It has been said that the solution to pollution is dilution. Unfortunately in a world of six billion individuals, all striving to increase their quality of life -- and often by the use of more and more energy usage -- this age old solution is no longer viable. As the bumper sticker reads: “Throw it away? There is no away.” Dilution is no longer the solution.
What then to do? What is the way out of this quandary? How are we to access for all of humanity energy resources such that we can benefit from the multitude of energy applications in order to increase everyone’s living standards? And at the same time, not increase the pollution that stems from burning, transforming, or otherwise creating energy from some fuel of whatever shape, constitution, or definition?
At some point in time, it is going to become obvious to the world at large that the new energy and v systems are indeed viable and practical. The underlying theory and implications are very likely to burst upon the mass consciousness in a dramatic and abrupt fashion. Just as quickly, thousands of engineers and scientists will leap into the fray of scientific investigation and begin intense research and development efforts on the implied applications of a new science. Just as the revolution in quantum physics spanned only a decade during the early part of this century (with much of what has come since, obtained through a much slower and laborious progress), this new revolution -- with the benefits of the Inter Net and Communications, Media, Education, in general -- things will occur in a few years. In short, the times will be chaotic in the extreme.
While such chaos implies opportunity, from the viewpoint of those who have worked in the trenches of the initial research for years, such a “letting the genie out of the bottle” scenario might be less than ideal. But it’s very likely inevitable.
Timing is particularly important in that the science of which we’re involved is the fuel of what might amount to the greatest revolution in thought or the collective consciousness in several millennia. The ramifications of replacing a separatist, fragmented, and limited philosophy with an unlimited, connected and universal view are enormous. The impact on modern society will be incredibly beneficial in the long run, but in the short term, a huge variety of vested interests will find themselves threatened with what might be perceived as immediate extinction. The result of such perception will inevitably yield massive resistance to the point where the revolution is put down even before it can make the transition from birth to infancy. The current, languishing fate of Cold Fusion is one case in point.
With the development of motors able to produce more energy than is needed to run them, every household can be provided with a power pack which could run all household appliances -- from stoves to washing machines to televisions to sound systems and lighting -- and at no cost beyond the original purchase price and cost of maintenance. By tapping into the electromagnetism of the universe, society could light our streets, parks and public buildings and provide energy for virtually every imaginable contingency with minimal cost to anyone, and without belching the pollution of burnt fossil fuels or radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere, earth, and water.
So why hasn't this happened already? Well... there’s a problem.
One reason, in a nutshell, is the existence of multinational energy corporations -- the fossil fuel conglomerates -- and the Corporate State in general, who don't take kindly to discoveries that might threaten their profits and their stranglehold on the system.
A second reason is that Science itself became somewhat blinded by the glare of its Golden Age in the late 19th and all of the 20th century. In just a few years, the world rushed from Kittyhawk to landing men on the Moon; from Dinky Toys to the crawler vehicle on Mars. In the micro sense science developed quantum physics to the status of a physics deity, and in the macro sense it delved into the black holes of the universe, discovering quasars and launching the Hubble space telescope. All this and much more was very exciting, and attracted hundreds of brilliant scientists and billions of research dollars. The practical, everyday application of Connective Physics to our humdrum lives on Earth was not so exciting -- or worse yet, not believable, and therefore lost in the wash.
A third reason is that the claims made for ZPE devices and the like seem, at first, to defy the Laws of Thermodynamics, in particular the Law of Conservation of Energy. These laws state, in effect, that energy cannot be produced without consuming an energy resource (such as wood, oil, coal, uranium or whatever) -- i.e. cannot possibly produce more energy than the fuel possesses in itself -- or that there can be no energy without transforming it from another energy source (in the case of solar, wind, hydro, and other so-called alternative energy sources). The very best you can hope for is a 100 per cent conversion of fuel into energy, and usually the efficiency is far below that -- with a lot of waste heat representing the difference between the energy input and the energy output.
