Covek naspram koga je Baltazar mala maca???

Dzekson je napisao(la):

Ja ako ga ikad vidim uzivo, ja cu da ga izmlatim. Izgleda jedini nacin borbe je shamar budali, posto mediji u srbiji, SVI komplet nemaju dva grama mozga.

Kliknite za proširenje...

Sad i grad Novi Sad zvanično podržava Milkovića za Nobelovu nagradu, imaš u

atačmentu opširnije,pozz

Kliknite za proširenje...

Rapture je napisao(la):

Ala alister, mocno klatno ...

Kliknite za proširenje...

... verifikuje sledećim repetabilnim i predvidljivim eksperimentalnim dokazom: igle, na krajevima nejednake mase, izrađene od nemagnetičnih materijala, okačene u centru mase na tanku iglu tako da im se vertikalna komponenta gravitacije poništi, polako se rotiraju i posle izvesnog vremena stabilno zauzimaju orijentaciju sever-jug, paralelno sa feromagnetskom iglom kompasa. Ovaj ogled u raznim varijantama više puta ponovili su nezavisni istraživači, s punim uspehom.

Kliknite za proširenje...

Dzekson je napisao(la):

Tesla nije nikada predlagao perpetuum mobile, tesla je predlagao koriscenje energije planete i prostora oko nas kao izvore energije.

Cinjenica je da je covek znao nesto o struji sto dan danas NIKO ne zna, isto tako je i cinjenica da je covek skrenuo poslednjih 15 godina zivota i bavio se vise metafizikom i filozofijom nego naukom (kodirane poruke sa marsa, odnos sa Bogom koji tesko da uopste moze da se protumaci i u okvirima suve filozofije, itd)

Ako ikada dodje do "izuma sa neogranicenom energijom", u pitanju ce biti uredjaj koji koristi energiju kvantnih principa, radije nego "energije niotkuda" i samo ce delovati da je beskonacna. Hladna fuzija, nakon toga antimaterija, nakon toga kvantne fluktuacije (zero point).

Elem, poenta je da izumi poput "dve zice sa tri klatna i drvo koje sve to drzi sa stipaljkom" apsolutno jesu prevare, i svako ko predlaze tako nesto jeste prevarant.

Kliknite za proširenje...

The process by which two atoms join together, or fuse, into a single heavier atom is called fusion. Fusion is the energy source of stars, like our sun — where it takes place at about 27,000,000° F. In 1989, chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made headlines with claims that they had produced fusion at room temperature — "cold" fusion compared to the high temperatures the process was thought to require. It was the kind of discovery that scientists dream of: a simple experiment with results that could reshape our understanding of physics and change lives the world over. However, this "discovery" was missing one key ingredient: good scientific behavior.

This case study highlights these aspects of the nature of science:

The scientific community is responsible for checking the work of community members. Through the scrutiny of this community, science corrects itself.
Scientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas — even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.
Scientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.
Science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.
Scientists often verify surprising results by trying to replicate the test.
In science, discoveries and ideas must be verified with multiple lines of evidence.
Data require analysis and interpretation. Different scientists can interpret the same data in different ways.
...

One year after the press conference that had garnered Pons and Fleischmann so much attention, the scientific process had finally been able to sort through the evidence regarding cold fusion. Few groups had found support for the hypothesis, and those few had inconsistent results and could not reliably reproduce their findings. This lack of replicable evidence was a major blow for cold fusion. The laws of nature don't play favorites. If cold fusion works in one laboratory under a certain set of conditions, we'd expect it to work in other laboratories at other times under the same conditions. Hence, lack of reproducibility is a serious problem for any scientific finding, casting doubt on the validity of the original result and suggesting that there's been a misinterpretation of what's going on. In Pons and Fleischmann's case, lack of reproducibility indicated that whatever it was they had originally detected, it probably wasn't cold fusion. This interpretation is also supported by the fact that independent scientists couldn't find any evidence that Pons and Fleischmann's own cells had actually produced fusion. In light of all this evidence, most scientists consider Pons and Fleischmann's results to be an experimental error.

...

Kliknite za proširenje...

tomas.hokenberi je napisao(la):

qvotujem deo teksta

Kliknite za proširenje...