Another overunity rant

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by junglelord, Feb 6, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. junglelord

    Thread Starter New Member

    Feb 4, 2010
    43
    0
    The term over-unity and the first law, is dependent on a closed universe.
    The universe is however an open system and as you shall see, what we now term "over-unity" is very possible and because it is an open system, breaks no laws.

    Steorn's final pre-launch demonstration of its Orbo technology, Proving Overunity.

    Steorn Orbo - Proving Overunity 1/2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Q3Klq5dxM&feature=related

    Steorn Orbo - Proving Overunity 2/2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7i7P63IByY&feature=related
     
  2. blueroomelectronics

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 22, 2007
    1,758
    98
    My crystal ball says there is a thread lock in the future...
     
  3. junglelord

    Thread Starter New Member

    Feb 4, 2010
    43
    0
    Why, because I posted a link to a overunity video>?
    It would make more sense if you showed how the video link was false...instead of banning me for posting a link.
     
  4. blueroomelectronics

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 22, 2007
    1,758
    98
    Yep, that'll do it. If you took a moment to read some of the threads here you'd see the HHO & Overunity crap gets locked pretty fast.

    There do have forums that love that stuff like overunity.com they also like UFOs & Conspiracy theories. They probably aren't into drums though.
     
  5. junglelord

    Thread Starter New Member

    Feb 4, 2010
    43
    0
    Er, I never started the thread.

    I take it you never took the time to view the video link>

    Ban me for a thread I never started, and because of a video that shows over unity in a thread that asks the question.
    Some set of rules you got.
     
  6. blueroomelectronics

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 22, 2007
    1,758
    98
    Not me, I'm not a moderator. But I've been here long enough to this sort of garbage hit the dumpster pretty fast. And 40 post day one, gotta give up the caffeine.
     
  7. blueroomelectronics

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 22, 2007
    1,758
    98
  8. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Alternate universes is theory, but not a practical one. At this time all we have is what we got, so overunity is pretty much out. Even if we tapped into another universe overunity wouldn't exist, because the law of conservation would be expanded to include both systems.

    If I buy a jar of pickles, wishin real hard ain't gonna get me more pickles when the jar is empty. Energy is pretty much like that. There are more pickles out there, but you gotta make them from something, or buy them. Overunity types have trouble seeing energy and matter as the same thing, they'd have no trouble understanding the pickle analogy but keep wishing more energy would come from nowhere.

    This thread pretty much sums it up, and the author is a moderator here.

    No more HHO, overunity, or Meyer
     
  9. t06afre

    AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    JungleLord. Take a deep breath of this world air. Then ask your self this question. How many of the people claiming to have invented a OU device. Have earn any money from the inevntion. If any of the OU devices would have lived up to the inventors claims. They would have very rich today.
    Take my word Steorn will be out of the energy business within a few year. And then completely forgotten. They will not make any moony
     
  10. blueroomelectronics

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 22, 2007
    1,758
    98
  11. t06afre

    AAC Fanatic!

    May 11, 2009
    5,939
    1,222
    @Junglelord
    I guess you not will be banned from this forum, but we do have a rule her
     
  12. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    This is obviously from another true believer. As he has gone far beyond "our" physics and science in general, there is little to be gained by further "discussions".
     
  13. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    The several threads opened by the OP got closed because the intent was to simply badger the membership with a viewpoint that was compounded largely of opinion and conspiracy theories. The absence of data and experiments to support that very different view of the workings of the universe was covered by shouting the opinions loudly, and simply trying to overwhelm any questions and requests for proof.

    That is the most cogent reason why we do not allow posting of this nature to go on and on - the OP's are always religious in their intensity of putting out their message. It is simply a waste of time and resource to deal with them.

    For those people who wonder why we insist on things like evidence and proof of claims, and why we do not get on the various bandwagons promoting devices that promise free energy, here is a statement made back in the 1940's or 1950's by a psychologist studying scientists at UC Berkley:


    "Were this thinking not in the framework of scientific work, it would be considered paranoid. In scientific work, creative thinking demands seeing things not seen previously, or in ways not previously imagined; and this necessitates jumping off from "normal" positions, and taking risks by departing from reality. The difference between the thinking of the paranoid patient and the scientist comes from the latter's ability and willingness to test out his fantasies or grandiose conceptualizations through the systems of checks and balances science has established - and to give up those schemes that are shown not to be valid on the basis of these scientific checks. it is specifically because science provides such a framework of rules and regulations to control and set bounds to paranoid thinking that a scientist can feel comfortable about taking the paranoid leaps. Without this structuring, the threat of such unrealistic, illogical, and even bizarre thinking to overall thought and personality organization in general would be too great to permit the scientist the freedom of such fantasying."

    The passage comes from Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb". The researcher is not identified. In the time of the writing, "paranoia" was more of a catch-all term for mental disturbance.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.