remix17 Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Ok energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is the most fundamental law of science. So clearly their claims must be false. There must be a fineprint somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 23, 2006 Veteran Share Posted August 23, 2006 Ok energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is the most fundamental law of science. So clearly their claims must be false. There must be a fineprint somewhere. Maybe they have a generator that is 15% more efficient than other products on the market (but obviously less than 100% efficient) and they want leading scientists to give them free R&D. There must be an angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alsheron Posted August 23, 2006 Author Share Posted August 23, 2006 Ok energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is the most fundamental law of science. So clearly their claims must be false. There must be a fineprint somewhere. This is precicely the "law" of physics they are claiming in no longer valid. So clearly their claims are false only if they are proven to be false or in reality, if they cannot be verified by those who you are wont to believe. At least wait till then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 23, 2006 Veteran Share Posted August 23, 2006 This is precicely the "law" of physics they are claiming in no longer valid. So clearly their claims are false only if they are proven to be false or in reality, if they cannot be verified by those who you are wont to believe. At least wait till then. If a "law" of physics is to be broken then it will not happen in a small private company that does applied research. If a "law" of physics is broken then it will be where the world greatest minds working on pure theoretical research. In other words, it will happen in one of the world's universities (and probably a famous one at that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alsheron Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 If a "law" of physics is to be broken then it will not happen in a small private company that does applied research. If a "law" of physics is broken then it will be where the world greatest minds working on pure theoretical research. In other words, it will happen in one of the world's universities (and probably a famous one at that). I don't think it has to be one of the worlds universities or one of the gretest minds. I agree that breaking a "law" of physics is incredibly important and something phenominal - quite literally, but i bet the chances of someone doing it in an almost accidental way aren't that low. Don't forget that this small private company must employ scientists/researchers/developers/physicists themselves and so aren't completely separate to the larger scientific community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted August 24, 2006 I don't think it has to be one of the worlds universities or one of the gretest minds. I agree that breaking a "law" of physics is incredibly important and something phenominal - quite literally, but i bet the chances of someone doing it in an almost accidental way aren't that low. Don't forget that this small private company must employ scientists/researchers/developers/physicists themselves and so aren't completely separate to the larger scientific community. Companies do applied research. You don't seem to get that. It is far, far, far, far more likely that a major discovery will first come from theoretical research and then made practical by applied research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alsheron Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Companies do applied research. You don't seem to get that. It is far, far, far, far more likely that a major discovery will first come from theoretical research and then made practical by applied research. I understand what you're saying and agree. In this case, i think that because the stakes are so high (the claims are obviously classed as "outrageous" to many "in the know" and even to those mortals among us who aren't expecially knowledgable concerning physics.) those who are conducting theoretical research wouldn't even have considered this worthy of investigation because these "laws" are seen as irrefutable truths (rightly so given the evidence SO FAR). It's also worth remembering that Steorn claim that many groups they approached in academia refused to even consider that there was something worth investigating (which isn't unbelievable), highlighting my point about how deeply ingrained these scientific laws are established as incontrovertible truths. Steorn could, therefore have been left (and lucky) to stumble accross the discovery of the century that the scientific community would only scoff and mock at. I don't think Steorn in it's research have been particularly ingenious, but i do think that their is a fair and plausible chance that they just might have stumbled accross something unthinkable and therefore set-aside and ignored by the established scientific community. To be honest, i'd like to believe it's true, because to me it would be literally "fantastic". I'd just like to have seen more "optimistic enthusiasm" from some of the posters here rather than an overwhelmingly negative reaction (was it 57% of people who voted on the Steorn site who said they didn't think it was worth looking into?) What's that all about. My best guess is that people are generally afraid of change and in the scientific community (and it's devout worshippers/followers) any challenges to established authority aren't taken to kindly. The thing is, i always thought "science" was all about finding and establishing accurate truths, not guarding and protecting established truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted August 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted