Free Energy Devices - Fact not Fiction

PeoplesMod

I have made some posts in relation to Free Energy Devices over in the Green Issues thread but it is really not the place for it. If anyone wants to ask any questions about free energy then this is the place to ask them as I have access to information in relation to several free energy devices. However I must stress that this information can be dangerous as it is kept from the public for to prevent the world economies from collapsing due to the economics associated with free energy.

bonkey

From one of your other posts...

Not only have they been documented but they have been patented in the US with some of the patents going back to the early 1900's.

Patents are publically available. The notion that something can be patented and kept from the public is self-contradictory.

Please supply patent numbers, so that your claim can be (independatly) verified.

As I have pointed out on other threads, this is where such claims always fall down - independant verification. All we see is handwaving reasons why it can't be done....unproveable claims about how dangerous it would/could be and whatnot.

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

From one of your other posts...



Patents are publically available. The notion that something can be patented and kept from the public is self-contradictory.

Please supply patent numbers, so that your claim can be (independatly) verified.

As I have pointed out on other threads, this is where such claims always fall down - independant verification. All we see is handwaving reasons why it can't be done....unproveable claims about how dangerous it would/could be and whatnot.

When you come up with the correct name that I asked you for in another thraed I will post some patents in relation to what I speak of for you. Will that be verification enough for you. Let me see if I can find the post I made to you.

PeoplesMod

PeoplesMod wrote: »

When you come up with the correct name that I asked you for in another thraed I will post some patents in relation to what I speak of for you. Will that be verification enough for you. Let me see if I can find the post I made to you.

Here it is. You can reply to it here if you like.

I have made many references to the father of these inventions. If you are not aware of who he is by now then it is you who are ill informed and not me.

cavedave

I have access to information in relation to several free energy devices

Could you post a link to a video of one working under laboratory conditions?

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

When you come up with the correct name that I asked you for in another thraed I will post some patents in relation to what I speak of for you. Will that be verification enough for you.

Anything to avoid coming up with the evidence, eh?

On one hand, you've posted about how this stuff is being kept from the public. On the other hand, when presented with a simple request to supply the basic references to publically available material, you find reasons not to do so.

If you make a claim, then the onus is on you to establish the credibility of that clam before anyone should take it seriously. Then, the onus is on you to supply enough information for anyone interested to be able to independantly verify the truth of your claims.

Thats how science works, but you aren't (currently) playing by those rules.

I don't even care why you're not doing so. Your reasons have nothing to do with the science, and the science is what I'm interested in discussing or looking at.

PeoplesMod

cavedave wrote: »

Could you post a link to a video of one working under laboratory conditions?

No as I don't have one but I am sure that if I really wanted to I could get one. Anway if I did you would look for the name of the laboratoty and then that would put those people under the spotlight which I am not prepared to do. If I have to lose some face to protect someone then that is fine with me.

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

Anything to avoid coming up with the evidence, eh?

On one hand, you've posted about how this stuff is being kept from the public. On the other hand, when presented with a simple request to supply the basic references to publically available material, you find reasons not to do so.

If you make a claim, then the onus is on you to establish the credibility of that clam before anyone should take it seriously. Then, the onus is on you to supply enough information for anyone interested to be able to independantly verify the truth of your claims.

Thats how science works, but you aren't (currently) playing by those rules.

I don't even care why you're not doing so. Your reasons have nothing to do with the science, and the science is what I'm interested in discussing or looking at.

As I have stated when you mention the name of the father of these inventions I will then upload a copy of some of his patents for you to see. To me that sounds very fair and your failure to mention his name demonstrates that you are talking about something that you do not know about whereas I am talking about something that I know what I am talking about as I have the relevant information in my possession. I will post the patents once you answer just in case you think I won’t.

cavedave

Anway if I did you would look for the name of the laboratoty and then that would put those people under the spotlight which I am not prepared to do. If I have to lose some face to protect someone then that is fine with me.

Sorry unless you can provide some evidence this topic is not science.
Patents are not scientific evidence.

Make magazine (vol 9) had an interesting piece on the phenomenon a few months ago. Feynmann's experience is here

PeoplesMod

cavedave wrote: »

Sorry unless you can provide some evidence this topic is not science.
Patents are not scientific evidence.

Make magazine (vol 9) had an interesting piece on the phenomenon a few months ago. Feynmann's experience is here

I find it hard to believe that no one has yet mentioned the father that I speak of. Do you know his name? What good is it if I give you information that is either of no interest to you or you just can't be bothered to look it up? True knowledge comes from the desire to learn and when nuggets of information are presented to those that want to learn they will snap them up very quickly. Those that don't want to do anything with the information will just refute it and try and knock it at every chance. They then look for supporting information which is just another way of saying I am too lazy to look it up myself. This is a discussion but no one said that the discussion has to be one sided. I have every right to my views the same as anyone else and if I decide to withhold information that is in my possession for whatever reason I see fit then that is what I will do. I will make the information available when the time is right but not until then. This is the best way and I know as I do this each and every day.

kaizersoze1980

your talking some load of bol*ox in all fairness.
either post your facts, or stop talking sh*te ok?

PeoplesMod

kaizersoze1980 wrote: »

your talking some load of bol*ox in all fairness.
either post your facts, or stop talking sh*te ok?

