[Disclaimer: This thread will have nothing to do with the Global Warming theory. This thread was primarily made to discuss the merits of the Green movement and the technological advancements in alternative energy. There will be no bashing or flaming in this thread. Respect the opinions of others.]
This issue is something that I hold dear to my beliefs and I hope that you treat it with some degree of respect. I recognize both the pros and cons of converting to alternative energy source (convenience vs time) and am prepared not to argue, but to discuss this as maturely as a high school senior can. I have written theses on the benefits of alternative energy, so I would say that I have more than enough knowledge needed to function in this discussion.
Here are some questions that I feel need addressing:
1. Do you feel that it is practical for both developed and non-developed nations to participate in alternative energy usage?
2. Do you feel that the benefits of switching to alternative energy outweigh the cons?
3. Do you feel that the Green movement has actual merit and is a legitimate interest group or is merely an environmentalist reaction that will surely die out in years to come?
4. Do you think that investment in alternative energy can have both familial and national economic benefits?
These are only starter questions to get the discussion rolling. I would very much like to know your views on this subject and I will accept any viewpoint. Remember, no flaming or bashing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Don hit the nail on the head. Technology has a ways to go before it makes sense to build up alternative energy farms in large numbers.
As far as which nations ought to do what; nobody gets to make that decision and the various failed international treaties on the subject show that brilliantly. We simply have to hope India and China don't finish the job the West started with even more massive pollution outputs.
Don't know if you guys have heard of VIVACE (Vortex Induced Vibrations Aquatic Clean Energy)? It's a relatively new concept of hydro energy developed by University of Michigan. I did a report last year on hydro energy and in more depth about the VIVACE. My report isn't in English, so it doesn't really help to post it here. I can, if you want, Google Translate the important parts and edit some of the bad translation and post some of it here.
You can google it, but as I said, it's relatively new, thus little info. I used 10 or more sources to have been able to compile enough info.
4. Do you think that investment in alternative energy can have both familial and national economic benefits?
if you redistributed some of the money spent on wars and defense, and instead spent it on contracts for developing alternative fuels or methods of harvesting energy i think it would definitely help.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The problem is that heavy investment in alternative energy is a LONG-term investment and we're in a global economic slow-down that most countries would like to leave now-ish. They don't want to loose their cheap fuel source because that weakens their economy. When the pay-off for AE is decades away, at best, the short-minded (politicians) won't consider it worth funding.
The countries that have spent a lot investing in AE should be commended, but the ones who can get away with it these days are the lucky few.
The problem is that heavy investment in alternative energy is a LONG-term investment and we're in a global economic slow-down that most countries would like to leave now-ish. They don't want to loose their cheap fuel source because that weakens their economy. When the pay-off for AE is decades away, at best, the short-minded (politicians) won't consider it worth funding.
The countries that have spent a lot investing in AE should be commended, but the ones who can get away with it these days are the lucky few.
but thats why its a good idea. long term promise and a quick job source. with all the kids that are using federal loans to go to college, why not put a sticker on it and say that those that plan on going into AE or green-related/science careers get bonus funding. the factories and production plants for these projects already exist, they just need to be refitted. they wont be losing cheap fuel right away and theres the possibility of never needing to rely on foreign energy. and, it sets an example to the rest of the world. here we are, investing heavily in our future, you think that france, UK, germany and china would just go "oh how nice" no, id guess that the would be all like, "not on our watch US, we can invest as heavily and look good..."
idk, but it seems like something they would do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
but thats why its a good idea. long term promise and a quick job source.
Depending on how it's implemented, it is just as likely to negate jobs as create them. Ex. If the government creates grants for AE companies and/or has some kind of national initiative to produce AE jobs, they MIGHT create more AE jobs in those related industries than are lost in the competition with traditional power source industries. However, if they used a (conservative) method, sans federal spending, and simply opting for quotas on AE or requiring a company invest in AE to continue to exist or pay a given tax rate, they'll be cutting jobs at a much higher rate than creating them.
