The Fallacy Of Alternative Energies

[Stoic Guardian]

But Authoritarianism doesn't equal Fascism, And Real Fascists are revloutionaries and oppose capitalism, while peopel who are upset about corporatocracy keep calling it Fascism.

[FilmSnob]

But Authoritarianism doesn't equal Fascism, And Real Fascists are revloutionaries and oppose capitalism, while peopel who are upset about corporatocracy keep calling it Fascism.

There is a well known paradox in political philosophy: The far right is muuuuch closer to the far left than the center, and vice versa. You are right, fascists are revolutionaries to, but in a deeply conservative and reactionary way.

Better to leave that false dichotomy and become an Anarchist .

[Gobbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=free+energy+devices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGq2WSnE7j0
(Home Made) Perpetual Motion Magnetic Motor spins at 6000rpm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo
Combusting salt water







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWxDmBocGrM
I could go forever baby!

[Gobbo]

Dead inventors: A compilation

http://www.free-conversant.com/realtruth/3218

[Gobbo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-94c1Q6Ms

Free Energy - Plasmatron - Inventor Died Suddenly

[Gobbo]

Nikola Tesla Free Energy Generator Patented in 1901!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXSsRXBckIY

[Gobbo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB8JETwB6NM

Documentary on Tesla, as it would appear no one in this thread has heard of him.

[Stoic Guardian]

I know about Tesla.

[Gobbo]

So.... what's the deal with this thread then? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Why are you guys talking about solar panels and slingshot arrays and stuff.

Magnets, yo.

Zero point. That weird UFO zero friction liquid physics video that always 'floats' around viral circuits. Tesla. Like there's multiple free energy theories and devices out there. Numerous people have been killed. This is one of those topics that isn't so much a conspiracy and more... 'Yeah like it's literally the oil companies killing people. Them. Those guys over there.'

[James S Saint]

All of modern society runs on petroleum. As soon as petroleum ends it's peak usage modern society will end with it for there is no viable alternative energy to meet current infrastructure and global consumption.

"Current infrastructure" is merely saying, "what we currently use". If you currently use lemon juice, then any alternative to lemon juice doesn't meet the current infrastructure. Ages of Man are defined by their fundamental specific dependencies.

Alternative energy cannot conquer geology or physics.

Maybe now humanity should get use to the idea that the future is one where the world makes a return to fifteenth century living standards.

Modern civilization the failed experiment. A mere blip of history.

The issue of how to get around the use of oil as an energy source was resolved long ago. I know because I was a part in that game in the 1970's. The primary issue was "The Second Speculation of Thermodynamics". James Maxwell, some 130 years ago disproved that "law" with "Maxwell's Demon". In 1974, I personally demonstrated a working version of Maxwell's demon only to find that I hadn't been the first by a long shot. The world runs, not on energy or money, but on politics and propaganda.

Free energy to run an automobile is a trivial engineering case these days. Free energy use in a socialist world is not going to happen, although once totally communist, it might.

[Calrid]

Calrid: Fusion uses sea water and lithium, two substances that will last for millions of years, or "forever" in the case of seawater pretty much. Ok it's not perfected yet but every year brings us one step closer. Not only that but only the working parts of the reactor are radioactive, meaning there is no considerable waste fuel (waste products helium and lithium) and no risk of melt down at all, even if you hit it with a 9.6 quake, in fact lithium is reused so it's actually pretty efficient Get out more and read about alternative energy sources and stop asserting that technology will not save us from the peak oil problem. How do you know?

You like so many people put too much faith in technology that it strikes me as arrogant, naive, and borderline on the superstitious. Technology is our salvation! Whatever...

With peak resources coming fast there simply is no time for clinging hope in fusion energy.



I have seen so may reports on the nonviability of fusion energy that I have lost count. Chow!

http://evcricket.wordpress.com/2010/04/ ... ever-work/

Lol, so because it doesn't work now they have formulated a table of all the possible ideas to regulate fusion in the next 10,000 years and know for a fact that it is impossible.

These people haven't done that, so they are in fact morons.

By the way one fusion reactor has already achieved a result of 1% efficiency although it was decommissioned soon after without a repeat of the result. 1% is all that is needed to make fusion viable economically.

