Is the End Near? For fossil fuels?

Ernst · Apr 8, 2011

Nice.

We still face the same enemy today.
A good idea is no good when it's yours.
6 Months after he died Tesla gets honours...

How about this. I can show that all information possible already exists and I know how all information is generated.

That means that Windows 2022 is out there already right along with Windows 2014..
If we just knew which cycle it is in we can generate that data. We can generate any data but it's the knowing where to look that is the trick.

So this means that all information that is possible already exists so we are not inventing a damn thing we are just discovering things.
I can imagine a computer whose job it is is to sniff out information that hasn't been used yet.
A computer can find a picture that was never taken or a science paper that have not been written yet.
Perhaps an MP3 that was never recorded of a symphony that was not written by humans?

So in essence if our computers were powerful enough all data for all times is available to the computer mind and in turn us.
All that can be known already exists!

Just need some honkin fast computers!

LOL So far it's not a good idea since it's mine and I am not a good ol boy of science yet.

I'm working on it.. I have to learn set theory.

canndo · Apr 8, 2011

There are many things modern science cannot explain. We don't know even close to everything and perhaps some day we can harness forms of energy that exist that we may not even know about. However, we do know that there is no free lunch. Not anywhere and not ever because that is the nature of the universe. There is no perpetual motion and there is no free energy, everything comes with a caveat. The closest we have ever come is what we are talking about - oil. It was once plentiful, easy to collect and it made every person a king. The caveat is that it is polluting and it will run out. The common dream in the 50's was nuclear energy - so cheap and plentiful that no one would even bother to put a meter on it. Fusion? The best of all possible energy sources but if we ever manage it we will find that it too has some big catch 22 if only that it requires the ultimate in centralization.

Ernst · Apr 8, 2011

canndo said:
So he knew how to harness this energy even though he didn't know quantum physics, and conveniently, the knowledge is lost to modern man. NoDrama, it is a wonderful story but about as likely as the 125 mile per gallon carburettor.

Oh it's no joke on Tesla.. He didn't write proofs in the proper way and was considered an odd ball.

But then I assume his mind was in a Cycle most of us don't have a chance to understand.

Electric motor was just one of his brilliant ideas.

canndo · Apr 8, 2011

By the way, what I am saying about oil shortages is exemplified by the situation in Libya. They produce a mere 2 percent of global demand. Saudi arabia is covering the shortfall. Now imagine if they refuse to do so because they fear for the future productivity of their wells. And we think 112 bucks a brl is expensive? The problem in figuring out if we have reached peak is that speculators skew and obscure the picture. The Saudis will never tell us how much they really have and for all their talk, they have never made another significant find. As I have said somewhere else here, Saudi wells are yielding significan portions of salt water. Salt water is pumped into the fields in order to pressurize the wells and oil is lighter than water so the oil floats above the water in the ground. The salt water must be separated from the oil at some expense but there comes a time when the ratio does not make it normaly reasonable to continue to pump. Salt water percentages are an indicator of the health of Saudi Wells.

Ernst · Apr 8, 2011

What is worse is when the economics dwindle and the Saudis resort to killing the poor by the thousands.

canndo · Apr 8, 2011

Ernst said:
Oh it's no joke on Tesla.. He didn't write proofs in the proper way and was considered an odd ball.

But then I assume his mind was in a Cycle most of us don't have a chance to understand.

Electric motor was just one of his brilliant ideas.

Ernst. Undoubtedly the guy was brilliant. But the electric motor is explainable and the laws governing how that motor works are known.

Ernst · Apr 8, 2011

Oh he is right about a wireless power grid. We could have had a free energy grid. We still can.

The question is are we polluting the energy of the planet with all the energy we currently emit? Wouldn't that be a kick if we somehow ruin the planet with spectrum pollution.

Boonierat · Apr 8, 2011

I don't disagree with you on the collapse of the modern world, that's for sure. I'm stockpiling seeds for food myself. If nothing happens, oh well, I have plenty of seeds for my garden.

