Now Here's A Surprise: 'Free Energy' Company Cancels Demo
from the how-about-building-a-credibility-machine? dept
A company called Steorn's been getting lots of press this week with its claim to have developed a machine that it claims produces "free, clean and constant energy", violating the law of conservation of energy along the way. It hardly seemed newsworthy since it essentially appeared to just be the latest iteration of something cold fusion that promises something radical but constantly fails to deliver. It's hardly surprising, then, to see Steorn postpone its demonstration indefinitely, apparently because excessive heat from TV cameras caused technical problems. Steorn says it will try to find a new date for the demo over the next few weeks, but somehow we doubt the laws of physics or thermodynamics will disappear in that time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
oh great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thermodynamics...pft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thermodynamics...pft
The inefficiency here is that while we can turn heat energy to kinetic energy and then to electrical energy, the electrical energy we get out is not the same as the heat energy we put in.
Even if it were possible to achieve complete efficiency, current physical laws tell us that we can't get more energy out of a system than we put in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thermodynamics...pft
Look up zero point energy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thermodynamics...pft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thermodynamics...pft
ABC News ran a Nightline special about the Patterson Cell on February 7, 1996. Copies of the show can be obtained from ABC at 1-800-913-3434
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thermodynamics...pft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thermodynamics...pft
I clicked poorly. Sorry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money laundering anyone?
look at the P/L sheet:
http://www.steorn.com/about/investor/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't forget that there is some energy that will be used up during the transformation process.
That is why don't get same amount of electricity as you put in heat.
when they say they have a cheaper energy its because the transformation process requires less energy, therefore you will get a better power vs energy ratio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Variables
As far as cold fusion, perhaps anti-matter may be looked into to explain this. I mean, as a kid, I knew space wasn't simply "empty" it still was "something". Now of course we know it's mostly anti-matter. Look at the stars, our own sun for example, how did all this happen? Almost a constant source of heat and energy. Sure it may burn out or have a lifespan of 60 mil, but hey, that's fairly nice. I believe it's very close to cold fusion. Perhaps with the testing, they are creating a hint of anti-matter which allows the same process as a star being born only on the tiniest scale. However, sustaining it would be another matter. This may be why they don't know what is going on quite yet. Like a blip on a radar, it's there and gone. Maybe anti-matter can be created, then under certain conditions, transform a state of Anti M to heat or radiation as we know it and make a nuclear cold fusion soup when these conditions permit, allowing as I explained above, a small constant heat source. Sort of like a car battery, + and - to create energy.
From what I read, there are still just theories and nothing solid. This isn't the first time the cold fusion anything has been shot down as many don't offer proper proof, however partially do to oil companies i'm sure.
My personal theory, no big bang, we were formed from comets. Why else would we be 90% water? hmmmmmmm. Now if they discover it, I said it first on Tech dirt!
Yeah it's a crazy theory but thought I'd throw it out there. I'm in a good mood, lots of coffee.... just having some fun on TD. Cheers all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Variables
the universe is not mostly anti-matter. i believe the term you're looking for is dark matter. anti-matter is similar to matter yet composed of anti-particles. anti-particles are corresponding pairs to our everyday particles with the same mass yet opposite charge. upon combining matter with anti-matter, both forms of matter get converted into energy. while we are presently creating anti-hydrogen at cern, it takes far more energy to make it than the energy anti-matter/matter annihilations create. if there was anti-matter floating around the universe, there'd be trouble.
now, dark matter is a completely different story. it's an explanation used to account for gravitational differences between what our present theories predict and what we actually witness. our observations imply that there is more gravitational force happening than there is visible matter to account for the observed gravitational effects, thus the concept of dark matter has surfaced.
i won't even begin to touch that big bang/comet idea of yours, it's completely nonsensical. i hate to sound like an ass, but you really have some homework to do on these physical principles you're trying to talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Variables :Physicsgump and Drdolittle
For one, I was simply having fun conversation, nothing more. If that is against the law, so be it. However you don't make laws now do you? Anyway, we can all tag "physics" or "DR" to our names and sound like we know what we are talking about. Physicsfan, see nice ring huh? Most likely a couple of slumps with time to sit home, drink a beer and read every page on the internet, come to tech dirt and pretend to be somebody who is soooo much smarter than us poor paupers.
Why do I say this? Simply put, anti-matter is not everywhere as you state, it is found only in small portions scattered in our galaxy, as well, only very few particles are on earth through cosmic "jets" I believe is what they call them.
Also Drdolittle, there is much speculation as to how the sun or other stars begin the process to begin with, that creates such burning. Sure we know what goes on inside or that nebulas form stars, however, there is speculation to what triggers the whole motion, be it solar wind, etc...and some speculate, an unknown force. Of course since you have DR. in your title, i'm sure you know that.
