A Scientific God Question (Energy)

God: Always was and always will be. Is all powerful. Is everywhere.
Energy: Always was and always will be. Is all powerful. Is everywhere.

A Spock would say, "Fascinating."

Me? I got nothing.

Sal, Mass is a convenient term for practical conversations and measurement, but it seems probable that it's also an illusion. Or, more precisely, a misperception.

Talk to many physicists and they will tell you that everything is energy, and that "mass" is a function of how we measure and perceive some portions of energy.

If we conceive of everything as existing in the form of waves, of varying degrees of organization, the notion of non-corporeal intelligences becomes far less a matter of religion and more of physics. Or, if you prefer, meta-physics.

And no, that hyphen is not extraneous or misplaced...


Paul

Thank you everyone for your thoughts and comments.

The reason I originally mentioned or brought 'God' into the equation was merely as a metaphor for helping to understand pure energy in a form most people could relate to, as in... an ultimate form of pure energy. And stripping away all concepts, all meaning 'in the worshipful sense' to get down to the absolute basics of what this energy or life force might be. And further... if it's possible to tap into and use energy flowing either in one direction or another, in this purest form, as an energy source in and of itself ourselves?

For example (not the best illustration / metaphor) I open a sluice gate at the top of a steep hill behind which is held 100 gallons of water. The narrow channel into which the water will flow downwards according to the laws of gravity (as we know it) is going to generate a specific amount of energy, either a dispersed energy wave form or a single pulse of energy running through the width of the wave at the front.

Now, I could just let this water flow downwards and not tap into this energy at all. The energy disperses and dissipates and now if I want to move this very same 100 gallons of water back up to the top again, I have to tap into a new source of energy to achieve this goal and purpose. Which seems to me to be a bit of a waste of the initial energy created by the mass of water moving downhill.

What if I could tap into the total amount of energy released (again using this as an illustration) whilst the mass of water is moving downwards rapidly, rather than letting it disperse on reaching the bottom?

This energy released during the downward descent could then be used to lift the water back up again to the top of the hill to start the cycle all over again. (With perhaps a much smaller contribution from an 'outside' energy source.)

Would this not be a much economical use of energy to recycle energy from the energy created from whatever energy source started the process in the first place?

Obviously, I'm thinking not in the form of using energy simply for the sake of pouring this energy 'down a drain', wasting it's potential, but putting it to good use.

Take a car driving along the interstate. It's running on an energy source which causes it to move in one direction or another, forwards or backwards. Assuming we're moving forwards at 100mph and the weight of the vehicle is 1 ton and the ground surface across which the vehicle is moving is perfectly smooth and level. This is creating according to the mass of the vehicle a measurable amount of energy which if not tapped into, disperses and goes to total waste.

But if I could tap into the energy created by the mass of the vehicle moving forwards, could not this energy created be recycled to generate yet another power source for something else again and again and again, ad infinitum with exactly the same amount of energy being used in the beginning to start the energy process i.e. the vehicle getting up to speed and maintaining a perpetual 100 mph?

Take a planet like the moon for example... we can use the slingshot effect to propel an object (satellite) much faster in one direction or another of our choosing by using the mass and circular motion of the moon as it spins around the earth and the sun.

It's like a giant gearing system. A huge amount of energy from this circular motion is generated and we see this physically in the form of oceanic currents and tides. The energy created from this perpetual motion is truly staggering. But still in the big scheme of things relatively small.

In a smaller sense could we not tap into and recycle this created energy to further charge up and set into motion other 'things' whatever these 'things' may be?

Take a sling which is 6' long and place a rounded pebble in the far end...

Now, with a very small amount of energy we can twirl this sling above our head and the energy released from our wrist action travels down the length of the sling to the point of most resistance where the pebble is being held in place at the end of the sling going around in circles faster and faster.

The weight or mass of the pebble will at this point as it's being spun around faster and faster, transmit a force (energy) to the surface of whatever is holding it in place, in this case to the end of the sling.

With a deft flick of the wrist we can release this energy and the pebble? It flies through the air at astonishing speed to connect with it's target. And this energy hits the target and kaput the 'object' standing falls over.

The energy is channeled from the shoulder into the arm, into the elbow, into the wrist, into the hand, down the sling to the pebble which when released flies through the air at speed, connects with the object, the energy transmits from the pebble into the point of impact upon the standing object, dissipates out through the object and it falls down.

With the right gearing should it not be possible to generate energy from energy in a perpetual cycle, increased or decreased via the gear model in question? With no further input of new energy required to power everything beyond the initial action or desired effect?

It's back over to you guys...

It's an illustration Val and I've got a hidden agenda to this thread, something I'm not revealing here. Not yet.

Call this thread market research if you will, where, I'm just sounding out public opinion. I don't believe in revealing the whole deck in one go.

This comes back to making money. Profit. Believe it or not.

You're missing the point, no disrespect, slightly.

Best,


Mark Andrews

PS If Paul Myers for example was to pm me to inquire what I'm getting at, I might be inclined to explain a little more privately.

