Daily Planet's personal thread

[DailyPlanet]

I don't buy into THIS Reactive Power technology - not yet anyway.

But at least this presentation makes a show of trying to MEASURE Energy-In and Energy-Out:

COP 20.0 (2000%) Reactive Power as Energy Source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk

That is at least better than shouting "we have resonance",
and expecting everyone to applaud, as if you have achieved something worthwhile

There are many of these Scams going now, and maybe within the Haystack, are some genuine bits of kit, producing at over Unity.

But people are going to have to become more discerning, and more demanding when quizzing the inventors

[ArthurWankspittle]

There are many of these Scams going now, and maybe within the Haystack, are some genuine bits of kit, producing at over Unity.

Er, NO. Not without changing the laws of physics, and if they'd done that they would be hailed as the saviour of the planet and be a shoe in for a Nobel Prize.

[DailyPlanet]

Laws of Physics - do you know what they are?

Maybe you need to do some research into the Laws of Thermodynamics, which say (in brief):

"There are 4 laws to thermodynamics, and they are some of the most important laws in all of physics. The laws are as follows

Zeroth law of thermodynamics - If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
First law of thermodynamics - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.
Second law of thermodynamics - The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
Third law of thermodynamics - As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

> see: http://www.physicsforidiots.com/thermodynamics.html

Now I ask you, what energy keeps electrons spinning around nucleii, and not losing speed or charge?

What happens to the ambient Heat?

These could conceivable be sources of energy, for so-called "Free Energy" devices, which are not in reality producing energy from nothing, but may have found a way to "suck" it from unconventional, and unexpected sources

[LightinDarkness]

"Free energy" is impossible. Period. By thinking that it is possible, you show the same level of magical thinking as the people who promote these scams. Maybe you need to do some reading yourself before lecturing others on things you obviously know nothing about? I have no problem admitting that I don't have the technical knowledge to understand exactly why free energy is a scam, there is enough evidence that it is not possible - IN ANY FORM.

http://wiki.4hv.org/index.php/Free_Energy_Debunking

The science is settled on this. If you wish to disagree with the vast majority of the scientific consensus, please put up your evidence - or stop flirting with magical thinking and join your comrades in Morocco.

By the way, your ambient heat woo-woo has been around for decades it seems - and it is (surprise!) based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how physics works:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/examining ... ennis_lee/

[Deep Knight]

Now I ask you, what energy keeps electrons spinning around nucleii, and not losing speed or charge?

Charge is an intrinsic property of the electron, it couldn't lose it any more than Deep Knight could lose his freakish attractiveness to hoards of supermodels. OK, there was that one time, but that could easily be explained by some outlandish conspiracy.

As for electrons spinning around a nucleus, they don't act like you think they do. I can say this because they don't act like anything we can experience first hand. And they don't need some source of energy to keep going, they're not like a car where they stop if they run out of fuel. But supermodels do, and they only feed at trendy and expensive bistros, so I gotta write smokescreens like this and spread negative vibes about free energy so I can get paid enough by evildoers to support that habit. Sorry.

[JennyD]

Now I ask you, what energy keeps electrons spinning around nucleii, and not losing speed or charge?

Charge is an intrinsic property of the electron, it couldn't lose it any more than Deep Knight could lose his freakish attractiveness to hoards of supermodels. OK, there was that one time, but that could easily be explained by some outlandish conspiracy.

As for electrons spinning around a nucleus, they don't act like you think they do. I can say this because they don't act like anything we can experience first hand. And they don't need some source of energy to keep going, they're not like a car where they stop if they run out of fuel. But supermodels do, and they only feed at trendy and expensive bistros, so I gotta write smokescreens like this and spread negative vibes about free energy so I can get paid enough by evildoers to support that habit. Sorry.

*Swoons to DK's awesome attractiveness*

[DailyPlanet]

""Free energy" is impossible. Period. By thinking that it is possible, you show the same level of magical thinking as the people who promote these scams. Maybe you need to do some reading yourself before lecturing others on things you obviously know nothing about..."
- Light in D.

