"Rolling Backouts" (Energy Crisis)

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Time/02112, Jan 25, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. m3harri Registered Member

    Oil Cartels exist only in the minds of those that depend on them Ergo FE con-men

    These oil cartels have been on the ball for some time. You have to respect a group that conspires to protect itself before it is born. With the laws of thermodynamic predating the internal combustion engine and electrical production and distribution it is clear that the Evil Oil Folk must be witches. They foresaw the future and made these Arbitrary "laws" to protect themselves before they had a business to protect.
    -FYI that was also Sarcasm- in case you could not tell.
    These Free energy People make lots of promises take peoples money and do not deliver.
    Eric Krieg has spent some time fighting these con-men. Here are few of his sites. He offers a 10k prize that is matched by others for proof of free energy via perpetual motion AKA overunity. His site has lots of great information unfortunately his site suffers from a bad case of link rot.
    Here is an article in Skeptical Enquirer regarding "free energy".
    Since beating the laws of physics (I.E. the laws of thermodynamics) is demonstrable with a "free energy" machine it qualifies for the 1,000,000+ Paranormal JREF prize. Why is it these "free energy" messiahs need to take middle class "investors" money when they could claim these prizes?

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Concerning fusion energy, I have doubts that it is as much of a panacea as some claim.

    First, barring an astonishing breakthrough in physics, there is no way to confine neutrons that escape from fusion plasmas. Therefore, magnetic confinement reactor designs sport a hefty guard shield around the reactor that traps those neutrons. The problem is that whenever you bombard anything with neutrons, you are creating a radioactive substance. So, the fusion reactors are not radiation-free even though their fuel is hydrogen and combustion product helium. Though they seem to be a good bet for almost limitless energy production (due to both high energy output and overabundance of hydrogen in the universe), I can't escape the conclusion that they still pose a problem of radioactive waste disposal. That may not sound like much of a problem, but imagine a fusion reactor for every 100 square miles, say, of the Earth's land surface, and the generated waste begins to add up.

    Then, of course, there is the problem of net energy output. It takes a lot of energy to contain and maintain artificial fusion plasmas; the sun has it for free due to gravitational potential energy, but on Earth we have to generate and contain the immense temperatures and pressures required for fusion. Moreover, rates of fusion in the plasma must always remain below a certain threshold determined by the integrity of the containment mechanism. There are many constraints here, as the net produced energy must be enough to overcome the energy expended to create and maintain the plasma, but not enough to destroy the plasma's confinement. Quite a tightrope to walk. Clearly, there's no point in running a fusion generator when it consumes more electricity than it produces. There's a good chance positive net output will be achieved, however, since there are still plenty of unexplored avenues left. But the question of the ultimate efficiency of hot plasma fusion reactors bothers me. Does anyone know of some analyses that were done on the issue, and if so what are the theoretical figures?

    Personally, I favor the Sun as the best power source for terrestrial needs. It's the biggest, baddest fusion reactor that will ever exist in our planetary system, so why don't we take advantage of it? Solar energy falling on the Earth's surface during daylight hours even under cloudy conditions reaches above 100 watts per hour per square meter. Capture 10% of that energy, and a photovoltaic cell substituting for the roof of your house (say, 10x10 meters, making 100m^2) will provide enough power even under the worst weather conditions (1 kwh) to power your house during the day (and that's with current, power-inefficient household technology.) Double the efficiency of the solar collector, and it will give you enough energy to run your house overnight as well. There are already advanced solar cells in existence that achieve 27% efficiency in space and there are projects to raise that figure to as high as 40%. There's nothing that would prevent similar efficiencies at ground-level. In fact, efficiencies for photovoltaic energy collection could go above 50%; for example, photosynthetic plants easily surpass that figure. Which means that with sufficient development and deployment, our houses alone could generate enough emissionless power to feed the entire nation with no need for any kind of additional generator capacity. And this does not even begin to take advantage of the remaining solar energy that manifests itself in atmospheric currents. Add wind generators to the mix, and you can certainly achieve zero-emission power generation, even with the current solar cell efficiencies.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2001
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. splatt Registered Member

    This is not new!

    Does anyone remember the gas crisis of the seventies? This pricing strategy of energy companies is typical. The net effect of what we are seeing is that the scare tactics of fabricated energy shortages cause us to utilize less of the comodity leaving greater stores for the suppliers. These stores of energy now garner a higher price increasing the value of their asset base. When the "Crisis" is over you will not see the price lowered but no doubt you wil be relieved that the "Crisis" is over. This has happened with water, gasoline, natural gas and now electricity. Despite our Governer's appearance of being the savior and being tough on the electric companies, he supported this assult on our wallets. Blaming this on deregulation is only a politically motivated denial tactic. Setting a maximum price for what electricity could be sold for is NOT de-regulation but regulation at it's finest. This gave the electric companies the excuse that they could not afford to build new plants and maintain some old ones.

    The key to recognizing BS is to look at who benefits from the change.

    Who has the power and money.

    And assume that those people are doing exactly what it takes to get what benefits them!!!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Proof you want, lise is what you consider as your own proof!

    I just despise that so many "Sheepole" are not willing to exercise that part of their brain that thinks "Outside Of The Box" meanning to learn how to think independant of what they have been subtly "conditioned" to believe, which when you really think about it, most of which consist of nothing but "Lies" and mislead propaganda!

