JD,
it is a bit tiring to repeatedly read this sort of impolite, largely unqualified accusations.
Basic test:
Do you believe in the absoluteness of physical laws?
If not, then its no point in discussing any further, because then you seem to be living in a distant parallel universe or be a troll.
If yes, please outline, based on the well-known physical laws of thermodynamics, energy, matter and gravitation a plausibility calculation of how much people and equipment you want to move where into space, how much of world's energy production you want to invest, how energy will be transmitted back to earth and how this would affect the biosphere.
If you can't even sketch the basics, shut up.
Davidyson
PeakOil is You
Peak Oil - A Conspiracy Theory?
by mididoctors » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 13:44:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davidyson', 'J')D,
it is a bit tiring to repeatedly read this sort of impolite, largely unqualified accusations.
Basic test:
Do you believe in the absoluteness of physical laws?
If not, then its no point in discussing any further, because then you seem to be living in a distant parallel universe or be a troll.
If yes, please outline, based on the well-known physical laws of thermodynamics, energy, matter and gravitation a plausibility calculation of how much people and equipment you want to move where into space, how much of world's energy production you want to invest, how energy will be transmitted back to earth and how this would affect the biosphere.
If you can't even sketch the basics, shut up.
Davidyson
it is a bit tiring to repeatedly read this sort of impolite, largely unqualified accusations.
Basic test:
Do you believe in the absoluteness of physical laws?
If not, then its no point in discussing any further, because then you seem to be living in a distant parallel universe or be a troll.
If yes, please outline, based on the well-known physical laws of thermodynamics, energy, matter and gravitation a plausibility calculation of how much people and equipment you want to move where into space, how much of world's energy production you want to invest, how energy will be transmitted back to earth and how this would affect the biosphere.
If you can't even sketch the basics, shut up.
Davidyson
this is not an unreasonable request
Boris
london
-
mididoctors - Tar Sands
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Mon 30 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: London
by JohnDenver » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 14:21:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davidyson', '
')If yes, please outline, based on the well-known physical laws of thermodynamics, energy, matter and gravitation a plausibility calculation of how much people and equipment you want to move where into space, how much of world's energy production you want to invest, how energy will be transmitted back to earth and how this would affect the biosphere.
')If yes, please outline, based on the well-known physical laws of thermodynamics, energy, matter and gravitation a plausibility calculation of how much people and equipment you want to move where into space, how much of world's energy production you want to invest, how energy will be transmitted back to earth and how this would affect the biosphere.
Davidyson, I don't have the technical specifications of the solution to peak oil. But then again, neither do you, so why don't *you* shut up?
Pass your own test. If you, with all your science, can't sketch a way to more energy, what do we need you for? What good is your science? If you can't deliver the energy, you're just another useless fool shooting your mouth off.
- JohnDenver
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by Aaron » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 14:44:23
As Dr. Smalley reiterated to me from his on line presentation, it may well be that mother nature may have played a terrible trick on us, and hydrocarbon energy sources are simply the best we will ever discover.
This comes from a person who has dedicated his professional life to physics.
But his point is well made. Oil is by far the best source of energy we have ever found. And unless we can develop something at least as good to replace the missing oil in our future, we have almost certainly overshot carrying capacity.
He also noted that our worst problems other than energy, would all improve as a result of finding a suitable replacement for oil.
Space is almost certainly mankind's destiny...
But we must find solutions to our energy dilemma first... & the clock is ticking.
Saying that we will use other energy sources to replace oil is a trite truism. Of course we will... we will have to.
Therein lies our challenge. Finding oil alternatives which are at least as good as oil.
I see the entropy issue as a footrace between depletion, and science.
Having grown "too big for our britches" as we say in Texas, if we can't find a bigger pair before the dance is over, we pay the consequences.
Science wins, and I guess we forestall chaotic breakdown until the next threshold.
As Matt Simmons has pointed out, oil is greatly undervalued today.
The consumption of millions of years in stored energy in a few generations is... tragic.
It's easy to point to a site named dieoff, and conclude that PO is a conspiracy theory right along with the rest, but it's also myopic.
I felt exactly the same way when I first googled this topic. Internet crank nonsense.
But then I found that behind the "dieoff" stuff, a growing number of serious scientists and academics were publishing on the topic.
So sure, when somebody I have never heard of proposes that we are all doomed, my eyes get glassy. But when I hear the same arguments from Nobel Laureates, industry leaders, geophysicists and the like, I'm all ears.
I also asked Dr. Smalley what he thought the consequences were if we failed to find a suitable replacement for oil in time... economic depression? social unrest? war?
His reply I found chilling...
"Yes... all of those"
On the upside, he also believes we must try. That finding the next oil, is the moral obligation of our generation. We owe it to future generations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I promise promise promise we will publish the transcript from this interview soon. (It's in transcription now)
This comes from a person who has dedicated his professional life to physics.
But his point is well made. Oil is by far the best source of energy we have ever found. And unless we can develop something at least as good to replace the missing oil in our future, we have almost certainly overshot carrying capacity.
He also noted that our worst problems other than energy, would all improve as a result of finding a suitable replacement for oil.
Space is almost certainly mankind's destiny...
But we must find solutions to our energy dilemma first... & the clock is ticking.
