some measure of dignity. Choosing to put our faith in God and turn ourselves over to His care is not self-preserving but self-destructive and transformative: in Christian terms, "dieing to self and allowing Christ to live in us." This is an acceptance that God is a part of us and vice-versa, and that being in tune with this fact requires stripping away layers of self-deception, fear, and vanity, being part of something greater than ourselves. Christ clearly demonstrates the possible consequences.

      Jesus' teachings about "Turning the other cheek," and similar admonishments to not seek vengeance or strike out at enemies takes somewhat of a twist from similar teachings elsewhere. This is not taught from the position of the nobility of sacrifice (indeed, Jesus is accused by peers as being epicurean) but from the idea that we have better things to worry about. We do not know the hour when we will be called and need to be prepared; vengeance, hate, pettiness, are dangerous distractions from what is truly important.

      The meaning of the death and resurrection *are* difficult to understand (which is why many shortcuts have been taken over

    152. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by jafac · · Score: 1

      So why bother with the whole death thing? I understand the added baggage of the blood sacrifice, but the entire exercise seems futile if it's done for no reason at all.

      My opinion? This is how most people have viewed the world for thousands of years. Crime and Justice - the thirst for blood to satisfy what seems like an almost instinctual human need for revenge (the sense of "fairness") when wronged.

      I think it's a theme in all the major world religions - in one form or another; universal karma. Somehow, it's a part of the human psyche, and it expresses itself through this certain set of symbols, in the context of Christianity.

      Personally, it doesn't appeal to me, in that way. To me, the importance of the message of Christ is that; God came to earth and walked a mile in our shoes, and saw that judgment of Man was unjust. "They know not what they do." - because when we do wrong to someone else, we don't feel what they feel. We need to try to learn that. It's about reaching out, it's about trying to reconcile.

      Some people are still stuck in that "blood sacrifice for justice" mindset.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    153. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      That's a flawed analogy. God knows precisely what I've done, and what I will do with respect to any stimuli, as he is, apparently, temporally omniscience. Thus, God *knows* precisely what I will ever do. To him, it's simply a tapestry laid bare. And since God is the one which dictates the starting conditions, he, in effect, rigs the game to accomplish whatever outcomes occur. Therefore, it may *appear* that I have free will, but in reality I don't.

      But "rigging" the starting conditions doesn't affect free will either. Even with free will, a person's knowledge and experience affects what they choose to do. So as parents, we of course "rig the starting conditions" for our children, giving them discipline and education, though unlike God we only know statistically the effect it will have on them. But if God gave me knowledge of the future and I saw that if I sent my kid to MIT, he would invent a wind-powered trike that decapitated scores of people, and after his jail sentence he OD on heroine, whereas if I sent him to auto-mechanic school he would find joy in his work, and do it with great integrity, and raise a loving family, I would obviously choose the latter. Now he could complain that he was not free to go to MIT, and he would be right, but he was free to make the most out of the conditions that were given him, and that's exactly what he did. He freely chose his good life of love of integrity, I just provided the conditions to make it possible for him to do so. But if I had another son, and I know that whatever opportunities I gave him, he would use them for taking advantage of others, the best I could do for him would be to find the conditions which would minimize the damage he was determined to do himself and others.
    154. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the right chemicals must of come together.

      You're looking for "must've" here, which is a contraction of "must have." The word "of" almost never follows the words "should," "could," "would," "must," or "might."

    155. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      It appears as if he took the statement "there is no strong evidence of the existence of God" to mean "there is strong evidence of the nonexistence of God." English mixed with a distributed negation can be messy indeed.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    156. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite
      Spinoza wasn't very good with transfinite cardinals, was he?
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    157. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by seebs · · Score: 1

      You need to get out more, I know a number of atheists who not only lack belief in God, but specifically disbelieve. Try iidb.org. They're not a majority, but they're certainly not the empty set.

      Some people don't collect stamps. Some people refuse to buy stamps on principle. :)

      (Note that I'm not saying it's a religion, just that strong atheism exists.)

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    158. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real. Personally, his analogy would have made more sense to me if it had been, "The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God was real."
      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    159. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      depends on the definition of "exists". A concept "exists", but only as a concept. Lots of things "exist" in people's minds.

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
    160. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Bad LLama!

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    161. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      From reading the Bible is seems to grow out of Paul and the Jewish idea of blood sacrifice. Sacrifice a good animal for this or that or the other. And, without it, the other parts don't make any sense. Jesus gets killed because... -- Doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't blame people for trying to explain it, it needs explaining. Certainly good people suffer, I daresay your average cancer suffer goes through worse than any crucified person does. God dies horribly for no reason at all. Why put one's head on the executioner's block at all? I think it's unworthy of any respect. If nobody is forcing you, don't do it.

      And even the little interesting parts are still less moral than Jainism. A Martin Luther King could have been created more easily via Jainism than Christianity, and actually he got his positions from Gandhi, and not Christianity. Gandhi coincidentally got his from Jainism. I don't see why, one should accept a story which makes little to no sense, when there are more moral philosophies out there for the taking. And, on a related note, I don't see how anybody can conclude the Bible is true to even make the offer worthwhile.

      The story doesn't seem to work. The moral philosophy is subpar.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    162. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by 3choTh1s · · Score: 1

      While this is all logical to an extent, it doesn't allow for one possibility. There is still a way to believe in some sort of God and worship him. That is to allow for the possibility that God is not perfect and yet still worthy of worship. The idea is that while he isn't absolutely perfect he is still perfect enough to create our universe and our physics that allowed us beings to exist. No he did not have to create us 4000 years ago. We don't need to actually have a human being really called Adam and his partner Eve. All we really need to know is that He is just and that He created our ability to become what we are today. I believe in a God but only because I don't believe in absolutes.

    163. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Actually, it seems that very few religions have blood sacrifice as a central theme. The idea of karma is the antithesis of blood sacrifice. The idea that the blood of the innocent can wash your guilt away is abhorrent, and fundamentally different from the idea that everybody gets their comeuppance and if you put good into the world you get good out of the world. The idea of blood sacrifice litters the Bible, from the story of Abraham and Isaac (and other stories where the parent actually murdered the child), to Noah's Ark, and most prominently in the Gospels. It doesn't appeal to me in the least, but, it's there, clear as day.

      I have nothing against rejecting things which don't work, but if Christianity is true... why are their such obvious and fundamental flaws in the central doctrines? I mean, why does one need to cherry pick the Bible so heavily in order to make a moral religion out of some of the pieces? Shouldn't it have been vaguely good to start with? It just seems that once you admit there are flaws in the Bible, nothing should stop one from concluding that God is one of those flaws.

      Why would God need to walk a mile in our shoes? He should know everything, and his judgment should be just. It seems to be a lot of effort in order to scrap together a makeshift theology out of Christianity which doesn't insult one's sense of decency. And we need our moral understandings to make such judgments about the immoralities within the Bible. It seems like we could just keep our moral understandings and get rid of the Bible.

      I understand that one can reject the idea of blood sacrifice. Though, the blood sacrifice explanation was an attempt to explain this odd hole in the story. Without it, you have a much more moral story, but you also have this gaping plot hole again. It makes more sense as really poorly written fiction with makeshift morality borrowed from other sources, built on over the years, without any evidence to support it, and no reason to accept it. And even if you ignore the poorly written fiction, take the makeshift morality, and ignore the lack of support, you've accomplished nothing. One seems to need to gut the religion in order to suggest there is some morality there.

      I see no reason to keep the bathwater if you've thrown out the baby.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    164. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by evought · · Score: 1

      From reading the Bible is seems to grow out of Paul and the Jewish idea of blood sacrifice. Sacrifice a good animal for this or that or the other. And, without it, the other parts don't make any sense. Jesus gets killed because... -- Doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't blame people for trying to explain it, it needs explaining. Certainly good people suffer, I daresay your average cancer suffer goes through worse than any crucified person does. God dies horribly for no reason at all. Why put one's head on the executioner's block at all? I think it's unworthy of any respect. If nobody is forcing you, don't do it.

      Well, that is just the point. Many times people are forced into sacrifice. As Annie Dillard says (_Pilgrim at Tinker Creek_), we all live on the horns of the alter. Sometimes we have a choice, but once we realize it, it is too late. Meeting that fate with dignity is what is worthy of respect. In that sense, the principle that self-control and a recognition/acceptance of our inner being is the path to salvation is somewhat Jainist. The differences include that Christianity believes in a supreme being and does not believe in karma/reincarnation. It is also important to note that Jesus did not believe in austerity, self mortification, or self-deprivation. Pleasure is part of our being as well. John the Baptist lead an austere, isolated existence, and Jesus was explicit that both paths were acceptable. Accepting pain and suffering when necessary is one thing, but it is not necessary to cause it.

      And even the little interesting parts are still less moral than Jainism. A Martin Luther King could have been created more easily via Jainism than Christianity, and actually he got his positions from Gandhi, and not Christianity. Gandhi coincidentally got his from Jainism. I don't see why, one should accept a story which makes little to no sense, when there are more moral philosophies out there for the taking. And, on a related note, I don't see how anybody can conclude the Bible is true to even make the offer worthwhile.

      The story doesn't seem to work. The moral philosophy is subpar.

      First of all, being Christian certainly does not rule out studying other philosophies and accepting the wisdom of them. In fact, I think being a good Christian requires it for putting into perspective one's own beliefs. Christ is not the first, last, or only teacher. Jainism's tenet that harming other life is never justified to me is not tenable on many levels. Jesus' preaches strongly at several points tolerance for slights against us and love of enemies and means it, but also demonstrates (by turning out the money changers at the temple, for instance), that action is sometimes required. Loving your enemies does not always mean not opposing them. Dietrich Bonhoffer, theologian, martyred in WWII, and author of _Cost of Discipleship_ wrestled with this dilemma in his opposition to the Nazis. Life requires difficult choices and there are no absolutes. I was vegetarian for years, for instance, but, as a small farmer now, have come around to a different way of thinking. It is not eating meat that is the problem, but the way that it is done and the respect that is paid to the life we take. We all have our place in the world and we accord others with the respect and dignity they are due regardless of our differences. When we do not play our part, we cause harm to ourselves and others. I now see that vegetarian/vegan agriculture can be actively damaging in many situations (separate from agribusiness, which is damaging period, whether concerning the raising of meat or vegetables), though ova-lacto vegetarianism more so.

      In any case, people will always argue about morality. It is not meant to be easy. There was a philosopher that described moral development as a stepladder, zigzagging around a central line. As we learn more about certain things, our beliefs advance to new levels, but also shift from side to side. Sometimes we seem to come back to the same point, but our reasons are v

    165. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Your citing a distinction without a difference. You are claiming that PPM and God is a flawed analogy because some people believe PPM are established by science whereas some people believe God is established by science (creationists etc). That is borderline pathetic, and at most it could be construed (if one tried really really hard) to be a difference between some PPM believers and some God believers, not the actual ideas themselves. They don't go to great lengths to pretend to be scientific or logical, they go to those lengths to confuse the issue and blind people to the errors.

      And religion is never guilty of this? For example, here's a fragment from the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the trinity:

      Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

      -- One certainly must agree that that isn't scientific or logically respectable, but it certainly tries. It doesn't take a great imagination to see how this above entry could be harping on getting three newtons of output from one newton of input via some eternal generation, eternal procession, and co-equal yet identical forces.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    166. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Even with free will, a person's knowledge and experience affects what they choose to do.

      Except, of course, that God determined all that in advance, as well. Your knowledge, your experiences, the factors that led to your various choices in life, they are all a consequence of prior events, and the whole thing was set in motion by a God who transcends time and understood the outcome before you ever came into existence.

      Now he could complain that he was not free to go to MIT

      And he would be right. You took his freedom of choice away from him in order to ensure the outcome you favoured. Your son became who he was because of *your* choice, not his own.

    167. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      >>Many times people are forced into sacrifice.

      Isn't that a lot like having stuff taken from you without a choice in the matter? What attachment can be made to the sacrifice of somebody who had no choice in the matter?

      >>The differences include that Christianity believes in a supreme being and does not believe in karma/reincarnation.

      Well, that's certainly a difference. Although, I don't think it's for the best. There's nothing more moral about a belief in God. Reincarnation is rather moot, but karma is itself probably a step forward (though, I doubt there's any truth there). The more fundamentalist a Christian becomes the more they act like Fred Phelps, the more fundamentalist a Jaine becomes the more respectable they are.

      >>Jainism's tenet that harming other life is never justified to me is not tenable on many levels.

      Well, a reduction of the harm you cause to the people and animals as best you can manage. If you don't think that opposing the harm of agribusiness or that paying respect to the life we take lock-step with Jainism, you'd be wrong.

      >>Jesus' preaches strongly at several points tolerance for slights against us and love of enemies and means it, but also demonstrates (by turning out the money changers at the temple, for instance),

      I don't think destroying a person's business constitutes turning the other cheek. In fact, I would cite that story as Jesus being kind of a dick. Right up there with cursing a plum tree because plums are out of seasons.

      >>In any case, people will always argue about morality. It is not meant to be easy.

      We are arguing about religion. Morality is rather easy. Doing what is right, doesn't require a second thought, nor does it typically require a first. I am often exposed to other people's things, it almost never occurs to me that I could steal them.

      >>As we learn more about certain things, our beliefs advance to new levels, but also shift from side to side.

      There is a sort of shifting zeitgeist of morality. Slavery was once thought to be moral. It was staunchly defended because it was condoned by the Bible. It took an amazing coalition of different people (quakers and secularists get some special awards here) and a war to finally put a stop to it. Looking back, I can't even understand the thinking at the time, not of American slavery or Biblical slavery. Sometimes you need to break a few rungs in the ladder.

      >>Jainism is the focus on personal study, scholarship, and development. As a Lutheran (also emphasizing these things), I can very much appreciate that. I think it is the only way that any faith (philosophy if you must) can be real.

      They are real either way (in the sense that they exist), it's simply the only way you can increase the chances of it being right. Though, rather than study, outright challenging everything you believe would probably do the job a bit better. Though, with religion, everything goes to faith at some point because you are still left with an unevidenced book that makes more sense as fiction. Certainly there may be aspects, which are good for their own sake. Those aspects, should be taken, but it doesn't need to be a package deal. And, ultimately, faith cannot be justified by definition. And though, many people view this sort of sacrifice of reason as a virtue, I find it to be the most repugnant of vice. As Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- I find this quite telling in light of 9/11 and other 'faith-based initiatives'.

      >>Anyway, I appreciate the conversation. Finding someone who can discuss these things without being hostile is rare.

      You should see hostility I get. Just the other day I was lambasted for judging somebody without knowing their astrological sign! Oh, and then there's all the damnations. Though, each time some Christian with poor spelling extols the virtues of the suffering I will endure, when I die (somehow both assuming and proving him right simultaneously), I chuckle and with the knowledge that, he will be denied the Elysium fields and cursed to Hades or not invited to Valhalla and instead occupy Helheim. Oh, the mead he will miss waiting for Ragnarök.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    168. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      I thought it was great when you said at the risk of your karma... and then had a +5. Though, you did get knocked down to 3. My +5 has dropped a bit too.

      That said, I haven't seen any specific statistics on that, but there is a few pretty strong correlations theres which do imply you're right.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    169. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adiposity · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of Huxley's views:

      "Science and Christian Tradition,"

      It really is unreasonable to ask any rejector of the demonology to say more with respect to those other matters, than that the statements regarding them may be true, or may be false; and that the ultimate decision, if it is to be favourable, must depend on the production of testimony of a very different character from that of the writers of the four gospels. Until such evidence is brought forward, that refusal of assent, with willingness to re-open the question, on cause shown, which is what I mean by Agnosticism, is, for me the only course open.

      This does essentially agree with your explanation of Huxley's view. However, his having invented the term does not make his view authoritative. Agnosticism is a formal, philosophical term which means what I had written previously. It is essentially universally agreed to have this definition, in spite of its distinction from Huxley's. "Real definition" is an interesting term; I suppose it depends what you mean by that. Philosophical dictionaries almost universally do not contain the definition you speak of, and respected dictionaries such as merriam-webster prefer the one I've mentioned. The hypothetical opinion of one man who invented the term is not really relevant--the etymology of a word is interesting, but it doesn't determine the definition.

      http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
      http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.h tml
      http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freese arch=agnosticism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=ex act http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd00225.htm

      If you go to the library and use any dictionary of philosophy, you'll find that it uses the term the way I've defined it.
      Dan

    170. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      "Now he could complain that he was not free to go to MIT"

      And he would be right. You took his freedom of choice away from him in order to ensure the outcome you favoured. Your son became who he was because of *your* choice, not his own.


      But that's not true, my choice was only one component of it; he became who he was because of his own choices within the context that I provided him. All I did was to provided him with the context where I knew that his own pursuit of happiness would not be ultimately derailed. That is the same role that Divine Providence plays. Clearly no one has the power to change certain things about their circumstances, such as the genetics, and how they were raised, and their past. But if there was no Divine Providence, and all those circumstances of life were assigned randomly, rather than intentionally, how would that make anyone any more free?
    171. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      You know, I came up with that same solution to the idea of free will myself. I was rather astounded that other people didn't pitch the entire effect before cause idea in apologetics. It works out so well considering God is already exempt from spacetime by popular demand (and to suddenly become causeless). That the knowledge of your action prior to your action is the effect of your future action rather than the cause.

      The argument itself is exceedingly silly. It is simply less silly than other arguments. It still results in an entirely deterministic universe where choices are known prior to them being made. It still results in a situation where you can between A and B, but you will choose B. Though, granting God even more superpowers "transcendence of time" and the like you might as well give him the power to eat his cake and have it too. The same situation would thusly exist, the creation or non-creation of a person would present a deterministic set of choices that individual would make. It is still like having a random number generator, but knowing the seed number. It's not really random.

      Though, the idea of freewill is extra-biblical anyhow, and disproving it would only lend credence to Calvinism. The original argument is flawed in that it ascribes the claim of free will to the Bible, rather than Augustine. It's also false that it was God tempting Eve with an apple. Firstly it only says fruit, and secondly God told them not to eat his fruit or they would die that same day (though they lived another 900 years). And still, even from an effect before cause point of view, it still would still have this obvious result, and thus does kind of gut the story of Eden. Personally I would have left the talking snake out of the garden. Stupid bugger can't keep his yap shut.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    172. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Damn! That was pretty good.

    173. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      I think we actually are in complete agreement but I'm stumbling around semantically or failing to explain myself. Your analogy using the temperature of three miles is an excellent way to put things. I see your original point about Kjella being more correct. Ultimately, I'm trying to argue that there's no such thing as nothingness. I'm not succeeding because the concept is too usefull.
      (Either that or I'm wrong.)

    174. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      That the knowledge of your action prior to your action is the effect of your future action rather than the cause.

      This God's knowledge is cast as "prior knowledge", then it looks like an effect before a cause. But God is timeless and his knowledge is "transcendent knowledge" or "timeless knowledge," making it instead a question of the interaction between time and timelessness.

      The argument itself is exceedingly silly. It is simply less silly than other arguments. It still results in an entirely deterministic universe where choices are known prior to them being made. It still results in a situation where you can between A and B, but you will choose B. Though, granting God even more superpowers "transcendence of time" and the like you might as well give him the power to eat his cake and have it too. The same situation would thusly exist, the creation or non-creation of a person would present a deterministic set of choices that individual would make. It is still like having a random number generator, but knowing the seed number. It's not really random.

      But that's the way that space-time is. There's no evidence to suggest that the future is undefined, that the future is any less tangible than the past. It's certainly not that way we understand the laws of physics, only in the way that we experience it due to our ignorance of the future. But it simply does not necessarily follow that if the future is tangible that the causes which lead to that future are deterministic. It's only our natural inclination to think that way from experience, because deterministically caused events (including those triggered by pseudo-random number generators) are the only ones we happen to have the power of predicting. But that does not make it the law of All Possible Knowledge.

      Though, the idea of freewill is extra-biblical anyhow, and disproving it would only lend credence to Calvinism. The original argument is flawed in that it ascribes the claim of free will to the Bible, rather than Augustine.

      Augustine got it primarily from Paul, although he obviously elaborated a bit. (e.g. Gal 5:13 "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; but, serve one another in love.") Before that, these same issues were discussed by Plato and Aristotle and most other philosophers. But I'd argue that the matter of freedom is a central theme throughout both testaments of the Bible, specifically God's actions to restore freedom to the human race as it repeatedly made itself a slave to sin.
    175. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      If atheism is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      Consider yourself yoinked. :)

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    176. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      >>This God's knowledge is cast as "prior knowledge", then it looks like an effect before a cause. But God is timeless and his knowledge is "transcendent knowledge" or "timeless knowledge," making it instead a question of the interaction between time and timelessness.

      Lofty claims without evidence. Superman flies faster than the speed of light and reverses time, doesn't that mean he violates free will too? It's one thing to pontificate on nonsense, it's another to actually believe it.

      >>There's no evidence to suggest that the future is undefined, that the future is any less tangible than the past.

      Actually, there's nothing to suggest the past is tangible. Though, I wouldn't start bringing evidence into the picture after citing God this and God that.

      >>Augustine got it primarily from Paul, although he obviously elaborated a bit.

      I wouldn't call that "getting it primarily from Paul". I would call that using Paul to justify the claim. There's a lot to recommend the Calvinist position Biblically, a lot to disrecommend Calvinism ethically and a lot to disrecommend the Bible in general. One could argue that Superman could have sex if he wore a kryptonite condom. But, you still have a larger problem of unjustified beliefs. Reframing the problem with regard to causality still doesn't let you chose what you you won't choose (though, perhaps multiple universes allows for this). This entire thing does seem a lot like arguing about Superman's condoms. Sure, they could work, but you're still just assuming Superman.

      http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    177. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      You may find this interview with Douglas Adams relevant. He described himself as "a radical atheist".

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    178. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite. You simply need to be careful about what you mean by "finite".

      God is infinite in the sense that He has always been here and will always be here; God is not a created being like the rest of us. More accurately, God exists outside of time; there was a beginning of time and will be and end of time, and God exists outside of that. As another poster explained in a different article, asking what came before the beginning of time is like asking what's north of the north pole - it's a grammatically valid question, but that's as far as it goes. You can't go any farther north, not because you hit a wall, but because our definition of "north" means that there is no farther north than that. Similarly, there is no "before" Creation, because that was essentially the beginning of time as we understand it. Anyway, went off on a bit of a tangent, but yes, God is infinite in terms of time.

      Also, God is infinite in the sense that He is everywhere at once, but this is because just as God exists outside of time, God also exists outside of space. God is present at all points in time and space, simultaneously. God sees everything and knows everything.

      Finally, God is infinitely powerful. God created the Universe and everything in it; anything that exists within the Universe is (pretty much by definition) less powerful than God. The question "can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it?" can be answered by returning to the matter of God's immutability: God is constant and unchanging, and creating an immovable rock and moving said rock are two different ideas that require two different purposes. God can create an immovable rock if doing so is consistent with God's will, and God can move a rock if doing so is consistent with God's will, but creating an immovable rock and then moving it would require God to change His mind about what He wanted to do with the rock, and God doesn't change.

      However, God is distinct from His creations. We are not partially God, with God being partially us. I said that God exists at all points in space and time, but also that God exists outside of space and time. God isn't really a part of this universe; God is present but sort of indirectly. I'm too tired to come up with a better explanation of this. Heaven and Hell, though, which exist outside of this universe, operate a bit differently: in that world, God is not present in all places, because Hell is (by definition) outside of the presence of God. Heaven is where God is present, and Hell is where God is not present; God cannot enter Hell, because to do so would make it cease to be Hell. I believe all the talk of lakes of fire and brimstone and whatnot are really just a description of existence in the absence of God, and there's not much more to it than that.

      Wow, off on a tangent again. Sorry, it's late.

      Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable. Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with. Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations. He cannot think, feel, reason, or want, because all of these things imply mutability. Indeed, perfection and omnipotence are incompatible, because action implies change! I did a quick Google search while looking for examples to help explain apparent contradictions, but came across this page, which explains exactly what I was going to say but better written and with more research to back it up. Basically, God doesn't really change, and anywhere the Bible says something that sounds like God has changed, it's only because the author was trying to describe something in human terms and that was the best way they could think of to describe it.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    179. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      (For the youngsters out there: in "traditional" Fortran, variables didn't need to be explicitly declared. Those starting with the letters i to n were integers. The rest were reals.) I'm a youngster unfamiliar with Fortran (although I may have to learn soon, since I have a client using NIST's FDS which uses Fortran), but I don't believe this is specifically a Fortran joke. First of all, if variables starting with i to n are integers, could variables starting with a to h be declared as integers too? If not, then the joke doesn't work in Fortran.

      However, I do recall that in BASIC, the % sign designated an integer variable while $ designated a string, so A$ would be a string, A% would be an integer, and A would be a real (floating-point) variable. However, you could use DEFINT or DEFSTR to cause A to mean A% or A$ respectively (I just looked this up in QBASIC to confirm). I remember having to use DEFINT when I was programming in BASIC on my TRS-80 Model 100 laptop, which had 32KB of RAM, some of which was taken up by the OS, and some of which was taken up by file storage (anything you saved was kept in RAM, so if you really needed to keep it, you'd better back it up to cassette tape, or it could be lost if the batteries died!). Anyway, I used DEFINT because a particular array I'd been using (which only needed to store integer values anyway) was taking up far too much RAM if I didn't.

      So I always sorta thought of this as a BASIC joke, although I'm sure it applies to a few other languages too.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    180. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 1

      First of all, if variables starting with i to n are integers, could variables starting with a to h be declared as integers too? If not, then the joke doesn't work in Fortran.
      That's right. You can explicitly declare any variable to have any (supported) type: INTEGER, REAL, DOUBLE PRECISION, LOGICAL, COMPLEX, CHARACTER. There might be other types - it's a long time since I wrote any Fortran so maybe I forget - or maybe there are new versions of the language. But the type of undeclared (or implicitly declared) variables depends on the first letter. So (as remarked by the poster below) iGod would be integer. As would be Jesus and Mohammed, but God, Allah and Buddah are definitely all real ;-)

      There's also an IMPLICIT directive so you can change the compiler's idea of what type to assume for undeclared variables. IMPLICIT NONE was introduced at some stage (or might be a vendor-specific) and was actually a requirement in the coding standards at one place I worked.

      Note: the implicit rules also apply to function names.

      There's a wealth of info at http://www.fortran.com/ in case you have to learn the language quickly. It isn't difficult, but might come as a shock to anyone who only has experience of modern languages.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    181. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Lofty claims without evidence. Superman flies faster than the speed of light and reverses time, doesn't that mean he violates free will too? It's one thing to pontificate on nonsense, it's another to actually believe it.

      And it's one thing to claim something is nonsense and another to demonstrate it. I suppose if superman could go back in time, then like God, he would only violate the free will of those with whom he shared his knowledge of the future. But those who argue that God's "foreknowledge" violates free will must conclude that the proof of free will constitutes the proof of the impossibility of a time machine. But one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

      I wouldn't call that "getting it primarily from Paul". I would call that using Paul to justify the claim. There's a lot to recommend the Calvinist position Biblically, a lot to disrecommend Calvinism ethically and a lot to disrecommend the Bible in general. One could argue that Superman could have sex if he wore a kryptonite condom. But, you still have a larger problem of unjustified beliefs. Reframing the problem with regard to causality still doesn't let you chose what you you won't choose (though, perhaps multiple universes allows for this). This entire thing does seem a lot like arguing about Superman's condoms. Sure, they could work, but you're still just assuming Superman.

      Sure, for one who has no reason to believe in God, it's just an academic exorcise. But it would be quite wrong to assume that all who belive in God do so without compelling reason -- which is obviously a separate topic altogether. As for the Calvinist position, while you can certainly find isolated things in the Bible to support it, at also contradicts one of the most primary tenets of the Bible and of theism itself, as also expressed by Plato and other extra-biblical thinkers -- that is, that "God is Good."
    182. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Does that seem totally screwed up to anybody?

      Apparently. ;-) That God can see further than us, and thereby can lead us, does not make free will meaningless. Free will enables us to freely make God's Good a part of us. To take it on freely is the only way we can become truly living things that are good. Or we can reject it and make evil a part of us. Once the choice is truly final, there's the judgment... but the judgment was already made over the course of our lives by us, we are whatever we have chosen to become. That God sees this all lying head of us and can therefore guide us hardly makes it pointless -- it makes it possible to succeed.
    183. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That God can see further than us, and thereby can lead us, does not make free will meaningless.

      But why make an imperfect creation that may or may no do wrong, when you just want it to do right? That's what makes no sense.

    184. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Here is another way to think about it. If, at the end of time, there were a readout of the universe that detailed every event down to the smallest time unit possible and going back to the beginning of time, would that interfere with free will of those that came before? The answer most people will say is "no." Now if you consider an observer outside the temporal frame we exist in, this readout may be obvious, or changing your observed position in time might be done as easily as you and I change the position of our head.