August 24, 2006 If they have somehow broken a law of physics, i want to know, what kind of energy is it, and where is it coming from? And i would assume the device would have to be near, if not, 100% efficient, short of anti-matter reactions, i can't see that happening. or who knows, maybe they have worked out how to harness vacuum power :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted August 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted August 24, 2006 Really, the only parallel that you can use is that a lowly clerk in a Swiss patent office once came up with ideas that changed the world's understanding of physics. He represented someone outside of the established brain trust. Again, these were theoretical ideas with no immediate practical application. This case is even more exaggered. It is akin to a plumber saying that he has devised a new way to do brain surgery. Actually it is more rediculous than that but I can't come up with a better example. This company not only claims to have an idea for a new approach but a model for a working product. Usually the time between theoretical ideas and practical applications are decades unless space-shuttle type of money is thrown at the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyClaw Veteran Posted August 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted August 24, 2006 I don't know, on the one hand I agree with Fred on this that it is probably a scam, but on the other, I don't see what the harm is in testing it out. I mean if they want people to test their theory, then wouldn't it be worth trying? I mean if it doesn't work then oh well, but if it does then this could completely change what we know about physics. While it is probably a scam, the stakes are such that I think it should be critiqued and tested just in case its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted August 24, 2006 Veteran Share Posted August 24, 2006 I don't know, on the one hand I agree with Fred on this that it is probably a scam, but on the other, I don't see what the harm is in testing it out. I mean if they want people to test their theory, then wouldn't it be worth trying? I mean if it doesn't work then oh well, but if it does then this could completely change what we know about physics. While it is probably a scam, the stakes are such that I think it should be critiqued and tested just in case its not. think about it this way. it has nothing to do with the "scientism agenda" (as some might call it). it's not that scientists are ingrained or indoctrinated. it's that science is not singular by any means. it is an intricate web of interconnected and highly convoluted links among various theories, experiments, concepts, etc. that the "law" of conservation cannot be broken is not a singular statement. it cannot exist on its own. it presupposes the whole edifice of scientific knowledge. hence, to refute that alone would imply refutations and ripples throughout the whole web, and given the more than satisfactory nature of our current theories and results (for example, those which are deduced from conservation or those which are implied by it), and given the extreme radicalness of the hypothesis, refutation is prima facie unlikely. now, the company should certainly try and demonstrate their principle, but scientists shouldn't be wasting time on it. they should be able to see the results and validate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Reminds me strongly of that whole "magical" water motor that doesn't pollute and solves our energy problem... Don't have time to read this, I will later though. Smells like a load of bollocks to me. But i'd be happy to be surprised! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstanov Posted August 26, 2006 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Oh noes my degrees in Applied Nuclear Physics are worthless, I'm going to go brokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Oh noes my degrees in Applied Nuclear Physics are worthless, I'm going to go brokes. I was thinking the same. "Ahh! 1 year after graduating and my Physics degree is worth NOTHING!" Not! Show me irrefutable PROOF and I'll entertain the notion that the conservation of energy law has been broken. The thing is, there is NO proof and there never will be proof. This bloke is just talking crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted September 2, 2006 Veteran Share Posted September 2, 2006 I personally think they are going broke and are just building up a targeted database to give themselves a final payoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadwick Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 the ignorance here is unbelievable, it really gives you a first hand account of how the "world is round" was accepted. How can you be so certain that this isn't true, sure they really need to release more info because there is really not much to go off of right now but how can you rule out the possibility. It's also unbelievable that people are claiming that a small company can't possibly come up with something. Who's to say the guy working on this wasn't a famous physicist within the scientific community and left the "mainstream" to pursue his own research. Thats like saying "well if you don't work for microsoft you can't possibly code an operating system cause anything you can possibly think of would have been done already." Look at all the progress made in technology, its not being done by the huge companies a hell of a lot of the technology is coming from small firms that can focus on a specific goal, and they are later bought out by the bigger guys. its funny because if this were to come from a major university you guys wouldn't be saying half the stuff you are.