Uncultivated · Apr 8, 2011

Ernst said:
Is the End Near? For fossil fuels?

Short answer: No. Not in 5 years, not in 10 years, not in 100 years. I'm an engineer who has worked with some of the "alternative" energy ideas, and I can tell you with no hesitation that none of them are, or are likely to ever be, an actual alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. The only actual alternative to hydrocarbon fuels is nuclear energy. (Ok, and hydroelectric in areas where you can build a dam.)

This idea shown here, it's another method of creating solar energy, obviously. But the thing is, there is only so much energy in sunlight. Even if you were to come up with some new solar energy method that was waaaay more efficient than current solar cells (incidently solar cell efficiency has been stuck below 30% for decades) then it would still take miles and miles and miles of solar panels to approach the power production of one typical coal- or oil-fired power plant.

Not trying to be a buzz-killer, but the numbers don't lie. If you need a lot of energy, hydrocarbon fuels are totally unbeatable.

Personally, I don't think that's bad news. Oil is a miraculous natural resource that we can and should avail ourselves of. Unless, I suppose, you swallow that global warming crapola. In that case, there's no good news.

canndo · Apr 8, 2011

Uncultivated said:
Short answer: No. Not in 5 years, not in 10 years, not in 100 years. I'm an engineer who has worked with some of the "alternative" energy ideas, and I can tell you with no hesitation that none of them are, or are likely to ever be, an actual alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. The only actual alternative to hydrocarbon fuels is nuclear energy. (Ok, and hydroelectric in areas where you can build a dam.)

This idea shown here, it's another method of creating solar energy, obviously. But the thing is, there is only so much energy in sunlight. Even if you were to come up with some new solar energy method that was waaaay more efficient than current solar cells (incidently solar cell efficiency has been stuck below 30% for decades) then it would still take miles and miles and miles of solar panels to approach the power production of one typical coal- or oil-fired power plant.

Not trying to be a buzz-killer, but the numbers don't lie. If you need a lot of energy, hydrocarbon fuels are totally unbeatable.

Personally, I don't think that's bad news. Oil is a miraculous natural resource that we can and should avail ourselves of. Unless, I suppose, you swallow that global warming crapola. In that case, there's no good news.

So your field is engineering... and not climatology. We agree that oil is magical, I don't know if we agree that it is running out but I wonder how you come to the conclusion that global warming is "crapola".

NoDrama · Apr 8, 2011

canndo said:
So he knew how to harness this energy even though he didn't know quantum physics, and conveniently, the knowledge is lost to modern man. NoDrama, it is a wonderful story but about as likely as the 125 mile per gallon carburetor.

Do you know Quantum physics? Was Thomas Edison a Student of Quantum Physics? How about Schrodinger's Cat?

londonfog · Apr 8, 2011

E = hv after that I rolled a blunt and got too high and started questioning if I saw the same color as everyone else .... but was not able to prove that because I see only what I see and you see only what you see

Uncultivated · Apr 8, 2011

canndo said:
So your field is engineering... and not climatology. We agree that oil is magical, I don't know if we agree that it is running out but I wonder how you come to the conclusion that global warming is "crapola".

Well, when I see some people claiming that "every scientist in the world knows it's true for a fact", when I know that's not the case, when I see what are supposed to be scientific white papers that instead of talking about the boring technical stuff that they usually do instead attacking skeptics, when I see that the claims of what was supposed to have happened by now not happening at all, when I see the leaked emails showing how the so-called "scientists" are cooking their data, I know. No, I am not a climatologist, but one thing I do know is how to look at data and recognize a trend. The truth is that we're not working with actual data, they're working with computer models. Computer models that over time have inevetiably been proven false when their projections didn't come true.