    Crisp, it is indeed "Lies" that you have been willing to accept as the truth my friend, the so called general laws of thermodynamics is "NOT" a clear & self supportive evidence in which to substantiate that nothing else can compete with! (Bullroar!)

    The mathmatics are flawed, however it would take several pages to prove this to you, and anyone else who does not find this to be of substantial, however if you are willing to keep an open mind about this, I will be more than willing to provide you wih sifficient eveidence to support this claim however "unsubstantied" you and others may think.

    The argument is clear, and the substantiations and loads of evidence to support this opposing view, is just as evident in it's own right, equally, if not more so than your accepted ideas which I believe to be "Flawed" likewise!

    The hoaxes are so widespread, that it detracts from the truth in creating the "Boy who cried wolf" scenario, whoever it is not evident that there is nothing more to this! ther evidently is more, much more indeed!
    stubborness, and arrogance is not an acceptable behavioiur to satisfying and ends justifying the means here, and when those who are unwilling to accept other ideas as plausible for what they represent, than mankind will contine to be lead into caves!

    I could react to you, and others like yourself that behave this way in kind, by getting out a club, and beat you silly, but this does not clearly resolve any issues here, and when the scientific communities that share these closed minded, selfish & arrogant perceptions, that this is it, and that's all ther is to it attitude, learn to "Grow Up" and get over themselves, perhaps we as a society of true intelligence can become just that, and evolve beyond our own narrow minded egos!

    Case & Point?, I'll give you the following links to information that supports just what I've been telling you people/sheeple, all along, and you can do the math!




    Welcome to "FREE ENERGY "
    Don't take MY word for it. Take it from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office!

    Richard Boylan, Ph.D., LLC
    Dr. Richard Boylan, Ph.D., MSW, M.S.Ed. Researcher, Behavioral Scientist, Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist, University Instructor (emeritus) Post Office Box 22310, Sacramento, California 95822, United States of America. Phone: (916) 422-7479 (PDT) E-mail: drboylan@jps.net "They" did not want you to have this story. When my ex-NSA informant e-mailed me this information, someone penetrated his state-of-the-art encryption and implanted a virus which caused my server to freeze up on his exact message and not download it, and thus blockade all my other incoming e-mail messages. It took two days of work and technical support help to develop a go-around of the freeze-bug. Now I am a mild-mannered reporter, but when "they" try to prevent the truth from coming out, I just become more determined to have it see the light of day. And here you have it.

    Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
    Psychokenesis which is the ability to move or affect physical objects by using mental energy is discussed at this site. A serious scientific approach is taken here and explains that we all have the power to do this if we learn how to develop the ability.

    The NIST Reference On Constants, Units, and Uncertainty
    Information at the foundation of modern science and technology from the Physics Laboratory of NIST

    The Playful World: Interactive Toys and the Future of Imagination
    (NanoTechnology) Mark Pesce , Authour of "The Playful World : How Technology Is Transforming Our Imagination" Are Furbies avatars of future pets? Mark Pesce, Chair of USC's Interactive Media Program and creator of VRML, thinks that technological development and recreational activity inform each other and are converging into a strange, new immersive environment.

    "Seeking Natures Secrets"

    The Quest For Overunity
    (c) JLN Labs 1997-2000 - by Jean-Louis Naudin

    The Tom Bearden Website
    (The Original Exclusive Website Of Mr. Tom Bearden) If you are looking for a missing Tom Bearden file, it has been moved to his website at

    Some "Improvement" in the construction of electro magnets


    Stellar Drive Engine
    The Stellar Drive Engine is an electromagnetic device for generating unidirectional thrust. It has no moving parts and generates unidirectional thrust based on a flaw in Maxwell's electromagnetic equations which manifests itself when two conductors carrying current with harmonics greater than the fundamental interact through their magnetic fields. The vector sum for these interacting magnetic fields is zero when the excitation is sinusoidal (which is in general agreement with default observations based on standard calculations) but they are not zero for sustained non-sinusoidal excitations.

    The Science of Tachyonization
    Heard of Tachyons but not sure of what they do?...then this page is for you. Brought to you from the Lovelight group this page will explain what happens when matter is bombarded by tachyons...molecular changes that may affect life expectancy (longer) among other things.

    Time Technical proposals for time control research program. (Modern theories about nature of Space and Time.)
    There are many known theories and no needs to comment all of them. I submitted here some data that is correlating with my own understanding. This data let me develop practical ideas and offer some time rate control experiments.

    Website Of: Mr. Alexander V. Frolov
    Russian Native Engineer, Inventor, & Author of many published works relating to a broad range of topics such as ...gravitation, electrogravitation, new energy, time rate control theory (time machine), reactionless propulsion, warp drive technology, plasma electrolysis, hydrogen energetics, aging problem, Tesla research, ether science, ether dynamics, n-dimensional, electric spacecraft, four dimensional conception of matter, thermogravitation, gyroscopical drive, Tesla, Chernetsky, Frolov, gradient dielectric technologies for electric space drive, warp drive, space time curvature, temporal displacement, teleportation, and DNA resonance.