      Also, a useful way to consider omniscience is to know the universe as it was, is, will be, and as it could have been in all other posible outcomes as simultaneous knowledge.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    185. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "This does essentially agree with your explanation of Huxley's view. However, his having invented the term does not make his view authoritative."

      I really do hope this is an attempt at a joke, because claiming that the person who invented a term and clearly defined it in several published works isn't authoritative is a mind- bogglingly silly thing to say.

      "Agnosticism is a formal, philosophical term which means what I had written previously"

      Agnosticism is not a _formal_ philosophical term. It is a word word which T. H. Huxley invented one day to describe his own philosophy, which was synthesised from his readings of other philosophers such as Hume and Kant, just as some of Tolkien's invented terms were synthesised from his readings of Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic mythologies. Claiming that either man isn't _the_ authority on the meaning of the words they invented is absurd.

      ""Real definition" is an interesting term; I suppose it depends what you mean by that"

      The real definition of an invented word is the one that it's inventor gave it.

      "Philosophical dictionaries almost universally do not contain the definition you speak of, and respected dictionaries such as merriam-webster prefer the one I've mentioned"

      I hope you realise that dictionaries are simply records of common usage, not one-stop sources for the truth, hence the fact that they frequently contradict one another on both spellings and definitions. I for example have included links later on in this document that include a dictionary of philosophy which doesn't agree with your definition (and could doubtless have found several others if I'd bothered to look further).

      "The hypothetical opinion of one man who invented the term is not really relevant"

      A lot of sources seem to agree with my position that it's vitally relevant.

      "The etymology of a word is interesting, but it doesn't determine the definition."

      This is true for words that came into the English language via largely unknown routes whose definitions can only be arrived at by examining common usage at different historic periods. We do however have a very precise record of when "agnostic" entered the language, and also copious amounts of published material from its inventor describing its meaning, so your claim is at best an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws.

      (some links)

      The only source you provide that isn't a laughable single line of text that make the dictionaries i used at infant school look like the Complete Oxford is the Catholic Forum. It is thus interesting to note that their definition agrees with Huxley's (and therefore mine). Quote:

      "A philosophical theory that it is impossible to arrive at a knowledge of reality, either because it is of its nature unknowable or because the human mind is unable to apprehend it. _Its chief use_ is to deny that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and some truths of religion." (emphasis mine). There is a big difference between "its chief use" and "it is defined as".

      I shall now supply some links of my own. Please note that none of these refer to simplistic single lines of text masquerading as definitions:

      1. The Catholic Encyclopaedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm) contains an excellent treatment on agnosticism, having several definitions of the term. They distinguish between agnosticism as a philosophy (a la Huxley), and theological / religious agnosticism, which are the ones you're trying to claim are the entirety of agnosticism.

      2. Interdisciplinary Enclyclopedia of Religion And Science (http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/1.asp). Again, an extremely detailed treatment which shows that agnosticism is not only about gods and religions, but the nature of reality itself.

      3. The Philosophical Dictionary (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a2.htm). Quote:

      "agnosticism

      Belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition. The term is used especia

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    186. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Right -- I think the fallacies of logic that creep in when people think about it are similar to the ones that come up in the context of Special Relativity: You have to deal with one frame of reference at a time. When you try to combine two frames of reference as if they were one, you obliterate the validity of the assumptions of the problem. The same applies if its two observers in different inertial frames of reference in space-time. Or one observer in an inertial frame of reference in space-time and another observer in a non-inertial, non-space-time frame of reference. (Only no one has figured out the math for the latter scenario.)

    187. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Ultimately, I'm trying to argue that there's no such thing as nothingness."

      Current cosmology postulates that there was indeed a period of absolute nothingness (i.e. a perfect vacuum) that produced the singularity by a process know as vacuum fluctuation. If you search for authoritative sources on the web, be warned: the singularity's lack of space is positively intuitive when compared with virtual chaos and virtual particles!

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    188. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      If there weren't others going around saying that their stamps tell them to go to war, or that if they blow up bus loads of innocent people to get fill up their stamp books quicker, there wouldn't be a need for such anti-stamp collecting people.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    189. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      >>And it's one thing to claim something is nonsense and another to demonstrate it.

      Am I honestly expected to demonstrate that Superman doesn't exist?
      There's a reason positive claims require support, not the other way around.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    190. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can "disprove God" all you want, or lay out the various arguments that the Biblical God varies between moral, immoral, and amoral, in very interesting ways.

      But at the end of the day, all the religious people will still have their minds closed, repeating "God is above reason, so we cannot understand him, so we ignore your logic". That comforts them, and they prefer comfort to logic -- that is what it means to be religious, by and large. So there's not much point in fighting it.

    191. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by reed · · Score: 1

      Well, if everyone else collected stamps, but you didn't they'd probably coin a word to describe you.

    192. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by reed · · Score: 1

      Well, if everyone else collected stamps, but you didn't, then you might feel the need to defend your decision when challenged.

    193. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Well, you just need to start at a lower level. One should not sacrifice truth for comfort. And build from there...

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    194. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but a perfect vacuum is space (something) with nothing in it!

    195. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      It can be reconciled when you take the view that atheism is "an absence of belief in deities." Therefore one who says "I believe there is no God" and one who says "I cannot disprove God but I don't believe one exists" are quite different views, but both atheism. You are correct in saying there are 2 distinct doctrines under the umbrella of atheism (the so called "strong" and "weak" versions of atheism) however, that is not the contradiction I was referring to:

      There is really strong evidence that God does not exist. Which seems to contradict what the second poster said:

      I'm doubtful. At least in my experience, most modern atheists do not assert the non-existence of God, Although the contradiction may be easily explained if the second poster had not much experience in posting on slashdot - where the notion of an evidentiary basis for asserting the non-existence of God is expounded on every possible occasion.

      A person who merely rejected theistic world views is open to the possibility of there being a deity, just not one resembling that worshiped by deistic religions. In other words, God can exist, as long as no-one believes in him. Somewhat ridiculous. I'd say that depends entirely on your interpretation of "does not accept theistic world views" or "rejects theistic world views." I argue the latter is held by one whose belief precludes the existence of god, whereas the former is held by one who accepts the possibility, but doesn't currently believe. (The difference can be clarified by comparing "does not currently accept" with "will never accept.") That is to say there is a logical difference between not accepting and rejecting. Yes but the latter group (not accepting) are agnostics not atheists at all. And I'm aware that some atheists like to graft in the agnostic position under atheism, or pair "weak" atheism with agnosticism - but that behaviour is offensive to agnostics. There is a vast gap between "no belief (ie no knowledge) about God" and "no belief in, therefore no existence of God". When addressing the question of the existence of God, the person of no belief would say "I don't know", recognising that without a valid evidentiary baseline, it's not rational to make a statement one way or the other. The "weak" atheist however would say "There is no God" but word it in such a way as to imply that this position represents the default one for people of no belief - or in other cases, suggest that the question of Gods actual/objective existence narrows down to a question of what an individual believes.

      Your assumption is that your position doesn't demand belief from you - demonstrably false. No, my contention is that atheism of the form "I do not believe god exists" doesn't require faith because you're not asserting a position on the existence or non-existence of god. In contrast, the atheistic view "I believe God does not exist" I accept does require faith. In which case. you will also recognise that answering the question "Does God exist" without saying "Yes", "No" or "I don't know" is not answering the question at all.
    196. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I daresay becoming a Jaine would be far more moral and more difficult than following the few things the Bible gets right Ok, a quick search didn't return anything obvious. What's a "Jaine"?
    197. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, a quick search didn't return anything obvious. What's a "Jaine"?

      Possibly an adherent of Jainism?

      Or maybe the spouse of a one George Jetson?

      His boy Elroy...
      Daughter Judy... etc.

    198. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adiposity · · Score: 1

      Reading your comments, it seems you may be focusing on a different part of the definition than I am. I did not mean to restrict the agnosticism question to God only, as you seem to think--I have no problem expanding it to include the Absolute (or "reality" as you say). Rather, I focus on the proposition that lack of evidence is the only thing standing in the way of absolute knowledge, when I believe agnosticism takes the position that such knowledge is impossible (for mankind, if you like). IOW, the absolute, including the question of God's existence, his attributes, etc., is all unknowable. Since we are using the term in relationship to atheism, it seems reasonable to restrict our thinking to the God/theology part of the question, but it isn't necessary.

      Regarding your comments that my position on Huxley is "[an] attempt at a joke," "mind- bogglingly silly,", "absurd," or "an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws," I think there are a lot of philosophers who would disagree with you. It is quite commonly agreed among philosophers that his definition is not the correct use of the term. See my quote of Stein, later, for more on this.

      You say "The real definition of an invented word is the one that it's inventor gave it." Interesting definition of definition. God luck finding a dictionary that defines definition in this way! That is a more accurate description, perhaps, of "original definition." Definition is a more ambiguous term, which refers to the meaning of a word (I'm not sure "real" is particularly significant here). The "meaning" of a word is an elusive thing, changing with usage, audience, context, etc. All I'm saying is that from a religious/philosophical context, the meaning is widely accepted as I've previously stated. It doesn't mean there aren't other uses; it doesn't mean the word always meant the same thing. It just means there is a consensus among those who use the term in philosophical debate. It's worth noting that the term is now used to refer to philosophers that wrote long before Huxley, such as Kant

      You say: This is true for words that came into the English language via largely unknown routes whose definitions can only be arrived at by examining common usage at different historic periods. We do however have a very precise record of when "agnostic" entered the language, and also copious amounts of published material from its inventor describing its meaning, so your claim is at best an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws.

      Are you claiming words don't change meaning once they become part of the english language and are clearly defined? It's simply not true, and here are some examples:

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discomfit
      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hobby
      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=horrid

      These words are of known origin, the definitions were known, and were changed. Or are you going to argue that we should stop misusing the word hobby to mean pasttime? I think you're on shaky ground with this argument. That Huxley codified his particular meaning so copiously doesn't really seem relevant.

      -------

      "Philosophy pages" is not a respected philosophical dictionary. In fact, there aren't really any on the web. But I have looked the term up previously in philosophical dictionaries (while arguing for the position you now take, actually), and became convinced that the definition is as I say. Quoting from the "philsophypages" definition, it contains a sentence I agree with:

      the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists,
      The key here is "cannot know." Obviously I disagree with the first line in the paragraph, which cites "insufficient evidence" as the problem. The idea of insuffi

    199. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Ahh, but a perfect vacuum is space (something) with nothing in it!"

      I fail to see why nothing requires any space to not exist in.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    200. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Well, if we're talking about Nothingness with a capital "N" then I'm with you. But I'm being only slightly pedantic by exclaiming that a perfect vacuum is something. It's space without matter no different than the space between a hydrogen nucleus and its electron. That is Somethingness no matter (pardon the pun) how empty it may be. Nothing requires no space for it to not exist in.

    201. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I did not mean to restrict the agnosticism question to God only, as you seem to think--I have no problem expanding it to include the Absolute (or "reality" as you say)."

      Quote from your original post, which was in answer to something Kaffeine wrote:

      "Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable."

      This was my reply, which started this whole debate:

      "It is you who is incorrect. The term "agnostic" was invented by T. H. Huxley, and (to use your own canard) in layman's terms, can be described as "Don't claim it if you can't explain it". Huxley did not restrict this to religious matters, but also scientific ones, because he was just as dismayed by those who accept laws and theories because they are based on some "authority", or for their conformance with a preconceived world view, as he was with religions that expect people to believe in them for precisely the same reasons.

      "It is quite commonly agreed among philosophers that his definition is not the correct use of the term."

      Claiming that philosophers commonly agree on anything is absurd. It would therefore be more accurate to say that some philosophers use the term in ways that are different from Huxley, while others don't.

      "See my quote of Stein, later, for more on this."

      Stein is obviously biased, as is proven by his assertion that Robert Flint (who he agrees with) summed things up correctly, while Bertrand Russell is merely one of "a few people" who have used the term as Huxley defined it.

      "Please explain where in there it supports your definition that has lack of evidence at the core of the definition."

      I did not claim this, Kaffeine did. Given that my whole point is that Huxleys' use of the term is definitive, I fail to see how you could possibly imagine that I would say otherwise.

      It seems that the rest of your post is an attempt to answer Kaffeine, and not me, because just about everything you're including supports my original contention that Huxley's definition of agnosticism as a general view of the nature of reality is indeed correct. If you want to debate Kaffeine's views, then please do so with him / her, because neither Huxley nor I agree with them.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    202. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I'm being only slightly pedantic by exclaiming that a perfect vacuum is something. It's space without matter no different than the space between a hydrogen nucleus and its electron".

      It's space without matter _in the current universe_, but this does not mean that a perfect vacuum requires a universe (and therefore space), hence the fact that the perfect vacuum cosmologists envisage "before" the singularity was more perfect than any vacuum that can exist in the universe because it not only lacked matter and free energy, but also space.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    203. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      So why bother with the whole death thing? I understand the added baggage of the blood sacrifice, but the entire exercise seems futile if it's done for no reason at all. Wouldn't it have spared people a lot of grief to just ascend to heaven without the whole death thing.

      That is a good question. If the sacrifice on the cross doesn't buy anything (in the literal sense of the word), why do it? Well, personally, after I had rejected penal substitutionary atonement, I thought about that and decided it must be symbolic. There are many things in the world that are purely symbolic but also highly important. Symbolism is a way to communicate something.

      For example, consider a wedding ring. It doesn't actually do anything. The act of putting the ring on the finger isn't what makes two people married. But it is a powerful symbol anyway, and I think worthwhile for that reason.

      So I think it's a pretty decent explanation that Jesus went to the cross because it fit in with the Jewish tradition and he wanted to say, "This is what I'm willing to do for you." The Jewish tradition I'm talking about, of course, is animal sacrifice. As I understand it, many (most? all?) of the animals sacrificed were used for food by the priests (or their class) and would have been used for food had they not been sacrificed. So, as I understand it, animal sacrifice is not really about killing the animal (because that variable factors out of the equation) but is instead about devoting yourself to God's work and giving resources to that end, and giving your best (IIRC, the law commanded people to sacrifice their best animals). So when Jesus went to the cross, it could be interpreted as a reference to this tradition: he chooses to give something to show his devotion to his creation, and because he wants to make it abundantly clear where he stands, he gives the best that he can give as an incarnated human being, which is his life.

    204. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Um. Deciding that something is symbolic because it doesn't make any sense, is silly. Why should I put a coversheet on this internal TPS report? It's only going to be read within the company! Well, it must be symbolic! The blood sacrifice thing isn't symbolic it's actual. The Christian response is that Jesus wasn't a symbolic sacrifice but a real sacrifice. That the real physical bloodsoaked sacrifice of Jesus cleans off your sin just as sacrificing an animal (better the animal, the better the sin washing power) would. But, because it's such a good sacrifice it has infinite sin washing away power for you and yours.

      As for wedding rings, they are meant to be symbolic, though if you would listen to De Beers you would know that you simply must have a diamond ring and it must cost about three months salary. Personally, I'd prefer a tattoo of a wedding ring rather than a real ring. "I love you 'ouch' much, and I don't want to slip it into my pocket and sleep with hussies while on business trips". Though, don't let me speak ill of symbolism, let me speak ill of the assumption of symbolism. It would be one thing to say that this ring is a symbol of our love, this symbolism is a decision made before hand. It's another thing to say, that that person dying like he was just some first century cult leader caught by and dealt with by the Romans was actually God and his death (which wasn't out of his hands) was a symbolic sacrifice rather than the real sacrifice that many Christians believe it was. Myself! Myself! Why have I forsaken Myself!

      From the immoral horrific real blood sacrifice sense, this explanation makes perfect sense. However, under the modern understanding including trinitarianism where Jesus is actually God, it simply becomes a giant plot hole. Oh, and they didn't eat the sacrifice animals. FYI.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    205. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      When you say "current universe" you seem to mean "as it is now after the Big Bang", but then you reference the universe in toto to explain a "more perfect" type of "perfect vacuum" that didn't exist "in the universe" because it lacked space too. Apparently, the lack of space is a triffling difference and once it's eliminated it doesn't exist in the universe? I could recharacterize your explication with more confusion but I know what you're saying. Still, even if we might be on the same page we might as well wipe the mud off of it.

      "Perfect vacuum" seems a poor choice of terminology and a compromise to get us close to the nihilo in ex nihilo while retaining an accessable imaginability. Clearly I'm not a comological physicist, but I think we should let "perfect vacuum" refer to what we want inside particle accelerators and find some other name for what came "before" or simply provided for the "cosmic egg" or sigularity. If the universe as it was at time zero is qualifiable then we should turn to something more mathematic and philosophic. Otherwise we end up squabbling over misunderstandable names.

      I intuitively took to arguing that there is no such thing as nothingness for the same reason we've both put quotes around the word "before". It makes no sense to ask what came before time zero because there is no "time negative one". As you put it, it's like asking how hot three miles is. Similarly, we shouldn't talk of the universe being created out of nothing. There is simply the universe with its existance which started. It can be no other way just like two plus three can only equal five.

      Like negative numbers, nothingness must exist conceptually. However, my pyrex measuring cup can't contain a negative quantity. At best, that means I owe the neighbor some sugar.

    206. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "you reference the universe in toto to explain a "more perfect" type of "perfect vacuum" that didn't exist "in the universe" because it lacked space too"

      You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that the perfect vacuum which produced the singularity _cannot_ exist in the universe, so definitions of "perfect vacuum" which include space are fine for physicists, but not cosmologists.

      "Apparently, the lack of space is a triffling difference and once it's eliminated it doesn't exist in the universe?"

      Space always exists in the universe, hence the fact that physicists (who deal with the universe) define perfect vacuums in terms of it. However, the perfect vacuum that produced the singularity didn't exist in the universe because there wasn't any universe, so there wasn't any space as we understand the term.

      "I think we should let "perfect vacuum" refer to what we want inside particle accelerators and find some other name for what came "before" or simply provided for the "cosmic egg" or sigularity. If the universe as it was at time zero is qualifiable then we should turn to something more mathematic and philosophic. Otherwise we end up squabbling over misunderstandable names."

      They're only problematic to people from outside the fields in question. Scientists are quite accustomed to different fields using the same term for different things, so they aren't in the least confused by the fact that the cosmological "perfect vacuum" is subtly different from the one used in particle physics.

      "we shouldn't talk of the universe being created out of nothing. There is simply the universe with its existance which started."

      The universe came from the singularity (if one ascribes to that particular cosmological idea), and the singularity came from a vacuum fluctuation that occurred in a point with no dimensions. No dimensions and no mass is a pretty good description of nothing.

      "Like negative numbers, nothingness must exist conceptually."

      Cosmologists who support the theory we are debating postulate that it existed physically, not just conceptually, and in fact still does beyond the boundaries of the universe. The problem most people have when thinking about Big Bang is that they imagine the universe expanding into some form of "space" that already existed, whereas Big Bang, based on general relativity, states that space itself is expanding, and therefore did not exist until Big Bang, and does not exist beyond the universe's periphery. They'd be the first to admit that they could well be wrong, but the fact that they already know it's counter-intuitive means that arguments based on intuition won't be regarded as proof of this.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    207. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      "First, the premise that God is separate from his creations implies that God is finite."

      False but moot. For finite X: Infinity - X = Infinity.

      "If God is finite and separate from his creations, then the two must be contained in some greater thing, and this greater thing would be more perfect than God, by virtue of being a superset of him."

      Only if you assume more=better. A superset that includes negative elements is "worse" than a subset of only positive elements. A likely assumption that our world contains bad, negative and so on elements means God containing them would be less perfect than one without them.

      "if he's finite, that opens up the possibility that he is not singular."
      It opens up the possibility that he might not be singular. It doesn't imply he isn't. (in the meaning of 'finite' as 'not superset of everything'.)

      "Second, something which is perfect must logically be immutable." Not if it's a subset of a mutable whole. With world changing and parts becoming worse or better, the value of 'perfect' changes. If 'perfect' means 'containing all the positive elements and none of the negative', as elements switch their value, they enter or leave that set. Also, the content of neutral (meaningless) elements is arbitraty. Of course this still doesn't imply, and strongly suggests against the ability of thinking, but it still leaves it a possibility.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    208. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      I'm very gratified to find a response because this conversation interests me greatly. It's like my own personal Socratic education. Since my last post I've found myself further clarifying my own foggy notions and finding new questions.

      With your latest response I see our dialog as being driven from two vantage points. Yours is more scientifically informed and explanitory. Mine is more speculative, muddled, and drives to a point less concerned with empirical truth than how we should look at it.

      Your first four paragraphs respond to a literary and rhetorical attempt to express my dissatisfaction with the term "perfect vacuum". I did pretty much understand your use of the term "perfect vacuum". It is a scientifically qualified nothingness. We remove aspects of the universe until there's nothing left -- no matter, no forces, no space, no time. We could just as easily call this the uncosmos or nullverse rather than perfect vacuum. After all, cosmologists are physicists too.

      Here's where philosophic queries come into play. The pragmatic difference between the comologists perfect vacuum and the philosophers nothingness is that the former instantaneously spawns a nacent universe so long as the math and theory are correct. It's like a computer with an infinite power supply that always "reboots" by the next clock cycle ("instantaneously"). Such a machine would never be "off" -- uncalculating or non-existant if you will -- for more than zero cycles. Suppose it ran until it tried to divide by zero. Well, it's up and running again. All previous results are lost and can't be fathomed from it's current "boot". The analogy is pretty gross but it illustrates what I mean by saying the universe didn't come from nothing and simply started. The alternative is a perfect vacuum or nothingness that can, uh, remain in its state of non-existance.

    209. Re:Flawed... even down to the analogy. God? by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "With your latest response I see our dialog as being driven from two vantage points. Yours is more scientifically informed and explanitory. Mine is more speculative, muddled, and drives to a point less concerned with empirical truth than how we should look at it."

      We're both speculating, because while evidence for Big Bang itself is supported by (a growing body of) observational data, what led up to it is essentially educated guesswork, and if Hawking is correct, always will be because no information from before Big Bang can ever reach us. The theory we were discussing is therefore just one of several, not all of which assume a singularity (there are various problems with singularities which lead to some cosmologists favouring models that don't require them).

      "We remove aspects of the universe until there's nothing left -- no matter, no forces, no space, no time. We could just as easily call this the uncosmos or nullverse rather than perfect vacuum."

      As I said previously, it's called the perfect vacuum because it behaves like one, although I didn't say in what way. Despite the fact that the perfect vacuum had no matter or _free_ energy, it still had the energy baseline or "ground state", the so-called "zero point" energy that's popularly bandied about by pseudo-scientists who have no idea what it actually is (put simply, it's the lowest possible energy level that one can have, i.e. what's left over after all energy has been removed. You can't have less energy than the baseline, but this baseline isn't actually zero, despite being the "absolute zero" for energy). The theory states that this zero point energy caused the vacuum fluctuations which produced the singularity.

      "After all, cosmologists are physicists too"

      Only if you regard theoretical physics and physics as the same field, which is akin to saying that organic chemistry and biology are the same field.

      "Here's where philosophic queries come into play. The pragmatic difference between the comologists perfect vacuum and the philosophers nothingness is that the former instantaneously spawns a nacent universe so long as the math and theory are correct."

      The perfect vacuum spawned a singularity which then expanded into the universe. However, there is no implication that this would always happen in the perfect vacuum, or that it was instantaneous; all that the theory says is that it happened once, and that there wasn't any space-time. There is very important difference between space-time not existing and something being instantaneous!

      "The analogy is pretty gross but it illustrates what I mean by saying the universe didn't come from nothing and simply started. The alternative is a perfect vacuum or nothingness that can, uh, remain in its state of non-existance."

      There's nothing in the theory to suggest that a perfect vacuum will always produce singularities, or that this perfect vacuum was the only one. They don't occupy any space or time, so there could have been an infinite number of them overlaid on one another, only one of which produced the singularity that became our universe.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  25. No by mnemonic_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except it doesn't do that, making your comment irrelevant.

    1. Re:No by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Could you provide a link to back that up? I've been trying to find an explanation of how it supposedly works that denies what the grandparent poster said, but I can't penetrate the techno-babble.

      As far as I can tell, it translated magnetic fields into mechanical motion. Sounds like 80% of all previous attempts at perpetual motion devices to me. It's probably just an unbalanced set of magnets, but I can't get at anything that makes any sense to be sure.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:No by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well, like any good crank, they seem to have busily covered all manner of bases while talking about their invention, so that its very hard to interpret what the hell they're actually saying.

      The only clear claim is that it's "magnetic" in nature. They have stated that they've created magnetic fields such that you can traverse them and arrive back at the same point with more energy, which is provably impossible in a static magnetic field. So they need a dynamic field - either through their own creation (which, I'm pretty sure, would still leave you in a zero-sum game at best), or through an external field changing like, say, the earth. They have played up the earth angle at times, speaking about fluctuations and comparing it to gravity in an article linked from TFA.

      But a big argument against this line of reasoning is that they keep playing up how it breaks physical laws, and if this was the case it would be an extremely easy to understand concept, well in keeping with physical laws. The only catch is that the effect would likely be incredibly tiny, and they probably wouldn't get on the front page of slashdot with such a claim.

      Still, it's possible we're all wrong and there'll be egg on our faces tomorrow. But I don't think I'll be putting my bets on that just yet.

    3. Re:No by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hm. After posting my sibling post to yours, I did a bit of a search and found this:

      http://quthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/06/steorn-it-j ust-keeps-going-and-going.html

      Blog post with a series of videos of a talk the CEO gave at UCD. The key premise of "fluctuations" does not, as I mistakenly suspected, seem to be the fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field after all, but rather the fact that the response time of magnetic domains is non-zero (they claim millisecond +) and that, by changing their system faster than the universe can notice, they can get around this whole pesky conservative field thing which does on in magnets.

      So yes, magnets pushing on magnets, but VERY QUICKLY. That makes it more believable, right?

    4. Re:No by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a zero-point vacuum energy generator. While popular amongst science fiction writers recently, I was under the impression that it was thought to be impossible to tap zero point energy. If they've found a way, then they are likely to cause some serious re-thinking in the physics community. That is a very big 'if,' however.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:No by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So yes, magnets pushing on magnets, but VERY QUICKLY. That makes it more believable, right?

      No, that does not make it more believable. Either it is a clever hack to extract energy from fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field (which I don't believe) or it is just a scam. That stuff about changing magnetic fields "faster than the universe can notice" is pure babble, it does not explain how you could generate energy.

      To generate energy, you have to either

      1. Extract it from some other form of potential or kinetic energy, such as tides flowing around the ocean, or water high up on a mountain. That energy is not "free" either; the tides are driven by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun and the moon; when you use tital energy you slow down the rotation of the earth by an infinitesimal amount. When you extract energy from falling water, you are capturing energy that was put there by the sun powering the evaporation of the sea and raining it down on mountain tops.
      2. Annihilate some matter and turn it into energy, which is what happens in fission, fusion, or matter/anti-matter reactions.

      Just don't mix your matter and antimatter cold :-)

    6. Re:No by cuby · · Score: 1

      response time of magnetic domains is non-zero

      Electric and Magnetic fields are coupled by the Maxwell Laws... It's because of that we call them ELECTROmagnetic fields. They propagate at the velocity of light, which is dependent of the propagation medium...

      This magnetic response stuff must be better explained by the project promoters.

      --
      Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
    7. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even his talking in terms of energy suggests they really don't know what they're at. Now, I consider it quite possible they've accidentally built an "energy pickup" device tapping into something outlandish (mains hum, solar or terran schumann resonances, whatever), but any sensible analysis would be talking about entropy, not energy.

    8. Re:No by SEMW · · Score: 1

      they can get around this whole pesky conservative field thing which does on in magnets Not to get nitpicky, but magnetic fields aren't conservative. To be conservative, a field has to be irrotational, e.g. gravity; a magnetic field, by contrast, is solenoidal, which is pretty much the opposite of irrotational (irrotational = everywhere vanishing curl; solenoidal = everywhere vanishing divergence).
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  26. Young lady... by DrXym · · Score: 0, Redundant
    ... in this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!

    I'm so glad I'm not an investor.

    1. Re:Young lady... by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad I'm not an investor.

      yep, I'd like to point out something you may of misssed: "Due to the contentious nature of our technology claim the company made a decision that during the process of validation we would seek no further funding" from the page you linked.
      Sounds like they are working above board to me, but who knows what offers they are receiving behind the scenes that they are accepting.

  27. Perpetual Traffic by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    Heres how I see it: stories like this drive traffic to /. so they can stay in business and host real news. It's just embarrassing because /. is the site I tend to gravitate toward.

    Despite the fact we had Roswell yesterday and perpetual energy today, I still find if I browse stories with the smartometer set to 5, there are some amazingly intelligent and well informed people who make up /.

    Not the ones who believe in this crappolla though.
    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  28. I know where it gets its energy from.... by 3seas · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...from all the criticism and energy people waste their time on generating against this thing.

