Page 1 of 7

The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 4:47 pm
by Richard Hull
Has anyone in mind any form of energy that can be demonstrated that is not tracable back to fusion energy? That is, stellar byproduct potential or dynamic!

As I have mentioned before, the dynamic energy (EM radiation) is just a local link (planetary) for activation, on the macro scale, of bulk matter. However the bulk of the EM radiation from stars is NOT absorbed locally and is sort of a differed energy used to re-energize inter-stellar and inter-galactic gases by recocking the coulombic PE guns of the condensed matter (knocking off orbital electrons). Light quanta that is too weak to ionize can still set in motion hydrogen molecules or change extant motion. (mixing and stirring). So as light has its energy robbed and frequency dropped, it just goes back into potential energy in the form of coulombic separation of charges to kinematic energy via momentum transfers. These all play back into the hands of the gravitational PE looking to assemble large stellar engines.

All the above is relatively obvious when one considers that there is virtually zero gamma radiation in cosmic rays. All those stellar generated X-rays and gamma rays have be stepped down. All we see is about 96-98% of the cosmic being real fast protons with the remainder being almost entirely helium nuclei.

Back to the original query..........

Imagine.... I give a brick PE by picking it up off the ground and carrying it upstairs to act as a poor man's book end. It, having ponderable inertial mass, has been elevated in a G field. The energy to do this came from me, via my food, via photosynthesis, via solar radiation, via fusion which is only possible by the great PE of gravity.

U-238 naturally self fissions or can be made to fission faster with fast neutron bombardment. Again we are just unlocking the PE from the U atoms that were fused into the large atom at athe time of its creation in a solar furnace or supernova potent enough to fuse such atoms. Still it was fusion that allowed fission to occur. We just pulled the trigger of the cocked gun.

Gravity and coulombic force the great universal sources of all energy we see and need for survival and comprhending our own existence. All of this is POTENTIAL ENERGY continuously and unavoidably dancing to the simplest of basic laws. Dyanmic energy in the form of EM photonic radiation and kinematic motion of ponderable masses are the result of the interplay of these two radically different PE forms. The only great, closed loop, virtual perpetual motion machine in existance.


Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:01 pm
by guest
quantum strings, gravity, probably some other alternate matter states left over from the big bang.

All of the above are capable of imparting energy, and have little to do with stellar fusion.

Gravity I'm listing just because no one has a halfway proveable theory for how it works (much less exists). For all we know its a by-product of leakage from another dimension, with the density / mass of an object in space causing the seepage.

Or maybe, just maybe... somewhere in the universe.. a galactic game of advanced d&d is being played.. and someone just cast +3 heavy on the universe.

(mtrusty, at work)

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:12 pm
by Richard Hull
Gravity IS stellar fusion. Fusion occurs on the sun for no other reason. Strings have never ever been demonstrated or used in a practical implementation or workable engine.

Gravity is PE and not dynamic energy just as the Coulombic force is PE and not dynamic energy All dynamic energy is created by these to potential energy forces.

String theory is just a mathematical musing without absolute, unequivocal, linkages to reality.

The whole point of my post was that there is only two forms of real nascent energy in the universe and they are both static and potential in nature.

All of the energy we use on earth is traceable to gravitational (fusion energy) or Coulombic (electrical) reactions.

There is no nascent dynamic energy in the universe.

All action, reaction and interaction are due to two grossly diverent and unrelated static potential energy forms.

Ricahrd Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:15 pm
by Frank Sanns
And the answer is:

Quantum fluctuations. Matter from seemingly nothingness.

Now that is the energy to harness!

Frank S.

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:04 pm
by guest
Richard Hull wrote:
> Gravity IS stellar fusion. Fusion occurs on the sun for no other reason. Strings have never ever been demonstrated or used in a practical implementation or workable engine.

Unless your eyesite is significantly greater than mine, you cannot prove that the universe itself is even a closed system. You've dismissed quantum strings because they are unobservable, yet you presume that the universe is a closed system without any energy passing either into or out of it.

My primative understanding is that for the universe to be a closed system, there has to be an equal amount of anti-matter/energy lurking around somewhere to balance the system out. If so, where is it? Why does it unobservability render it worthy of presumed existance but quantum strings do not?

You missed my original point. The mechanics of gravity are total unknowns. Great, current physics likes to pretend its PE. What of it? Your trying to convince yourself to be narrowminded. Electrons we have a fairly solid grasp on the function of. To me, this is in the same class as pulling the trigger on a pistol and expecting it to eject a pretty brass case each time. We might understand that it produced a brass casing (but eventually wont), but sure as hell have missed the actual point behind the handgun.

Or maybe I'm getting ahead of myself in thinking we should be figuring out how something works, before deciding it and a brother are the exclusive types.

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:35 pm
by Verp
The cosmos might be a corner of an infinite universe and came about by the quantum fluctuations in that said infinite universe because in an infinite universe, anything is possible, but quantum fluctuations as an energy source are too reminiscent of past ideas for perpetual motion machines. I would be delighted if someone proved me wrong, but I’m not going to risk large sums of money in less I get some more solid evidence quantum fluctuations are a viable energy source.

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:09 pm
by Richard Hull
Energy out of the void is an equal to zero point energy is equal to imagined, unobserved occurances.

Reason, logic, observation and experiment can only carry us so far. This is a given. Good realistic science should end there. Thanks to active imaginations and complex machinations, however this logical limit is merely the jumping off point for the new priesthood and the self-annointed to cast the bones for the mere mechanistically limited and tell us how it really is.

Beyond the demonstrable there is only speculation and dreamland.

We cannot observe everything in the universe no matter how much we think we have seen it all.

Only a few short years ago the big bang, energy- mass balance discrpencies and continual smooth expanding universe were virtual givens. The Bondi-Hoyle continuous creation universe of the 50's was a sad joke that was all but a memory.

We make a few more new and wonderful "observations" and now the universe is accelerating outward for no reason. We got it wrong before and we probably still have it wrong on the universal scale. We haven't got a clue as we are too busy troweling over cracks in bad plaster.

Nothing has disproved the laws of thermodynamics or of simple balancing of energy in and out in real comprehensible experiments. I'll stick with these good tools before I would go off on the new track of quantum strings, flavored and charmed quarks, etc.

Gravity is a well studied and calculable force as is the coulombic force. We know just as much about the inner workings of nascent charge as we know about the core issues involved with gravity. (close to zero) We ASSUME we know much more about charge and coulombic forces only because we can use them in wheelwork daily. Actually, we use gravity in about the same way (sling shotting spacecraft, predicting orbits, etc.) It is just that the individual is not seemingly using gravitational devices daily when actually he is. Gravity is really much simpler that charge interactions as it only works one way in common experience.

The electrodynamic wheel spinning for hundreds of years has still not given even the remotest links to gravity and electrodynamics.

In frustration, someone, not wanting to say the emporer has no clothes, thought up a quantum string approach even more tenuous, but just as likely as mother goose being the cause of gravity or free energy outpouring into a universe SEEMINGLY OUT OF BALANCE.

Like good little dutchboys, the egg heads scurry about like busy bees to plug the dike with each new observed discrepency in an already too complicated patchwork of the theory of everything.

Simple hard observations of critically performed experiments are really all we have as a footing in science.

The basic evidence points to gravity and coulombic forces as the progenitors of magnetism and electromagnetic radiation throughout the universe. No energy in the universe is ever observed to create observable charged bulk matter in the form the components of real substance. (electrons, protons, neutrons.) The Einsteinian energy mass equation as observed is virtually a unidirectional affair. This seems reasonable based again on the failure of nature to take energy and make the basic charged particles of matter.

Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:54 pm
by grrr6
Unfortuanately you can't tap that energy, but i think the best answer to the question richard poses at the end of his post is mass. Mass is not traceable back to stellar fusion, and it is a form of energy.

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:17 am
by mtrusty
While I dont agree with the assesment that gravity is as known a entity as electrons (electrons we can observe. We know the basic who and how of electrons, where they occur, and what basic sub-particles compose an electron. None of this can be said of gravity. We understand it in a newtonian sense but nothing else.)

Anyway. I can debunk the matter answer. stellar fusion as we all know produces a variaty of by-products. Helium, oxygen, and most other heavy elements. Most current theory I've read says that the heavier elements making up planets was created in various suns that have since gone nova. To be brief, that mass your referring to was probably made inside a long dead sun. Thats one even I wont contest, there is no other observable mechanism for their creation.. and dating of the avaliable elements shows they aren't nearly old enough to have existed since the start of the galaxy.. much less since beginning of time.

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:10 am
by grrr6
mass as a whole though, had to be around before stars coallesced (sp?) because there had to be mass to form stars, plus, you can create mass on earth too, as a way to store energy (antimatter) albeit at crappy practical efficiency levels.