Are you playing with the words? You said: the output power cannot exceed the input power. There is no proof for that. How do you know it?
The laws of thermodynamics says so. Now please, stop stalling, and present your argument. Many experiments violate the thermodynamics. So something is going wrong with these mumbo jumbo laws. Cite one  Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RQ6XwaRyMThis Stanley Meyer clown was found to be a fraud in a court of law. Your counter argument was invalid. My argument still stands however, until you refute it. Please try again. |
|
|
|
Are you playing with the words? You said: the output power cannot exceed the input power. There is no proof for that. How do you know it?
The laws of thermodynamics says so. Now please, stop stalling, and present your argument. |
|
|
|
Ahh, the old "water powered car" myth rears it's ugly head again. This one just refuses to die. You dont need plans. Just electrolyze water with 30.000 volts and use hydrogen to produce electricity.
Water is a very strong bond. To split water into hydrogen and oxygen you need lots of electricity. If you had a perfect 100% efficient engine, the output power cannot exceed the input power. Pointless. There one and only reason we don't use water powered cars (without an external source of energy). They simply don't work. How do you know that? Did you made any experiment? This isn't a counter argument. My argument is: Cars powered purely by water with no other external source of energy, have never worked, don't work, and never will, because they violate the laws of thermodynamics. Now you must refute it with a solid logical scientific argument. If you cannot (which you won't) my argument stands. Oh and stuff like "A bloke called Bob on YouTube had one working so it must be true." are invalid. |
|
|
|
What do you mean with fundamental mass, what do you mean there is no gravity? What do you mean by fundamental gravity
The article is not mine. Don't ask me. So you dont understand the article and you have no idea what it says, why did you post such thing here then? Makes him look intelligent. It has backfired. |
|
|
|
I don't get this hate Vod thing? Please explain.
You not getting it, is Vod's fault. |
|
|
|
|
I never take any notice of the ratings to be honest.
|
|
|
|
The intention is for blocks to be full so that transactions bid for space with transaction fees.
Intention or is this just your opinion? |
|
|
|
|
So now we have to worry about the guys on our side as well as the terrorists.
|
|
|
|
Today i'm using TOR
That's not a browser. But it's in the poll ... Probably means the offical TOR browser, which is basically Firefox. |
|
|
|
Today i'm using TOR
That's not a browser. |
|
|
|
If scientists were smart enough to even guestimate about what happened 13 or 14 billion years ago, they might be able to tell what happened yesterday. They would have figured out how the human body works long ago. They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.
So lets get this straight, your logic says: 1. Medical science hasn't found a way for us humans to live to 500 years old. 2. Therefore the big bang didn't happen. I just genuinely LOL'd very hard indeed.  Big Bang bullshit is what scientists use to keep the people thinking that they are doing something big, so that they, the scientists, can continue to be adored, thereby GETTING THEIR FUNDING.
The church requires funding too you know.  Oh, Fluffer. It doesn't work like that. You're awareness that humans don't live to 500 years old, doesn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a Big Bang. Hey, nice backpedel. So realising your folly about the 500 year thing, your now saying it has no connection with the big bang (which it doesn't). I'm glad you've admitted (not directly though) your wrong. Perhaps *think* next time before you come out with silly arguments. You really need to go back to school - or maybe just graduate - so that you understand that nobody knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Just 'cause most of the real-life evidence is against it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Don't you just wish that all the advertising about the Big Bang said it straight out, like, "We really don't have a clue if it happened or not."
Of course we don't know, and probably never will. That's why it's called a theory. Nobody is pretending it isn't, apart from you. Maybe in 10 years time a different theory will appear that gains consensus. No doubt some hardcore believers will then keep trying to promote the old theory. Very similar to how the young 6000 year old earth theory lost consensus and was dropped. We laugh now, but hard as it is to believe, people did actually believe this was once true. I know, I know, your rolling your eyes in disbelief, but yes seriously, people did really believe the earth was only 6000 years old, once upon a time. |
|
|
|
Ahh, the old "water powered car" myth rears it's ugly head again. This one just refuses to die. You dont need plans. Just electrolyze water with 30.000 volts and use hydrogen to produce electricity.
Water is a very strong bond. To split water into hydrogen and oxygen you need lots of electricity. If you had a perfect 100% efficient engine, the output power cannot exceed the input power. Pointless. There one and only reason we don't use water powered cars (without an external source of energy). They simply don't work. It's amazing that you can even post anything, negative as you are. It's not negativity, it's reality. Unless you furnish us with your education in Chemistry and Physics and provide a sound argument against Buffer Overflow's statement of known scientific fact, then your opinion isn't worth the HDD storage used to contain it. Another one! Your answer is in the word "known." By scientist admission, they don't know much of anything at all compared with what there is to know. Be positive! We are going to find out the things we don't know, including the way for anybody to run his/her car on water. <<< A positive smile. Please educate yourself on the laws of thermodynamics that your magic water powered unicorn car violates, before posting anymore nonsense. Most proposed water-fuelled cars rely on some form of electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then recombine them to release energy; however, because the energy required to separate the elements will always be at least as great as the useful energy released, this cannot be used to produce net energy. There is one reason and one reason only we are not driving around in water powered cars. They don't work.There's lots of scam investments and stuff on the internet about water powered cars promoted by the scammers. Don't be fooled. Maybe BADeker is one of those scammers. Would explain why he's trying to silence the truth.  |
|
|
|
Ahh, the old "water powered car" myth rears it's ugly head again. This one just refuses to die. You dont need plans. Just electrolyze water with 30.000 volts and use hydrogen to produce electricity.
Water is a very strong bond. To split water into hydrogen and oxygen you need lots of electricity. If you had a perfect 100% efficient engine, the output power cannot exceed the input power. Pointless. There one and only reason we don't use water powered cars (without an external source of energy). They simply don't work. |
|
|
|
If scientists were smart enough to even guestimate about what happened 13 or 14 billion years ago, they might be able to tell what happened yesterday. They would have figured out how the human body works long ago. They would have developed methods to let us all live to age 500 long ago.
So lets get this straight, your logic says: 1. Medical science hasn't found a way for us humans to live to 500 years old. 2. Therefore the big bang didn't happen. I just genuinely LOL'd very hard indeed. Big Bang bullshit is what scientists use to keep the people thinking that they are doing something big, so that they, the scientists, can continue to be adored, thereby GETTING THEIR FUNDING.
The church requires funding too you know. |
|
|
|
Looks like you got way too much spare time on your hands. |
|
|
|
I guess only when the discussion in the thread "Proof that God exists" gets completed, should we start debating about whether god is conservative or not. That thread is still going strong.  That thread officially ended many months ago, when we discovered there wasn't any scientific proof of god. We still keep it open for entertainment purposes, also for BADecker in an attempt to stop his overextended religious poision spreading across the whole forum. |
|
|
|
Not speaking as a Christian here, I am not one, but as I understand the Bible and it's teachings it contains no directive to hate anyone, quite the opposite.
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." Wrong as this may be, it is not a commandment to hate. I agree, it's not directly, but sure is a deliberate breeding ground for hate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
