Free energy is becoming reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSy_33t86gc&feature=player_embedded#!
"How I Made Sure No Woman Ever Friend-Zoned Me Again"
She calls you when her car breaks down. When she needs help moving. When some guy she's actually dating treats her badly.
You're the listener. The reliable one. The guy who would treat her so much better, if she'd just open her eyes.
She won't. You trained her to see you as the low-effort option — the friend who requires zero risk and zero investment. Every favor dug the hole deeper.
The "22 Rules" break the pattern. You'll stop auditioning for a role she already cast and become the man she chases instead. It starts with Rule 1.
Perpetual motion machine
- Thread starter n00bPimp
- Start date
"Why Women Dump the Guys Who Try the Hardest"
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing YOU.
Every perpetual motion machine is a fraudulent scam. It defies Newton’s first and second laws of thermodynamics, the laws of conservation and entropy.
By virtue of the principles of reason, the burden of proof rests upon the claimants to prove the veracity of their claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the sagely wisdom of English philosopher David Hume, the predecessor of Immanuel Kant, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” In the wisdom of the I think therefore I am Rene Descartes, “When it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.” By virtue of Occam’s Razor, the principle of parsimony, the best most likely explanation are hoaxes.
http://www.skepdic.com/perpetual.html
By virtue of the principles of reason, the burden of proof rests upon the claimants to prove the veracity of their claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the sagely wisdom of English philosopher David Hume, the predecessor of Immanuel Kant, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” In the wisdom of the I think therefore I am Rene Descartes, “When it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.” By virtue of Occam’s Razor, the principle of parsimony, the best most likely explanation are hoaxes.
http://www.skepdic.com/perpetual.html
The appeal to open-mindedness
All skeptics have heard this from someone at some point in a debate: “You need to be more open-minded” or “You’re too closed-minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for you to accept what they are telling you. It's the last resort of someone who has nothing – if they had evidence they would obviously present it.
Even so, it can seem compelling, since calling someone closed-minded is pejorative. But it’s fallacious rhetoric: doubting something is not necessarily closed minded. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html
It’s good to be open-minded but not so open that your brain falls out. Know the difference.All skeptics have heard this from someone at some point in a debate: “You need to be more open-minded” or “You’re too closed-minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for you to accept what they are telling you. It's the last resort of someone who has nothing – if they had evidence they would obviously present it.
Even so, it can seem compelling, since calling someone closed-minded is pejorative. But it’s fallacious rhetoric: doubting something is not necessarily closed minded. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html
"The Coffee Shop Girl You Never Spoke To"
You've replayed it a hundred times. She stood three feet away, scrolling her phone. You had an opening. You composed the perfect line — after she was gone.
For all you know, she's married now. To some guy who said something. Anything.
Openers are cheap. Almost any sentence works when it's delivered within three seconds. The expensive part is the standing there, drafting and deleting, while the window quietly closes.
The "22 Rules" stripped out my hesitation. What to open with, how to keep it alive, and the one habit that costs guys more women than anything else: waiting for perfect.
Mike32ct
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 8,412
- Reaction score
- 5,176
Even if it were possible to have a (frictionless, lossless, etc.) perpetual motion machine, you would not be able to tap it for energy because then it would start shutting down. It wouldn't be able to sustain itself if you started stealing the "free energy" in it's closed system.
When I was little, I always wondered about the motor-generator perpetual motion machine. A motor and generator are coupled together by a common shaft so the motor mechanically drives the generator. In return, the electrical output of the generator feeds the motor via wires. I wondered if you could get this started with another (starter) motor, would it run forever AND could you tap off those wires for "free" power?
I soon learned that this would never work. Even if you didn't try to steal it's energy, it would wind down to stop fairly quickly due to friction and electrical resistance "stealing" the system's energy for you.
When I was little, I always wondered about the motor-generator perpetual motion machine. A motor and generator are coupled together by a common shaft so the motor mechanically drives the generator. In return, the electrical output of the generator feeds the motor via wires. I wondered if you could get this started with another (starter) motor, would it run forever AND could you tap off those wires for "free" power?
I soon learned that this would never work. Even if you didn't try to steal it's energy, it would wind down to stop fairly quickly due to friction and electrical resistance "stealing" the system's energy for you.
The only way for this machine to work would be to make far more energy than comes in. It would be an energy multiplier. You put in two units, you get out three units.
Why? To overcome friction losses which reduce efficiency. This is why perpetual machines are not possible. If everything was frictionless, then maybe the machine would run forever, until interrupted.
This "device" is completely impossible and is either designed by a moron who believes it or designed by a con artist who wants to make you believe it so he can make money.
You can patent anything nowadays, that's not a sign of validity.
Good day.
Why? To overcome friction losses which reduce efficiency. This is why perpetual machines are not possible. If everything was frictionless, then maybe the machine would run forever, until interrupted.
This "device" is completely impossible and is either designed by a moron who believes it or designed by a con artist who wants to make you believe it so he can make money.
You can patent anything nowadays, that's not a sign of validity.
Good day.
Well this thread is full of Debbie-downers.
The universe itself is a perpetual motion machine.
Energy never dies, and just because we haven't been able to harness it in a perpetual system, it does not mean such a machine can never exist.
Like the famous physicist Dr. Neil Tyson once said "Just because we haven't been able to create life forms in a lab doesn't mean nature has problems creating it in other planets".
The universe itself is a perpetual motion machine.
Energy never dies, and just because we haven't been able to harness it in a perpetual system, it does not mean such a machine can never exist.
Like the famous physicist Dr. Neil Tyson once said "Just because we haven't been able to create life forms in a lab doesn't mean nature has problems creating it in other planets".
Last edited:
In the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson, “[The] universality of physical laws tells us that if we land on another planet with a thriving alien civilization, they will be running on the same laws that we have discovered and tested here on Earth—even if the aliens harbor different social and political beliefs.”
Not that scientists don’t argue. We do. A lot. When we do, however, we are usually expressing opinions about the interpretation of ratty data on the frontier of our knowledge. Wherever and whenever a physical law can be invoked in the discussion, the debate is guaranteed to be brief: No, your idea for a perpetual motion machine will never work—it violates laws of thermodynamics. No, you can’t build a time machine that will enable you to go back and kill you mother before you were born—it violates causality laws. And without violating momentum laws, you cannot spontaneously levitate and hover above the ground, whether or not you are seated in the lotus position. Although you could perform this stunt if you managed to let forth a powerful and sustained exhaust of flatulence.
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2000/11/01/on-earth-as-in-the-heavens
In the words of Carl Sagan, “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying or reassuring.”http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2000/11/01/on-earth-as-in-the-heavens
Well then, I suppose it is legitimate. Imagine this. You travel back in time 3000 years ago to a small Germanic village. You see a blacksmith, not very educated, doesn't really know how to blacksmith well but by accident he makes a fully working BMW 3 series coupe.r0cky said:
We all know the BMW 3 series exists. So it is a reality. Why couldn't some uneducated, unskilled man who isn't even in the right profession create something that would take thousands of man hours and hundreds of people? And thousands of volumes of knowledge and refinement of said knowledge over years and years?
Just like this dude in the video. It's totally plausible he made a working perpetual energy machine from some rubber bellows and some cheap motors purchased from China and some copper wire.
"She Wants a Man, Not a Boy"
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
