How about this..

[Drich]

I promise to stop ....... general failures in basic understanding in logic and reason

How?

like in your specific case? per the first thread when you did not understand that the whole perpetual motion machine was a rouse designed to prove you guys do not look things up rather you argue what you think you know.. This rouse was in contrast to how I documented and cited several sources and could do so because everything I was explaining was based on current establish technology. Yet people such as yourself decided to argue with me anyway based on 'feelings'

So when I made my reveal that the earths heat would be considered a fuel source, and there fore revealing the fact this was not a perpetual motion machine at all, but just like machines that already exist that uses the methods I described to harness energy, it proved that All of you Do not put the time and effort in to speak knowledgeably and intelligently. Then you chimed in.. Seemingly you did not even understand on the most basic level what was going on.

Now with this new promise I pledge to take the time to help you with your failure to understand, rather than do what I did. (to try and make you look as foolish as possible) by highlighting your word use of fuel as a reward of your own ignorance of the topic. Yes you use the word fuel but you do not explain how a fuel in this context would diminish in any way my stated claim. then your very next post you abandoned the use of the word fuel all together and picked up the ever so popular second law of thermal dynamics like everyone else did. which again does not apply.. but when did my reveal you centered in on the word fuel and noted you actually typed the word negating the fact you made no effort in trying to explain why you used this word.. you only pretended that there could have been no other possible explanation for why you would use the word nuclear fuel (which again is not what is even being discussed) so you pretended you never even said nuclear.

Now if you are convinced I am wrong here then simply explain to me why the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to my perpetual motion machine as described.

Your answer if right will prove my intention to do as I claimed above. (so you can understand my intention) if your answer is wrong then it proves that you had no idea what was being discussed and everything you said in the first thread was 'untrue' at best and only further my initial point. That 1/2 the time you guys have no idea what you are arguing. you just take up ying yang position opposite to me and argue feelings.

Third option is you could remain silent and prove me wrong.

[Peebothuhlu]

How?

like in your specific case? per the first thread when you did not understand that the whole perpetual motion machine was a rouse designed to prove you guys do not look things up rather you argue what you think you know.. This rouse was in contrast to how I documented and cited several sources and could do so because everything I was explaining was based on current establish technology. Yet people such as yourself decided to argue with me anyway based on 'feelings'

So when I made my reveal that the earths heat would be considered a fuel source, and there fore revealing the fact this was not a perpetual motion machine at all, but just like machines that already exist that uses the methods I described to harness energy, it proved that All of you Do not put the time and effort in to speak knowledgeably and intelligently. Then you chimed in.. Seemingly you did not even understand on the most basic level what was going on.

Now with this new promise I pledge to take the time to help you with your failure to understand, rather than do what I did. (to try and make you look as foolish as possible) by highlighting your word use of fuel as a reward of your own ignorance of the topic. Yes you use the word fuel but you do not explain how a fuel in this context would diminish in any way my stated claim. then your very next post you abandoned the use of the word fuel all together and picked up the ever so popular second law of thermal dynamics like everyone else did. which again does not apply.. but when did my reveal you centered in on the word fuel and noted you actually typed the word negating the fact you made no effort in trying to explain why you used this word.. you only pretended that there could have been no other possible explanation for why you would use the word nuclear fuel (which again is not what is even being discussed) so you pretended you never even said nuclear.

Now if you are convinced I am wrong here then simply explain to me why the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to my perpetual motion machine as described.

Your answer if right will prove my intention to do as I claimed above. (so you can understand my intention) if your answer is wrong then it proves that you had no idea what was being discussed and everything you said in the first thread was 'untrue' at best and only further my initial point. That 1/2 the time you guys have no idea what you are arguing. you just take up ying yang position opposite to me and argue feelings.

Third option is you could remain silent and prove me wrong.

 Hi Drich.

Uhm... I think the problem/isue is that you're using the definition "Perpetual motion machine" incorrectly.

In relation to a geothermal plant, or wind farm, or atomic rector, or solar pannel array.

Non of the above are 'Perpetual motion machines'. They all convert one form of energy into another form of energy.... and usually into a third form of energy in most cases.

A 'Perpetual motion machine' is effectivly a 'Free lunch'. Once set up and plugged in energy 'Magically' comes out the end.

This is why, in most science fiction settings 'Gravity thrusters' are actually a bad idea. If you can make a gizmo that can simply 'Push' against reality when you supply electricity into it?

Then, depending on the efficency, you can simply have a couple opposit each other on long arms around an axis with a generator mounted at the axis. Supply some innitial power to get the thing spinning and eventually the rotatinal energy wil produce more power than the 'Gravitic pushers' mounted on the ends.

Needles to say.... you can weaponize said idea pretty quickly as well.

Sorry for the digression.