    USCapital Energy, Inc.
    Welcome to USCapital Energy, Inc. We are an energy exploration company. For fifteen years, we have demonstrated that successful exploration for energy resources takes Creativity Dedication Energy Learn more about us.

    Following an invitation by John Bedini, I went with him to Los Angeles immediately after the Colorado Springs Tesla Symposium on August 10 1984. We had two days together to work on the Kromrey Converter and the Tesla Switching Device.

    John Bedinis Motor Diagrams and lab notes...
    Motor Diagrams And Lab Notes: The lab notes and diagrams on this page were built by John Bedini and Ron Cole. The theory is all Tom Bearden's, and comes out of the book "TOWARD A NEW ELECTROMAGNETICS PART 4: VECTORS AND MECHANISMS CLARIFIED" The circuit diagrams that are in this section are for people with electronic backgrounds. Some of the parts are outdated and will need to be replaced."PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THINGS UNTIL THEY WORK"

    Electricity out of thin Air Part 1
    Author Richard A Edwards from an article published in Nexus New times magazine December 1994 -January 1995 Several decades ago a man took a bucketful of ilmenite, or similar, melted and compressed it into a solid block of monocrystal silicon and sliced the block into wafers. The wafers were square. Today they are square, round or any desired shape. Recent breakthroughs in solar electric technology have even allowed the silicon to be completely flexible...

    Electricity out of thin Air Part 2


    Information about the LSU Gravitational Wave Experiment
    GWDAW 2000 Home Page

    Recent Papers by the LSU Gravity Lab
    William O. Hamilton, Ziniu K. Geng, Warren W. Johnson, Evan Mauceli, Stephen M. Merkowitz, Andrew Morse, Norbert Solomonson (submitted to the Proceedings of the Omni Conference on Spherical Detectors - Sao Jose dos Campos - June 1996)

    It seems to have some things in common maybe with the Stanley Meyers concepts but does not seem to need the complex electronics that Stan is said to have used, and also it seems that the Joe's unit can be built by anyone with access to food grade stainless steel and some home workshop tools. The ability to run cars without fuel of any type has been claimed to have been done and is claimed also to have been demonstrated here in Australia although I haven't seen it myself apart from the video, The person that discovered this device also has claimed to have been harassed and threatened by some idiots and maybe vested interests.

    Your Car can run on water using this device without pollution !
    Costs: 400 miles = 1 $. ( One US dollar ). Copyright Layo France, Hyères,

    A Partial List of Successful Documented Over-Unity and Negative Resistor Devices and Processes
    Excerpt from the Tom Beardon wesite



    The Home Of Primordial Energy
    Legacy of the late "Bruce Depalma" demonstrating an actual overunity generator!

    "I've been doing "My Homework" how about you?"
  8. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Alrighty Then!

    You can stick your feet back into your own mouth now!
  9. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Pass the salt please!

    I doubt that would be a first for any of us.
  10. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Hi Time,

    I especially like the following part here: "... exercise that part of their brain that thinks "Outside Of The Box" meanning to learn how to think independant of what they have been subtly "conditioned" to believe ... "

    In case you hadn't noticed Time, that is exactly the goal of every (good) science education: to be critical about results, theories, experiments, methods. And after all, being critical is indeed thinking independantly of what you know, think, and feel.

    Ah, interesting subject: what should be considered as science and what should be considered as "lies". If you want to seperate science from lies, you have to know what science is and how science works, so let's first talk about that.

    One important aspect of science is it's ability to describe phenomena in nature. In every branch of science there is an (or more) underlying theory that provides a framework for thinking about these phenomena, and this theory is valued by its accuracy to describe nature. So basically, the question of "is this theory science?" can be rephrased as "does this theory describe nature accurately?". Now, for the field of science I am studying (physics), the strict answer is quite simple: physics is no science, since every single theory in physics is wrong.

    With the risk of sounding repetitive (see one of the posts above): the problem with theories is that you have to make certain postulates about nature. For example: basically, if you assume that the speed of light (in vacuum) is constant for every observer, then you get the theory of special relativity.
    Since these assumptions about nature are always guaranteed to be wrong, inaccurate or incomplete, you can never have a correct physical theory.

    I hope you agree that the field of physics is science, so obviously something must be wrong: all physicists know they are calculating and thinking in theories that will sooner or later can and will be proven wrong/inaccurate, so those guys must be total wackos.
    The truth is that this is just the way things are; we can't do any better, so if you do not make any assumptions about nature, you cannot describe or predict it consequently, and hence you are not able to do any science.

    This means that any theory is just as accurate as its postulates are. You say that thermodynamics is flawed; well, ofcourse it is! The laws of thermodynamics are over 200 years old, the human race has made some progress in those 200 years so in the meantime we've obviously discovered phenomena that are not described by the classical thermodynamical theory accurately anymore. That's the reason why new theories are developped.

    However, this does not mean that all of the sudden thermodynamics is a bunch of crap, lies and useless mumbojumbo. It just fails at a certain point, but still proves itself to be usefull every day for thousands of chemists around the world.

    So yes, in a certain way you are right, all physicists have been telling you "lies" all along. But you simply cannot call them lies, because the truth, the true way things work, is unknown to us. I prefer the word "inaccurate" over "lies".