But hey, once again, I'm just having fun instead of the same drab crap everyone talks about. So scientifically putting it, shove it where the sun don't shine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Variables :Physicsgump and Drdolittle
i'm a college student who's majoring in mathematics and minoring and physics. i've been on techdirt with this moniker for a while now, so it's nothing new.
Why do I say this? Simply put, anti-matter is not everywhere as you state, it is found only in small portions scattered in our galaxy, as well, only very few particles are on earth through cosmic "jets" I believe is what they call them.
nice try troll. why don't you reread your first post and see who said "Now of course we know it's mostly anti-matter". it's really sad that you can try to pull this bullshit when anyone can look up and see your original post. of course, nobody said trolls were smart; you obviously aren't judging from the drivel spewing forth from yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Variables :Physicsgump and Drdolit
"The only thing I did mix up was the dark matter at the beginning instead of anti-matter."
Which you did bring up. So that was an honest typo, so nice try yourself ASS. BTW you had a typo as well so I guess that makes us even huh? LOL, once again, nice try. At least i'm not hounding everyone for their thoughts and ideas or think myself better for it. So physics may change, you sir, will always be an ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Variables :Paul
Very simple, yet not known. If you read up, many scientists believe they were left over from the formation of our solar system some 4 billion years ago. Some obviously still orbit our sun and in our solar system the largest is as big as our moon. They believe these comets and asteroids are "left over" from the birth of the solar system. There were other theories on collisions of much larger comets that formed our planets. All I'm saying is that I don't think it was a collision, I think these much larger orbiting comets after 4 billion years,had simply orbited closer to the sun or the sun had a higher gravity at the time leaving larger objects to orbit constantly. I mean a comet is a ball of dirt and ice, what is Earth? Of course the spinning and gravity etc...would eventually heat up the core as gravity pulls to the center.
I don't feel it's all that far fetched, and I'm sorry but at least I'm not pretending to be a physicist here, "not saying you are" simply giving my opinion. As I said, I was simply having some fun and even stated that. It's not my fault others get their kicks from "assuming" their intelligence is so great, no one else can make a statement. Once again, not directed at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Variables
Since my point is probably too complicated for you to ponder out, let me just state it plainly: There is not one person named Anonymous Coward who is spending nearly 24 hours a day replying to nearly every tech dirt article. Its hundreds, nay thousands of people WHO ARE NOT ENTERING THEIR NAME when posting!
You must be one hell of an embarressment to whatever spawned you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Variables
See now I think you are a pompous ass, you tell me WHO you think YOU are telling me what to do or to assume you know anything about me? Why, because I was just engaging in some non essential conversation whether right or wrong? That's what this whole mess is about isn't it? Because I had statement that I even said was JUST HAVING FUN WITH and got attacked? You ass, I defended myself from those who took it too serious and think they are some genius. You want to join them in some false bravado, that's fine. I will not waste time answering to you or any other ass that attacks for the sake of it. Go back to mommy, suckle a bit and come back when you grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Variables
Oh and our sun is approximately 4.6 billion years old and should stay in it's main sequence burning it's remaining hydrogen mass for at least another 5 billion years.
Finally, the gravity induced pressure causing the sun's core to sustain nuclear fusion is in NO way similar to the unproven theory of cold fusion...
Sigh... this is what public education produces.. Go back to watching tv to see whats going on with Paris Hilton and stop guessing about the world around you that you are not equipped to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Variables
Please turn off your computer and throw it out the window... for your own sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Variables
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Variables
At the same time I don't like seeing this thread spin into personal attacks between the posters. Why attack each other when we've plenty of material to attack poor Steorn here. Let's laugh at them, point your fingers! Hahaha...
Yea anyway, that got older few days ago...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Variables
"At the same time"
The whole point was, I wasn't trying to sound smart or pretend I am some expert, I have stated this time and time and time again. I had no idea a bit of fun would spiral into an all out attack since I wasn't shooting to solve universal issues. And in all honesty my "theory" about comets was simply more of a joke than anything. If I wanted to be serious, I would not have put any of it that way. Regardless, people here seem to miss this whole point. I was not comparing or anything else, it's simply a case of making other's egos feel better by taking a non serious statement and comparing THAT to their supposed knowledge.
That said, I didn't want this to spin out of control either but I do feel I have a right to defend myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Variables
I wonder what they use to heat that place. Could we drill down into the earth and tap that heat source to transform it into power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Energy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Energy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Energy
Pessimism is the opposite, correct? So I feel skepticism keeps the balance between those who can't see anything good, those who can't see anything but good. Skepticism balances the two quite nicely else people like you would never see an ounce of truth behind anything.
Skepticism keeps order until proof. That said, I do think there are alternate resources, but don't for one minute tell me with all the government officials past and present, and all the big wigs, that they will let their black gold go so easily. No, they will find a way to market, own, tax, what have you first. So you may think skepticism but at least we don't accept everything at face value. It's called, get this...
Common sense. Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Energy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hydrogen's where it's at
I agree that cold fusion seems kind of far-fetched, but I've heard of "un-confirmed" experiments where scientists made vehicles that produced their own hydrogen from water, one of which supposedly made it from California to New York on a little under 30 galons, then after searching our favorite search engine, google, for more information about the idea, it really seems to be realistic, and would fit in with the title of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
You need to study the laws of Thermodynamics. Here's a layman's rendition:
1) You can't win
2) You can't break even
3) You can't get out of the game.
There's actually one more, called the 'zeroeth' law, that goes something like this: "Shit flows downhill".
--
Texas Concealed Handgun Classes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
Ah yes, but only because we are limited with gravity. In space, shit floats until it hits an asteroid, but since there is no sound in space it would have sounded something like...spluck! Although even that's incorrect, now they know sound waves do travel in space and the right equipment can in fact pick them up. So after so many millions of dollars, you can hear the spluck! Where am I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
unfortunately, you can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
You guys are great, but you got to learn to think outside the box, the world really isn't flat, nor does it rest on the back of a turtle, with "turtles all the way down".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
Nice one. Thermodynamics apply to chemistry and nuclear and magnetic powers however. They're not separate independent entities.
I didn't know magnets work by chemical reactions though :D :D (I mean, we're still talking Steorn right...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hydrogen's where it's at
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammar, and style counts...
Also, the sentence immediately following this one starts with almost the exact same prepositional phrase "It hardly", "It's hardly".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These replies are killing me
"The law was calculated off the watching an inefficient steam engine. It may not hold true for everything."
The law was theorized watching some processes like that--but has held true in every reproducible example since it was theorized. It's widely accepted as scientific fact.
"Look at the stars, our own sun for example, how did all this happen? Almost a constant source of heat and energy. Sure it may burn out or have a lifespan of 60 mil, but hey, that's fairly nice. I believe it's very close to cold fusion."
Whaaaaaaaaaat? Sun is simply fusion where lighter elements are being combined (like hydrogen and helium) to form heavier elements (like oxygen and carbon). In this process a little bit of mass is being transformed into energy. (Yay for E=MC^2!) It is getting energy from SOMEWHERE--by converting matter into (mostly) electromagnetic waves. It's not some magic process that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
"You guys are sceptics to the max. The laws of physics are only guildlines for the brilliant mind. As soon as somebody figures out how to create energy from nothing, we will all be free of oil. Isn't that worth fighting for?"
Being skeptic about something that goes against hundreds of years of scientific knowledge is being 'sceptic to the max'?
"I'm no geek, not even a nerd, but it really seems like you could put together a system of alternators that could start a reaction to get Hydrogen out of water and then burn the hydrogen to create more energy than was needed to produce the reaction..."
In order to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, you need the same amount of energy that you would get from burning hydrogen. (As it combines with oxygen... the reverse of the original process.) It would be absolutely pointless. (And you'd actually lose more energy in the process, as some of it would get wasted.)
""There's actually one more, called the 'zeroeth' law, that goes something like this: "Shit flows downhill"
Ah yes, but only because we are limited with gravity. "
...It is not a literal statement. Systems tend to move towards more disorder and lower energy states. IE. if you have a hot object, it'll tend to radiate this heat energy out versus getting hotter. Nothing to do with gravity--sorry if you were just being sarcastic and I misinterpeted. XD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These replies are killing me
"Ah yes, but only because we are limited with gravity. In space, shit floats until it hits an asteroid" ... is pure comedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These replies are killing me
Got something against humor? Oh well, sucks for you. BTW, have they found a way to scientifically remove that stick? Must be painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These replies are killing me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: These replies are killing me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These replies are killing me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These replies are killing me
There are actually theories out there that the universe would not exist if we were not here to observe it. Essentially, if we can imagine it, we can make it happen. I don't know if that is true, but instead of constantly trying to find why something can never work, why not try to find how it might work?
I have been a scientist for 30 years. The guys that find things that work (including me) are the ones that don't say "it can't" but "why can't it?". I would bank on the non-geek, non-nerd over you any day of the week.
J-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These replies are killing me
Are you sure the replies are killing you or is it your head has swelled beyond it's capacity to sustain it's structure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These replies are killing me
it's "its" not "it's". "it's" is a contraction of it is. "its" is a possessive pronoun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: These replies are killing me
Well PhysicsGuy (and partially Xanthir, FCD), looks like we're alone with our clearly absurd logic and points. *rolls eyes*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: These replies are killing me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmmmm
Look at the law: e = mc^2.
Each atom in the universe is a mass, which means it has energy. The energy is here all around us, we are all energy, and everything in the universe was at one time energy. There was so much energy that it has mass. Energy is what makes the atom, and atom, and that is why an atom doesn't last forever, it eventually dies out, because it no longer has the energy to sustain itself... thats where half-life, and things come into play.
Now you just need to harness energy from small amounts of atoms at the time, to get all the energy we will ever need... but that is easier said than done. As we further understand the atom, maybe we will get closer to a solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmmmm
ummm... no? unstable isotopes of atoms certainly decay into stable isotopes, sure, but atoms don't "die out". particles may be exchanged but matter stays as matter until it is combined with anti-matter. even when an atom gets broken apart much of the energy stays as particles, which of course are the constituents of atoms. there are more fundamental components to everything than just atoms. also, just for emphasis, converting matter (mass) into energy by our presently known means (matter/anti-matter annihilations) takes far more energy than is produced. there is no getting energy from nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeezus X...
Vir Mundi - You have absolutely no idea what the crap you are talking about. The law of conservation of energy is absolute. It has been proven over and over again. I'll put it this way: if it wasn't true, physics wouldn't work.
comicfan - You're a little better off, but still don't know what you're talking about. Antimatter is extremely rare in our universe. It's definitely not what's "out there". The sun is not made of it, nor was it started by antimatter.
Nor does the sun utilize cold fusion. It uses perfectly ordinary fusion, which is extremely hot. That's why the summer sun still feels so warm, despite the sun being 93 million miles away. It's a giant nuclear bomb that takes 10 billion years to finish exploding.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean in your "personal theory". It seems that you misunderstand basically everything about cosmology. The Big Bang is the event that 'started' the universe - it's when space and time began to have meaning. Our solar system is formed from a third-generation dust cloud - all of its material comes from the original intersteller hydrogen that was burned in a star, exploded outward, burned in a new star, exploded outward again, and finally formed into our Sun and planets. It is thought that comet impacts in the early Solar System are what brought us a lot of our water, but that has nothing to do with anything else you have said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jeezus X...
As far as my theory about comets, which you have no idea about is this...and please understand, I don't care if you agree or not...It is known that some comets can be so huge, larger than planets in our solar system, it is also known that some of our meteor showers may in fact been either trails from comets or comets that exploded millions of years ago as they got too close to the sun due to gravitational forces. What I think is this, it's probable that a very large comet may have done the same millions of years ago, perhaps larger chunks had circled the sun in constant motion, when warming due to all the ice and dirt and all sorts of living soup, created atmospheres to sustain life. I don't think the big bang theory holds true for planets, our galaxy maybe, but I doubt earth would be 90% water if we were a molten glob to begin with. Comets can spread life and have many life giving properties, like shooting grass seed over a lawn if you will. If one were to be caught forever in a gravitational pull near a star, or shards, is it that far fetched?
Once again, I don't think so but don't really care if you get it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jeezus X...
you do know that the big bang is a cosmological theory for the beginning of the universe, correct? it is not directly responsible itself for the creation of stars, planets, galaxies, etc. it is only indirectly responsible in that it is believed to be the start of the expansion of the universe. your idea on comets (even though it is completely nonsensical and has gaping logical holes) is not at odds in any way with the big bang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jeezus X...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jeezus X...
Really? Who told you that? The voices you hear when you put on or take off your tin-foil hat?
Care to provide the link to the URL of a respected and known scientific journal that explains a comet bigger than any one of the planets in our solar system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jeezus X...
I can confirm this: yesterday I was monitoring several comets passing by, using my Optic Cabinet 900 play kit. It looked larger than any *star* in the sky.
But on the other hand, stars are so tiny, you never know. In fact, I wonder why the stars aren't attracted by Sun's gravity and fall into it.
Something for the science to discover in the decades ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jeezus X...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hellow
They originally took out a $35,000 ad in a scientific magazine to call for scientists to come and test the thing to make sure.
Stupid people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free energy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free energy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The snarkiness of the post + comments
The concept of time is a good example of something that is completely made-up by humans, but accepted as fact by the establishment. There are entire books that attempt to explain this great mystery called time -- I've read a few -- and in the end, none of them mentioned what we once knew, but have forgotten.
Time is simply a tool humans use to compare one movement to another. It's not a magical, invisible 4th dimension. It doesn't exist at all -- outside of human conception.
No mystery. No genius required.
So, if something so non-existent can be twisted and ground into our psyches as a real and true thing, what else are we fooling ourselves with?
There's a difference between stating something to be a scientifically accepted law and squashing creative thought before it has had the opportunity to breathe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The snarkiness of the post + comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The snarkiness of the post + comments
What exactly does it mean to exist? And how does time fit that bill?
I said nothing about dimension of form. How is it that you cannot have dimension of form without some invisible thing called "time" that somehow exists?
Is there truly a "past" outside of our memories? Nope. Furthermore, aren't all of our memories different? No two memories of any one event are identical, so can we ever have "time travel" into the past? Nope. What about the "future"? Seems to be the ever-evolving progression of infinite movement. All things are in motion, always. There is no time. 8:30pm is the name given to the predicted location of certain objects during the progression of their movements -- and from our collectively agreed-upon perspective. That's not something that "exists".
