Topic: Yet another made for TV war
started by: BlackFlag
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 10 2002,00:00
< The Konformist >This is not made up. Click the links on this page to BBC news articles, etc.
Consider the fact that we've had the technology for a LONG time to make electric cars/truck/whatever, and we have enough nuclear material to run the world on nuclear energy (the only viable source of clean energy) for hundreds of years.
Why are we still burning fossil fuels? Because the guys who sit around in dark rooms controling the world from their cloud of cigerette smoke (a la X-Files) are afraid of change.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 10 2002,00:52
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 09 Mar. 2002,16:00) |
| Consider the fact that we've had the technology for a LONG time to make electric cars/truck/whatever, and we have enough nuclear material to run the world on nuclear energy (the only viable source of clean energy) for hundreds of years. Why are we still burning fossil fuels? |
Because it's cheaper!!
Yes we have electric cars, but they won't dominate the freeways because people don't buy the electric cars in enough numbers to make them profitable for car companies to produce more of them. They take a lot more out of the R&D budget to create then it would take to produce basically the same engine as was made last year and the year before. Other fuels are being looked at as well. BMW now has a fleet (ok twelve in all) of Hydrogen powered cars ...again at too much cost to produce in bulk. And don't forget the natural gas powered vehicles that are apparently bought only by California's local and state government. They are cleaner burning, but don't have to public acceptance because you can't fill them up at any corner filling station. And as far power plants go there is a heck of a lot more red tape and disposal/on-site storage costs associated with nuclear power then a conventional gas or coal type plant. As with everything in life it comes down to profitability. It's not a conspiracy. The proof being that if you could make an electric car cheap enough to turn a profit and there was enough demand to provide a solid customer base then why would you bow down to some government supported plot to help the oil cartel? You really wouldn't. You would sell your electric car and live the good life. So why doesn't GM or Ford do that? Oh, I see ...because they are in on the conspiracy. Well what about the hundreds of other car companies out there? Why aren't they jumping on board this gravy train? Obviously there's not enough money in it ...not even for the little guys trying to make a name for themselves who really don't have much to loose. (Maybe Daewoo should think about going electric ...they really have nothing to loose).
Ah what difference does it make ...in two years we will all be riding Segway scooter around anyway.
Posted by DuSTman on Mar. 10 2002,03:18
Kinda reminds me of a documentary I saw a while ago about "free energy" - basically showcasing devices that run at over 100% efficiency (it was unknown how they did this).One such device, I remember, was a special voltameter which split water into hydrogen and oxygen using less energy than was released by the subsequent burning of the released hydrogen.
The inventor of the device retrofitted a vehicle to use the technology for power (adapting the engine to burn the hydrogen and then using his special voltameter to split the resultant water so it could be burnt again) and he was able to run around in it for ages and still not need to refuel the thing.
Of course the energy must be coming from somewhere (law of energy conservation and all) but noone knows where.
Edit: Found a transcript of that documentary, < here > if you're interested.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 10 2002,06:31
Fossil fuels are not cheaper than nuclear energy. Electric powered cars could be designed to let you recharge them from home. It is a conspiricy. The government is run by big buisness. Name a buisness bigger than petrolium.Obviously you didn't click the link, otherwise you'd know what i was getting at, so let me summarize what's going on:
The war in afghanastan was manufactured by the US government. The purpose of this was to get rid of the Talabain, (which was thought to be an unstable presence in the region) so that they could go ahead with plans to build an oil pipeline in the area. This pipeline needs to be built to compete with one china had been planning since 1997.
Your fellow americans are fighting for bullshit.
The planes that crashed into the WTC towers were not under the control of hijackers, but were remotely pioleted from the ground, probably by renegade Air Force personel collaborating with the unknown faction responsible for this whole mess. (the technology for remotely piloting airplanes in case of circumstances where the pilot was unable to was pionered in the 60's. every commercial airliner in america can be controled thusly, if you know the right frequencies and codes. Using this system, it is possible to lock out radio transmissions, keep distress calls/becons from being transmitted, alter the IFF code, etc.)
This sounds crazy, but consider this: every airliner has 4 emergency buttons the pilot can press in case of a hijacking. They are consealed in strategic locations, as to make them easy to covertly activate even when in the presence of armed assailants. None of these buttons were pressed on any of the 4 airplanes alledgedly hijacked sept 11th.
Consider this: 2 days after the 'attack', the passport of one of the alledged hijackers was found in the rubble of the WTC. At this point, 20,000 tons of debris had been searched/sifted..... out of a total of 1.4 million tons. Luck? Remember the fireball explotion, and the resulting fire that was so hot it melted the steel beams that held the building up? A passport (paper and plastic) survived that?!?! This shit has less credibility than the JFK assasination.
consider the fact that < America was planning to attack afghanastan EVEN BEFORE THE WTC ATTACKS!!!!! >
Think america would never do somthing like this?
What about pearl harbor? We let the Japs bomb the fuck out of us. Might as well have been us dropping the bombs.
What about Desert Storm? Another example of fighting for the oil companies.
What about Somolia? Another made for tv war to detract attention away from political scandals a la "wag the dog".
What about every other sick twisted fucked up thing the government has done to its own people, and has only recently admitted to?
I swear, this shit has really shaken what little confidence i had left in america. I though the age of big brother overtly fucking with the world and covering it up was over. I thought that shit was over after Iran-Contra........... I was wrong. This is really fucked.
| Quote |
Quote (BlackFlag @ 09 Mar. 2002,11 0) nuclear energy (the only viable source of clean energy) Ha. Hahahahahaha... |
I guess dumping hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide+carbon monoxide+soot+trace amounts of poisenous compounds is cleaner than a few hundred pounds of nuclear waste (wich by the way, can be re-used, and is used to power som satelites).
I've seen some evidence put forward to suggest that fear-mongering groups such as "clean air&water" are funded by big oil. Christ, american's are idiots. We'll microwave our food, but we're afraid of irradiating it with nuclear radiation in order to kill bacteria? Nuclear irradation of food could end world hunger by keeping food from going bad. Millions have to starve so a few stupid fucking WASPs can feel safe. Stupid fuckwads.
The final word on why nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels: You can put a few hundred tons of depleted uranium on a rocket, and launch it into the sun. Can you do that with a few million cubic feet of carbon monoxide and soot?
Posted by Bozeman on Mar. 10 2002,16:02
Quote by Blackflag: You can put a few hundred tons of depleted uranium on a rocket, and launch it into the sun. Can you do that with a few million cubic feet of carbon monoxide and soot?That would solve the problem of nuclear waste, however, if the rocket EVER malfunctioned in a way where it crashes or explodes, all of those radioactive isotopes are going to be spread around the atmosphere, increasing cancer rates worldwide. In order to SAFELY send radioactive material into the sun, we need Superman.
Nuclear energy may look good on paper, but once you use up those heavy elements, they leave behind shit that's REALLY hard to get rid of.
Edit: Being away from detnet for a year, I didn't know that they changed the quotes. I just quoted Blackflag's ENTIRE POST! Oh well, live and learn...
Posted by Spydir on Mar. 10 2002,17:04
| Quote (Bozeman @ 10 Mar. 2002,04:02) |
| ... we need Superman. |
you rang?
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 10 2002,18:09
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 09 Mar. 2002,22:31) |
| The government is run by big buisness. Name a buisness bigger than petrolium. |
Shit, Wal-Mart is bigger then GM, Ford, Chrysler, Shell, BP, Texaco & Chevron and most others who stand to gain from the plot to control sources of alternate energy. I think we are looking in the wrong place! The WCT attack may be a plot to sell more goods at discounted prices ...think about it. Where do people drive their fossil fueled cars? To the store! And the biggest retail outlet is Wal-Mart ...they have everything to gain.
| Quote |
| The planes that crashed into the WTC towers were not under the control of hijackers, but were remotely piloted from the ground, probably by renegade Air Force personnel collaborating with the unknown faction responsible for this whole mess. (the technology for remotely piloting airplanes in case of circumstances where the pilot was unable to was pioneered in the 60's. every commercial airliner in America can be controlled thusly, if you know the right frequencies and codes. Using this system, it is possible to lock out radio transmissions, keep distress calls/bacons from being transmitted, alter the IFF code, etc.) |
Ok, no more X-Files for you. I'm sure the families who called their loved ones via cell phones from the doomed planes were plants by the CIA right?
And I've never heard of such remote control devices existing on commercial airplanes. I do not doubt the existence of the technology (I've seen some military drones in action) but I do not believe that every commercial plane is equipped with such a system of remote control. You could use the plane's existing guidance system to fly it off course, but a standard guidance system would not make the dramatic right angle turns we saw the planes make. (Any pilots out there please weigh in on this, or somebody produce some valid documentation.) And why would the US target the WTC? Something that most Americans can't understand the true financial importance of? And would you crash a plane into military headquarters if you were planning to start a war? That's just not common sense. I'm pretty sure that you are going to need military leaders when the war starts right? If you are trying to draw support for a war, why not just crash the planes into the Whitehouse (after making sure it is empty) or the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Statue of Liberty, St. Louis Arch or the home of Brad Pitt / Jennifer Anniston? That would make people cry out for blood and not take money out of the system that we are going to need when the war starts.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 10 2002,18:11
Well here is something that i thought would never pass my lips.I agree with BF.
Now let that sink in a minute folks.
Ok, things i have clippings of from the 70s
A man in florida built a fuel system for a 71 caddy. Old V8 500 cid engin. This fuel system was giving the car 75MPG in 1973. This guy was in all the papers and then just shut up. He moved to a Multi Million dollar estate. The money trail lead to mobil oil who bought the system and the guys scilence for 110 million dollars. He will not talk to anyone about this and denies everything.
There are on file about 150 (last count in 99) patents for high capacity high discharge batteries. Most of these patents are owned by one OIL COMPANY or another. Why would an oil company need battery patents?
there are 16 patents (again in 99) for 95%+ efficent dc motors that are also owned by OIL COMPANIES.
Most of the money dumped into anti nuke propoganda comes from the fossil fuel people. (coal, oil, gas)
I have seen run with my own eyes an electric car designed by a MIT student that had a range of 500 miles in a mid sized car. This person now works for exxon making about 7 figures a year and will only say "What car?" when asked about his project.
Nuke Fussion funding was killed in the senate due to lack of intrest. When did we loose intrest in energy from seawater?
The little fucker may be anoying at times but he is right on here. Good job on this topic guy. You just went up a couple of notches in my book.
Then you went around the bend by posting the rest of this...
starting with...
| Quote |
| The planes that crashed into the WTC towers were not under the control of hijackers, but were remotely pioleted from the ground, probably by renegade Air Force personel |
Ok, this is just crap. We knew the plains were hijacked. we thought they were heading for a landing strip so they could make demands. Just like every other hijacking in history. Yes, the circuits for remote control of aircraft are in place but the system to do it is not built yet. these systems are disconected on the aircraft and would take a major retrofit to make them active. It would of been easier for the idiots to activate this on aircraft during maintance and take control of the planes that way then what they did. Well, we hoped it would be easier.
| Quote |
| America was planning to attack afghanastan EVEN BEFORE THE WTC ATTACKS!!!!! |
This is true. These plans were in place. One of the first things bush did was draw up these plans. In the 8 years of hillarys rule not a damm thing was done to these fucknuggets and bush was not going to make the same mistake. If hillary had done this when she was incharge we would not have to do it now. These plans were drawn up because of things like Embasy bombings in africa and the USS Cole.