    To me it seems that you think in terms of "right" and "wrong" a bit too much. In science, theories that have stood the test of the experiment, do not rule out eachother, but complement eachother.

    Yes, please do. But remember that the only way to break down a theory like thermodynamics is to get to a contradiction within the theory itself since this indicates a mistake in the postulates of the theory. You cannot overthrow it by just mentioning some high-tech experiment where the theory does not accurately predict the outcome (since thermodynamics in fact *does* that with most "common" experiments in this field). That's only a sign that a new and more extended theory is needed, and not that we should just forget all our present knowledge.


  11. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Point well noted...

    I humbly regress to say, that your point is well noted.
    (Thank You.)
    which poses futher questions;

    At which point do such theories end, and proof of such theories begin?

    In consideration of any concept that begins in theory, which is later followed up with additional testing, in respect to the design & construction of working modles of multi-applicationary prototypes to enhance further research & development of those concepts, what can we derive from this to provide proof of those theories?

    Moreover, what developments have we accomplished over the last 60 decades, or so, that would lend creedence to overide something that was considered theory at one point in our history, that now has developed into working modles to demonstrate proof that such theories should no longer be considered as such?

    What exactly are the pros & cons of theory, vrs. proof?
    if we have proven something to work by means of demonstration, is it still considered theory?

    As an example, I would like to examine "Einstein's Theory of relativity" as many of are now aware that we have developed many things based upon his theory/'s yet we still refer to it as such... "Theory" this being the case, the use of the word Theory, does not seem to imply that it has nothing to support evidence of proof, that those theories do not work. on the other hand there have been many theories that have yet to be proven, so what are we really saying here in relation to other theories out there, that because they are associated with the use of the word "Theory" they are not true?

  12. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Land of the rising moon

    Well, the land of the rising moon was back in the news today. Rolling blackout’s have been reinstated. Which reminds me of a rental sign along the side of the interstate. It read…..

    Shuttup and pay up
    Your friendly power company!

    As much as anything, California is a victim of its own polices. If every time someone goes to build something the neighbors of the area jump in with not in my back yard, then after a while public buildings, businesses, and power and utility companies don’t build. If every time a rate hike comes along the voters say no and it can be proven that it is necessary, no one else is going to build where they can’t make a profit. So for several years California has not encouraged building of more power generation facilities. They and the public are suffering the results of these actions.
  13. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Science philosophy

    Hi Time,

    I've taken the liberty of re-arranging parts of your post to reply to them as a whole.

    First I'd like to remark, as I did in my previous post, that a theory cannot be "proven" from within its own framework. It always takes an experiment (which is considered to be independant of any theory) to verify that a theory makes a correct prediction or not (note that I am not saying that this proves a theory; anybody can have a lucky shot).

    Conclusion 1: The only possible test or proof of a theory is an experiment.

    The question here is: we have an experiment that is explained well by a new theory. Does this prove the theory or not ? I'll get back to this soon.

    Okay, I feel we're on the edge of a breakthrough here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The two questions you raised are very fundamental in science philosophy, and in the end they turn out to the problem of falsification: what is the argument to state that a theory is a success or a failure? how can a theory be "proven" ?

    Now, I've already mentioned that IMHO a theory stands or falls with its postulates. I think we all agree that if you find a repeatable experiment whose results clearly contradict one of the postulates, that this can prove a theory wrong. This is basically the method of falsification, which was very thouroughly analyzed by science philosopher Karl Popper. The same Karl Popper also said this: "Logically speaking, a scientific law is conclusively falsifiable although it is not conclusively verifiable." (URL available at the end of this post).

    I tend to support this argument: a theory simply cannot be proven because you cannot test every single possible scenario that your theory can describe. That would have been the easy way out ofcourse, simply performing every possible experiment and see if the theory matches

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Conclusion 2: A theory can only be disproven by an experiment, but it can never be proven.

    However, you can tackle this argument by the following reasoning: given the complexity of experiments nowadays, certain theories are inevitably involved in those experiments. For example: if you want to detect radiation, you use a detector that was built using quantum mechanical principles. (the photo-electric effect for instance). Clearly this detection mechanism and experiment cannot be used to falsify quantummechanics: if you argue that quantummechanics fails because of your experiment, you are technically also dismissing your own experiment because it used quantummechanics. This argument was used by another science philospher, Thomas Kuhn, against Popper. Kuhn described the entanglement of theory and experiment more generally in terms of "paradigms" (which I will not go into any further here), but the relevant part for our discussion comes down to this: whenever you try to prove/disprove a theory, you are always using another, or the same theory as a reference.

    Conclusion 3: A theory cannot be proven, nor disproven by an experiment.

    So to answer your question, "if we have proven something, is is still considered a theory?", I'd have to say that the question is hypothetical. A theory never ceases to be a theory, it can at most become a "very lickely scenario and description of nature".

    Ofcourse this hardly suffices as an answer. I personally think the two above methods of "verifying" a theory need to be mixed in the right conditions to seperate working theories from non-working theories. You can use the argument of falsification if a theory is not self-consistent; I can imagine there were plenty of proposed theories that contradicted themselves. Checking if a theory is selfconsistent is usually done with thought experiments, so falsification can be used here. If you really need to do an actual experiment, it is important to factor out as many theory-dependencies as possible. Problem: this is a nearly impossible task - the only certainties you have are statements like "when you drop stuff, it falls on the ground", not really scientifically enlightening though. I guess common sense is the more important argument there. Personally I believe that conclusion 3 is true, but since you need *some* way of testing a theory, I'll accept only conclusion two (with conclusion three in mind).