    See conservation of energy isn't being broken.... and the source is perpetual....

    1. Re:I know where it gets its energy from.... by Cctoide · · Score: 1

      Now, if we tape a device that generates energy from /.ers posting comments against perpetual motion machines to a device that generates energy from flames on global warming articles, we'll have an actual free energy machine!

      --
      "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
  29. Endgadget just lost it's geek badge by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    My gagnomometer has pegged.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  30. Don't sink this low, Slashdot! by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    Mabye they aim to get an investor and run off with the money, laughing at how someone could fall for this, again!

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  31. Main stream coverage by nick255 · · Score: 1

    Hummmmm. I wonder why no main stream news outlets seem to be picking up such a ground-breaking story?

    1. Re:Main stream coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the company keeps trying to pull publicity stunts and never comes up with the goods, not even offering smoke and mirrors.

    2. Re:Main stream coverage by HappySmileMan · · Score: 1

      RTE covered it, Irish company Irish news, make sense?

  32. Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't believe that 80% of the posters at Engadget think this has merit ... Looks like /. is useful after all!
    I guess it is natural to expect that all the believers in scams like this never actually stop and think about it's implications.

    You really really do not want to violate the conservation of energy, and especially not be able to create energy without it coming from somewhere else, and not because it would make oil companies unhappy. Hint: Imagine you could destroy energy somehow - what happens eventually? Now, move in the other direction. An ever increasing amount of energy on the planet that does not go away has some pretty serious consequences on our physical existence - think about it.

  33. analogy by randuev · · Score: 1

    "The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real." That's the worst analogy you could have picked on so many levels. Ontopic wise: Perhaps we will find energy that costs next to nothing in short term and at the end of it's lifecycle has ever increasing prohibitive cost. Again. ducks

    1. Re:analogy by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

      It's a great analogy - they're both impossible!

      --
      ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
  34. A more open technology... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://www.steorn.com/orbo/licencing/

    Our free energy technology will be made widely available to the development community immediately after the independent scientific validation process.

    Under the terms of a modified general public licence and for a nominal fee, Steorn's intellectual property will be made available concurrently to all interested parties, from individual enthusiasts to larger research organisations. Steorn is taking this bold move to accelerate the deployment and acceptance of its technology for both humanitarian and commercial products.
    1. Re:A more open technology... by SEMW · · Score: 1

      There are innumerable "free energy machines" in the public domain for you to have a gander at; won't do you much good...

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  35. Ignore Cubic Math at your own peril by JonTurner · · Score: 1
    Woah. It looks like somebody's been hanging out with Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic & Wisest Human.

    You see, previous failed attempts at perpetual motion often utilized magnets, but this machine has Magnets AND Time. And Time is cool.
    But be warned, you may not be capable of understanding it:

    Academia is an accreditation of real
    stupidity - deadly to all humanity.
    Dumb ass teachers fear Time Cube
    and will eat dung before debating it.
    Dumb students are educated stupid.

    "Wikipedia claim that the Time Cube is non-science constitutes a Grave error by the half-brain bastard who can't think opposite of the lies he was taught.
    I was born to think Cubic as in a 4 corner family life, therefore I rise above you. "


    http://www.timecube.com/
    1. Re:Ignore Cubic Math at your own peril by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Do NOT insult the superior theory of the Time Cube. Watch this video to be informed. Anyone who doesn't isn educated stupid and EVIL.

  36. If it were real... by Chris+Snook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...they wouldn't need to convince anyone. They could just sell the energy, use that money to make a bigger device, sell more energy, lather, rinse, repeat. You don't need investors when you can print money.

    --
    There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
    1. Re:If it were real... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      ...we would not be hearing about it.

    2. Re:If it were real... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You don't need investors when you can print money.

      Tell that to the government.

    3. Re:If it were real... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Thank you. End of argument. Next.

      That is a wonderfully airtight universal argument against all varieties of crackpot shimsham.

    4. Re:If it were real... by bagsc · · Score: 1

      Not to mention you wouldn't want anyone to know about it. One of the problems we have in financial research - anything that is "sure" to make money is kept secret so the competition can't beat them to it. Anytime someone an announces free money, you can be pretty sure they're lying.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  37. Thanks AC by Attaturk · · Score: 1

    I was looking for that and you beat me to it. It seems Steorn's spin week is an annual event.

    1. Re:Thanks AC by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      And I was looking to see if it a dupe or new snakeoil. Tanks for the help :)

  38. Free Energy != Instant Hoax by camperdave · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just because the guy is saying he is generating free energy doesn't mean he's gone off the deep end. I can produce free energy by sticking a specially shaped piece of metal in the air. You say bunk. I say wind turbine. Now who's laughing? Maybe the guy is somehow tapping the ambient magnetic field of the Earth, or has tapped into the tidal forces caused by the planet's rotation, or maybe it is bunk. We'd have to examine the device to say for sure. However do just dismiss it out of hand is unscientific.

    Mind you, the guy's website is short on details, and long on hype and begging for money, like most hoaxers. So, I'm not holding my breath.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I can produce free energy by sticking a specially shaped piece of metal in the air. You say bunk. I say wind turbine. Now who's laughing?

      Me, at your idiotic definition of "free" energy. And "who's to say he's not right" does not substitute for proof in any respectable science.

      Solar panels might in fact be the closest thing to it, but that's because we can show that the sun blasts a lot of energy at us. If the magnetic field produced that much energy, every large metal structure on earth would be charged to buzzing.

    2. Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax by PMW · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you go to their website they have the following statement:

      Our Claim Orbo produces free, clean and constant energy - that is our claim. By free we mean that the energy produced is done so without recourse to external source. By clean we mean that during operation the technology produces no emissions. By constant we mean that with the exception of mechanical failure the technology will continue to operate indefinitely. The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, perhaps the most fundamental of scientific principles. The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can only change form. Because of the revolutionary nature of our claim, not only to the world of science but to the world in general, Steorn issued a challenge to the scientific community in August 2006 to test our technology and report their findings. The process of validation that has resulted from this challenge is currently underway, with results expected by the end of 2007. That's a claim to a perpetual motion machine. To their credit, they aren't hiding the claim, they're throwing the claim right out to the public. The whole thing is obviously a con-job to get money from suckers with more $$$ than sense. I really wish slashdot wouldn't post this kind of nonsense.
    3. Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware that wind turbines could be built for nothing. Or didn't require maintenance. Hardly free, I'd say.

    4. Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax by pavera · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this guys "machine" can't be built for nothing either. That isn't the "free" either person is talking about. Now, 99.9999% this is a hoax, if I could buy puts on the company I would.

    5. Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just where on the website are they begging for money ?

    6. Re:Free Energy != Instant Hoax by Myopic · · Score: 1

      No way dude. There is way too much bullshit out there for scientists to accept the standard that they "have to examine the device to say for sure" every time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this guy is long on claims while short on evidence. Until he puts out some evidence, the scientists feel comfortable assuming he is full of it.

  39. Well, the good thing is that by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    you can't patent a perpetual motion machine. That should keep it off the market.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Well, the good thing is that by GuruThrill · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could patent a perpetual motion machine. You just have to present the actual device to the patent office:

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0600_608_03.htm

      --
      Learn more about Steorn at Free Energy Tracker
    2. Re:Well, the good thing is that by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could patent a perpetual motion machine. You just have to present the actual device to the patent office:

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0600_608_03.htm Apparently you should search a little more thoroughly. From the same site:

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0700_706_03_a.htm#sect706.03a

      And I quote:

      II. UTILITY

      A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion.


      Or if the patent examiner is inclined to humor your application, see:

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/m odels.htm

      A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.


      And in case you're wondering, here in the EU we don't stand for that shit either.
    3. Re:Well, the good thing is that by catprog · · Score: 1
      inoperativeness,

      If it was operative then it wouldn't be able to be rejected under inoperativeness right?

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  40. if it draws power from external source by randuev · · Score: 1

    mister president, magnetic energy of earth has almost depleted. Without "so cheap" energy we are doomed to millennium of no electricity!

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. No Typo by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1

    It's a typo - "allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce power" should be "allows the Orbo platform to 'consistently produce revenue".
    Their statement is technically correct when you remember that money == power.
    1. Re:No Typo by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Since time=money, & their machine exploits time, well, I'll just leave the rest up to you.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  43. There's no trick to it...it's just a simple trick. by ShagratTheTitleless · · Score: 1

    It's a simple conversion:

    Environmental Anxiety ==> Phase 2 ==> Perpetual Clean Energy

    Unfortunately it stops working when people realize it has worked and lose their anxiety.

    --
    Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
  44. Almost a dupe by slickwillie · · Score: 1

    Is this just a bad memory? Or maybe someone slipped be a drug to erase it.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/173253

  45. Use finesse by benhocking · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't say it was a perpetual motion machine. Rather, you would describe it as using a novel form of energy. Once you demonstrated it, and allowed them the ability to examine it, the product should sell itself.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Use finesse by tolan-b · · Score: 1

      Yeah although people are very negative about Steorn's claims, and with good reason, there's no fundamental reason why they couldn't have stumbled across a way of tapping some source of energy that would in *practice* be perpetual, without it actually technically creating energy out of nothing.

    2. Re:Use finesse by tibike77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny you should say that. Because this IS not a perpetual energy machine, but is actually just using a "novel form" of acquiring energy.
      And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake.
      The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    3. Re:Use finesse by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

      The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field.

      Buf if the magnetic field gets weaker, the compasses stop working, and the boy scouts can't use them to find their way in the forest. Won't someone pelase think of the children ?

      Oh, and we'll all die horribly under the particle bombardment of solar wind, but first things first.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Use finesse by fabs64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a FORCE, you can't "tap" it any more than you can tap gravity.

    5. Re:Use finesse by SEMW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny you should say that. Because this IS not a perpetual energy machine, but is actually just using a "novel form" of acquiring energy.
      And it doesn't break any laws of thermodynamics. Not more as a simple dynamo or a magnetic brake. Ummm, what?

      From http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/:

      "The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy"

      "The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%"

      That's 2 out of the three lawys of thermodynamics broken, by my count.

      The only "catch" is that they tap the energy of Earth's magnetic field. You can't get energy from a static magnetic field. (You can get it from a changing magnetic field, and the Earth's magnetic field is changing; but it's doing so over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, so the energy you'd get would be very, very small.) Doing so would basically be tantamount to breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    6. Re:Use finesse by bibi-pov · · Score: 1

      Err.. actually you can tap gravity: ever heard of hydroelectricity ? From what I understand, they're trying/claiming to do the equivalent with magnetism...

    7. Re:Use finesse by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      Now we just need someone to develop an earth based machine to harness the solar wind, use the power for GPS systems and personal solar shields, develop a protien drink that can be made in a lab when the crops fail, and we wouldn't have to worry about all those polluting fossil based fuels anymore.

    8. Re:Use finesse by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      Hydroelectricity is an indirect use of solar energy. To make use of magnetism as a force you would need the force to be moving relative to something else (like a dynamo).

    9. Re:Use finesse by Skrynkelberg · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, the coeffecient of performance of a system can be over 100%, as long as the system is not closed. That is the case in a heat pump, for example. Likewise, an external field could be used to raise the COP of this machine over 1.

      However, the first statement reveals this machine as pure nonsense anyway.

    10. Re:Use finesse by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      You're thinking thermo electric centrals. He meant stuff like Hoover Dam

    11. Re:Use finesse by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Good point -- I think I was (incorrectly) mentally equating 'coefficient of performance' with 'energy conversion efficiency', which is obviously only defined for a closed system and so is never >1.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    12. Re:Use finesse by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Hydroelectricity is just solar power once-removed. You're not tapping the gravitational field, you're tapping the solar energy that imparted gravitational potential energy to the water by evaporating it and lifting it to a higher altitude.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    13. Re:Use finesse by bibi-pov · · Score: 1

      I guess if you want to go that route, so is oil or coal. You could also say it's wind power because without winds, it would only rain over the sea and there wouldn't be any way to use the water. But in a dam, the only energy used is potential energy. How that energy was accumulated is irrelevant if it isn't part of the process used to collect it. Also it's not solar because a dam still works at night. Finally, it's not solar when you use it to store energy, like when water is pumped in a reservoir above another when the production is in excess and you want to use that energy later.

    14. Re:Use finesse by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      And how does the water get up there?

  46. Lighten up by aquabat · · Score: 1
    I see a lot of comments along the lines of "That's impossible, because you can't get something for nothing, so STFU.", but the comments in the link make a bad logical deduction, as follows:

    1. The machine consistently produces power from the Earth's magnetic field.

    2. Point 1 implies that the machine defies the law of conservation of energy.

    It is possible for point 1 to be true without implying point 2. In fact, if you assume that the conservation laws hold true a priori, then you can actually deduce some interesting properties of a device for which point 1 holds true.

    Conservation of momentum and energy imply that drawing energy out of this device and using it to move something will cause a change in the Earth's motion. Specifically:

    A) If you use it to spin something up, then the Earth's rotation will adjust to compensate.

    B) If you use it to throw something, then the earth will be thrown in the opposite direction to compensate.

    C) It should be possible to drive this device in reverse and actually put energy into the Earth's magnetic field, instead of drawing it out.

    So lighten up a bit, people. This thing might actually be useful, even if it doesn't give you something for nothing.

    --
    A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    1. Re:Lighten up by SEMW · · Score: 1

      You can't get energy from a static magnetic field. (You can get it from a *changing* magnetic field, and the Earth's magnetic field is changing; but it's doing so over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, so the energy you'd get would be very, very small).

      The company knows this perfectly well. They're not claiming that they've found a way to get energy out of a static magnetic field in a way that's in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. From http://www.steorn.com/orbo/claim/:

      "The sum of these claims for our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy"

      "The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%"

      So saying that they claim that their machine breaks the laws of thermodyanmics is really not actually a "bad logical deduction", since they're perfectly happy to admit that that is exactly what they are claiming...

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  47. US PTO standards by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think at some point in the 19th century the US Patent Office decicded that to patent a Perpetual motion machine you would have to produce a working demo and have it run for a year and a day (they had a LOT of bogus claims). So if these guys think they can make one, time to build a demo and set it up for review.

    It would be possible to draw some energy from the earth's magnetic field, but not very much its not a very strong magnetic field.

    --
    Erlang Developer and podcaster
    1. Re:US PTO standards by plankrwf · · Score: 1

      Ah... The good old days, when people from the patent office actually did things that made sense...

    2. Re:US PTO standards by Khyber · · Score: 1

      It's not very strong? I guess that's why my compass still points out magnetic north even though I've got huge car speakers with equally huge magnets not even 5 feet away to the west of me? C'mon, give the earth's magnetic field a bit more credit than that! (/joke)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  48. Way back when.... by pfarber · · Score: 0, Troll

    It was scientific LAW that the world was FLAT. 'Science' got that one wrong, to.

    1. Re:Way back when.... by StonedRat · · Score: 1

      "Science" has know the world is spherical for at least 1000 years.

      --
      "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
    2. Re:Way back when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there never was a "Law of the flat world" that had been scrutinized by scientists and which had been rigorously tested both theoretically and experimentally. In fact, even way back then there never really was a consensus on the shape of the earth, flat, box, egg, etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

    3. Re:Way back when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU, creationist loon.

    4. Re:Way back when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any links to any substantiation for that claim? The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round. No one ever said it was a "LAW" (emphasis yours, to show your ignorance I suppose) that the Earth is flat. "To" what? You can't even tell "too" from "to" and you think your opinion is worth a hill of beans?

    5. Re:Way back when.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Science" has know the world is spherical for at least 1000 years.

      That is stupid and evil! It's not immoral to kill you, who reject the Truth of the Cubic nature of everything. You are dumb intellegensia puppet.

    6. Re:Way back when.... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      "Science" has know the world is spherical for at least 1000 years. More than that! More like 2200 years. Eratosthenes made a fairly accurate calculation of it using trigonometry in 240BC. People who say "the earth being flat was accepted scientific fact" are ill-educated rubes who vaguely remember an apocryphal tale of columbus sailing to prove the world was round, which is bullcrap.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  49. New creation .. by foobsr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... presumably a 4th July joke, replacing the April edition for obvious reasons.

    On the other hand, Rudy Rucker in the 'Edge Question' 2007: "Endless free energy will flow from the subdimensions. And, by using subdimensional shortcuts akin to what is now called quantum entanglement, we'll become able to send information over great distances with no energy cost. In effect the whole world can become linked like a wireless network, simply by tapping into the subdimensional channel."

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:New creation .. by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      " In effect the whole world can become linked like a wireless network, simply by tapping into the subdimensional channel."

      far out dude... I think I've like BEEN there already... a little tip so you dont freak out; yes the colours can be sounds!

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  50. Sigh by seaturnip · · Score: 1

    In my experience if something seems too good to be true it generally is. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

    So why are you posting the story then?

    Someone remind me why I keep reading this site again?

    1. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Someone remind me why I keep reading this site again?

      Your UID is 1068078 so you really haven't been reading for that long. Go away, we won't miss you.

  51. Displacement of Energy in Time by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    The majority of perpertual claims I've seen just displace energy in time (storage) and then release it later. The storage part typically not included in the calculations. Thermodynamics states that you cannot creat a perpetual motion machine. This proof is INDEPENDANT of the mechnism, be it electric, magnetic, nuclear, or some form of force/energy we have yet to discover.

  52. What if? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    No, I don't believe it either. But what if it were true? How would society change given a sudden complete energy independence (ignoring conspiracy theories about Shell or BP shooting the inventor)?

    First, we could stop having any involvement with the middle east. Honestly, is there anyone besides the Arabians that would miss dealing with Saudi Arabia? Would global warming stop because CO2 was no longer a necessary byproduct of the most common energy source, or would it go up because every was busy converting their free energy into waste heat ("why yes, I'd love to have an 8-way Pentium 4 in my clock radio!")?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:What if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the created energy could not be destroyed after being created (which if did happen would by definition be conservation ), then you would no longer need to worry about global warming causing climate change. Instead, all you need to do is sit around and wait for the inevitable methaphorical (and possibly real) explosion that will occur when all that 'free' energy can no longer be contained. That created energy is still energy and assuming it isn't destroyed, your energy pool has increased permanently. Think weapon of mass destruction, except this time it will be right under Bush's feet (though he might still not be able to find it). Honestly, no one should want a perpetual motion machine.

    2. Re:What if? by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 1

      so this machine makes plastic out of thin air as well?

      you know theres more than just petrol that comes from oil.

    3. Re:What if? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      so this machine makes plastic out of thin air as well?

      Plastic is usually made of hydrogen, carbon, and chlorine. Given infinite free energy, yes, plastic is made out of thin air (plus some seawater for the chlorine).

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:What if? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Plastic is made from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Air contains (among other things) carbon and oxygen and water, water contains hydrogen and oxygen. Producing plastic out of the air is just a matter of energy. If you have enough enough energy, you can grab the elements from the air, split the bonds and re-form them however you want. We don't do this because it's much easier to do the lower-energy reactions needed to make plastics from oil. If we had a clean source of (effectively) unlimited energy, these economic factors would change.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:What if? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Would global warming stop because CO2 ..."

      We would still have a lot of CO2 in the air, so it owuldn't stop. What it would do is stabalize sooner and probably closer to what we are used to.

      The world would keep changing to respond to the CO2 in the air, and over time, as plants and other c02 'repositories'* get burried.

      *Trees do no actually convert CO2 to O2. About half the CO2 a tree takes in is respired out at night, the other half is released as dead parts of the tree decay. Buring the dead parts keeps the carbon in the ground.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:What if? by Erioll · · Score: 1

      Assuming the created energy could not be destroyed after being created (which if did happen would by definition be conservation ), then you would no longer need to worry about global warming causing climate change. Instead, all you need to do is sit around and wait for the inevitable methaphorical (and possibly real) explosion that will occur when all that 'free' energy can no longer be contained. That created energy is still energy and assuming it isn't destroyed, your energy pool has increased permanently. Think weapon of mass destruction, except this time it will be right under Bush's feet (though he might still not be able to find it). Honestly, no one should want a perpetual motion machine. I wouldn't worry too much about that case in the "what-if" scenario. Firstly, the earth receives a LOT of energy from the Sun every second. And a lot of that is radiated back into space. If there were more energy produced "locally" a lot of the excess would do the same anyways.

      Sure if you go into the cosmic sense, in trillions (or more) years, then I really have no idea, but I wouldn't be terribly concerned about the side-effects of dumping the little amount of energy humankind needs into the environment (little in comparison to the amount dumped in by the sun).
    7. Re:What if? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Alright - I've been reading your sig for years now, and wondering about the origin. Where'd it come from?

    8. Re:What if? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      An episode of "Malcolm In The Middle". There was a frozen human leg under the garage (complicated story), and the new puppy Hal brought home had crawled in and was chewing on it. Dewey wanted to call the police for help, and that was Hal's response.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  53. Dead giveaway... by LordSnooty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact it's unveiled in the form of a 10-day exhibition at a 'museum' tells us something about the nature of this 'product'. Have a look at the Kinetica Museum (avoiding unnecessary Flash intro)

    Right across the top is their angle on events:

    Between Shows > Our Next Show : starts July 5th, world's first free-energy demonstration

    However, despite it being a piece of entertainment, the company are serious. See this story from Ireland, where they are based: "The company stumbled upon the technology while working with wind turbines to power remote surveillance CCTV cameras for ATM."

    They discovered it by accident! That's how all the best inventions are conceived.

    1. Re:Dead giveaway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From http://www.steorn.com/ - "Steorn is a leading Intellectual Property development company."
      This is exactly the type of company I expected such a profound invention to come from!

    2. Re:Dead giveaway... by mavenguy · · Score: 1

      Gee, it looks like there will be dueling perpetual motion machine demonstrations tomorrow. Joeseph Newman has been promoting a "Gyro power" machine for decades. I first became aware him while working in the Patent and Trademark Office back around 1980 where his patent application was rejected, the rejection being affirmed on appeal.

      Oh, what to do, what to do, London or Phoenix?

    3. Re:Dead giveaway... by Zaffle · · Score: 1

      "The company stumbled upon the technology while working with wind turbines to power remote surveillance CCTV cameras for ATM."

      Why would you not plug the CCTV into the same power source that the ATM uses? I'm trying to imagine an ATM thats sitting in the middle of a forest somewhere, powered by who-knows-what, with a CCTV camera that is powered by wind turbines.

      That said, I'm interested in how they are powering the ATM's? Maybe the ATM's are already using perpetual energy! Damn, the banking industry already has unlimited fiscal power, now it has unlimited electrical power!

      Runs off into corner, puts his tinfoil hat back on
      --

      I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
    4. Re:Dead giveaway... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to imagine an ATM thats sitting in the middle of a forest somewhere, powered by who-knows-what,

      They are powered by falling trees - but it looks like you didn't hear.

    5. Re:Dead giveaway... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      See this story from Ireland, where they are based
      Aha! Leprechaun power.

      Just wait until they come back for Sean McCarthy's first-born child.
  54. Re:Why don't we keep an open mind? by xwin · · Score: 1

    While I am not sure the invention does work at all, but banning all discussion about some fact does not make the said fact go away, instead it will make sure that we will make no progress.

    Let me remind you that until not so long ago every one was sure that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Today we probably have no proof that that of similar device will work but give it some time and someone will prove it. Even if this device works despite our current theories what is wrong with using it? A lot of medications for example work in mysterious ways but we keep using them. We also used fire for a very long time without understanding exactly how it works.

    Why don't we keep an open mind?

  55. Dreamer by larryau · · Score: 1

    Slay the dreamer is what I hear in many of your post. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

    1. Re:Dreamer by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      More like slay the embezzler.

    2. Re:Dreamer by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      Embezzlers are dreamers too. They dream of free money, and all those others whose dreams of free money will lead to them giving free money to the embezzler.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  56. Equation? by ThisIsWhyImHot · · Score: 1

    1) Invent perpetual energy machine 2) ??? 3) Profit

  57. Wanted: Anti-Stock by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish there was a way to buy anti-stock in such ideas. In other words, make money off of its loss. Somebody told me there is something known as "puts", but they are generally configured for experienced career investors.

    1. Re:Wanted: Anti-Stock by vidarh · · Score: 3, Informative
      Put options are the "safe" way of doing this, but realizing a return is hard, since the buying the put options will be more expensive the higher the value and the longer the option is valid, requiring a larger price drop to make money of it. A put option essentially gives you the right but not obligation to sell shares at a certain price at a certain time interval in the future, regardless of the market price at that point. The potential loss for put options is the cost of buying the shares now plus the cost of the option.

      If you "know" that the share will lose value, the better (but riskier) alterative is to sell short. It requires you to find a broker that is able to lend you shares in the security in question, which you then sell. When (or if) the shares drop in price, you buy back a sufficient number to cover the amount you borrowed. The problem with shorting, particularly if the shares aren't highly liquid, is that the potential loss is unlimited (you lose the equivalent of any gain in value from you short the shares until you are able to buy them back). Experienced investors will therefore sometimes use call options as a protection. A call option give you the right to buy shares at a certain price at a certain time interval in the future - in other words the reverse of a put. The downside is of course that this protection will eat up a lot of your potential return. Because of the high risk, short selling is highly regulated.

      Your better bet, literally, is to find a bookmaker that will take a bet on it, assuming you can find someone who'l give you good odds, and it's legal where you are. UK bookmakers tend to take bets on almost anything they believe they can reasonably calculate the risk of, or where they can pit their customers against eachother and only pocket the spread.

    2. Re:Wanted: Anti-Stock by Nedry57 · · Score: 1

      Uh.....it's called short-selling. You know, selling a stock short. Buy high, sell low (although technically I suppose it's really mre like borrow high, return low). No reason to use anything as complicated as puts.

    3. Re:Wanted: Anti-Stock by syntaxglitch · · Score: 1

      I wish there was a way to buy anti-stock in such ideas. In other words, make money off of its loss. Somebody told me there is something known as "puts", but they are generally configured for experienced career investors.

      You may be interested in reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_selling

      That said, the risk profile for such "investments" are usually... awkward. And, as the saying goes, the market can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent.

    4. Re:Wanted: Anti-Stock by stigin · · Score: 1

      The most easy solution is to enter a forward/futures contract to sell this stock in some time (T) for an agreed strike price (K). If the price of the stock at the end of this contract (S) is lower than the strike (K) you can buy the stock cheap at S and sell it to the counterparty for K => profit = (K-S)

      This of course could be bad in the unlikely event that the companies stock goes up...

      Alternatively buy put options with a very low strike price (K), these give you the right but not the obligation to sell the stock at some time (T) for price (K)... then the same applies: If the price of the stock at the end of this contract (S) is lower than the strike (K) you can buy the stock cheap at S and sell it to the counterparty for K => profit = max(K-S,0)

      This protects you from the unlikely event that the companies stock goes up... and is realy cheap if you take K to be sufficiently low.

      In this case the problem would be to find a counterparty to trade these options with.

      --
      #1) Respect the privacy of others. #2) Think before you type.
    5. Re:Wanted: Anti-Stock by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      "The potential loss for put options is the cost of buying the shares now plus the cost of the option."

      I think the potential loss for put options is the cost of buying the options only.

    6. Re:Wanted: Anti-Stock by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Short selling carries unlimited risk and is generally only useful short-term. Puts have managed risk, and don't require margin.

  58. James Randi's waiting to give you $1,000,000 too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shhuuurrrreeee there's a perpetual energy machine. And Uri Geller CAN really bend spoons using his mind. And Slyvia Browne CAN see the future. And Han didn't shoot first.

  59. It doesn't really break the laws... by CokeJunky · · Score: 1

    It is not truly a perpetual motion machine at all.
    It may be an ingenious way to get energy for no fuel type cost, but that energy is coming from somewhere. Actually, the source is cleary listed: Natural variation in the magnetic field. What that means is that the earth, and other heavenly bodies have changing magnetic fields, which from high school physics we know can be converted into energy. Now, I won't waste any time looking up the proper math and physics principles at play here, but the long story short is that in order for electrons or physical devices to move and interact with a magnetic field, an opposite force is applied back through the magnetic field to the processes that create the field in the first place, and cause it to move.

    Now we don't (as I understand it) fully understand all of the forces behind planetary bodies and the molten core of the planet moving, but I think it is safe to say that it is a rather large, but finite source of energy. The question becomes, will scaling this up to a cost effective sized system for commercial power generation ever draw enough energy from the earth to cause us problems in the long term? Or is the amount of energy drawn by this system to small to matter? (We are talking on geological/universal timescales here).

    --
    More Caffeine. NOW
    1. Re:It doesn't really break the laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question becomes, will scaling this up to a cost effective sized system for commercial power generation ever draw enough energy from the earth to cause us problems in the long term? Even better! If the core of our planet were to slow due to resistance being applied by the Orbo, then perhaps we'll have less heat in the interior of our planet, lowering our overall thermal signature, thereby solving our Global Warming problems. Presto! We need more Orbos online!