Just like we have plans for using nukes on russia and the middle east. CNN and the rest have been saying this all weekend like its a new thing. Guys, we have a nuke plan for everything. Hell, even panama had one but it was pretty much an end of the world story and was just this side of aliens landing and helping out panama. Get over it. We have nukes and we have plans to use them. Having and using are 2 different things.
| Quote |
| What about pearl harbor? We let the Japs bomb the fuck out of us. Might as well have been us dropping the bombs. What about Desert Storm? Another example of fighting for the oil companies. What about Somolia? Another made for tv war to detract attention away from political scandals a la "wag the dog". What about every other sick twisted fucked up thing the government has done to its own people, and has only recently admitted to? |
Pearl Harbor was bad but the Japs were playing nice and talking peace right up till sunday morning. We had warnings but thought they were still playing nice.
Desert storm was not a war for oil. It was to prevent the 4th largest army in the world from taking over other sovern nations.
Somolia was...ok, you got me there, still not sure why we were there.
As for the rest of the sick twisted stuff the goverment has done to us try this out for a fear factor. These are just things there are STILL RECORDS OF. Things that did not go into the shreader... Here is another good one. 90% of all consparacy crap comes from and is fed by the goverment just as a bit of misdirection.
So, basicly, its worse than you thought.
Again, good posts guy. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Spydir on Mar. 10 2002,18:37
I agree with wolfy and bf here, to a degree. the only problem is that everytime this comes into a discussion (oil companies buying super l33t motor designs) is that people keep making it sound as if they just chuck the stuff out the window. That's illogical.The companies know that the fossil fuels are gonna run out. they're waiting for them to. it's simply that. once they're gone, oh wow. look at that. these oil companies are releasing these awsome motors that run on water. They're simply waiting for the right moment to change their whole operation from oil to 95%+ efficency motors. You're right though, they should be getting to do this well before we run out, meaning now.
in otherwords... I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories to, but only if they're LOGICAL and end in something that makes sense other then "ALIENS ARE CONTROLING THE PRESIDENT AND THEY'RE RUNNING OUR ENERGY SUPPLIES DOWN SO THEY CAN TAKE OVER THE WORLD!" stuff. Come on guys, we're a smart bunch of idiots. we could atleast figure out that although the oil companies ARE buying up patents that could put them out of business they're not being complete republicans about it and never plan on using it. oh, wow. look at that. two birds with one insult stone there
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 10 2002,21:42
The point is they are sitting on tech that would loosen their strangle hold on the economy.Nuke power and electric cars would put them out of business or hurt them so bad that they would no longer be able to afford the ivory back scratchers.
No more rag heads saying "the price of oil is dropping and the 15th prince needs a new car, cut production to raise prices again".
No more summer time gas hikes.
A lot less polution from oil fired cars and power plants.
Less global warming/green house effect
We get to see snow again in philly in 10 years.
The point is the auto manufactures should have the tech right now so we can have effective non poluting transport and we need to start building nuke plants again.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 10 2002,22:03
| Quote |
| Yes, the circuits for remote control of aircraft are in place but the system to do it is not built yet. these systems are disconected on the aircraft and would take a major retrofit to make them active. It would of been easier for the idiots to activate this on aircraft during maintance and take control of the planes that way then what they did. Well, we hoped it would be easier. |
Somehow i doubt these systems are inactive, but you seem to speak with some authority on the subject, so ill defer to your superior not-being-at-liberty-to-say...... =)
Anyway, that was just one of a few possible proposals i've seen on how america directly orchestrated the attacks on the WTC and pentagon. Others include Osama being a puppet of the CIA, the hijackers being CIA operatives (brainwashed or otherwise), and i've even heard something about small nukes being what brought the towers down when the planes didn't get the job done.
| Quote |
| And why would the US target the WTC? Something that most Americans can't understand the true financial importance of? And would you crash a plane into military headquarters if you were planning to start a war? That's just not common sense. |
We're talking mass mind control here wiley, not common sense.
Problem, Reaction, Solution. They create a problem (the attacks), use the media to manipulate america's collective knowledge of and response to the attacks (reaction), then comes the important part, the solution (the whole goal of the operation, invading Afghanastan.)
Our national collective psyche has been traumatized by this event, in a very specific and targeted way. Our self-identity as a nation is built on two things above all else: Ecconomic superiority, and military strength. Both of these were attacked in the space of 45 minutes.
The purpose of these attacks is to traumatize our collective culture to the point where we will shut the fuck up and do whatever Big Brother says is best for us. Liberty is good, but when you get down to it, most people would rather be alive than free&dead.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 10 2002,22:09
| Quote |
| That would solve the problem of nuclear waste, however, if the rocket EVER malfunctioned in a way where it crashes or explodes, all of those radioactive isotopes are going to be spread around the atmosphere, increasing cancer rates worldwide. In order to SAFELY send radioactive material into the sun, we need Superman. |
Or maybe we need something more reliable than 50 year old rocket technology with a nifty 80's space age plastic veneir on it.
Posted by Anztac on Mar. 11 2002,02:23
Woah... I wasn't expecting a thread as cool as this on here, badass!
I must say I'm not decided, but I definitly believe that the oil companies, and Bush's agenda definitly agreed with this whole thing happening. I remember my opinion being written off in the aftermath (check the WTC thread.)
Maybe if they had been more subtle about it I wouldn't have got it so damned quickly, but I mean, it wasn't 10 minutes after I saw the building topple live that I heard them blaming it on the middle east without any evidence and running big headlines on AMERICA AT WAR. I'm not joking when I say that I watched CNN on September 11th and saw "THIS HORRIBLE HORRIBLE TRADGEDY! ::pictures of smoking rubble:: So, how are we going to invade the middle east? And what exactly is our target there? Oh, and this'll probably mean stricter control of civil liberties, but look at that SMOKING RUBBLE!" ...well maybe I'm exagerting a bit
I'm very glad to see some actual thinking though, I mean even if we're wrong at least we're questioning what we're told, right? I just can't stand people who'll blindly believe what their told in the face of evidence.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 11 2002,03:35
Here's some more < "facts" > for you conspiracy theorists. I'll send the first person who can produce a copy of any of the patented mentioned in this "article" $20 bucks. How easy is that? Now who wants to prove once and for all that this stuff does exist. Yeah, I'm too lazy to bother either ...and I have to go fill my tank with gas as well. Sure wish I had one of those fancy water engines. But then again, water is like $6 a gallon.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 11 2002,03:48
omg this thread is 95% grade-A bullshit. well here is the stuff i can directly refute right away:| Quote |
| Nuke Fussion funding was killed in the senate due to lack of intrest. When did we loose intrest in energy from seawater? |
fusion power never recieved much funding from the government to begin with. it was funded privately and by universities (i think some european countries and japan dumped money into ITER however). the government never pulled the plug on anything. fusion power is just not in our grasp yet. oh yeah and it is NOT just taking energy from sea water. you need deuterium (water with hydrogen-1's) and tritium (water with hydrogen-2's, very toxic, decays within a couple years, expensive to make).
| Quote |
| Somolia was...ok, you got me there, still not sure why we were there. |
for the same reason we were at normady and the balkans jeez. to prevent genocide.
| Quote |
| Less global warming/green house effect |
there is no evidence of man-made global warming
| Quote |
| it wasn't 10 minutes after I saw the building topple live that I heard them blaming it on the middle east without any evidence |
you mean there was no evidence, except for all the piles of evidence and confession tapes found right afterwards at the airport parking lots? hmm..
| Quote |
| The point is they are sitting on tech that would loosen their strangle hold on the economy. |
this is a common misconception that is not based on any rationale whatsoever. you have no proof. your reasoning as as thus:
1) why do we still have gasoline cars?
2) i heard about some new electric car just designed!
3) why dont we all have those electric cars now?
--brain fart--
5) there must be something sinister preventing us from having electric cars
6) it must be the oil companies, they have the most to gain.
*post*
here are the facts now:
1) we will NEVER have hydrogen fuel cell cars. there is not NEARLY enough platinum on the planet for the fuel cells for all the cars in the US, let alone the world.
2) very few people will buy electric cars, as their practical range is only ~80 miles at best.
3) because people are not buying electric cars, gas stations will not waste their money on chargers.
4) if you want a hybrid car, go out and buy one yourself they are available anywhere. stop bitching for christ sakes.
PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE USE YOUR FREAKING BRAINS
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 11 2002,04:34
| Quote |
| Less global warming/green house effect |
I gotta agree with CK here. The evidence is there to suggest that global greenhouse gas production is having a small effect on the global climate, but from what i've seen, this seems to be miniscule compared to naturaly occuring global warming trends.
Maybe one day, far in the future, man will invent weather control devices, and we can have snow on christmass in philly=)
Posted by Dysorderia on Mar. 11 2002,05:08
| Quote (CatKnight @ 10 Mar. 2002,19:48) | ||||||||||
omg this thread is 95% grade-A bullshit. well here is the stuff i can directly refute right away:
fusion power never recieved much funding from the government to begin with. it was funded privately and by universities (i think some european countries and japan dumped money into ITER however). the government never pulled the plug on anything. fusion power is just not in our grasp yet. oh yeah and it is NOT just taking energy from sea water. you need deuterium (water with hydrogen-1's) and tritium (water with hydrogen-2's, very toxic, decays within a couple years, expensive to make).
for the same reason we were at normady and the balkans jeez. to prevent genocide.
there is no evidence of man-made global warming
you mean there was no evidence, except for all the piles of evidence and confession tapes found right afterwards at the airport parking lots? hmm..
this is a common misconception that is not based on any rationale whatsoever. you have no proof. your reasoning as as thus: 1) why do we still have gasoline cars? 2) i heard about some new electric car just designed! 3) why dont we all have those electric cars now? --brain fart-- 5) there must be something sinister preventing us from having electric cars 6) it must be the oil companies, they have the most to gain. *post* here are the facts now: 1) we will NEVER have hydrogen fuel cell cars. there is not NEARLY enough platinum on the planet for the fuel cells for all the cars in the US, let alone the world. 2) very few people will buy electric cars, as their practical range is only ~80 miles at best. 3) because people are not buying electric cars, gas stations will not waste their money on chargers. 4) if you want a hybrid car, go out and buy one yourself they are available anywhere. stop bitching for christ sakes. PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE USE YOUR FREAKING BRAINS |
O.O
CK ain't speaking out of his ass for once
Posted by veistran on Mar. 11 2002,06:30
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 10 Mar. 2002,12:11) | ||
This is true. These plans were in place. One of the first things bush did was draw up these plans. In the 8 years of hillarys rule not a damm thing was done to these fucknuggets and bush was not going to make the same mistake. If hillary had done this when she was incharge we would not have to do it now. These plans were drawn up because of things like Embasy bombings in africa and the USS Cole. Just like we have plans for using nukes on russia and the middle east. CNN and the rest have been saying this all weekend like its a new thing. Guys, we have a nuke plan for everything. Hell, even panama had one but it was pretty much an end of the world story and was just this side of aliens landing and helping out panama. Get over it. We have nukes and we have plans to use them. Having and using are 2 different things. |
Yeah, it drives me insane how people have such a hard time coming to grips with the fact that the government has plans for just about everything.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 11 2002,13:40
| Quote |
| fusion power never recieved much funding from the government to begin with. |
Hmmm... i always thought that DOE was a goverment agency. The toak at Princton was built and funded mostly by them. 75% of the money used to build the toak came from DOE.
| Quote |
| oh yeah and it is NOT just taking energy from sea water. you need deuterium (water with hydrogen-1's) and tritium (water with hydrogen-2's, very toxic, decays within a couple years, expensive to make). |
And where does this water come from?
| Quote |
| Quote Somolia was...ok, you got me there, still not sure why we were there. for the same reason we were at normady and the balkans jeez. to prevent genocide. |
Ah...must of missed that or its my german background that kept me from caring. either way.
| Quote |
| Quote Less global warming/green house effect there is no evidence of man-made global warming |
But there is evidence of localized green house effects over cities. Since most people refuse to tell the difference i put them both in.
| Quote |
here are the facts now: 1) we will NEVER have hydrogen fuel cell cars. there is not NEARLY enough platinum on the planet for the fuel cells for all the cars in the US, let alone the world. 2) very few people will buy electric cars, as their practical range is only ~80 miles at best. 3) because people are not buying electric cars, gas stations will not waste their money on chargers. 4) if you want a hybrid car, go out and buy one yourself they are available anywhere. stop bitching for christ sakes. |
There is more platinum on the earth than neon and we use a hell of a lot of that just in vegas alone
There is platinum in every cars exaust system sold in the US. Check out what makes a catalytic converter.
If you increase the range to 500+ miles they become practical. There are battery techs out there that will allow this. Kinda funny how far laptop batteries have come in the last 2 years. Light weight, long life, rechargable... 2 years? Batteries have been around how long and they just made the jump to a better battery?
Ill buy a poor atempt to keep the tree huggers happy when hell freezes over. I have seen what an electric car can be.
| Quote |
| PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE USE YOUR FREAKING BRAINS |
You first
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 11 2002,14:57
| Quote | ||
And where does this water come from? |
thats like saying "and where do the materials used to build the space shuttle come from? the ground!"
| Quote |
| But there is evidence of localized green house effects over cities. Since most people refuse to tell the difference i put them both in. |
agreed. thats why we have catalytic converters, honda's, and co2 scrubbers. i think we will have 80-100 mpg car engines before we have electric cars wide spread.
| Quote |
| There is more platinum on the earth than neon |
wow you're ass must be really loose, cuz that was a big one you just pulled out of there.
as for the battery stuff, the best ones we have are lithium-ions. they are very expensive, and even if you loaded a car up with them you only get about 100 miles. that's in a car that would cost > $35,000.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 11 2002,17:48
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 10 Mar. 2002,10:11) |
| Ok, things i have clippings of from the 70s A man in florida built a fuel system for a 71 caddy. Old V8 500 cid engin. This fuel system was giving the car 75MPG in 1973. This guy was in all the papers and then just shut up. He moved to a Multi Million dollar estate. The money trail lead to mobil oil who bought the system and the guys scilence for 110 million dollars. He will not talk to anyone about this and denies everything. |
WG, nothing personal here but this is exactly the type of statement that makes it hard for me to swallow conspiracy theories. Ok, I know I'm taking my life into my own hands here, but just hear me out. I’ll go through my thought process step by step as I read the statement.
Ok, things I have clippings of from the 70s
First off, can you scan the clippings in for us or let us know where we can find a copy of the article you are mentioning? All conspiracy theories start off with the standard “This friend of mine knew a guy who …” or “It was all over the papers …I don’t remember exactly which ones” or perhaps “I saw this thing unveiled at a small expo …it was small and there wasn’t any press present”. These phrases give some bit of credibility to the existence of crucial evidence without having to produce the evidence in question. Under most circumstances we are led to believe that the conspiracy cover-up is so well masterminded that all written documentation or photographic evidence is no longer in existence.
A man in Florida built a fuel system for a 71 caddy. Old V8 500 cid engine. This fuel system was giving the car 75MPG in 1973.
Lots of specific info here, this looks very credible indeed. We have a Place, a time, and some exact specifications of what is being covered up. The only things we are missing are the things that can be used to research this claim any further. How about the exact town in Florida? Can we get the name of the newspaper/magazine that this info appeared in? Maybe the name of the guy …surely the guy’s name was mentioned in the article about him that touts the marvel of his invention. And was there some kind of independent lab that verified the 75MPG claim?
This guy was in all the papers and then just shut up. He moved to a Multi Million dollar estate.
So were you tracking the story, or was this a follow-up story in the same newspaper/magazine? If you were tracking him then surely you have his name. If this was a follow-up story I would think that the author would go into an entire investigative report …I mean this has Pulitzer written all over it. Nobody followed him after this? Why would you follow him in the first place if it wasn’t a story people would be interested in? Now it’s a whole lot better, why stop there? That’s like a newspaper article that reads, “OJ was found not guilty and moved away never to be heard from again” or “Chandra Levy is missing and she happened to work for Gary Condit” …then just letting the story die there. I don’t buy it.
The money trail leads to Mobil oil who bought the system and the guy’s science for 110 million dollars. He will not talk to anyone about this and denies everything.
Now we’re talking! A money trail …this is the stuff a true conspiracy is made of, somebody has to be turning a profit here. At least you have the name of the people behind the plot; usually it is just “A Secret Government Agency” , “The Oil Companies” or “Big Business”. So we have a name and a year, let’s do a little digging. On to the financial records! Now 110 million to an individual in 1973 had to turn a few heads right? Currently I am doing a search on Bloomberg, Reuters, ILX News, and the entire history of the Wall Street Journal. I will fill you in on my findings during my lunch hour. Any additional information would be helpful …this is your chance to convert a conspiracy skeptic.
Edit: nothing yet ...I'm still searching
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 11 2002,18:09
Posted by ic0n0 on Mar. 11 2002,19:38
I don’t know what the truth is and I don’t clam to know in regards to the alternative energy debate. It’s a little of both more than likely, some industrial interference and more than likely the technology isn’t as good as we thought and what people are claming. Things are more complex then they seem, it’s not all “evil government in cahoots with evil corporate America” it can’t be, to many things wouldn’t make sense like the rule of law that sill exists, sure some people are influenced by the money and power of these corporations but I refuse to believe that the oil industry is so sinister that it has it’s hands on all this wonderful technology. Not everything is controlled nor can it. CK is right about global warming there is no evidence that it is manmade, no one can know for sure, we just don’t know enough about how this planet operates to assume that. As for the government creating the terrorist attacks it is entirely possible however unlikely considering the evidence the supposed hijackers left behind and bin Ladin’s own words, maybe he is a tool of the CIA but what is he getting out of it? His death?
Posted by Nikita on Mar. 11 2002,20:57
| Quote |
| There is more platinum on the earth than neon and we use a hell of a lot of that just in vegas alone |
Platinum on that one ... I was thinking "ooh, credit cards!"
Where's my goddamn teleporter?
I want a perpetual motion machine ...
Posted by veistran on Mar. 11 2002,20:57
| Quote (CatKnight @ 11 Mar. 2002,06:57) | ||||||||
thats like saying "and where do the materials used to build the space shuttle come from? the ground!"
agreed. thats why we have catalytic converters, honda's, and co2 scrubbers. i think we will have 80-100 mpg car engines before we have electric cars wide spread.
wow you're ass must be really loose, cuz that was a big one you just pulled out of there. as for the battery stuff, the best ones we have are lithium-ions. they are very expensive, and even if you loaded a car up with them you only get about 100 miles. that's in a car that would cost > $35,000. |
the best will be lithium-polymer, because of the flexibility in shape and size that it offers over traditional lithium-ion, the problem right now is just that they need a bit electrolyte added for conductivity at room temperature. (aka lithium-ion polymer)
Posted by 1LT on Mar. 12 2002,11:08
A question- If the oil companies developed/boughtout the designs for (miracle technology of your choice), why wouldn't that company choose to develop and market it? If you controlled the rights to something, no one else has it and there's the potential that if developed, a significant percentage of the population may eventualy rely on your sole technology...wouldn't you develop it?If I were an oil co. and I didn't have to worry about competition, environmental regulations, and having to dig holes in foreign countries that are not always stable... I think I'd maintain the current business and begin to develop my future monopoly. Then again, I'm greedy unlike businessmen.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 12 2002,11:44
Miracle technologies that would give you a monopoly..... hmmmm.... like electricity, or the lightbulb? Radio? TVs? Internal combustion engines? the x86 computer processor?Owning an idea is dangerous, because someone could always come along with a better idea. Owning an oil field, on the other hand, is a much more safe form of income, so long as the world remains dependant on oil.
So the fuck what if you can develop a car than can run 5,000 miles on a cup of rice. Give the japs 2 years, and they'll have one that can run for 10,000 miles (with or without itellectual property infringement). Get the picture?
Technology=unstable. Ownership of material things=stable.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 12 2002,14:25
| Quote (Wiley @ 11 Mar. 2002,12:48) |
| WG, nothing personal here but this is exactly the type of statement that makes it hard for me to swallow conspiracy theories. Ok, things I have clippings of from the 70s First off, can you scan the clippings in for us or let us know where we can find a copy of the article you are mentioning? |
Ill head to the <shudder> parents house and grab the scrap book.
edit to add info: It was either on the front page or the front page of a section of the paper. Im pretty sure there is a picture of a guy sitting on the hood of a car. Not sure if its the same guy.
Try trenton times, pretty sure it was a sunday. fall of 73 or 74.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 12 2002,15:03
| Quote (CatKnight @ 11 Mar. 2002,09:57) | ||
wow you're ass must be really loose, cuz that was a big one you just pulled out of there. as for the battery stuff, the best ones we have are lithium-ions. they are very expensive, and even if you loaded a car up with them you only get about 100 miles. that's in a car that would cost > $35,000. |
Your right, i was thinking of Xenon and getting Neon again. Sorry
< http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Pt/geol.html >
< http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Xe/geol.html >
My bad.
Lion batteries are not good for high discharge. They get real mad and spit magic smoke at you if you try it.
What you would need is NiMh (better Nicad) with a low internal resistance. The best batteries in the NiMh is the sub c cell. its what they sell the most of. What we need is 6v version of the sub c. It should weigh about a pound per Amp Hour (AH).
A string to get to 90V(pulled out of my ass along with neon from yesterday) would weigh 15lbs per AH.
Now, lets say that the typical battery is 3AH
Thats 45lbs of batteries at 90V. thats 3 amps for 1 hour.
ok,lets say that The typical engin/trans/fuel weighs about 800lbs
We can build a Dc Motor with gearing for a car at about 50lbs per wheel.
4 wheels, 200 lbs
Straight swap for rest of weight for batteries would be 13 of the 45 lb strings. so we can with off the shelf parts get a 39AH battery pack. (more or less, im trying to keep things simple for myself here)
Now, you should be able to draw all you need to start the car moving. Once you get it moving the amp draw should be around 5-10 per motor. On the highway you should be able to go for an hour at this rate. You can us regen on the down slopes to get a little more.
So, now i have a smallish (2 door saturn) car that has a range on the highway of about an hour. I did this with batteries i have. Well, the batteries i have a 7.2v and about a 1/2 lb per ah but to make things simple...
Improve the batteries to drop the weight and increase the AH and you extend the range. Make the batteries with a lower internal resistance and they will last longer and not produce as much heat.
95% efficent motors are easy to come by. the better this number the more range you get.
It can be done. Heck, i can get an hour between charges and im not trying hard.
What can someone with a real brain do?
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 12 2002,17:17
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 12 Mar. 2002,06:25) |
| Ill head to the <shudder> parents house and grab the scrap book. edit to add info: It was either on the front page or the front page of a section of the paper. Im pretty sure there is a picture of a guy sitting on the hood of a car. Not sure if its the same guy. Try trenton times, pretty sure it was a sunday. fall of 73 or 74. |
Don't go too much out of your way, I was just trying to get the point across that conspiracy theories are always presented with hearsay that is taken as fact. The "I know a guy who knows a guy who saw the thing" statement is given more credibility then it should be worth. If you could get the article though I would love to research the existence of the thing, sounds like a fun project. I'm trying to find out where I can get some info on past Trenton Times. As long as I don't have to resort to microfiche.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Mar. 13 2002,06:43
if you really want the distance to increase, wolf, dump a lot of the body materials for Aluminum, or polymers and carbon fiber. Also, you could try fuel cells.
They can be "recharged" by applying power to the resultant output water, making the Hydrogen and Oxygen needed to power the reaction.
Posted by 1LT on Mar. 13 2002,09:29
Electricity is still a monopoly in many states. As is your local phone company (not the long distance carrier). The inventor of the internal combustion engine recieved royalties from engine manufacturers until (I want to say Henry Ford) successfully argued to the patent office that his engine designs differed enough from the initial patent.
I don't seem to recall mentioning stagnation. Who says you stop innovating/improving after you develop something? How long would it have taken Motorola or AMD (etc.) to surpass Intel if they had stopped at 80386? Even if someone comes up with a better design, you've got the head start. Others make lightbulbs, but the first company to make them was GE (biggest company on the planet). Nikolaus Otto's (combustion engine) partner was a guy by the name of Gottlieb Daimler. Perhaps you've heard of Daimler-Benz or as they're now called, DaimlerChrysler. Sole technology ownership will not guarantee that a company is the biggest but, if handled correctly, it will keep them playing with the big boys for a long time. An oil company would be stupid not to diversify or take advantage of new ideas. These people are businessmen. Their bottom line is a dollar sign.
Sidenote 1- BP changed their official name to just that: BP. They're no longer British Petroleum. They're trying to come off as environmentally friendly. Even if it was just some niche market, you'd think they'd try to come up with something, just to enhace that image.
Sidenote 2-They don't own the land in foreign countries, the countries own the land. The companies pay to pump it out. Why do you think OPEC sets the price of oil?
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 13 2002,13:30
| Quote (Bob_the_Cannibal @ 13 Mar. 2002,01:43) |
| if you really want the distance to increase, wolf, dump a lot of the body materials for Aluminum, or polymers and carbon fiber. Also, you could try fuel cells. They can be "recharged" by applying power to the resultant output water, making the Hydrogen and Oxygen needed to power the reaction. |
Yeah, you could make the entire car, frame and all, out of light weight stuff. Ti cored carbon fiber frame members. Kevlan/carbon fiber body pannels. I was keeping things simple with things i have at hand or could get in a week.
My sister-in-law has a saturn, hence that became the base of the mental exersize.
90V 10hp 6000rpm motors i could get in a week. Same with the batteries.
I stayed away from the fuel cells to keep CK quiet since there is not enough platium on the planet to put them in all the cars.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 13 2002,13:31
| Quote (Wiley @ 12 Mar. 2002,12:17) |
| I'm trying to find out where I can get some info on past Trenton Times. As long as I don't have to resort to microfiche. |
73-74...
Im thinking you may not have a choice.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 13 2002,15:18
Where do you think the energy comes from to run an electric car? Unless you live in Canada, France, or Japan, I bet it comes from a coal powered power plant. Who cares? Well, if you use x megawatt hours per year more on your car, then that much more coal is being burned instead of gasoline (which really hasn't changed anything).And, it's just not feisable to make fourty more nuclear power plants to run the US. What would we do with the waste in fifty years? Throw it in the *absolutely fantastic oh my god I creamed my pants* repository under Yucca Mountain? That one that's in the middle of an active volcanic field? Yeah, that's a great idea -now-. Just imagine what it will do to the odds of a disaster if we increase the amount of waste 40 times!
Posted by kuru on Mar. 13 2002,15:50
I've been in an electric car. Thing was sluggish, was an absolute danger to merge onto a highway in, couldn't top 45 MPH for all its effort, and handled like a badly loaded cement mixer.
Color me Not Very Impressed.
I will stick to my internal combustion engine having Chevy Cavalier or Dodge Durango (depending on where I'm going and what I'm doing) because currently they outperform electric cars.
If someone comes up with an electric SUV that isn't a hazard on the highway and doesn't cost more than the average contemporary SUV, maybe I'll buy it. But like everybody else, I want maximum utility for my dollars... and electric cars are not getting it done.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 13 2002,17:47
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 13 Mar. 2002,05:31) |
| Im thinking you may not have a choice. |
nope ...it seems not. Maybe I can find an analyst around here who isn't busy for a few days. This is exactly why I need an intern.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 13 2002,18:05
Kuru:Im thinking that if we can get just the soccer moms to switch to electric that would make a big dent. You have a class of people that do maybe 30-40 miles a day and are never farther than 20 miles from home. This should be the market.
Tax man:
Yucca Mountain may not be the best place but a long term storage place needs to be built. Beats it sitting in drums in the open like it is now. The idea is right just the place is wrong.
Me, build big rail guns and shoot it into space. No rocket failures to worry about.
You could shoot over an ocean, that way if it does not make orbit it could soft land and be recovered.
Simple
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Mar. 13 2002,22:52
wolf: forgetting something: making a barrel of toxic waste reach orbital velocity would be a Bad Thing. Earth's magnetic field could start to move because of it. imagine all those magnets going off at once, 'sides, you have to power the railgun. mucho power per barrel... making more waste, requiring more shots, making more waste...A simple chem rocket with some heavy padding/armor, and 3 reserve 'chutes in case of failure, should be sufficient enough, anyway.
RE: Fuel Cells: some fuel cells don't require platinum. most use polymers made by 3M, and other such corporations. does he (ck) mean to coat the interior of the reac chamber? again, 3m polys can do that...
Kuru: Have you heard of the Toyota Prius? < http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/index.html >
Badass car, the one I saw had 76mpg HWY, but I'll bet that's because they were testing coasting efficiency, and little motor use... it automatically switches off from gas to electric. neat features...
Posted by Necromancer on Mar. 14 2002,01:01
| Quote (Bob_the_Cannibal @ 13 Mar. 2002,22:52) |
| wolf: forgetting something: making a barrel of toxic waste reach orbital velocity would be a Bad Thing. Earth's magnetic field could start to move because of it. imagine all those magnets going off at once, |
WTF!? how would it affect earths magnetic field? have you actually done any mathematics to PROVE this "theory" of yours? do you actually realise how big the earths field is? sure its not very powerful but it'd take somethign the size and power of a solar flare hitting it to do anything worthy of note
"oh god sterilising medical instruments with gamma rays makes them radioactive!"
once skyhooks or pulse laser propuslsion has been properly developed you can just shoot it all into the sun to blow it into it's elemental components. and fusion will be in use before then so power supply will not be a problem unless you consider 5 million years before the earths water supply runs out a threat to the ecosystem...
...muppet
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 15 2002,07:43
I noticed the "brain" here has not responded.Whats up CK? did i make life to simple for you?
Posted by Bozeman on Mar. 15 2002,13:10
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 13 Mar. 2002,14:05) |
| Me, build big rail guns and shoot it into space. No rocket failures to worry about. You could shoot over an ocean, that way if it does not make orbit it could soft land and be recovered. Simple |
Railguns? Might work better, but I'm more worried about a failed trajectory. If the aim is off, it could burn up in the atmosphere, spreading radioactive isotopes everywhere. Even a landing in water will break up something shot by a railgun, or a rocket, it doesn't matter. To SAFELY do it we need a space elevator. (see Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy) That or the man of steel himself as I said before.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 15 2002,15:39
Since the shipping containers they use now can be hit by a train and not break open or leak im sure we could get it into orbit with out it breaking.If you did miss orbit you could put a chute on them so they can soft land.
The elevator. I forgot all about that one. Thanks for reminding me of that.
Posted by Necromancer on Mar. 15 2002,16:31
Ok firstly the 70's was the hangover from the 60's so any "conspiracies" are just a bunch of leftover crap from veitnam war vets who smoked too much crack.Blakflag: We have strike-net "to stop these wars before they happen" so god knows why they would want to start them.
(if you havent played soviet strike that bit was a joke)
It's pretty hard to misjudge an orbit when you have the capability to shoot an object well outside earth orbit the suns gravitational pull is immense plus you can calculate orbits to an astounding degree if you could realise the scale of getting voyager's orbit so that it would pass sevreral planets even when they changed the orbital path half way on the fly. plus they routinely shoot rockets up to high altitudes that can survive the fall back down. i could quite easily calculate several orbits on a piece of paper right now if you gave me the figures that would hit the sun. (don't bother though i have better ways to spend my time
)and the whole electric car thing? well ford is pouring millions into hydrogen fuel cell cars and the like but it does come down to money . theres not much point investing everything into a project if the companies gonna go bust before its finished. plus somethign better will usually pop up on the way and you'll have lost all that money.
go watch this: < http://download.consumptionjunction.com/multimedia/cj_8450.wmv >
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 15 2002,16:56
They smoked pot and droped acidcrack did not come around till the 80s
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 15 2002,20:29
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 15 Mar. 2002,08:56) |
| crack did not come around till the 80s |
Just in the nick of time too I might add.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 18 2002,06:09
taxman: it's way way more efficient to have electric cars powered by coal fired power plants, rather then just gasoline cars. power plants efficiency ranges from 30-60%, where as car engines are around 15% i believe.yuccca mountain is not on an active volcanic site any more then new york, pittsburgh, or chicago are.
the high level waste only stays high level for around 1000 years, not long enough to be in danger of geological activity.
I don't think yucca mountain will be used much, if at all. I think we will find a use for all those crazy isotopes, or start using breeder reactors.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 18 2002,06:51
1LT is the one person here using his brain. I thought of the same thing, but you beat me to it The patent wg is talking about would be worth trillions of dollars over its lifetime. Even if someone started making these "super engines" tomorrow, demand for oil would continue to increase for years to come. People would not immediately run out and buy the new engine, and many, many internal combustion engines would continue to be sold.
So, is there such a device? Let's review the facts :
- Such a device would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
- No repeatable experiment has ever shown that law of thermodynamics can be violated.
I think we can safely say that, scientifically speaking, this device is bullshit.
So let's assume that scientists are either in on some sort of consiparacy, they're afraid to speak, they are too arrogant to bother to try it, or they simply haven't discovered this special way of getting energy for nothing.
We still have the problem that a company would be insanely foolish to not develop, sell, and license products based upon this device. They'd make money hand over fist.
Even if we assume that the company is throroughly stupid and/or corrupt, the government almost certainly knows about it. The military would be very interested in this device.
And yet, despite all the money and power to be gained from this device's use, I have never seen or heard of anyone working on anything like this, except as this exact same story.
Conclusion: This is obviously an urban myth. If you cannot accept this, yuo ar teh dummy.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 18 2002,12:50
| Quote |
| The patent wg is talking about would be worth trillions of dollars over its lifetime. |
Unless someone steals your idea and makes something similar for cheaper. That never happens, does it?
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 18 2002,14:40
the patent office does not even need to review heat engines of the 1st or 2nd kind, it just automatically rejects them. sometimes they sue, and then the scientists have a hard time explaning the first and second laws of thermodynamics to a judge 
first law: total energy = Q - W
second law: max efficiency = 1 - T1/T2
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 18 2002,19:07
| Quote (CatKnight @ 17 Mar. 2002,22:09) |
| yuccca mountain is not on an active volcanic site any more then new york, pittsburgh, or chicago are. |
Excuse me? Did you walk the lines with a magnetometer? Did you look at the data? Well I did. There are something like five buried volcanoes in the immidiate area, you jack ass. Go fuck off. Don't tell me this bullshit when you don't have a god damned clue.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 18 2002,23:34
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 18 Mar. 2002,04:50) |
| Unless someone steals your idea and makes something similar for cheaper. That never happens, does it? |
There you have it, CK. BlackFlag has just given us incontrovertable proof that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is complete and utter bullshit.
We should be ashamed of ourselves. All these years we've allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by the scientific establishment. We've been played like pawns in Government and Big Oil's quest to oppress all of mankind.
There's only one thing left to do. We most focus all of our psychic energy on the Harmonic Convergence, which will allow the Golden Light to escape its prison and bring peace and justice to this world.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 19 2002,01:13
ha.....ha?
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 19 2002,01:19
my thermo prof used to work for the patent office. he was telling us about how he was once reviewing a patent on a car engine that supposedly got 130 mpg. he immidiately refused the car plan because it violated the 2nd law. the guy sued. my prof did some research, and found out that the way the guy was measuring power output from the engine, he mixed up some voltage measurements, giving false readings. the car was actually getting ~0.01 mpg. dunno how the guy missed that one point being--the 2nd law has never been broken, nor can it be. all those perpetual motion machines (1st kind) and super efficient heat engines (2nd kind) are all the products of either con artists or bad engineering (design mistakes).
in case you don't know, the 2nd law is derived from the fact that if you put a cup of room temperature coffee in a room, the cup of coffee will never heat up to 150 degrees, taking heat away from the room, without work being done on it. simple intuition.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 19 2002,06:48
Fuck you DSL.I hadn't said anything about thermodynamics.
If you feel it nessicary to try to make me look stupid, use things i've said.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 19 2002,08:02
BF - I know you didn't say anything about the 2nd law of dynamics. My last post used hyperbole (love that word) to highlight the weakness of your argument.Honestly. The perpetual motion machine was shot down on the previous page. Nice thing about the laws of physics is that they aren't subject to corruption. But you (and others) kept reaching for more and more specious arguments to prove your point. So I hit you with the flamethrower.
Point is- if you want to avoid the flames, then learn to recognize when you've lost. We all make stupid arguments sometimes. Like that thread about "Liberals and Libertarians Unite"... utter nonsense
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 19 2002,11:05
The weakness of my argument is that im too god damn lazy and apathetic to go and research this shit. I've talked to a few people i know, one an ex-marine intel, and the shit this topic was about is just the tip of the iceburg. Unless your ex NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD, NSO, or any shit like that, i doubt you have more info on this shit than me.
Btw, are you reffering to my arguments about abortion? Utter nonsense? Fuck you again. I guess any opinion that isn't conguant with yours, or some wishy-washy stradleing the fence "opinion" is nonsense. Remove your thumb from you ass to make room for your head, cause you're one of the few people on planet earth who would probably be better off with a 'rectal-cranial inversoin'.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 19 2002,15:00
*Insert Pro-Life Rant Here*
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 19 2002,15:04
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 19 Mar. 2002,03:05) |
| Unless your ex NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD, NSO, or any shit like that, i doubt you have more info on this shit than me. |
Um ...yeah, because it's like NSA, CIA, FBI, DOD, NSO, and then the local 7-11.
So tell me how it comes about that you a privy to all this top secret information that nobody else knows? I think you believe too much of what you hear second and third hand and take it as fact. C'mon, seriously think about it for a second ...it's pretty lame if you think that you have all the facts about super efficient machines via second hand info and you believe the people that study the feasibility of said machines and can back up their non-existence with scientific evidence are wrong ...because you heard this or that from some guy and in your mind it is fact. It's just sad.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 19 2002,16:23
How about 'unless you have achieved satisfactory marks in university calculus based physics, chemistry and thermodynamics, you're not allowed to repeat arguments you admit you can't understand about the existence of things that violate the laws of thermodynamics?'You spend your life at 7-11 listening to whatever people tell you when they come in for coffee, fine. Come back and tell me about thermodynamics when you yourself have done the calculations and the experiments in a lab - you bring me the full lab writeup that proves you can violate the laws of thermodynamics, let me repeat the exercise, and if it's repeatable, I'll give you $1 million if I have to become a prostitute in Bangkok.
Otherwise, stay out of it.
It's put up or shut up time, BlackFlag. Even on detnet we don't tolerate people making wildly outlandish scientific claims without proof.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 19 2002,16:25
Damnit. Double post.Oh and if you're going to go on a pro-life rant, do it in some other thread.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 19 2002,17:02
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 19 Mar. 2002,02:00) |
| *Insert Pro-Life Rant Here* |
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 19 2002,23:02
In case it wasn't clear...*Insert Anti Pro-Life Rant Here*
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 20 2002,00:06
the only time abortions should be performed is if there is no choice (i.e. the mother's life is in danger). hence anti-pro-choice.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 20 2002,00:07
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 19 Mar. 2002,03:05) |
| Btw, are you reffering to my arguments about abortion? Utter nonsense? |
no, I was pointing out that I made a pretty stupid argument in the Liberals and Libertarians thread. It happens to everyone.
Back to the CIA/NSA stuff... a story from my Dad's navy days will make a good example. My father & a fellow officer were taking a taxi into downtown San Diego. The taxi driver said something like "So, you guys are in the Navy, huh? Have you ever been to the base underneath California?"
The two officers had never heard of such a thing, and told him so.
He replied with : "hey, you guys can talk to me about it. It's ok. I'm a good American. I know that there's a lot of water underneath California and you guys have a secret navy base down there. I'm just interested and want to know what it's like."
My dad & his buddy tried hard not to laugh. Then my dad's buddy undoes his gun holster, leans forward, and says "look, don't say anything about this to anyone. Understand? Technically we're supposed to kill you right now and call in Special Ops to dispose of the body, but you seem like a cool guy and we don't really like killing people. But you could get in a LOT of trouble if you talk about that base. It's top secret. Not even the Russians know about it."
The guy swore up and down he'd "protect the secret." My dad said that he laughed so hard after that he could barely walk the next day. His sides hurt too much.
Things like that happened to me when I worked at the Lab, too. There were plenty of people who believed that we worked on all kinds of super high tech military gear... we stole homeless people off the street at night to conduct secret tests on them... and other insane notions.
We had a game called "feeding the gullible." Basically when someone would accuse us of one wild thing or another, we'd egg them on and see how much bullshit we could get them to believe.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 20 2002,14:14
#1, im not takking any sides in whether or not "miricle" technologies are real, but there are alot of more beleiveable technologies, such as the catalytic fuel conversion device that can boost mpg by 300% (which i have heard about from many sources, one of them was either Scientific American or Popular Science, can't remember which.....) However i do believe that technology is being held back by the oil companies.#2 Wiley: you think someone who sits in a cubicle staring at a computer screen all day is more connected to reality than me? (BTW, the trying-not-to-be-an-asshole thing isn't quite working for you, but keep trying.)
#3 Kuru: STFU BITCH! Get off my fucking ass. You've been fucking riding me since WG and crew rained shit on me, and im fucking sick of it.
When did i say i specificaly beleived in the existance of any particular alledged surpressed technology? Which technology did i say i believed was fact?
Unless you're assuming that ALL of these alledged technologies are fraudulant with out even knowing anything about them (wich would be just as fucking arrogant/ignorant as you're accusing me of being), how exactly are you going to sit there and accuse me of being ignorant of the laws of physics simply because i can't beleive that all of them are hoaxes/cons? FUCK YOU BITCH!
Posted by kuru on Mar. 20 2002,14:24
Because any technology that contains elements that violate the laws of thermodynamics has to be bullshit.Those laws are inviolate, there's no way around them. Prepetual motion doesn't happen, super efficient heat engines that generate energy with no work being done on a fuel source are impossible under the laws of physics.
So, as soon as I see one element of a 'technology' that violates the laws of thermodynamics, I know that technology is science fiction. It can't possibly exist. A glass of water sitting in a room will never absorb heat out of the air until it boils, you have to apply a source of heat to the water to make it boil. This work is NEVER perfectly efficient. Same with the internal combustion engine - there is a maximum limit to efficieny. The laws of physics don't have exceptions. You can't get more energy out of an engine than you put into it, and you don't get 100% of what you put in back out.
The best engines built will *always* have something less than 100% of the energy put in going to cause actual motion. That's just how it is, and that's why I can dismiss these things so easily.
Because the laws of physics dictate that they are not possible.
Posted by Necromancer (Uni PC's) on Mar. 20 2002,14:33
| Quote (kuru @ 20 Mar. 2002,06:24) |
| A glass of water sitting in a room will never absorb heat out of the air until it boils, you have to apply a source of heat to the water to make it boil. |
well thats more to do with entropy and such. i mean it IS statistically possible for it to happen you just have to have enough particles randomly hitting it although the odds are so ridiculous that it'll never happen. I mean its statistically possibel for you to walk on water you just have to have enough air particles to randomly hit your feet to lift you across it
But anywayz don't want to sound like i'm contradicting you. Like you said laws of thermodynamics arent breakable. anyone sensible with agree with you there.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 20 2002,14:39
Theoretically those things are possible. But theory is theory, it's unproven whether or not it can happen in known reality.Of course like all scientists and engineers, if I am presented with a full lab writeup of a repeatable experiment proving wrong a theory of physics or a law of physics, I will accept it.
But you don't negate the laws of thermodynamics on the theory of 'this could happen, possibly, if entropy was just right.'
The hypothesis is that if the entropy is just right, water will boil itself or I will be able to walk on water. The next step is to experiment and attempt to prove the hypothesis. It's possible you could. It's possible you'll only prove yourself wrong. But that's why it's a hypothesis and not a law. It's never been conclusively proven.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 20 2002,14:56
Not all of the 'technologies' in question claim to defy the laws of physics. Most of these technologies either:
A. Do work more efficiently. (not 100% efficiency)
or
B. Use a more readily available and/or cheaper source of fuel than conventional internal combustion engines.
Not all 'miracle' technology is held back by ecconomic interests either. Just look at the work of Nicolai Tesla. Eddison fucked him up the ass every chance he got.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way (i hope), its time for me to play devil's advocate:
I agree that energy cannot be created from nothing (not entirely correct scientificly speaking, but we can't create energy in a useable form from nothing... yet.).......
But, do you think we know all there is to know about physics and how the universe works? There's alot of research going on to find a way to tap "zero point energy"; energy that exists in empty space. If it becomes possible to harness this energy, then we would have an inexaustable supply of 'free' energy. (before you reply, keep in mind that im more than prepared to argue the theory of this, if not the application.)
My question then is this: if it does become possible to generate large amounts of free energy, then how the fuck do we know that some poor schmuck we laughed at years ago didn't accidentially stumble upon such a technology?
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 20 2002,15:02
are you willing to sit starting at a cup for a few trillion years in order to prove or dissprove whether or not its temperature could rise?The insideous thing about thermodynamics is that even when its wrong, its still right, because its prediction was only a statistic <100%.
Thermodynamics isn't a theory really. Its a mathamatical model. You couldn't prove it wrong any more than you could prove 2+2=5. It will always be correct, assuming its correctly used.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 20 2002,15:02
Because generating 'free' energy violates the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.Energy actually *can't* be created at all.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 20 2002,15:14
unless its created such that the net of positive and negitave energy is zero, as in virtual particle pairs (wich is what zero point energy is all about.)