    As a sidenote about common sense: Often you hear that it is simply "taste" that determines whether a theory is considered to be true or false. I do not consider this to be the main argument, but taste is a very important factor: if you have two rivalling theories, one can explain your never-before-seen phenomena in two lines, the other needs twenty, you'd also think the two-liner tends to be the more correct one because of the sake of simplicity: Occam's razor.

    Okay, I think I'll stop talking about the inability of theories to be proven

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . What's relevant for our discussion here is when a theory is accepted and when it is refused by the scientific community. I've already pointed out one important argument: taste. I think a second, but more important argument is that new theories do not contradict already established theories (this argument was also raised by Kuhn, but he put it in a more extreme way than I tend to appreciate - see links below). This is ofcourse a very delicate point: you could wonder why new theories appear in the first place if there are no "contradictions" with older theories ? Well, from my little personal experience I think the important factor is that new theories extend the existing theories.

    The thing with established theories such as thermodynamics or quantummechanics is that their predictions match up with thousands of (relativily) simple experiments up to a very high level. It is only when the predictions of a theory start deviating from what is actually measured, that a newer theory can be used to explain for the deviations. Important is that this newer theory incorporates the older theory. It happens to be that quantummechanics incorporates classical mechanics: if you drop the quantization rules, which is usually done by putting Planck's constant h to zero, you get the same predictions made by classical theories. If you perform calculations in special relativity and take the fraction v/c (speed of the object / speed of light) to be very small, you once again get the classical results.

    The argument of incorporation of classical theories is often used as a falsification argument for new theories. Established theories explain a certain experiment. If the new theory does not incorporate the established theory, it cannot explain that same experiment anymore. Hence, the new theory can be falsified because the experimental results clearly contradict it. For example: it is measured that some property of a material, for example resistance, growns lineair as the temperature increases, and this lineair dependence can be explained by an established theory. If a new theory predicts that resistance should grow as the square of the temperature, this theory must be wrong: the experiment contradicts it. If however, the new theory predicts the lineair dependance (perhaps through another method of calculation than used in the old theory) and as a bonus, it explains a bunch of other effects, you have a good candidate for a new theory.

    I hope the above explains why established theories are often used to dismiss new theories.

    I think I more or less answered this now; to me, a theory is what the word says: a proposal on the mechanism of nature. There can be a lot of signs that point in the direction of a certain theory, but you can never be sure that what your theory describes is exactly the way nature follows.

    Some helpful links:
    • <A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#Dema">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Karl Popper</A>.
    • <A HREF="http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html">Overview of the theories of Thomas Kuhn</A>.
    • <A HREF="http://www.grisda.org/origins/22008.htm">Paradigm and falsification: tools in a search for truth</A>.
  14. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Thanks Crisp!

    Thanks Crisp!
    you are tuly a gentleman & a noble scholar.

    I apologize for "Lashing Out" in my earlier postings. as I tend to get real adamant about these things.

    It is truly unsettling between the ridicule, and obstacles that tend to blockade any acceptance of new ideas within the scientific communities, and many frontier inventors, physicists, and alike, who often have a "hard road "when attempting to display their ideas, and inventions to such community circles abroad, often met with nothing more than frustration in exchange for their efforts, with no apparent reprieve.

    "No Good Deed Shall Go Unpunished"

    I tuly admire the way you think Crisp, and appreciate your patience with me, as I have been able to glean much from you, & your ideas in the way you articulated them, which in itself has been a good learning experience for me.

    Thanks again my friend

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member


    Hi Time,

    Thanks for your comments (/me hiding a small blush).

    Please do not misinterpret my previous posts as some sort of denial or me renouncing all possible physical theories. I support and believe most of them, but I try to keep in mind that they are just theories and open for debate (on forums like this one for example). I just hope that I don't condition to them too much and become one of them autorejecting, narrow-minded individuals - be sure to warn me in time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Anyway, I'd better get back to my upcoming exams

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



  16. Ortemus Registered Member

  17. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    A Scientific Heretic Delves Beneath the Surface...

    "It is not uncommon for engineers to accept the reality of phenomena that
    are not yet understood, as it is very common for physicists to disbelieve
    the reality of phenomena that seem to contradict contemporary beliefs of
    physics" - H. Bauer

    A Scientific Heretic Delves Beneath the Surface.

    By Ken Ringle
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, November 1, 1999; Page C1

    Computers used to cost millions. Now they're being given away. The country was rapidly going broke. Now we've got a $115 billion budget surplus. Butter was bad for us. Now we're not so sure. We're being forced to reexamine all our old assumptions on millennial eve, right?

    So maybe we should finally pay attention to Thomas Gold. He says the world has an endless supply of oil and gas.

    Gold, a Vienna-born physicist, cosmologist and general scientific heavy lifter, founded and for many years directed the Cornell Center for Radiophysics and Space Research. In his 79 years he's authored more than 280 scholarly papers on subjects ranging from astronomy to zoology.