      Oh wait, energy is conserved... Darn!

  60. Need first machine. by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
    They could just sell the energy, use that money to make a bigger device, sell more energy, lather, rinse, repeat. You don't need investors when you can print money.

    You need capital for the first device. Then you can "...sell the energy, use that money to make a bigger device, sell more energy, lather, rinse, repeat."

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  61. Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by pdbaby · · Score: 5, Funny

    People like you make me so mad! You and your perpetual energy smear campaign. Thermodynamics thermoshamammics. For Too long we've been governed by the laws of physics. Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!

    --
    Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    1. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey Man, quit it! Energy doesn't like to be anthropomorphised.

    2. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!

      Actually, in Steorn's case, it would be free as in beer.

    3. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by catwh0re · · Score: 1

      From this day, it shall be called: Open Source Energy. Now we need a giant cartel to claim that it infringes on 250 of their energy patents. BUT! we won't tell you which ones! OH what a devilish plan, muwahaha!

    4. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have perfected a process to turn useless comments in Slashdot into energy! All I need are a few investors in this wonderful Web 2.0 opportunity. Please email me at mrbogo@ponzischeme.com

    5. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by wild_berry · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You, sir, are a shyster! How am I to know that you would not take the efforts and energies of my enquiring e-mail to power your system? How very dare you!

    6. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Alas, you cannot know. But I ask you trust me, and send me $20 in the mail, and your kind help will be rewarded 100 fold. Simply send the money to: Occupant, Box 13, Alcatraz Island, California. In no time at all the free energy from your emails will be turned into green power benefitting the planet. I assure you I will retain your return address to which I shall send multiple profits from this worthy endeavor. P.S. My brother in Nigeria also sends you his regards, and wonders if he could send you a missive.

    7. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I tried to, but the email bounced. Maybe you can mail me at toomuchmoney@gullibleidiot.net.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy! by tzot · · Score: 2, Funny
      Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!
      Actually, in Steorn's case, it would be free as in beer.
      For the time being, only this discussion is free (as in jazz).
      --
      I speak England very best
  62. Why post it, then? by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
    In my experience if something seems too good to be true it generally is. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

    No shit. So why are you posting this kind of idiocy?

  63. ARG? by CrashExL · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered that this could be an ARG?

  64. The Future by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know how the story unfolds. The device will work, by extracting magnetic energy from Earths own magnetic field. In a few years, Steorn will be one of the hugest and most profitable companies in the world, causing oil consumption to almost stop.

    Steorn's main geomagnetic extraction complex will, over time, develop into a city, and then into a gigantic megalopolis, which people will call simply "Steorn". The Steorn megalopolis will be circle-shaped, powered by eight gigantic Orbo generators (also delimiters of the city's eight sectors), and divided into two vertical levels, the lower scum one, where low wage workers live, and the high one, were executives, rich people etc. live and work.

    Over time, a quasi-religious movement will develop affirming that Steorn's consumption of geomagnetic energy is actually causing Earth to die, and the most fanatic among these will form an eco-terrorist movement dedicated to the destruction of all Orbo generators. The funny thing is: this movement will be actually correct! Worse: not only will Steorn be in fact slowly destroying the world, but they will have also developed advanced genetics research on an alien found years before, using these discoveries to genetically enhance their own self-defense troops.

    The history of our future proceeds in many details, but I'll make it short. Suffice it to say that one of these troops will discover all about his increased abilities, the alien, the Orbo generators destroying Earth, and will decide to accelerate the process, by causing a meteor to strike Earth. Earth itself, in a move indicating some kind of self-awareness, will fight back by redirecting its own geomagnetic field against the meteor, destroying it. The collateral effect of this, however, will be a magnetic induced disease over humanity, who will slowly start to die. A cure will be found, but not before much damage happens.

    Due to all of this, the world will realize they must stop using geomagnetism as a source of energy, turn off all Orbo generators, and finally turn back to that old means of power generation left behind decades ago: petroleum. So much, in fact, that even the former leader of the anti-Orbo eco-terrorist group will become one of the earliest investors in oil extraction and oil-based energy production.

    Then history will repeat itself.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    1. Re:The Future by HexRei · · Score: 1

      imaginative.

    2. Re:The Future by LordKaT · · Score: 1

      +5, Sarcastic Twat

    3. Re:The Future by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      You don't talk like that on dates do you? If so, there's one more genetic line down the internets.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    4. Re:The Future by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Funny

      At some point in all of the above, man will discover magic--and promptly stop using it when he discovers that it takes the form of ten-minute-long animations that cannot be skipped.

      (by the way, when do the Chocobos become involved?)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    5. Re:The Future by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      As long as we get them sweet bikes, I'm down.

    6. Re:The Future by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      Earth itself, in a move indicating some kind of self-awareness, will fight back by redirecting its own geomagnetic field against the meteor, destroying it. The collateral effect of this, however, will be a magnetic induced disease over humanity, who will slowly start to die.

      Though entertaining, your story is impossible. Everybody knows that magnetism heals people.

    7. Re:The Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats all well and good, but I still don't get where the fuck Omega weapon came from.

    8. Re:The Future by HexRei · · Score: 1

      haha, in hindsight i see why you thought that, but i was actually giving him a compliment. sounds like a summer blockbuster to me!

    9. Re:The Future by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?


      What part of "well regulated militia" is so hard to understand?

    10. Re:The Future by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Probably depends on what regulated means. Feel free to look it up.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    11. Re:The Future by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      sounds like a summer blockbuster to me!
      Actually, it already was. :-)
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    12. Re:The Future by Malakusen · · Score: 1

      God, not another Jenova's Witness.

      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    13. Re:The Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful.
      This has been modded insightful.

    14. Re:The Future by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      What part of "well regulated militia" is so hard to understand?

      "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," makes a lot more sense if you view if through the language of the 18th century instead of the 21st. Or, to put it less politely, and to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

      "Regulate," as in "to keep in good order," and not "let's make all sorts of laws governing this." "Militia," as in "the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms," and not "crazy guys in Montana." In other words, what is necessary to the security of a free state is for all citizens to be well trained in the use of arms. To that end, the government cannot infringe upon their rights to keep and bear said arms.

      Happy Independence Day.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    15. Re:The Future by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was rather stunned myself.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    16. Re:The Future by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      +5 Random, but maybe.

    17. Re:The Future by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Your .sig started this, not me :o)

    18. Re:The Future by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Your .sig started this, not me :o)

      Actually, that would be my sig. :)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    19. Re:The Future by eWarz · · Score: 1

      And YOUR sig...you've OBVIOUSLY never used .NET and are merely trying to dis microsoft as is popular on slashdot. This coming from someone who knows C#, VB.NET, AND java (along with a myriad of other languages). .NET may be owned by microsoft, but a bad concept it is not.

    20. Re:The Future by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Curses! There's another one! :o)

    21. Re:The Future by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      And YOUR sig...you've OBVIOUSLY never used .NET and are merely trying to dis microsoft as is popular on slashdot. This coming from someone who knows C#, VB.NET, AND java (along with a myriad of other languages). .NET may be owned by microsoft, but a bad concept it is not.


      Actually, I *have* used .NET thank you very much. I know C# quite well and was gainfully employed writing software in it for some time.



      I'm dissing .NET because I hate Microsoft, not because /. hates Microsoft. I also happen to think that Java actually *is* better than C#/.NET.

      ...and the "why java is better than .NET" site is a polemic. It's funny. Laugh. I mean, at least 100 of those are true :o)

    22. Re:The Future by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Oh, and if we're comparing languages as if that establishes credibility, then I've programmed in Java, C#, C, C++, D, Delphi, LISP (including writing my own interpreter for it), Python, Perl, Groovy, Pascal, Ada, JavaScript, BASIC (many forms: QBasic, AMOS, ABasic etc...), M68k assembler and E. Not to mention shell scripting. Does that make my opinion right now?

    23. Re:The Future by Chutzpah · · Score: 1

      Hey does that mean we are going to get magical airships that can fly indefinitely, hover and land vertically any open ground?

      Cooool :)

    24. Re:The Future by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on... if we can banter back and forth about my sig, surely you can answer my reply to your original question! :)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    25. Re:The Future by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      OK, fair enough.

      I agree with what you say about the word "regulated", but I don't agree that "militia" meant "the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms". If they meant "everyone", there would be no need to use qualifying terms such as "well regulated" and indeed "militia" instead of "the people" - both of those previous terms narrow the concept from everyone to a specific group of people. In fact, if the 2nd amendment was supposed to allow guns for everyone, the whole first part would be redundant.

      I read the second amendment as saying that gun ownership cannot be interfered with by the US federal government insofar as that gun ownership is a requirement for states to organise their own militias for their own self defense. But, that's not the same as saying that every tom dick and harry can carry a gun: I'd also argue that by implication the 2nd amendment allows the federal government to insist that only members of organised state militias can have guns and that those weapons be the kind that would aid in defense of the state (e.g.: rifles, not handguns)

    26. Re:The Future by hey! · · Score: 1

      Hey does that mean we are going to get magical airships that can fly indefinitely, hover and land vertically any open ground?


      Ah, the enternal crie de guerre of the slashdotter faced with an overhyped technology: I want my flying car.

      As it was in the beginning, is now, and shall be for evermore. Amen.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re:The Future by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Same thing happened on Mars. Their blue skies and unlimited energy cost them their civilization. But they learned their lesson. They even buried their reactor underground before the last of the Martians died off.

      But don't worry, we'll all be just fine as long as some moron doesn't ever start the reactor again.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    28. Re:The Future by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Same thing happened on Mars. Their blue skies and unlimited energy cost them their civilization.
      You surely have a point, and that's probably the cause Mars lost its magnetosphere: because it got all consumed billions of years ago by their ancient versions of the Orbo generators! Let's not repeat the same mistake.
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    29. Re:The Future by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you say about the word "regulated", but I don't agree that "militia" meant "the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms".

      To quote the Supreme Court in US v. Miller (a favorite of those in favor of gun control) the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Still, I can accept that we disagree on this definition. I'll even agree that the founding fathers didn't really mean "everyone" because, given the context of the time, the definition would certainly not have encompassed women or slaves. However, you've defined who the militia is NOT ("everybody") without defining who the militia is--so for purposes of this conversation, who would you say constitutes the militia?

      In fact, if the 2nd amendment was supposed to allow guns for everyone, the whole first part would be redundant.

      My own view of this is that the first part is essentially redundant. It is the subordinate clause, the reasoning for what follows. There's also the problem that under your interpretation, the second part is redundant. If the amendment simply said "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state," it would accomplish the same thing as what you propose. So I think we are at something of an impasse on construction.

      That said, you've hit the nail on the head as to why this is such a hard debate. The second amendment is the only one in the original bill of rights that is constructed in that manner--it has its own preamble, and it is the source of all the ambiguity. However, I think this hurdle can be overcome: look at the history. Look at the state constitutions that were adopted at the time, and what they had to say on the subject. Look at what the people who wrote it said and wrote elsewhere.

      To go off on a slight tangent, let's look at "separation of church and state." Most reasonable people who look at the constitution objectively come to the conclusion that this is logical. However, the only real supporting information we have is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson some years later, where the subject is mentioned briefly. But that letter leaves little doubt as to the meaning, doesn't it? If we can do this for the first amendment, why is it so hard to do it for the second? The body of evidence out there is significantly larger.

      I read the second amendment as saying that gun ownership cannot be interfered with by the US federal government insofar as that gun ownership is a requirement for states to organise their own militias for their own self defense.

      There's a catch here: individual gun ownership is not a requirement for states to organize their own militias. Modern day national guard members do not own the arms they take on duty, after all--the state (actually, Uncle Sam) does. As for the suggestion that this is about the several states, I'll leave that for below.

      But, that's not the same as saying that every tom dick and harry can carry a gun

      I'm not making that argument--in fact, I'm seriously against the notion that "anyone" should be allowed to own a firearm. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon rights, without doing these rights harm (though I hate the analogy (look up the origin some time) think "shouting fire in a crowded theater.") It is obviously not in anyone's interest to allow convicted violent criminals to bear arms, for example, and it is easily established that they forfeited these rights when they were convicted of their crimes. There are others that can be similarly restricted (wards of the state, for example, who are a danger to themselves and/or others.) But no law abiding citizen of sound mind should be excluded, just as they should not be excluded from voting, or any other right or duty of a citizen.

      I'd also argue that by implication the 2nd amendment allow

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  65. I've seen it... by ninji · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Before you flame me, this is a recount of my own personal experience, and I have never had anything but negative reception to this, and so I expect it will leave a bitter taste in the majority of your 'show me then ill believe it' mouths. So please, just humor me as a recap of my own experience and your welcome to your doubts. A friend of mines uncle is an inventor, he made a bicycle that uses magnets to achieve something similar. I've told my most trusted science buddies and of course none of them believe me. I however saw it go a very long distance(several miles) with only one single half pedal to start the motion, the points the magnets were placed would cause a constant rotation and constant motion for the bicycle, additionally it had some means of collecting the excess energy the motion was generating and storing it for uphill travel etc. (Yes, I did NOT see inside the black container attached to it so it IS entirely possible there was some sort of battery that was actually powering the device HOWEVER since this man spent the majority of his life working on this in his garage, and I trust him, I believe him in his word.) It seemed a completely logical technology to me when I saw it, and It worked wonderfully, however nobody would ever believe me when I told them of this event.

    Perhaps now that something similar may be commercially available, I can distribute some well deserved I told you so's....

    Your all well aware Energy will always exist in one form or another, it does not disappear it just changes forms, all perpetual energy should take in my assumption, is one method of using the energy to power something, and the resulting transformed state of the energy to be converted to the original form, or a cycle of multiple transformations where the energy in its state is used and then whatever using it in that way converts it to is used again until it reaches one of the original forms in the cycle. Now thats just a blunt assumption by my very uneducated mind, so before you go on a flame war with the scientific inaccuracy/non technicality of that, keep in mind thats just a blunt unscientific theory of an uneducated person.

    1. Re:I've seen it... by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      "uneducated person."

      Clearly, you are!

      Think about it: if all the energy returns to the original form that started the motion... there has been none of the 'created' energy converted to something usable. And there you have it, a perpetual spinning disc which... can't generate any useful energy.

  66. Consistent over time... by dinther · · Score: 1

    Their story appears consistent when you check their web-site over time. See the web archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.steorn.net

  67. And what do they have ? by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they don't have a first machine, and only equation, they have NOTHING. On paper I can fly to the moon with only a big 7 foot stick , 77 inches of blue string (MUST be blue) and 3/4 gallon of milk. They HAVE to have a physical demonstration of PMM/OU or they are one of those thousands of other scam artist (Stan Meyer, Mark Golde, Dennis Klein...) which pretend to have something they don't really have : PMM/OU, or are quite near, SOOOO NEAR, we only need a bit of reengineering, to get a final solution to the free energy problem (yeah, right). Steorn pretend they worked 3 years (now 4) on this and they would never have a ready machine ? No generator ? Nothing ? (YEAH. RIGHT.).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:And what do they have ? by fava · · Score: 1

      No No No.

      From Bloom County.

      Oliver Wendall Jones:
      "The following formula shows conclusively how the entire world's energy needs can be fulfilled with only two porcupines, an exercise wheel and six tones of 'Raisin Bran'. Truly... an original notion."

      Science Teacher:
      "...Except that porcupines are allergic to raisins."

  68. What's the point of a hoax? by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1
    They have everything to lose. The fallout of a "publicity stunt" like this would destroy the company. You don't have to be a marketing expert to realize that after this, if they are knowingly purporting extraordinarily false claims, they could kiss any legitimacy in the business/technology/VC world goodbye.

    My guess is that they're not trying to ruin their own careers and reputations. More likely, their technology exploits flaws prevalent in electrical measurement devices today. These oversights are causing the apparent overproduction in energy.

    I don't believe they're intentionally setting up a hoax. They plainly admit their technology violates conservation of energy, they're not downplaying the ridiculousness of that. They're not throwing around requests for funding... they said they would not solicit investing during the validation of their technology. After which, they say they will widely distribute the technology and allow others to build upon it

    Following validation Orbo technology will be made available via our online developers forum. This forum will allow everyone from a product developer to a research organization to understand and develop products based around our technology. Call me crazy, but I believe Steorn has no ill intent. They will be mistaken in the end, but it does not seem likely that they're trying to fleece investors and end their professional lives. Their company has been operating at a loss for several years (as the vast majority of tech startups do), not flourishing from their attention. And they haven't been asking for money. If it's an honest hoax (yeah, what?), then it's costing them a lot.
    1. Re:What's the point of a hoax? by DarenN · · Score: 1
      Perhaps even more revealingly, they were paying the jurors (from the jury contract page). They appear very confident - and the figures that they've mentioned are that the process is about 285% - 400% efficient!

      From an article on the Guardian http://www.steorn.com/news/coverage/?id=261

      the company has spent £2.7m developing the technology. Steorn has also gone into partnership with a European micro-generator company to develop prototypes. On the attitudes shown by the scientific community

      "It's the Pons-Fleischmann factor," says McCarthy, "No one in the scientific community wants to become embroiled in the kind of controversy that Pons and Fleishmann faced."... until their claims have been assessed by the jury, McCarthy says they won't be accepting any investor offers. So if this is a hoax, it would appear not to be a money-making scheme; Walshe says the Economist ad alone cost £75,000... According to McCarthy and Walshe, the marketing manager, there have been no fewer than eight independent validations of their work conducted by electrical engineers and academics "with multiple PhDs" from world-class universities. But none of them will talk to me, even off the record...And that European partner, the one with the moving, almost perpetual, prototypes? It won't talk to me either and Steorn has undertaken not to name it. I want to believe they have something. I want to believe it so much. But then I also want to believe in Santa :(
      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    2. Re:What's the point of a hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reckon there's an outside chance they've actually built a VLF resonant transducer i.e. a VLF rectenna, and are powering it from the 50Hz hum of the Irish+English ring mains.

  69. Beware of this company by hellsDisciple · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These cowboys gave a talk in our University in Dublin. They also wanted to film the talk, presumably so they could chop and change comments by the hostile audience and other learned speakers (experts in Thermodynamics and Magnetics). This quite sensibly wasn't allowed, but the talk went ahead anyway. However there didn't seem to be much behind the flashy powerpoint presentation. I think this is more of a scientifically-fictional pyramid scheme than anything else.

  70. sci fi by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    What the fuck? More proof that Slashdotters only read terrible, tasteless sci-fi.

    1. Re:sci fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Final Fantasy 7, actually.

    2. Re:sci fi by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      My point.

    3. Re:sci fi by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Sigh. See the actual plot summary for the game and its movie follow up.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  71. Read the forum to see all these comments and more by suetekh · · Score: 1

    The views of the readers here have all been expressed before on the Steorn Forum. This site, hosted by Steorn, can be found here: http://www.steorn.com/forum/.

  72. Not correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "generator is going to keep running whether you utilize the energy output or not."
    Actually if we start drawing power on it, this would slow down the core of earth by counter reaction. Naturally how much we could draw before we could have a measurable effect I have no idea, nor the will to calculate :P.

  73. /. has jumped the fucking shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good job promoting a shitty scam.

    1. Re:/. has jumped the fucking shark by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      good job not understanding sarcasm...

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:/. has jumped the fucking shark by Xichekolas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good job...

      (I just wanted to say 'good job' too!)

      --

      Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...

      54

    3. Re:/. has jumped the fucking shark by empaler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Good job not understanding stupid comment abuse.

    4. Re:/. has jumped the fucking shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job being gay.

  74. iphone suckers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, suckers. And they apparently all buy iPhones.

    Geeze, do MacNuts believe everything?

  75. What a coincidence! by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    Wow, FREE ENERGY.

    I should sponsor these guys with the FREE MILLION DOLLARS I just won browsing around the web just a few min ago (currently just paid the advance fee and waiting for confirmation).

    Man, I'm so excited. Free money and energy on the same day, I mean, what are the friggin odds??

    1. Re:What a coincidence! by GuruThrill · · Score: 1

      And to top it off, they are giving out FREE T-SHIRTS at the demo in London.

      --
      Learn more about Steorn at Free Energy Tracker
  76. In Soviet Russia... by tbcpp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the law of Energy Conservation breaks you!

    --
    Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
  77. Re:Why don't we keep an open mind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world was flat due to ancient dogma. Since that times we've learn a decent amount and when something makes claims that that knowledge is broken, they better have pretty damn fine evidence to back it up.

    So far Steorn have generated nothing but hype and hot air. If they want to claim our understanding is incomplete, the onus is on them the prove it, even if they don't have a theory themselves to explain their finds in repeatable experiments. Alas, nothing is published, no one can replicate their work, so their claim is bogus until proved otherwise.

    Science has an open mind, that's how it improves and refines itself. When you find something weird, i.e. interesting, you document everything you did and replicate it. If there's nothing wrong in the method you publish the findings for others to repeat your work and validate it.

    These people are not doing any of that, they're playing to the dumbed down mass media, because muppets "want to believe". History is full of such claims from joe average types (ok, these people used to build ecommerce sites, whoo fscking do). As of yet, these wonderful claims have not materialized.

    Tomorrow will be another let down for the gullible, but there'll be an excuse waiting. There always is!

  78. Impossible and yet also "old hat" by Jeremy_Bee · · Score: 1

    Violating the law of thermodynamics is completely impossible, period, end of story. The energy has to come from somewhere.

    If the device (seems to) work at all, the only way it could is by getting the energy from some source or through some process not yet understood, but it still has to come from *somewhere*. Nowadays, the only areas like that not generally understood by the scientific community are subatomic processes and cosmological ones, yet the stated area of this "discovery" is basic electromagnetism like you get in high school. The odds of there being a basic principle of electromagnetism that leads to essentially "free" energy, that has not yet been discovered by the millions of scientists working in that field since it was first identified are essentially zero.

    The two biggest clues as to this being a hoax or wishful thinking on the part of the inventor are:

    1) A description of the process by which it works does not introduce, describe or seem to rely on, any new physics. (i.e. - cold fusion is much more likely)

    2) A brief glance at the history of perpetual motion machines shows that a remarkably large percentage of them rely on the same principles espoused here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_ motion_machines

    Chasing a magnet around a circle, unbalanced magnetic fields chasing themselves around circles, pendulums that are unbalanced by attraction to a magnet that moves around a circle, etc. etc. .... This sounds rather like the standard perpetual motion machine claim, rather than a breakthrough in thermodynamics/physics.

  79. Real links, instead of blogodreck links by Animats · · Score: 1

    Getting past the ad-heavy blogodreck, the company's actual web site is Steorn. There is a critical Wikipedia article on Steorn. The company has been making noises about this since last year.

    Steorn says they can't patent the thing, and that's why they're so secretive, but the USPTO takes the position that perpetual motion machines are patentable. All they ask is a working model. Their official position is: "With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device."

    There have been some good fake perpetual motion machines. David Jones, who wrote as "Daedalus", for New Scientist, had a bicycle wheel on a stand which rotated endlessly with no visible source of power back in the 1990s. This was a really good demo. It was stolen from its display by some students, who returned it embarrassed that they couldn't figure out how it worked. It continued to rotate while they had it. One of his machines is at the Vienna Science Museum, still turning.

    1. Re:Real links, instead of blogodreck links by GuruThrill · · Score: 1

      Actually what they have said is that they can't patent the physical properties that allow the machine to work. They claim to have filed patents on their specific configurations. You can patent a device, you can't patent a physical law.

      --
      Learn more about Steorn at Free Energy Tracker
  80. Mr. McArthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maxwell's Demon called.

    He wants a date for Thursday. Bring flowers.

    Maybe you two together could tackle #3.

  81. Re:What About using Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that most agree the perpetual motion is hogwash, but what if you could tap a force in nature that would never diminish (ie. gravity).

    For instance.

    Would it not be conceivable to create a (rather large) machine that had at the bottom a huge electrolysis tank where water was broken into its constituent components (hydrogen and oxygen). these gasses could then be piped to a height some great distance above where they are then burned to produce electricity. You would then have water at a great hight above the tank that could be allowed to fall through a series of turbines thus producing electricity. At some height the power produced by the falling water should overcome the net loss of the electrolysis process. Any additional height should produce extra power that could then be used for whatever we want.

    Would this not be a viable way to tap gravity for the production of electricity?

    Signed: Richard Easterling.

  82. Open mind? Absolutely not! by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I'm skeptical of anything which doesn't help me download pr0n faster from the innertubes.

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  83. You're out to lunch by p3d0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Mods, don't be blinded because he started his post with "at risk of Karma".

    This device which is really nothing more nor less than the exact same technology that NASA uses for orbital flyby which is how we get probes into deep space is just an application in electromagnetic fields rather than G fields.

    Wrong. The gravitational slingshot technique conserves energy, so it could not be the basis for a perpetual motion machine.

    Now as to those making jokes about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. If an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... Is this not by definition perpetual motion? It keeps on doing whatever until forever.... Pretty obvious folks.

    Don't be dense. Perpetual motion usually (as it does in this case) refers to a device that produces more energy than it consumes.

    Of course those who oppose the idea that we can arrive at energy by some means such as this, openly preach to us that the whole universe erupted out of the head of a pin, [Big Bang anybody?] and are quite happy for all of its mass and all of its energy to have erupted out of nothing in that event. [Logic anybody?]

    I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that time also began in the big bang. It's not like one moment there was lots of mass and energy when there was none the previous moment. There was no previous moment.


    No I haven't done anything but point out the truth and that isn't troll.

    Correction: you're not an intentional troll.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    1. Re:You're out to lunch by kaffiene · · Score: 1
      I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that time also began in the big bang. It's not like one moment there was lots of mass and energy when there was none the previous moment. There was no previous moment.



      Not quite. It would be more correct to say that the maths doesn't work when you try to describe a previous moment, or indeed T=0. That said, there have been recent mathematical alternatives suggested to get past this limitation.

    2. Re:You're out to lunch by syntaxglitch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't be dense. Perpetual motion usually (as it does in this case) refers to a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Well, really it just refers to a machine that runs forever without energy input, which implies either nonconservation of energy, or some sort of process with no losses to friction or other effects that runs forever on inertia. The latter would be just as interesting in many ways, and certainly also violates the laws of physics, but it's not really the same thing.

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that time also began in the big bang. It's not like one moment there was lots of mass and energy when there was none the previous moment. There was no previous moment. The usual analogy is "what's north of the north pole?" Not only time itself but all the laws of physics "began" at the big bang, so forget causality and conservation of energy as well.

      Correction: you're not an intentional troll. No, actually, I'm pretty sure he was being 100% intentional there.
    3. Re:You're out to lunch by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "There was no previous moment."

      That's not known..If you can provide a proof of that, I am sure the science community would enjoy a look.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:You're out to lunch by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Perpetual motion usually (as it does in this case) refers to a device that produces more energy than it consumes. Actually what you are thinking of is Free Energy, or more technically, Over Unity. Perpetual Motion does not imply any energy production over what is required to maintain the current motion. This is of course why Steorn's machine is referred to as a Free Energy machine, that just so happens to also maintain motion perpetually.

      There are both Perpetual Motion motion designs that do not have Over Unity and Over Unity devices that don't require motion, let alone perpetual. I'm not saying any of them actually work, just that the designs exist.

      There is also nothing so far showing that the Steorn device needs to falsifies the laws of thermodynamics to work as advertised. If you had a device that could eradicate the mass of a single oxygen molecule, therefor release a significant amount of energy but required less energy than it produces you would have what appears to be a Free Energy device, but in reality was just a new type of standard energy device of high efficiency. This is after all the same concepts use in all energy producing, as opposed to harnessing, devices in use today.

    5. Re:You're out to lunch by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, given the formatting, your post demonstrates time-reversal!

    6. Re:You're out to lunch by rdt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      quote: That's not known..If you can provide a proof of that, I am sure the science community would enjoy a look. /quote.

      It _is_ known (see Einstein's theory of relativity) and has been pretty well proven. The fact that you don't know it doesn't make it so.

    7. Re:You're out to lunch by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      Gah, I really wish /. let you edit your posts :o)

      Cursed HTML brings me down again!!!!

    8. Re:You're out to lunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gravitational slingshot technique conserves energy, so it could not be the basis for a perpetual motion machine. Indeed it does, every time something gets slingshot outwards, the Earth gets pushed into a closer orbit to the sun! Ban gravitational slingshots as they cause global warming!
    9. Re:You're out to lunch by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If there is no change, then time, as we know it, doesn't exist and didn't pass. Time is how we measure change, whether it be ocsilations in atoms or by any other means.

    10. Re:You're out to lunch by SEMW · · Score: 1

      There is also nothing so far showing that the Steorn device needs to falsifies the laws of thermodynamics to work as advertised Since they actually advertise that "our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy", it would need to do so to work as advertised, rather by definition...
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    11. Re:You're out to lunch by kaffiene · · Score: 1

      That is one interpretation of time, but it's not the only one.

