@Milehigh So you are sort of implying that in both cases we are dealing with an uninformed public and therefore they are the same? That's nonsense. Where you are correct is that the two premises are supposed to be based on a realizable application of science. I would say the general population did not understand the nature of the problem which is a reaccuring theme throughout history. The science behind powered flight is an established reality. That would depend on your understanding of it I guess, did you know that the first successful powered flight with flapping wings and full manuverability like that of a bird is in fact a very recent event. Imagine that, it was only in the last 10 years that anybody really had a clue how to engineer a powered craft that could fly just like a bird --- now tell me about all this supposed understanding we have of flight. It's funny that its' always the people who generally do not have a clue about a field of science that say all is understood while the real scientists all admit we still have a very long way to go. 1. Science clearly states that you can't get something from nothing. It's also common sense. However, let's look at the "sea of energy" argument. Hmm, and this would probably explain why science clearly states the three fundamental fields relate to magical particles popping in and out of "existence" from some other magical universes we have never observed or proven to exist in any way, it would seem you are clearly wrong. 2. If you are talking about the sun, for sure we can get energy from the sun. However, that's not "free energy" and please let's not get into the whole "renewable vs. free" definition debate. It would seem you are the only one who does not seem to understand that free and renewable can be the same thing and it is an accepted definition by most professionals but apparently not by you, which is your problem not ours. 3. If you are talking about the fact that we are in a sea of thermal energy, that's true. That comes from the sun and from the core of the Earth. There must be a temperature differential to exploit this as an energy source. It can be exploited in limited amounts. But just the fact that we live in a "sea of thermal energy" at more or less the same 293 degrees Kelvin temperature is not exploitable. Please do not drag the concept of energy down to the primate level of heat as it is insulting to most intelligent people, I am speaking of Electro-Magnetic Energy that is the EM spectrum. 4. Then there is the "Dirac Sea" of energy. The property of space itself represents energy. In one cubic centimeter of space there are gigawatts of possible power, bla bla bla. People that play with coils fantasize that their coils are "entry points" for this energy. Nobel Prize winners with particles accelerators and billion dollar budgets would seem to have the same fantasy so I guess they are in good company  . Part 2 You talk about nanotechnology absorbing EM energy and converting it into electricity. It sounds exciting but my suspicion is that will result in more efficient solar cells and not much more than that. There will never be a "black-body brick" that you can keep in the basement of your home that just "sucks up energy" and turns it into an unlimited supply of electrical power, that's just a fantasy. It seems obvious you do not have a clue what I'm talking about, go research nano-technology (not the wiki-BS the science journals) then come back when you think you can have something resembling an intelligent conversation. Regards AC AC
« Last Edit: 2012-02-12, 22:56:58 by allcanadian »
---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger
“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
|