Oh dear. What an amazingly arrogant response!
What do you know about me or my education to make a comment like that?
And have you learned NOTHING from history?

What I know from history is that mainstream physics changes every few decades, as the state of our knowledge changes. Do you deny that? Your response implies that the physics we have now is absolute, and will never be changed. But it cannot explain well, if at all:

+ How a bumblebee flies,
+ What keeps electrons and planets spinning,
+ What powers UFO's (when it is obviously NOT fossil fuels)
+ There are many defense department insider, who will quietly confess that Free Energy DOES exist, and WE have it - though the secrets have not yet been shared with the public

Yes, I reckon you will jump in and say something asinine like: "UFO's do not exist!" - to which the only response is: You need to do more reading and investigation. The evidence in favor is very strong, and even incontrovertible, if you look hard enough.

Don't come back to me quote mainstream sources. Every single day it becomes more evident that our present education system has let us all down, and the only real function of the Mainstream media is to lie to us in service of corporate interests that control them.

Having said this. I am not ready to fall for every half-arsed Free Energy, Free Money, or Free Lunch scheme that comes along. Most, and nearly all I have seen, are ridden with flaws - and I have been quick to point them out on this website. But I do approach the future with hope and an open mind, rather than throwing every new-and-different idea that I see into the "that's impossible" box.

[DailyPlanet]

"Why do people bother to listen - If the info is so consistently wrong ??"

Because once you buy into a conspiracy, it becomes your new reality, and the real world is hidden by the illusion. Every reference then becomes, not to the boundaries of the real world, but to the boundaries of the conspiracy. And in the illusion Tony and his cohorts have built, anything he says is gospel, even if contradictory without any reference in fact.

It is amazing to me the growing number of people in the 21st Century willing to loose their ties with reality. Most talk a lot about the movie "The Matrix," as if it describes reality, rather than a post apocalyptic version of Buddhism.

Yes. I have seen that.
But after a while, even a popular LIE may lose its force.
As an example: nearly everyone bought into the official story of 9/11 right after the event happened. But the lies have worn thin, and now after nearly 13 years, fewer and fewer people believe it. When will this Big Lie Die: Soon, probably within 18 months, I think.

I doubt that the Dinar RV scam will last a fraction of that time. It has little factual evidence backing it, and far fewer conspirators to jump in, and shore up the holes.

[ArthurWankspittle]

""Free energy" is impossible. Period. By thinking that it is possible, you show the same level of magical thinking as the people who promote these scams. Maybe you need to do some reading yourself before lecturing others on things you obviously know nothing about..."
- Light in D.

What I know from history is that mainstream physics changes every few decades.....

Please give examples of how the laws of physics have changed every few decades. Until then I'll stick with the old Newtonian ones.

[AndyK]

What I know from history is that mainstream physics changes every few decades, as the state of our knowledge changes. Do you deny that? Your response implies that the physics we have now is absolute, and will never be changed. But it cannot explain well, if at all:

1- + How a bumblebee flies,
2- + What keeps electrons and planets spinning,
3- + What powers UFO's (when it is obviously NOT fossil fuels)
4- + There are many defense department insider, who will quietly confess that Free Energy DOES exist, and WE have it - though the secrets have not yet been shared with the public

1 - Physics does explain how a bumblebee flies. Do some research on the topic -- starting with urban myths

2 - Planets keep spinning and in orbit simply due to rotational inertia and gravity, respectively. Electrons are more complicated and require some significantly advanced quantum physics to explain.

3 - There is absolutely no definitive proof that UFOs exist. Every alleged sighting has been refuted or debunked.

4 - Name ONE -- or are these possibly the same hundreds of Communists within the Department of State that Tail Gunner Joe identified?

Have you ever run across a conspiracy theory (also reference your 5/24 post regarding the '9/11 lies' which you don't like?

[AndyK]

As an example: nearly everyone bought into the official story of 9/11 right after the event happened. But the lies have worn thin, and now after nearly 13 years, fewer and fewer people believe it. When will this Big Lie Die: Soon, probably within 18 months, I think.

Are you sure you meant to post that in this forum? We don't deal(except in refutation thereof) with urban myths and conspiracy theories.