    12. Re:You're out to lunch by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Since they actually advertise that "our Orbo technology is a violation of the principle of conservation of energy", it would need to do so to work as advertised, rather by definition This has always bothered me about skeptics. By taking an inventors word at face value one could easily miss a truly unique and useful invention. The fact that Steorn, Bearden and even Newman claim Over Unity, does not mean that there devices either achieve over unity, or that their devices fail to provide a new and efficient source of energy. Remember it is possible that their claims are correct or the more likely event that their understanding of how there machines work is faulty, but that doesn't mean they don't actually achieve the same result.
    13. Re:You're out to lunch by largesnike · · Score: 1

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that time also began in the big bang. It's not like one moment there was lots of mass and energy when there was none the previous moment. There was no previous moment. A tad disingenious sir. The guy might have a point here. I realise that a spontaneous eruption out of nothing is not the same as the expectations of a perpetual motion machine. Nonetheless, why should we consider the universe as a whole exempt from the requirements of the universe within, without at least some thought on the matter.

      I actually find the whole creatio ex nihlo thing one of the most distasteful aspects of the big bang theory.
      --
      "Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
    14. Re:You're out to lunch by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      If time isn't passing, nothing is changing, and if nothing is changing, no big (or small or anywhere in between) bang can occur. Pressure cannot increase, decrease, accrue, or distribute. Also, if nothing is changing, time can't begin, either, because there is no time, and no change from no time is still no time and no change. You can't apply a stimulus in any venue whatsoever in no time; there can be no response to no stimulus.

      In other words, trying to put this idea into commonsense concepts isn't going to work no matter how hard one tries. Obviously, something happened, and we don't have any idea what it was. This whole "there was no time and 'then' time began" however — is, was, and will forever be nonsense from word one. It isn't any better than religion. It might be worse.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    15. Re:You're out to lunch by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you read what I wrote. Take another look. I don't like "creatio ex nihlo" either but I have no problem with the Big Bang.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    16. Re:You're out to lunch by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Well, really it just refers to a machine that runs forever without energy input, which implies either nonconservation of energy, or some sort of process with no losses to friction or other effects that runs forever on inertia. The latter would be just as interesting in many ways, and certainly also violates the laws of physics, but it's not really the same thing.

      I never really gave it much thought before but I hope we as a species start working on building an actual perpetual motion device. Why? Because the universe may have a limited life span and be running down without additional external energy input. So some really long range research needs to be done so in a couple of billion years, we'd find a way to extend the life of the universe. That's much, much more important than merely powering our toys on one single planet. We can easily power all our toys by many different means, but how the heck do we power the universe? I guess we could steal energy from other universes if they exist and we become able to tap them for our energy needs.

    17. Re:You're out to lunch by Cervantes · · Score: 1

      The usual analogy is "what's north of the north pole?" The South Pole.

      Just because it seems nonobvious doesn't mean it's not true....
      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
    18. Re:You're out to lunch by SEMW · · Score: 1

      If the new machines do break new scientific ground, and find a new and efficient source of energy -- whilst it is very unlikely that a lone inventor could stumble across a new scientific principle that has evaded actual scientists, it is certainly possible -- it will not matter in the slightest whether people have taken the inventors word at face value, been sceptical, or anything else. All that needs to happen is for the inventor to give us an experiment that uses the new principle that can be independently replicated, and Science will be turned upside-down. Even if the inventors refuse to publish their results in a scientific journal, it only takes a single person to independently replicate the results and do so.

      The sad fact is, however, that the free energy 'inventors' usually refuse to either publish or even release the details of their devices, because they know that if people did do the relevent experements they would come up negative.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    19. Re:You're out to lunch by xero314 · · Score: 1

      I believe Steorn has open offered verification of their device, and has announced a public display of the device (which is what this article is about). True this doesn't actually mean verification took place or that the ublic display will prove anything, but they are doing what you are asking to some extent. The MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) has a patent filed which you can read all about yourself, though certain trade secrets have been left out (and it's hard to blame them). Neither of these projects are "lone inventors", though I believe that much of our current technology was the result of "lone inventors" like Tesla, Edison, and Jefferson who among them there is one university degree and it's not in science or engineering. But if you look at lone inventors you can look at Newman, who did supply his machine for testing and it was determined to be a highly efficient AC converter, but when asked to rerun the test with the machine "correctly" set up, the testing agency refused. I'm not saying that Newman's machine works, but that he did at least attempt to have it scrutinized.

      There is also Moray, a PhD in Electrical Engineering, who designed and built a Free Energy device which was independently verified to work as claimed, by a number of scientists, physicists and Engineers, yet his multiple attempts to patent the device were refused by the US patent office. Moray even claimed to have been threatened and shot at, eventually leading to the loss of this technology after his partner destroyed the device because Moray would not license it. The fact that the US patented office has refused patents because they do not understand them is enough for me to realize that revealing an invention is not enough to have it reproduced and used.

      No I am not trying to support Free Energy Suppression conspiracies, just saying it takes a lot more than revealing an invention to have it seem production and use, and that rejecting the possibility that a device is usefully simply because the inventory claims Over Unity is doing a great injustice to the world.

    20. Re:You're out to lunch by SEMW · · Score: 1

      The MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) has a patent filed which you can read all about yourself [...] his multiple attempts to patent the device were refused by the US patent office [...] The fact that the US patented office has refused patents because they do not understand them is enough for me to realize that revealing an invention is not enough to have it reproduced and used I am amused but somewhat puzzled by your seeming faith in the importance of patents. Whether a patent is awarded, in the USA at least, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the device works or is even possible. The criteria for patents to be accepted are novelty, originality , and usefullness. Whether it works or not is utterly irrelevent. Take the following patent as a stark example: "A pulsed gravitational wave wormhole generator system that teleports a human being through hyperspace from one location to another". Scientists in particular pay not the slightest attention to patents in the context you're talking about: if an experiment is described that purports to demonstrate an exception to the first law of thermodynamics, whether the device in question has been patented in the United States is a question of absolutely no importance whatsoever.

      much of our current technology was the result of "lone inventors" like Tesla, Edison, and Jefferson who among them there is one university degree and it's not in science or engineering. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately misleading or whether you've been mislead, but Tesla -- who is in reality the only one out of the three you mention who actually significantly changed our understanding of Physics -- studied electrical engineering at the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz. He was apparently discharged without a degree for non-payment of tuition fees, though some sources disagree on the reason.

      But if you look at lone inventors you can look at Newman, who did supply his machine for testing and it was determined to be a highly efficient AC converter Don't know what source you have on that, but the NBS test gave the Newman machine as 27 to 67 percent efficient; commercial devices at the time already operated in excess of 90%.

      but when asked to rerun the test with the machine "correctly" set up, the testing agency refused. I'm not saying that Newman's machine works, but that he did at least attempt to have it scrutinized. It would be very simple for him to demonstrate over-unity: connect the output to the input and have it run by itself with no external input. He has consistently refused to do this. The one time he permitted an outside agency to test the device, it performed exactly as you would expect it to (i.e. not over-unity); so of course he's going to claim it "wasn't set up correctly".

      No I am not trying to support Free Energy Suppression conspiracies, just saying it takes a lot more than revealing an invention to have it seem production and use, and that rejecting the possibility that a device is usefully simply because the inventory claims Over Unity is doing a great injustice to the world If any of the free energy crowd did uncover a previously unknown scientific principle in their free time between coming up with ever more imaginitive twists on Stevin's ball-ramp; it would be absurdly simple to reveal details of an experiment that demonstrated the principle. Patents are supremely irrelevent if you have a repeatable experiment. None have done so.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    21. Re:You're out to lunch by xero314 · · Score: 1

      The criteria for patents to be accepted are novelty, originality , and usefullness. I won't say you are technically incorrect, but evidence does seem to show that there is more to the decision making than those three criteria, since many free energy patents are denied, some with no reason give. Every free energy device ( assuming they actually work, which you must if patents are not based on validity) is useful and novel, and most are original (though yes attempting to patent the Simple Over Unity Toy would be denied since it is already patented)

      I'm not sure if you're being deliberately misleading or whether you've been mislead, but Tesla -- who is in reality the only one out of the three you mention who actually significantly changed our understanding of Physics -- studied electrical engineering at the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz. I was neither attempting to be misleading or discussing significant changes in the understanding physics (as I have said before, if current Free Energy devices do work it is probably not because of any violation of the laws of thermodynamics). What I was doing was making a statement of fact, specifically choosing major names that have made major contributions to electrical engineering, and lived when university academic degrees where available. I have to make a correction that I meant Franklin not Jefferson, and with that correction the statement should state that none of them hold any degree what so ever (which is what I was going to write but I looked up Jefferson by accident). I also chose for comparison, Thomas Moray, who was a respected Electrical Engineer that not only held a Degree but a Doctorate, who was derided by many as a crackpot due to his claims of Free Energy. Just to show that the individual inventor is just as capable as the trained scientist. This should become more and more true as information because more freely available and accessible.

      Don't know what source you have on that, but the NBS test gave the Newman machine as 27 to 67 percent efficient I never said the most efficient, only highly efficient, which is a term used in the report. But my point here, was why would the agency doing the test not make the adjustments requested by Newman, and even allow him to review the set up, and then rerun the tests. I know there will be claims of cost, but had they not just allowed him to review the set up in the first place there should not have been an issue. The testers could have determined if there was any tampering of the machine to attempt to deceive the testing.

      It would be very simple for him to demonstrate over-unity Ah, but here is where Newman differs from other free energy proponents. Newman does not claim Over Unity, and his machine, even if it works as stated, is no more an Over Unity device than a nuclear power station is. True this does not explain why he can't create a feedback loop and use the excess energy, only that there is no reason to prove over unity since that is not the claim. Remember that Newman's claim is that his device converts the mass of the copper coil into energy at a near 100% efficiency, which would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

      Again I am not justifying anyone's specific claims, only asking that people do not reject the possibility of new energy sources just because the inventor claims Over Unity.
    22. Re:You're out to lunch by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Patrick hasn't checked out the solar wind lately. It leaves the sun at a fairly slow pace and accelerates all the way out. Now this doesn't follow any of the known theories that are accepted by the Mods on this website. In the fall of 2005 one CME left the sun at 10,000 km/hr and passed the earth doing a fine fast 75,000 km/second (Yes I do know the speeds here) and it passed Saturn going a fine 150,00 km/second. Now unless Patrick has figured out how to reverse the Newtonian laws of motion, this isn't possible or maybe all the Mods and comments like his on this site are wrong. Well we will be polite and say maybe there is something else going on that these guys don't know.

      Thanks Patrick, we have creation from nothing of time, matter and energy all at once and now we have these laws that say it can't happen. Patrick, PLEASE USE A LITTLE LOGIC HERE! I tell you that some things are going on and you think it is mistaken but you don't look at your own logic.

      To be fair I am not a troll, guys like you who think I am troll are the trolls! I observe reality and see it for what it is. That is good science, trolls refuse to accept that any new thing can be right that conflicts with their prejudice.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    23. Re:You're out to lunch by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      The latter would be just as interesting in many ways, and certainly also violates the laws of physics, but it's not really the same thing.

      Not really, it just follows them to the letter, which isn't realistic. For Physics, that would be just a gimmick, a proof of long-known laws, without introducing anything new. For Technology, this would be something incredible though. The gist is, this machine would have to be perfect. And the basic belief of Techology is: we can't do "perfect". We can only do "good enough". But this is only a belief, with solid basis in the experience, but not a law. And possibly a false one, because of quantum nature of the universe - on scale of a single atom, we don't approach indefinitely to zero with certain property which in our specific case means perfection - below specific value we make a quantum jump and it -is- zero, a solid quantum level. We can do it with a single atom. We can do it with a finite number of atoms. Once that number is big enough to build a mechanism, we can have a perfect machine. We just lack skill, resources, knowledge and so on, how to do it.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  84. Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds a lot like Tom Bearden's MEG.

    http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm

  85. Oh, you know... by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

    "Them"... the chosen ones who command the black helicopters and pink Humvees. Oh and Haliburton and the entire oil industry. Not to mention the worst of them: The International Tinfoil Hat Manufacturers Association.

    Mumblemumblemumblemumble

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  86. What if it's true? by Danathar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We all know what will happen if it does not work. That's just plane boring to talk about. Also reading people make jokes about snake oil is boring too.

    What's more interesting is to think of what WOULD happen if it were true. How would the politics of the world change? Would it plunge the world into war? Would peace brake out?

    As a thought experiment independent of this being true how would the world change in 3 months, 6 months, 6 years if unlimited engergy was discovered?

    1. Re:What if it's true? by Blubottle · · Score: 1

      If you actually invented such a thing your life expectancy would be measured in minutes as it would be far too threatening to Cheney's friends in the oil industry. The invention would vanish from the face of the earth and a disinformation campaign would start to say how it was all a hoax. Politics would not change and wars for oil would continue as they are hugely profitable.

  87. An Art Gallery? by Jeremy_Bee · · Score: 1

    This sounds like total BS to me.

    You make it sound all scientific and such without being specific at all (just like the "inventors" as a matter of fact).

    This is not a science project, nor an "investment group" and the application for a patent proves nothing at all.
    This is a "device" being exhibited to the world for the first time in an Art Gallery for cripes sake!!!
    Specifically, an art gallery well-known for edgy electronic "art" pieces. The odds are that this is a piece of performance art and nothing more.

    In all the discussion of it on this forum, on Engadget and everywhere else, the authors of this fiasco don't even come close to describing anything in detail about any aspect of the device. It also closely conforms in form and function to a many many perpetual motion devices before it.

    Having pulled some pranks myself and having been to art school, I can appreciate the idea behind it, but clogging up teh internets with this trash is a bit of a drag on everyone's time don't you think?

    1. Re:An Art Gallery? by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      They've actually got a decent sized research company in Ireland. I've been following it in bits and pieces on their website. Unless their forum is part of the overall "artwork" it seems the place exists and people have visited and called there trying to get info (check out www.steorn.net/forum if it is still alive. From what I've read they basically picked this up by accident while working on some sort of outdoor battery powered equipment. Their company is apparently not geared towards manufacturing in the least and given the type of claims they are making they would be laughed at should they try to sell the idea to a manufacturer so they are going through this circus act in an attempt to get people interested.

  88. Seriously.. by Oink · · Score: 1

    Why is this garbage even posted here? Is this site really run by idiots?

    Infuriatingly stupid.

    --
    ----------------- Oink. Moo. rarr! -----------------
  89. Re:What About using Gravity by RichardEasterling · · Score: 1

    I think that most agree the perpetual motion is hogwash, but what if you could tap a force in nature that would never diminish (ie. gravity). For instance. Would it not be conceivable to create a (rather large) machine that had at the bottom a huge electrolysis tank where water was broken into its constituent components (hydrogen and oxygen). these gasses could then be piped to a height some great distance above where they are then burned to produce electricity. You would then have water at a great hight above the tank that could be allowed to fall through a series of turbines thus producing electricity. At some height the power produced by the falling water should overcome the net loss of the electrolysis process. Any additional height should produce extra power that could then be used for whatever we want. Would this not be a viable way to tap gravity for the production of electricity? Signed: Richard Easterling.

  90. Scam by advertising company by brunos · · Score: 1

    I thought that this story came up last year, and it turned out that it was a scam to show how powerful their communications company is: i.e. how much press they can generate about the most obviously stupid idea they could come up with.

    A guy I know in Prague did the same thing: he advertised a supermarket that gave away things for free, and all the adverts said "don't come, it's only a dream, it's not actually true"
    and many many people went! It was only a billboard with a supermarket drawn on it. Very funny actually :-)

    here is the link: http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/specialy/ceskysen/en/

  91. The thing will be on public display 24/7 by kevibabe · · Score: 1

    They will have 4 web cams on it and you can go take a look at it in person yourself. I have seen a few OU scams, but I don't remember anyone actually creating and publicly displaying a device and running it for 10 days straight in a public place with 4 web cams tracking it constantly. Remember super-conductivity - there was no theory to explain that for years but it worked experimentally perfectly well without one. I'll take a look with an open mind on this one I think.

  92. Here's they main ramification: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    In 2 year, people i the middle east will be having there damn stupid religious wars by throwing rocks at each other.
    It's nice when someone who is getting billions a year supports your cause, but when that person revenue dries up, they won't retunr your calls.

    If can fit into the trunk of a car and provide enough energy to operate the vehical, then you will see some profound effects on the enviroment.

    War will still be there, but it will be cheaper,and use less personal..which is a good thing.

    IF you can take advantge of quantum effects by changing the devices reference, then we ight actually see FTL, and Artifical gravity. Both of which would be very cool.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  93. Parent inaccurate (or english language inaccurate) by chrisG23 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Good ole English confusing things and people again. We need to define some terms here.

    If an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.... Is this not by definition perpetual motion? It keeps on doing whatever until forever.... Pretty obvious folks.

    English definition wise, yes, any object put into motion will remain in motion forever, or until acted on by an outside force. The problem is you cannot get anything useful like a source of energy out of it. Say you have a wheel you can start spinning with no outside forces on it. It will spin forever. Sounds great right? Now say you attach it to a shaft driving a generator. Free power forever right? No. Spinning the shaft to power the generator is now putting an outside force (resistance and all that) and your wheel will come to a stop eventually. Not too useful.

    What perpetual energy/motion machines are supposed to do is provide more energy/motion than is being acted upon them from the outside force that is putting their motion/energy to work. Let me say it again another way, they create energy/motion out of nothing, and then the surplus is used for some kind of *work* (charge a battery, power a motor, etc. etc.) If they were creating energy/motion and you did not tap the power, then the device would speed up, and speed up, and continue to speed up to infinity.

    What the inventor (and all inventor of perpetual motion devices claim) is that they have found some method of doing this. Creating something that creates energy out of nothing (as opposed to all other sources of energy, which require something. An engine requires fuel, a solar power requires sunlight (or other light) the light from the sun requires hydrogen and other elements to be spent or transformed in a nuclear reaction, etc, etc.

    If a perpetual motion/energy machine is ever really devised, it will likely be found later on that the machine is simply running on an formerly unknown form of energy. (As mentioned on here in other posts).

  94. Just glad it's private money by Erioll · · Score: 1

    This team has their own investment money.

    That's about the only part of it that is comforting to me: they're using their own investment money, or rather that they're NOT using government money. If people want to waste their own money, go at it. Fight "the man" (or whatever) with it. Prove a lot of the science throughout history has been wrong. Take your pick of goal. As long as it's YOUR money not mine! If they're right (which I HIGHLY doubt), then they'll be the richest people anywhere. If they're wrong, it'll come out as a scam sooner or later. Either way, not my money, and I can't do a lot about it either way anyways, so why stress about it?

    The only disturbing part to me is the "need" of many here to defend existing accepted physics theory. Personally I'm of the idea that if the existing laws are so great, they can stand up for themselves. Which I have little doubt is EXACTLY what will happen here. But a scientist must be willing to accept that anything that they "knew" could be wrong. A mountain of evidence and independent verification (many times over) will be needed to overturn anything so fundamental to our understanding of the world, but if it's done, I think that's great. Really I do, because it means that there's more to learn, and hopefully it'll bring about even more exciting discoveries.

    But I don't expect it. It'll probably be proven to be a huge error or a deliberate fabrication. Any way it plays out, I'm just glad that it's private money, not mine!
  95. May not go against law of conservation of energy by axnotizes · · Score: 1

    It stay it is using changes in magnetic field, which is generate through earth rotation. It is using that change in magnetic field to create energy, kind of like wind power.

  96. Give them some more time... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    I'm rather skeptical myself, but since those guys are not exactly hiding behind some anonymous company, they may be sincere in believing they have invented the perpetuum mobile.

    And if we are VERY lucky, it may be real.

    So give it a few more weeks. Since Steorn have just announced they are ready for demonstrating their invention, its time for them to put up or shut up. Lets say until the end of August. If they can show proof by then, good. If not, I'll follow the others in this discussion who recommend to disregard them as frauds ;-)

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  97. Re:What About using Gravity by CorSci81 · · Score: 1

    The simple answer is no. Your system forms a closed loop and if you aren't losing mass at best you spend just as much energy getting the water back to the top as you gained from dropping it to the bottom. In reality you lose some energy through entropy, friction, etc.

    This is a simple proof in Newtonian physics actually. Any integral of work over a closed loop in a gravitational field sums to 0 (in an ideal frictionless world).

  98. Ummmm by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "There's some really strong evidence that God isn't real. "

    No, you can ont have evidence of something that doesn't exist.

    What you can say it no experiment has ever produced a result.

    Example:
    A man next door is found stabbed to death while you were home alone sleeping.

    Show me evidence that you didn't do it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absence of evidence indeed is evidence of absence:
      There probably won't be any of your fingerprints on the knife.

      Of course, you still could have done it, but first the police should check out whose fingerprints actually are on the knife.

      Otherwise, they'd have to imprison everyone in the world and execute them for murder.

      Presumption of innocence, thus seeking to find who did it and prove it; presumption that absence of evidence means it actually is absent, thus seeking evidence and what it points to:
      Those are evidently a good idea.

  99. Re:What About using Gravity by m50d · · Score: 1

    Erm, I hope this is a troll, but water masses *less* than its constituent hydrogen and oxygen, so you'd take more work to pipe them up than you gain from the falling water.

    --
    I am trolling
  100. The energy only exists in Second Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    read the fine print ;-)

  101. Don't Get Excited... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0, Troll
    Don't get excited over this. It certainly causes Global Warming, and hence will be banned by next Tuesday. Also, it's impossible to patent (PTO rules forbid patents for perpetual motion), so nobody will be able to make money off of this.

    It's the loonies on the left that will fight this tooth-and-nail. I remember when Cold Fusion looked like it might actually happen. Clean, cheap energy in almost unlimited amounts. What happened? Jeremy Rifkin led the charge that any such development would be The Worst Thing Possible, because it would lead to more people since we would be able to make previously uninhabitable areas not only inhabitable, but even comfortable. I expect no less now.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  102. Perpetual Motion by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Nothing to see, move along, move along, move along, move along, move along, move along...

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  103. Build your own perpetual motion machine! by ancientt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't that what solar cells are? 'Practical' perpetual energy? I know there are issues with the breakdown of materials, and eventual cooling of the sun, but if you invented the solar cell and called it a 'perpetual energy' machine, then where would you be? Much like where this guy is I suspect, being called a scam artist before you even get a chance to exhibit, being ignored because you weren't in negotiations with governments and pushing for NDAs.

    I'm hoping that this will turn out to be something similar. I'm hoping that the demonstration will show way of harnessing energy we previously mostly ignored or didn't use the same way. We've got geothermal energy mostly untapped, wave energy mostly underfunded and immense, practically immeasurable energy flung by the sun into space, benefiting nobody. It isn't as if the energy sources don't exist, we just don't have the technology to tap most of the big ones yet.

    The way I understand it, perpetual energy isn't even really impossible, sub-atomic particles pop into and out of existence all the time and sometimes get separated, thus Hawking radiation and for all practical purposes, perhaps all purposes, demonstrate perpetual motion. The trick would be in harnessing them, tricky bit that, what with the black holes and all. If you figure out how to do it you'd get a lot of cool points.

    Failing any of the big payoff candidates like black holes or tapping the sun, maybe you could harness the magnetic properties of the earth? I think they're mostly a product of the earth's kinetic and maybe heat energy, they aren't truly perpetual, but it would be a neat trick to actually find a way to use them.

    Yes, I know, this has the earmarks of a scam, but why not wait until we get a chance to find out more before we dismiss it entirely? You're not spending anything but your time, and to my way of thinking, anything that makes you think and reconsider your notions of what is possible is not a waste.

    --
    B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    1. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by FLEB · · Score: 1

      To make a "practically perpetual" motion machine, although it may be utilize obscure or improbable sources of existing energy, is a completely different matter than violating known solid physical laws, and doing something "impossible". In a large respect, it's the principle of the thing.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    2. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      only scam artists make comments like " The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real." becasue they need to suck someone in fast to get their money and run, before they proven to be full of shit.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by SEMW · · Score: 4, Informative

      but if you invented the solar cell and called it a 'perpetual energy' machine, then where would you be? Much like where this guy is I suspect, being called a scam artist before you even get a chance to exhibit, being ignored because you weren't in negotiations with governments and pushing for NDAs. Rubbish. People have known that our main source of energy is the sun for millenia (e.g. we eat plants that photosynthesise). Announcing that you have a more efficient way to harness the sun's energy is definitely very possible, and would certianly not get you ridiculed. That's a very different matter to announcing that you've just found a way to break the first law of Thermodynamics; which are probably the most widely accepted laws in the whole of Physics, ever.

      perpetual energy isn't even really impossible, sub-atomic particles pop into and out of existence all the time and sometimes get separated, thus Hawking radiation and for all practical purposes, perhaps all purposes, demonstrate perpetual motion. A few points here: "perpetual motion" in the most literal sense is not at all impossible -- get a piece of rock into space, start it spinning, keep it clear of any stray hydrogen atoms that might impose any frictional forces on it, and bingo. Again, that is a very long way away from what TFA is suggesting, which is over-unity -- free energy, get more energy out than what you put it.

      And your examples are not free energy. Hawking radiation subtracts from the mass of the black hole perfectly in accordance with E=Mc^2 (as far as anyone knows, at least; AFAIK it's never been measured). And a high-energy photon might well materialise into, say, an electron-positron pair, but the mass energy of that pair is still less than the energy of the photon. None of this vioaltes the laws of thermodynamics.

      Failing any of the big payoff candidates like black holes or tapping the sun, maybe you could harness the magnetic properties of the earth? I think they're mostly a product of the earth's kinetic and maybe heat energy The Earth's magnetic field is a product of electric currents in the liquid outer core. And no, you can't get energy from a static magnetic field. You can get it from a changing magnetic field, however, and the Earth's magnetic field is changing; but it's doing so over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, so the energy you'd get would be very, very small.

      Yes, I know, this has the earmarks of a scam, but why not wait until we get a chance to find out more before we dismiss it entirely? You're not spending anything but your time, and to my way of thinking, anything that makes you think and reconsider your notions of what is possible is not a waste. There have been hundreds of thousands of 'free energy' devices around. Most are scams; some are by honest people just don't understand the science of what they're doing. None (to my knowledge) has come out of actual scientific research; most are by lone 'entrepreneurs' who get investment money from guillable people and then disappear. At any particular time there are usually OTOO 10 or so 'free energy' companies around. There's nothing new or even particularly original about this one, trust me.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    4. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by Skrynkelberg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hawking radiation does not demonstrate perpetual motion in any way.

      A quantum fluctuation can be seen as a particle and anti-particle popping into existance next to each other. If this happens at the brink of a black hole, and the anti-particle falls in, the particle goes in the opposite direction and can be observed as faint (Hawking) radiation. However, the antiparticle decreases the mass of the black hole, eventually causing it to evaporate, after billions of billions of years. Compare it to solar power - the radiation stops when the black hole runs out of mass, and the sun stops shining when it runs out of elements to fusion. The former is countless magnitudes harder to harness though, due to the low intensity of the Hawking radiation.

      All in all, during hawking raditation, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum are conserved, and it doesn't go on forever either. E.g. there's nothing "perpetual" about it at all.

    5. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by dargaud · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it, perpetual energy isn't even really impossible, sub-atomic particles pop into and out of existence all the time and sometimes get separated, thus Hawking radiation and for all practical purposes, perhaps all purposes, demonstrate perpetual motion. The trick would be in harnessing them, tricky bit that, what with the black holes and all. If you figure out how to do it you'd get a lot of cool points. You don't need a black hole to extract energy from virtual particules: check out the Casimir effect, also known as vacuum energy. It's been measured, but is far from being used on an industrial scale !
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    6. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what solar cells are? 'Practical' perpetual energy?
      There's nothing perpetual about using the Sun's energy.
      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    7. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      There have been hundreds of thousands of 'free energy' devices around. Most are scams; some are by honest people just don't understand the science of what they're doing. None (to my knowledge) has come out of actual scientific research... I wonder what portion of this is mere semantics? It's all simply word play. For example:

      A) Scientist 'X' ignores that science has already concluded 'free energy' is impossible

      This is not 'actual scientific research' because they're not drinking the KoolAid.

      B) Scientist 'Y' accidentally discovers 'free energy', and cannot disprove that it is actually 'free'

      This is not 'actual scientific research' because 'just don't understand the science of what they're doing'.

      C)Scientist 'Z' proves that there is no such thing as free energy, again

      This is 'actual scientific research' because it supports what everyone who is intelligent enough to be part of the 'science club' KNOWS is true.

      Isn't that about right?

      It seems that in our world of 'science as the new religion' that if you disagree you're automatically wrong.
    8. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      You can get it from a changing magnetic field, however, and the Earth's magnetic field is changing; but it's doing so over a timescale of hundreds of thousands of years, so the energy you'd get would be very, very small.

