The seven signs of bogus science.

[So]

desperately

 

[funkymatt]

Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with perpetual motion and anti-gravity machines.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: funkymatt
Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with and anti-gravity machines.

Why do you think that? Any scientist worth his salt stops listening to you as soon as you use those words.

 

[chorb]

So you're saying that the anti gravity car I just ordered online that makes me younger, helps me lose weight without exercise, turn lead to gold, that runs on water and exhausts wine wont actually work?

 

[funkymatt]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: funkymatt
Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with and anti-gravity machines.

Why do you think that? Any scientist worth his salt stops listening to you as soon as you use those words.

if someone showed you something that would levitate, you wouldn't be intrigued? what about a machine that appeared to be gaining momentum?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: funkymatt
Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with perpetual motion and anti-gravity machines.

😕

EDIT:

Either you're being sarcastic and I'm not picking up on it, or you're one of the people who needs to read the article.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: chorb
So you're saying that the anti gravity car I just ordered online that makes me younger, helps me lose weight without exercise, turn lead to gold, that runs on water and exhausts wine wont actually work?

If it doesn't enlarge your penis then why would you buy it?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: funkymatt

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: funkymatt
Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with and anti-gravity machines.

Why do you think that? Any scientist worth his salt stops listening to you as soon as you use those words.

if someone showed you something that would levitate, you wouldn't be intrigued? what about a machine that appeared to be gaining momentum?

Levitation is easy. There are all types of known effects that cause it. As for a machine that appeared to be gaining momentum, I would immediately wonder where it is getting its energy from. I, like all good scientists, know there is no such thing as perpetual motion, if it appears that way then there is a factor that has not been accounted for.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: funkymatt

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: funkymatt
Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with and anti-gravity machines.

Why do you think that? Any scientist worth his salt stops listening to you as soon as you use those words.

if someone showed you something that would levitate, you wouldn't be intrigued? what about a machine that appeared to be gaining momentum?

Personally, I'd be skeptical rather than intrigued. If it's real, prove it. Otherwise it's nothing more than high-tech sleight of hand.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
I, like all good scientists, know there is no such thing as perpetual motion, if it appears that way then there is a factor that has not been accounted for.

Do not take this as an endorsement of a perpetual motion machine, but 125 years ago "all good scientists" knew that there was such a thing as luminiferous aether.

What we know is that our current theoretical models do not support perpetual motion. This means that any true perpetual motion device would also have to provide a new theoretical framework that also explained everything that is currently explained by our existing theoretical models. This is a massive requirement and does effectively mean that perpetual motion is impossible since such claims have historically given no new theoretical explanation for their function.

So a good scientist should remain open to the idea that there may also be a fundamental revision of our current theoretical understanding awaiting us (though, historically, the fundamental revision has occurred first, so healthy skepticism would absolutely be warranted).

ZV

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
I, like all good scientists, know there is no such thing as perpetual motion, if it appears that way then there is a factor that has not been accounted for.

Do not take this as an endorsement of a perpetual motion machine, but 125 years ago "all good scientists" knew that there was such a thing as luminiferous aether.

What we know is that our current theoretical models do not support perpetual motion. This means that any true perpetual motion device would also have to provide a new theoretical framework that also explained everything that is currently explained by our existing theoretical models. This is a massive requirement and does effectively mean that perpetual motion is impossible since such claims have historically given no new theoretical explanation for their function.

So a good scientist should remain open to the idea that there may also be a fundamental revision of our current theoretical understanding awaiting us (though, historically, the fundamental revision has occurred first, so healthy skepticism would absolutely be warranted).

ZV

I don't think you realize quite how fundamental revising the laws of thermodynamics would be. Yes, every claim should be investigated insofar as is reasonable given it's apparent merit, *but* I would be less skeptical of the following machines not currently supported by theory:

Time Travel
Anti-Gravity
Faster Than Light Propulsion
Teleportation of whole people
Telekenesis
Device to access parallel dimensions.
etc...

 

[OCGuy]

Anything with Al Gore involved.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Anything with Al Gore involved.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

EDIT: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

 

[Atheus]

http://xkcd.com/298/

 

[So]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Anything with Al Gore involved.

LLLL....LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

FIX THIS, Jackass. :|

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: funkymatt
Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with perpetual motion and anti-gravity machines.

What?

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: funkymatt

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: funkymatt
Scientists are probably the easiest people to fool with and anti-gravity machines.

Why do you think that? Any scientist worth his salt stops listening to you as soon as you use those words.

if someone showed you something that would levitate, you wouldn't be intrigued? what about a machine that appeared to be gaining momentum?

So in your dictionary: "Intrigued" means the same thing as "fooled"?

 

[Descartes]

I read that and thought, "Hey, this reads a lot like Voodoo Science." Then I saw it was Robert Park.

I highly recommend reading Voodoo Science. It's basically a lot of the same ideas but expanded with more context.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Anything with Al Gore involved.

I like penis in my ass

Edit that post asshole, stop ruining the page formatting.