Jump to content

Nuclear vs Renewable


Cream Cheese

Nuclear vs Renewable  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hellbhoy said:

 I'm all for it if possible, don't say it isn't because it produces a specific isotope that is only found in nuclear fusion but they just do not understand properly why it produces said isotope.

When making scientific claims there is an order of precedence.

The consensus level of science you get from text books, 

Peer reviewed articles from established journals (Science, Nature, PNAS etc)

Peer reviewed articles from less established journals

Non peer reviewed scientific material such as conference presentations, discussions on experiments,

Popular science magazines and quality newspapers.

Nonsense from blogs and tabloid press. 

 

 

You are producing psuedoscience from blogs, the bottom rung. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

Nope, fusion merely converts 1 form of energy to another. Namely mass to heat/light. It's why the sun is hot and bright.

Ok. If energy can't be created. Then how do you explain the formation and continued expansion of the universe? Because going by your own theory, something would have to have existed before the universe in order to fuel it's birth and expansion. But that creates a paradox. Because in order for the initial fuel to exist in order to fuel the birth of the universe, something would have had to have existed in order to create the initial fuel. Then something before that, then something before that.... etc. You end up with a scenario where there is no beginning. But if there's no beginning, then where did the very first fuel source come from? It would require a beginning. But if  there's a beginning. Then the initial fuel/energy would need to have came from nothing, as there would have been nothing before it in order to convert it into whatever it became initially.

Edited by Cream Cheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dorlomin said:

 

 

1 minute ago, Cream Cheese said:

Ok. If energy can't be created. Then how do you explain the formation and continued expansion of the universe? Because going by your own theory, something would have to have existed before the universe in order to fuel it's birth and expansion. But that creates a paradox. Because in order for the initial fuel to exist in order to fuel the birth of the universe, something would have had to have existed in order to create the initial fuel. Then something before that, then something before that.... etc. You end up with a scenario where there is no beginning. But if there's no beginning, then where did the very first fuel source come from? It would require a beginning. But if  there's a beginning. Then the initial fuel/energy would need to have came from nothing, as there would have been nothing before it in order to convert it into whatever it became initially.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said:

Ok. If energy can't be created. Then how do you explain the formation and continued expansion of the universe? Because going by your own theory, something would have to have existed before the universe in order to fuel it's birth and expansion. But that creates a paradox.

revolutionary.png

 

For a start, just because you do not understand something does not mean there is any mystery. It usually means you have made zero effort to learn. 

Quote

Because in order for the initial fuel to exist in order to fuel the birth of the universe, something would have had to have existed in order to create the initial fuel.

All of the energy of the universe was compressed into a nearly infinitely hot, infinitely dense body,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology

there was some kind of quantum fluctuation that initiated the inflationary expansion of the universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

As the universe continued to expand and cool the energy cooled that it could become matter that we know

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

When making scientific claims there is an order of precedence.

The consensus level of science you get from text books, 

Peer reviewed articles from established journals (Science, Nature, PNAS etc)

Peer reviewed articles from less established journals

Non peer reviewed scientific material such as conference presentations, discussions on experiments,

Popular science magazines and quality newspapers.

Nonsense from blogs and tabloid press. 

 

 

You are producing psuedoscience from blogs, the bottom rung. 

:lol: You do realise that some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs came from mistakes don't you? Not everything works as the eggheads would like you to believe.

Someone somewhere is going to experiment with something and produce something that isn't in your science manifesto because you are told it is not possible from conventional science.

Possibly the best and closest to energy saving is super conductors and someone somewhere through trying something completely different might achieve this by mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hellbhoy said:

:lol: You do realise that some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs came from mistakes don't you? Not everything works as the eggheads would like you to believe.

 

Quote

The phrase "science was wrong before" (or variations thereof, such as "science has been wrong in the past", "science is only human", or "science is not infallible") is a technique used in order to reject scientific consensus, especially on evolution and global warming. It usually works like this:
“”Alice: A scientific consensus has built around theory X and it is supported by many lines of robust evidence.
Bob: Ah, but science has been wrong before.
The "science was wrong before" gambit is an example of both the continuum fallacy and the nirvana fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

 

Science was wrong before, but that does not mean whatever crank idea someone is pushing is equally valid to current consensus science. Science is a self correcting and constantly improving body of knowledge of processes that allows us to better understand our physical universe (and ourselves).

