The device is outputting heat energy derived from the electrical energy that is input in both the present and the future.
It's really quite obvious if you think about it until it hurts.
To answer your original question, it's because they are hypocritical.
Get them to see this, and they may develop respect for other people's beliefs (or lack thereof).
I don't really see how arguing about a particular set of things and being very sure about what you are saying is supposed to be the same as being narrow-minded and fundamentalist.
Looks like equivocation to me.
You'd be amazed how far people will go to avoid engaging that point.
Even Hawking completely ignored it, although admittedly he did sort of admit that in a very *cough* kind of way.
Farsight:
When members ask questions about physics, we respond in terms of the current model.
If you wish to provide explanations from alternative models, you must clearly label them as such, and not attempt to pass them off as "the explanation".
If the Star Trek writers can get away with "Heisenberg Compensators" for the entire run of the series, then we can get away with them too in this discussion
Your "discovery/theory" changes nothing until it provides an alternative explanation for all of the mechanisms which evolution describes, supported by evidence more compelling than that which is available for evolutionary theory.
The eel is such a potent illustration of how the timescale affects matters that I feel it should be named. Ideally its name should be magnificent yet comical.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.