That would be off topic for this thread, but I'd be glad to respond if you want to post to that thread. I vaguely remember it, but not the title.
I dare not get in any deeper. Arready i Have a hudred knives in my back. Liverpool and Manchester City have just kicked off, in the FA Cup, on the box. I have just cracked a 6 pack and will not be in intellectual mode for 12 hours. We have 2mm of snow and the English clock has stopped until the great thaw.
If I am to say something complete, I do not think that Wolfram was correct when relying on CS to crticize Von Neumann on cost to compute and my move into haptics will bring this out more and more with or without QM as nantechnology is better understood. I tend to try to imagine Gibbs "independent development" not Wolfram's notion of paricles in a film media and am banking the XML bindings of SCORM metatdata to perversions biologically no matter the classification.
Only the future can tell( this). The rest we already know. And no, I dont know much of Shrodingers vs other apporaches to QM. Was that Bohm??
I know there's almost certainly somewhere else for people who have recently registered to say hello, but I thought I'd make my first post on this forum here. Because, despite sharing the same name, I'm not the person known here as Alan Cresswell. Nor are we, to my knowledge, related. And I most assuredly do not consider the OP to represent anything even vaguely resembling science.
Alan Cresswell, but not Alan Cresswell. Oh heck, I'm confused now. And a bit peeved that a user name I've gone under on discussion forums for almost 4 years is being used by someone else.
As incredible as it might seem, there is more than one Alan Cresswell, and he has registered here as Dr. Cresswell. The other Alan Cresswell has expressed disappointment that he cannot use the ID "Alan Cresswell" here because it is already taken by yourself, but I note the following:
You posted on only three consecutive days in early January.
You only posted to this thread.
You left an open discussion and haven't returned in a month.
Unless I hear back from you, either by a post to this thread or by email to Admin, then I'll make your ID available to the other Alan Cresswell, if he decides he really wants it.
I have a bizarre set of Dopplegangers .... I've a PhD in Physics, there's another Alan Cresswell who's a physics professor at a university in Pennsylvania. Strange. I have an interest in science/Christian faith issues (but, unfortunately, very little time to read forums such as this) and find another Alan Cresswell registered here.
It is a very strange world at times!
And I've now totally derailed this thread, but it seemed pretty dead anyway. Off to find an interesting discussion elsewhere in these forums .....
The discussion boards have a set of Forum Guidelines that are intended to promote civil and productive discussion. Enforcement of the guidelines ranges from temporary suspensions of posting privileges to permanent banning.
------------------ --EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2003]
Hello surfer. Maybe you could ask of the good Dr Cresswell why he does not make scientific comment of Diagrams 2, 2a and 3 at the website given at the head of this thread. Maybe you would have a go yourself. Get some help maybe.
The doctor has nothing whatsoever to say face to face with me. He cannot even comment constructively from within the relative safety of his Darwinian herd and the Forum time gap. He has gone to Forum fields anew. That is why Admin just slapped me to save his hide.
Um, just to say that much though I would like to respond in kind to your post in kind, in deference to the guidelines for this forum I will not. Though if I see any more ad hominem comments directed towards me I will probably take advantage of the Free for All forum here and let you know exactly what I think of your so-called debating style.
I see little point in critiquing diagrams 2, 2a or 3 since they're built upon very shaky foundations. I would prefer to discuss those foundations first, but they appear to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. "The problem is that the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong", umm any evidence apart from rephrasing the law into non-standard language? The First Law simply states that energy is conserved, where on earth do you get the gross simplification that "heat=energy"? It's true that heat is a form of energy, and the friction of the flywheel generates heat - conserved energy lost by the slowed spin; the heat generated in turn is the energy of the motion of gas molecules in air, motion of atoms in the flywheel and it's axel, or electromagnetic radiation. Energy is still conserved.
And, one more thing. I work for a living, doing genuine scientific research of practical benefit, and don't have unlimited time to spend online during the day. The time I do have is spent on another forum where I have responsibilities as a moderator. As such, I will only be posting here from home.
You could not of course comment logically and scientifically on Diagrams 2 and 2a because for you it is just 'smoke and mirrors'. Your all too obvious euphemism for 'I cannot comprehend'.
Ok, go to diagrams 4a,4b,4c. A Gyro power torque engine. No thermo, no Faraday and no need to comprehend the physics of resonance. It is a toy gyro, advanced kindergarden. Please take your time and continue to work for a living. Is your work of practical benefit to the human race or simply for the benefit of your research facility.
I ask this because earth-asteroid collision experts claim a sense of responsibility.
Your "Gyro Torque Engine of Perpetual Motion" still cannot do any more than slow down as friction acts on it; and I can't see anything there which produces zero friction. Without a zero friction environment perpetual motion is impossible, unless you can some how disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics - which brings us back to your foundations of nothing but smoke and mirrors.
We're back to your statement "The problem is that the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong". The problem for everything on your page (or at least that which I've managed to read without splitting my sides laughing at the stupidity of it) is that you have not proved your assertion that the First Law is wrong, indeed you cannot do so for the First Law is not wrong.