Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    Posted By: GrimerThe only way you could know it's impossible is divine revelation.
    Bit tricky since you don't believe in such things,
    It is, of course, not logically impossible. As I have said before on the forum, sometimes I (like everyone) use it in the sense of impossible based on how we know the world works. My point being, a video of a spinning disc alone does not trump hundreds of years of universally confirmed understanding.
  2.  
    Posted By: Duracell
    As discussed on the other forum Steorn are claiming to violate CoE.

    They are not claiming to be "appearing" to violate CoE, for example by tapping into some unidentified and previously undiscovered source of energy, which when identified and properly understood, will comply with CoE.

    This means that Steorn are claiming to be able to create energy (and therefore more universe) from nothing.

    This is impossible.

    Unless of course you believe in the divine, and believe that Steon possess divine abilities!


    I don't think it really matters that they claim to have something that violates CoE rather than exploits some still unknown energy source. Even if they did have a machine it would be impossible for them to tell the difference between the two.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: Duracell
    Posted By: GrimerThe only way you could know it's impossible is divine revelation.
    Bit tricky since you don't believe in such things,


    As discussed on the other forum Steorn are claiming to violate CoE.

    They are not claiming to be "appearing" to violate CoE, for example by tapping into some unidentified and previously undiscovered source of energy, which when identified and properly understood, will comply with CoE.

    This means that Steorn are claiming to be able to create energy (and therefore more universe) from nothing.

    This is impossible.

    Unless of course you believe in the divine, and believe that Steorn possess divine abilities!
    I agree absolutely that Steorn's claim to create energy ex nihilo is ridiculous and I have always said so. Since he is a good catholic lad judging from the fact he had his daughter confirmed I can only assume that he wants to get the scientific stuffed shirts all riled up.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    Posted By: hairykrishna
    Posted By: Duracell
    As discussed on the other forum Steorn are claiming to violate CoE.

    They are not claiming to be "appearing" to violate CoE, for example by tapping into some unidentified and previously undiscovered source of energy, which when identified and properly understood, will comply with CoE.

    This means that Steorn are claiming to be able to create energy (and therefore more universe) from nothing.

    This is impossible.

    Unless of course you believe in the divine, and believe that Steon possess divine abilities!


    I don't think it really matters that they claim to have something that violates CoE rather than exploits some still unknown energy source. Even if they did have a machine it would be impossible for them to tell the difference between the two.


    Yes, but then the sensible and honest thing to do would be claim that you "appear" to be violating CoE, and invite in experts to investigate why (i.e. to identify the as yet undiscovered energy source), rather than to repeatedly (and ridiculously) claim to be "actually" violating CoE (i.e. creating energy from nothing), and showing nothing to anyone to prove this or back up the ridiculous claim.
  3.  
    Posted By: evolvealready
    Posted By: GrimerThe only way you could know it's impossible is divine revelation.
    Bit tricky since you don't believe in such things,
    It is, of course, notlogicallyimpossible. As I have said before on the forum, sometimes I (like everyone) use it in the sense of impossible based on how we know the world works. My point being, a video of a spinning disc alone does not trump hundreds of years of universally confirmed understanding.


    Sorry.
    It (Steorn's claim to create energy from nothing, etc.) is indeed logically impossible. That fact, in fact, is in fact the fact that is perhaps most significant in leading the thinking cogitator to reject Steorn's claims out of hand.
    "IT" is logically impossible because it CONTRADICTS, in a strict logical sense, many many things that we know for pretty damn sure about reality. That is, were it possible to "create" energy by moving magnets past each other, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS, some very smart and hardworking people would have noticed it already, because of the simple fact that many many other systems, mechanical and electrical, would exhibit certain effects that they do NOT actually exhibit.
    The syllogism works like this:
    IF Steorn had really found "IT", it would contradict and obviate literally thousands of years of scientific and intellectual endeavor which have elucidated regularities called "laws" that can be used to engineer the most amazing things.
    All this science stuff works pretty damn well, without contradictions and without modification of fundamental laws of the universe, and engineering works quite well, as anybody driving to work in their cubicle can tell you via email.
    THEREFORE, the "IT" that Steorn has found is not logically possible and must be explained in some other way.

    To simplify, IF A, then B.
    Observe NOT B.
    THEREFORE, NOT A.

    You cannot get around this with any amount of bullhockey or crooked croquet, even in Alice's Wonderland.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    "I agree absolutely that Steorn's claim to create energy ex nihilo is ridiculous and I have always said so. Since he is a good catholic lad judging from the fact he had his daughter confirmed I can only assume that he wants to get the scientific stuffed shirts all riled up. "
    ---
    Yes, I always thought that Sean's daughter's confirmation was salient to the argument as well.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    Maybe Crank's been commissioned to do Sean's bust.
    I hope someone's being commissioned to bust Sean.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    Posted By: timetrumpet@quanten

    You're right, it means nothing. And it would mean nothing if she'd said "I ran into an investor and he had a haunted look and dark circles under his eyes."


