(no subject) - KCLUG

12 Sep 2007


      ...
Its called EROEI -- Energy Returned On Energy Invested .... Invested, not
Input -- if it were INPUT, all fuels would have EROEI's of less than 1.  As
it turns out, using current techniques and technologies, EROEI for hydrogen
is FAR LESS than 1, while oil is probably more like in the range of 30 to
100 (depending mainly on the grade of oil, depth, and extraction method).
...
Now, in terms of EROEI, there are several things that have greater-than-one 
values that are NOT fuels, such as windmills and solar panels and wave
generators -- we can make these on a relatively "cheap" energy budget, then
use them to HARVEST energy that WE (humans) don't have to invest ...
because it comes from the sun, or from gravitational forces, in the case of
wave energy.
This is an important statement because you are showing how, by shifting
to another domain, energy becomes "free" (EROEI > 1). It's not actually
free, but it appears so because we're utilizing a resource which replenishes
without any significant material effort of our own. Now take this same 
principle, and shift the domain to THE ONE IMMEDIATELY GREATER THAN 
THIS ONE. It has no name, because we just created it, and it is theoretical
at this point.
That means that all basic assumptions can be refactored, because the
thought experiment is entirely theoretical, and anything can happen. Just
as changing a single axiom of Euclidean geometry changes EVERYTHING,
we can do the same for this mess of assumptions we have inherited. And
we can do so "six times before breakfast," as the saying goes. For
example, the assumption that there is no such thing as overunity is really
just an extremely well established assumption, so well established that
it is assumed a "law" but in fact, it is nothing more than a very well 
accepted assumption.
Go:del proved in mathematics that _any_ well-developed system cannot
prove some of its own assumptions, and therefore they must be accepted
without proof, meaning that we accept them on a basis which is really
quite similar to "faith." Once this enters the thought experiment anything 
is possible. And yet all of this is entirely logical so far.
Once anything is possible, then it is easy to shift into the domain immediately
greater than the present one (which everyone 'assumes' is the one and
only true one, until someone like Copernicus comes along and says "well
actually we're all entirely wrong...").
Thus by using plain and simple logic and the ability to apply principles in
different domains, we can create the appearance of a system where
E > mc2. Within our current set of assumptions, it will appear that we
can acquire greater energy than mass times the speed of light squared.
But within the greater set of assumptions, E is still operating as we
currently understand it. Remember this is all theoretical so far.
I hope at least one person is following the logic, because by using
this line of thinking, we can:
1. Realize that our current concept of light is flawed, and it is actually
a gas in a larger system.
2. See that whatever is a gas can become a liquid, and whatever is
a liquid can become a solid.
3. Wonder what happens when light becomes a solid (instead of gaseous
"particles" which behave in a wave pattern by some measurements) --
a completely solid block of light. Like a quark star? Maybe. Who knows.
4. Begin experimenting with ways to achieve a solid light state, and
thus create (or find) a resource which has so vastly much more energy
than we can comprehend now, that it might as well be considered
"infinite" for all our ability to measure it.
5. Convert a tiny amount of this "infinite" supply of energy into supplying
the entire grid capacity of the planet earth, and do away with those
pesky oil zealots using entirely peaceful means. Kind of like refrigerators
did away with the ice zealots...
or, manufacture a "suitcase" variety, selling it cheaply to the masses,
and become richer than Bill Gates squared. Hmmm. Cubed.
The basic idea is that, instead of working within the limitations of our
current system, which we can call "linear and categorical" for its obvious
inability to go beyond its own crude limitations -- break out of the box, 
and look at things holographically, that is, from all directions at once.
Then we don't have to put up with one Einstein per century, we can
handle fifty or sixty of them per decade.
Or of course, you can stay within your inherited assumptions, never
questioning them, and forcing everyone who questions them into
belief by cursing, insulting, and pounding on the table.
-Jared