      Doesn't the magnitude of the field multiply those small changes, in effect creating a shit-ton of energy?

    9. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      Note: use the vernacular for creating. e.g. I mean "collecting" "moving" etc.

    10. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by xilet · · Score: 1

      When you get:
      B) Scientist 'Y' accidentally discovers 'free energy', and cannot disprove that it is actually 'free'

      They submit it to a peer reviewed journal so it can be re-created by independent scientists then it will be creditable. There is a reason that someone coming out of left field with something like this gets skeptics, it's because it has not been proven yet by the scientific method. Once it can be duplicated and examined by someone who is not seeing VC money over the item, thats when it will get credibility.

    11. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by BobMcD · · Score: 1


      Ideally, yes. But it takes a lot more than just 'someone' to give it credibility. It takes consensus (real or imagined). And unless that majority making up this consensus has some motivation to accept that these findings are possible, forget about it. There will always be enough doubt to keep it in the dark.

      Edgy, exciting, frontier science just isn't modern anymore. For some reason, humanity has decided that we've mastered knowledge, or at least crossed the tipping point. Science is now so mainstream that the 'unlikely' now equates to 'impossible'.

      And frankly, that just sucks.

    12. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the magnitude of the field multiply those small changes But the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field at the Earth's surface is very, very small: 30-60 microTesla, according to Wikipedia. And it is alternating very, very slowly.

      Recall -- I think it's Faraday's law: E.M.F induced in a coil of wire due to a changin magentic field = - N d(phi)/dt.
      N = no. of turns per meter; phi = magnetic flux through the coil.

      So for a coil with a cross sectional area of a square metre, flux through it will be call it 50 microWeber. If it takes, say, 500,000 years for the Earth's magnetic field to reverse, d(phi)/dt = 50 microWeber / 250,000 years

      So d(phi)/dt = 50e-6 / 8e12 = 6e-18.

      So E.M.F. produced = N * 6e-18 Volts. Assuming a good few thousand turns per meter, that's of the order of 10 femtovolts of EMF for a coil a square meter big. That's not very useful.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    13. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      I'd answer to your post point by point, but really you're making the same point over and over, so I'll simply reply to that instead. The way science works is simple. There's reality (ok, if you want to get philosophical, there *might* not be reality to begin with). Then some guy comes and devises a model that represents a fraction of reality. Then some more guys come, grab that model, consider its consequences, and come up with some experiments aimed at disproving the model. The key word here is "disproving". You can't *ever* prove a model right. Naturally, if a theory does a good job at modeling reality, and repeated and thorough experimentation doesn't disprove it, you consider it to be true, for a somewhat fuzzy value of truth.

      Now... Someone comes up with some theory that's at odds with what's considered scientific truth, and, moreover, is described as behaving in a manner that has been proven impossible by experimentation. The knee jerk reaction is obviously to call it crackpot. Unless the "scientist" at hand comes up with some compelling arguments for his statements, the knee jerk reaction will stand. Can't really blame people for that.

      Oh, and nobody's really particularly interested in seeing yet another proof of preexisting knowledge, unless the proof is interesting in and of itself, or adds some additional information to the table.

    14. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by SEMW · · Score: 1

      For some reason, humanity has decided that we've mastered knowledge, or at least crossed the tipping point. Science is now so mainstream that the 'unlikely' now equates to 'impossible'. I'm sorry, but to be quite frank, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Indeed, I would say that the exact opposite is true. Quantum mechanics, to take the obvious example, strikes most people as incredibly 'unlikely' (and certainly counterintuitive), but was accepted as mainstream incredibly quickly precisely because it makes testable predictions that match experiment very, very closely.

      Physics is now at an incredibly exciting point, because we now have two theories of mechanics (Quantum mechanics and Relativity) that, in their own fields, have incredible predictive powers that match every experiment we can throw at them; but are incompatible; thus paving the way for several candidates for a new unified field theory that can unite them. We are approaching a turning point sometime this century, just like the turning point last century when Newtonian mechanics was overthrown to make way for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

      By reading mainstream newspapers, I can see how you would get the impression that Science research is no longer 'all there', considering that all they seem to report is crap like some PR company announcing that they've found "the scientific formula for the best day of the year". Don't be mislead. Pick up a copy of New Scientist or Scientific American. Discover for yourself how wrong you really are.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    15. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by BobMcD · · Score: 1


      I guess I missed the part where you replied to my point, but per your request I won't try and rephrase it yet again.

      I do, on the other hand read you loud and clear. Thank you.

    16. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by misleb · · Score: 1

      Ideally, yes. But it takes a lot more than just 'someone' to give it credibility. It takes consensus (real or imagined). And unless that majority making up this consensus has some motivation to accept that these findings are possible, forget about it. There will always be enough doubt to keep it in the dark.


      That just isn't true. A theory or hypothesis does not require a majority consensus. There's lots of theories out there that enjoy only small followings. Or maybe they're just not terribly exciting. Take medicine, for example. Someone thinks they have a cure or treatment for a certain kind of cancer. They publish, some think they're onto something, others don't. But all they need is enough funding from their university, hospital, or pharmaceutical company to continue. It may be "in the dark" but if it really pans out after research and it is valuable, it WILL come into the light.

      You seem to think that theories are all or nothing deals. Either they universally accepted as fact or it is completely ignored. That that just isn't how science works.

      Edgy, exciting, frontier science just isn't modern anymore. For some reason, humanity has decided that we've mastered knowledge, or at least crossed the tipping point. Science is now so mainstream that the 'unlikely' now equates to 'impossible'.


      You're just romanticizing science. It is easy to look back on the few seemingly overnight breakthroughs that have happened and forget about all the slow, tedious, research that was behind it all. Don't. Look at archeology, for example. Once in a great while they find something like King Tut's tomb, but 99% of it is really f'ing boring work if you ask me. That is the way good science has always been.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    17. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Unless that proof is supplied, then hell yes I'm going to be sceptic.

      As others have already pointed out, in science part of that proof is publishing your experimental/theoretical method (your workings, as it were), your results and your conclusions, and inviting others to prove you wrong. The more people fail to prove you wrong, the more accepted your work will become, no matter how outlandish it is.

      Yes, it's hard to get people working on things that are way out there, especially when they go against principles that have served us well for hundreds of years. But if you're completely open about exactly what you're doing and how you do it, *someone* will try to show you your error. If you're right, and they fail, so the momentum will build.

      But that requires rigorous documentation, sufficient for any expert in the field to reproduce your work. Make a claim this extraordinary without backing it up with that, and of course people are going to disbelieve you, just like the last few dozen times it was done.

    18. Re:Build your own perpetual motion machine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A few points here: "perpetual motion" in the most literal sense is not at all impossible
      > -- get a piece of rock into space, start it spinning,
      > keep it clear of any stray hydrogen atoms that might impose any frictional forces on it, and bingo.

      I never got past high-school physics, so sorry if I'm mistaken, but:

      Any Rock is basically a resistor, we just don't know its value without analyzing its composition.
      If you have a resistor, and it is not cooled to absolute zero, there is Johnson noise,
      meaning an unbalanced number of electrons on different sides of the rock.

      If these charges get trapped locally, i.e the charge unbalance is maintained for a while by resistance, the spinning of the rock will mechanically accelerate the charges, which should generate an electromagnetic field.

      Wouldn't this field radiate energy, which should subtract from the kinetic energy of the spinning rock (unlike the magnetic field caused by the movement of the electrons due to noise, which should reduce the temperature of the rock), so that eventually (for rather large values of "eventually", or rather small values of "rock" ;-) the rock should stop spinning, or at least slow down?

      However, I am not sure if this would still hold true if the rock were a perfect superconductor.

  104. Exactly... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    Barrier to entry for anybody to ever publish one of these stories should be having the "perpetual motion machine" turn a generator that powers a machine that makes more perpetual motion machines out of raw materials. When they can do that, then maybe we'll listen to their claims that there is no energy input.

  105. I've seen this pattern before by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Interesting
    About 32 years ago. I was 13 at the time and I "figured out" on paper a magnetic perpetual motion machine using magnetic lag. I could not make it work and figured that there must be some "magnetic drag" in the system.

    If someone has been able to really make this work, well I'll be truely amazed.

    Such a device does not have to be violating the laws of thermodynamics. For example, the device could be getting energy from somewhere via some mechanism we don't fully understand yet.

    A hundred years ago nobody would have considered that you could get energy from mass via E=mc^2 and we'd be awfully arrogant as a species to think we have all of physics figured out.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:I've seen this pattern before by 808140 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's true -- but Einstein worked out relativity on paper and we spent lots of time trying to figure out how to test the theory long before a nuclear power plant or bomb was produced. These were engineered using the physics that he and others had worked out since 1905. No one "accidentally" stumbled upon a working atomic reactor while messing around with turbines.

      If you read the article, you'll see that that's what they claim -- that they "accidentally" stumbled upon this amazing technology.

      It's quite rare that anything of any complexity is discovered by accident -- generally, science advances in small steps, not great leaps. In the case of Einstein, people (like Michaelson and Morley) were doing experiments whose results did not agree with the predictions of the prevalent theories of the day, and someone stepped in to explain why. It took us nearly 40 years to do anything like "convert matter to abundant energy" from those initial baby steps.

      In the same way that monkeys randomly banging on keyboards don't produce fine works of literature, people messing around with simple machines whose fundamentals have been understood for hundreds of years don't suddenly revolutionize physics.

      Of course, both are technically possible, but you'd be a shitty gambler if you bet on those odds.

    2. Re:I've seen this pattern before by monkease · · Score: 1

      For example, the device could be getting energy from somewhere via some mechanism we don't fully understand yet.

      Eh? Is that an example?

      Because it sounded an awful lot like the logic used by Certain People to "debunk" evolution. "Well, could be there's a red guy but he's also invisible because we can't see him--let's call him, oh, the Devil--and COULD be he PLANTED all those fossils there just to trick us!"

      Come on, man! The argument ain't about how much we're willing to imagine. Every person on this website would orgasm simultaniously--probably even twice!--if this turned out to be true. But it's obviously not. And how do we figure this out? By looking at the claims & the methods without our vision clouded by our wet dreams.
      We ask, "What are they claiming?"
      A: Creation of energy.
      "How, exactly, do they do this truly remarkable thing?"
      A: They'll tell us later.
      "Why don't they tell us now."
      A: They feel like UNLIMITED CLEAN POWER MIGHT NOT MAKE THEM ENOUGH MONEY IF THEY DON'T DO A COUPLE PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS OF IT FIRST.

      I'm being sort of a jerk, but for a reason. And also because I like it.

    3. Re:I've seen this pattern before by EarthlingN · · Score: 1

      I don't know about "lag", but the kid in me remembers thinking he could make a "perpetual-motion all-permanent-magnet motor" if *only* permanent magnets could be turned off and on easily.

      The right combination of shield material should make it possible. Just build a motor so the magnets attract each other till they rotate close, then place the shield so the magnets can pass. Remove shielding. Repeat forever.

      Then I grew up. The adult in me said "it's too good to be true". There must be losses which would cancel out any gains. Magnetic resistance, eddy currents, something. Besides, where would the energy come from? The aether? (Not that we really know what magnetic fields are anyway.)


      So, as a matter of pride and common sense, I suspect this guy is wrong. I hope he is.

      If he turns out to be right, the kid in me is going to have to kick my adult butt.

    4. Re:I've seen this pattern before by kabocox · · Score: 1

      In the same way that monkeys randomly banging on keyboards don't produce fine works of literature, people messing around with simple machines whose fundamentals have been understood for hundreds of years don't suddenly revolutionize physics.

      Of course, both are technically possible, but you'd be a shitty gambler if you bet on those odds.


      Depends on your bank roll, how much it costs to support your millions of R&D monkeys, and if they ever actually produce nuggets worth millions/billions/trillions. There are scientists out there that hate the experimenters. They want it all solved out in theory before they go ahead with anything. If you do have the theory worked out, it is much cheaper when you do start to experiment, but if you have enough money and resources you can just have a heck of lot of folks out there experimenting until someone hits a breakthrough. Those breakthroughs by their nature are more expensive though.

    5. Re:I've seen this pattern before by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      You are so wrong. Science and technology advance because the government has a gigantic alien robot frozen beneath Hoover Dam.

    6. Re:I've seen this pattern before by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Google PageRank was discovered by accident.
      Originally it was a system for annotating pictures, with an extra feature of search. Only later they found the search could be applied to anything outside pictures, and works much better than existing search engines.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  106. Wrong conservation law by benhocking · · Score: 1

    I believe the poster was actually referring to Conservation of Slack. Slack can be neither created nor destroyed. That is why we must try to possess as much slack as possible in order to prevent it from being in places it does not belong.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Wrong conservation law by KoldKompress · · Score: 1

      My last name is Slack, you insensitive clod!

      No seriously. It is. And my parents created me.

  107. Runs on Santorum by Ranger · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wasn't there something in that Roswell deathbed confession about a perpetual motion machine?

    Did someone at the slashdot story submission approval have a brainfart? Why are they approving bullshit stories like the perpetual motion machines and Roswell? Somebody must feel they have to compete with Digg.

    Santorum defined.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:Runs on Santorum by florescent_beige · · Score: 0, Troll

      In lieu of mod points, I second your opinion. Pretty soon we'll have to start calling it SlashFox BREAKING NEWS FOR HOT-BODY UNDERWEAR-MODEL MARINE NERD BABES GONE WILD. You Won't believe what's happening on the beaches of Redmond!!!! Plus this feature, file systems and disappearing wives!!! Is it murder??? Is there a connection??? Only here!!! Only we dare!!! Plus, digg sucks!!! Don't go there!!!

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    2. Re:Runs on Santorum by florescent_beige · · Score: 0, Troll

      Troll? This entire TOPIC is a troll. Mocking a troll isn't trolling, it's parody. Don't expect me to sepnd 20 minutes thinking of an erudite response to Mr. Taco's pandering. If Mr Taco wants to recast /. as a place where the ignorant can spew, that's fine, but it's not my /. To the extent that I have one.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    3. Re:Runs on Santorum by Ranger · · Score: 1

      I must have struck a nerve to be troll rated. I was shooting for funny. I guess some slashdotters have no sense of humor. I'm not sure what made the troll rating: saying slashdot was worse than digg? saying the perpetual motion machine runs on santorum? or that they got the plans for the ppm from the deathbed Roswell confession?

      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  108. Power from the Moon's Gravity: by MDMurphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tidal power. Massive amounts of water moving towards and away from shore, pulled mostly by the gravity of the moon.

    1. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And there was me thinking that the tides every twelve hours were caused by
      1: The moon pulling a bunch of water towards it (tide 1) 2: The centripetal force caused by the fact that the centre of rotation of the system is off-centre with relation to the centre of the Earth (tide 2) A 3m shift in tectonic plates every day is going to cause a bunch of earthquakes isn't it?

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    2. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by weighn · · Score: 3, Informative

      A 3m shift in tectonic plates every day is going to cause a bunch of earthquakes isn't it? no mention of plate tectonics here - although I will acknowledge that WP isn't the holy grail of Knowledge. But I'm curious about GP's post. Googled 'tide~ tectonic' and can't see any correlation. There is, however, a look at Tidal triggering of earthquakes and its relation to tectonic stress.

      damn, now I'm gonna waste another lunch hour reading about interesting crap I'll never need :)

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    3. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      3m in 12 hours would work out to around 0.0003 m/s-1, or a third of a millimetre a second. I don't think thats quite violent enough a movement to cause earthquakes, though it probably would help encourage or dampen an existing shift. Still, this is news to me too, I had a similar notion of only water being affected in any significant way. More info would be great GP!

    4. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by bdjacobson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Tidal power. Massive amounts of water moving towards and away from shore, pulled mostly by the gravity of the moon. Popular Science already investigated this: Basically we don't have any materials that could do the job and withstand the beating and corrosive power of salt water.
    5. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically we don't have any materials that could do the job and withstand the beating and corrosive power of salt water.

      I can believe that. I work at a place where salt is extracted from sea water via solar evaporation. Every bit of steel in the place--including stainless steel--is pretty thoroughly rusted. The amount of maintenance required to keep the machinery up and running is astonishing.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    6. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by wawadave · · Score: 0

      Yes tidal powers harnessing planetary movement. Sure would be nice if this idea of his actually works!!

    7. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by fredklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, ocean-going ships appear to "withstand the beating and corrosive power of salt water" quite well.

    8. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Tomfrh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tide 2 isn't caused by a centrifugal effect. Tidal forces are do due variation in gravitational field from one side of a body to another. If the earth and moon were static (and held in place some how), there would still be two tides.

    9. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Knuckles · · Score: 1
      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    10. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ocean going ships come in for maintenance annually and nearly complete renewal every five years. That more expensive when your turbines are at the bottom of the sea. There are some companies looking into tidal power in fast moving tidal basins (the Bay of Fundy, East River, Grey's Harbor, and the Straights of Juan de Fuca (I said all that mostly so I could say Juan de Fuca). Biggest issue they're having is you need very fast moving tidal changes to make it worth putting down the turbines so most of the effort is fighting over the few prime spots.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    11. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Kj0n · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think tidal power really qualifies as a clean power source. Of course, now it seems there is an abundance of 'free' power, but in 50 years, when we have taken too much, the moon will crash into the earth.

      The same is true for harnassing power from the earth's magnetic field: there certainly will be side effects when too much power is taken.

    12. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by thygrrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Umm... I've seen Tidal Power Plants, one in France and one in England. Imagine a dam off the shore. The water comes, they open the dam, then close it with all the water on the shore side. The water goes, and they return the stored water to the (lower) sea by letting it run through some turbines.

      Tadaa.

    13. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by fbjon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make the generators out of rubber duckies.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    14. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      Stainless steel is MORE likely to be attacked by sea water than plain old carbon steel is. Chloride ions are always a show stopper when you want to use SS.

    15. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by lauwersw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about concrete? There are some designs that make a concrete chamber placed half under water. When a wave rises, it compresses the air in the chamber, which in turn drives a regular turbine. If the water level sinks again, it pulls air in via the turbine, so you profit from both directions.

      That way you avoid at least direct contact with the salt water. I can imagine the air carries enough salt water to corrode the turbine too, but much slower, plus it stays better accessible for maintenance.

    16. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by beezly · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... I will acknowledge that WP isn't the holy grail of Knowledge.

      Aaaiiiiiieeeeee! My world has just exploded!

    17. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      Popular Science already investigated this: Basically we don't have any materials that could do the job and withstand the beating and corrosive power of salt water.

      Oh yeah?

      NB: It's been built 40 years, it's still operating, it's profitable and cheaper than nuclear. So yeah, tidal power can work.

    18. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He meant "we" as in us in the free world, not those Godless Commies in France.

    19. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      you may wish to investigate this further before making such sweeping statements. The French have had one in operation since the 60s.

    20. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by jon_anderson_ca · · Score: 1
    21. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      You've got it backwards - harnessing tidal power will cause the moon to move further away, not closer. It will also slow down the earths rotation. It's an interesting freshman level physics problem to work through how much power is available, and what the final state will be.

      The final state, it turns out, is the moon further away, and the length of the day being equal to the length of the new month - the same side of the earth will always face the moon. At this point, there will be no more tides.

      If you worked out how long this would take, I would imagine it would be more than 50 years - but I haven't worked through it.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    22. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: INAP (but I do have a few engineering degrees) Actually, tidal energy does not come from the seperation of the earth and moon in the potential gravity well of the two. Tidal energy comes from the reduction of the difference in rotational kinetic energy between the two. The length of the day used to be much shorter and with every tidal flow it is lengthened. This damping is why we only see one side of the moon and why eventually the moon will be flung much farther out in orbit lengthing the day on earth. So if you bastards steal the rotation of the earth and I have to work 37 hour days somehow I will make you pay!

    23. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      Mr. W. Blanket says: Conservation of energy/momentum states that the Moon will move farther away as energy is dissipated through tidal friction. It seem that, in this case, the worst that could happen is the Moon stops receding.

    24. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. Stainless steel will always outlast steel in a marine environment. I grew up at the seashore, and I worked at a corrosion/coatings laboratory. Unprotected steel will rust in a matter of hours, and become unrecognizable by the end of a season. Galvanized steel is suitable for things like nails and railings. Aluminum can be used as a propeller or boat hull as long as you protect it with zinc anodes. Stainless steel is the only "no maintenance" metal, suitable for cleats, screws, propellers, clamps, etc. It will corrode, too - but at nowhere near the rate of the other metals. If used in a high-stress condition, it will suffer hydrogen embrittlement - but this is true of normal steel as well.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we could construct a generator out of plastic grocery bags and 6-pack rings

    26. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      I guess we shouldn't harness the angular momentum of the earth then either. Dammit, now what do we do? Attach a gigantic crank to the Moon?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    27. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      ocean going ships undergo an amazing amount of maintenance to keep themselves up - special paint, sacrificial anodes, etc...

      Why do you think that an aircraft carrier needs a crew in the thousands? Most of them are maintenance workers.

      The required maintenance works for boats, but would be too expensive for the amount of electricity current tide-generation ideas can produce.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    28. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      The problem with that system is that, like geothermal, it depends upon a relativly rare geographical condition: For this sytem, a river mouth with a large amount of tide flow. While there are many such, most are heavily used by ship traffic, which complicates matters.

      As noted in the article, the facility provides .012% of France's electricity. It's only 240 megawatts. I'm sorry, but I'd consider anything under 1% as a 'niche' generation system.

      Tidal power systems that can be essentially tossed anywhere there's a tide, even open ocean, are entirely different affairs, somewhat unfortuantly.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    29. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    30. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Wrong. Read and learn about existing projects that harness tidal power, mostly in the UK (Surprise surprise, it is being done by a nation of islands)

      http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/tidal.html

      http://www.marineturbines.com/home.htm

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    31. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by wiggles · · Score: 1

      Then Popular Science go it wrong. There's a tidal plant in France that's been there since 1967.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_tidal_power_pla nt

    32. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I don't know how big the earth tide is, but I do know from personal experience that you can hear creaks run the length of timbered mineshafts, and my friends who used to have their own mines say they're strongest when the moon is going overhead, and they run in one direction while the moon's coming up, and another when it's setting. (And vice-versa when it's on the opposite side of the Earth.) I'd read in other places that earthtide was more like an inch or so.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    33. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how tides work and the other explanations here are wrong too. It is not due to a pull by the moon. It is due to the fact that the earth is put in a non-inertial frame due to the gravity of the earth and moon. If the moon were at earth's 12 o'clock then high tide would be at 3 and 9. To understand this picture a sphere of water falling in a vacuum. Which way would it bulge? The situation is the same due to the principal of equivalence. The reason some tides are higher or lower than others is because the effect of the sun is about 1/3 of the moon's and they can add or subtract from each other.

    34. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      this is what happens when Sesame Street kids grow up to be engineers

    35. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      Why don't they run the water through turbines on the way in?

      Cheers!

      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    36. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Popular Science already investigated this: [...]
      You can pretty much discard any information after that clause. Popular Science is for crap. Full of flying cars and other BS.
    37. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phil: I'm betting he's going to swerve first.

    38. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    39. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The first tide is caused by the water being pulled away from the earth by the moon. The second tide is caused by the earth being pulled away from the water by the moon.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    40. Re:Power from the Moon's Gravity: by Neb+Namwen · · Score: 1

      Actually, tidal friction causes the moon to drift further and further away — and the Earth to rotate more slowly.

  109. Artist gets attention for art exhibit! News at 11! by jriskin · · Score: 1

    Is it me or did everyone miss the fact that this is an ART EXHIBITION!? The guy just wants attention like every other artist. I'd say he's doing a great job at it, staying in character and everyone is talking about him. Its perfect as soon as its debunked he'll probably talk about how the whole thing was a social experiment on how people react to things they can't prove or some sh!t like that.

  110. Performance art by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Stir the emotions of the technologists etc.

    That's what it is.

    --
    Deleted
  111. Re:What About using Gravity by shawb · · Score: 1

    This particular one would not work. There are inefficiencies in every end of the stage that in all likelihood would add up to more energy lost than gained through the water falling through the turbine. The primary losses would be in the electrolysis and burning ends. Currently electrolysis of water has an efficiency of around 50%, give or take. Direct combustion of hydrogen to run a generator to supply electricity to run the electrolysis also has inefficiencies, as would any other technology I currently know of such as fuel cells. The efficiency of this end of the cycle would also be capped at around 50%. Study of Carnot heat engines would give a better insight into why this is the maximum under most reasonable circumstances. Overall the electrolysis/burning system would then be at maximum about 25% efficient. Other problems such as friction, efficiency of the turbine used for the falling water, etc would come into play such that I doubt that the hydroelectric dam style turbine would produce more than 3X the energy of the burning of liberated hydrogen and oxygen from the whole process. I haven't actually looked into those numbers to see how far the water would have to fall, but my gut reaction is that the drop would be large enough to make manufacture of such a system infeasible on any significant economic level.

    Not to say that there is not some other system that could tap into gravitational energy, but my guess is that it would take a structure on the level of a space elevator to actually make it energy positive. And that would be a good idea anyways as lowering the ambient temperature of the top reaction end would indeed increase the efficiency of the Carnot engine portion of the system. However, frame dragging would probably be a much more practical phenomenon to exploit for energy once we are at that level of technology.

    --
    I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  112. A "free energy" machine is possible... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    A "free energy" machine is possible...there's vast amounts of power lying around the place if we could only convert matter simply/safely.

    Looking at the picture in that article though, I doubt that's what he's referring to. He's just another loon with a perpetual motion machine.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:A "free energy" machine is possible... by harrkev · · Score: 1

      And the PVC frame looks large enough to hold a bunch of hidden batteries.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  113. But you're a person of faith too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You most definitely have existential belief that can't be proved.

    Since your consciousness is completely in your brain, and your awareness of the outside world comes completely from your senses, there's no reason to believe that you're anything more than a "brain in a jar" connected to the matrix.

    Worse than that, how do you know that anything outside your head exists? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism ) After all, you already know dreams exist and that they are often indistinguisable from reality. By Occam's razor, the most logical assumption to make is that nothing outside your head exists.

    Since proving that life is not a dream or that you're not connected to the Matrix depends on things outside your head, you can't prove either.

    Now you could make the claim, "Well, I don't lose anything by believing in outside world and I have a lot to lose by ignoring the outside world (i.e. I could die)" but that's just another form of Pascal's Wager, which isn't a proof, just a mask for "faith". As is often pointed out, Pascal's Wager prevents you from living life to the fullest. Because of this "faith in the outside world", you don't even attempt to "escape the matrix" or "lucid dream your life the way you want it to be".

    Whether that "faith" is a faith that the "universe not only exists by the laws are such that we could evolve to be what we are now" or that "faith" is the faith that we're essentially God's evolving dream (imagination is all that's required for creation in our own minds and nothing exists outside of God, so this is an apt analogy), is still irrelevant.

    Faith is still faith.

    Me, I'll stick to agnosticism of God and "faith" in the outside world.

    1. Re:But you're a person of faith too by Tack · · Score: 2

      Since proving that life is not a dream or that you're not connected to the Matrix depends on things outside your head, you can't prove either.

      What you say is entirely true.

      And it's certainly a very interesting area of philosophy to explore. But to claim that everything (except that which is explicitly defined and self-contained, like the rules of logic) requires faith is to completely remove any meaning to the word "faith." It can no longer be used in meaningful conversion.

      I take a ball, and I drop it 20 times in a row. It falls to the ground each time. Then I go out and learn about the laws of gravity, and the huge body of theory around it. When I pick up the ball and drop it again, I will say that I "know" it will fall to the ground, based both consistent past experience and the science supporting it. You will say that the expectation that the ball will drop requires faith, and to some literal degree you're right, but to use the term that way (and expect everyone else to use it that way) is in practice nonsensical, and should be reserved for pedants and philosophers (which even then requires context).

    2. Re:But you're a person of faith too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > based both consistent past experience and the science supporting it

      But (playing devil's advocate) that's exactly what people of religious faith claim.

      Hindus believe in karma. You do something bad, you will get bad karma and it'll eventually catch up with you, and in nearly all cases, this is true, wouldn't you say? In the times when it doesn't appear to be the case, it's either an internal struggle (that you may or may not find out about after the person is dead...we've all heard of private battles) or it'll show up in the next life.

      Buddhists believe that the world is an illusion and if you're able to detach yourself from it, you won't suffer. This is true. If you don't give a damn about anything, you consistently won't suffer (by definition). The fact that complete detachment is impossible, is a matter of faith.

      Various non-protestant branches of the catholic religion believe that life is a test where we "prove our worth" and that every hardship has a gift if you belief it exists. It's most certainly the case that we're tested in life. It's also obvious that if you look for meaning, you can either find it or create it. (e.g. if you lose a child due to drunk driving, you can dedicate your life to making sure it doesn't happen to anyone else).

      I could go on through all the most common religions, but you get the point.