An open hearth, lovely as it is for roasting chestnuts, is one of the most inefficient ways of converting matter into energy and distributing its warmth. And atomic fission? Despite the awesome effects demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, atomic bombs returned only one per cent of the mass which went into the making of them. So you can imagine, the reaction of conventional scientists when someone comes with a ZPE motor which demonstrably produces eight times the energy needed to run it. Most would refuse to believe it, not unlike Cesare Cremonini, Professor of Philosophy at Padua University, who refused to look through Galileo Galilei's telescope, saying "Even if I do, I will not believe what I see." It is therefore understandable that some scientists of today would see a ZPE motor as a blasphemy, an Alchemy, a denial of the laws of nature.
Theoretical mathematics can be erroneously construed as being a determinant of physical reality. However, the ultimate description of physics must of necessity be by observation and experiment. Mathematics and theory can be used effectively to succinctly describe the physics of what has been observed or experimentally shown, and then used to suggest alternative experiments in order to further the understanding of a phenomena, but the math itself should never be assumed to necessarily constitute reality.
Unfortunately, the scientific community has by and large become overly enthusiastic about its mathematics, its grand theories and “laws”, that not only describe everything, but limit much of reality to what fits in with the mathematical theories. Instead of observation and experiment driving physics and science -- i.e. what actually occurs out there in reality being the driving force -- mainstream scientists have almost exclusively dismissed anything that didn’t agree with their theories. Theory has become the driving force; a reality which is fundamentally a contradiction of the Scientific Method.
This has been particularly true in the progress of science where a wrong turn in a theory has developed a life of its own and simply doesn’t allow for a reversal in its long-standing interpretation. One such case has been with regard to the basic laws of electrodynamics: known as Maxwell’s Equations. [See Hyperdimensional Physics.] Attempts to impose conservation of energy on the equations -- by means of something called “regauging” -- have eliminated the really interesting parts of the science -- a situation which is only now being corrected by a handful of enterprising scientists and mathematicians.
Importantly, the funding of science throughout the world has made demands on all scientists that they adhere to what is acceptable, i.e. fundable, in terms of what science is reviewed or considered. Observations that do not fit mainstream, acceptable science can not be tolerated by the “old guard” -- those who are more interested in tradition than in science. Part of this is that the funding agencies have their own agenda and vested interest in the status quo, but also because any new science Paradigm Shift might require so-called experts to go back to school and learn some new basics.
Science has indeed done much for humanity, but scientists must now return to the basics of the Scientific Method, and become open to the incredible potentials of such things as Zero Point Energy, Connective Physics, and science which addresses the fundamental problems facing the world today.
Science must also let go of the quickie retort that advanced, state-of-the-art energy units are contravening the Laws of Thermodynamics. One cannot claim that their device is “generating more energy than it consumes”, but a device can generate an external output which is greater than the internal input from conventional energy sources. This can be done not by creating energy out of nothing -- which is impossible -- but by drawing energy from the rest of the universe via zero-point or connective physics.
There are two aspects of what constitutes “The Law of the Conservation of Energy”. These are: 1) Energy can be neither created nor destroyed in a closed system, and 2) The total energy of a closed system is constant. The first aspect thinks in terms of a transformation or transfer of energy from one form to another, while the second aspect is a more general condition of what has already been implied in Newton’s First Law (an isolated mass continues at rest or in uniform motion).
However, if the only truly closed system is a universal one -- which is the basis for both Zero-Point Energy, Hyperdimensional Physics, and Connective Physics -- then all other so-called closed systems do not exist. From a purely practical viewpoint, variations from a local system‘s adherence to energy conservation may be sufficiently minute that we can operate in a normal manner (where apparently energy conservation laws continue to function). But such systems would operate only in the same context that sub-luminal velocities do not need to include Lorentz contraction terms. A fundamental truth, however, is that many macro examples are occurring whereby the deviation for local energy conservation laws is no longer sufficiently minute so as to be neglectable.