 

Appealing to mystery processes that are "alien" to scientific text books and journals but well known and wacko websites is not really defensible by variations of the tired old trope "but science was wrong before". 

 

When you can present reproducible evidence that has been submitted to quality peer reviewed journals, get back to us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before

 

Science was wrong before, but that does not mean whatever crank idea someone is pushing is equally valid to current consensus science. Science is a self correcting and constantly improving body of knowledge of processes that allows us to better understand our physical universe (and ourselves).

 

Appealing to mystery processes that are "alien" to scientific text books and journals but well known and wacko websites is not really defensible by variations of the tired old trope "but science was wrong before". 

 

When you can present reproducible evidence that has been submitted to quality peer reviewed journals, get back to us. 

OK, fair enough you have what I deem as a mainstream scientific knowledge base and disregard most other science or as you would call it wacky science with no peer appreciation.

The two things I had contributed have financial backing from major corporations, that is a fact. Just because it does not reach a wee journal where some fuds run around back slapping each other in self appreciating circles doesn't mean it is not being researched into as we speak.

Have your moment posting from the self appreciating society but the real science is taking place in other places that are not Universities or fuds sitting for years working on the probability theory based on conventional science. Science happens and as you kindly posted you are defending what in theory may prove to be a useless technology in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

Lads, wait til you hear about zero point quantum vacuum energy, you have a fucking field day!

I already covered it. :P

1 hour ago, hellbhoy said:

Erm?, OK. 911 truthers & conspiracy theories are us ffs? :lol:

I'm all for alternative energy sources and put two of them forward. One is but near complete science fiction "cold fusion" and if mastered will render all other power generation obsolete. I'm all for it if possible, don't say it isn't because it produces a specific isotope that is only found in nuclear fusion but they just do not understand properly why it produces said isotope.

The Chinese have invested hundreds of millions into the other power generation I quoted, so they are taking it very seriously as a viable option, whether or not they succeed is another matter.

If only we had ZPM's Doctor MacKay.

^^^ Zero point module as from "Stargate Atlantis" aKa a ZPM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dorlomin said:

For a start, just because you do not understand something does not mean there is any mystery. It usually means you have made zero effort to learn. 

All of the energy of the universe was compressed into a nearly infinitely hot, infinitely dense body,

FFS, I already know all of this. It's common knowledge but still doesn't address my post. Where did the "infinitely hot, infinitely dense body" come from? You said energy can't be created, it can only be converted. So what was it before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? It had to have come from nothing at some point. Unless of course you're suggesting that time itself is infinite. But if that was the case, time would be immeasurable, as you can't measure a piece of infinity, as the piece itself would also be infinite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS, I already know all of this. It's common knowledge but still doesn't address my post. Where did the "infinitely hot, infinitely dense body" come from? You said energy can't be created, it can only be converted. So what was it before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? It had to have come from nothing at some point. Unless of course you're suggesting that time itself is infinite. But if that was the case, time would be immeasurable, as you can't measure a piece of infinity, as the piece itself would also be infinite.




You're misunderstanding the nature of time. Time only exists at the big bang, there is no before. The common analogy is you can't go north at the North pole, it's meaningless. Also not understanding infinitely hot and dense. There is no "body" to be measured. Science cannot and never will replicate conditions at the big bang therefore can't measure, observe and replicate experimentally. Beat we can do is theorize and even then as known physics breaks down at that level is little more than guesswork. You're looking for answers that have no meaning in science and science doesn't seek to give. You want philosophy/religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DublinMagyar said:

 

 


You're misunderstanding the nature of time. Time only exists at the big bang, there is no before. The common analogy is you can't go north at the North pole, it's meaningless. Also not understanding infinitely hot and dense. There is no "body" to be measured. Science cannot and never will replicate conditions at the big bang therefore can't measure, observe and replicate experimentally. Beat we can do is theorize and even then as known physics breaks down at that level is little more than guesswork. You're looking for answers that have no meaning in science and science doesn't seek to give. You want philosophy/religion.