It'll never work? It already has tentatively, it amazes me that people who dispute future technologies ability to provide solutions, actually in fact know jack shit about anything and just are pessimists rather than realists. It was once considered impossible to encode quantum information on chips, but now it is, 40 years ago though people would have reacted with the same incredulity at the idea that quantum states could be used to store information let alone run programs. Incidentally a friend of mine PhD gamma ray astronomy, used to be a massive critic of fusion, but having read up on recent advances he reckons the idea that fusion is 40 years off is now a serious possibility. If you want to know what real scientists think, as real scientist, not bloggers with jack shit invested in anything.

Yeah the worlds going to end in 4 years, GTFO and look at the history of technology, as need increases technological development also increase in correlation. We're not even remotely desperate yet and some predict we are at most 40 years from fusion. Sure it could indeed never pan out, but to say that it will never work is such a monumentally arrogant statement that it beggars belief, and certainly isn't either a philosophical proposition or more importantly a scientific one. Ask yourself why governments are willing to invest vast amounts of cash in new fusion products, technology and experiments? Are they all guilty of a massive conspiracy to provide false hope, or do some people genuinely believe it has a chance? People who sit around moaning about how shit everything is are worthless, if you care that much about how shit the world is get off your ass and do something about it. Couldn't hurt?

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. is a high-tech research and development corporation specializing in applications of plasma physics, including fusion power and intense X-ray sources.

Our lead project is the development of an inherently clean fusion energy generator using a device called the dense plasma focus (DPF) and hydrogen-boron fuel, an approach we call "Focus Fusion." This work was initially funded by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and is now backed by over forty private investors including the Abell Foundation of Baltimore. LPP's patented technology and peer-reviewed science will guide the design of a compact, environmentally safe and virtually unlimited source of energy that would be at least ten times cheaper than any existing sources. Our research team has already achieved major experimental milestones, including the achievement of plasma confinement at energies equivalent to two billion degrees, high enough to fuse hydrogen and boron. We intend to win the race for this ultimate energy prize by demonstrating the scientific feasibility of Focus Fusion at our laboratory in Middlesex, NJ. Non-exclusive licenses to government agencies and manufacturing partners will aim to ensure rapid adoption of Focus Fusion generators as the primary source of electrical power worldwide.

Link from your blog:

Also there's a link to ITER an next generation fusion generator. I don't think you read more than some guys tenuous understanding of fusion physics, and opinions there in.

"Aren't you all just entitled, to your half assed musings on nuclear physics. You've thought about fusion for 45 minutes and you think you've come to some interesting conclusions, well let me tell you I've seen nearly 30 years of advancement in fusion, from pipe dream to solving some of the fundamental problems in that short time, and I couldn't give a hapeny jizz for your internet assembled philosophy."

Is what I would say.

[James S Saint]

if you care that much about how shit the world is get off your ass and do something about it. Couldn't hurt?

Think that you know how to actually do that?
The efforts invariably "hurt".

[Calrid]

if you care that much about how shit the world is get off your ass and do something about it. Couldn't hurt?

Think that you know how to actually do that?
The efforts invariably "hurt".

By couldn't hurt I mean it might make the world slightly less shit, not that it wont take pain and sweat to make that happen, but there you go.

[James S Saint]

By couldn't hurt I mean it might make the world slightly less shit, not that it wont take pain and sweat to make that happen, but there you go.

My experience is that it takes extreme forethought to avoid merely adding to the "shit".

Tethered by reality;

There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
There is the adversary to every life.
And there is you.. an instance of life.

The rest is just noise…

_______________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

I posted that as "A Contemporary Philosophy" on a philosophy site. It was deleted and I was issued a "board warning" for "preaching".

[d63]

This is my spiel:

Fascism is a scale of how much of the control it wants a government has. A lot=very fascist. A little=not very fascist.

As pertains to the point I was making, you were calling for birth control measures that require certain things to be prohibited and others mandatory. This would require a government with the power to implement, which would be fascist in my book. I use the term because it expresses perfectly, in one word, the relation between will and power in statism.

Yes, but you're focusing on one aspect of the main example we have: Nazi Germany.

Furthermore, much as Jonah Goldberg attempted to do in Liberal Fascism, you're attempting fix a complex term in into a simple and convenient (for your more conservative purposes) definition that attempts to sidestep the actual right-wing nature of it. You try to make it seem like a liberal phenomenon when it is, in fact, more cozy with right-wing conservative beliefs. This should be evident by the contempt Nazi's held for liberals, Marxists, and the social democrats.

