rigney

It would be nice to have two or three hundred years as a lifetime to distinguish between the good and bad points of our existance that we have been exposed to. But when I watch something like this, it makes me wonder? I'm not religious by any stretch, but this kind of nut "scares hell" out of me. Can we make a destinction between scientific knowledge and an unfalsifiable religion with people like this around?

Bet your backside I'm not gonna jump the gun on Moons reply, which will be coming shortly. I'm intrerested only in a passive energy deployment to produce electrical power for a worlds consumptiom. And really, we don't need a nuclear holicost to destroy this world, humans are doing their damdest at present with our garbage to get it done. Now! Please, let's get back to the topic.

Thanks Moon, I was going to use your link, but chose what I thought to be the lesser of two evils: discombobulation and confusion. "NOT SO"! Anything we feel to be worth having has always been geared to the framework of money and power.(The last four or five minutes) of this link should convince you.

I agree only in the sense that my understanding of physics is nil. But I believe most physicists understand mechanics, which likely brought them into the field to begin with.

Yes, green energy should be used to its fullest where and when possible. But this artilcle and video are quite interesting and should make us wonder why it has taken 50 years to evaluate the pros and cons of using a nuclear process that seems much safer than uranium, to build the same power source? With advanced particle accellerators already on the drawing board, it should take only a short time to design the mechanics needed to incorporate such a new system, while possibly using parts of the old one? Will someone please explain to me why we haven't done so already? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13040853

In no way did you highjack anything! Without consternation and conjecture we would still be living in caves, (hopefully)?

The question is not easy to answer with absolute certainty, especially coming from someone like me. But if you are familiar with strings or the Higgs boson, either of the theories pretty much sums up wave action. Both suggest that all matter in the universe is connected much like water in a pond. But unlike waves on the pond that primarily effect only the surface area, electro magnetic waves move in all directions throughout the universe like radio waves from a dipole transmitter with a ripple effect. Now, we only have to wait and see if either strings or the Higgs boson actually exist. Strings http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=445 The Higgs boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Not really. First, can I say that flux was my first introduction to what was known as "a runny bowel movement". UGH. It later was referred to as dysentary and diarrhea. Then I learned that flux was a salammoniac solution used in soldering two different metals together. Then it was on into electrical functions which meant winding coils of copper wire around iron cores to produce DC magnets. Then it was a matter of calculating how strong or weak the magnets needed to be by increasing or decreasing the voltage or/and amperage. When we got into relays, variacs, speakers, potentiometers and transformers, I was beginning to lose it. So, I thought, what the hell, this is far enough. Then I spent my ensueing fifty years doing the same damned thing. While I'm not into physics as you seem to be, I'm neither an idiot or a pipe dreamer.

I think that one can only answer your question if one imagines similar misconceptions about energy to those that you have. I think a satisfying answer would be fantasy and come from someone's imagination, not knowledge. As mentioned, one would have to imagine what an energy wave might be, before explaining anything about it. You have trouble understanding me? Try this fantasy on for size! http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1351-early-universe-1-d-line-vanishing-dimensions-theory.html

No! It isn't your fault but an inadequacy on my part. For some reason I had supposed this segment of the program was called: Speculations because of the differing opinions and ideas of others. Believe me, there's much I would like to learn; or at least be aware of; but evidently I'm on the wrong forum.

I've spent eighty years getting into this situation, and you had nothing to do with it. But using "nonsensical" to justify your reasoning for not understanding my conjecture is an insult in itself. In essence, you're looking for subjugation, but you won't find it here. If you think my thoughts and ideas are irrelevent, just advise me to move on. I don't need the banter, but was hoping to find wisdom in some form, here. I don't particularilly acquiesce to your terminonoloy of "viable thing wave", since I didn't try relating it in that fashion. To answer the question, yes I believe everything that exists in the universe is matte,r and energy in its basic form. To me, waves are what propogate energy from one point to another, nothing more or less.

Don't be so agreeable! My ignorance of science keeps me in hot water. But my stupid answers doesn't mean there aren't solid and irrefutable answers out there somewhere. Be a physicist if you will. But you also seem to have philosophical reasoning in your conjecture. Don't compromise it.