 

 

I don't misunderstand the nature of time at all. The theory that energy cannot be created shows a gross misunderstanding of time. Because if time does have a beginning, then so does the source of energy. To say that scientists will never be able to replicate the conditions of the big bang is wrong. They're already replicating miniature black holes through particle acceleration. Who knows what they will be capable of in the future.

Again, the responses i'm receiving still don't address the point that i'm making. It's just ducking and swerving, because it doesn't suit your theory of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, to replicate (not approximate) the big bang, would require the entire energy of the universe, known and unknown. If a scientist or machine existed to observe this then the entire energy of the universe is not being used and the experiment is pointless. It's fundamentally not possible. Science accepts its limitations, you're still looking for answers only philosophy can give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's not MY theory of energy. All energy in the universe now , existed at the big bang, there is no creation of energy between that point and now. "Before" that point is meaningless in science and cannot be answered by it. You want philosophy.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cream Cheese said:

Unless of course you're suggesting that time itself is infinite. But if that was the case, time would be immeasurable, as you can't measure a piece of infinity, as the piece itself would also be infinite.

The set of whole numbers is infinite, you have just proposed you cannot count to two because it is part of an infinite set. This is something primary school children are taught, getting that wrong suggests we have little to learn from you on the nature of deep cosmological problems until you have put a bit more effort it to read and learn. 

 

Quote

Where did the "infinitely hot, infinitely dense body" come from

It is my understanding of current theories that the universe is assumed to be infinite and eternal. But it existed as a singularity. All of our visible universe was constrained into a "space" the size of a proton, but this was a tiny fraction of the singularity that itself was infinite in size. Some kind of quantum fluctuation happened and this kicked off inflation, not just in the visible universe but a huge area and perhaps all of the singularity. As inflation started gravity came into being as a repulsive force that pushed the singularity out into a much larger space, when there was enough space the cooling universe allowed the 3 unified forces to break apart into the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces. Eventually after about 300 000 years the expanding universe cooled enough that the light was no longer being absorbed by ions and could flow freely for the first time, this is the "surface of first scattering" or the moment we see light for the first time, this was increadibly hot when it happend by the universe has expanded so much and cooled so much we now see this as a 3K background radiation. 

I am talking in analogies here rather than the language of real science, maths. So analogies are imperfect my understanding lacking and the subject a complex one to reduce down to a quick lunch break comment. 

Why dont you go and read up on it, and come back to us with what you have learnt. "If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants": find some giant shoulders to stand on :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could argue with that a little as the energy was already contained within the atom in the first place, it just needed the boost to release it.

It's not an argument. It's a fact. Generators producing 'free' electricity :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dorlomin said:

The set of whole numbers is infinite, you have just proposed you cannot count to two because it is part of an infinite set. This is something primary school children are taught, getting that wrong suggests we have little to learn from you on the nature of deep cosmological problems until you have put a bit more effort it to read and learn. 

Counting isn't measuring. It is merely words. If I ask you to measure out 5% of infinity, what do you return with?

2 hours ago, dorlomin said:

It is my understanding of current theories that the universe is assumed to be infinite and eternal. But it existed as a singularity. All of our visible universe was constrained into a "space" the size of a proton, but this was a tiny fraction of the singularity that itself was infinite in size. Some kind of quantum fluctuation happened and this kicked off inflation, not just in the visible universe but a huge area and perhaps all of the singularity. As inflation started gravity came into being as a repulsive force that pushed the singularity out into a much larger space, when there was enough space the cooling universe allowed the 3 unified forces to break apart into the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces. Eventually after about 300 000 years the expanding universe cooled enough that the light was no longer being absorbed by ions and could flow freely for the first time, this is the "surface of first scattering" or the moment we see light for the first time, this was increadibly hot when it happend by the universe has expanded so much and cooled so much we now see this as a 3K background radiation. 

I am talking in analogies here rather than the language of real science, maths. So analogies are imperfect my understanding lacking and the subject a complex one to reduce down to a quick lunch break comment. 

Why dont you go and read up on it, and come back to us with what you have learnt. "If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants": find some giant shoulders to stand on :)

So you admit that it is all theoretical then? So why can't you accept that your idea of energy is equally as theoretical? Because the reality is, you have no idea how the first source of energy came to be. It is purely theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...