      BTW, Newton's scientific method is a way of thinking...a conceptual model and there's nothing magical about it being any more correct than non-Newtonian models of thinking. It's inherently inductive (meaning, you might just not run across the counterexample yet) since falsifiability is crucial to scientific validation, you may end up proving something that is false (i.e. Godel's theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel's_theorem states that some thing just can't be proved false or true). It works well enough in the world to trust in it, but it's not God.

    3. Re:But you're a person of faith too by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      That's what faith is though - in that case the belief that something that has happend 99 million times previously will happen the same way again. It's a faith based on emphirical data, but a faith nontheless. I've never heard anyone use the term in any other way, whether faith in a god/gods (often based on experience, upbringing, etc.) or faith that the bus will arrive on time (based on experience) of faith that if you stick your hand in a fire it'll hurt (also based on experience).

      We back these things up with explanations etc. but we are *always* making assumptions. We haven't all personally proved the theory of gravity, or that 2+2=4 or that the moon goes around the earth or that electrons flow from negative to positive, we have accepted what others tell us about it, added that to our worldview and that leads us to conclusions based on that. We may be completely wrong and all living in the matrix. Who knows? Who cares for that matter, as long as it's consistent and you're happy (OK postmodern worldview but that's what I have).

    4. Re:But you're a person of faith too by Tack · · Score: 1

      That's what faith is though - in that case the belief that something that has happend 99 million times previously will happen the same way again.

      I'd be willing to accept the use of the word faith in that context, except that most theists also use the word to describe their belief in God. To equate the expectation that the ball will drop (based on unvarying past experience and the established body of science explaining it) with a belief in God is to dilute the word into meaninglessness. I don't mean to belittle people's religious beliefs, but the two degrees of "faith" are just on completely different levels, to an extent that can't be captured with colloquial use of the word.

    5. Re:But you're a person of faith too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is 'meaningful conversion'?
      i guess you will need to define 'meaning' for me to actually get anything out of this paragraph.

    6. Re:But you're a person of faith too by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      To misapply Occam's razor in such a sense is to really bastardize everything you said or implied. The idea behind "brain in a jar" does require that there is a brain within a jar and that this somehow exists and that there is an extraordinary extremely complex machine feeding you all this information. When, in reality, the idea behind "brain in a jar" requires so many supporting premises that it spirals well beyond the assumption that what you see is what you get. This is in the same thread as concluding that Occam's Razor supports the idea that "God Did It" because all scientific explanations require more than three words, it must be the best explanation out there. As if the matrix within a massive machine isn't necessarily more complex than existence within reality, not simulating a sub-reality.

      Faith is nothing more than surrender. A logical fallacy that allows me to accept a belief without evidence. To compare the faith in belief of God with the faith that I am typing on a computer, is nothing short of intellectual abandon.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    7. Re:But you're a person of faith too by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I just had this debate a few evolution-threads back. Basically, I think it requires faith - but there is little similarity between the kind of faith that is required for every day life, and the kind of faith required by major religions.

  114. Stop them! They're killing off the birds and bees by mbstone · · Score: 1
    Now we know what's happening to the Earth's magnetic field! It's being siphoned off to make "free" energy! But the birds and the bees are disappearing as a result!

    Save the birds and the bees!

  115. Infinite energy and global warming by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can call it altruistic but you really need to
    consider the long-term ramifications of an
    infinite energy source.

    If there was all of this abundant energy available,
    it would be put to work, and the net result is heat.

    Lots of it.

    Homo Sapiens has already proven they can't manage
    what they have now.

    An infinite energy source would likely result in
    massive global problems, likely not survivable.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:Infinite energy and global warming by jamestheprogrammer · · Score: 1

      No. While a large source of energy would result in heat, global warming is caused by an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, coming from sources such as burnt fossil fuels (like coal power plants). If a large source of energy like this were to become available for cheap, it would potentially replace coal and oil power plants. In addition, an abundance of electricity would drive down the cost of hydroelectrolysis, allowing us to make hydrogen fuel for cheaper than gasoline. The net result would instead be global warming going away, not worsening, as you say.

      --
      "You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." - President George W. Bush
  116. Bunk, but... by capologist · · Score: 1

    If it were true, does it occur to anyone that a simple perpetual motion machine might not be a good thing? If it were possible using readily available parts to produce a machine that produced more energy than it took in, and hence possible to generate unlimited amounts of energy, it would only be a matter of time before some psycho produced a blast that would rival the Chicxulub meteorite.

  117. Yeah yeah by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whoa, my crackpot meter pegged with just the intro! Surely we can harness the heat from all this BS and solve our energy problems forever!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  118. No girlfriend/boyfriend for you! by mveloso · · Score: 0, Troll



    This attitude shows why you will always be single.

  119. Its Got to do More Than Turn a Wheel by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    This demonstration has to do more than turn a wheel. It needs to turn a wheel, attached to a generator, creating enough current to light up a light bulb, all in a sealed enclosure.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  120. April 1st again? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Or are there really people that stupid and/or uneducated out there?

    True, energy conservation, while stated as a law, is an observation and need not be true in all circumstances. It has, however, been very well tested and there is no indication at all that is may be inaccurate. On the other hand there is a large number of documented incidents were people fraudulently claimed they got around it....

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  121. Re:What About using Gravity by RichardEasterling · · Score: 1

    Not a troll. Just an inocent question. besides could you not fill the pipes with an inert gas that is heavier than either hydrogen or oxygen so that your hydrogen and oxygen would just naturally move to the top of the pipe.

  122. The particular cheat by BooleanLobster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I read the Steorn patent a while ago (the last time it was posted on /.), and I spotted the flaw pretty easily. The machine is meant to move a metal plate around to selectively block the magnetic field from a permanent magnet. If you could do that without using too much energy, then it would be a viable perpetual motion machine, but moving conductors around in magnetic fields takes precisely "too much" energy.

    --
    In hell, you will find a mountain of broken, feces-covered typewriters and a stack of copies of the First Folio.
    1. Re:The particular cheat by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this device, which took me a while to find the problem (it wasn't until I tried to mentally trace where the field lines would go that I saw the flaw).

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    2. Re:The particular cheat by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it looks to me like the center magnet's north pole would provide equal force to two adjacent outer magnets, and the south pole would do the same, creating a nice magnetic brake which converted rotational forces into vibration and heat without mechanical friction. perhaps quite useful in an environment where you need to stop something with zero possibility of creating sparks, and use of advanced polymers would be too expensive or the environment would be too harsh.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:The particular cheat by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Actually, it turns out that the net magnetic field due to all the outer magnets is 0 pretty much everywhere in the circle. The inside magnet pretty much doesn't interact with the outer ones in any way. Try tracing some field lines, and you'll see that there can't be any flux linkage between the inside magnet and the outside.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  123. Re:What About using Gravity by RichardEasterling · · Score: 1

    What if you allowed gravity to lift the gasses by filling the pipes with an inert gas that is heaver than either hydrogen or oxygen?

  124. Hopes up? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    In my experience if something seems too good to be true it generally is. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

    What? Are you telling us to be skeptical? Shame on you! Who is paying you to hold back this technology! You've seen it and you still tell people don't "get you hopes up!" Do you have no principles! This is free energy man! It will get us off of Big Cheney's Big Oil Buddy's big oil industry! Cheney's been around for decades, making sure we never get free energy! Even Ayn Rand wrote about free energy. She believed it! Read her documentary work, "Atlas Shrubs". I once new a guy that had a machine that would replace the internal combustion engine with a hypervoltaic carbeurtor that would run on plain tap water! But Cheney stopped him! Forced him to file bankruptcy!

    How much did Cheney pay you? Bush will not leave office, because Cheney will assassinate him. He will assassinate anyone who is behind free energy. Bush knows about free energy, and is about to sign executive order 1289 abolishing the big oil industry and giving free energy to everyone. But Cheney won't let him! Someone stop this!

    It was Cheney and his Hallibuddies that blew up the World Trade Center! He personally fired a missile into the Pentagon to try to kill Rumsfield, but he missed! It's all true. It's all documented! All of the debunkers have been debunked, and those debunkers debunked, until we are left with the TRUTH! I heard it all on Alex Jones show. Cheney sacrifices little children at the Bohemian Grove and Bill maher watches! Alex Jones took an helicopter up and discovered aluminimum oxites so that proves that Cnehey will kill free energy.

    The internal comubustion engine is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! There was a secret meeting in 1914 at Hyde Island where the oil men got together with the bankers and outlawed free engergy! this nation was founcted on freedom and we don';t have free engtery! This nation is not a corporation like they told you in the zionists schools its a sovereign confederations of colonies, and if you cross out the words "frederal reserve" on your dollar bills you will be free!

    FREE ENERGY TO THE PEOPLE THE REVOLUTION STARTS NOW!!! DOWN TO THE LYING LAPDOGS OF LIBBY SLASHDOT!

    So how is my post? Did I get the right amount of paranoia, spittle and spelling errors? Do you think the Truthers will finally let me into their club?

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  125. They won't release video by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    They had to release it 20 minutes ago (6pm ET), but they swiftly changed the message to say "Due to technical difficulties we will now be live from London on the 5th July."

    What does that even mean..?

    Jokers.

    If they have technical difficulties it doesn't take a lot of effort to post a photo on flickr or the video on youtube, for Christ's sakes. The photo spread earlier is fake, and claimed to not be Orbo.

    Over 8 million british pounds were invested in this company, and it's apparently all a giant scam, or joke.O

  126. Open Source Energy! by aled · · Score: 2, Funny

    Energy wants to be free (as in speech), man!


    Let's not use any Energy that is not GPL'ed!!! Closed sources Energies are the cause of all evil!!!
    --

    "I think this line is mostly filler"
    1. Re:Open Source Energy! by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

      Let's not use any Energy that is not GPL'ed!!! Closed sources Energies are the cause of all evil!!!

      No, no, GPL energy is dangerous! It infects other energy it comes into contact with and makes it GPL too. We can't have any GPL energy in our enterprise or the whole place will turn into GPL!

  127. The Rules by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    One more time, here are the rules.

    1. You can't break even.
    2. You can't win.
    3. You can't quit.


    While I will agree that "Nature hides in plain sight", any perpetual motion device violates the rules. About as close we could ever get to perpetual energy here on earth would be geothermal energy, but this is dependent on the Sun continuing to shine and the temperature on Earth not dropping to +3 degrees Kelvin.

    1. Re:The Rules by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1
      Or as the great MC Hawking put it:

      In a closed system, Entropy always goes up.
      That's the second law, now you know what's up.
      You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
      'Cause Entropy will take it although it seems a shame.
      The Second Law as we now know is quite clear to state,
      That Entropy must increase and not dissipate.
  128. Magnetic Engine by Traa · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing this guy is reinventing the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator

    In other words, yet another pseudo perpetual machine.

    It is possible that this guy doesn't know his science, but I'm betting on a scam.

  129. Hmm by Gte · · Score: 1

    I hear that as a side effect it uses a revolutionary recursive routine to compresses *any* file stored near it down to 1 byte. Guaranteed lossless!

  130. Big news! by Malakusen · · Score: 1

    Nothing can stop Perpetual Energy machine!

    --
    Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
  131. Before you scoff.... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    Note that the quoted part of the article says "time variation in magnetic fields". If there is a varying magnetic field, no laws of physics need to be violated to get energy out of it. It's not perpetual motion - it's extracting energy from whatever it causing the field to vary.

            Brett

  132. How is this new? by br4nd0nh3at · · Score: 0

    "consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed" 1- haven't magnetic devices like their's been made? 2- the devices don't create or destroy energy it just uses what's there like wind turbines. right? Any explanations

  133. Too diffuse to work by TallDave · · Score: 1

    It can't produce usable power from the gravity/magnetic fields of the Earth, Sun, or galaxy. They're present, but they're all far too diffuse.

    That said, it's not impossible someone figured out how to draw a very tiny amount of power, enough to perhaps make something tiny spin to show "it's working!"

    But I'm guessing permanant magnets. Those Sonship guys were selling those forever, along with the magic laundry ball.

  134. Hey Slashdot... by E++99 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Some guy has a web page that says the real value of PI is exactly 3... why don't you splash that up on the front page? ;-)

  135. One Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DO NOT WANT

  136. It's great! by pev · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I'll generate some controversey, but Good On Them! This is entertainment. Those REALLY in the know will ignore it. No harm done. Those less in the know will discuss it which is normally interesting for all the opinions expressed. Those least in the know will be conned, which is normally very amusing to everyone else. In the most unexpected scenario its actually true, in which case everybody wins regardless. So bar some embarassment over people being suckered when they should know better, which in reality is a positive learning experience, this is all great! More please!

    ~Pev

  137. He's a charlatan by Diablo1399 · · Score: 1

    'consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.' If your bullsh*t detector didn't beep like crazy when you read this line, there's no hope for you.

    1. Re:He's a charlatan by patently+obvious+nam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll say. Unfortunately the typical american long ago lost all critical reasoning skills. These days I am disgusted to see even scientists are falling for a tarted up, 21st century version "perpetual Motion machines" debunked in the 19th century! The next thing you know they'll be claiming the existence of a new type of electron wave, or something! What? . . . Doh!

  138. I have a PhD in Physics. by drolli · · Score: 1

    And i refuse to think about a specific scheme of magnets or wires flying around in funny schemes. If you move something magnetic into a magnetic field, the energy content of the field changes. You either put Energy into it or the Field decreases, if the magnet is dragged into it. One way to put energy back in the field is by increasing a coil current, the other is mechanical work you have to do by removing the magnetic thing from the field. To say it clearly: As long as we assume a homogeneus time of the whole space, invariant c, then there is no way to gain energy from a H=|B|^2+|E|^2 field. If the magnet wiggles to fast you will lose energy.

    BTW: As long as they have the fucking scheme of them selecting the scientists and still no Peer review (a peer revie includes that you can not select who evalutes you work) nor are willing to publish, selecting scientists is just a PR hoax. No serious physicist would work under these conditions. Usually finding the flaws in a perpetuum mobile is a good exercise for first semester students.

  139. Hang on? It's the twenty first century now by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Didn't Benjamin Franklin debunk this thing in his study of Mesmerism and the power of magnetism? More than two hundred years later and we still have magnetic scams. I'm also suprised that the USA still produces scams as amusing as the stuff Mark Twain used to write about - but since anti-intellectualism is the trend and education is in a poor state I shouldn't be suprised. A simple but thorough science education would help equip the next generation with better bullshit detectors.

  140. Is it getting energy from the environment? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If it's not, it's not going to work. Sorry, try again.

    On the other hand, maybe this guy has found a novel way to extract energy from the environment. Time was, we didn't know how to turn sunlight into electricity. Now we do.

    Time will tell.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  141. Good Lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether God exists depends on how it is defined.

    Two working definitions I use as plug-in substitutes for "God", both of which definitely do exist, are "love" and "something we don't understand".

  142. lots of ways to tap hidden power by r00t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An easy one is the crystal radio. You're getting power from the transmitter. Make an array of crystal radios, on different frequencies, gang them together... hey, now you're getting a good deal of power!

    The Earth's magnetic field wanders. Use that.

    There are various gyroscopic-like things related to the Earth's orbit and rotation, particlarly having to do with things not being all planar. Use that.

  143. 100% != 99.99999875 by NKS_6Sigma · · Score: 1

    I mean, even if we get >90% and eventually tweak this to 99.9999875%, would we be able to tell the difference?

  144. an analogy? by rgravina · · Score: 1

    The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real. Am I the only one who thinks that doesn't make any sense (and isn't an analogy, either). Even if the sentence did make sense, and really was an analogy, what does the existance/non-existance of a god have to do with perpetual energy?
  145. Re:What About using Gravity by catprog · · Score: 1

    My improvement idea for that.

    Fuel cell at the top.

    --
    My Transformation Website
    Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
    Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  146. Just incase you didn't RTFA.... by NPN_Transistor · · Score: 1

    Quoted from the article: "Update 5: Jeebus, what a non-event. Even though they wield supreme control over the laws of physics, Steorn had to cancel tonight's event "due to technical difficulties." We'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetically tragic. The live stream is now rescheduled ambiguously to the 5th July. Now move along folks, there's nothing to see here." Looks like this device is no different from any of the others, with the creators saying lines like, "Oops. It stopped. Must be some technical difficulties", or "Those wires coming out of my pocket? Those are just loose threads!".

  147. Fundamentals understood? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    The fundamentals of magnetics and gravity are not even yet well understood and definitely have not been understood for hundreds of years. Their behaviour is reasonably well understood, but not the mechanism behind them.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  148. 1.0 ** -64 seconds by crovira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Plank time, baby.

    That's how fast you have to be.

    I call bullshit on the ignorant article

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:1.0 ** -64 seconds by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your title was "1.0 ** -64 seconds". That's still 1 second.

  149. Re:What About using Gravity by CorSci81 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then you're actually talking about buoyancy doing the lifting, not gravity. Unfortunately, gasses don't tend to stratify, they tend to mix. So now you have the complication of separating your hydrogen and oxygen from your inert gas before they recombine on their own. Sorry to be a buzzkill, but you generally don't get something for nothing.... damn thermodynamics anyway.

  150. Coriolis machines by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only(?) perpetual motion machines that can be built on a small scale are coriolis machines. Way back in the 19th and early 20th centuries is was a fad to build perpetual clocks with horizontally rotating pendulums that stole energy from the earth's rotation to power themselves. The amount of power extracted is very small though and requires careful leveling of the clock. Also, they won't work in the tropics or at the poles. They only work in intermediate latitudes.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Coriolis machines by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      The only(?) perpetual motion machines that can be built on a small scale are coriolis machines. Way back in the 19th and early 20th centuries is was a fad to build perpetual clocks with horizontally rotating pendulums that stole energy from the earth's rotation to power themselves. The amount of power extracted is very small though and requires careful leveling of the clock. Also, they won't work in the tropics or at the poles. They only work in intermediate latitudes.

      A small side effect of those is: use enough of them and Earth will literally stop spinning. Of course that'd be really a LOT of them.. but something to consider.

    2. Re:Coriolis machines by Falladir · · Score: 1

      The do work at the poles. They actually work best at the poles. I mean, just think about it...at the pole the world is like a turntable, for purposes of this device.

    3. Re:Coriolis machines by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      requires careful leveling of the clock

      In other words, if it doesn't work, it's the user's fault. You could spend years trying to get it "just right" before you finally realize that in fact, it does not work.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    4. Re:Coriolis machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, they won't work in the tropics or at the poles. They only work in intermediate latitudes.

      I live in the Caribbean you insensitive clod!
    5. Re:Coriolis machines by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      No, it is not so bad since it has a built-in spirit level and adjustble feet. These clocks really work since they require an extremely small amount of power. My grandparents had one, but eventually a cleaner knocked it off the mantel piece.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  151. Coriolis effect by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Your great grand parents may very well have had a Coriolis clock on the mantel piece. Those devices extract a tiny amount of energy from the earth's rotation using a horizontally rotating pendulum so you never need to wind them - you just give the clock a slight shake to get it going and balance it carefully using a built-in spirit level and set screws. My grand parents had one. These are very delicate things of course and the effect is not useful for powering anything more than a jewel bearing clock, but that should teach you to never to say never, let alone shout it.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Coriolis effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, he's right to say never. The device you describe is not a perpetual motion machine: perpetual means forever (an infinite amount of time). The machine you describe will stop the rotation of the earth in a finite amount of time, and therefore does not qualify.

      Dr. Tim Nelson
      Staff Physicist
      Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

  152. Yes and No by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One high tide is the ocean being pulled toward the Moon. Twelve hours later it's being thrown away from the Earth by centrifugal force. The Earth-Moon system rotates around a point 1,000 miles below sea level. Tidal braking is however why the Moon always faces the Earth.

    1. Re:Yes and No by Matt+Edd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Twelve hours later it's being thrown away from the Earth by centrifugal force. It's actually the Earth being pulled away from the water.
  153. Old story! by ironwill96 · · Score: 1

    This is the "Steorn" company's technology that has been floating around for almost 2 years now, they just renamed the product to Orbo. It is supposedly in scientific validation now. The only thing I say they have going from them is not accepting any outside investment or selling stock etc. So really, if it's a hoax, its the dumbest and one of the most expensive ones ever since they've spent millions on obtaining patents for the tech all over the world. I think they truly believe they have found free energy accidentally, whether they have or not..that remains to be seen.

    --
    "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
    1. Re:Old story! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      or they have a rich sucker on the back end.
      or it is a huge PR hoax.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  154. Windmills by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Windmills harness the power of air moving under force from both solar and the Earth's rotation. One of the oldest transducers known to industry, after the waterwheel.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  155. Re:What About using Gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and who fills the pipes? maxwell's daemon?

  156. Slight Technical Difficulties by nermaljcat · · Score: 1

    There is a *surprising* update on their website about the live feed:

    Update 4/7/07 23:30 - Due to slight technical difficulties we will now be publishing the live stream as of Thursday 5th July.

    http://www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001
  157. Fsck the demonstration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is he willing to open up the design so anyone can duplicate his results?

    No? Then he is a charlatan!

    This is the one sure test of any bogus science!

  158. hey! by fromtheblueline · · Score: 1

    I'll buy that!

  159. Ha by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

    Touche.

  160. I wonder..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....if at least a few perpetual energy machines do actually work VERY WELL. They may not be perpetual, but work really darn well.

    But then you have all these big power companies that can stand to lose a lot, if not all their profits, to that perpetual machine. They could possibly play a role in making these machines and inventors disappear off the face of the Earth. I recently watched a movie called "Who Killed the Electric Car", a documentary film. If you have not seen it, go rent it. Now.

    I have to admit, the Law of Conservation of Energy is pretty solid. I am sure it will eventually be possible to make such a machine, but not in another several thousand years if not millions of years. The Law of Conservation of Energy will need to be revised. Look at how long it took us to get into Space when the first sentient humans first gazed at the Heavens. I am sure our ancestors thought it were impossible to go out into Space. Look at us now.

    Give the human race some credit. We may not find a perpetual motion/energy machine now, but eventually. If we don't destroy ourselves first that is. Maybe someday we'll find The Creator (whomever you believe in).....no really. Perhaps The Creator is probably trying to make a perpetual energy/motion machine now I bet. After He/She/It succeeds, then we'll get the hand-me-down version. The simplest design tends to be the most logical and effective. It may involve a rock, some strings and a stick, who knows. But one thing is for sure, where there is a will, there is a way.

    Now...where did I leave my time machine???......

  161. Is a poem true? Is fiction true? by SlideGuitar · · Score: 1

    Oh the whole reality of God debate is just shot through with absurdities. Is a poem untrue because it asserts an impossibility? Is a novel a falsehood because it's truths were imagined by an author and constructed from dreams and visions?

    The theism/atheism/agnosticism discussion generally relies on such a limited understanding of what religion is that it becomes simply boring.

    The truth of God is the truth of poetry and imagination and emotion. God texts are literature. You are free to argue that all literature is equally a religious text, or to say that your pleasure is to elevate one particular text to a place of particular importance in your life and culture.

    Either way, the religious position is no different at root from the theater or literature... it is a collective decision to take a literature or book very seriously and to live out a version of the truths found therein.

    Broadway theater is a place of a dozen separate religions, each experienced for a few hours, and each lasting as long as the show runs.

    Some people prefer the silly truths, other people prefer the deeper truths, from within a given literature (eg. fundamentalist Christians and thoughtful Christians.) But the argument against religion always comes down to an argument against literature, poetry and imagination, and to a claim that the scientific method produces "truths" while literature poetry and imagination produce "lesser truths" or "falsehoods."

    That in itself is a failure of the imagination, and proves that people haven't had very good liberal arts educations.

    Scientific atheists waste their time trying to prove that poems are untrue, or that if they are "true", they are not true in the sense that really matters. Well excuse me but poetry might be even truer than physics, and it is certainly true in a different way from physics, and that is all that religion is and has ever been. Lived poetry. People choosing to live out a particular set of loved and communally shared poems.

    Within the poetic religious domain there is plenty of room for argument about beauty and ethics and which poems produce more happiness for more people.

    But just forget please about silly arguments about how poetry isn't as true as science because that is all that most religion versus science, theism versus atheism, debates come down to in my experience.

    Peace.

  162. Wait.... by I7D · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this the joke where we wrap the skeletons of Edison, Watt, Ampre, Einstein, Newton, and the like with magnets - and then wrap copper wires around them to generate power by them turning in their graves?

    --
    Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
  163. dark energy by andrewjj20 · · Score: 1

    Now if we could only harness dark energy, we could slow the universe expansion and power my computers at the same time.

  164. Bogus by jandersen · · Score: 1

    'Time variance in magnetic fields'? Even if this wasn't simply a bungled up phrace (variance is something from statistics, he probably means 'variation' or 'variability' - or even 'fluctuation'), tapping energy from variations in magnetic fields is nothing new, nor does it violate any physical laws. Indeed, if you have a radio or tv, you are already tapping energy from 'time variations in the magnetic field': the radiowaves. Admittedly not a lot of energy, but certainly a lot more than what you would find in most natural fields on Earth. In fact, you can tap significant amounts of energy if you live close enough to a big radio transmitter; whether you are allowed to is another matter, of course.

  165. Yep by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    About the only "free" energy that we can get is solar, especially spaceborne solar. Too bad no one wants to invest in it.

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:Yep by BungaDunga · · Score: 0

      Wait, if we follow the GP's logic, photovoltaics are _sapping the energy of the sun_. There's no way we can "take power" from the moon. For the moon to crash into the earth it needs to have a sufficient centripetal force acting on it to counteract inertia ("centrifugal force"). Somehow "reducing" the gravitational force by harnessing it via the tides would just push the moon out a bit faster. Besides, all the water on the planet is rising and falling- there is no way sticking a few turbines out there (the earth is frickin' huge in comparison) could possibly affect anything.

    2. Re:Yep by mikael · · Score: 1

      The Moon is already moving away from the Earth at the rate of 3.8 metres/century:

      Most of the tidal effects seen on the Earth are caused by the Moon's gravitational pull, with the Sun making only a small contribution. Tidal effects result in an increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 3.8 metres (12.5 feet) a century, or 3.8 centimetres (1.5 inches) a year.[42]

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Yep by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but shipping all those batteries back and forth on the Space Shuttle is somewhat expensive.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  166. Magnetic viscosity by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Supposedly magentic viscosity (which has been known for 100+ years) make the magnetic interraction non symetric (fast out/slow in approach of the magnet) and that this somehow break down noether theorem in some configuration, allowing them to gain potential energy when they had none =>OU. This is what they say on their forum.

    I think this is a bunch of hooey , and they have not demonstrated any configuration into which magnetic viscosity is ANYTHING but an energy-loss option.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Magnetic viscosity by joefitz · · Score: 1

      Basically the magnetic viscosity argument is rubbish. Sean's thought experiments the effects of neglect induction and the internal state of the magnets. To get an accurate description of what is happening, you need to look at the internal state of the magnet. At a microscopic level, there is no asymmetry, it only arises do to various spins being oriented in different directions. You can basically think of this as the domains growing and shrinking. This doesn't violate Noether's theorem, since the strength of the underlying physical interactions (i.e. magnetic dipole moments, etc.) are time invariant.

      An easier way to see this is by going to quantum mechanics. If we consider the whole device, we can construct a Hamiltonian which describes the dynamics of the system. The eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian are taken to be the energy of various states, and if when the system starts in an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, it does not evolve. This means it retains the same energy.

      Actually, conservation of energy is essentially written into quantum mechanics when the Hamiltonian is time invariant (as it must be for elementary particles). The Hamiltonian is effectively the total energy operator. Since the evolution of any quantum system is given by the operator exp(-iHt), it is impossible to move form one energy to another.

  167. Right-On!!! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, this is just too much fun!

    Everybody is cranking out lots of criticisms and such, but you just know everybody is still going to be paying attention on July 5th!

    Typically with over-unity claims which actually make the news, there is a big press release and gab-fest, and then a few weeks later the inventor vanishes from view never to be heard from again.

    I recall one gentleman in Japan, Kohei Minato, three years back who had managed to garner a lot of positive press with his funky spinning wheels. He had an Irish minister of some sort pay him a visit and descriptions of his free-spinning wheel are really cool. (The coolest item is in the last fifth of the page at the bottom.) He generated some modest interest in 2004 when a journalist was significantly impressed with his work and published an article (copied at the link above). I wonder what happened to Mr. Minato. I've not heard a peep about him since then. If he's in jail, it's not the kind you get put in for fraud, because then there would be some record of his being prosecuted. Perhaps its one of those special prisons they have for people who dare to tap into some forbidden energy source the petrochem companies don't want anybody to know about. There are tales of inventors being kidnapped at gunpoint. I know a guy who worked for an agency whose job it is to kill scientists. But hey, shhhhh. Stuff like is entirely not real. I'm only joking. Really. Joking. Shhhh. Plausible deniablility. Cuz the guy is just gone. There's nothing on the man that isn't three years old.

