[Rich]

I lean towards @Steve_American's view on the importance of fossil fuels. I don't quite understand people who hold these radical theories about science and engineering.

If I discovered some radical hidden truth such as the Earth was flat or that it was easy to create free energy, my first thought is how can I use this knowledge to my benefit. How can I use this to give myself a competitive advantage. For example supposing I discovered that the world was only 6000 years old, that flood geology was the true scientific theory, I would be thinking how can I get into mining and drilling. Nearly everybody else in the field is going to be working at huge disadvantage. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. The last thing I'd want to do, is run round telling everybody else,

[B0ycey]

1] The Egyptian pyramids are just piles of big rocks. It is impossible for me to accept without any evidence that they could be used as a source of energy on a large scale.
Privide a link and I'll scan it.

You think I get most of my information from the Internet or something? I read Steve.

https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/christo ... R001738839

Dunn was able to predict chambers before they were discovered, the importance of water running under the pyramids and the chemical burns that channel up to the Kings chamber. There is no explanation on why the pyramids are not decorated inside compared to other burial chambers nor why the tunnels inside are so impractical let alone how they could get Khufu into the Kings chamber. His so called sarcophagus is also too small and undecorated and no mummies have ever been found in the pyramids. There is actually no evidence that the Pyramids are a burial chamber. There is loads of evidence it was a power plant. If you want to know more I don't really know where you can find the details. There might be a YouTube video on it but really, you'll have to buy the book.

2] You failed to make clear what model you didn't believe could make an accurate prediction.
I'm going to assume it is the one that in about 400 years, assuming exponential growth in energy use of about 3%/year. This is not a model. It is a simple calculation. Like I said, all energy use ends up as waste heat, right? This is a proven well known fact.
We know how much we use now, we assumed 3%/yr growth, so we can easily calculate how much we will be using after 400 years. So, 3% growth is a doubling time of 72/3 = 24 or 25 years. 400/25 =16 doublings. So, that means in 400 years our energy use will equal 2 to the 16th power. This is 65,536 times more than we are using now.
From goggle, "The “power” of a number indicates how many times the base would be multiplied by itself to reach the correct value. Therefore, 2 to the power of 16 is 65536."

Why in the world would you not believe that this is enough waste heat to start to boil the oceans?
Of course, it is not a prediction. Who knows what crazy tech may be discovered by then.
OTOH, energy is pretty well understood. I'd bet my life that we will not discover a way to avoid waste heat being a problem in that scenario.

What can I say to a claim that CO2 levels were higher in the deep past and the oceans did boil? Sir, are you math challenged?
OK, I'll explain. I'll be very generous and assume the CO2 levels in the past generated energy flows 10 times more than we see on earth now. However, compared to a 65,536 times larger energy flow, they seem very small.

3] Of course, there will be energy as long as the sun shines. You are showing how terrible you are at picking out the key point. Here the key point is not in energy will arrive from the sun. The key point is about continuous growth in energy use. The key point in GROWTH.

4] First, 'efficient' is not the right word. I think you mean 'concentrated'.
2nd, nuclear fission or fusion are the only known sources of energy that are more concentrated than fossil fuels.
. . There are other chemical reactions that are more concentrated, but they are not a source of energy. They are a form of energy. It is like electricity is not a source of energy, it is a form of energy. Lightening is a source of energy, it's just not very useful.
.

Christ, I'm not going through all this in detail.

1. I said we had more CO2 in the air than today in the past and the ocean didn't boil. How much CO2 is needed to boil the oceans? A lot more the the degree scientists predict we need to avoid by 2050.

2. Yes energy becomes heat. But there is a lot of energy in a single atom. The planet would not use all its energy potential before the sun swallows it up and the universe will take trillions of years to decay. And no, I don't buy ET would be using fossil fuels so, yeah, stop referencing the same taking points and concentrate why another source but fossil fuels are needed given there are many other ways to make energy.

3. No the point is if you can harness energy from the sun you don't need to use fossil fuels. And that is one example. I suspect there are even more efficient ways to harness energy

4. There is more potential energy in a single wave (and lightening) than a single can of oil. Fact.

[B0ycey]

I lean towards @Steve_American's view on the importance of fossil fuels. I don't quite understand people who hold these radical theories about science and engineering.

