> >>> Science need evidence, so where is it?
> >> 
> >> That was exactly my question, for your supposedly scientific 
> >> statement about the probability of something being found tomorrow 
> >> that you don't consider today. It wasn't me who claimed 
> something, it 
> >> was you, and I asked you to back this claim up /scientifically/. 
> >> Which you didn't, and this post continues not to back it 
> up scientifically.
> >> 
> >> My point was that with this statement you left the 
> scientific realm. 
> >> So far, all everybody (mainly you and Russell) has said in that 
> >> respect is that it seems, using ones gut, that
> > 
> > Ok, let's recap.  More tedium.  
> 
> I really ask myself what you're trying to avoid when writing 
> so many tedious emails :)
> 
> > I said the laws of thermodymanics are unlikely to be broken 
> anytime soon.
> 
> If you had written that, I might or might not have answered. 
> But that's just too hypothetical. Here's what you really 
> wrote (on May 27, including the quoted text for context):
> 
> -------------------------------------
> >> My guess is the energy used by the microwave device far 
> exceeds any 
> >> released energy right?
> > 
> > So far, yes.
>  
> And not likely to change anytime soon  :)
> -------------------------------------
> 
> No reference to thermodynamics here at all. There are many 
> processes that use a "starter" energy and after starting the 
> process release much more energy than was used to start the 
> process. This doesn't have to be in violation of any existing 
> theories, including the "laws" of thermodynamics.
> 
> > I saw your response to that and couldn't decide whether you agreed 
> > with me or not.  I read this current response and have come 
> away no wiser.
> 
> I agree with your opinion, but I wanted to make clear that 
> this is an opinion as unscientific as any of the other 
> "dreamer" opinions. It is an opinion, not science.
> 
> > I'm not sure how to scientifically defend a statement which is, in 
> > essence, simply saying "NO, but a very tiny maybe".  What 
> the 'maybe'
> > is, I've no idea.  Neither does anyone else (unless you 
> consider the 
> > zero-point techno-babble energy nutters).
> 
> Correct. There's no way to defend this scientifically (or at 
> least not yet, but IMO never will be, at least not without 
> significantly modifying how we practice "science"). That's 
> why it's not science; it's an (unscientific) opinion about 
> science. This distinction seems relevant to me, especially in 
> this context.
> 
> Gerhard


PicList needs new tags, namely [POT] for "Pedantic Off Topic", and [NOT] for
"Nitpicking Off Topic".  Given what this thread has become (and if anyone
knows, please tell me), [WTFOT] might be useful.  

[POT] describes the thread better, but [NOT] is funnier.

This is almost like debating whether Santa Claus & the Tooth Fairy are the
same person (prove me right or wrong on that!).

> -------------------------------------
> >> My guess is the energy used by the microwave device far 
> exceeds any 
> >> released energy right?
> > 
> > So far, yes.
>  
> And not likely to change anytime soon  :)
> -------------------------------------

Okey dokey then.

How about you take the hydrogen produced, squeeze it really really really
really hard and - TADA - fusion!  Yay!  Way more energy than the crappy
microwave used.  I eagerly await the results of your experiment, will you be
doing it 'anytime soon'?

Breaking thermodynamics is always assumed in a free-energy nutter thread.
This refers to people claiming it's a closed cycle - water > H & O > water.
Which it is, just not self-sustaining.  Unless you break physics.  But you
already know this, so why did I bother saying it?  Oh right, so now I can
say I've said it.  My head hurts.

I will now unsubscribe from [POT], [NOT] and [WTFOT] (just in case), and
advise everyone else to do the same.

Tony

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist