| What is Energy? | |
|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2006 21:46 | #11   |
 | What I always find so staggering is the short-sightedness of those in positions of power, regardless of nationality, it seems a universal trait. We already have, and have known about alternative/renewable sources of energy for a long time. This is the 21st Century, we have the intelligence and financial capacity to develop/research energy and yet so little progress seems to be being made. Of course the other huge issue is consumption. We all are guilty of overuse I'm sure. The biggest issue is getting me and you to care about our own energy consumption. Davebroyles, I think your theory is really interesting and certainly agree with a lot of what you are saying. I do love theory. The problem is that we all need 'energy' and it is so ingrained in everyday living from the moment we wake up to our battery/electric powered alarm clock etc. How does your theory convert itself into practice ? How can China realistically 'bypass' the energy issue ? I think you and Windenergy, and a lot of us are on the same side, but most of us aren't even aware of the issues. The difficulty is in translating any theory into a working model that means something to everyone. Incidentally, where do you stand on the issue of recycling ? I respect your words and Windenergy's dedication. |
| Jun 14, 2006 20:57 | #12 |
| To Lemoncactus and Dreamcatcher: There is one problem with energy that everyone overlooks: We have no definition for it. Energy is intuitively understood, but undefined. We can cite examples of energy. We can quantify energy. We can intuit. We cannot define. Ask any highly competent, highly educated scientist or engineer. They can't defined energy, either. I have concluded that energy isn't something we think about. Instead, energy is how we think. Energy is a pattern that structures thought. However, the fact that science uses this pattern of thought does not necessarily make it good science. There are several very fundamental assumptions that are associated with energy. These assumptions are basic to theory. Upon careful examination, it becomes apparent that these assumptions cannot be proven. Their very definitions render them unprovable. This is the subject of the third chapter of my book. How to bypass energy? Violate entropy. We are already violating entropy in several ways. However, it appears that we do not know how or why we have been able to violate entropy. This is the subject of the fourth chapter of my book. I explain how and why we are violating entropy, and suggest new ways by which we may be able to violate entropy. Violating entropy produces technologies that are more than 100% efficient. We are achieving efficiencies of greater than 100% by tapping the absolute temperature of the environment. Tapping the absolute temperature of the environment isn't "alternative energy". It is instead an alternative to energy. Mechanical refrigeration violates entropy, achieving efficiencies of 200-400%. The turbofan jet engine transforms atmospheric heat into propulsion, using the heat of the atmosphere to help propel aircraft. There is a particular way in which we should be able to use environmental heat to power automobiles, ending any need for either fuel-based or electrical power. I do not believe that energy is a problem that needs to be solved. Energy, understood as being our pattern of thought, IS the problem. Dave Broyles I strongly agree |
| Jun 15, 2006 00:02 | #13 |
| DAVEBROYLES, thank you for your insights. I have however a point of discussion based on my own thoughts and research. To simplify energy transfer into basic principals is probably the best way to handle this current topic. Proven unsustainable recourses such as: coal; oil; gas, etc. Vs presumed sustainable recourses such as: wind; tidal; light etc. What we tap into for example to create energy is now becoming a world wide hot topic. Further, the correct management of energy waist and consumption is about buying us time on this beautiful diverse planet. Sustainable resource management is the key topic which you out-line. My statement is simple; ‘If energy is a constant then god exist…’ Why do is say this? I believe that we can only refer to an energy source as 100% sustainable if that energy is a constant. In our macroecology sources of energy which are harnessed from outside this environment are perceived to be “sustainable” however based on this principal the definition of a sustainable energy resource can not be %100 validated as it is in essence just energy transfer. |
Page 2 of 2 < Previous Next > Page:
Post a Reply to: What is Energy?
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.