Undiscovered technology that would have changed the world

[Obamot]

Thank you for growing me up a little, but I'm struggling to get up from the ground floor it's not for lack of trying.

[Exnihiloest]

 
And another brilliant invention, it just came out. The guy made an autonomous electric generator, and as a use what he found is the "self-powered TV":

Classic scam: to be credible, you have to pretend that the energy comes from somewhere (thermal energy, ZPE, neutrinos...).
Here the generator is supposed to recover energy from ambient electromagnetic fields. So from hundreds of µW to a few mW, it would power a TV of at least several tens of W! Find the error...

But the principle already exists and so do the achievements. It can work: here you would need a microwave transmitter behind the wall, from 200 to 500 W, plugged into the mains.

[humus]

It's like saying that having nuclear bombs leads to the destruction of the world.

No, that's too complicated, it's like saying:

that nothing is done for it to exist, or that it cannot exist

Still not got it huh? And now would you like to explain to us what a sophism is?

Be clear or go to bed tdc

[humus]

Of course, the physical affirmation is only valid if we use the energy. Now, it takes a 1000 power care bear to believe that if humanity has unlimited energy without immediately harmful consequences, it will say to itself "naaaaaaan, let's be reasonable"

Inuit let their children play with razor-sharp tools.
Are they all amputated?
Taking people for idiots and that's what you do, they are.
Give real responsibilities to people and you will see that they are less stupid than you think.
You are in the purely subjective opinion and your friends ditto.

Moreover, thanks to this energy, we could more easily correct past errors.
The human being has a consciousness and it evolves.
Who during the Second World War would go and stand in front of German tanks? Today, Ukrainians do it.

In fact, I believe above all that you are in search of a fantasy: that of finding a solution to consume just as much energy as before, with no negative consequences. A view of the mind.

Who said the contrary ?
Once again you imagine what other people think and imagine that it is necessarily bullshit.
Ask if you want to know what other people think.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

(I don't understand the existence of this thread, nor do I understand why some people participate in it! "If my aunt had some" sci-fi, a new genre?)

[Ahmed]

Humus, you write:

Who during the Second World War would go and stand in front of German tanks? Today, Ukrainians do it.

Yes, but nobody was filming then and today, we are very much in a war of images...
You also state:

The human being has a consciousness and it evolves.

Certainly, but not necessarily for the better: look at what the presidential campaign is centered on...

[Exnihiloest]

...
Taking people for idiots and that's what you do, they are.
Give real responsibilities to people and you will see that they are less stupid than you think.

It works on one condition, it is to assume the consequences of the actions for which one is responsible. And today, it's not appropriate at all, people refuse them. At the slightest problem, the "superiors" are accused (bosses, mayors, administration, ministers, decision-makers of all kinds, product manufacturers...) and we flee (hit-and-run after collision or accident).

[Exnihiloest]

...
Well, look: to speak of perpetual as a source of energy is to violate the first law of thermodynamics. There are three options:

- either what you are talking about, you want to talk about it in the context of fiction. It's very cool, but it's not really the right place.
-you really think it's possible, and you're a misunderstood genius
-you really think it's possible, and since it violates the first principle of thermodynamics that the ENTIRE scientific community agrees with, is that you don't understand what you're talking about

The big gap in your argument is that you take science for the Bible and scientists for a clergy. If this is indeed the case for the climate with the IPCC, this is not the general case in science.

Science is constantly evolving, nothing is fixed, theories evolve, or new theories are produced, if new facts are inexplicable by the old ones.
The thermodynamics can apparently be violated, because a still unknown source of energy would be at work. Moreover, in science, observations and facts take precedence over theory. A single counterexample can invalidate a theory. So the first thing to do when faced with an alleged perpetual motion machine is to check the facts.

Then proven theories, we often deduce false things. For example that with a light of wavelength λ, one could not see details lower than λ. It was true until we used evanescent waves, and yet it's still the same theory that we use, we just made wrong guesses because we couldn't anticipate all its forms of use. .

Science has a great interest, it is that nothing is forbidden, everything is open, it is only necessary to confront the realities and prove, by the evidence of facts and measurements (it is only there that the far-fetched claims are blocked).

[elman46]

...
Taking people for idiots and that's what you do, they are.
Give real responsibilities to people and you will see that they are less stupid than you think.

It works on one condition, it is to assume the consequences of the actions for which one is responsible. And today, it's not appropriate at all, people refuse them. At the slightest problem, the "superiors" are accused (bosses, mayors, administration, ministers, decision-makers of all kinds, product manufacturers...) and we flee (hit-and-run after collision or accident).

They are responsible but never guilty the decision-makers, but whose fault is it? to those who put them in place, and necessarily with this bad habit of saying nothing and letting things happen, they only do as they please, example Jupiter in all its splendor, but above all what manipulates it like a puppet that he is. They remain anonymous.

[izentrop]

The big gap in your argument is that you take science for the Bible and scientists for a clergy. If this is indeed the case for the climate with the IPCC, this is not the general case in science.

Was a long time ago

So, by making an exception, you deliberately place yourself in the same camp of believers.