Google the book and look at the reviews on it -especially the ones from the History News Network. Even the National Review distanced themselves from it from what I saw when I just Googled it.

Furthermore, you might want to look in most dictionaries of Philosophy in which you will usually find around ten different possible characteristics, any combination of which could constitute a Fascist state, and none of which give any privilege to the notion of "Big Government".

But where it gets real interesting is when you consider the evolution of the term. It went through many stages, but found the form we know of when it was, under Italian thinkers, defined as the fusion of State and Corporate interests (not the fusion of corporations and state as in socialism) and hijacked by Mussolini to result in the suppression of unions, the banning of all literature on birth control, and the persecution of socialists.

Therefore, my spiel on it would be that if there were ever a potential breeding ground for Fascism, it would lie in the FreeMarketFundalmentalism that establishes complete control through a smoke screen of anti-government rhetoric and the misdirection of hysteria over any form of government intervention while simultaneously eroding our democracies and hijacking government for its own uses, including intervention in the behalf of the corporate aristocracy.

Think about it, the figures I have heard on how many people a year from lack of access to healthcare go from Michael Moore’s 18,000 to other figures of 40 to 50 thousand a year. And the justification we generally get for letting it happen amounts to saying that those people just didn’t work hard enough to have the right to live. Now given the value put on our role as producer/consumers, doesn’t that sound a little like a subtle way of ridding ourselves of the undesirables? And isn’t that pretty much what Germany did with the Jews?

But getting back to the subject, if we don’t do something about birth control, and do find ourselves in a catastrophic situation, how inclined do you think the power structure (including corporations) would be to turn to harsher measures to get things under control? And how sure would you be that they would do it for the common good. I get what you’re saying, pezer, but I think it’s a little more complex.

And what you seem to be missing here is that I’m arguing for men to have the right to have sex without the women being the only one who chooses whether it is done without the risk of an unwanted child –at least on the part of the male. Believe me, I have seen women who will, without telling the guy they’re with, suddenly stop taking their pills, or lie about it in the first place, just to get a child. And they do this because the law, for good reasons, works in their favor in the first place. Once again, the idea is to give men equal say on the issue of birth control.

[d63]

As evolutionary psychology shows us: men simply do not like sharing resources. And they will only do it for their children due to genetic recognition. But until they actually have those children, they tend to be a lot more hesitant than women do.

This, of course, has changed to some extent as women work their way into the workforce. And it''s a good thing and may even solve the problem on its own. Nevertheless....

[BUFFALO]

No alternative energies can support current global populations or meet the demands of current infrastructures. Geology and physics have everything to do with it.

Still confused by the geology part. If we are talking about alternatives to hydrocarbons, then geology is kind of out of the picture, except where geothermal and nuclear are concerned. And you'll have to show how geology has proven the limits of these technologies to be insufficient. And, despite the Japanese incident, there is still good reasons to develop nuclear power (don't put reactors in the paths of potential tsunamis would be one new rule). As a geologist and an engineer I certainly think that we could use "alternative" sources to replace hydrocarbons for energy generation. Can we do it tomorrow? Not even close.

And forget about "free" energy. This forum should be well beyond adolescent dreams of eternal motion.

A final caveat: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." - Edward Abbey. Human population is the real problem. We will run out of energy (and all other resources) if we don't cotton on to the fact that the population cannot continue to grow at the current rate.

[d63]

The internet, like everything else, has shown itself to be a mixed package:

On one hand, because of the lack of editorial authority, it has given voice to the most paranoid among us. Every message board you go on, you see it take on the same function as a megaphone much like those used by neo-nazis who knew they had the truth, if only they were bold and screamed it loud enough.

At the same time, I have to believe that the more moderate and reasonable among us will fall into the the role of editorial authority.

It may serve the function of aggravating this epidemic of Cassandra complexes. But at the same time it is the only thing that could possibly keep it in check -the only hope.

[d63]

No alternative energies can support current global populations or meet the demands of current infrastructures. Geology and physics have everything to do with it.