Back to the original blog post regarding Steorn, it appears that they should simply stop using the term "free energy", since even if we can't see it or detect it, what gets generated is coming from something, somehow. They need a new descriptive term and some online demonstrations to gain any credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The snarkiness of the post + comments
"All things are in motion, always."
and without time, there could be no motion. just as without motion, there is no time. things existing in 3 spatial dimensions require time for them to travel through any kind of place coordinate system.
if there is no time, there is no ability to travel along a 3 dimensional coordinate system because traveling implies changing coordinates. if i start at the top of a set of stairs and travel down it, i've moved through space. if there wasn't such a thing as time then that means i would exist in both places simultaneously. if i exist in both places simultaneously, can you say that both places, even though they appear separate are separate? if they aren't really separate places then that means every potential place anything could position itself in is essentially all the same place, therefore there is no actually spatial dimensions.
further, another problem that manifests without time is that if someone started at the bottom of the stairs exactly where i was going to and traveled to the top where i started, without time they would also be in both places simultaneously, but more importantly we'd both be occupying the same position in space. in fact, using what i stated above, everything would have to exist in the same place simultaneously. unfortunately, it's impossible for two things to exist in the same place in space simultaneously. that should be obvious, you can't take an apple and push it into the inside of a watermelon without displacing the material of the watermelon, the two things can't be in the exact same place simultaneously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The snarkiness of the post + comme
The lie being called-out here is the idea of "free energy", or something from nothing, really. A beginning of the universe would imply a great deal of something -- from nothing, correct? But that's not possible, yes? So, no beginning. How could something with no beginning have an end? Time is an illusion, as (probably) our separation. But now I've gone too far... I must be on some type of psychedelic, or something.
There's a book on time as illusion called The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics (Julian Barbour). I've never read it, but his realizations are evidently similar to what I've written here.
I'm not interested in Einstein. He never quite got to where he wanted to go, and it seems to be because the notion of "time" flawed his reasoning. The theory of relativity bores the piss out of me. I get a bit nauseated whenever I see the term space-time. Time is an illusion. Separation is probably illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything is an illusion
Everything is illusion, just a model. Math. Math is also illusion/abstraction, but it works.
As long as it works, people will use it. As long as it makes prediction and allows tools and devices to be built, it'll be used.
I'm positive, just like you, that space and time is our perception created by the presence of interacting matter, but this changes nothing, namely, we need a simple model to get us going. Relativistic space-time delivers.
And BTW: the laws of thermodynamics don't govern that you can't get something out of nothing, in terms of existing matter. In fact particles come into existence and disappear all the time around us. You could create the entire universe's matter and energy from nothing, if a given event manages to sustain all this separation of particles and antiparticles and they don't annihilate each other.
Question is - what is this event. I doubt it's a plexiglass wheel with magnets. I really doubt it, you know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything is an illusion
You might enjoy Michael Talbot's "The Holographic Universe" as much as I did.
For the record regarding Einstein, I'm not dissing him or mathematical representations of the universe. My instincts have always led me away from his work -- he never found his theory of everything, so I'm not going spelunking in his cave for the treasure he never found. Something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The snarkiness of the post + c
yup, and this is why i sometimes wonder why i bother to try and help people. what you said there means nothing what-so-ever and in no way demonstrates anything contrary to what i stated. a human is not required to be there. if you can tell me, and believe it with 100% certainty, that your computer monitor can exist, overlapped if you will, with another computer monitor in the exact same place simultaneously, then i'll concede that time does not exist. however, this is an impossibility that directly and logically demonstrates that time has to exist. your monitor CAN exist in the same spatial position as another monitor ONLY when it is there at a different time. if time is just an illusion, as you say, then your monitor can simultaneously exist in the same spot as another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The snarkiness of the post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The snarkiness of the post + Time
You take the first view, I take the second. We shouldn't debate the two here anymore, since it, evidently, is a long-running debate. Thanks for being polite, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The snarkiness of the post + Time
Guess I'm a philosophical realist. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The snarkiness of the post + Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The snarkiness of the post + Time
Ahhh.. but I can argue the same point from my point of view. I would say that time does have an existence which makes me the realist. This is the wonderful thing about philosophy, especially when arguing a theory that has no proof either way, you can argue endlessly without any danger of coming to an absolute conclusion. Imagine how boring the world would be if we knew the absolute truth of every question!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We gotta keep the petrol companies going - -
Maybe to Auntie it won't Matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time
Now, let's figure-out what gravity REALLY is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time
no, time is affected by rate of travel. he means two identical clocks. you're not comparing just motion, but rate of motion. but if you have two clocks whose motion is at a constant rate and put one in a faster moving frame of reference then that constant rate is no longer constant from a person observing them in a separate frame of reference. so basic question, if time doesn't exist, then how come when two people start driving from the same place to the same place, and one goes 50mph and the other goes 70mph that the one going 50mph doesn't arrive exactly when the one going 70mph does? if time didn't exist, you wouldn't even have to go 1mph to get to the same place exactly when a person going 100mph would. rate of travel in a car would be completely unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time
To that observer, were they fRoZeN iN TiMe? I would say they are simply "not moving." We're talking paradigm shift here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously????