    He's also a full-time heretic, periodically parachuting into some new scientific field and infuriating academic plodders there with some outlandishly bold new theory. More annoying, his theories usually turn out to be right. Worst of all, he thinks the orthodox have so gummed up the gates of knowledge that they were more open to breakthroughs 50 years ago. Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould has labeled Gold "one of America's most iconoclastic scientists." Says Gold himself: "In choosing a hypothesis there is no virtue in being timid ... [but] I clearly would have been burned at the stake in another age."

    In 1947, fresh from pioneering wartime work on the development of radar, he used his research into high-frequency receptors to publish an entire new theory of mammalian hearing. Physiologists shrugged it off for 30 years. Until auditory technology evolved enough to prove him correct.

    In 1959, when everybody thought the surface of the moon was frozen lava, Gold decided it was covered with dust from meteor impacts. Footprints of the Apollo astronauts will testify eternally that he was was right about that, too.

    In 1967 astronomers trashed his suggestion that energy pulsating in the distant universe was the signature of collapsing stars. The subsequent observation of pulsars won two other scientists a Nobel Prize. And proved Gold correct.

    In 1992 he predicted that Martian meteorites might contain fossilized microbes. Four years later NASA announced the same thing.

    Now in a new book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Gold says the origin and bulk of biological life is not on the surface of the Earth where the birds and bunnies are, but deep within it. Moreover, that microscopic life force is fueled by an inexhaustible supply of petroleum constantly migrating outward from our planet's volcanic core.

    Eight years ago, when Gold was still developing his theory, some geologists were so incensed by it they petitioned to have the government remove all mention of it from the nation's libraries.

    "It was an effort at book-burning, pure and simple," Gold says, shuffling around a computer-buzzing, paper-littered attic study as energetically unkempt as he is. Most petroleum geologists, he says, "simply have no concept of the laws of physics at work" beneath the Earth's crust.

    People need to understand, he says, that the long-held assumption that oil comes from the millennial composting of dinosaurs and ancient swamps has always been dubious, whatever school science books may say. His theory of a deep, hot biosphere doesn't just solve its contradictions, it sorts out in the process such minor matters as the origin of all earthly life and its relationship with the rest of the universe.

    Is there any wonder it makes people nervous?

    Way Outside the Box

    What's unique about Thomas Gold, says astronomer Steve Maran of the American Astronomical Society, is that unlike most scientists who are content to "pursue the advancement of knowledge in small, incremental steps," Gold "comes up with new ideas by starting from the original principles" in some field where others have labored for years.

    When that happens, he's often "treated like a curiosity that can't be taken seriously," Maran says. "But he always shakes things up in a useful way, often opens up entire new areas of thought. Some denounce him even as they profit from the push he's given their thinking."

    "Gold's style is in turn charming, intriguing and exasperating: short on details (where the Devil lies) and long on fiats and suppositions," sighed eminent geochemist Harmon Craig of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, reviewing Gold's book in Eos, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.

    But if Gold is right about subterranean microbes being the seeds of all life, and if they survive the Earth's next asteroid collision to restart evolution, he adds, "Let us hope that when new humans finally emerge and invent science they will have another Tom Gold to delight and exasperate them with his theories."

    On this particular day the heretic himself is stopping by the local techno-emporium to pick up a new computer. It's a Macintosh, and with its blue-and-white neon tones and "Star Trek" design it looks like something morphed from one of his theories. It's unclear just why his former computer succumbed. It was only a year old, but he may have made it think too much.

    "Supposedly all my files have been transferred into this one," he says skeptically, accepting only a modicum of help lugging it through the garage and up to his study. "But of course, you never really know."

    Gold says his curiosity has been getting him in trouble ever since his father gave him a watch when he was little and he took it apart. He's worked at reassembling things ever since.

    One of his boldest constructs was the steady-state theory of the universe, which is now regarded, says Craig, as "beautiful but untrue." Still, as cosmologist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton says, if Gold hadn't put forward the steady-state theory, astronomers might not have been inspired enough to dream up the Big Bang theory, which replaced it.

    We probably shouldn't be too hard on Gold for not quite figuring out the universe on his first try. After all, he rushed through Cambridge in only two years (there was a war on) and his degree was in engineering.

    But his mind had impressed his friend Hermann Bundi, one of Cambridge's famous wartime coterie of mathematical geniuses, who suggested Gold would be useful on a highly classified war project. There was only one problem: Gold was interned at the time as an enemy alien. He and his parents were Austrian citizens, and despite being refugees from Hitler (his father was Jewish), they had been technically classified as Germans by the British after war broke out in 1939.

    "I was probably the first person to go right from internment as an enemy to work on an ultra-secret project like radar," he muses.

    After the war he went back to Cambridge where, impressed with his brilliance, administrators presented him with a prized four-year fellowship to do anything he wanted.

    "I told them I would like to teach advanced physics," Gold remembers. "They said that was fine. But since I had never studied any physics, I had to learn it myself night by night, before each lecture."

    In the process, he read widely on all sides of the subject and became convinced all physics was related. From that he published his steady-state theory, which held that whatever had happened once in the universe must be occurring someplace in the universe today.