    Well, actually, I did hear one peep. There was a fellow inquiring after Minato, claiming to have last seen him in Japan in December of 2006. Apparently, Mr. Minato has been offered a production facility in another country. But that could be just the background noise of the grand ol' internet. Who's to say?

    Anyway. . , if this Orbo thing is a scam, you can bet it's a great one. Their showing has been really patient and well-crafted thus far. I'm so happy they're still around a year after their first announcement. I mean, think about how much effort is being expended here; it involves a large number of people who are all towing the line. Scientists, and production staff, and PR people. If this is a scam, it's much, much larger than any other over-unity claim, which usually only involve one or two people working in a garage. According the the wonderful world of wikkipedia, Steorn invited a democratically selected member of a forum to visit their facility, and they wowed her with a bunch of smoke and mirrors. This is so rich! Damn, I'm excited!

    I wonder, if it's all scammy, how they've worked out how to not go to jail for fraud? Is it illegal to lie to your investors? Maybe they'll all claim it was just an elaborate test of the PR abilities, a cosmic joke to see who they could fool, and that really, no money changed hands. Who knows?

    Or if they've got some kind of device on their hands which draws energy from somewhere else, like the Earth's magnetic field as some have suggested, then. . , hey, is that cool or what? They've done enough high-profile press work to perhaps not get vanished. (Though I wouldn't count on it.) Either way, Steorn is putting on a helluva neat show. This is pulp science at its best! It reminds me of my favorite period in fiction; the late 1700's, early 1800's, when steam and flying contraptions and "Watson, get the pistols!" was the way science was conducted. A showing of a revolutionary new technology in an art gallery? Are you serious?! Well, damn, let me get my top hat and cane! These days are sorely lacking adventure in science. Too few pith helmets and too much slick corporate chrome.

    So, rock-on, Steron! I can't wait to see what you pull out of your hat! And if you actually have something genuine, a word of advice: Opensourcing it would keep you from getting killed by the Bad Men. If you don't have

    1. Re:Right-On!!! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, a company that makes perpetual motion machines might make for one hell of an ARG (Alternate Reality Game for thoae uninitiated) element...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:Right-On!!! by hey! · · Score: 1

      I wonder what happened to Mr. Minato.


      Easy, he's in Gitmo. Where else would you expect if he had invented free energy?
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  168. Their Disclaimer... by Franklin+Brauner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a good judge of character..and these guys strike me as, at minimum, sincere. I want badly for it to be true -- bring on the Holodeck next -- and replicators! I'm ready for the future!

    However, the proof of the pudding is under the crust. Have a look a their Disclaimer, which says it all:

    "Steorn and its suppliers further do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within the Materials or Ideas."

    Indeed.

    1. Re:Their Disclaimer... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "want badly for it to be true -"
      which makes you a BAD judge of character in those circumstances... People selling snake oil have made a lot of money off people who are good judges of character.

      Always keep that in mind when learn or hearing something extraordinary.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  169. Balance. by WK2 · · Score: 1

    Wading through the noise is not pleasant but you get to choose what is noise and what is signal.

    That is true. However, it is important to have balance. Slashdot is "news for nerds," but in recent years, it has reported on internet trolls, Britney Spear's beaver, and scammers' wild claims. There are certain things that just shouldn't be reported here, and unproven claims that we are pretty sure are impossible is one of them.

    If you report everything, the noise-to-signal ratio will be so large that it will be unreasonably difficult to find anything of value. If I wanted to read about wild claims, I would go to crackpot.com. On the other hand, I did click on this story...

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  170. Occult by yusing · · Score: 1

    "It stumped scientists for years. Finally, one exceptionally observant woman discovered, hidden in the base, a tiny cold-fusion reactor."

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  171. Mod parent up by navarroj · · Score: 1

    Yes please, the 'logic' in GP post is all wrong.

  172. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    "Perpetual Energy Machine Getting Lots of Attention"

    Yes, aided and abetted by Slashdot.

    Here's a clue, editors: if a story contains the phrase "perpetual [energy, motion]" then your best bet is to delete the submission immediately. Either that or file it in the correct "Monty Python foot" category.

    1. Re:Subject by Lxy · · Score: 1

      Here's a clue, editors: if a story contains the phrase "perpetual [energy, motion]" then your best bet is to delete the submission immediately.

      Why? While perpetual motion is theoretically unlikely, it won't stop people from trying. Same thing with cold fusion. You honestly believe the laws of physics are set in stone? You honestly believe that EVERYTHING that has been written and discovered about physics is 100% correct, and that it's not even remotely possible that 'undocumented features' don't exist?

      Slashdot is a site built around science and technology. That means that most people on this site (except you, apparently) are open to new ideas and new thinking.

      Perpetual motion could solve so many problems I don't know where to begin. Because of that, it's irresponsible of us to completely ignore every crackpot that comes along claiming to have succeeded. Approach it in a scientific manner of course, and be doubtful of unlikely science. Whatever you do, don't discount the possibility.

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    2. Re:Subject by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      Some invent a machine that produce more energy out then it takes in to run, then they better show everybody, and include schematics and specs.

      Or build something and sell it.

      In principle, you are correct, we need to keep an open mind, but not so open are brains fall out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "While perpetual motion is theoretically unlikely"

      Perpetual motion is theoretically impossible. Until you have a good working theory of *why* something would work and be consistent with known laws, don't bother trying to build it. It will fail.

      Being open to new ideas is not the same as taking a can opener to your head and letting every shitty and unfounded idea in the crackpot universe seep in.

  173. The best way to test this... by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

    is for them to enter it for James Randi's million-dollar challenge.

    Those guys are very good at designing test protocols to weed out scammers and the deluded.

    Peer-review in physics journals by all means, but let a conjuror get his hands on it first.

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
  174. "...and I don't know how you do it... by codeButcher · · Score: 1
    ...making juice out of nothing at all"

    Apologies, Jim.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  175. No such thing as centrifugal force! by IndieKid · · Score: 1
    1. Re:No such thing as centrifugal force! by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Excellent! But I say Bond dies because the inertia force.

    2. Re:No such thing as centrifugal force! by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Inertia is not a force. It's a property of matter.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  176. Demo has been cancelled by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    It says on Engadget that the demonstration has been cancelled.

  177. NO! STOP this madness! by Poromenos1 · · Score: 1

    God, don't you understand? You and everyone else supporting solar energy will be the death of us all. If you use solar energy, YOU USE THE ENERGY OF THE SUN! You're using up the sun, and if you use up all of it, it'll blow out! What are we going to do THEN, mr. Smartypants?

    Stop the insanity! Stop using solar cells!

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  178. Omission in moderation function by Ganesh999 · · Score: 1

    Ok, I give up. How does one moderate the *original*article* as flamebait?

    C

  179. Re:What About using Gravity by m50d · · Score: 1

    No; to get the hydrogen/oxygen to go into such a pipe at the bottom, you'd have to pump them in forcefully, with as much energy as it would take to move them up by other means. Seriously, creation of energy doesn't happen, and because mass is conserved gravity is never going to give you any; the amount you could. If you want free energy for human purposes, work on efficient solar panels, or nuclear fusion; there are plenty of places where we know there's enough energy if we can just solve the engineering problems of getting it. But gravity is not in itself a source of energy.

    --
    I am trolling
  180. Wow, interesting comment buried at minus one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not too surprised at this unfortunate rating you've recieved. You really do have to play to the system to get the mod points right and rise above the astroturfers, jokers and dim wits. I"m glad I was browsing at -1 as usual. Now I'm actually interested in this.

  181. Apologies by rjcobain · · Score: 1

    This company is an embarassment to the Irish people, please accept my apologies for being Irish at this time.

  182. some patience by Gearoid_Murphy · · Score: 1

    ok, at the risk of sounding terminally optimistic, lets wait until these claims have been completely debunked before we toss the idea to the dogs. At the very least, they didn't have to do a public demonstration of this phenomenon (lets call it that for the moment), yet they did and furthermore, the results of 22 independent international scientists will do more than even our most scathing sarcasm to invalidate these claims. I am course Irish and biased (:-}

    --
    prepare the survey weasels.
    1. Re:some patience by rjcobain · · Score: 1

      There is no doubt that they are able to get 'free' energy from the background magnetic flux, but this is not the same as disobeying the 1st law of thermodynamics and neither is it going to be able to provide much power.

  183. Here is another one. by master_p · · Score: 1

    The concept of creation requires the existence of a spacetime continuum. When God created the universe, if there was a spacetime continuum God was into, then God was finite at the moment of creation.

    It just shows how manmade religions are.

    1. Re:Here is another one. by E++99 · · Score: 1

      The concept of creation requires the existence of a spacetime continuum. When God created the universe, if there was a spacetime continuum God was into, then God was finite at the moment of creation.

      No, space-time is part of the natural universe. Every concept of creation I've ever heard includes the creation of space-time as part of the creation of the universe. That creation can only be thought of as a time-based event in the frame of reference of the universe itself, not in God's frame of reference, which is timeless.
    2. Re:Here is another one. by master_p · · Score: 1

      Since God's frame of reference is timeless, how can God create anything? creation means changing the state of God's spacetime.

    3. Re:Here is another one. by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Since God's frame of reference is timeless, how can God create anything? creation means changing the state of God's spacetime.

      Creation in God's frame of reference is something like a constant outflowing of Life into creation. Creation as a singular act in time is a concept that only has meaning from that created time-based reference frame. That shows not only the limitations to thinking about time, but is also indicative that the deeper understanding of creation is that of a constant inflowing of Life, rather than that of some collection of singular events in time. Asking what happened before the creation of time is somewhat like asking what's just to the East of Euclidean Space. However, cause-and-effect, though we tend to only think about in the context of time, does not have that limitation. So while it is not a meaningful question to ask what happened "temporally before" the creation of time, I think it is meaningful to ask what its causes were, and therefore what "causally preceded" it.
    4. Re:Here is another one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Since God's frame of reference is timeless, how can God create anything? creation means changing the state of God's spacetime.

      You've got it-- God was around forever, unchanging, until he created the universe for whatever ineffable reasons he decided to do so when he did.

      And if God is beyond space and time, as many claim, then in a sense the universe must also be eternal. It's interesting that Revelations predicts and "ending" to the world which takes place in heaven, where there should obviously be no "endings." The "final battle" of good over evil has already been fought and yet will *never* be fought.

      Here's another interesting question: if God knows that he will triumph over evil, and if Satan knew that God is omniscient, why would he rebel against God knowing full well that he can't win? Does he have no choice? Is Satan a puppet of God's will?

  184. Re:Finally, "Free As In Speech" Energy!-impossible by Ticklemonster · · Score: 1

    Impossible, as this goes against the laws of perpetual spamnamics.

    --
    Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
  185. Re:Is a poem true? Is fiction true? by andy55 · · Score: 1
    A most insightful and thought-provoking post--thanks for it. Particularly insightful:

    That in itself is a failure of the imagination, and proves that people haven't had very good liberal arts educations.
  186. Mod the parent as insightful by gantry · · Score: 1

    Steorn's spinning wheel demo doesn't prove much, as the parent points out. If, on the other hand, Steorn could boil a cup of water, it would be worth paying a lot more attention.

    Permanent magnets have high internal (magnetic) energy. It is possible that the very small amount of energy needed to keep the wheel spinning is at the expense of a small reduction in the magnetisation of the permanent magnets.

  187. Do yourself a favour by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    Read some of his replies. This guy got the rating he deserved.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  188. Auto-ignore by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1


    Anyone who claims a device that violates the laws of thermodynamics should be ignored.

    They are either lying or don't understand what's going on in their equipment, or both.

    At least in this universe...

    1. Re:Auto-ignore by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Or the people who are saying that don't understand it.

      Did you know most people thought the transistor was a perpetual motion machine when they first attempted to patent it?

      Just saying the perhaps you, me and the rest of the general public doesn't understand how everything could possible work.
      As a guide line, you are pretty much correct, but when someone says they can prove it and that they are going to show you, I will at least wait until the bogus excuse on why the event was canceled at the last minute before completely writing you off as a charlatan.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  189. On immutability and perfection .. by pbhj · · Score: 1

    >>> "Any change in the state of a perfect thing would render it imperfect, or imply that the original state was not perfect to begin with. Thus, God cannot love anything, or want anything for his creations."

    Except if god exists outside of time and thus is immutable in 4-dimensions (and possibly changing in other dimensions). Thus god could still be "perfect" (by your definition of perfection being immutable). Your argument is like a flat-earther saying you can't sail west and get to the east - God doesn't need to change to accomodate the arrow of time because he already has perceived/permitted/manufactured the change and changed accordingly ahead of time. Your (and so I guess Spinoza's) argument is temporally bound and assumes that the god in question is also; ridiculous.

    Anyway, that aside: If the weather today is perfect (for me, say I'm going skiing and want unblown snow) that doesn't mean that the same weather tomorrow is perfect (for me, when I'm going sailing and want wind and sun). The original state of the weather was perfect, the changed state of the weather is perfect (for me!), the state of "perfect weather" need not have altered if considered as a single form in a four dimensional space.

    Oh and where in the Bible does it say God is separate? God, by the Holy Spirit is certainly _not_ defined as separate but instead is permeating (as an ether). Nor is God entirely singular, being triune. You open up the possibility by saying something must contain God (though outside of space-time what is containment?) to the notion of God containing both Himself and the universe.

    PS: When you say God is singular, do you mean he has no "god-friends" or is this a reiteration of his immutablilty?

  190. Re:Hang on? It's the twenty first century now by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

    Why, pray tell, would we want to equip the next generation with better bullshit detectors? It's hard enough to pass our bullshit off as it is.

    --
    "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
  191. magnets by mzs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously when you hear a claim of a perpetual motion machine, then at the instant that you hear the word magnet, you should think scam.

  192. Re:What About using Gravity by Skrynkelberg · · Score: 1

    m50d got it right. If this had worked, there would be no need using electrolysis and all that stuff. Just fill a pipe with water and put a balloon (or something else with mass between that of air and water) in the system. The balloon goes into the pipe at the bottom, exits at the top, falls through a turbine and goes into the pipe again. Voilá, endless energy. Sounds a bit suspicious, doesn't it. The catch is of course, as m50d spells out, that the balloon cannot enter the pipe without expending energy.

  193. In laymen's terms by QuantumPion · · Score: 1

    I think you can simplify the laws of thermodynamics and why they are uncompromisable using common experience. For example, a mug of hot coffee in a room-temperature environment will never absorb heat from its cooler surroundings and become even hotter. Or, if you place a waterwheel half way down a waterfall, you can only extract at most half of the gravitational potential energy. I get the impression that the so-called inventors of perpetual motion machines look at the equations and say to themselves "oh that is just meaningless math mumbo-jumbo, I can find a physical means around them! After all, scientists have been wrong about stuff in the past!"

  194. When I can buy one at wally world --NEVER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of hype NO proof.

  195. Joseph Newman by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    How about a real "perpetual energy" machine a la Newman's generator? It's not really a perpetual device, just uber efficient. I saw it featured on Beyond Invention on the Science Channel last night. Two interesting points; the government sabotaged his demonstration by grounding it and the patent office refuses to give him a patent for his design. He was also purportedly offered $200 million for the design, but refused without a guarantee that the generator would be produced for public use. He's had it scrutinized by dozens of scientists and engineers who've signed affidavits, so there must be something to it.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Joseph Newman by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not a comment on your specific example, but...
      "He's had it scrutinized by dozens of scientists and engineers who've signed affidavits, so there must be something to it."

      Many engineers and scientists have been fooled. IT is not, in anfd of itself a statement of validity.
      Can the explain how it's done? can the get repeatable outcomes? is there any science?

      And if he wanted it to be used for the public, why doesn't he release the specs?

      Oh right, he wants it used by the public if he gets paid a lot of money because God said so.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Joseph Newman by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      I don't know about this guy. He seems kind of insane. I wonder if English his first language, because he posts like a lunatic. I looked at the website you linked to. . .

       

      I, Joseph Newman, have repeatedly stated that mass means NOTHING if it does not have a MECHANICAL UNDERSTANDING . The equation for horsepower of rotating motor shaft so PROVES - "ft. lbs X rpm divided by 5252 = HP". Yet that equation does not designate the TIME of said horsepower. Constant of mass - rpm implies horsepower per minute.

      James Watt in the late 1700s who established the HP as a unit of measurement specifically stated that such a measurement was dependent upon TIME: "33,000 lbs 1 ft. per MINUTE."

      Accordingly, the HP of a rotating shaft must be measured in HP per minute of rotating shaft or, in shorthand, HP of rotating shaft per SECOND. ["550 lbs 1 ft. per second."]

      I show you now a simple MECHANICAL explanation of HP per second of TRUTH: Take a shaft and attach it to the center of 1 ft radius [2 ft. diameter] pulley. Now imagine that you rotate the shaft of one full rotation of 360 degrees in one SECOND. Then "you" have lifted 550 lbs 6.283 ft in one second! ["1 ft. radius gives 6.283 ft in circumference"] That is, 6.283 HP per second! Per rotation of shaft! Multiply by [60 rpm] 60 SECONDS that is 376.98 HP per MINUTE!

      Said above is WRONG! Vague conventional HP equation gives only 6.283 HP per MINUTE!

      The TRUTH of MECHANICAL explanation given by me has been applied to rotating shaft of 400 lb magnetic rotary of my revolutionary motor that will shock the world in the immediate future. IT WILL PROVE WHO IS THE MASTER OF MY REVOLUTIONARY ENERGY INVENTION!


      I mean, I don't want to judge the man without knowing more, and there's certainly something to be said for the creative genius who is so into his work that he cannot fit in with the rest of humanity. I've known a few people like this who really did have some brilliant ideas, so I know you can't write off people like Newman without looking at their work. But he really needs a publicist or somebody to act as a buffer between himself and the world at large. People who can't write proper sentences and use too many all-caps and who say things with such ego-mania really are hard to take seriously. But mania is like that; it makes you so excited and the ideas fly through your head so quickly that something as mundane as typing becomes an exercise in the impossible. That's what Mr. Newman sounds like to me.

      I'd be interested in knowing what level-headed people who have seen and tested his work think of what he has done.


      -FL

    3. Re:Joseph Newman by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Wow, I started digging around for info on this guy. Definitely a nutjob. I'm a little embarrassed for even referencing him. I guess The Science Channel airs geek tabloid stories.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Joseph Newman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, Newman is a protege of Gene Ray, as should be evident from linguistic analysis. Ignore him at your own peril.

  196. Re:2nd Law convenient when you want it to be by mhall119 · · Score: 1

    Mostly for two reasons:

    1.) The very nature of perpetual motion requires the output energy must at least equal the input energy without an increase in entropy. Since such a process is forbidden under thermodynamics, it will always be quoted when someone claims to have violated it.

    2.) Even though thermodynamics is quoted in many discussions of evolution, it is only ever by people who do not understand either and who are usually quickly and harshly corrected by people who do, making them less likely to bring it up in future discussions.

    --
    http://www.mhall119.com
  197. Stop picking on Santa Claus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop picking on Santa Claus! I bet he's up there with God now, shaking his head at you...it's coal for you this year buddy.

  198. silly pseudobabble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Try that fly-by trick enough, and Jupiter will fall out of orbit.

    Oh really? Where, pray tell, do you pretend that Jupiter will land, should this occur?

  199. Holy frickin christ. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Just... wow. Slashdot is full of nutcases!

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:Holy frickin christ. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      It's too sad when it's impossible to distinguish extremist satire from the real thing. It's double sad, because my satire was quite level headed compared to some conspiracist rants I've seen.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  200. Re:2nd Law convenient when you want it to be by makomk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm no physicist, but I think the rough answer is that people would have to be really dumb to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an argument against evolution, not just because they'd be wrong, but because they'd be arguing against the existence of life in the first place. (Seriously - all living organisms have to stave off the effects of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it's fundamental to their survival. The reason they don't violate it is that the processes involved create more entropy elsewhere.)

  201. The magnetic flux... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    the geological magnetic flux at sealevel traveling through a footprint the size of the device (say 25 square feet) is not even close (by a few orders of magnitude) to the power that can be supplied by some alkaline batteries. Something like 1.2 webers?

    So I don't think that's it.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  202. Re:2nd Law convenient when you want it to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lol'd.

  203. Sorry, that was 0.00012 webers... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    divided instead of multiplied there. So if due to the swirling magman in the Earth's core, if the magnetic field were to do a complete 180 (pole flip, not a variation) in one second (impossible), you could get an EMF of .00034 volts through a coil around that 25 square foot area.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  204. Re:2nd Law convenient when you want it to be by varith · · Score: 1

    You need some edjamacatin' there AC : The second law does not apply to evolution because we have lots of energy coming into the system. Most of that is from the Sun, some if from the heat of the earth's interior. A perpetual motion machine has to create as much or more energy than it expends, with no help from the outside.

  205. TFA thinks it's bunk as well by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TFA: Here we go, after months of doubt over claims of a magnetic machine promising "infinite clean energy," Steorn will be putting their wares on display for public scrutiny in London. A physics defying perpetual machine, if you will. Starting tomorrow, rumor has it that the Kinetica museum will host the Orbo device for a ten day long public demonstration of the technology. We're expecting a formal announcement at 6pm 11pm London (1pm 6pm New York). iPhone shmiPhone, this is going to be good. Update 1: Still nothing from Steorn yet, but Irish RTE News has also "confirmed" the impending announcement. Moreover, a "very simplified version" of the technology will be viewable by streaming media over the Intertubes. So get ready kids, they say you'll be able to watch janky video of a prototype "lifting a weight" from four different angles starting at 6pm London Eastern Time. Otherwise, you can view the device live at Kinetica from Thursday 5 July to Friday 13 July. Update 2: First picture of the mystical device! [Thanks, Jordy] Update 3: CEO Sean McCarthy tells SilconRepublic how it works. Namely, the time variance in magnetic fields allows the Orbo platform to "consistently produce power, going against the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed." He goes on to say "It's too good to be true but it is true. It will have such an impact on everything we do. The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real." Whoa. Link to demonstration site now added below. Update 4: Well, 6pm London time has come and gone. However, Steorn's site now says that the video will go live at 6pm "Eastern Time." Apparently, their demo is aimed at the US. A fossil-fuel Independence Day? Riiiiight. Update 5: Jeebus, what a non-event. Even though they wield supreme control over the laws of physics, Steorn had to cancel tonight's event "due to technical difficulties." We'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetically tragic. The live stream is now rescheduled ambiguously to the 5th July. Now move along folks, there's nothing to see here.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  206. Output 400% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Will output up to 400%"
    I think this claim sums it up.
    400% of nothing must be Nullity^0 = Nada*nothing :D

    Btw. Dont you love their lame excuse to canceling todays exhibition of the device?

  207. Oh Contraire! by SnailNobra · · Score: 1

    In the same way that monkeys randomly banging on keyboards don't produce fine works of literature...

    Oh Contraire!

    --
    Nihilism means nothing to the dancing peasants
  208. Atheism is carp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, just like the claims of atheists that the existence of God has been disproven, the Orbo machine is turning out to be a hoax.

    BTW - to truly prove that God doesn't exist you would have to prove that our universe is a closed system that needs no outside agent to come into existence or to operate as it has since the beginnning of time, and THEN prove that nothing outside of the observed universe can exist.

    Until you can do BOTH - the best you can show is that the existence of God is unnecessary to explain a particular phenomenon.

  209. The analogy to God ? by arjay-tea · · Score: 1

    "The only analogy I can give is if you had absolute proof that God wasn't real."

    How would that be a good thing?

  210. That's not what he said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was specifically quoted as saying it contradicts conservation of energy.

    Now perhaps it actually exploits changing magnetic fields (which require energy to change) in a way he doesn't actually understand, so he's claiming the energy is coming from no where, but my vote is it's a complete scam and he knows it.

  211. Like the Joe Cell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the inventor has been accosted by men in black suits yet ;)

  212. In fact, maybe that's what he's doing... by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    Because in looking at Randi's rules for the $1M challenge (here), #12 states "This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a "media presence," which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person's abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified." (the rules have very recently -- as of just this past Sunday -- been revised, and I suspect this is one of the recent revisions.)

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  213. It's phony by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    It looks nothing like the REAL perpetual motion machine I designed and scratched on paper in junior high. If I just had any mechanical aptitude I would build it and make a lot of money.

  214. Cameras for the live demo are up! by vicious0000 · · Score: 1

    http://www.astream.com/live/steorn/camera4.html Despite them canceling the demo yesterday, and saying they are closed today, some cameras are working . You can't see anything interesting except for the area where they will apparently mount the device. Oh, and apparently people who believe in Perpetual Motion machines use Apple computers.

  215. Surprise! It didn't happen by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    KINETICA OPENING DELAYED: Due to some technical difficulties caused by the intense heat from camera lighting, Steorn's demonstration of its 'Orbo' free energy technology has been slightly delayed. As a consequence, Kinetica Museum will not be open to the public today (5th July). A technical assessment is currently underway and information will be posted on the websites of Steorn and Kinetica as soon as it becomes available. We apologise for this delay and appreciate your patience.

    Steorn's 'Orbo' technology is based on the interaction of magnetic fields and allows the production of clean, free and constant energy. 'Orbo' technology is fully scalable and can be applied to virtually all devices requiring energy, from cellular phones to cars.
    So this technology is fully scalable and can be applied to virtually all devices requiring energy, including cars. As long as you operate them at NIGHT I guess since the camera lights were too much for the machine to handle. That tells you something fishy is going on...
  216. "Toeing the line", not "towing" by spage · · Score: 1
    --
    =S
    1. Re:"Toeing the line", not "towing" by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      "Toeing the line", not "towing"

      No shit! Wow. I'd always imagined somebody clutching a rope to help pull whatever load their team has invested in. That's etymology from childhood to be sure.

      I remember seeing a squirrel in the early Spring, and its Winter coat was coming off in a really funny way; from it's nose to its mid-section, it was sleek with only short, new hair. From it's belly to its tail, was an inch-thick coat of Winter fur all the way round. It looked like two halves of two different squirrels attached in the middle.

      I laughed and said, "Hey, look! A Half-Breed squirrel!"

      My friend looked at me and said, "Wow. That's the sort of thing which could confuse a small child for a long time!" There were no kids present, but it stuck in my head as a great example.

      Anyway, thanks! You learn something new every day!


      -FL

  217. Atheism is a religion like being... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Atheism is a religion like being bald is a hair colour.

  218. Oops... my bad. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    In my defense I was reading the thread backwards, starting at bottom (having accidentally hit "End" on the keyboard); I missed the parent and grandparent posts. I'm sure the satire would have been much more evident (and funny too) had I not read it so.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  219. Re: The analogy to God ? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    Well, you could show it to Muslims and make them stop blowing themselves up. Show it to Christians and get stem cell research off the ground. Show it to atheists and they would roll their eyes ('I saw that years ago').

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  220. Re:2nd Law convenient when you want it to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > people would have to be really dumb to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an argument against evolution,

    Or just be arguing to not-as-dumb people looking for a quick rationalization they don't have to think much about. I mean holy cow, google for "evolution peanut butter" and hit the youtube link. Anyone actually believing at face value the argument presented without having it boosted by denial, intellectual dishonesty, and cognitive dissonance, probably doesn't even have enough command of language to understand the argument.

    Anyway, the earth is blasted by the sun with billions upon billions of joules of energy at every moment. Not what you would call a "closed system".

  221. Maybe by bandmassa · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just cleverly harnessing all that pent up sexual energy out there and turning it into electricity. We don't notice it yet because they've only got a prototype, but if this is rolled out worldwide we'll all lose our libidos!

    ;-)

    (I do take the piss here, BTW.)

    --
    "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
  222. Re:Is a poem true? Is fiction true? by SlideGuitar · · Score: 1

    thanks!

  223. Camera Shy !!! by achten · · Score: 1

    From the Steorn site on 6th July 2007 5.00 GMT
    "We are experiencing some technical difficulties with the demo unit in London. Our initial assessment indicates that this is probably due to the intense heat from the camera lighting. We have commenced a technical assessment and will provide an update later today. As a consequence, Kinetica will not be open to the public today (5th July). We apologise for this delay and appreciate your patience."
    Scamming at its best.

  224. NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE by Neuticle · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does his site bear some resemblance to our friends at http://www.timecube.com/ ?

    White background - check
    Red and blue text with lots of bold and under-lining - check
    Rambling, quasi-religious writing going against overwhelming scientific opinion - check
    Laid out in one massively tall, single column page - check
    Graphics stolen from a circa 1996 Geocities website - check

    If we somehow combined these two, the offspring would be the crackpot ubermensch

    --
    "Cheeze it!" - Bender
  225. patentable ? by alobar72 · · Score: 1

    I believe in Germany there exists a regulation saying that this kind of stuff cannot be patented - to shield the patent offices from the patent request of all those who "invent" some kind of perpetuum mobile (which are believed to be impossible to build ).
    are there similar regulations know in other countries ?

    regards