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/03/26/story12884.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technical difficulties...
The "technical difficulties" had nothing to do with the heat of the camera light, and everything to do with the presence of observers (and cameras).
Saturday concealed handgun license classes in Plano, TX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cold Fusion...The Phenomonon Archives...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sad state of science education
The beginning of previous Dark Ages have often been marked by a decrease in the quality of general education, along with a rise in beliefs in pseudoscience, superstitions, religions, and other things completely ungrounded in reality. Rational thought not only falls in the general population but is frequently attacked by those whose beliefs do not hold up to logic and evidence.
The lack of science education displayed in these posts, especially on a "tech" site, is cause for alarm. Science is not a belief system, one alternative among many, but rather a TOOL for not only learning about our world, but also for verifying what we learn. The lack of understanding of what science is really all about is at the heart of our society's ambivalence toward and lack of trust in science. I only hope that it will not also be at the heart of our society's eventual slide into a next Dark Age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sad state of science education
You took the words right out of my mouth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, let me tell you why this keeps happening
They are fascinating since they're opening our eyes about how the universe works, and because some of them look totally unusual and are still not very well understood.
Well, just many folks grasp for the "not well understood" aspect and swear there should be free energy in there somewhere. That's basically their entire argument. Magnets for example appear to be doing work. The problem is, they do no more work than gravity does. And you can not extract more work from magnet than you can from gravity fields (which is: nothing at all).
The sole reason itself people keep assembling magnets in weird configurations in attempt to get free energy, and failing, and keep doing it, means the folks participating in such activites haven't learned a lot about their predecessors.
Even if free energy existed SOMEHOW, it would probably be a lot harder to harness, and require quite a lot more sophisticated device.
All simple solutions have been tried. We're past that. Steorn have just seen something many previous "free energy" companies have seen, and mistook it for free energy. They have no rational explanation for what they saw, but opted for the optimistic one: free energy!
We gotta feel sorry for them, since many have fallen in this trap, and maybe many more will fall. It's just a sad story, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Science
Shit, I better start selling all my real estate and move elsewhere. I just hope no one else is in on this.
"How utterly pathetic that most of the posts here seem to reflect the science education of a 6th grader. Those who actually do know a thing or two about science, and call the ignoramii out on it, are derided and made fun of......"
Just ponder this: ignorant or not, doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is Steorn produce excellent entertainment for lonely geeks reading websites, and that's, in my eye, commendable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okay, that's it ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disadvantages.
I get the impression that English is not your first language. It would also seem that your knowledge of cosmology, and physics in general, is, at best, about the level of a first year highschool student.
These two limitations will inevitably place you at a disadvantage when publicly arguing science with those who obviously possess superior knowledge. I suggest that you will provide yourself with less angst and embarrassment by simply accepting this and avoiding the pointless ad hominem attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disadvantages.
I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think. As I said, I was simply TRYING to have an unimportant conversation for FUN not for your damn amusement or anyone else's for that matter.
You are simply a pompous jackass. There is no embarrassment on my part, feel sorry for yourself, I will defend myself as I did nothing wrong but try to have a non serious conversation.
If all you that complain are so damn smart, why are you wasting your time on tech dirt? Why? Because, you can PRETEND to be someone you're not, it's laughable, once again for all I know, you are some zit faced punk sitting behind your PC picking your nose so you don't intimidate me nor will I stop defending myself nor will I NOT speak simply because assholes like you want me to. What's the matter? I didn't reply to your first cut down? Feel left out? Unnoticed? What's your point?
Lastly , I don't have to meet your or anyone else's criteria to make any damn statement I choose. It takes quite some attitude to think you can tell others what to do, please, save yourself the trouble and time wasting bits, I won't stifle my ideas for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disadvantages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disadvantages.
Am I bothered? Yes. I have seen many comments on tech dirt that are more than "nasty" toward others. So much that I wonder how tech dirt allows it yet, my little tag at just having a bit of fun got attacked so much more. I have seen comments saying "kill *this person, F*ck em and kill them,or F#ck you, and even worse, yet it seems a bit of fun is far more disturbing. So maybe I am irritated, maybe I simply don't understand, whatever it be, I have reduced myself to replying when I shouldn't have. Not to you or anyone else who wanted to make this a serious issue or took it seriously.
Either way, I made the comment in fun, I am defending myself. Truly I hold no ill will toward anyone and I don't want to keep this argument up, so I will simply drop it regardless if anyone decides to keep attacking it or not. My statement had no ill intentions, no ill words, no comments to offend anyone yet it seemed to irritate so many. I just hope when someone posts something racist, etc...that it gets attacked as my post did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disadvantages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disadvantages.