    Yep. Agreed absolutely nothing this way or the other way around.
  4.  
    Al, I agree with everything you say except that it is logically impossible. I agree that you give a valid deductive argument for it not being possible and that your premises are true, but that is not the same as the contrary being logically impossible. A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. It is not the same as saying that there is no valid deductive argument with true premises that shows that it is not actually possible. His belief is logically possible, but not actually possible, given what we know about how the world works.
  5.  
    Posted By: evolvealreadyAl, I agree with everything you say except that it is logically impossible. I agree that you give a valid deductive argument for it not being possible and that your premises are true, but that is not the same as the contrary beinglogically impossible. A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying alogical contradiction. It is not the same as saying that there is no valid deductive argument with true premises that shows that it is notactuallypossible. His belief is logically possible, but not actually possible, given what we know about how the world works.


    Huh? I'm not quite sure I follow you. Can you give an example of a proposition that is logically possible but not "actually" possible?

    I'm not talking about something like Og the caveman coming up with the idea of Polaroid photography, which is logically possible, but impossible in reality because the existing facilities won't be constructed for fourteen thousand years, or something like that. Clearly that kind of example is stretching the boundaries of "logically possible" by ignoring significant variables like the existence or not of an underlying infrastructure. Ditto atomic bombs before Rutherford, etc.etc.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    Posted By: evolvealreadyAl, I agree with everything you say except that it is logically impossible. I agree that you give a valid deductive argument for it not being possible and that your premises are true, but that is not the same as the contrary beinglogically impossible. A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying alogical contradiction. It is not the same as saying that there is no valid deductive argument with true premises that shows that it is notactuallypossible. His belief is logically possible, but not actually possible, given what we know about how the world works.
    Well, people have found out things didn't work the way they thought before. The earth going around the sun for example. People believed the opposite from time immemorial and yet they were wrong. If they can be wrong about the camel, why shouldn't they also be wrong about the gnat.
  6.  
    Al, any proposition that is not a logical contradiction is logically possible. It is logically possible that I will dine in Bejing tomorrow, but given my schedule and bank account, it is not actually possible.
    It is logically possible that a pink flying unicorn will come flying through my window in exactly 1 minute. It is not logically possible that the unicorn be both pink and not pink.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    Posted By: evolvealreadyyou give a valid deductive argument for it not being possible and that your premises are true, but that is not the same as the contrary beinglogically impossible


    If I use logical methods to deduce validly that something is not possible starting from true premises, then why would it be incorrect to describe it as "logically impossible"? It has been determined impossible by correctly using logic.

    I wonder if you actually mean "conceivable". The concept of a class 1 perpetuum mobile exists (everybody here can conceive of such a thing, otherwise the discussions couldn't happen). However, the thing that the concept refers to doesn't exist. The concept has no more basis in reality than the concept "a heavy purple dream".
  7.  
    Well, I am just explaining MY use of logically possible, which is shared by the textbooks. But we can use another if you like. The main point is that we agree it ain't gonna happen.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     
    It is logically possible that a pink flying unicorn will come flying through my window in exactly 1 minute.
    Only if it's been properly trained.
  8.  
    Posted By: maryyugo
    It is logically possible that a pink flying unicorn will come flying through my window in exactly 1 minute.
    Only if it's been properly trained.
    Oh god, I hope so. I just had the carpet cleaned.
    •  
      CommentAuthorGrimer
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: evolvealreadyWell, I am just explaining MY use of logically possible, which is shared by the textbooks. But we can use another if you like. The main point is that we agree it ain't gonna happen.

    Will you promise to jump out of a 10th floor window if it does. If it's not going to happen why not? Or if you don't want to go that far what about betting me £100,000 pounds to a penny that it won't happen in our lifetime. If it ain't going to happen, why not. Put your money where your mouth is. That shows is a quantifiable way just how sure you are that it ain't going to happen.
  9.  
    "The Smilin' Investor." Isn't that a Pub in Dublin?
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009 edited
     
    @Grimer
    The odds you suggest don't inspire much confidence in your ideas. In addition, when you get to betting *serious* money, there's the issue of how you define the bet. For example, I'd bet you almost anything that Steorn didn't discover overunity anything. I might bet you a little less (not much less) that they have NOT made any worthwhile discovery at all (other than how to bamboozle three blind mice and some investors).
  10.  
    Posted By: Grimer
    Posted By: evolvealreadyWell, I am just explaining MY use of logically possible, which is shared by the textbooks. But we can use another if you like. The main point is that we agree it ain't gonna happen.

    Will you promise to jump out of a 10th floor window if it does. If it's not going to happen why not? Or if you don't want to go that far what about betting me £100,000 pounds to a penny that it won't happen in our lifetime. If it ain't going to happen, why not. Put your money where your mouth is. That shows is a quantifiable way just how sure you are that it ain't going to happen.
    I have promised to give 1,000 to charity if it happens. The terms are (I think still) listed on the other forum.