I have my (qualitative, not quantitative) reasoning in the entire comment. You're free to ignore, agree, disagree, or counter argue.
I'm not going to spend days or weeks researching and coming up with a decent statistical model for something I don't even believe makes sense on intre the face of it for a comment thread.
I'd also note that something being infeasible from first principles explicitly implies that there's no need for calculations or experiments. For example, if someone comes up with a machine whose claimed performance makes it a perpetuum mobile, I don't need to calculate anything: I know from first principles (conservation of energy) that they are wrong or lying. Of course, this is nowhere near as cut and dry, but I did give my reasoning for why this doesn't seem to me to make any sense.
Comments
You claim you reach this conclusion from first principles but I don't see any calculations that back up your statements?
I have my (qualitative, not quantitative) reasoning in the entire comment. You're free to ignore, agree, disagree, or counter argue.
I'm not going to spend days or weeks researching and coming up with a decent statistical model for something I don't even believe makes sense on intre the face of it for a comment thread.
I'd also note that something being infeasible from first principles explicitly implies that there's no need for calculations or experiments. For example, if someone comes up with a machine whose claimed performance makes it a perpetuum mobile, I don't need to calculate anything: I know from first principles (conservation of energy) that they are wrong or lying. Of course, this is nowhere near as cut and dry, but I did give my reasoning for why this doesn't seem to me to make any sense.