Hutchison demonstrates Zero Point Energy

A man demonstrating zero point energy
on different objects.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• space
• zero
• gravity
• Ufo
• Tech
• nicola
• tesla
• alien
• science
• point
• energy
• Green
• Illuminati
• alex
• collier
• extra
• terrestrial
• Stand-up
• Video
• Blog
• Athletics
• Business
• Communications
• Computer
• Science
• Economics
• Engineering
• Health
• Real
• Alien
• Aliens
• Ufos
• Nephilim
• Giant
• Giants
• Footage
• Captured
• Space
• Exposed
• Nibiru
• 2012
• Prophecy
• De

[flowerbower]

@nellamanodestra I say 'perpetual motion', you might say 'free energy'. I am not sure about your list; is it a mixed one? Remote viewing is nonsense, but are you saying that nanotechnology is? And I think that you mean 4 forces; not 4 energies. In fact, I have always thought that the concept of a grand unified theory is a logical error ('begging the question'): analogies are suggestive, but not always reliable guides.

I don't live by bumper-sticker philosophy.

[flowerbower]

@nellamanodestra One 'knows' straight away that a crackpot is a crackpot because he is totally lacking in self-criticism and avoids all of the usual scientific 'checks and balances'. It is not even what a crackpot claims (although it is usually something like 'free energy' aka perpetual motion), but the manner in which he sneaks around, that marks him out. BTW, all conmen are always very keen on one 'having an open mind'.

[flowerbower]

@nellamanodestra Have you considered the very real possibility that you are not qualified to judge? Don't you have a 'personal issue' with people who are clearly criminals? Newton and Einstein, and current real scientists, are not 'pestered' by scientific critics because they did, and do, first present their ideas to their peers. Crackpots always avoid that onerous process and try to fool layman by bypassing critical comment. Why can you not understand that?

[flowerbower]

@nellamanodestra You appear to have a problem with comprehension: I was pointing out the logical axiom that one cannot prove a priori that something does not exist. However, as soon as someone claims to have evidence for its existence, that evidence must be tested to destruction.

[nellamanodestra]

@flowerbower I never talked about perpetual motion (I think it is a fallacy), go back to my second message, I said anti-gravity and others... With others I meant things like Remote Viewing, neuro tech, nano-tech, the nature of the energy (can the 4 energies be unified with a different interpretation of physics phenomena) and so many more, that remain unexplained at large by our current science.

The world is not black-white get used to it kid.

[nellamanodestra]

@flowerbower I am all in for confrontation with "experts", but until you know calling them crackpots is just ignorant, you don't really know.

I don't really know about pseudoscience, but I don't close my mind for something I don't understand.

[nellamanodestra]

@flowerbower You keep talking about crackpots, in my vocabulary there's ignorant people and I don't care about them. A crackpot to me is a person like you with sterile mind who thinks he knows reality.

What's your personal issue with people who don't share your standards?. Newton and Einstein were pestered by people like you, not by the people you so energically criticise.

[nellamanodestra]

@flowerbower You contradict yourself, if there is NO evidence against it there is no evidence against it, PERIOD.

[flowerbower]

@nellamanodestra Yep, scientists were still saying 'maybe' to perpetual motion at the end of the 19th century. And then they came down firmly on the side of 'no'.

[flowerbower]

@nellamanodestra Well, that is one of the classic knee-jerk responses of the defenders of pseudoscience. And you really cannot see that the real arrogance is to present so-called proof to a gullible public and to avoid confrontation with expert critics?