It's been warmer in the past. It's been colder in the past. There's been more co2 in the atmosphere in the past, there's been less. Hell, at the very spot I'm sitting now, there use to be a mile-thick sheet of ice, which melted naturally, unless the cavemen were driving SUVs. And, someday, there will be another ice age. And another. And another.

And most obvious to me is the objectives of those who push this lie; they want to regulate and control all industry on the planet. They want to make an internationalbody to regulate all energy production and transportation. They want to arrange a market to trade "credits", or permission to produce. Of course, there'd be disagreements so you'd need a judicial body to settle those. And, you need to pay for it all, therefore there will need to be a mechanism for international taxation. Sure sounds like the framework for a global government to me.

I'm always reading these stories (mostly from British newspapers, actually) about how everything we do is causing global warming. We should only by local produce, because imported food needs to be shipped, using gasoline, hence global warming. We shouldn't send flowers for Valentine's day, since flowers are imported in a lot of countries, therefore shipping therefore global warming. Cows fart, and raising them uses grain and fuel, so meat eaters are contributing to global warming, and we should eat bugs for protein instead of beef. Etcetera etecera its pathetic.

It has nothing to do with the environment. It's the ultimate backdoor. It plugs the government into absolutely everything. They want to be able to tell us what to eat, where to work, how to live, what kind of lightbulbs we can but, where we can set our thermostats, what kind of clothers to wear, hell how to takke a friggin shit. For our own good, of course.

It's all about control! Control and money. Wake the fuck up!

canndo · Apr 9, 2011

Uncultivated said:
Well, when I see some people claiming that "every scientist in the world knows it's true for a fact", when I know that's not the case, when I see what are supposed to be scientific white papers that instead of talking about the boring technical stuff that they usually do instead attacking skeptics, when I see that the claims of what was supposed to have happened by now not happening at all, when I see the leaked emails showing how the so-called "scientists" are cooking their data, I know. No, I am not a climatologist, but one thing I do know is how to look at data and recognize a trend. The truth is that we're not working with actual data, they're working with computer models. Computer models that over time have inevitably been proven false when their projections didn't come true.

It's been warmer in the past. It's been colder in the past. There's been more co2 in the atmosphere in the past, there's been less. Hell, at the very spot I'm sitting now, there use to be a mile-thick sheet of ice, which melted naturally, unless the cavemen were driving SUVs. And, someday, there will be another ice age. And another. And another.

And most obvious to me is the objectives of those who push this lie; they want to regulate and control all industry on the planet. They want to make an internationalbody to regulate all energy production and transportation. They want to arrange a market to trade "credits", or permission to produce. Of course, there'd be disagreements so you'd need a judicial body to settle those. And, you need to pay for it all, therefore there will need to be a mechanism for international taxation. Sure sounds like the framework for a global government to me.

I'm always reading these stories (mostly from British newspapers, actually) about how everything we do is causing global warming. We should only by local produce, because imported food needs to be shipped, using gasoline, hence global warming. We shouldn't send flowers for Valentine's day, since flowers are imported in a lot of countries, therefore shipping therefore global warming. Cows fart, and raising them uses grain and fuel, so meat eaters are contributing to global warming, and we should eat bugs for protein instead of beef. Etcetera etecera its pathetic.

It has nothing to do with the environment. It's the ultimate backdoor. It plugs the government into absolutely everything. They want to be able to tell us what to eat, where to work, how to live, what kind of lightbulbs we can but, where we can set our thermostats, what kind of clothers to wear, hell how to takke a friggin shit. For our own good, of course.

It's all about control! Control and money. Wake the fuck up!

The big bad government wants to take your lightbulbs, is that your assessment? What you are claiming is that government has colluded with the majority of scientists in the world to have them all lie.

Here is the truth. During the tobacco wars (when big tobacco was being assaulted by the health community and the states). The tobacco industry found ways to spread disinformation and doubt about what the scientists were saying about tobacco. It helped their case immensely because they managed to cast doubt into the minds of ordinary citizens.