Basically the geo/solar/atomic/wind systems all lose energy in one form or another. With atomic energy... the atoms simply turn into something esle that's no lonegr atomically unstable.

With solar? we eventually run out of Sun. Plus the panels break down under UV bombardment etc.

With geothermal? The latent heat energy in the rocks 'fades' and new heat can't phase into the are fast enough to keep the temperature high enough to generate useful power.

With wind? Well... it's actually the worst (Least efficent) of the group. You ever wonder why we don't still use wind mills to grind our grain and stuff? You could, with enough windmills taking energy out of the surrounding air, potentially change weather patterns in the surrounding area. Clouds form based party on the energy in the air in which they coalesce

Basically, you're redefining the term 'Perpetual motion'. If you want to keep with your definition, that's fine. but at least allow every one else to understand and catch up with your terms.

 

Not at work.

[Anomalocaris]

How?

like in your specific case? per the first thread when you did not understand that the whole perpetual motion machine was a rouse designed to prove you guys do not look things up rather you argue what you think you know.. This rouse was in contrast to how I documented and cited several sources and could do so because everything I was explaining was based on current establish technology. Yet people such as yourself decided to argue with me anyway based on 'feelings'

So when I made my reveal that the earths heat would be considered a fuel source, and there fore revealing the fact this was not a perpetual motion machine at all, but just like machines that already exist that uses the methods I described to harness energy, it proved that All of you Do not put the time and effort in to speak knowledgeably and intelligently. Then you chimed in.. Seemingly you did not even understand on the most basic level what was going on.

Now with this new promise I pledge to take the time to help you with your failure to understand, rather than do what I did. (to try and make you look as foolish as possible) by highlighting your word use of fuel as a reward of your own ignorance of the topic. Yes you use the word fuel but you do not explain how a fuel in this context would diminish in any way my stated claim. then your very next post you abandoned the use of the word fuel all together and picked up the ever so popular second law of thermal dynamics like everyone else did. which again does not apply.. but when did my reveal you centered in on the word fuel and noted you actually typed the word negating the fact you made no effort in trying to explain why you used this word.. you only pretended that there could have been no other possible explanation for why you would use the word nuclear fuel (which again is not what is even being discussed) so you pretended you never even said nuclear.

Now if you are convinced I am wrong here then simply explain to me why the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to my perpetual motion machine as described.

Your answer if right will prove my intention to do as I claimed above. (so you can understand my intention) if your answer is wrong then it proves that you had no idea what was being discussed and everything you said in the first thread was 'untrue' at best and only further my initial point. That 1/2 the time you guys have no idea what you are arguing. you just take up ying yang position opposite to me and argue feelings.

Third option is you could remain silent and prove me wrong.

Doubling down on "on the look out for cheap and quick shortcuts that might seems to you to enable you to dominate conversation with pretenses", and "deeply committed to inflating yourself with bombast, braggadocio, shallow bluffing with the help of wikipedia and youtube, appeal to worthless "authority" such as the bible that impress yokels but cuts no ice with the educated as a means of giving yourself a sense of worth", I see.


Tisk, Tisk.   An outstandingly bad start to affecting even the most transparently insincere claims of desire for truce.

[Drich]

How?

Our observation suggest that you are deeply ignorant,  you lack basic education in science and reality in general,  you have no real earnest desire to learn but you are always on the look out for cheap and quick shortcuts that might seems to you to enable you to dominate conversation with pretenses,  and you are deeply committed to inflating yourself with bombast, braggadocio, shallow bluffing with the help of wikipedia and youtube, appeal to worthless "authority" such as the bible that impress yokels but cuts no ice with the educated as a means of giving yourself a sense of worth.

What is your plan for changing this?

are you calling Deesse deeply ignorant?

That's the way it look per chat etiquette... 

or are you deeply ignorant of how the chat system works?

If you are referring to me then I would like to point you back to  the first thread that kicked all of this off including all of the citations and videos that referenced current technology that you where arguing against.

And while i was citing everything I had to say, you responses where just a smattering of personal insults and putdowns that had little to do with anything topical... it was almost like you where having/recreating a one way father son conversation.

That is how I plan to use science and technology along with proper definitions (not pop culture understanding) to eliminate misunderstanding.. What i plan to do differently is not set you up for a kill shot. (allow you to speak on and on like you have a valid point, and bam set you up for a big reveal on how stupid you where to hold the position you have (EG. the first so what happened thread/ You all where arguing against established technology) 

So rather than allow you to hang yourselves with your own 'rope' I will try and correct you right away so it is not a surprise and you have no recourse... With a kill shot most of you try and stumble back into a flurry of personal insult so to try and save face... So I figure if I do not destroy your face then you should not have to try and save it. rather you should see my point coming if you are reading and interested in a honest conversation.

and again if you don't think this happened to you personally... you and everyone else who bombarded me in the first thread "so what happened" is guilty of this as all of you.. Again I without a doubt had science and technology on my side concerning how everything worked and how feasible everything was as again nothing is speculatory as everything is known/doable technology. The only point of contention was my label as a perpetual motion machine. while it was true this machine potentially will never stop running till well after the earth dies... it does not follow the specific requirements of such a device as such a device does not require fuel. This devise does not require an expendable fuel either but the earth's core temp could be considered as a fuel and as such disqualifies such a device from being identified as a perpetual motion machine.