[LightinDarkness]

""Free energy" is impossible. Period. By thinking that it is possible, you show the same level of magical thinking as the people who promote these scams. Maybe you need to do some reading yourself before lecturing others on things you obviously know nothing about..."
- Light in D.

Oh dear. What an amazingly arrogant response!
What do you know about me or my education to make a comment like that?
And have you learned NOTHING from history?

What I know from history is that mainstream physics changes every few decades, as the state of our knowledge changes. Do you deny that? Your response implies that the physics we have now is absolute, and will never be changed. But it cannot explain well, if at all:

+ How a bumblebee flies,
+ What keeps electrons and planets spinning,
+ What powers UFO's (when it is obviously NOT fossil fuels)
+ There are many defense department insider, who will quietly confess that Free Energy DOES exist, and WE have it - though the secrets have not yet been shared with the public

Yes, I reckon you will jump in and say something asinine like: "UFO's do not exist!" - to which the only response is: You need to do more reading and investigation. The evidence in favor is very strong, and even incontrovertible, if you look hard enough.

Don't come back to me quote mainstream sources. Every single day it becomes more evident that our present education system has let us all down, and the only real function of the Mainstream media is to lie to us in service of corporate interests that control them.

Having said this. I am not ready to fall for every half-arsed Free Energy, Free Money, or Free Lunch scheme that comes along. Most, and nearly all I have seen, are ridden with flaws - and I have been quick to point them out on this website. But I do approach the future with hope and an open mind, rather than throwing every new-and-different idea that I see into the "that's impossible" box.

I am quoting this post in its entirety to preserve it, since this shows what we are really dealing with here. As you can see for yourself folks, Daily Planet isn't interested in evidence - hes a magical thinker. Like every other person on these boards that promotes tax scams, sov'run gibberish, or prosperity programs - for Daily Planet reality is not an issue. When reality disagrees with him, and indeed in this case both reality and all of science does, he just moves the goal posts. Now no "mainstream" sources will suffice, and we are all wrong and so is physics. He can't tell us why, just trust him free energy is real and hes open minded while were all closed minded sheeple.

As an aside, you really need to stop playing the "how rude!" card when replying to me when you are trying to lecture me about the existence of free energy and get mad that I call you out on your magical thinking. By the way, telling everyone they should read up on basic physics, having people who know basic physics debunk you, and then making up more tall tales and calling everyone who has debunked you close minded is very arrogant and rude of you.

Additionally, its been explained to you how each of your examples works you just don't like the answers. Of course we can't explain UFOs and "government insiders" because both of those don't exist are another product of your magical thinking.

[LightinDarkness]

Have you ever run across a conspiracy theory (also reference your 5/24 post regarding the '9/11 lies' which you don't like?

It appears as though Daily Planet is one of those conspiracy theorists who uses logic and rationality enough to know some things are myths - like the OPPT - but cannot bring himself to fully embrace reality. We see these type of people from time to time, they are very common on places like the JREF forums.

To me, they are the most tragic type of individuals. As with most conspiracy theorists, you will never convince them using evidence or reason - they take pride in their magical thinking and the basis of their belief is in the need to think they know what is "really going on." It brings them great pleasure to believe they are smarter than both us average sheeple and the conspiracy theorists who believe in everything, for they can divine between fake conspiracy theories and the "real" conspiracy theories (with "real" conspiracy theories being whatever they wish were true anyways, not say actual historical conspiracies like Watergate).

It is truly sad to see such selective thinking going on, and people who show they are capable of thinking with the rest of us in reality but yet so far away in la-la land...

[LightinDarkness]

"Why do people bother to listen - If the info is so consistently wrong ??"

Because once you buy into a conspiracy, it becomes your new reality, and the real world is hidden by the illusion. Every reference then becomes, not to the boundaries of the real world, but to the boundaries of the conspiracy. And in the illusion Tony and his cohorts have built, anything he says is gospel, even if contradictory without any reference in fact.

It is amazing to me the growing number of people in the 21st Century willing to loose their ties with reality. Most talk a lot about the movie "The Matrix," as if it describes reality, rather than a post apocalyptic version of Buddhism.

