If you want to be credible pointing fallacies you should check that you aren't "appealing to ignorance" yourself.
Not knowing if something is true doesn't mean that it is true unless refuted. That's what you are doing and a fallacy.
The scientific method is precisely what allowed the scientific community to check and demonstrate for centuries that no claim of "free energy generator" worked and would have never work even if "built on specs" because their MATHS are wrong. When their maths end up with things like "1=0" it mean it wasn't actually math and it wasn't science either.
- You are the one making claim without showing any proper evidence that support it, claim that a "free energy generator" already exist, claim that "in specs/theory one work", a claim that your magnet idea would work (it don't), claims that there's a conspiracy (...etc)
- We presented more logical evidences/analysis that your claims were illogical & inconsistent with irrefutable observation when not simply FALSE. And proposed a more logical explanation : There is no "free energy generator" because no one ever found a way to build one.
- So unless you retract most of your claim you still have the burden of proof.
In short :
Your arguments are unscientific and you failed to use the scientific method : you never gathered proper experiment supporting your ideas, instead you claimed a result to be true without evidence.
ps:I wonder why I keep trying to make him see his errors, I hypothesize that it's the promise of self-generated popcorn, but observations and theory show that free-popcorn is impossible, a lot of time was spent making popcorn
Not knowing if something is true doesn't mean that it is true unless refuted. That's what you are doing and a fallacy.
The scientific method is precisely what allowed the scientific community to check and demonstrate for centuries that no claim of "free energy generator" worked and would have never work even if "built on specs" because their MATHS are wrong. When their maths end up with things like "1=0" it mean it wasn't actually math and it wasn't science either.
- You are the one making claim without showing any proper evidence that support it, claim that a "free energy generator" already exist, claim that "in specs/theory one work", a claim that your magnet idea would work (it don't), claims that there's a conspiracy (...etc)
- We presented more logical evidences/analysis that your claims were illogical & inconsistent with irrefutable observation when not simply FALSE. And proposed a more logical explanation : There is no "free energy generator" because no one ever found a way to build one.
- So unless you retract most of your claim you still have the burden of proof.
In short :
Your arguments are unscientific and you failed to use the scientific method : you never gathered proper experiment supporting your ideas, instead you claimed a result to be true without evidence.
ps:I wonder why I keep trying to make him see his errors, I hypothesize that it's the promise of self-generated popcorn, but observations and theory show that free-popcorn is impossible, a lot of time was spent making popcorn
)