Still confused by the geology part. If we are talking about alternatives to hydrocarbons, then geology is kind of out of the picture, except where geothermal and nuclear are concerned. And you'll have to show how geology has proven the limits of these technologies to be insufficient. And, despite the Japanese incident, there is still good reasons to develop nuclear power (don't put reactors in the paths of potential tsunamis would be one new rule). As a geologist and an engineer I certainly think that we could use "alternative" sources to replace hydrocarbons for energy generation. Can we do it tomorrow? Not even close.

And forget about "free" energy. This forum should be well beyond adolescent dreams of eternal motion.

A final caveat: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." - Edward Abbey. Human population is the real problem. We will run out of energy (and all other resources) if we don't cotton on to the fact that the population cannot continue to grow at the current rate.

Exactly, buffalo! The idea isn't to replace carbon fuels right away. It's to buy time until we figure out something better.

And you probably already know I'm with you on the population issue.

[d63]

At the same time, I don't think it's just going to be a matter of what scientists can do. It will also be a matter of people changing attitudes which is what philosophers and artists will need to do. For instance, we need to get rid of this fear of public transport and this need to have our own personal mode of travel (for instance: cars). We need to make cars what they once were: luxuries and not a necessity. But even more important, we need to give up this phallic obsession with big cars. Another thing we need to give up is this culture of home ownership. We need to move closer so that we can rededicate land to things like growing food and trees that can replenish our oxygen supply while eliminating carbon dioxide.

America has become a phallic suicide. And until we address it, the only other alternative is yet another expression of the phallic through fascism.

[Gobbo]

I must be missing a link here. Is the title of this thread a metaphor or something? Why hasn't anyone talked about 'the fallacy of alternative energy'?

So confused.

[Gobbo]

And forget about "free" energy. This forum should be well beyond adolescent dreams of eternal motion.

When people say 'free' they are taking in a relative sense.

For example there is a technology that uses the motion of the tide in conjunction with buoys (sp?) to harness energy just by their dipping up and down.

That is one example out like like 8 viable ones now I've posted. They're all perfectly reasonable.

I didn't even have to search to find them. I mean people just know these things by now. Yet the individuals here are talking like it 1965. Solar? Geothermal? Nuclear? Lol. What the actual fuck is going on here.

[Gobbo]

Here we basically hit the wall of people who know of Tesla, and those who do not know who Tesla is.

Basically the level of knowledge in this thread is unacceptable. It's like if I made a post called 'the fallacy of pops that are not Coke.' There is just obviously a bunch.

[BUFFALO]

Look, since we seem to be veering off into the world of fantasy (perpetual motion and "free" energy from Tesla's cosmic ray machine), here's a little scenario:

I'm John B. (as in Buffalo) Rocketfueller and I own the largest Oil and Gas Company in the World. I made billions by exploring for, developing and producing hydrocarbon reservoirs. And I continue to make billions. Now I hear that some little upstart has invented a machine that will give the world "free" and plentiful energy. Not on my watch he doesn't! Does he think he'll ruin me? Why I'll just... But what a second... It costs a whole lot of money to find, develop and produce hydrocarbons - this other stuff is "Free". I'll buy him and the patent to his machine! I'll beat all my competitors into this new market and will have a monopoly...

And that little fantasy is why all the "free energy suppression" conspiracy stories are crap. Open your eyes people. If these things worked the very people accused of suppressing them would be the first to the trough.

Keep it real.

[James S Saint]

No BUFFALO. It doesn't work that way at all.

In your fantasy, what would happen is that after buying up the new invention, the smart capitalist would expend his current market free of worry. Once he becomes hard pressed for new oil or perhaps merely too much competition, he might then introduce his purchased device. The automobile manufactures got famous for doing just that.

But even that isn't how it really plays out in society today. In the current socialism push, there must be obtained and maintained a superior group well beyond the masses. Guess which one gets to use any such new invention assuming they actually had a need for it. In the case of war or feirce competition, would you merely put on display every card in your hand? To maintain superiority, one must have advancements that he does not let anyone else know that he has. Such is very easy to do for a military group. After 50 years of using your own insider inventions and developing them while watching what the populous has developed as well, the superiority becomes exponentially extreme. But that only works if you keep the people thinking that they are at the head of the race by keeping anything free well hidden and protected. Dependency on the aristocracy is paramount and thus free anything is seriously forbidden except as a facade.