Posted by kuru on Mar. 20 2002,15:26
Then it's not 'created'. Turning a fuel source into energy (converting matter to energy) is not the creation of energy. It's a conversion between what amount to be the solid and energy states of the same substance. Of course, no fuel is 100% efficient, there are always byproducts, and no transfer of energy is 100% efficient, some of the energy is always absorbed in some other way. However, you can release the potential energy of matter, but you cannot release more energy than exists in the source. As for thermodynamics, it's not a 'theory'. It's a law. Like every other law, if ONE instance is ever found and can be repeated that contradicts the law, then the law is invalid. However, it's never been done.
You don't seem to understand that the laws of thermodynamics remain laws unless and until they are disproven by a repeatable experiment. It's possible that some day such an experiment could be done, but it's not bloody likely.
Until then, thermodynamics and the conservation of energy are laws. You cannot create energy where there was none, and you cannot get 100% efficiency out of a system. Of course you can always feel free to prove wrong centuries of physics, but you had better be armed with a lot of proof.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 20 2002,16:14
repeatable experiment:stare at a glass of water for a few trillion-trillion years, waiting for it to [insert nearly-infinitely-unlikely event here].
then do it again.
the reason the theory can't be dissproven is that it predicts instances where its own laws are violated. All that is required is the passage of massive amounts of time, and im affraid the average human lifespan, and also the human race's foreseeable lifespan isn't long enough to carry out repeatable experiments to prove that the thoery's predictions of violations of its own laws are correct (which would be piontless anyway, because the math or the theory are still correct, and the other part can always be adjusted if need be.)
Back to zero point energy:
Whether it would be correct to call harnessing energy from virtual particle pairs 'free energy' depends on knowing the exact nature of space-time (i.e. whether it is a sort of Aether/field/etc., or if it is just seperation between matter [a la Einstein]), wich we do not deffinitively know.
In other words, are the particle pairs spontaneously generated out of nothing (wich wouldn't nessicarily violate conservation of energy since A. energy of particle+anti-particel=0 and B. it is beleived by many that the negative energy of a particle's gravitational field balances out the positive energy of its mass, and likewise for anti-particles), or are particles are formed from energy inherrent in the 'fabric' of spacetime (Aether)?
So, zero point energy would either be truely free energy, or would be sucking energy out of the fabric of spacetime, which is so damn close to being free no one in the macroscopic world will give a shit about the technical inaccuracy.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 20 2002,16:30
And everything you're talking about is blatant conjecture. It's stuff you sit around thinking up while listening to New Age music.
Nice ideas, impossible to experiment on, therefore totally worthless from the perspective of trying to engineer a better car.
Posted by Necromancer on Mar. 20 2002,16:47
| Quote (kuru @ 20 Mar. 2002,14:39) |
| But you don't negate the laws of thermodynamics on the theory of 'this could happen, possibly, if entropy was just right.' The hypothesis is that if the entropy is just right, water will boil itself or I will be able to walk on water. The next step is to experiment and attempt to prove the hypothesis. It's possible you could. It's possible you'll only prove yourself wrong. But that's why it's a hypothesis and not a law. It's never been conclusively proven. |
I wasn't trying to have a go at you there kuru just adding in a little quirky point of subject for the sake of it.
In some situations that kind of thing is provable although only in extreme situations such as how fusion can occour in our sun. The average temperature isnt enough to initiate fusion but if you take the small percentage of high energy particles at one end of the scale mix in a dash of quantum tunneling it is possible to acheive it. Even though there are statistically very few particles to acheive this when you reach the particle number level of the sun it becomes more possible.
I wasn't trying to pick you up on your physics kuru I respect you for your intelligence too much to attempt it. Sorry if it seemed that way to you.
And blackflag even if you could produce a 100% efficient device you could never actually drive anything off of it as it would take energy out of the closed system. The ideas about getting energy from zero point is whats known as metaphysics. This is when people try to imagine physics that is either not possible to prove or suggest possible furture directions for research. We don't know EVERYTHING about how existance works but we do know simple stuff like if you hit your head against a brick wall no amount of quantum tunneling is going to stop you from knocking yourself out! I haven't flamed you at all until up to this point but feel free to try and prove me wrong by taking an infinite sample. "Conversation" physics is great for philisophical debates but often it isn't worth stating it as 100% fact. Try not to take everything you are told as fact. Often people will say it to impress you or to start a conversation knowing that it isn't REALLY true. Often this is because the truth is extremely complicated to explain. I know i often have to bend the truth to try and explain complicated scientific concepts to my parents.
EDIT: Standard Deviations are used to show certaintys where an infinite number of samples are required in most cases. Most people hate doing them but its a good way of going about it.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 20 2002,16:51
That we might some day be able to harness 'zero point energy' is conjecture. The rest of it is no more conjecture than anything else in the realm of physics.Yes it is a nice idea, acutally it is being experimented on, and i guess it is pretty worthless to those who wouldn't like to have a car than never needs to be re-fueled.
Btw, could you be so kind as to tell me what colledge you attend(ed)? I'm thinking of furthering my education, and don't want to go where you went.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 20 2002,16:55
I know you didn't mean anything by it and that you're actually trying to have a rational discussion here. That's all good. You've treated me as nothing less than intelligent, ever, and I didn't mean to give you the impression that I thought different or was implying you don't know what you're talking about.As for 'conversion' physics... it's a bunch of interesting stuff to sit around and talk about, sure. It means fuck all in a lab though, because you can never build a 100% efficient closed system, and if you did you could never use it to power anything. So sitting here doing mental jumping jacks kills time while I'm at work and all, but there are no real world applications for any of this.
Glad to see you and I both understand *that* part.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 20 2002,17:28
| Quote |
| And blackflag even if you could produce a 100% efficient device you could never actually drive anything off of it as it would take energy out of the closed system. |
Thank you for telling me somthing i already know. While you're attempting to make me look stupid, could you try to quote me as saying something in support of a 100% efficient engine? No? Hmmm... i guess you must have seen someone else post something stupid and assumed it was me. I get that all the time.
Personaly, i throw garbage like black holes, string theories, imaginary time, and the first few theoretical trillionths of a second of the big bang into the 'metaphysics' heap. Zero point energy exists, can be measured, and its only a matter of time before someone figures out a way to use it.
And as much as you invite me to prove you wrong by doing the experimentation myself, i don't see you posting any proof that zero point energy can't be harnessed.
the argument you and kuru provide ammounts to the following:
"XYZ is wrong, because bleh bleh bleh [scientific facts], and i know cause i have a degree, and if you don't think so, try proving me wrong (which is both impossible and piontless).... HAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!!"
1. i didn't say XYZ, i said ABC.
2. pieces of paper, in and of themselves, do not denote understanding.
3. why is the burden of proof on me?
4. even if the burden of proof is on me to back up what im saying, someone else already did the work. if you were unaware of this, its not my goddamn fault they don't have PBS in whatever 3rd world country you're in.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 20 2002,19:02
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 20 Mar. 2002,06:14) |
| #2 Wiley: you think someone who sits in a cubicle staring at a computer screen all day is more connected to reality than me? |
um ...I have an office
...and actually four computer screens with real time news and market data running across them. I'm not saying that I am personally more connected to reality then you are (since I don't read most of the stuff) but I do have access to a lot more factually sound news then you do ...therefore the potential to be more connected to reality. My flame in more detail was targeted at your claim that nobody (save a few high ranking government spy types) has more information then you. I'm looking out over a floor of analysts who review news and public opinion all fucking day ...it's what they do ...professionally. They are pretty well connected people. If you were to walk up to any of them and say "hey, did you hear about ..." they would quote the source you heard it from and then hand you bound transcripts of every news show your topic of choice appeared on. Are you more connected then those guys?
I'm not against you or anybody else having an opinion. I just generally disagree with conspiracy theories because of lack of credible evidence. I don't believe second-hand information period! If you want to argue something, you have to remember that anything that is not a verifiable facts is hearsay.
example:
I believe in UFOs. This is due to a personal experience; I have no pictures and only one eyewitness who lacks credibility because we are in a relationship. I can tell you that I believe these things exist and describe what I saw personally, but I can never tell you for a fact that UFOs exist. I have no proof. I would agree that any argument to convince you of my beliefs would be feeble and make me look like a lunatic. I’m sure somebody would give me the same response that I gave to you when I say that I know more on the subject then they do but I just don’t have any proof.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 20 2002,19:45
Science does not prove negatives, BlackFlag.You made the assertations, you prove them.
Provide empirical data, full lab reports and research methodology. Let everybody here who has specialized in any science, engineering or research field have a crack at whatever concrete evidence you can provide that your theories are factual.
You don't get to say 'I assert that super efficient engines can be built and they can unless you guys prove me wrong.' Nope. You made the claim, you back it up.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 20 2002,21:14
Staring at a glass for "a zillion years" isn't an experiment.
Posted by Necromancer on Mar. 21 2002,03:14
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 20 Mar. 2002,17:28) |
| Thank you for telling me somthing i already know. While you're attempting to make me look stupid, could you try to quote me as saying something in support of a 100% efficient engine? No? Hmmm... i guess you must have seen someone else post something stupid and assumed it was me. I get that all the time. Personaly, i throw garbage like black holes, string theories, imaginary time, and the first few theoretical trillionths of a second of the big bang into the 'metaphysics' heap. Zero point energy exists, can be measured, and its only a matter of time before someone figures out a way to use it. And as much as you invite me to prove you wrong by doing the experimentation myself, i don't see you posting any proof that zero point energy can't be harnessed. the argument you and kuru provide ammounts to the following: "XYZ is wrong, because bleh bleh bleh [scientific facts], and i know cause i have a degree, and if you don't think so, try proving me wrong (which is both impossible and piontless).... HAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!!" |
I am trying to prove you wrong but not in a "HAHA i'm better than you" way just a "take it with a pich of salt way" the 100% efficent thing was just an example. You have constantly tried to show your worth here by stating you know something that marks you above the rest blackflag i havent condemened you for it for along time in a hope that you saw what you were doing but you have to realise at some point that experiment is what proves a theory to be law. i may not have read all your posts 100% accurately but the general jist is that you want to believe that experiment is just wrong because we havent sat around for eternity. well seeing as we arent going to sit around that long whats the point in trying to base expreiment soley on that hypothesis. All i'm asking is that you try to distinguish between what has been proven within in all error corrections and not that that has been concieved to fit some idea in a scientists head that popped in there after a nights heavy drug session. Black holes have almost beyond all reasonable doubt been proven although the theory behind them is not exatcly understood but again don't take that as me trying to again put you in your plce but to just tie up loose ends that i find nagging at the back of my conscience.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 21 2002,08:46
the level of intelligence in this thread has actually risen!one of these days, blackflag, you will be a top-notch debater. you play devil's advocate well. on the other hand, taking on Science is foolish. the scientific method give us the best method we know of to separate truth from bullshit - you beat all hell out of an idea through experimentation. you basically play devil's advocate with it and try and make it fail. if you can't, your hypothesis becomes a theory, and then a lot MORE people try and kick the idea's ass. if, after a lot of hard work and some really good thinking, the idea still survives, then it becomes a law.
laws can be proven wrong, of course. zero point energy may be possible. there may be exceptions to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which case the laws of thermodynamics will have to be reformulated.
BUT - we have yet to find a single violation of the 2nd law. that means that regardless of any flaw in the model, finding and exploiting it is going to be ridiculously fucking difficult.
by the way... Edison was a dickhead. He did everything he could to screw Tesla, including frying monkeys with AC and lobbying to make it illegal. However, Tesla won in the end, simply because AC is a *much* better method of transmitting electricity.
