How about this..

[Drich]

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.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-59309-page-21.html
that was the big reveal of post 207 in the original thread... thanks for confirming my own findings and respringing my trap validating all of the facts and technology that you YES YOU and your peers were originally arguing against.

in your efforts here, You're only furthering the point I made there and now that you've finally come to a conclusion I personally pointed out almost 4 days ago..

can you now be bothered to read this op in this new thread and now comment on this topic?

Because the only thing you have done here by rehashing your conclusions of the other thread is insult your peers by pretending to have figured out what they have all failed to do in the heat of the moment. Even if you did honestly figure it out, why post it here? Unless your intentions is to tell your fellow atheists how smart you see yourself to be...

---

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.

I have not double down on anything. my pledge was to be transparent not accommodating or facilitating in my own destruction. It simply promised to let you in on the joke rather than being the unexpected butt of it. that way you fully understand what is being discussed and often time will forego the need I might have for putting your foolishness out there in the first place.

My hope is if we are on the same page and you are not looking over your shoulder then you don't have to feel like you have to always try and save face against the dumb guy who has yet again shown you up. (if and when that is the case.. like this last time.)