Talk:Binary economics/Archive 2

message: This paragraph was deleted but it very clearly says that it is hoped that these technologies (and there are a lot of them -- please do some research) could become viable.  To encourage their development interest-free loans are proposed.  So I have reversed the deletion -- if it is binary policy to encourage such research and development  it is binary policy and that is a fact.  I fail to see any clear reason for why the deletion was made.  
Rodney Shakespeare. 
Rodney Shakespeare.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.49.13 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you need sources for that, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball per WP:CRYSTAL. Brusegadi 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you determined to contradict the the page on Conservation of Energy it's 1st grade physics and an insult to intelligence that undermines the article. It draws connection between credible economics and theories in the domain of obscure minorities and crazytalk. Anyone who disagrees with the deletion should take it up with those that study physics, this is not the place to discuss what amounts to consipracy theories about the supression of free energy technology. There are no free energy technologies that violate the conservation of energy, and the whole of mainstream science agrees THERE NEVER WILL BE. Science is based, suprisingly for some, on EVIDENCE. Such technologies violate all the evidence we see in the physical laws of the universe. 88.108.136.7 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This link illustrates the point nicely too... 88.108.136.7 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose you're right. If it were binary economic policy to fund a hamster wheel powered rocket to the moon, then that simply is the policy and as long as it's sourced I cannot disagree. If you can't source it you could use weasle words and effectively say 'a very small minority of proponents suggest increased funding into what are currently considered to be suppressed technologies for free energy that the wider scientific community considers to be nonsense and in violation of fudamental laws,  purported by either outright con men or the craziest and least educated of the consipracy theorist minority who have as yet no evidence or working models to support their obscure ideas, which most certainly have never passed a single peer review or substantiated any of the claims made in the extremely sketchy patents' then I'd be happy. But it's a bit of a mouthful so you could just leave it out :) 88.108.136.7 23:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes and don't forget to mention that the teams working on these projects always need just a bit more funding, time and verification just to get the next prototype working before final public release and a world revolution. And there's always 'technical dificulties' just before a demonstration. 88.108.136.7 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried my best to make it a bit more NPOV and less crystal ball. Also drawn the distinction between 'alternative' (i.e. scientifically unverified) technologies and those on the top 100 list, some of which are existing, practical and verifiable. Hope you like! 88.108.136.7 09:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, definately an improvement. I've re-added the bit about research funding, as I think that's the key bit that relates it to binary policy. Also added reference to the conservation of energy, which means you can see what is being suggested when just reading quickly through it, as opposed to investigating each of the 'alternative' technologies. Happy to keep working on it :) Thanks! 88.108.136.7 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MEG, searl and steorn definitely violate conservation of energy, and there's not point citing specific controversial examples which we disagree on so much, when the top 100 list provides many good and practical technologal examples. 88.108.136.7 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We're getting closer, but the fundamental issue remains. The MEG page says "The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG) is a proposed device which is most notable for claims of over-unity operation, a feat which would violate the first law of thermodynamics." The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is conserved, not created or destroyed. The Searl and Steorn claim to be over-unity devices too. I AGREE it may well be binary policy to investigate violating the physical laws of the universe, but suggesting that the MEG, Searl and Steorn may be viable with a bit more funding undermines the credibility of the article without any good reason. These specific technologies aren't central issue to binary economics. By mentioning the specific technoligies, the paragraph suggests that violation is possible. I vote to remove the specific examples of the MEG, Searl and Steorn. 88.108.136.7 17:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: One last thing... I've added the philosopher's stone to the list of viable technologies. Mainstream physacists and chemists unanimously agree that the existence of the philosophers stone is contrary to all the laws of physics that we have come to understand over the last 10,000 years. However, just as the MEG, Searl and Steorn, there are still fringe 'researchers' searching for the possibility of its existence, and if it's binary economics policy to give the MEG, Searl and Steorn more research funding, then the search for the philosophers stone is equally worthy. If it exists it could also make a huge difference to humanity, and apparently we must keep an open mind. The MEG, searl and steorn are just as viable as alchemy according to the opinion of mainstream physics. If this philosophers stone is not to be included, then the MEG, Searl and Steorn must be removed also, until they are approved in just one single respectable peer reviewed journal. Hope this helps :) 88.108.136.7 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Read WP:SYN.  I dont think you can do what you just did. If the proponents of bin argue that x tech may become feasible simply quote them as saying so and then quote a physicist saying that it is impossible.  That should be fine.  Worst case scenario, your changes will  not get in and this article will be taken as seriously as a chair sandwich. Brusegadi 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversal of deletion of paragraph on interest-free loans for possible alternative clean energy generation