Posted by Darren (65.35.126.126) on June 03, 2003 at 22:40:19:
In Reply to: Re: Anyone see this?/ Lurker posted by Lurker on June 03, 2003 at 18:54:36:
: : Actually Lurker Darren has said on many occasion and I happen to agree that 1. Our laws of physics are complete (this is absolutely true) 2. and free erngy machine uses the laws of physics.
: Statement one is completely false. There are many physical and astronomical phenomena which have never been completely explained by what we currently call the "laws of physics".
That is true, however, it's not a black and white thing. Science does understand different concepts at different levels... and things like static and dynamic mechanics are *very* well understood. The parts that get fuzzy are when they take the basic tools they have in the toolbox and make complex blanket statements like "energy is always conserved." Add a Bessler wheel to the toolbox (which incidentally was built using all the other already existing tools in the toolbox) and you'll have to rethink your blanket statements, won't you.
: Our current set of "laws" are only approximations to the real laws which govern the universe. All physicists will tell you this. That is why they are still trying to develop a complete theory of everything.
Yes and no... you have to be more specific about which "laws" your talking about. Some are low-level "laws" that are just about 99.99% certain and proven, while other "laws" are built on top of, and using, the lower level laws and therefore have larger margins of error and unknowns.
: It is true that free energy machines must use the laws of physics. The only way for them to NOT use the laws of physics would be for them to operate by means of supernatural forces. However, the fact that free energy machines operate according to the laws of physics does NOT in any way imply that we KNOW all the laws of physics, or that the laws that Newton and Einstein wrote down are the same as the REAL laws of physics. The fact is, we do not know what the REAL laws of physic are yet. All we have are approximations of the real laws.
Er, yes... I think I'd agree with that although I might phrase it differently... but I would say that's fundamentally correct.
Darren