/me looks forward to the day when Unix 0wns us all
Posted by kuru on Mar. 21 2002,13:45
Neither Edison nor Tesla are completely innocent in that regard: Tesla killed cows to prove that DC power was dangerous.They were both trying to screw each other over to be the one who set the standard on this new invention that would revolutionize the world.
As it turned out, electricity could always kill, and DC power was much much more difficult to transmit over distance and to generate in mass quantity. Edison lost out on that, but secured his place in history by producing the light bulb, light socket, light switch, and various other inventions.
Tesla was later involved in the semi-legendary Philadelphia Experiment. He was a genius to the point of insanity, inventing such things as 'Death Rays', 'flying discs' and 'time travel', Tesla patented damn near everything. He was a loner and a genius, having patented radio before Marconi did. In 1943 the US stripped Marconi's patent, stating that Tesla had legally registered it years earlier. Tesla had also worked for Thomas Edison, he outlived Edison and was eventually awarded the Edison medal. He was a Serbian-American who helped George Westinghouse begin his empire in Pittsburgh.
Nikola Tesla died in 1943, a recluse doing research. A 30 foot obelisk in Monroeville serves as his memorial.
Just a bit of background info.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 21 2002,14:54
Necromancer: I never said i think a 100% efficient engine is possible. I don't. What im arguing is the feasibility of certain alternative energy technologies.Black holes are FAR from proven. Note: I do beleive that there must exist objects in our universe massive enough that their surface escape velocity would be greater than or equall to the speed of light, but i don't believe matter can collapse into a singularity. Think about it.... how does gravity act over intervals less than plank's length, wich though small, is supbstantially bigger than 'infinately small'? Nothing can exist in arbitrary amounts, not time, space, matter, or energy. (im not a big fan of QM and the granularity of time/space it predicts, but the predictions it makes that we can test work out....)
DSL: Finding a way to use the energy of virtual particles that are constantly popping in and out of existance at every point in space wouldn't violate any of the laws of physics....... whether or not the very existance of these virtual particles violates some law is open to debate.
The explination i read about for this was called 'symetry breaking', wich has to do with mass/energy interactions that partialy/temporarily break the conventional laws of physics (such as quantum tunneling.) The law of conservation of energy is broken when the virtual particle pair is created, and then re-established when the particle pair self-anihlates. Im far from being an expert on this, but the concept of 'symetry breaking' is apparently used alot in modern sub-atomic nuclear physics.
Regarding thermodynamics: thermodynamics is a statistical model that predicts certain extermely unlikely circumstances where its own laws could be violated. Since the possibility of these situations are >0 they must and will happen if given enough time. They do not dissprove the theory, because 1. the theory predicts them 2. if you look at a larger sample area, the laws hold, since larger scale thermodynamic violations are too improbable to ever happen.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 21 2002,15:37
We conclude that black holes exist because there is evidence of masses in space so gravitationally dense that not even photons can escape their pull. This is most evident when such a body is located near a light emitting body, as we see a photon 'trail' leaving the light emitting body and disappearing into blackness.
Currently we cannot send a spacecraft to one of these areas; however, the best evidence astronomy has to offer suggests their existence.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 22 2002,18:18
I beleive that there must exist in this universe bodies massive enough that their escape velosity is greater than c (black holes). This idea has alot of supporting evidence. What I don't believe is that they have singularities at their center.
Posted by just_dave on Mar. 22 2002,19:26
The Z-Pinch Machine .. anyone heard of it.... <my dribble about how it worked, that was slightly wrong in the theory>My bad, my numbers were way off.... but here is an article on it.... my numbers said "18 MegAmps and 150 TerraWatts" this article says they could get up to 1000 Terrawatts..
< Z Pinch Artice in Scientific America >
-dave
PS. The numbers or theory may not be totally correct, I didnt get to read the full article before the book was gone, I still can't find it
Posted by incubus on Mar. 23 2002,00:30
BF: Have you read "A Brief History of Time"?Think about it. Neutron stars collapse to small volumes but occupy great mass due to electron depletion et al.
What you've contradicted yourself with is that a singularity is where the laws of physics break down because the environment is so extreme.
Just my 2 euros
I'd be interested to see what CK has to input . . .
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 23 2002,04:31
thats how much radiation power they were able to get out of that deuterium reaction, not the amound of power they got from the fusion. later in the article it says that the reacton was 0.1% effiicient (thermal).| Quote |
| but the inherent inefficiency of the laser process prevents such devices from achieving any higher efficiencies |
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 23 2002,17:23
incubus: correct, a singularity is in theory, a point in space where theory breaks down, so it would be kind of fucking stupid (or maybe just pointless) for me to say i don't beleive singularities can exist because they violate some law or other.What im saying is i don't beleive there's any way such a point can form. I'll say it again: how does gravity act over intervals less than plank's length to cause the gravitational collapse to terminate in a singularity?
Singularities are what happens when two deuling theories are both needed to describe a single event(QM and Einstein's gravity), and the egg-head doing the math is having an acid flashback.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 23 2002,20:37
heh you might like this blackflag< http://www.cosmiverse.com/space01170204.html >
Posted by blackdoris on Mar. 24 2002,10:22
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 09 Mar. 2002,22:31) |
| Name a buisness bigger than petrolium. |
America...the most terrifying corporation in existance.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 24 2002,10:27
you're right. i liked it. thanks CK.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on Mar. 24 2002,18:01
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 09 Mar. 2002,22:31) |
| Name a buisness bigger than petrolium. |
Wal-Mart. US Military. same difference.
Posted by Jynx on Mar. 25 2002,17:55
| Quote (blackdoris @ 24 Mar. 2002,02:22) |
| America...the most terrifying corporation in existance. |
Oh, goody, another America-basher!
I can't articulate how much I love living in a place that is the subject of so much collective envy. We might wanna continue this discussion....in another thread.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 27 2002,16:38
why do all these america haters come here from where ever, to critisize the country they would never leave, in favor of a country they would never return to?
Posted by kuru on Mar. 27 2002,16:44
And people called me crazy when I said Political Correctness was evil.It makes no sense, yet there it is.
The 'I fled my country under fear of death to get to America so I could protest about how great my country is and how much America sucks while hoping and praying that I never have to leave America and go back to my country' after school special.
Posted by Jynx on Mar. 27 2002,22:04
| Quote (kuru @ 27 Mar. 2002,08:44) |
| And people called me crazy when I said Political Correctness was evil. |
I'd never call ya crazy for saying that, babe.
I'd wait until you started agreeing with BF to call you crazy.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 27 2002,22:23
Once, or on a regular basis?Even BF could say something intelligent once or twice in his life - if only by accident.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 28 2002,08:52
hey, i've said plenty of intelligent things in this thread alone. 
Posted by veistran on Mar. 28 2002,16:34
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 23 Mar. 2002,11:23) |
| incubus: correct, a singularity is in theory, a point in space where theory breaks down, so it would be kind of fucking stupid (or maybe just pointless) for me to say i don't beleive singularities can exist because they violate some law or other. What im saying is i don't beleive there's any way such a point can form. I'll say it again: how does gravity act over intervals less than plank's length to cause the gravitational collapse to terminate in a singularity? Singularities are what happens when two deuling theories are both needed to describe a single event(QM and Einstein's gravity), and the egg-head doing the math is having an acid flashback. |
It's pretty simple a singularity is just what happens when you have more electrons (more gravity) than energy to push electrons apart. It's kind of like water tension in a way.
Posted by veistran on Mar. 28 2002,16:41
| Quote (kuru @ 27 Mar. 2002,10:44) |
| And people called me crazy when I said Political Correctness was evil. It makes no sense, yet there it is. The 'I fled my country under fear of death to get to America so I could protest about how great my country is and how much America sucks while hoping and praying that I never have to leave America and go back to my country' after school special. |
I'm bad... anyway, reminds me of this other board I frequent that about 5 serbian refugees that all live in Canada also post on. I wouldn't doubt that any of them are not over the age 13. More to the point almost every chance they get they bitch about how much better life was in Serbia than it is in Canada, do Canada/America bashing, etc and whenever they're asked when they plan on going back to Serbia they clam up and go into hiding. It's pretty pathetic since basically everyone knows there's a snowballs chance iin hell of them actually going back to Serbia unless forced to.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 28 2002,18:50
| Quote |
| It's pretty simple a singularity is just what happens when you have more electrons (more gravity) than energy to push electrons apart. It's kind of like water tension in a way. |
...wich would work fine if you completely ignored the sub-atomic forces and treated all matter as point particles.
We don't even know what the most fundamental building block of matter is exactly, let alone what force holds it toghter, and how this force would react under extreme conditions.
If there is too much gravity in a star for the atoms to keep their structure, a neutron star forms. If more mass is added, protons collapse..... but does that mean that there is no other force that could keep the quarks (and furthermore, whatever the quarks are made up of) from destabilizing into pure gravitational energy? We barely understand sub-atomic physics, so what the fuck makes us experts on sub-sub-atomic physics?!
These same all-holy all-knowing physics gods that made the math that made the computer revolution possible sit around and contemplate whether god plays dice with the universe, wonder if a dead cat in a box is dead or not if you haven't looked at it, invent anthropic principals to shield their fragile minds from the weight of their own ignorance, pontificate about things they fucking admit themselves that they can't possibly know, and invent rediculous physics jargon catch-prases like "god abhores a naked singularity". What the fuck?!
2 clues you should have noticed to let you know that i have at least some idea of what im talking about here (unlike you):
1- Kuru, a colledge educated engineer, hardly knew what i was talking about, and proceded to STFU after a few posts on this subject.
2- CK, self proclaimed "leet physicist", hasn't dissagreed with me, and if i understand correctly the signifigance of him posting that link, he may even agree with me.
Posted by Jynx on Mar. 28 2002,19:11
Kuru: on a regular basis BF: Where are these intelligent things you're posting? I see you swallowing wild conspiracy theories whole and slamming physicists for the benefit of your own ego, but nothing that I'd really consider to be very intelligent.
There's this wild possibility that kuru, instead of being routed by your astounding intelligence, has become bored with the thread, and that's why she hasn't replied. There's this other wild possibility that I'm gonna put more stock in folks who have been studying this for years on end as a full-time job over someone who just picked up a "Physics For Dummies" and is trying to prove his manhood on this forum.
I dunno about you, but I think I'll gamble on the wild possibilities.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 28 2002,20:38
Actually, BlackFlag, you know so little about the subject matter of your posts that were I to actually put energy into refuting every single sentence you have uttered, I would in effect have written a textbook on Physics by the time my posts concluded.The reality isn't that you actually have something intelligent to say. It's that the utter and complete lack of intelligence I have seen you display leaves me with two options. I can start at the absolute beginning and explain the concepts of Physics to you, or I can ignore every incorrect thing that you've posted. The latter option is much more appealing since it requires a lot less time and frustration from me.
So, I've been ignoring the stupid things you've posted. That hasn't left me much of anything to respond to.
Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 28 2002,22:15
besides a few small errors you are fine. when a star of atleast 3 steller masses supernova's, what's left at first is a white dwarf. in a white dwarf, electron degeneracy prevents further collapse. however, since the mass of the star is even greater, the electrons are forced from ground state into the nucleus. when they collide, they turn protons into neutrons. neutrons are held together by the strong nuclear force at the density of an atom. so basically you have this big clumb of neutrons. a black hole occurs when the mass of the neutron star is high enough that light is bent all the way around the star. as for this new black hole theory, it seems fairly promising although i don't really know either way which theory is more probable of being true.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 29 2002,21:55
Kuru: or you can take option 3, wich is to restate how much more you know about the subject than me (without actually demonstrating that) since you have a colledge education.You and half of the other people who found it nessicary to post replies to the physics disscussion this turned into think you're clever as shit cause you can quote shit you read in "A Breif History of Time" or "Black Holes and Baby Universes". I was reading "Inside the Atom" by Isaic Asmov (hardcore nuclear physics meant for colledge students) at age 10, not to mention a few hundred other similar books i've devoured over the years. There have been a few times i've posted shit here where i only half knew what i was talking about. This is not one of those times.