Far from it Val, you didn't waste your time, not at all. Please don't take ego based offense. I truly appreciate your input. I'm simply asking you not to miss the point or split hairs as you seem to be doing a little bit here.

Take Heysal for example, I knew in advance she would post on this thread and I also knew in advance I wouldn't be in agreement with her 100% but this is the beauty of a conversation either verbally or in this case, in written form. For it gives others the opportunity to provide other people (in this case myself) with further insights into the subject matter being discussed.

I respect Heysal especially for her opinions for the lady is extremely knowledgeable. Often she talks perfect sense, not all the time but most of the time most certainly. And most definitely the pair of us have disagreed before on more than a few points but we still keep talking. Staying in the loop, challenging one another is where we can all learn from each other - myself included.

On any point of dissension in conversations between adults, if we all took such umbrage at any perceived slight and 'stomped' off, well, not being funny with you lass - we'd all in a right bloody pickle. Entrepreneurial thinking is all about thinking unconventionally outside of the box, breaking the rules of more traditional thought.

The question was genuine but the thread for me is serving a two fold purpose... which is difficult to explain here without the interpretation getting skewed, so I'm not even going to attempt to go there.

As I stated, the question is genuine in it's own right but it's also giving me more food for thought on an altogether unrelated subject which I need not go into here. And nope, it's got nothing to do with tapping into a universal energy source, close but still a miss.

I guess I could explain Val but to do so would be giving away the big idea not to mention there's not enough room here to write an essay, to which there will always be an element of people disagreeing with whatever notion is put forwards. This big idea is for my benefit as an entrepreneur. I pray you understand?

Kindest regards,


Mark 'cracking thin ice' Andrews

I would never sell any idea to some petro chemical corporation - ever. Period. No amount of money buys my knowledge.

If I thought for a second something I came up with could generate an absolute personal fortune but at the same time in the wrong hands could harm others, I'd rather live in a tent and cook on a campfire than give my ideas away to one of those corporations.

I'm funny about things like that. Money doesn't buy me off. It holds very little interest for me. What need do I have for huge amounts of money? It's worthless. My personal value system isn't monetary based.

I don't think you missed my previous point. The thought hadn't crossed my mind Heysal.

Chin chin!


Mark

You do want an essay, oh blimey! Okayyyyy.

Let me try to explain this...

All around us there is energy. Energy exists in many forms. And a lot of the physical energy we use on earth we don't tap into it's full potential, agreed?

We as humans we tend to use energy in a very disproportionate sense. Take fossil fuels for example...

Once upon a time there was a tiny, tiny, tiny particle of light somewhere within the sun. And it bounced this way and that way over millenia finally working it's way to the surface. Eventually emitted from the sun, it took just over 8 minutes to reach earth.

Landed, plop, on a tree.

And the tree, this tree really appreciated this visitor from outer space and as a means of thanking this energy this particle of light, through a system of photosynthesis transmuted this energy from this light particle, brought it into itself and metamorphosed the light particle into a living life form, part of the tree itself.

In time the tree died from old age.

It fell stand where once it had so proudly stood and several million more years passed by. The tree which itself was no more was now hundreds of feet underground cemented in a seam of coal. The energy from the light particle once embedded into the tree was now far underground, still in existence but to all extents and purposes dormant.

An excavator held by a wiry man eventually prized into this seam of coal and the lump of coal was transported back to the surface of the earth to see the light of day once more. Whereupon it was carried first by rail and then by sea to another faraway land. Here it was processed and placed on a pile of coal, destination unknown.

A week goes by, the coal is scooped up and placed in a wagon behind the engine of a steam train. 2 hours later, the light particle is picked up within the lump of coal and bunged into a large boiler.

The coal heated up, the energy was released once more and the wheels of the train moved the engine and the carriages forward. And in this moment the journey of millions of years was over for this galactic light particle.

It's mission in life accomplished. To help turn for all but the briefest of moments the train wheels which in turn was conveying the passengers and their world possessions to their destination.

Something which had been in existence for millions upon millions of years, just like that, gone up in a puff of smoke. Poof! Gone.

What an extraordinary journey. Yet wasted in a split second. All the energy contained within this lump of coal dissipated forever.

And so we need more and more fossil fuels to feed our ever hungry energy demands. And so much of this tiny amount of energy created by our puny human hands is completely and utterly wasted. All for a very short benefit.

But that train...

It was being propelled along the track at 100mph.

It weighed 100 tons.

And in itself was creating a large amount of energy simply by the motion of it being propelled forwards down the track.

So, rather than feeding the boiler with more and more coal for it to simply go to waste - why not use or tap into the kinetic energy created by the mass of the train itself moving down the track, so every split second the train itself is feeding itself with the energy required to move it to it's final destination?

In other words energy recycling energy recycling energy recycling energy recycling energy ad infinitum...

Which kind of brings me around to what I'm getting at...

Kindest regards,


Mark Andrews