Here's the thing... not one of you research this subject deep enough to even define what the parameters of your argument was.. meaning you did not even look up the word perpetual motion machine. you all argued from the gut. this is the rope I normally allow you to hang yourself with... IE arguing gut feelings ideas against known science. or establish technology.

---

Our observation suggest that you are deeply ignorant,  you lack basic education in science and reality in general,  you have no real earnest desire to learn but you are always on the look out for cheap and quick shortcuts that might seems to you to enable you to dominate conversation with pretenses,  and you are deeply committed to inflating yourself with bombast, braggadocio, shallow bluffing with the help of wikipedia and youtube, appeal to worthless "authority" such as the bible that impress yokels but cuts no ice with the educated as a means of giving yourself a sense of worth.

What is your plan for changing this?

Don't listen to him Drich! You continue being the best ambassador for Christianity that you can!

We're all relying on you to educate people about God by pointing out how everyone is wrong except you.

not everyone... that is just atheistic hubris talking. in reality only 2.4% of the world self identifies as atheist.. Meaning I do not argue that the whole world is wrong and I am right. I argue that I can cite my work post source material to everything I say and 2.4% of the world is often wrong when it comes to religion, and everything else they have learn to argue from a position of emotion and feeling rather than truth and facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

[Anomalocaris]

Our observation suggest that you are deeply ignorant,  you lack basic education in science and reality in general,  you have no real earnest desire to learn but you are always on the look out for cheap and quick shortcuts that might seems to you to enable you to dominate conversation with pretenses,  and you are deeply committed to inflating yourself with bombast, braggadocio, shallow bluffing with the help of wikipedia and youtube, appeal to worthless "authority" such as the bible that impress yokels but cuts no ice with the educated as a means of giving yourself a sense of worth.

What is your plan for changing this?

are you calling Deesse deeply ignorant?

That's the way it look per chat etiquette... 

or are you deeply ignorant of how the chat system works?

If you are referring to me then I would like to point you back to  the first thread that kicked all of this off including all of the citations and videos that referenced current technology that you where arguing against.

And while i was citing everything I had to say, you responses where just a smattering of personal insults and putdowns that had little to do with anything topical... it was almost like you where having/recreating a one way father son conversation.

That is how I plan to use science and technology along with proper definitions (not pop culture understanding) to eliminate misunderstanding.. What i plan to do differently is not set you up for a kill shot. (allow you to speak on and on like you have a valid point, and bam set you up for a big reveal on how stupid you where to hold the position you have (EG. the first so what happened thread/ You all where arguing against established technology) 

So rather than allow you to hang yourselves with your own 'rope' I will try and correct you right away so it is not a surprise and you have no recourse... With a kill shot most of you try and stumble back into a flurry of personal insult so to try and save face... So I figure if I do not destroy your face then you should not have to try and save it. rather you should see my point coming if you are reading and interested in a honest conversation.

and again if you don't think this happened to you personally... you and everyone else who bombarded me in the first thread "so what happened" is guilty of this as all of you.. Again I without a doubt had science and technology on my side concerning how everything worked and how feasible everything was as again nothing is speculatory as everything is known/doable technology. The only point of contention was my label as a perpetual motion machine. while it was true this machine potentially will never stop running till well after the earth dies... it does not follow the specific requirements of such a device as such a device does not require fuel. This devise does not require an expendable fuel either but the earth's core temp could be considered as a fuel and as such disqualifies such a device from being identified as a perpetual motion machine.

Here's the thing... not one of you research this subject deep enough to even define what the parameters of your argument was.. meaning you did not even look up the word perpetual motion machine. you all argued from the gut. this is the rope I normally allow you to hang yourself with... IE arguing gut feelings ideas against known science. or establish technology.

Am I talking about Deesee?   Really, Drich?



You are that clueless?

[Nay_Sayer]

a semi truce as I know not anyone person can speak for everyone

Back off the emotionally driven hate/kill the messenger tactics and address content.  and I promise to stop taking advantages of opportunities to hypocrisy, general failures in basic understanding in logic and reason and will stop calling people names (sort of fruit cup)

And i would bet the remain christians would also like to be given a little break from the onslaught as well.

