One step away from the Stone Age
- Thread starter CourierDriver
- Start date
It's an old joke and a non sequitur. I don't think you got it.
We don't have a quantum theory of gravity. I'd like to know what happens when you apply the antigravity machine to a black hole or the sun.We'll all be happy when an anti-gravity machine is invented and employed to produce electrical power. Where's the alien technology when you need it?
That's why the aliens are needed.
It would probably not hold together and all the energy releases at once, and therefore a big bang. Maybe some ancient civilization invented that and big bang reset everything in our universe.
This is what I'm talking about - use a controlled gravity field to turn a generator. If mankind could control the strength of gravity in defined locations it could be used to make infinite power if controlling gravity took way less power (assumed clean) than what could be generated.
Basic concept: Gravity Field 1 is much stronger than Gravity Field 2.
Basic concept: Gravity Field 1 is much stronger than Gravity Field 2.
I think you need to study the standard model. There's still no graviton. Fusion by comparison is much more straight forward, it's an engineering problem. String theory has been a theory for a very long time.
Graviton - Wikipedia
I think you need to study the big bang a little more. Cosmic inflation occurred right after the big bang and went on for a time and it's unknown how long the universe expanded. On the other hand, matter only makes up about 5% of the universe and even the largest black holes are only several billions of solar masses. And we know that when black holes collide, they give off about 5% of their energy in gravity waves. Dark matter and dark energy make up the majority of the universe. I doubt an antigravity machine would cause a big bang. Although in theory when they first tested a nuclear bomb, they were afraid it would lead to an uncontrolled nuclear event and the entire world would be consumed so this fear is not new. Anyway, time travel, faster than light, anti gravity etc., don't see any of that existing. No viable existing scientific theory gets you anywhere near it and pretty much everything now says it's impossible. But there's still no grand unified theory so there's still some slim hope out there.
No gravitation? ... what do you think is holding everything down sitting on the surface of this planet.I think you need to study the standard model. There's still no graviton. Fusion by comparison is much more straight forward, it's an engineering problem. String theory has been a theory for a very long time.
Graviton - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Regardless of current gravity theory, who's to say gravity fields could never be controlled to generate power as man's understanding of this world and technology progresses.
Last edited:
Where to begin. Who's to say what's possible and what's not possible? Let's just say it's highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.
The basics is that if you make a claim for something, you need to provide some kind of evidence or proof or have some data to point to. String theory, loop quantum gravity, super symmetry etc. are all nice theories and have some math to go along with it. But the problems so far has been trying to prove aspects of them which they haven't been able to do. You don't even have any theories of how you would even control gravity, you can't even find a particle for it right now. So you're a long way from being able to control gravity fields if you can't even find a particle/field/boson. You basically just do your probability calculations and it basically comes up as highly improbable.
I never said is could/would happen in our lifetime. I'm just saying if man can make some crazy new discoveries about gravity at some point in time, and were able to control gravity fields then it would be a game changer for technology IMO.
Read more closely.
No graviton. The particle analog of the gravity wave.
His physics discussion is at a high level.
Somebody forgot to tell our ancestor that their fireplace was causing airpollution,,,about 1812,,would have gone over big then,,,lmaorof,,,the joys of modern man!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It's really not. Wind power is what we used before fossil fuels. We ditched it because it was horribly unreliable, that hasn't changed. Germany has the highest electricity rates in Europe and their emissions are still horrific. China's grid is dominated by coal. China has however fully capitalized on the wind and solar utopia mindset and are making a killing selling them.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Most powerwall setups are leveraged to avoid peaking and not provide days of backup capacity. Coupled with poor solar performance in the winter, these folks probably didn't fare as well as one might think. Though they'd definitely be better off than those with no power at all.
They don't live in cities with 1M+ populations do they?
Technically you have no problem with air pollution burning wood in the middle of a rain forest.
I am not sure if this is the right observation of Texans. I don't think they would choose to go back to utility regulations or mandate / pay for certain infrastructure enhancement for these "once in decades" event. They would likely start buying pickup trucks with generator capability instead, because you cannot trust government.
You are correct. I still believe that as oil, gas and coal become more expensive, these " green energy " production ideas are the coming thing. I note that America and Canada use something like three times the electricity as the avg. German household. Maybe more renewable sources coupled with more effective consumption devices???
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The electricity consumption isn't a problem if it comes from non-emitting sources. Here in Ontario our grid is dominated by nuclear and hydro, so an increase in demand wouldn't be a problem and in fact is wholly anticipated as people are encouraged to switch their heat from gas to electricity, hot water from gas to electricity, cooking from gas to electricity and of course electric vehicles.
Quebec is in a similar boat, encouraging mass electrification and their grid is almost entirely hydro-electric.
Punishing ratepayer through punitive tariffs to force "winners" in the generation sector works against the goal of electrification as it encourages people to seek out other means when cheap, reliable electricity is not available. This inevitably drives-up emissions. The artifact of the German wind and solar push has been a heavy reliance on gas and coal despite spending 3/4 of a trillion on it. So you have periods where wind can satisfy large portions of your demand followed by significant periods where it can't, these are typically during heat waves or cold spells where imports skyrocket and fossil fuel capacity has to step-in. This is the reason for the Nordstream II pipeline. It's the same reason that 51,000MW of gas capacity was expected to be available in Texas when wind wasn't.
Now, if you have large capacity reservoir hydro as a major component of your generating mix, then wind can absolutely make sense. So wind makes sense as complimentary generation to that hydro in Quebec, it doesn't require gas backup in that scenario. If you DON'T have vast quantities of reservoir hydro though, what backs up wind is gas, so you get SOME emissions reduction, but you'll never achieve deep decarbonization and you increase fragility as you increase the portion of your generation that acts as peaking capacity, constantly ramping and wind is not or minimal in terms of inertia, making it more susceptible to frequency issues and collapse. That's one of the reasons you still see fossil capacity running in wind-heavy grids even when demand is low, it is to maintain inertia and stability.
You do not want a monopoly of any source.
If your whole grid is coal powered the coal industry / union can go on strike and gouge you (UK remember?) Same for oil, same for natural gas, same for nuclear. The more you diversify even for non environmental reason, the better for bargaining power.
You do need a way to stabilize the grid so they don't go duck curve though.
I don't disagree it'd be nice if they figured it out. It's just that it's very far away at this point.
If you look at the standard model which is basically what we know about the universe now, it doesn't include dark matter, dark energy and gravitational forces.
Standard Model - Wikipedia
Basically as I was saying earlier, gravity is one of the least understood forces. You know the effects of it, but not what causes it. That's a big difference.
Similar threads
- Locked