The rub is, government spending policies are currently under a microscope and the conservatives aren't budging. Juding by the most recent repub debate, they're not even willing to budge on bloat defense spending to fund it, nevermind the elephant in the room (social security, medicare, medicade, and other "entitlements.") so in a literal sense it's almost impossible for the present administrations here to encourage the kind of AE proposal that wouldn't simply choke a pre-existing energy sector for little or no effect. The Solyndra debacle likely put the last nail in that coffin and I think that failure will likely haunt the progressive energy movement for years to come.
with all the kids that are using federal loans to go to college, why not put a sticker on it and say that those that plan on going into AE or green-related/science careers get bonus funding.
Similar to the above, the government is frozen on the budget because conservatives will not hear anything about spending that doesn't involve draconian cuts to just this sort of thing (discretionary spending). Historically, it makes no sense at all, but in the political drama we live in it seems we're using the Hoover model.
they wont be losing cheap fuel right away and theres the possibility of never needing to rely on foreign energy.
That depends on the first thing I mentioned, it will adversely affect traditional fuel prices if industry natives are forced into AE investments which currently promise an inefficnet comparative return. They'll be passing the buck on to the consumer. Ending reliance on foreign energy is a laudable cause, but ultimately it's tied up in defense and logistics for defense initiatives rather than economics because, as I said, nobody want to invest on a 50-year-return plan in the present economic climate.
here we are, investing heavily in our future, you think that france, UK, germany and china would just go "oh how nice" no, id guess that the would be all like, "not on our watch US, we can invest as heavily and look good..."
Considering most of the EU is in similar financial turmoil (and most are ahead of the US in progressive energy policies already) I don't think they'd be willing to take an identical leap of faith before it was possible to say that we acheived something or not.
I'm not against AE tech being subsidized so far as we continue to research new and better ways to harness renewable energy resources, but I don't think it's something that can be pushed into the industry today. Between the rise of food prices, rent, and with the winter coming on; the last thing we need are price hikes by energy companies feeling the strain of shifting to a new, currently less efficient, mode of operation.
If we really do want to revolutionize the way we produce power and make it cleaner, less reliant on forign markets, and more sustainable: we have to take the necessary first step of taming the budget and re-allocating those tax dollars from corporate welfare, defense bloat, and pork projects to meaningful scientific research, sustainable development, and infrastructure repairs we desperately need. Of course, neither party seems to have this on their agenda so the question of AE today is all but a moot point.
Ironically, the best hope for AE in this market are the greedy fossil fuel multi-nationals who actually have the budget to spend massive ammounts of time and effort on research and development of AE.
it seems like the only time for change is when things become catastrophic and there is no other option. typical.
I tend to think the push for AE will out-live the economic crisis and the reign of whatever conservative government we get over the next decade will be. More-over, if the tech (somehow) becomes avalible to make private sectors very interested in growing their AE models, even the conservatives might jump at the chance to throw a government spending bill at it. We all know how much washington likes to subsidize fortune 500 companies.
i mean, just making super expensive electric cars that suck isnt getting us anywhere. i think i watch too much scifi....
Yeah, electric cars are getting us nowhere. Mostly because our fastest growing source of electricity is coal and thus, more electric cars at present simply means more demand for coal. Natural gas might take over if the mid-western shale deposits are all they have been hyped to be, but that lends itself just as much to being fuel directly as it does to being converted into electricity.
there will always be some kind of negative stigma assoc with private sector science. like its unchecked and unregulated by the govt. But it wouldnt be all that hard to refit facilities with high tech defense contracts into high tech research labs. seems like its a small investment and would give some short term construction/manufacturing jobs. in a perfect world of course.
we have countries like dubai and india/china wanting to impress with the tallest buildings and most advanced construction feats. it wouldnt take too much of a nudge for them to soon show off the worlds most self-reliant tower community or anything...idk...theres a reason why i hate politics.
in australia, summer is coming...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
there will always be some kind of negative stigma assoc with private sector science. like its unchecked and unregulated by the govt. But it wouldnt be all that hard to refit facilities with high tech defense contracts into high tech research labs. seems like its a small investment and would give some short term construction/manufacturing jobs. in a perfect world of course.
I don't associate as much corruption in private sector r&d when it's a clear-cut production industry like energy. If they lie, for example, about how many gigawatts of power their tech can generate, it's blatantly obvious and they'll reap the whirlwind for it. I can see where you're coming from though, in medecine, for example, their science is and should be highly suspect.