Will you ever reply to me without 6 quotes? 

Here is my truce; Admit you have failed miserably to disprove the glory, might and eternal truths of FSM and I'll stop pointing out you have failed to do so.

[Brian37]

How?

like in your specific case? per the first thread when you did not understand that the whole perpetual motion machine was a rouse designed to prove you guys do not look things up rather you argue what you think you know.. This rouse was in contrast to how I documented and cited several sources and could do so because everything I was explaining was based on current establish technology. Yet people such as yourself decided to argue with me anyway based on 'feelings'

So when I made my reveal that the earths heat would be considered a fuel source, and there fore revealing the fact this was not a perpetual motion machine at all, but just like machines that already exist that uses the methods I described to harness energy, it proved that All of you Do not put the time and effort in to speak knowledgeably and intelligently. Then you chimed in.. Seemingly you did not even understand on the most basic level what was going on.

Now with this new promise I pledge to take the time to help you with your failure to understand, rather than do what I did. (to try and make you look as foolish as possible) by highlighting your word use of fuel as a reward of your own ignorance of the topic. Yes you use the word fuel but you do not explain how a fuel in this context would diminish in any way my stated claim. then your very next post you abandoned the use of the word fuel all together and picked up the ever so popular second law of thermal dynamics like everyone else did. which again does not apply.. but when did my reveal you centered in on the word fuel and noted you actually typed the word negating the fact you made no effort in trying to explain why you used this word.. you only pretended that there could have been no other possible explanation for why you would use the word nuclear fuel (which again is not what is even being discussed) so you pretended you never even said nuclear.

Now if you are convinced I am wrong here then simply explain to me why the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to my perpetual motion machine as described.

Your answer if right will prove my intention to do as I claimed above. (so you can understand my intention) if your answer is wrong then it proves that you had no idea what was being discussed and everything you said in the first thread was 'untrue' at best and only further my initial point. That 1/2 the time you guys have no idea what you are arguing. you just take up ying yang position opposite to me and argue feelings.

Third option is you could remain silent and prove me wrong.

Quote you: "Now with this new promise I pledge to take the time to help you with your failure to understand,"

Oh no, we do understand, that is why we are atheists. Try understanding why you reject claims of Allah and Vishnu and Buddha and Thor.

You won't do that because your own fear of being wrong wont let you consider you got it wrong. 

We are not the ones with the problem.

[Deesse23]

like in your specific case? per the first thread when you did not understand that

I am an engineer since the mid 90s and understood thermodynamic laws since the mid 80s. You didn't even know it's not 'thermal dynamics' since a few posts ago.

So who do you think you are fooling with your cheap bluffs?
But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you have earned the title of village idiot.

[Drich]

If Drich can name all 12 apostles, I'll agree to his deal.

Boru

who's apostles?

the word apostles simply means a servant sent out under orders.

If you are referring to the apostles of Christ there are a few lists in whom is to be considered an apostle and who is not. one list is left in a gospel but out of the names given very little is known about everything these men did. A few consider them apostle by name only. and then there are men who in the book of acts where actually recorded in doing what Jesus commands. a promiate name to this list is Paul/saul of tarsus. at the time of Jesus' death he was a staunch Pharisee and hunted down christians to have them killed/stoned. Till Jesus himself intervened. while not apart of the original 12 disciples (which included judas iscariot) who hanged himself for betraying Jesus and did not become an apostle, the 11 elected another of the disciples (christ had many not just the 12 at the end of his ministry there were 120 disciples.) how ever in luke 6 the original names are listed which include judas iscariot who again betrayed jesus and died by his own hand.

 then two men were nominated in to replace judas from the 120 close/serious disciples (men who sold everything and follow jesus out of faith and was there at the baptism and witnessed the resurrection)  those two where Matthias and  Joseph called Barsabbas and according to acts 1. Matthias won this right to be identified as Judas' replacement. Again however little is known about these twelve out side of church lore. the bible seems to take a different direction in naming the Apstoles of Christ which begins with paul and follows his lot as identified by luke. in the book of acts.

So again who's Apostles.. 

then if Christ which list?

Jesus compiled a list at the beginning of his ministry found in all of the gospels which includes judas..

The remaining 11 had a list of names in acts one after the ascension and the death of judas..

and again by deed there is yet another list of Paul luke timothy in conjunction with some of the original church all who worked to establish the lords Church as it is today.

So before I assume, I would like more info to clear up any confusion as per my new mandate.

[I_am_not_mafia]

the whole perpetual motion machine was a rouse

Now if you are convinced I am wrong here then simply explain to me why the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to my perpetual motion machine as described.

So are you claiming that it isn't actually a perpetual motion machine and it was all a ruse or are you claiming it really is one?

Sounds like you're just flailing about back-peddling trying to save face.