4 ms·

This argument assumes not only that we know 100% of what we perceive to be our "reality", but also that everything we think we know about it is 100% correct. Th

This argument assumes not only that we know 100% of what we perceive to be our "reality", but also that everything we think we know about it is 100% correct. That is a really tiny box you choose to stay in.

nwiswell 4y ago
Have you ever heard the expression "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" Don't show me a free energy device. That's skipping a whole bunch of steps. Start by showing me proof of even the tiniest violation of the First Law. That's a Nobel Prize on its own. The fact that this doofus has been working on this machine for as long as he has, without publishing a paper establishing a violation of the First Law, is enough to tell me that this machine plays by the same rules as the rest of the universe. Would be cool if the Second Law wasn't true either, though! The whole "heat death of the universe" thing bums me out.
- Syonyk 4y ago
  First Law: You can't win. Second Law: You can't break even. Third Law: You can't opt out. So far, anyone who has claimed to break one of those laws is either missing some experimental error source, or is trying to sell something without the slightest bit of valid scientific proof as to their claims... If someone actually had a working "free energy" device of some sort, I'd reasonably assume them to make Elon Musk and Bill Gates look like paupers, not be working in their garage making YouTube videos long on hype and short on details.
sokoloff 4y ago
It’s been a large enough box to encompass the observable universe so far.
Nextgrid 4y ago
Anyone who builds a genuine free energy device that works is an instant billionaire. I don’t buy the narrative that power companies would want to silence the technology - they’d rather use it for themselves and pay whatever it takes to get it (for a power company, paying the inventor even a billion is a small price to pay for infinite free energy, and a billion is big enough for anyone to set whatever morals they have aside and just take the deal). If “free energy” was a thing, power companies would already be using it.

nwiswell 4y ago

Have you ever heard the expression "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" Don't show me a free energy device. That's skipping a whole bunch of steps. Start by showing me proof of even the tiniest violation of the First Law. That's a Nobel Prize on its own. The fact that this doofus has been working on this machine for as long as he has, without publishing a paper establishing a violation of the First Law, is enough to tell me that this machine plays by the same rules as the rest of the universe. Would be cool if the Second Law wasn't true either, though! The whole "heat death of the universe" thing bums me out.

Syonyk 4y ago
First Law: You can't win. Second Law: You can't break even. Third Law: You can't opt out. So far, anyone who has claimed to break one of those laws is either missing some experimental error source, or is trying to sell something without the slightest bit of valid scientific proof as to their claims... If someone actually had a working "free energy" device of some sort, I'd reasonably assume them to make Elon Musk and Bill Gates look like paupers, not be working in their garage making YouTube videos long on hype and short on details.

sokoloff 4y ago

It’s been a large enough box to encompass the observable universe so far.

Nextgrid 4y ago

Anyone who builds a genuine free energy device that works is an instant billionaire. I don’t buy the narrative that power companies would want to silence the technology - they’d rather use it for themselves and pay whatever it takes to get it (for a power company, paying the inventor even a billion is a small price to pay for infinite free energy, and a billion is big enough for anyone to set whatever morals they have aside and just take the deal). If “free energy” was a thing, power companies would already be using it.