Personally, I don't think defense contracts are the best way to prospect for tech either. DARPA has produced a lot of neat things in the last few decades, but defense budgets also fund frivolity such as bases in other countries, limo and jet rides for pentagon officials, pork-deals with long-time defense contract companies (hello Halliburton and Blackwater). When's the last time you heard about a National Science Foundation scandal? Generally speaking, funding research for the sake of research cuts the most middle-men and makes the most efficient choice for spending on new technologies. Once that technology exists, private firms quickly snap up the ideas and go to work implementing them into new productive jobs, products, and services.
we have countries like dubai and india/china wanting to impress with the tallest buildings and most advanced construction feats. it wouldnt take too much of a nudge for them to soon show off the worlds most self-reliant tower community or anything...idk...theres a reason why i hate politics.
Well, Dubai is going for broke because it knows that being an oil-pit won't keep them rich forever. I think they're trying to attract forign markets in the Swiss style. Wether or not that's working (and I don't think it is, given the cultural hostility and risk involved with being near the Arabian peninsula) is anyone's guess. China is a little diffirent, and I think they've made it abundantly clear they plan to modernize their economy: consequences be damned. They're certainly not impressed by the US or our suggestions that they clean up their act (so to speak). I don't think an initiative for national clean energy by the US would sway their opinion much.
The point i'm trying to make is, if we undertake the project of really becoming self-sufficient and sustainable, we're going to be doing it for ourselves. It will be an initiative that the rest of the world doesn't like (fewer opportunities to sell things to us) and might even be hostile to (more things for us to export that their citizen begin to demand).
Wanted to give my 2-cents being in the construction industry.
1. Do you feel that it is practical for both developed and non-developed nations to participate in alternative energy usage?
It is very practical. Why would you waste resources in one area of the world and not another? That is very hypocritical to tell someone to do it one way and turn around and do it another. I also think it is very important in the car industry because the air movement. What happens when the town (country) next to you uses coal, oil, and nasty stuff and shoots it in the air, The air then travels to you. Would you want to breathe it in?
2. Do you feel that the benefits of switching to alternative energy outweigh the cons?
Definately. One thing many people always associate with alternative energy would be windmills, hydroelectric plants, etc. Many people do not realize that there are such things as a geothermal heat pump. It keeps water at a constant 57.3 degrees F. In winter time, this will be warmer than the outside water and during summer, cooler than outside. It is a win-win in terms of using it to cool a home. (use it in pipes and run it throughout your home). You still need other things, but it helps greatly as far as costs.
Cars- My wife drives an SUV that gets 12 miles per gallon. With gas prices, she pays a lot. Just by purchasing a new car and paying for it monthly, she would SAVE money. thats including purchase price and gas. Interesting.
3. Do you feel that the Green movement has actual merit and is a legitimate interest group or is merely an environmentalist reaction that will surely die out in years to come?
It is legitimate. Check out LEED. It is designed for buildings. There are things like light bulbs, toilets, insulation, HVAC systems, faucets, (I can go on for a LONG time) and research into new materials that make energy consumption go down. Regardless, we will leave a carbon footprint (compared to mother nature very small), but it is how we use what we currently have that defines being green.
4. Do you think that investment in alternative energy can have both familial and national economic benefits?
I believe there would be benefits on both sides. Not only will air quality improve, but jobs will increase. People claim it costs more than what we are doing now. So what? Energy should cost a lot more than what it does now. The jobs it would create to maintain a mix of windmills, hydroelectric plants, solar power, and sewage gas (methane) would boost the economy and peoples wallets.
NUCLEAR POWER NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED. IT IS VERY GOOD, BUT THE EFFECTS ARE AWEFUL AND UNPREDICTABLE. LOOK AT WHAT IT DID TO JAPAN, RUSSIA, AND US TO NAME A FEW. CHECK IT OUT ONLINE.
NUCLEAR POWER NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED. IT IS VERY GOOD, BUT THE EFFECTS ARE AWEFUL AND UNPREDICTABLE. LOOK AT WHAT IT DID TO JAPAN, RUSSIA, AND US TO NAME A FEW. CHECK IT OUT ONLINE.
In Japan the actual problem was the tsunami and awful disaster preparation in a disaster-prone area.
Secondly,Chernobyl is in Ukraine, not Russia, and the problem there was downright negligence.
So far the major nuclear power -related accidents have been the results of idiocy.
The real issue is that coal is a much bigger problem than nuclear power, but no-one's interested.
wikipedia told him it was russia.
whats a realistic plan for starting real AE? seems like there arnt any.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
whats a realistic plan for starting real AE? seems like there arnt any.
It's alread started. The next step is for the cost (in cash or environmental damage) of using fossil fuels to rise above the point where it makes sense to keep using them. Of course, that's aleady happened for some people too, but it has to be more wide-spread.
whats a realistic plan for starting real AE? seems like there arnt any.
It's alread started. The next step is for the cost (in cash or environmental damage) of using fossil fuels to rise above the point where it makes sense to keep using them. Of course, that's aleady happened for some people too, but it has to be more wide-spread.
if you meant electric cars and wind power...i dont really count those tbh. i want widespread change!!! nah i know its a slow and painful process.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
No telling what actually counts at this point. Conservative estimates suggest we've still got a century or more worth of fossil fuel to burn (assuming the earth doesn't kill us first). By the time we have enough motivation to convince the likes of China/Republicans that AE is necessary we might have found some better ways to harness renewable energy and store it. Or we might find unobtanium on a moon called Pandora and re-enact Dances with Smurfs.
It's called the sunburst machine damnit, it rotates magnets, or one big one, that rubs up against the underlying magnetic field of the universe. It gives over 100% of the energy put into it, which means its 'free' energy. It is NOT a perpetual motion machine, they are completely different.
Anyways go google it. It was first made by *gasp* Tesla! But it took him years to hypothesize the magnetic rubbing theory, because it's hard to think differently once you are told something; Such as magnets have their own fields. Not true, magnets merely bring the magnetic field of universe out.
*"Oh, wait, yes I have. Flawed logic, questionable sources, nothing mentioned about Tesla except for a quote that does not directly relate to the "N Machine." Why did I fall for this yet again?"*
Also, you can't make energy out of a metaphor. There are no "wheels" in the universe.
"The law of energy conservation is pure assumption," he [Bruce DePalma] insists. In his theory, the heat of a lit candle comes from space, and this substrate is slowly consumed by the energy of space flowing through it.
Can someone please tell this dude that you can't directly link chemistry and physics like that? The heat of the candle comes from vaporizing wax at the base of the flame.
Trust me; if finding alternative energy was as easy as magnets, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because all of our electronics would be powered by big magnets that obtain energy from metaphorical wheels in space.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This issue is something that I hold dear to my beliefs and I hope that you treat it with some degree of respect. I recognize both the pros and cons of converting to alternative energy source (convenience vs time) and am prepared not to argue, but to discuss this as maturely as a high school senior can. I have written theses on the benefits of alternative energy, so I would say that I have more than enough knowledge needed to function in this discussion.
Here are some questions that I feel need addressing:
1. Do you feel that it is practical for both developed and non-developed nations to participate in alternative energy usage?
2. Do you feel that the benefits of switching to alternative energy outweigh the cons?
3. Do you feel that the Green movement has actual merit and is a legitimate interest group or is merely an environmentalist reaction that will surely die out in years to come?
4. Do you think that investment in alternative energy can have both familial and national economic benefits?
These are only starter questions to get the discussion rolling. I would very much like to know your views on this subject and I will accept any viewpoint. Remember, no flaming or bashing.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
As far as which nations ought to do what; nobody gets to make that decision and the various failed international treaties on the subject show that brilliantly. We simply have to hope India and China don't finish the job the West started with even more massive pollution outputs.
You can google it, but as I said, it's relatively new, thus little info. I used 10 or more sources to have been able to compile enough info.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
The countries that have spent a lot investing in AE should be commended, but the ones who can get away with it these days are the lucky few.
idk, but it seems like something they would do.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Depending on how it's implemented, it is just as likely to negate jobs as create them. Ex. If the government creates grants for AE companies and/or has some kind of national initiative to produce AE jobs, they MIGHT create more AE jobs in those related industries than are lost in the competition with traditional power source industries. However, if they used a (conservative) method, sans federal spending, and simply opting for quotas on AE or requiring a company invest in AE to continue to exist or pay a given tax rate, they'll be cutting jobs at a much higher rate than creating them.