Can a wave having no energy be considered a wave of energy, or an energy wave, ? No! Because such waves do not exist. I believe this whole "Who shot John" thing came about from using the word "creation". Everyone seems so damned hung up on not using it for fear it'll tie them to a god somehow. For christ sake, lighten up, Correct my misunderstanding of physics if you will, but leave my english out of it. Wave of energy, energy wave? What the hell's the difference? If you have a valid scientific reason why the phrase shouldn't be used, just tell me outright and quit dancing around! Otherwise, let's get on with waves.Then I happen on material like this and wonder why I should give a rats ass to start with.. Hell of it is, all of this has been worked out by Hawkins and his buddy, (supposidly) and makes perfect sense, scientifically. Can I say, "WOW" without some dyslexic thinking I was calling out for my MOM?? http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/wavefunction.htm

I was using that only as an analagy of my take on what energy and waves are. Energy to me in any form is a real and a viable thing. Waves on the other hand, to me should be seen as nothing less. Put it this way. Are waves themselves a physical entity or merely an expression used to link energy with a source?, and its destination? I hope that I'm making sense?

I can't fault you making those statements since they make perfect sense to me. But having just a wee understand of quantum physics or its mechanics, I can only visualize on a larger scale. Say I have a truck capable of carring x amount of tomatoes. I go to the farm, load up the tomatoes and take them to market, and do this several times. Are not both the truck and tomatoes equal parts of this process? Sort of like being team players? Without tomatoes the truck is worthless. Without a truck the tomatoes are worthless. Both items are physical entities unto themselves and yet, together form something entirely different. When I decided to use, "Waves ~ of Creation and Energy" as the title to this thread, perhaps I should have punctuated with a ? All I was saying is, it's like the truck and tomatoes. Without waves, energy would likely not have a function as we know it. Without energy there would be no need for the waves. Both are real and a part of the equation.

I like to think of waves on water as shapes of energy created by a disturbance of the water. That is, until it comes to Tidal Waves and Tsunamis. Dust Devils are another good example of wave shapes caused by a disturbance in the wind. That is, until it comes to Hurricanes, Monsoons and Tornadoes. If one is to believe the double slit experinent with photons, waves can either be energy itself; or the carriers of energy. Waves at all frequencies fit into one of these two categories.

Why not? I thought the three references I offered allowed me reason to think so. If "all things" share unifying wave-like and particle-like properties at the same time, what's the difference of calling them either energy waves or waves of energy? Photons are waves, but are they the energy itself, or simply carrying the energy? I can find no clear distinction. I wasn't making an arguement for arguements sake and only stating what I had been reading. And yes, I am beginning to understand quite a bit more about the universe, but not satisfied. And I have no idea what the last part of your statement referred to?

If you actually looked at my initial thought , it wasn't an affidavit based on fact, only a question? And "YES", I don't know the answer, and thus the question. Thank you. I will keep on looking.

See what I mean? If I was that smart there wouldn't be a need to ask such dumb assed questions. Right? Ok! Now I would like for you to explain your meaning.

I'm only asking questions because I don't know, and I thought you might have an answer to share with me.

I've trudged along for almost 2 years now on this forum with a 5 year old mentality in science.. Reading is the one thing providing new questions to me. My latest Q: Is everything in the universe nothing more than energy waves? Having just found this particular item, I would like to share it. Perhaps you are already familiar with it and it is stale to you, but to me it is totally mysterious. I have no idea who wrote it, and only remotely understand what it means. But If you are into this type of thing please respond, or give me some different links to read or look at. These links are not the initial reference I was referring to, but they will have to do for now. http://structureofexistence.com/Chapter01.html http://swift.sonoma.edu/education/slinky_booklet/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

Even though I don't understand the theory, I like it. Only an idiot doesn't have ideas, so I thought that I might run this one by you. Do lodestones and permanent magnets have wave frequencies? If so, what are they and how do we detect them? If not, again; why. Thanks

Well, if we put these wind mills on top of our city buildings they would already have a 200 or 300 meter stick to sit on, right?. So, there would be no need to manufacture this part of the structure. Personally, they are ugly as hell and I don't like them either, but they are effective. Read this link and give it some thought. Honestly, I'm not trying to steal your thunder, it's only something else you might think about. http://www.ehow.com/how_4796528_convert-solar-energy-electricity.html

I believe you! And as much as I would like to agree with your overall theory, these wind farms pale in comparison to cities. Talk about stopping the wind, Wow! We should look into more efficient and less costly ways to make solar panels. With them, other than that produced during construction, CO2 is at an absolute minimum unless you have a fire. To me solar energy is our best clean energy source.

From what source is CO2 produced on a wind turbine farm?