    That made a big splash in scientific circles and, says Gold, "I'm still not entirely sure it's wrong." From there he moved on in 1953 to become assistant to Britain's astronomer royal, who heads the Greenwich Observatory and holds one of the country's most prestigious intellectual posts.

    There he says he accidentally discovered the ultrasound phenomenon now used to check out unborn babies. But his boss decided it had nothing to do with astronomy and tore down his laboratory, so Gold left for the United States.

    He landed in Harvard in 1955, "either the youngest or the second youngest full professor on the faculty. I forget which." But he refused to live in Boston and detested commuting from the suburbs, so within four years he had migrated to a "much more livable" environment at Cornell.

    He's been here causing trouble ever since.

    Fueling Passion

    Gold, who holds prestigious appointments to the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London, turned his attention to petroleum during the energy crisis of the late 1970s. He has not been universally welcomed by industry geologists. Gold's hypothesis on the origin of petroleum amid deep hot life "is not very well defended," sniffed geoscientist Alton Brown of Atlantic Richfield in a review of "The Deep Hot Biosphere" in American Scientist last July. "We ... know too much about the subsurface and about petroleum geochemistry to seriously consider these ideas."

    But Gold is used to being dissed. While scientists like Brown have traditionally sought to explain petroleum by looking in the ground, Gold says, he developed his theory by looking in the other direction.

    Far from being an earthly substance, he says, petroleum and its component hydrocarbons are present throughout the universe. You find them in meteorites. You find them in captured interplanetary dust. You can detect them quite abundantly on one of the moons of Saturn. About all this there is no scientific argument.

    As an astronomer and geophysicist, he says, "it always seemed absurd to me to see petroleum hydrocarbons on other planets, where there was obviously never any vegetation, even as we insist that on Earth they must be biological in origin."

    Yet wherever earthly petroleum is found, even miles below ground, oil always contains biological material, such as the wreckage of old, dead cells. If "fossil fuel" wasn't formed from ancient plants and animals, how did that material get there?

    Another puzzle bothered Gold, though he says it seems to concern few others: the gas helium. Helium is one of the essential elements of the universe, present in trace amounts everywhere in nature. As a so-called "noble" gas, it stays chemically aloof from other elements, never combining like, say, hydrogen and oxygen do to form a third substance like water. Yet the only place on Earth helium is ever found in abundance is with pools of petroleum underground.

    What, Gold wondered, could explain that?

    Then in 1977 a tiny research submarine probing deep beneath the Pacific Ocean near the Galapagos Islands discovered something that revolutionized our understanding of life.

    More than 1 1/2 miles down on an ocean floor made otherwise barren by darkness and crushing pressure, the sub's floodlights revealed entirely new ecosystems living amid the scalding 600-degree heat and mineral-rich eruptions of subsea volcanic vents. On subsequent expeditions, scientists were astounded to find an entire food chain at the vents--blood red giant tube worms, albino crabs and other creatures--thriving on previously unknown forms of heat-loving microbes where no possibility of life was thought to exist.

    That got Gold thinking.

    Last year, in his book "Consilience," Harvard entomologist E.O. Wilson, a polymathic heretic like Gold, stirred the scientific pot by arguing that all forms of human knowledge are really branches of biology, and serve an evolutionary goal. But Gold goes further than that.

    "Perhaps biology is just a branch of thermodynamics," he has written, and the history of life is just "a gradual systematic development toward more efficient ways of degrading energy. ... The chemical energy available inside a planetary body is then more likely to have been the first energy source, and surface creatures--like elephants and ... people--which feed indirectly on solar energy--are just a [much later] adaptation of that life to ... circumstances on the surface of our planet."

    Endless Oil?

    Working from that hypothesis, Gold's theory goes like this: Oil and gas were born out of the Big Bang and trapped in the Earth 4.5 billion years ago in randomly dispersed molecular form. But the intense heat of the Earth's volcanic core "sweats them out" of the rocks that contain them, sending them migrating outward through the porous deep Earth because they are more fluid and weigh less. In a region between 10 and 300 kilometers deep, the hydrocarbons nourish vast colonies of microbes where all of earthly life began, and where today there's a vastly greater mass of living things than exist on the surface of the planet. The migrating oil and gas "sweep up" the biological wreckage of this life as they percolate upward, together with molecules of helium, all of which eventually get trapped and concentrated for periods in near-surface reservoirs where oil is usually found.

    As far out as all this may sound, in the years since Gold first noised the outlines of his theory, researchers throughout the world have documented extensively the presence of active microbes in the deep Earth under conditions of heat and pressure once thought impossible to sustain life.

    Furthermore, some oil reservoirs long thought exhausted now appear to be mysteriously refilling. Gold considers the best proof of his program the extraction of 12 tons of crude oil in 1990 from a 6-kilometer-deep well drilled in the long-presumed oil-free granite of central Sweden.

    Chris Flavin of World Watch Institute says he's found many elements of Gold's theory "pretty persuasive" in the light of such discoveries, and says there's much to cheer environmentalists. If Gold is right, he says, the greatest abundance of accessible hydrocarbons will be found in the form of natural gas. Gas is not only the cleanest-burning energy source right now, it promises "to be the bridge to the hydrogen economy in the future" which will be cleaner still, he says.

