[OT] Zero-point energy (was Re: 3-phase (was: Re: CDC 9766 Drive and packs))

From: Dwight Elvey <elvey_at_hal.com>
Date: Fri Feb 5 15:27:43 1999

Max Eskin <max82_at_surfree.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Dwight Elvey wrote:
> >do it. As we look at everything man has done, we notice
> >that nature has often been using that principle for something
> >else for billions of years. It is vary important to explore
>
> But man is a natural phenomenon. All of our skyscrapers (not to mention
> classic computers) are just as natural as trees and mountains. However,
> everything that we have ever done is an order of magnitude simpler. So, it
> might be _theoretically_ possible, but might require some nonsense like a
> 500 teraton nuclear bomb.

And why do I see this argument as being on my side?

On a separate line, modeling is an interesting thing.
Where I work, we model how semiconductors work. Even
though the models makes many valid predictions, it is
also incomplete in representing real silicon. The models
make other predictions that don't work as well. The trick
of using models to make predictions is that they
have a chance of predicting correctly if they don't
violate rules that we have never seen violated before.
If they point to new rules that we see no particular
violations, then we should expect that we have a chance.
 Like I said, we should completely understand what in our
model that makes a prediction that seems to contradict
what we have seen to be true. It is also that we are not
seeing things correctly but to treat predictions that
contradict known understanding as a good candidate for
a valuable new science is truly a waste of time.
In order for goal oriented science to stand a chance of working
such as making the bomb, we need to be at the point where
there are no contradictions that we know of.
 The problem is that there are a lot of things that
ARE and likewise a lot of things that AREN'T. We
understand, slightly, only a small amount of things that
are and can think of orders of magnitude of things that
aren't.
 If we were, tomorrow, to find a new working principle of the
universe that explained how we could violate the principle
of conservation of energy that would allow taking
advantage of Zero-point energy then I would say go for
it. Without that new principle, talking about using
this new source of energy is about as useful as worrying
about the probability that all my atoms might suddenly
move five feet to the left. Probability and practicability
are two quite different things.
 We can talk about making free energy from magnetism
or a car that runs 2000 miles on a drop of gas. How
about instantaneous flight to distant galaxies, temperatures
less than absolute zero, worm holes in space, ....
Any one of these things may be possible. Wasting much
time exploring these with the knowledge we have today
would most likely be fruitless. We might stumble across
the key to any of these tomorrow but not likely for any specific
one of them.
 In making the bomb, the scientist of the time that
did the work, saw that there was a lot of work to
do to create the thing but didn't have any specific
nature of things that they otherwise knew of at the time
that would mean that it couldn't be done. It was specifically
because they thought that they had all the pieces that
they attempted it in the first place.
Dwight
Received on Fri Feb 05 1999 - 15:27:43 GMT