Do you know who the father I mention is? Have you read my other posts as I have given a lot of information already.

cavedave

will just refute it and try and knock it at every chance.

That is pretty much the definition of science. Every scientific theory has to be constantly challenged and have the possibility of falsification otherwise it is not even wrong.

They then look for supporting information which is just another way of saying I am too lazy to look it up myself.

Nonsense

This is a discussion but no one said that the discussion has to be one sided.

The production of evidence so far has been one sided. I have linked to an article discussing a fake free energy experiment. Please stop the scientific discussion being one sided by presenting evidence.

I have every right to my views the same as anyone else

You can think the moon is made of cheese but your views are not science.

This thread has no relation to science.

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

As I have stated when you mention the name of the father of these inventions I will then upload a copy of some of his patents for you to see.

And I've said that I'm not playing your game.

If you want to discuss science, then discuss science.

To me that sounds very fair

And to me, it sounds like you not treating this like a scientific subject, but rather like some pop quiz, where the prize I get for winning is the information you should be falling overyourself to provide, in order to begin to establish your credibility.

If you don't want to do that, then fine, but like I said...I'm not playing your game.

and your failure to mention his name demonstrates that you are talking about something that you do not know about whereas I am talking about something that I know what I am talking about as I have the relevant information in my possession.

You're talking about something which you've claimed you don't need to be an expert on
You're talking about something which you've admitted to not being an expert on.

You're now trying to say that I'm not qualified because I refuse to play this game on anything except a scientific playing field!!!

One of us is trying to abandon scientific rigour in this discussion and its not me. Maybe you'd like to explain why you think thats to anyone's advantage.

PeoplesMod

All I ask is that someone mention the father of these inventions. In all honesty how am I to hold a worthwhile discussion with someone if they do not know what I am talking about? Think about what I say and you will see that I am right. This is a common problem with science. We have too many experts that seem to know a little bit of everything but when we push back and go to the basics of the topic they get lost as they can't even associate the topic with the inventor. This proves that their base knowledge is limited so they then look for the facts to be presented in black and white. What is wrong with going and getting the facts yourself as this is what I do all of the time.

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

In all honesty how am I to hold a worthwhile discussion with someone if they do not know what I am talking about?

I'm failing to find anyone who has said they don't know the answer to your question...merely people who have said that they refuse to answer. From this refusal, you've decided to take one of many possible explanations for said refusal, and insist on its truth.

Think about what I say and you will see that I am right.

I see that you're making assumptions as to the reasons people are doing things, and using those assumptions to avoid meeting the burden of proof that your claims demand.

This is a common problem with science.

Its a common problem with those who don't want to play by the rules of science.

The onus of proof is on you. You've made an extraordinary claim, and you're refusing to supply the extraordinary evidence. From a proper, skeptical scientific perspective, the stance that everyone should hold is that until you show otherwise, you've got nothing.

Rather than showing otherwise, you're trying to get us to play by different rules, so that you and your claims somehow gain credibility.

As cavedave said...this has nothing to do with science.

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

I'm failing to find anyone who has said they don't know the answer to your question...merely people who have said that they refuse to answer. From this refusal, you've decided to take one of many possible explanations for said refusal, and insist on its truth.


I see that you're making assumptions as to the reasons people are doing things, and using those assumptions to avoid meeting the burden of proof that your claims demand.


Its a common problem with those who don't want to play by the rules of science.

The onus of proof is on you. You've made an extraordinary claim, and you're refusing to supply the extraordinary evidence. From a proper, skeptical scientific perspective, the stance that everyone should hold is that until you show otherwise, you've got nothing.

Rather than showing otherwise, you're trying to get us to play by different rules, so that you and your claims somehow gain credibility.

As cavedave said...this has nothing to do with science.

Do we assume then that you do know tha name of the father of whom I speak but you will just not say it due to way I presented my arguements?

bonkey

PeoplesMod wrote: »

Do we assume then that you do know tha name of the father of whom I speak but you will just not say it due to way I presented my arguements?

I've made my stance clear. I will not abandon scientific rigour and/or the methods which the scientific method demands in order to discuss this topic, but that is what you have asked me to do.

You can assume whatever you like in addition to that.

PeoplesMod

bonkey wrote: »

I've made my stance clear. I will not abandon scientific rigour and/or the methods which the scientific method demands in order to discuss this topic, but that is what you have asked me to do.

You can assume whatever you like in addition to that.

But do you not contradict yourself? You ask me to produce evidence to support my claims and I in return ask you to produce a single name that shows you have some base knowledge for to discuss the subject in question.

PeoplesMod

Also I have stated that I will produce patents when you mention this name. The patents are the basis for the information that is now in my possession and one must first read the details of same for to get a broad understanding of what it is exactly we are discussing. Now if that does not make sense then I don't know what does?

GuanYin

Peoplesmod. If your next post doesn't address the requests for links and evidence, you will be banned for the Science Cat and your posts deleted.

PeoplesMod

PSI wrote: »

Peoplesmod. If your next post doesn't address the requests for links and evidence, you will be banned for the Science Cat and your posts deleted.

Surely that is not just. How can you ban me for not posting what someone asks for. What if someone asked me to post the details of how to make a bomb and I refused. Would I still be banned?

GuanYin

Thread closed.