The rub is, government spending policies are currently under a microscope and the conservatives aren't budging. Juding by the most recent repub debate, they're not even willing to budge on bloat defense spending to fund it, nevermind the elephant in the room (social security, medicare, medicade, and other "entitlements.") so in a literal sense it's almost impossible for the present administrations here to encourage the kind of AE proposal that wouldn't simply choke a pre-existing energy sector for little or no effect. The Solyndra debacle likely put the last nail in that coffin and I think that failure will likely haunt the progressive energy movement for years to come.
Similar to the above, the government is frozen on the budget because conservatives will not hear anything about spending that doesn't involve draconian cuts to just this sort of thing (discretionary spending). Historically, it makes no sense at all, but in the political drama we live in it seems we're using the Hoover model.
The cost of that overhaul would require heavy liquid capital investment, see above.
That depends on the first thing I mentioned, it will adversely affect traditional fuel prices if industry natives are forced into AE investments which currently promise an inefficnet comparative return. They'll be passing the buck on to the consumer. Ending reliance on foreign energy is a laudable cause, but ultimately it's tied up in defense and logistics for defense initiatives rather than economics because, as I said, nobody want to invest on a 50-year-return plan in the present economic climate.
Yes, unfortunately we don't know if that example would be of success or failure. Hence the gridlock in Washington.
Considering most of the EU is in similar financial turmoil (and most are ahead of the US in progressive energy policies already) I don't think they'd be willing to take an identical leap of faith before it was possible to say that we acheived something or not.
I'm not against AE tech being subsidized so far as we continue to research new and better ways to harness renewable energy resources, but I don't think it's something that can be pushed into the industry today. Between the rise of food prices, rent, and with the winter coming on; the last thing we need are price hikes by energy companies feeling the strain of shifting to a new, currently less efficient, mode of operation.
If we really do want to revolutionize the way we produce power and make it cleaner, less reliant on forign markets, and more sustainable: we have to take the necessary first step of taming the budget and re-allocating those tax dollars from corporate welfare, defense bloat, and pork projects to meaningful scientific research, sustainable development, and infrastructure repairs we desperately need. Of course, neither party seems to have this on their agenda so the question of AE today is all but a moot point.
Ironically, the best hope for AE in this market are the greedy fossil fuel multi-nationals who actually have the budget to spend massive ammounts of time and effort on research and development of AE.
it seems like the only time for change is when things become catastrophic and there is no other option. typical.
i mean, just making super expensive electric cars that suck isnt getting us anywhere. i think i watch too much scifi....
oh yah, and
winter is coming...
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I tend to think the push for AE will out-live the economic crisis and the reign of whatever conservative government we get over the next decade will be. More-over, if the tech (somehow) becomes avalible to make private sectors very interested in growing their AE models, even the conservatives might jump at the chance to throw a government spending bill at it. We all know how much washington likes to subsidize fortune 500 companies.
Yeah, electric cars are getting us nowhere. Mostly because our fastest growing source of electricity is coal and thus, more electric cars at present simply means more demand for coal. Natural gas might take over if the mid-western shale deposits are all they have been hyped to be, but that lends itself just as much to being fuel directly as it does to being converted into electricity.
Better drink my own piss.
we have countries like dubai and india/china wanting to impress with the tallest buildings and most advanced construction feats. it wouldnt take too much of a nudge for them to soon show off the worlds most self-reliant tower community or anything...idk...theres a reason why i hate politics.
in australia, summer is coming...
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I don't associate as much corruption in private sector r&d when it's a clear-cut production industry like energy. If they lie, for example, about how many gigawatts of power their tech can generate, it's blatantly obvious and they'll reap the whirlwind for it. I can see where you're coming from though, in medecine, for example, their science is and should be highly suspect.
Personally, I don't think defense contracts are the best way to prospect for tech either. DARPA has produced a lot of neat things in the last few decades, but defense budgets also fund frivolity such as bases in other countries, limo and jet rides for pentagon officials, pork-deals with long-time defense contract companies (hello Halliburton and Blackwater). When's the last time you heard about a National Science Foundation scandal? Generally speaking, funding research for the sake of research cuts the most middle-men and makes the most efficient choice for spending on new technologies. Once that technology exists, private firms quickly snap up the ideas and go to work implementing them into new productive jobs, products, and services.