Yes. I have seen that.
But after a while, even a popular LIE may lose its force.
As an example: nearly everyone bought into the official story of 9/11 right after the event happened. But the lies have worn thin, and now after nearly 13 years, fewer and fewer people believe it. When will this Big Lie Die: Soon, probably within 18 months, I think.

I doubt that the Dinar RV scam will last a fraction of that time. It has little factual evidence backing it, and far fewer conspirators to jump in, and shore up the holes.

Thanks for bringing that up, but as usual with conspiracies you were wish were true you've got things a bit reversed: the 9/11 conspiracy lie brought about by "Loose Change" and other Truther propaganda is actually an example of a popular lie that has lost its force. You are a bit behind the times, the need to believe that what happened in reality on 9/11 is an "official story" and that there is some sort of alternative conspiracy going on hit its popularity height in the 2007-2010 time frame. Since then, Truther propaganda outlets and general interest in promoting this flavor of insanity has dropped dramatically.

You don't have to take my word for it, there are surveys done to measure how much of the general population is delusional enough to believe in things like 9/11 truth and its been dropping consistently. I'd cite them for you, but as you've shown here recently you have no interested facts and "mainstream sources" which debunk you are just a product of the conspiracy in your mind.

[DailyPlanet]

Haha.
Are you joking, or just misinforming for old time sake?

A shrinking minority believes the old "official story" of 9/11,
despite the "heroic" efforts to sedate every American citizen.



Of course, if you do a Poll of zombified viewers of Mass media, you may find a
different result. But more and more people have switched off to the propaganda
channels, and the credibility of the MSM is probably now at a all time low.

[LightinDarkness]

Oh dear, there we go again with your magical thinking. As usual the facts disagree with delusion. Time to debunk you again. Here is one of a dozen sources that comes up if you just google "9/11 conspiracy polls" which shows not even close to a majority believe in this trash like you do. Of course I know facts and evidence aren't your thing, so I'll cite one for you -
http://www.aei.org/files/2013/11/06/-pu ... 218739.pdf

This November 2013 report shows that at no point have a majority of people believed in 9/11 conspiracies, no matter how broadly construed. The closest anyone came was in 2006 when a 9/11 truth propaganda organization commission a poll that used extremely broad wording, and even then they only got 48% to say that "the 9/11 commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence." In social science this is known as "weasel wording" because its surveying people using intentionally broad language in order to prove a point that the survey commissioners wish were true. But even that question doesn't prove people believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, just that the commission made errors. Surveys that directly ask about 9/11 conspiracies, which are actually valid instruments, show that AT MOST a minority believe the government caused or let the attacks happen (36%), that the towers were the results of planed explosives (16%), or that the Pentagon was hit by cruise missile (12%).

But wait, you'll say that these polls are old right and now the sheeple are waking up? Yet again the facts I'm afraid don't support your delusions. A poll from 2013 on this cited in that report shows that an even smaller minority than ever before (11%) believe the 9/11 attacks were allowed or caused by the US government. Note that this poll was by Public Policy Polling, a democrat polling firm, which is IN YOUR FAVOR because its a known fact that Democrats are more likely to believe in 9/11 delusions than Republicans as Bush was President at the time. The Truther propaganda movement is cratering in the polls, as it should, because its BS.

This is a meta analysis of opinion polls on conspiracy theories. And it shows that even in 2006/2007 - when 9/11 conspiracy delusions was at its height - not even close to a majority believed there was a conspiracy. I guess because it debunks you though its part of the conspiracy, right?

[Deep Knight]

But I do approach the future with hope and an open mind, rather than throwing every new-and-different idea that I see into the "that's impossible" box.

You have it all wrong. If an assertion is contrary to an almost complete consensus then I don't put it in the "that's impossible" box, I put it in the "you have to show me" box.

Sir Oliver Joseph Lodge, who made the bulk of the developments that allowed Marconi to do his thing, had problems when he first demonstrated radio communications. Lodge had also been involved in investigating psychic claims and had been taken in for periods of time. This had sullied his reputation and his demonstration looked a lot like a "magic trick" that could easily be faked.