You said "Get over it, if you can't take it , don't dish it out." I suggest you take your own advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disadvantages.
But thank you for the kind advice anyway. Have a wonderful day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun with a stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, quite so, hardly fair engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh
As for free energy, it is POSSIBLE.
This may be complete BS but I hope you understand me
Starting with the Big Bang, a theory that states something like the universe and THINGS started to come into existence at time zero when there was all of a sudden a BANG.
May I ask what caused this bang?
So before matter or any particles existed, there just happen to be a huge explosion?
So assuming this explosion just... spontaneously happened without... anything smashing together, then why are we trying to replicate it in CERN by smashing together particles?
So correct me if I'm wrong here:
Out of nothing, there came an explosion
And out of this explosion, came this universe
So literally ENERGY and MASS just happened to be?
Seriously, someone answer this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *sigh
why do you assume that the big bang came from nothing? do you rule out the fact that our universe's spatial existence couldn't be a subset in a larger structure? we certainly aren't trying to replicate the big bang at cern. but they are trying to create miniature black holes. which interestingly enough, a black hole ran in reverse, called a white whole, would be a perfect description for the big bang. interestingly enough, the mathematics shows space-time being pinched off into a single point. wasn't the big bang supposed to be a single point?
of course, all you can do is speculate. considering all observable evidence demonstrates 100% the conservation of energy, why couldn't you fit this in to the concept of the big bang? of course, this also begs the question, why does energy have to have a beginning. these are things we may never actually be able to prove, and it's fun to speculate, but you should never just throw away ideas that have been demonstrated by observation consistently and, so far, without fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh
why do you assume that the big bang came from nothing? do you rule out the fact that our universe's spatial existence couldn't be a subset in a larger structure?"
You can never rule out such facts, but most instances where I heard "this is part of something bigger" it was a cop-out and refusal to go after the real answer. Even if the universe is an atom in another universe, or whatever, that universe also came into being somehow. Then comes the question, is that parent universe part of a bigger structure? Ad infinitum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *sigh
And to think I grew up looking at illustrations showing a black hole at the center of our little galaxy.
Speaking of the big bang, I wouldn't assume, within the context of that theory, that it came from nothing. It would have more than likely come from a previous big crunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *sigh
So literally ENERGY and MASS just happened to be?
Seriously, someone answer this"
Oh yea, scientists have built multi-million dollar experimental accelerators and spent decades trying to figure this out, but if you come here and ask on TechDirt, someone will answer this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
followup
So............... ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: followup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flamewar & Free Energy
Comicfan, I've got to at least give you credit for holding your own against all the criticisms, and I'm not one to pile on, but I'd say you should give PhsyicsGuy some credit, because he actually does know what he's talking about -- as least as far as I've read.
So... it's obvious these free energy guys are full of crap, but I did hear one "free" energy theory that has intrigued me, and I'd love to get people's opinions on it, particularly if they have knowledge and/or experience to back it up.
I was listening to _The Future and You_ (very cool futurology podcast) and the host postulated a theory of "free" energy using the interactions at the very low nanoscale level (i.e. using temperature interactions to generate this "free" energy).
Of course, this energy wouldn't be free; it would be taking advantage of the chaos at the lowest of levels. (Temperature == movement; movement == energy)
I think this idea sounds plausible. Perhaps we're several years/decades/centuries away from a working large scale model, but it does not violate the rules of physics and, if possible, would represent a major breakthrough -- possibly one of the biggest ever in science.
Yes, many morons have claimed to have made machines that produce free energy... but I think it would be wrong to think that we should permanently choose not to tackle the problem.
So what do you guys think? Is it within the realm of possibility? I happen to think it very well could be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flamewar & Free Energy
I don't dispute that whatsoever, in truth, yes, he does know what he's talking about and far more than me. Never did I say I was some expert or pretend to be. I wasn't arguing what people know or don't know, simply that my statement was never to be taken seriously and the way I was slammed over it was ridiculous. I wasn't prepared to defend something I didn't mean to be so serious which is why it may seem like a lack of knowledge since I didn't exactly put any solidness into it as it wasn't my intention to begin with. If it was hurtful or such then I could see it. Either way, what's done is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flamewar & Free Energy
A lot of people work and study very hard for scientific knowledge. Then when some lazy-ass brat troll who couldn't be bothered to do the same comes along shooting his mouth off and essentially calling them idiots or worse they do tend to get a little ticked off at said brat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are all wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasted Gifts?
For those of you that don't read timestamps, this bickering has been going on for two days..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments are forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got bored reading the replies....
- It's fantasy.
- It's a money laundering scheme.
- It's a reason to pretend to knowledge.
- It's a fuel cell.
- It's a flame war.