Saying that we will use other energy sources to replace oil is a trite truism. Of course we will... we will have to.
Therein lies our challenge. Finding oil alternatives which are at least as good as oil.
I see the entropy issue as a footrace between depletion, and science.
Having grown "too big for our britches" as we say in Texas, if we can't find a bigger pair before the dance is over, we pay the consequences.
Science wins, and I guess we forestall chaotic breakdown until the next threshold.
As Matt Simmons has pointed out, oil is greatly undervalued today.
The consumption of millions of years in stored energy in a few generations is... tragic.
It's easy to point to a site named dieoff, and conclude that PO is a conspiracy theory right along with the rest, but it's also myopic.
I felt exactly the same way when I first googled this topic. Internet crank nonsense.
But then I found that behind the "dieoff" stuff, a growing number of serious scientists and academics were publishing on the topic.
So sure, when somebody I have never heard of proposes that we are all doomed, my eyes get glassy. But when I hear the same arguments from Nobel Laureates, industry leaders, geophysicists and the like, I'm all ears.
I also asked Dr. Smalley what he thought the consequences were if we failed to find a suitable replacement for oil in time... economic depression? social unrest? war?
His reply I found chilling...
"Yes... all of those"
On the upside, he also believes we must try. That finding the next oil, is the moral obligation of our generation. We owe it to future generations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I promise promise promise we will publish the transcript from this interview soon. (It's in transcription now)
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by davidyson » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 03:53:22
JD,
don't you think that proving or at least providing evidence that we indeed will have an inevitable energy peak is at least as useful as showing there might be another energy source far, far away?
Also, you didn't answer the question if you believe in the absoluteness of physical laws.
Aaron, space is not humankind's destiny, it's humankind's last folly.
Davidyson
don't you think that proving or at least providing evidence that we indeed will have an inevitable energy peak is at least as useful as showing there might be another energy source far, far away?
Also, you didn't answer the question if you believe in the absoluteness of physical laws.
Aaron, space is not humankind's destiny, it's humankind's last folly.
Davidyson
-
davidyson - Peat
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Potsdam, Germany
by davidyson » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 04:00:23
The space shuttle with a crew of 4-6 weighs 2,041 metric tons at liftoff.
The potential energy to be built up alone is more than the little web tool I linked earlier can even express.
Using Excel, I end up with 2 Gigawatthours.
Now calculate rocket motor efficiency, air friction etc.
Davidyson
The potential energy to be built up alone is more than the little web tool I linked earlier can even express.
Using Excel, I end up with 2 Gigawatthours.
Now calculate rocket motor efficiency, air friction etc.
Davidyson
-
davidyson - Peat
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Potsdam, Germany
by JohnDenver » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 08:17:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davidyson', 'T')he space shuttle with a crew of 4-6 weighs 2,041 metric tons at liftoff.
The potential energy to be built up alone is more than the little web tool I linked earlier can even express.
Using Excel, I end up with 2 Gigawatthours.
Now calculate rocket motor efficiency, air friction etc.
Davidyson
The potential energy to be built up alone is more than the little web tool I linked earlier can even express.
Using Excel, I end up with 2 Gigawatthours.
Now calculate rocket motor efficiency, air friction etc.
Davidyson
Davidyson, I thought that Aaron summed things up nicely, and I was planning to let this thread rest in peace. I think I said pretty much every thing I wanted to. But you don't seem to want to let it go. It's almost like you want to "exorcise" the whole idea of space development. Maybe you are advocating that we dismantle all of the various national space programs and stop thinking about space?? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but your position seems almost Luddite. Are you opposed to other research which aims to develop new sources of energy? Do you think we should just quit trying to find new energy?
- JohnDenver
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
by davidyson » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 08:29:35
Space programs are good for shooting unmanned sattelites into orbit.
Of course we should do research to find new energy sources. But not in space. It's lunatic (literally :D )!
No, I don't want to exorcise, but just to bring in some facts into a discussion about wishful thinking.
Davidyson
(Sorry that I answered again but seemed you were asking a question)
Of course we should do research to find new energy sources. But not in space. It's lunatic (literally :D )!
No, I don't want to exorcise, but just to bring in some facts into a discussion about wishful thinking.
Davidyson
(Sorry that I answered again but seemed you were asking a question)
-
davidyson - Peat
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Potsdam, Germany
by JohnDenver » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 09:03:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davidyson', 'J')D,
you are persistently avaiding a statement whether you belive in the absoluteness of physical laws. That tells a lot. Chicken!
Davidyson
you are persistently avaiding a statement whether you belive in the absoluteness of physical laws. That tells a lot. Chicken!
Davidyson
No, I'm not avoiding it. I'm just lazy.
Of course I believe in the absoluteness of physical laws, to the degree that they are absolute. After all, particles sometimes travel faster than light on quantum scales etc.
I just don't believe that physical law is the main constraint. I think the main constraint is the power of the human imagination. We use physical laws to bend nature to our purposes; we are in the driver's seat to a much greater degree than they are. It's a little like the hardware and software in a computer. The hardware follows rigid, absolute rules, but that doesn't constrain the software. In fact, the software uses those very rules to control the hardware.
Anyway, that's my view.
- JohnDenver
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
.