So, he let other physicists to inspect his equipment, move it around and into other rooms, until they were convinced there was no trickery. This took a few days. Then the science of radio communications moved forward at a rapid pace, producing actual equipment that could actually be used. No need to invent a conspiracy by the telegraph and pony express interests to explain failure after failure.

So, where is the equivalent for free energy?

“I come from a country that raises corn and cotton, cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I'm from Missouri, and you have got to show me.”

[DailyPlanet]

Give me time, and I believe I will be able to demolish your arguments.
So Bring it on!
After some time, you may learn to speak to others with a bit more respect.

If it comes down to "whose sources are best", we may find we have to agree to disagree. But accusing me of "magical thinking" is just not on. Who do you think you are: my superior is some way? Perhaps you should get into the discussion a bit, before jumping to conclusions.

[DailyPlanet]

Let's look at the very first item mentioned in the article you were so kind to provide....

JFK Assassination - 50 years ago (in 2013)
Changes over time
Poll Date- : 1Man : More : Source
Dec. 1963 : 24 % : 62 % : ???
Year 2003 : 25 % : 66 % : Fox News
Apr . 2013 : 24 % : 59 % : AP-GfK/Roper
=========
You need a consistent Poll, conducted in a similar way, with the same questions, and the same sampling procedure. (So says my partner; she holds a Phd from Oxford, and is an expert on statistical techniques.) Else there is little you can conclude.

Moreover, the bias of paper is very clear in sentences like this one:
"An additional difficulty is figuring out at what point an individual crosses the line from skeptic to conspiracy theorist."

"Conspiracy THEORY"? That assumes it is theory, and not FACT.
The mainstream is guilty of smearing those with whom they disagree, by calling them "conspiracy theorists". However, I we can see that a small minority thinks "Oswald did it" (about 25% or less in all three polls.)

Therefore, wouldn't it be more accurate to call this small group: "One-person-theorists"?

Have you heard that (more accurate phrase) once over the 50 years? And Why is the mainstream media not directing their ridicule to this minority? The majority might consider them "silly and misinformed", and therefore if anyone should be the subject of "disrespectful" references, shouldn't be them? Probably this phrase is NOT used because it does not suit the corporate interests that control the media sources. This is the obvious reason the majority are called the "theorists" - because powerful interests, who may have been directly or indirectly involved in the assassination, or covering it up, want the majority view to be discredited.

Do you disagree with my conclusion?
If so, then I may see little point in having a debate or discussion with you. Because I would reckon you lack intelligence and discernment about reality.

[LightinDarkness]

Yawn. Thanks for telling us about basic statistics, and really - you should know for future reference - trying to brag about a Oxford PhD is hilarious. Oxford doesn't award PhDs, they give DPhils (dissertations only - MUCH easier than a full PhD). Interesting that your partner has a DPhil from Oxford and yet somehow confuses the terminology. People from Oxford should know the names of their degrees, I would think. Or is your partners degree perhaps more magical thinking on your part?

Anyways, I love how you constantly move the goal posts. First you claim a majority believe 9/11 is a conspiracy, which I debunk with data. Now you've changed the goal to be the JFK assassination, an event which I made no claims about. Not to mention your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy - argument ad populum. The validity of a conspiracy has nothing to do with how many believe it. 9/11 and the JFK assassination are totally different conspiracies, and the things you believe about them are wrong independent of whether 1% or 100% of the rest of the population believes in it. Interestingly, although I made no claims about the JFK assassination or about public opinion on it, you are suddenly happen to cite that (although the argument is fallacious) when the data is more supportive...and you just ignore everything else.

You STILL have not presented any evidence for your claims. Do you know why? Because you are wrong, and you have none. And you know it. You are a conspiracy theorist. Its not an insult, its what you are - you believe in conspiracies based on theories for which you have no evidence. If you don't like the label, start using evidence.

Finally, you have completely derailed this thread with your conspiracy theories. Stop it. If you want to continue my debunking of you, make a thread in the appropriate forum and I will be happy to oblige.