Simply put: E=mc^2, the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of physics are not guidelines. They are the closest things we know to how the universe works. Yes, there could be some fudge factors involved, but they still describe the universe.
I am going to leave it to a professional to actually say "this is bull" or "this is the most brilliant bit of science ever".
Free energy may just mean it doesn't cost the consumer -- not that the energy is created out of nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cold fusion all washed up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait I've seen this movie...
And in the movie the experiment blew up twice ... the first time was like a nuclear bomb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phylosophy
Speaking of the big bang, I wouldn't assume, within the context of that theory, that it came from nothing. It would have more than likely come from a previous big crunch.
You know, I'll go out on a limb, but I won't accept the cyclical crunch/bang theory on a purely philosophical base. What would be the point of the universe, if periodically everything is destroyed and recreated.
You could argue it's same with biological life, but not quite. Generations keep carrying on their parents DNA and changes.
In the crunch/bang theory, none of this makes any sense - it's all destroyed.
It's quite possible the universe can't "care" less about what I think, but I really hope this is not how things work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Phylosophy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that's the point, there is no point. It just IS.
Hmmm... I wonder if I need more, or less, coffee in the morning ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comment deleted by Jennifer Oullete's blog
http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2007/08/genie-in-a-bott.html#comment s
So, Jennifer tries to avoid that people get acknowledge that cold fusion is supported by a new theory, developed through new foundations of Physics.
The comment deleted by Jennifer is the following:
========================
The stronger reason why the scientific community neglects cold fusion is because its occurrence requires a neutron model n=p+e formed by proton and electron. However such theoretical model violates the Fermi-Diract statistics.
A model of neutron n=p+e that does not violate Fermi-Diract statistics is proposed in the book QUANTUM RING THEORY (QRT).
Two papers on the neutron new model n=p+e of QRT are available in the Internet.
They are:
1) ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON
2) NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON
Before to post here the two links, I would like to give some enlightenment on the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON, as follows:
.
.
.
1) When we analyze the mass of pions according to the current Standard Model, we arrive to contradictory conclusions about the mass M(d) of the quark down and the mass M(u) of the quark up.
In the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON it is shown that we arrive to the following two conclusions:
CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)
.
.
.
2) Look at the chemical reaction Na+Cl->NaCl
QUESTION: what is the matematical formalism underlying such a chemical reaction?
ANSWER: No one. The chemical reactions have not been established through the mathematical formalism.
The chemical reactions have been established based on the LOGIC, and such a procedure was viable because the chemists had the help of a property of the chemical reactions: the mass of the reagent elements does not change after the reactions. For instance, the mass of Na is the same in the two sides of the equation Na+Cl->NaCl.
In the case of the high energy nuclear reactions the discovery of the equations became very complicated, for two reasons:
1) Either particles can desintegrate by discharging energy, or particles can be created, by the transformation of energy to matter.
2) In the model adopted by the theorists, the addition of spins is applied to all the reactons.
However in the beta decay the addtion of spins cannot be applied (but there is conservation of the total angular momentun, because in the reactions there is creation of neutrinos and antineutrinos).
Such anomaly in the addition of spins in the beta decay made the situation to be very bad, and the theorists could not apply the LOGIC for the discovering of the mechanic of high energy reactions, as the chemists made in the Chemistry.
That's why the theorists tried to solve the problems by the mathematical formalism, through the Lie symetries as SU(2), SU(3), etc.
But the result was unsatisfactory, as one can understand easily. There are particles that does not fit to the theory, and that’s why Murray Gell-Mann felt the need of proposing ad hoc bandages, like the Strangeness.
As the theorists did not discover the true cause of the beta decay anomaly, they impute to other cause the occurrency of that anomaly: they state that the parity is not kept in the beta decay.
By addopting the “spin-fusion” hypothesis proposed in QUANTUM RING THEORY, it is explained the anomaly of the beta decay, and from such a way the high energy reactions can be explained through the LOGIC, in the same way as occurred in Chemistry for the establishment of the chemical reactions.
The two links are:
NEW MODEL OF THE NEUTRON:
http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/NewMODELneutron.html
ANOMALOUS MASS OF THE NEUTRON:
http://www.geocities.com/ciencia2mil/NEUTRONmodel.html
=====================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why cold fusion is theoretically possible
Nobel Laureate in Physics
Dear Prof.
The nuclear chemist Dr. Mitch Andre Garcia, administrator of a chemistry forum in the internet, tried to prove that cold fusion is theoretically impossible.
I showed him that cold fusion is possible when we adopt a new model of neutron composed by a proton and electron, in which the electron loses its zitterbewegung when it is captured by the proton.
The discussion is here:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
Dr. Mitch did not reply.
So, we have to conclude that he changed his opinion about what he said earlier:
"In conclusion, giving coverage to this fringe science only helps perpetuate the false belief that there exists any viability in cold fusion. "
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]