Sciences and religions: incompatible!

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 13:59

Janic wrote:b) The evidence does not come from BP labs, but from the field, that of practice and its results on patients by their improvement in terms of health (same as in A). In addition, absence of evidence, this is not proof, at most an indicator of a lack of information.

specifically, I ask you to justify your assertions, knowing that everyone knows that this kind of "proof" is very easily skewed by the bias of confirmation and insufficient statistics, and you do not provide proof of it.
c) Literature and professional representatives can be found on the internet just like those of A. So you have to be really lazy or crappy not to know how to do it.

I know very well how to find that on the internet, and I only find the same soup that you serve us each time: assertions without proof.

So rubbish as far as I'm concerned, for me the lack of proof is proof that it doesn't work (because if there were, you would give them away instead of reacting like that).
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by Janic » 05/03/21, 16:23

ABC2019 »05/03/21, 14:59
janic wrote: b) The evidence does not come from BP labs, but from the field, that of practice and its results on patients by their improvement in terms of health (same as in A). In addition, lack of evidence, this is not proof, at most an indicator of a lack of information.
precisely, I ask you to justify your assertions, knowing that everyone knows that this kind of "proof" is very easily skewed through confirmation bias and insufficient statistics, and you do not provide proof of it.
They are displayed in broad daylight, as everyone knows, by the tens of thousands of physicians around the world who practice, it's like asking for proof that the A is very easily biased by confirmation bias and insufficient statistics, and you do not provide proof of it.
You really have a huge mental problem!
c) Literature and professional representatives can be found on the internet in the same way as those of A. So you have to be really lazy or crappy not to know how to do it.
I know very well how to find that on the internet, and I only find the same soup that you serve us each time: assertions without proof.
Ah, the nullard! You can in no way estimate the validity of something you know nothing about, a real puppet that clown
So trash as far as I'm concerned, for me'lack of proof is proof that it doesn't work
Ah, the oversized ego! ME I; ME I, ME I! and you claim to be scientific and rational, what a joke, you discredit real scientists!
(because if there were, you would give them away instead of reacting like that).
if there were not, the entire medical profession subject to BP would seize it, except that this is not only the case in all countries where H is practiced, but even 'India (no more stupid than others) has made it an official medicine like the A and the traditional medicine of the country and not quackery as your friends of your sect of the zeteticians claim it without any scientific proof, precisely. Defamation, lies, it's their daily lot, as for you!
Since when do you take yourself for a reference; ME JE: Oh sorry, that's your trademark! : Evil:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 18:05

Janic wrote:They are displayed in broad daylight, as everyone knows,

non as you assert, except that like all liars, you give no justification or reference.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by Obamot » 05/03/21, 18:14

Which liar are you talking about?



Obamot wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:
eclectron wrote:Is one ...


it is a belief to say that the established facts are true : Shock: ?

Yet when you think that graphene could produce a direct current, by saying that it could be "true", do you think that it could be "an established fact" it seems to me?

This assertion seems wrong to me. It seems to me that it was you who hastily introduced this idea that we were thinking that.
Or can you show us a single post where someone said that?
If so, I would have reacted sharply,

science-and-technology / electromagnetic-motor-wrong-to-be-right-t16783-50.html # p434708

We wait !
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 18:44

Obamot wrote:Which liar are you talking about?



Obamot wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:
it is a belief to say that the established facts are true : Shock: ?

Yet when you think that graphene could produce a direct current, by saying that it could be "true", do you think that it could be "an established fact" it seems to me?

This assertion seems wrong to me. It seems to me that it was you who hastily introduced this idea that we were thinking that.
Or can you show us a single post where someone said that?
If so, I would have reacted sharply,

science-and-technology / electromagnetic-motor-wrong-to-be-right-t16783-50.html # p434708

We wait !


well obviously I can !!

eclectron wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:well no, there is no net power, because it acts 50% as a receiver and 50% as a generator.

I understand the words but I cannot make sense of this sentence. At least the meaning I see is wrong.

1) A noise or sine wave generator is a generator, period.

2) A noise is equivalent to an 'infinite' sum of sinusoids.

3) Brings coherence with a perfect rectifier device, perfect diode, (Z passing = 0, Z blocked = infinite) and you extract thermal energy directly in electrical form.


As for judging if you use the principles of the thermo wisely, for the cases that interest us, that of the video or my example, I let you judge, I do not see the point of going into this point in depth in the measurement where you refuse to see the evidences 1,2,3 stated above.
You can let go of your thermodynamicist's crucifix! : Lol:

On the contrary, I perceive that your knowledge obscures your mind and that you are blind to the simplicity of the reality that I am speaking.


if that doesn't mean that we produce a direct current with thermal noise and a perfect rectifier device, what else does that mean?
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 18:48

in case you don't remember either, the error of reasoning is that a "perfect" rectifier must be at absolute zero, and therefore there are indeed two temperatures. If it is at the same temperature T as the other components, it will also have current fluctuations which will cause the phase between voltage and intensity to be random, and therefore zero power on average.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by Obamot » 05/03/21, 19:26

First I read sinusoidal (and not continuous)

As for the explanation “a sum endless sinusoid", It is a way to speak ! I know what is white noise or pink noise damn it (as an audiophile), when you measure with the oscillator, as long as you have noise, you have curves according to the frequency / s measured / s, and as long as they are measured it is the proof that there is emission. In the case of devices transplanted into the human body, it stops when the person dies! So you have to bring EVERYTHING back to formulas that do not apply to the problem, just to validate what you see there then?

Sorry, he didn't say that:

graphene could produce a direct current
It depends on the exogenous factors that allow it.
once the graphene layer takes a concave shape, then the following time convex, then concave, convex and so on ... It is therefore not “continuous” stricto sensu, but depends on variables and interactions that they study.
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by ABC2019 » 05/03/21, 19:47

Obamot wrote:First I read sinusoidal (and not continuous)

As for the explanation “a sum endless sinusoid", It is a way to speak ! I know what is white noise or pink noise damn it (as an audiophile), when you measure with the oscillator, as long as you have noise, you have curves according to the frequency / s measured / s, and as long as they are measured it is the proof that there is emission. In the case of devices transplanted into the human body, it stops when the person dies! So you have to bring EVERYTHING back to formulas that do not apply to the problem, just to validate what you see there then?

Sorry, he didn't say that:

graphene could produce a direct current
It depends on the exogenous factors that allow it.
once the graphene layer takes a concave shape, then the following time convex, then concave, convex and so on ... It is therefore not “continuous” stricto sensu, but depends on variables and interactions that they study.

from the moment you have a rectifier circuit, you can load a capa and debit continuous, this is what Thibado proposes to do. And that would violate the 2nd principle.

No, having an oscillating voltage does not mean that you extract power, the instantaneous power is u (t) i (t) and the product can be zero on average.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by Obamot » 05/03/21, 20:26

Here is something else : Cheesy: this is the proof that it is you who introduced things that I have read nowhere in this experience. In what you describe, it could not never be continuous ...! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy: a capa that heats up, there is loss in the circuit ..! etc.
You are like a bird steak: you are cooked, cooked, cooked ..! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Sciences and religions: incompatible!




by Janic » 05/03/21, 20:43

ABC2019 »05/03/21, 19:05
Janic wrote:
They are displayed in broad daylight, as everyone knows,
not like you you affirm it, except that like all the liars, you give no justification nor any reference.
I simply took your formula taken from your magician's hat and which you do not prove. Who is everyone, what is it?
Your only justification is to have read that in a paper towel of your sect, which is far, very, very far from being a reference, not even scientific!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Macro and 146 guests