[richardmmm]

The earth was assumed to be flat and fixed at the centre of the universe with the sun rotating around it. THIS WAS THE LAW OF THE DAY This was all people could understand with their limited ablities to observe things. PEOPLE DIED OVER THIS ONE..........FALSE

Kepler showed that the earth moved around the sun but thought the sun was the centre of the universe or was at least fixed in time and space. WRONG ASSUMPTION.

Later it was discovered that the sun actually moves about orbiting within the galxay and the galaxy moves as well. OK BUT WE STILL DON"T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT OUT OWN GALAXY LET ALONE THE UNIVERSE.

Einstein was so disatisfied with the theories of gravity that he invented entirely new concepts.

Since then Quantum mechanics has interpreted entirely new things but cannot be recetified with Einsteins laws, so bits are either missing or incorrect in one or both.

The laws of thermodynaics and make the big bang theories impossible or incorrect. Howe can the universe form if energy can't be created or destroyed ?

The point I am trying to make is that in every level of development in histroy assumptions have had to be made, fixed points of arbitary reference need to be assumed and therefore the process of observing and postulating has an effect on what is being observed.

Achitechs building houses don't take into account the curvature of the planet, because they operate in a local spot, but it still exists.

Scientists have not taken into account factors that they don't know about the universe as a whole, things have to be assumed. Dark energy and matter etc. Fringe concepts that consitute probably 50% of what exists.

It is mindless to argue that this is not the case and that current knowledge is not incomplete and flawed as even the scientists themselves admit it.

What is even worse is to shoot down in flames new inventions just because they can't be explained with current knowledge. Originally no one could explain how an airplane flew or how the telephone worked, but it did and now we have them.

Colombus couldn't get funding to find the americas, because the spanish were fixated with the idea that the world was flat. He had to get the money from the portugese. If he had got the money from the spanish and gone with a much bigger fleet the USA would probably be entirely speaking spanish now. All he need was a few ships and a few hundred men.

It's the same with the new inventions. They are not that complicated, not that expensive to research, billions are squandered on particle accelerators with limited results, while the modern adventurers, people trying to break the boundaries of science get rubbished and end up doing things privately.

Who says that some simple device will not extract seemingly limitless amounts of energy from this unknown dark matter / energy, which will later be understood. There is no point in rubbishing something just because it doesn't quite fit within laws we know are flawed and assumptive.

In the same way the Newton came up with theories of gravity that were over simlified, it can be that relativity and quantum mechanics are over simplied and the next einstien will come along and fix things up some more.

In the meantime just because an inventor can't fit a contraption within know (flawed) laws doesn't make it a load of garbage automatically.

I am sure that the cavemen had no idea why firewood burned, but that didn't stop them cooking their food and warming their caves with it. There is a vast difference between utilising a discovery and understanding the complex physics and chemistry that is taking place. One does not necessarily go hand in hand with the other. In fact wood was burned for thousands of years before the phyics and chemistry were understood.

Therefore things like cold fusion should not be sidelined and rubbished just because they are not understood. 99.99% of people couldn't care less how it works, they just want to use it.

[Optimist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he laws of thermodynaics and make the big bang theories impossible or incorrect. Howe can the universe form if energy can't be created or destroyed ?

[skyemoor]

Ignoring for the moment any technology that is not ready for wide scale production, what should be the focus of the "Manhattan Project"?

Should the Hirsch Report recommendations be the starting point?

[erich]

The laws of thermo dynamics may have some loop holes at the nano and quantum levels , check out this Diode Array guy:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimat ... 1/267.html

[johnmarkos]

Would clean, unlimited energy hurt or benefit humanity? This question assumes that the energy source would not by itself increase land use for energy production.
Thank you for playing.

[Colorado-Valley]

Would "clean" mean that there would be no carbon dioxide emissions?

[johnmarkos]

Yes, clean means no carbon dioxide emissions.

[venky]

I voted yes, ofcourse there's a good chance we'll use to destroy ourselves. But the benefits would be fabulous to mankind and perhaps worth it.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', 'I') voted yes, ofcourse there's a good chance we'll use to destroy ourselves. But the benefits would be fabulous to mankind and perhaps worth it.