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted September 6, 2006 Veteran Share Posted September 6, 2006 the ignorance here is unbelievable, it really gives you a first hand account of how the "world is round" was accepted. it's not ignorance at all. it's a logical perspective. How can you be so certain that this isn't true, sure they really need to release more info because there is really not much to go off of right now but how can you rule out the possibility. no one is ruling out the possibility. they are merely saying that the possibility is both infinitesimally small and not worth the scientist's time (the burden of proof is on the claimant). now, the reason it is so easily dismissed is that a violation of a single conservation law in physics would have undeniable and almost immeasurable effects throughout the whole of science. quine and duhem were correct with their idea of holism. it is possible to refute any statement in science provided the necessary alterations to other statements are made. hence, any refutation of the law would imply negations of whole bodies of knowledge that have so far proved to be correct. moreover, it would imply the negation of whole bodies of evidence and experimentation that have afforded those theories their status. logically speaking, circumspection is the proper attitude. It's also unbelievable that people are claiming that a small company can't possibly come up with something. Who's to say the guy working on this wasn't a famous physicist within the scientific community and left the "mainstream" to pursue his own research. there are many issues with this, e.g., conflicts of interest, limited funding, etc. of course it is possible for a private company to come up with important results. just look at ibm or bell labs. nevertheless, it is more likely for such a fundamental result like this (i.e., abstract) to come from abstract research done at universities than from a private company doing (for the most part) applied research. its funny because if this were to come from a major university you guys wouldn't be saying half the stuff you are.. no, we would have said exactly the same thing, viz., that it is the responsibility of the claimant to defend the position (and all the negations of scientific theory, experiment, and evidence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted September 6, 2006 Veteran Share Posted September 6, 2006 the ignorance here is unbelievable, it really gives you a first hand account of how the "world is round" was accepted. How can you be so certain that this isn't true, sure they really need to release more info because there is really not much to go off of right now but how can you rule out the possibility. It is a desparate act by a desparate company. "According to information available from the Irish Companies Registration Office, Steorn has not filed accounts since October 28, 2004. Under current Companies Registration Office practice[7] strike-off procedures could begin against Steorn by the end of October 2006. A strike-off would have serious consequences, such as the loss of Steorn's limited liability status. Furthermore, any assets of the company, including any patents or other intellectual property, would become the property of the Irish State." - wikipedia You can't expect us to get excited every time someone claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine. These types of claims have popped up on a regular basis for the last few hundred years. It's just snake oil. Yes, I admit it isn't completely impossible it is just highly, highly improbable. Although I warrant the odds to be like the possibility of me suddenly morphing into a very surprised looking whale and you suddenly morphing into a bowl of petunias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nebula2020 Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Did anyone catch this on the news earlier this week? "Steorn has developed all-magnet motor technology which produces free energy. The company's CEO, Sean McCarthy, has explained his theory and how it works." "Irish engineers say they have built a device that creates free and clean energy. Until now most scientists have dismissed their claims, saying that they break the most basic laws of physics. So the inventors have come up with a unique challenge." http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videopla..._p20493,00.html http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videopla...terview,00.html Hmm, I wonder. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvllsvm Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrif Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 (edited) Very interesting, hope this technology would actually get out the door. Edited September 10, 2006 by vrif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranasrule Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 iam sure the inventors will die in a "MYSTERIOUS" plane crash or something if this gets really promising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANova Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 iam sure the inventors will die in a "MYSTERIOUS" plane crash or something if this gets really promising Yup, though they have already gained quite a reputation so suddenly dying would look extremely suspicious and only help to furthur solidify their claims. More than likely those who stand to lose as a result of this will try all they can to debunk their discovery, including sabatage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell-In-A-Handbasket Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 na not sabotage,, just enough people on that commitie will be bought out to say it doesnt work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argi Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 As much as I'd like to believe you can get free energy, it's more likely it's only a matter of time before it's discovered where the energy was coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts