And you lie about us living in an "empire of lies." That's the logical implication of what you are saying.
The reality is that we live in a real world. Civilization would break down if everyone lied. (All the prices would be misleading at the checkout counter. All the liquid and dry goods would be short measure. Deadlines would not be met.) Most people do not lie. Some people do. The important issue is to determine who is who---and on the basis of what information. If you are not grounded to information, you are literally no more than a paranoid psychotic.
Who is "they," by the way? Just anyone? Everyone? Or are there specific agencies and PROVEN agendas that are being offered as truth? You like to answer "yes," but you (plural) often wave your hands over who and what evidence. You don't mind that you are using a paint sprayer than even a broad brush.
How would we know about the "climate change" deception and propaganda if there were not trustworthy people telling the truth and offering data that can be referenced?
Unfortunately, you "out" yourself by alluding to the Stupid Prize of the Century: that the Moon landings were either faked or non-existent. You are not far from becoming a Flat Earther.
(And where did I say anything about the Sun? I have known my astronomy since I was a child. It will last a long time, but we will probably be gone by the time it comes to an end. Which makes me wonder: How old are you, anyway, that you have become a cynic?)
So, how do you know your first "fact" is indeed factual? That seems entirely out of synch with her apology. What is important is not that the information was "not new," but that it was new to her. (Was it? You don't know.) And your second "fact" is only an appendage to the first "fact." These are both conclusions you have leaped to without any evidence.
The third "fact": I'm not "weaseling" out of anything. I don't have any knowledge of her previous post. You are assuming facts not in evidence, regarding what I know. Nothing in what you say that wouldn't be the result of sloppiness, not prevarication.
The going-in position for all testimony (particularly in court) is to take the testator at their word---unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence to the contrary, or you would have cited it. I don't know of any evidence that she has lied in the past, nor do you bring up any. Moreover, a mistaken statement made in good faith is not a lie, but a mistake.
You are not "teaching" me anything. I have in my time solved a number of puzzling technical questions (e.g., "Why does this fast igniter result in slow ignition?") which required close and careful thinking, because reality doesn't lie. I have a backlog of 40 years of technical analysis that my colleagues have all recognized as being first rate. So, don't waste my time or yours by talking down to me over what is or is not an assumption, when all you have demonstrated is your propensity to shoot first and not ask questions later.
Frens, we are seeing what happens when everyone (both Us and Them) gets invested in type casting and cannot stomach reality. If Fetterman turns out to have a brain after a serious mental impairment, we should be glad for him as a human being. If he turns out to have mental independence, more room for joy.
Umm. Newton had nothing to do with the formulation of the First Law (conservation of energy), which came along after he died. He probably took it for granted in the realm of mechanical energy, or his orbital mechanics wouldn't have made sense.
Boltzmann's work applied to stochastic (random) systems, so it is a general proof. Random process = chaotic transitions.
It is not true that "anything is possible." This is why they are called the "laws" of thermodynamics.
"John Trump could have..." covers a lot of territory, including negotiations with the Devil or dancing with pixies. It is more relevant to admit that there is no evidence for any such supposition. Everyone claims the existence of a secret, but no one can say what it is---which pretty much establishes they are talking about wish-fulfillment, not anything real.
Argue with yourself. Your first argumentative point in answer to your question #1 was an "I believe" that referred to her state of knowledge---which you couldn't possibly have known for a fact. That is an assumption. Now you are trying to wiggle out of it.
Theories based on assumptions need first to have the assumptions validated. You flunk.
As for your questions, puzzle on. They are of your own making. Ask her why or why not. You haven't shown why this is not simple trivia.
Not electrostatics. Not direct current. Read up on electricity.
The sun is powered by a hydrogen fusion reaction of a kind we cannot produce on Earth (for various reasons, having to do with thermodynamic conditions and timescale of operation). We compare our observations with what is predicted by theory and find good correspondence. Theories are never "proven"; they are either verifiable or not. Sometimes a good theory is displaced by a more elaborate or more accurate theory when fine details are examined.
That kind of perpetual motion is unimportant to the quest. We do that with superconductive currents. The quest is for a source of perpetual power, and that IS impossible.
You know, it's too bad that you put your unfounded beliefs ahead of the factual record, your only argument being a name-call. Tesla was not, is not, and never will be your savior, so you need to grow up and get on with life.
But don't let your prejudice get in the way of the facts. I have known about Tesla most of my life and have read a lot about him. He was unquestionably brilliant and creative. But at the end of his life he was not running at full throttle, and his ideas were not panning out...which is why he was unable to solicit further funding. Those who don't know much about him except the mythology are inclined to think he was a genie or something. The "Tesla Papers" have become a Holy Grail.
From "oldgal_frdup" below:
"If I remember the whole speech, he was talking about all of the poorly engineered parts of our new battleship. The hydraulic elevators worked much better. Also the placement of the engine room and the munitions storage were absolutely too close to each other. I think his point was that we have idiots designing everything right now. I suppose they were diversity and equity hires."
Context is important. I didn't hear the speech, but it sounds like he was discussing the most recent aircraft carrier. I don't know anything about magnetic elevators, but they have been recently notorious for the poor performance of the electromagnetic aircraft catapults (the previous technology being steam-driven). It would be credible to think that the John Deere company would have relevant expertise.
Not if it is electrically insulated. Water means nothing to a magnetic field.
Yes. That is what magnetic levitation ("maglev") systems do. You can achieve the effect either from electromagnets or permanent magnets. The Chinese are running trains based on this principle.
Pretty much nonsense. In order for a generator to generate current (i.e., power) it must operate against the resistance of counter-currents induced in the windings. This requires mechanical power to continue the rotation. In matters of energy conversion, you don't get anything for free.
Dr. Trump's assessment was that there was nothing of importance in what Tesla left behind. Just a collection of visionary and self-promotional material. The papers were then remanded to Tesla's only living relative, in Serbia.
At his death, Tesla no longer had "artifacts." The Wardenclyffe installation was not his to own. All he had was the hotel room he was living in and his papers. The papers were all remanded to his only living relative, back in Serbia.
And thank you for the appreciation!
Here is your answer to your first question:
"Question 1: I do not believe she has any new ability to suddenly conclude this source is wrong, that she did not posses before being called out."
You do not believe.... What has belief to do with fact? What you are stating is an assumption that the does not have "any new ability to suddenly conclude this source is wrong, that she did not possess before being carried out." You present no justification for this assumption.
After 50 years spent in engineering, I have come to know the difference between facts and theories. You haven't.
And you are full of insults. I don't know anything other than what she said in that post. You have already admitted that your whole chain of inquiry begins with an assumption on your part, for which you have no confirmation. And you keep asserting that you know something that is nothing more than your own supposition. I am expected to watch all this as an adult and give it respect?
What emotion? Jan Halper is only a name and a photograph to me, and I don't even remember her face. More supposition on your part. It must give you a sense of power to imagine you know my inner thoughts. This is why the paranoid universe leads inexorably into psychosis.
Q can write a lot of things. The quotation is probably apt. But he is talking about "they thought," not about me or you.
It is not a matter of bliss or agony. It is a matter of recognizing what is realistically on the table. You worry too much over unprovoked questions. This is the byproduct of paranoia.
You concede that your answer to your first question (the keystone to your following questions) relies on an assumption. Prove it is correct. (You have epistemology upside-down. It is not tenable to try to prove that a statement is false, except by proving the truth of a contrary affirmative.) I don't have to show you anything, since I am not trying to move beyond the facts (her admission of mistake and apology).
I was, of course, being ironic, "western media" being notorious purveyors of falsehoods concerning Ukraine.
Heh. Then the Ukrainians can dance in the streets for joy.
You can ask any number of hypothetical questions and you can believe any number of make-believe answers. I will pay attention to the information. I do wonder what "whetting" is, when the usual verb is "vetting."
Everything you relate depends on your answer to the first question...which is an assumption. Not the mark of an investigator.
Diamonds and graphite are "allotropes" of carbon (different molecular forms). Just as atmospheric oxygen and ozone are allotropes of oxygen. Or red and white phosphorous are allotropes of phosphorous.
We can make fun, but unfortunately this is a serious emergent problem in society. People are literally becoming mentally unhinged. I'm not talking about ideological radicalism, but about the increasingly prevalent detachment from reality and associated emotional lack of control (admittedly facilitated by a media environment of sheer propaganda). I think we turned an ominous corner in 2016 with the emergence of what I will call "tantrum protests," with participants mainly seeking a public forum in which to literally bewail their fate. Adult behavior has been replaced by infantile behavior. And where once, in playgrounds, it was commonplace to retort to jeers with "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"---it is now equally commonplace for the exact opposite of such basic maturity to manifest as wokeness, trauma, and intolerance. Transexualization is the current extreme of child-like play acting, with people's lives being destroyed on the altar of "there are no limits." (Pedophilia is what happens when an older spirit of evil gains sway in a person's life.) I reckon this detachment from reality to be the consequence of the systematic secularization (atheistic conversion) of society.
I hope that a Trump resurgence will entail such a collision with reality that many will be shocked back into their minds, but we must be ready for the possibility that some will instead plunge further into their psychosis. I am now thinking that this may be the meaning of Q's remark that "it will not be for everyone."