    But skeptics remain.

    "We know there's carbon deep within the Earth because that's where we find diamonds," says Nick Woodward, a geoscience program manager with the Energy Department. "And we know there's water, at least in small amounts, which, since it's hydrogen and oxygen, gives us the building blocks for petroleum hydrocarbons. ... "But whether that therefore means the source of all hydrocarbons is in the deep Earth, I think that's highly questionable."

    Gold shrugs off such unbelievers. The scientific world, allegedly searching for truth, is really little more hospitable to it than when Galileo fell afoul of the Inquisition, he says.

    "You know, I am very lucky that I received recognition and honors early in my career, so that by the time I started making real waves I already had stature," he says. "Even with my record I've had a terrible time getting some of these papers published. Without it nobody would touch me. ...

    "The problem is this system of peer review" wherein established scholars in a field pass judgment on new papers before publication, he says. "That rewards small steps but discourages bold ideas and the very sort of cross-discipline thinking that can provide the greatest breakthroughs. I don't think there's any question that we produced more great ideas in the first half of the 20th century than we have in the second"--when peer review has ruled.

    Nevertheless, Gold soldiers on. He's presently writing his memoirs of a lifetime of heresy. Chosen title: "Getting the Back Off the Watch."

    © 2000 The Washington Post Company
  18. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Abundant oil

    I have heard of this oil thing but from a different source. It seems that it has been profitable to hunt for oil in deep asteroid impact sites. The asteroid impact site that is given credit for the dinosaur extinction (I can't for the life of me remember the name) was the site for oil exploration. It was found that the geologic formations were severely faulted and fractured leaving pockets and in other places connections to increasing closer and shallower pockets. It was during the mapping of the faults that the concentric rings were noted. This gave rise to the only thing that would cause such a formation. A deep impact. It seems that a lot of the deep impact sites are good oil producers. Though there was no speculation as to why other than it was supposed the impact caused the earth to crack enough to give up it’s supply of oil.
  19. splatt Registered Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Time!!! Great article. I have a few comments about where Professor Gold fits into the scheme of things. May sound a bit paranoid but here goes anyway.

    It is always easier to come up with ideas that just feel right than to prove them scientifically. Professor Gold appears to have extensive background. Quite enough to give him an edge over those who rely on convention and proofs to extend their thoughts.

    As we look for reasons why his ideas tend to be rebuffed initially, several reasons emerge.

    Hypothesis based on reality directly contradict the political powers that exists in this society of humans. Of course the extension to any political motivation is always money. Despite the endeavor of the scientific community to be recognized for breakthrough discoveries, universities find themselves tied to governments through grants and funding. It would be nice to believe that these universities and research entities are truely autonomous however, that would be as foolish as believing professor Gold's theories are all incorrect. His track record has proved otherwise.

    The good professor does create a niche for himself by forwarding hypothesis which, when the powers that be are ready, will be allowed to be accepted by the masses.

    The unlimited oil reserves concept would drive prices down. Oil companies do not wish that to happen. Political contributions and support will further the rebuff of those concepts by politicians and university staffs interesting in maintaining their government support lines.

    Does anyone doubt that our governments have skimmed the cream of the crop in scientific researchers to work ahead of the rest of the world?

    I believe they know whether most of what is put forward by Professor Gold is true or untrue well before he does.

    The simple concept of releasing information and technology has been used by governments, military and even Microsoft and car companies as a way to maximize the benefits they receive from that technology comodity. It's just good business.

    I will certainly be listening for Professor Gold's theories on faster than light travel should he decide to shake up that area of physics. He seems to be slightly unfettered by the social controls in place.

    What do you think?

  20. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Double Standards, Greed, Crime & Corruption

    "Supression" of anything of good intent to aleveiate human suffering, or to emancipate humanities free will, or imrove the condition of our livelyhood, or lifestyles, is often associated with "Corruption" and "Greed" at the highest levels within the leaders our own Social & Economic political structures, and Judicial Systems as well.

    To those who still believe that the "System" although as infallible as it may seem to them "still works" and put their faith in this double standard, and corrupt system, has not only been braiwashed like a fish on a hook, but as long as people like them, and others who continue to blindly serve & support this social injustice, are just as guilty of the criminals they prosecute!

    When will the monkey ever end?
  21. cajunero Registered Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hi, sorry for my english. I agree with you in all about the lies and the economical interest. But I think that someday we will wake up. Everyday we are more who seek the knowledge and
    not to waste time watching TV and asking yourself who has wined de last football match. We have to think in a different world for all the countries. We waste our time plugging more and more machines, but nearly all the people in the 3 th world doesn't has anything to plug (or eat).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. ZPEnergy Registered Member

    » http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044&q=equinox

    On Sunday, 17 December 1995, viewers in U.K. saw an hour-long T V. program which, at long last, puts across the clear message that "free energy" is on the way. In the opening stages Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature. "Free energy" was now working its way through these four stages of reaction, which were: a: "It's nonsense," b: "It is not important," c: "I always said it was a good idea," and d: "I thought of it first."
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    This is an important subject, but I just want to clear up a misconception. The rolling blackouts in California were not the result of the energy crisis, but rather the deliberate manipulation of energy by ENRON.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page