Well, Dubai is going for broke because it knows that being an oil-pit won't keep them rich forever. I think they're trying to attract forign markets in the Swiss style. Wether or not that's working (and I don't think it is, given the cultural hostility and risk involved with being near the Arabian peninsula) is anyone's guess. China is a little diffirent, and I think they've made it abundantly clear they plan to modernize their economy: consequences be damned. They're certainly not impressed by the US or our suggestions that they clean up their act (so to speak). I don't think an initiative for national clean energy by the US would sway their opinion much.
The point i'm trying to make is, if we undertake the project of really becoming self-sufficient and sustainable, we're going to be doing it for ourselves. It will be an initiative that the rest of the world doesn't like (fewer opportunities to sell things to us) and might even be hostile to (more things for us to export that their citizen begin to demand).
1. Do you feel that it is practical for both developed and non-developed nations to participate in alternative energy usage?
It is very practical. Why would you waste resources in one area of the world and not another? That is very hypocritical to tell someone to do it one way and turn around and do it another. I also think it is very important in the car industry because the air movement. What happens when the town (country) next to you uses coal, oil, and nasty stuff and shoots it in the air, The air then travels to you. Would you want to breathe it in?
2. Do you feel that the benefits of switching to alternative energy outweigh the cons?
Definately. One thing many people always associate with alternative energy would be windmills, hydroelectric plants, etc. Many people do not realize that there are such things as a geothermal heat pump. It keeps water at a constant 57.3 degrees F. In winter time, this will be warmer than the outside water and during summer, cooler than outside. It is a win-win in terms of using it to cool a home. (use it in pipes and run it throughout your home). You still need other things, but it helps greatly as far as costs.
Cars- My wife drives an SUV that gets 12 miles per gallon. With gas prices, she pays a lot. Just by purchasing a new car and paying for it monthly, she would SAVE money. thats including purchase price and gas. Interesting.
3. Do you feel that the Green movement has actual merit and is a legitimate interest group or is merely an environmentalist reaction that will surely die out in years to come?
It is legitimate. Check out LEED. It is designed for buildings. There are things like light bulbs, toilets, insulation, HVAC systems, faucets, (I can go on for a LONG time) and research into new materials that make energy consumption go down. Regardless, we will leave a carbon footprint (compared to mother nature very small), but it is how we use what we currently have that defines being green.
4. Do you think that investment in alternative energy can have both familial and national economic benefits?
I believe there would be benefits on both sides. Not only will air quality improve, but jobs will increase. People claim it costs more than what we are doing now. So what? Energy should cost a lot more than what it does now. The jobs it would create to maintain a mix of windmills, hydroelectric plants, solar power, and sewage gas (methane) would boost the economy and peoples wallets.
NUCLEAR POWER NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED. IT IS VERY GOOD, BUT THE EFFECTS ARE AWEFUL AND UNPREDICTABLE. LOOK AT WHAT IT DID TO JAPAN, RUSSIA, AND US TO NAME A FEW. CHECK IT OUT ONLINE.
whats a realistic plan for starting real AE? seems like there arnt any.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
It's alread started. The next step is for the cost (in cash or environmental damage) of using fossil fuels to rise above the point where it makes sense to keep using them. Of course, that's aleady happened for some people too, but it has to be more wide-spread.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
im sure one of saturns moons has some sort of burnable rock XD
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Anyways go google it. It was first made by *gasp* Tesla! But it took him years to hypothesize the magnetic rubbing theory, because it's hard to think differently once you are told something; Such as magnets have their own fields. Not true, magnets merely bring the magnetic field of universe out.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
*goes and checks*
*"Oh, wait, yes I have. Flawed logic, questionable sources, nothing mentioned about Tesla except for a quote that does not directly relate to the "N Machine." Why did I fall for this yet again?"*
Also, you can't make energy out of a metaphor. There are no "wheels" in the universe.
"The law of energy conservation is pure assumption," he [Bruce DePalma] insists. In his theory, the heat of a lit candle comes from space, and this substrate is slowly consumed by the energy of space flowing through it.
Can someone please tell this dude that you can't directly link chemistry and physics like that? The heat of the candle comes from vaporizing wax at the base of the flame.
Trust me; if finding alternative energy was as easy as magnets, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because all of our electronics would be powered by big magnets that obtain energy from metaphorical wheels in space.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence