Steorn
There are milennia of observations that demonstrate the laws of thermodynamics
These include:
(people die, things get degraded as they get older)
The laws have been explicitly known for more than 150 years.
The basic laws can be simply stated
as you can't get energy for nothing, at best you could only break even, if you could avoid waste, which is inevitable. (sorry for the gross simplification there)
yes, I am familar the best as any layman can be on the princaple. I dont need it stated in bold, italics, or cartoon bubbles, I get it.
And to that I say, so what? Are you going to tell me that energy for nothing is not a element that could exist in theoritical physics? Are not magnetic monopoles in string theory a theoritical possibility?
Is there any scientist alive who can state that the laws of thermodynamics will never change to account for new phenomena with 100 percent certainty?
What is the probability of find some rare phenomena that alters those laws?
Incredibly incredibly incredibly low?
But it's still theoritically possibly, right?
and if it was to be discovered ever in the history of physics, how would we ever find it if we argued it's possibility out of existence with our arrogance of our laws of the universe? We dont have a unified field theory yet, which means we DO NOT HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS.
Yet, but I think we will, and until we do, I'll hold the old saying true "Natural Laws are just local ordinances"
and if you disagree with me, then y ou disagree with me PHILOSOPHICALLY, not scientifically.
STEORN, are claiming to somehow be the first exception ever to these laws, but haven't shown anyone how their system "works".
Not true. According to Steorn, they h ave showed a number of individuals how thier machine works within a structured NDA. I believe they will still do that within reason to anyone who wants to fly there and sign the NDA. They are extraordinarily open and are willing to provide within reason evidence that they are serious and honest about thier claim.
They also targeted atheir audience at a group of people who are less likely to be scientifically literate, rathern than showing their (paradigm-shifting) technology to engineers and scientists. Nobel prizes wouldn't even come close if it were true; it would be far more significant than the theories of gravity and evolution.
well Jimbob, your a physicist, your not in marketing. Steorn is making marketing and buisness decisions that A.) are consistant with buisness, commerce, and marketing, and B.) Clearly effective to produce the results they wished, they now have 12 highly reputable scientists (they will let you view the list if you sign an NDA) to confirm their technology.
Steorn is a commercial company and make money developing anti-fraud technology. The stumbled upon this technology researching batteries for surveliance cameras. That's where there money is.
Will Randi make money either way from STEORN's claims? No.
james randi makes both money and attention, recognition, for exposing frauds, hoaxes, and placing himself at the center of the critical thinking movement. That's his life, that is what he is FAMOUS for. He created that, that wasnt handed to him. He has made that a career. He is doing his job with his career. He wants to protect his career just like anyone else.
Steorn made a public appearance in the media.
Randi responded because he needs to fill his blog space with something. To bad what he fills it with isn't always relevant.
Could STEORN make money from "investors"? Yes.
Yes, but they will not accept any money from investors until all 12 scientists verify their claim.
Do they make extrordinary claims without evidence? Yes.
They are not asking anyone to believe them, they are asking them to accept the evidence once the 12 scientists verify their claim.
Does it fit the pattern of other scams? Yes.
such as? links? films? books?
There is absolutly no credible or reasonable evidence which suggests that Steorn is scamming people, absolutly none.
Maybe they are deluded, but I doubt that.
there is a far greater probability that they are deluded than they are scamming people, and based on what I have learned so far, they dont appear to be deluding themselves, either.
Does the technology work as advertised? TANSTAAFFL
sorry, I have absolutly no idea what the hell that means.
Edit: The extra "F" was originally a mistake, but hey, guess what it can be...
That doesnt help
BF
