Hi Guy,
Thanks for your answer.
Given that empirical science cannot ever conclusively prove anything, you may never find a physicist to tell you that it isn’t possible. But there’s no reason to think that it is possible. Compare to Russell’s Teapot.
We don’t know whether this is possible. You are the only one to make the choice between:
so we shouldn’t try to find out
so we should try to find out
Pascal’s wager and oppotunity cost madness ensues thereafter. However, maybe I’m blindspotted, but I can’t find a better topic to bet on—would solve all problems solvable with resources.
I don’t think I can find a non-emotional way to convince people to switch from we should not search to we should search (for infinite energy).
Addressing rationally (but it’s not clear how reason can change values/emotions) :
there’s a big difference in the impact of Russel’s teapot and infinite energy. One is irrelevant, the other is extremely relevant
2000 years ago, there was no reason to think that it would be possible to get to the moon or have mobile phones. The universe isn’t obliged to respect human intuitions.
True, there’s at this point no clear reason to think this is possible
well except energy possibly not being conserved in general relativity—I can’t tell if there’s a consensus on this topic or not at this point—crazy!
Also, fundamentally because something exists (rather than nothing), some hope exists that there’s arbitrarily more of this “something”. Why would existence necesarily be constrained to a finite quantity?
However, the impact of infinite energy, to me, seems high enough to require some serious research on the topic. The current times also leave a lot of gaps, where we can try to find infinite energy:
quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible with each other
relativity itself is failing (dark energy vs dark matter clearly show we don’t understand what happens in ~95% of the universe). Dark matter can explain some things but not others, modified gravity explains others, but not some.
the big bang at t=0 possibly violates conservation of energy
Comparison to Pascal’s wager is an interesting point. Sounds like it makes sense to some extent. I am not 100% certain though that the one could fundamentally boil down the infinite energy problem to Pascal’s wager, because:
I am not certain if we can even talk about
how many gods there are
and how compatible they are with one another
how many of them could be real at the same time
whereas science pretty much converged on very few ways to look at the world
and especially on the concept of energy—it is present in all the major theories of physics (at least to my knowledge)
So in a way, the infinite energy idea is at the very least more like a Pascal’s wager, where there seem to be far fewer gods.
But ultimately, this is an emotional issue. It is very similar to climate change in this regard, just more abstract, further away, and with higher payoffs.
Hi @Erin , thanks for your continued interest in this topic.
Thanks for being blunt. Bluntness is good for saving time.
Let me address some things you said:
That is simply just not true. If we had infinite energy tomorrow, very soon after that, we could solve all problems solvable using resources. Let me present a list of stuff we could do very very soon (likely <10 years, extremely likely <100 years):
solve climate change (trivially even!)
solve all basic necesities of people (food, water, clothing, shelter)
solve all non-basic necesities: cars, airplanes, mobile phones, laptops—you name it, we got it
interstellar travel: Yes, people would already be flying to Alpha centauri and lots of other places. They would even reach them in “a few years/months” (a few years for them, but lots of years for us back on Earth)
There is lots of potential here, but I found that if I start talking about all the things that could be done, people are actually
Based on the refutation above, this point does not stand anymore.
This is an awkward argument to address. Sure, everybody I ever met could be lying, and there’s always solipsism. Same argument applies to everyone. I don’t think this is a healthy way to continue a conversation—throwing doubt into what people say. It’s not healthy compared to an alternative that fortunately enough, we have:
I am currently reaching out to more and more physicists, and asking them for their opinion on this. I am posting updates regularly on the discord server that you can find on http://infiniteenergy.org . If you are interested, you’ll find there how much physicists are interested in this.
If you have any idea of what I would need to show you, so you consider there’s enough interest from the science community, I’m all ears.
Please however let’s avoid distrust-based arguments in the future, and let’s replace them with data-based arguments.
I’d avoid them first of all because, being from Eastern Europe, I am not aware of the existence of people who would not call an idea “stupid” right off the bat, instead of being polite, if they had the slightest distrust in it. Am I wrong? Not sure. Am I lying? You can’t be sure. So let’s let experiments decide :)
@Erin, I can’t fight belief. If you believe this idea is wrong, there’s not much point in talking.
Sure, you said “think”, not “believe”—taken, however thinking and reason means explanations, justifications, models, and logic. Do you care to justify:
Why you think there’s essentially no chance that I’m onto something real
How I would not be able to make progress on it with the tools available to me (the internet is my preffered tool)
That I wouldn’t be able to communicate it well enough to be taken seriously
That I won’t find other people more capable than me in any of the points above
I understand that this might be a deep emotional backlash. Humans have emotions, yes, unfortunately at times.
I’m however looking for supporters, and there will be only so much time I will spend on arguing with non-supporters. If you don’t want to believe that people are interested in this, feel free. If you want to see what actually is happening, check out http://infiniteenergy.org
It kind of feels like all I have so far was said. I don’t have more data at this point to get you more toward “omg, this might be possible after all”, but I am eager to hear your arguments, that might get me more toward “omg, this might actually not be possible”—as they say in startups: “negative feedback is the best kind of feeback”.
Thanks for your feedback!