[Antimatter]

Boon, unless you subscribe to the theory that unlimited energy will make us breed like rabbits (the inverse appears to the true).

[linlithgowoil]

would be great. would mean i could sit on my arse and have free electricity. though, due to capitalism, someone would get control of the unlimited energy, centralise it, and charge people for it. the government would encourage this also by saying that they needed centralized control to set 'safety standards' etc.

i'd love to be self sufficient in electricity though, that would be great. i wish they'd hurry up and make better solar panels - whats keeping them from making panels than can provide all you electricity needs? BTW - im talking about electricity needs as in enough to run a fridge 24 hours a day, a few hours of tv/computer and enough to run a cooker off and heat your water.

[Ludi]

Would aid us in increasing our mark on the earth even more, growing population, outstripping other resources which are already in short supply, such as water and topsoil. We'd run up against other limits to growth. Not a good thing.

[Raxozanne]

Basically I see it as this:

As soon as we touch this hypothetical new source of limitless non-polluting energy the race of finding a new habitable planet and being able to get there using space travel would truly begin and would need to be achieved before we had sufficiently destroyed enough important major life sustaining ecosystems to cause the carrying capacity of the earth to plunge.

[backstop]

JohnMarkos -

I have a difficulty with the question, in that the outcome depends on the ideology prevailing in cultures around the globe.

For example, under a creed of distaining material possessions and holding human life and the natural ecology in profound respect, it might well be a boon if it could be made in a manner furthering that creed.

Indeed, the further we advance towards such a creed the smaller our energy demands and so the easier it becomes to acquire effectively unlimited clean energy.

Conversely, under the present materialist free market ideology of eternal economic growth, linlithgowoil is right in saying that such energy supply would rapidly be siezed and manipulated by corporations. In my view they would entirely predictably use it to fuel an accelerating orgy of ever more destructive consumption, decimating our chances of survival as a species.

Plainly, it is primarily the ideology that matters, not the abundance or the cleanliness of the energies we employ.

regards,

Backstop

[MonteQuest]

Johnmarkos,

I wish you would have taken more time to clearly define your question and the given answers.

I'll post more on this later, but for now:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'I')n the arena of public discussion the pessimistic camp on the future of oil production is at a certain disadvantage, as people, particularly during good economic times, cannot fathom that storm clouds may be forming. Furthermore, it is generally more difficult to obtain a sympathetic hearing for a worrisome viewpoint than an optimistic one, as belief in progress, both technological and societal, seems to be universal. But I suggest we take it a step further, and take a hard look at what we think we want to happen, and why.

I admit to being an idealist. I would surely like to envision a world powered down to a sustainable level that wouldn't entail a constant crisis management, but realistically, I know it is futile. But, then again, it doesn't detract from the notion that a little backwards is better than more forward. To me, the issue is no longer how to solve the peak-oil energy crisis, but how to cope and live with it.

Now, this should get a response: To me, given our current cultural mindset, the worse thing that could happen would be to find some inexhaustible new source of energy. We would doom the human race to extinction by making the planet uninhabitable through our wanton consumption. Now if we developed fusion and also reverted back to the population of the mid-1800's, did away with the "throw-away" society, recycled and downsized everything, instituted de-centralization, embraced environmental constraints, and generally practiced a conservation ethic, then that would be a good start--even in an entropy world where it all ends anyway.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')Plainly, it is primarily the ideology that matters, not the abundance or the cleanliness of the energies we employ.

[Clouseau2]

Yes, in THEORY this energy would be a major boon to our civilizations.

In PRACTICE, it would just remove a single bottleneck in our grow-everything-like-mad world philosophy and soon our population/economy would grow to the point where we'd hit another bottleneck, and the misery would begin all over again.

[Dezakin]

This is really funny. It sounds like a stupid question with an obvious answer, and in positing it, it exposes the views of so many here: Doom is inevitable, no matter what!

[Raxozanne]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', ' ')it exposes the views of so many here: Doom is inevitable, no matter what!

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')lainly, it is primarily the ideology that matters, not the abundance or the cleanliness of the energies we employ.