Examine a now defunct business organization called the Global Climate Coalition. That organization was started in about 1989 shortly after the IPCC was created. The GCC members included Amoco, AFPA, API, Chevron, Chrystler, Exxon, Ford, GM, Shell, Texaco and the like - and later trade organizations in order to shield the companies from bad press and boycotts. The GCC took what was learned in the tobacco wars, honed it and applied it to the new scientific findings of man made global warming.

The GCC had the express charter of instilling doubt about global warming and the science surrounding it. The same way tobacco did with cancer. The GCC was in essence a negative campaign PR firm.

If you are interested http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/warming.html

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7814&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Big%20Oil%20Spent%20Record%20%24175%20Million%20to%20Kill%20Climate%20Bills%20&Cache=False

Follow the money. If what you say is true, and the majority of scientists are in the pocket of government and enviro-nazis then there may be hundreds of millions or even a few billions of dollars invested in your supposed scheme to take over the world.

On the other hand, there are Trillions vested in the energy status quo. What you currently believe about global warming is a result of PR firms and big business's intense interest in having things the way they are. It is obvious that the GCC was sucessful.

Wake up.

MrDank007 · Apr 9, 2011

No. Oil is traded in Dollars.
Sadam tried to sell oil in Euros in 2000...oops.
If oil was obsolete, so would we be

Ernst · Apr 9, 2011

Tesla Rocks! I want a poster of Tesla!

It's the Shaman that helps us find the spirit of humanity!

Best wishes to any who read this and who are our Shamans!

NoDrama · Apr 9, 2011

Ernst said:
Tesla Rocks! I want a poster of Tesla!

It's the Shaman that helps us find the spirit of humanity!

Best wishes to any who read this and who are our Shamans!

The Philadelphia Experiment was based upon Tesla's theories, he himself was very angered that they used real people in the test.

[video=youtube;ChjyCR8V2Bg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChjyCR8V2Bg[/video]

Teleportation and Invisibility.

420God · Apr 9, 2011

Algae oil might be able to replace typical oil and it cleans CO2 out of the environment, double win.

Ernst · Apr 9, 2011

There is a circuit that people build that amplifies electrons to spark that is tesla's

Some say it can work in reverse and pull energy out of a region of the Earth just under the ( some layer I forget ).
7
Now when Tesla did it it used so much power or there was feed back from that region of the Earth and the energy was like a Super lightening bolt discharging from the Earth I assume. If it got feedback from that region we don't know but it blew out giant A.C. generators at the power station.

That may be true since we now know that streamers of energy rise up from the Earth before lightening strikes. It has been photographed. But, I am going on memory so this is a story more than a factual post.

It has to be since the Sun is streaming massive particles as solar wind and we have a magnetosphere.
What i am saying is Mr. Tesla is right. The only renewable energy is the Sun and it's physics.

And I bet Mr. Tesla also understood the disappointment of realizing people were more concerned with profits and the aristocracy evolution into World Plutocracy.

Dude was the Second coming of Christ as far as the planetary salvation of all life concerned.

I think it's my destiny to understand we are a dynamic system where people are not separate and going to heaven later.. It's a program.. An equation.. We have control of the parameters but we are in the cycle and this now, our moment in the sun, this now is an element in that cycle.

anyway....

That circuit is rather simple.. Let me fetch a video.. I understand enough to describe the basic ideas behind the circuit to anyone.
This seems to be the basis for sending a stream up to that Zone and getting a lightening bolt to strike and is the nature of free energy that Tesla was on about.

Also remember that Ben Franklin had a kite on a silk rope so he could have allowed the energy stream that rises up from the Earth to be higher than others and thus caught a bolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

Ernst · Apr 9, 2011

I have a question to anyone that knows..

But wouldn't lightening be Direct Current? If so then Edison was a double fool.

Is the End Near? For fossil fuels?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member