Engineering and cosmology are two vastly fucking differnt things. You have no fucking clue what is being discussed here, and what's worse, you won't admit it.
You have demonstrated without any doubt that you have no understanding of the ideas being discussed here, and i doubt your mathamatical repitoir is up to par for dealing with 4-dimentional analytical geometry any more than mine is.
I'm not saying im an expert, and im not saying i know more about this than anyone else here. What im saying is i know more about this than you do, so shut the fuck up.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 29 2002,22:20
CK: Yeah, i oversimplified my statement of what happens. didn't feel it was worth going into the Pauli exclusion principle (wich i understand mostly) when that wasn't what i was talking about anyway. Here's what i remember of it:
As the nuclei in the star are drawn closer together under the force of gravity, there is less space between them for electrons to occupy. Pauli's exclusion principle states that 2 particles cannot occupy the same space and the same state at the same time, so the electrons have to travel faster and faster to avoid violating the exlusion principle. As the star collapses further, a threshold is reached where the electrons would have to travel faster than light to avoid violating the exclusion principle, which is impossible, so they have no choice but to combine with the protons (which if i remember correctly produces neutron+positron+radiation).
everything after the formation of the neutron star is pure metaphysical garbage.
If you keep in mind that the strong&weak nuclear forces are much stronger on a small scale than gravity, that the fundimental building blocks of matter are probably much much smaller than anything we can currently observe in a labritory, and that space-time is in a constant state of violent flux on a nanoscopic scale, jumping from neutron star to singularity with the addition of a few solar masses is premature at best, and irresponsible pseudo-science at worst.
EDIT: A balck hole is by deffinition any object whose surface escape velocity is higher than c. Such objects can and must exist as a consequence of what we currently know about gravity, and what we see in the observable universe.
I do not however believe that a singularity can form through the popularly cited method, or in any other way.
Keep in mind that Stephen Hawking, the man that gave black holes much of their credibility by proving that they don't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (and made a name for himself in the process), is now trying to prove that black holes can't exist.
2nd EDIT: (SP)
Posted by Dysorderia on Mar. 30 2002,06:10
| Quote (Jynx @ 25 Mar. 2002,12:55) | ||
Oh, goody, another America-basher! I can't articulate how much I love living in a place that is the subject of so much collective envy. We might wanna continue this discussion....in another thread. |
i don't think that BD is bashing america per se, more likely they are bashing corporate america.
Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Apr. 01 2002,01:46
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 29 Mar. 2002,22:20) |
| Keep in mind that Stephen Hawking, the man that gave black holes much of their credibility by proving that they don't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (and made a name for himself in the process), is now trying to prove that black holes can't exist. 2nd EDIT: (SP) |
curse that progress thing eh?
Posted by Dysorderia on Apr. 01 2002,03:26
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 29 Mar. 2002,16:55) |
| Kuru: or you can take option 3, wich is to restate how much more you know about the subject than me (without actually demonstrating that) since you have a colledge education. You and half of the other people who found it nessicary to post replies to the physics disscussion this turned into think you're clever as shit cause you can quote shit you read in "A Breif History of Time" or "Black Holes and Baby Universes". I was reading "Inside the Atom" by Isaic Asmov (hardcore nuclear physics meant for colledge students) at age 10, not to mention a few hundred other similar books i've devoured over the years. There have been a few times i've posted shit here where i only half knew what i was talking about. This is not one of those times. Engineering and cosmology are two vastly fucking differnt things. You have no fucking clue what is being discussed here, and what's worse, you won't admit it. You have demonstrated without any doubt that you have no understanding of the ideas being discussed here, and i doubt your mathamatical repitoir is up to par for dealing with 4-dimentional analytical geometry any more than mine is. I'm not saying im an expert, and im not saying i know more about this than anyone else here. What im saying is i know more about this than you do, so shut the fuck up. |
gee, aren't we a little self-absorbed bitch with a 'holier than thou' streak?
Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 01 2002,19:06
i got a 96 on my quantum test the average was 73
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 02 2002,09:46
| Quote |
| gee, aren't we a little self-absorbed bitch with a 'holier than thou' streak? |
I'm sorry, were you talking about me or kuru?
Put up or shut up seems to be the creedo around here. Kuru hasn't said a single thing on the subject of physics in this thread that she couldn't have learned from an eppisode of Bill Nye the Science Guy, but she wants to imply/flat-out-say that im ignorant in this subject matter. Fuck her in her no cosmology understanding ass with a jagged telephone pole.
Posted by kbreak on Apr. 02 2002,09:56
Noo-klear physics, scientists and detnet. No wonder you hate 7-11!That must be frustrating.
I was confused about Dys's post as well, and I'm *still* not sure who he meant.
He may have been quite clever.
Posted by kbreak on Apr. 02 2002,09:59
You're first version was more succinct.This one is meaner. You read more old posts, didn't you?
Ever notice that Kuru hasn't been around for several days?
She rarely passes up a fight; wonder what's up.
Posted by editor on Apr. 02 2002,12:23
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 02 April 2002,00:46) | ||
I'm sorry, were you talking about me or kuru? Put up or shut up seems to be the creedo around here. Kuru hasn't said a single thing on the subject of physics in this thread that she couldn't have learned from an eppisode of Bill Nye the Science Guy, but she wants to imply/flat-out-say that im ignorant in this subject matter. Fuck her in her no cosmology understanding ass with a jagged telephone pole. |
wow.
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 02 2002,14:22
| Quote (kbreak @ 02 April 2002,03:59) |
| You're first version was more succinct. This one is meaner. You read more old posts, didn't you? Ever notice that Kuru hasn't been around for several days? She rarely passes up a fight; wonder what's up. |
Sick of the crap that runs rampant here?
Found someone better to do?
Has changed jobs and is now a international bounty hunter/hit goddess?
There are so many reasons it could be.
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 03 2002,00:57
| Quote |
| I was confused about Dys's post as well, and I'm *still* not sure who he meant. |
Im pretty sure he meant me. My pretending not to know who he was talking about was sarcasm.
Posted by Dysorderia on Apr. 03 2002,02:26
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 02 April 2002,03:46) | ||
I'm sorry, were you talking about me or kuru? Put up or shut up seems to be the creedo around here. Kuru hasn't said a single thing on the subject of physics in this thread that she couldn't have learned from an eppisode of Bill Nye the Science Guy, but she wants to imply/flat-out-say that im ignorant in this subject matter. Fuck her in her no cosmology understanding ass with a jagged telephone pole. |
Are you retarded?
usually when i have someone's post quoted and i add a reply beneath it, i am talking to them.
god, what a stupid shit.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 03 2002,20:23
I haven't been around because I've been busy. Had some things to do that were better and more important than proving my knowledge of theoretical physics and mathematics to a guy who works at 7-11 and got his education out of the National Enquirer.BTW, it's spelled 'repertoire'.
As for BF trying to goad me into some pissing contest to prove that I understand theoretical physics, it's laughable. I'm not going to let a clown like that treat me like a puppet, nor am I going to explain everything I know so that he can take notes and pretend I'm wrong at the same time.
Posted by Wiley on Apr. 03 2002,21:14
| Quote (kuru @ 03 April 2002,11:23) |
| ...some pissing contest to prove that I understand theoretical physics... |
I don't understand theoretical physics at all ...but a pissing contest on the other hand is what I'm all about.
And heck ... the force of the bladder, the angle of the stream, the pull of gravity, the arc of the flow ...it's all pretty much physics and it's a much greater releif when your problem is finally solved.
....ahhhhhhh
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 03 2002,23:06
kuru: 2 choices-1. demonstrate that you know more about theoretical physics than i do.
2. STFU.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 03 2002,23:39
3. BlackFlag can suck my asshole.I like 3 the best.
Posted by Wolfguard on Apr. 04 2002,04:27
| Quote (Wiley @ 03 April 2002,15:14) |
| the force of the bladder, the angle of the stream, the pull of gravity, the arc of the flow ...it's all pretty much physics and it's a much greater releif when your problem is finally solved. ....ahhhhhhh |
dont for get bore size.
(smaller bore=higher pressure)=longer distance and duration.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 04 2002,13:03
Which is why only a very stupid man would ever get into a pissing *race* with a female. We can empty in a hurry.
Posted by veistran on Apr. 04 2002,18:34
| Quote (kuru @ 04 April 2002,06:03) |
| Which is why only a very stupid man would ever get into a pissing *race* with a female. We can empty in a hurry. |
well it probably helps that the distance from the bladder to the end of the urethra is considerably shorter on women...although that makes it a lot easier for you to get bladder infections too.
Posted by kuru on Apr. 04 2002,18:52
What helps more than that is that the pipe is of much larger diameter.And I've never had a UTI.
Posted by editor on Apr. 04 2002,19:38
ack!tmi
tmi
tmi...
Posted by BlackFlag on Apr. 04 2002,20:19
| Quote |
| Which is why only a very stupid man would ever get into a pissing *race* with a female. We can empty in a hurry. |
so why the fuck do women take so god damn long in the bathroom?!
Posted by kuru on Apr. 04 2002,21:52
Because it's a 'high overhead' event for many women.The actual act of pissing itself is relatively short lived; however most women have many other time consuming attributes that increase the total pit stop time.
Consider for example that the average woman (not kuru) dressed to go out is wearing a dress, pantyhose, heels, makeup, lipstick, hair spray, and jewelry.
Consider also that she has at least one and more often many female companions also with her on the outing.
The following bathroom scenario unfolds:
Enter restroom. Look under doors for feet to find available stall. Check for toiletpaper. Hang purse on hook. Put paper seat cover on seat. Carefully lift dress and silde pantyhose down. Hold dress up, maintain seat cover position and squat above toilet. Expell urine. Hold dress up out of toilet while removing suitable toiletpaper from roll. Fold toilet paper. Wipe. Drop toilet paper in toilet. Carefully work pantyhose back up over ass and adjust while not letting dress fall into toilet. Put toilet seat cover into toilet. Flush. Obtain purse from hook. Exit stall and approach sink. Soap hands. Wash hands. Rinse hands. Use mirror to check makeup. Make necessary repairs. Reapply Lipstick. Primp hair. Apply hairspray. Adjust necklace clasp. Converse with female companions at sink about who is wearing what and the current state of Mary Jane Rottencrotch's sex life. Fawn over each other. Insist someone else try this new designer perfume. Complain loudly about the lack of paper towels. Realize the men have probably been hovering outside the door for 15 minutes. Sigh in exasperated manner. Exit restroom.
This is the most common scenario I see in the bathroom.
Now I prefer the Go in. Sit down. Do business. Wipe. Stand. Flush. Wash. Exit. method.
Posted by veistran on Apr. 05 2002,06:25
it probably helps that men don't need stalls just to take a piss... stalls take up a lot more room than a urinal.
Posted by editor on Apr. 05 2002,06:39
I take great delight in peeing off the highest thing I can find. Record is 8 stories.I propose that Kuru's Manual of Female Liquid Elimination With Social Protocol be enshrined.... somewhere.