If I discovered some radical hidden truth such as the Earth was flat or that it was easy to create free energy, my first thought is how can I use this knowledge to my benefit. How can I use this to give myself a competitive advantage. For example supposing I discovered that the world was only 6000 years old, that flood geology was the true scientific theory, I would be thinking how can I get into mining and drilling. Nearly everybody else in the field is going to be working at huge disadvantage. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. The last thing I'd want to do, is run round telling everybody else,

Rich you thought that May was the best PM the UK had so what does that make of your opinion and judgement? Nobody is talking about flat earth anyway. And maybe, and I say this with the utmost respect, the government would rather keep these things secret away from their geopolitical competitors than reveal all they know. After Teslas death, the US government came in and took all his work. They also make a lot of money from oil. Money talks rich. Money talks.

[Steve_American]

You think I get most of my information from the Internet or something? I read Steve.

https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/christo ... R001738839

Dunn was able to predict chambers before they were discovered, the importance of water running under the pyramids and the chemical burns that channel up to the Kings chamber. There is no explanation on why the pyramids are not decorated inside compared to other burial chambers nor why the tunnels inside are so impractical let alone how they could get Khufu into the Kings chamber. His so called sarcophagus is also too small and undecorated and no mummies have ever been found in the pyramids. There is actually no evidence that the Pyramids are a burial chamber. There is loads of evidence it was a power plant. If you want to know more I don't really know where you can find the details. There might be a YouTube video on it but really, you'll have to buy the book.



Christ, I'm not going through all this in detail.

1. I said we had more CO2 in the air than today in the past and the ocean didn't boil. How much CO2 is needed to boil the oceans? A lot more the the degree scientists predict we need to avoid by 2050.

2. Yes energy becomes heat. But there is a lot of energy in a single atom. The planet would not use all its energy potential before the sun swallows it up and the universe will take trillions of years to decay. And no, I don't buy ET would be using fossil fuels so, yeah, stop referencing the same taking points and concentrate why another source but fossil fuels are needed given there are many other ways to make energy.

3. No the point is if you can harness energy from the sun you don't need to use fossil fuels. And that is one example. I suspect there are even more efficient ways to harness energy

4. There is more potential energy in a single wave (and lightening) than a single can of oil. Fact.

Ok, I tried to look at his evidence. I don't like adding cookies to my laptop. I didn't see any evidence at all.
I have never heard about chemical burns in the Kings chamber.
So, what id there is ground water under the pyramids?
I know that Khufu's pyramid is the 4th one they built. 3 still stand and 1 collapsed into the core that looks like a tower. Are those also energy makers?


It is impossible to 'make' energy.


I didn't ever say that CO2 would boil the oceans. I said it might be a risk along with methane. I was being silly.
What I did say is that after 400 years of the growth of energy use at 3%/yr, the resulting 65,536 times more energy flow would be enough to start to boil them based on the waste heat of all that energy flow. The sun is not included in the calculation.


How much energy in a can of oil depends on the size of the can. If he means a 1 quart or liter can, OK. If he means a 55 gal. can, then that's different. Also, a wave is bigger than 1000 55 gal. cans. So, waves are not concentrated, like oil is.
Lightening is silly as an energy source. They last less than a sec. You don't know when or where they will hit the ground.


I also didn't mean to imply that spaceships would use oil for fuel. What I meant is that the number of solar cells that it would take to make the liquid O2 and H2 to fuel a Saturn 5 rocket in a year (not over 10 yrs.) is a really huge number. So, just getting to the moon and back using solar cells for all energy needs requires a huge area of solar cells.
Getting to another star is almost impossible using any tech we have now or can even reasonably think we can develop. We will need major discoveries. Anti-matter seems like a good fuel, but we can't make a pound of it or store it for a month. We need to make big advances to use anti-matter.

[B0ycey]

Ok, I tried to look at his evidence. I don't like adding cookies to my laptop. I didn't see any evidence at all.
I have never heard about chemical burns in the Kings chamber.
So, what id there is ground water under the pyramids?
I know that Khufu's pyramid is the 4th one they built. 3 still stand and 1 collapsed into the core that looks like a tower. Are those also energy makers?


It is impossible to 'make' energy.


I didn't ever say that CO2 would boil the oceans. I said it might be a risk along with methane. I was being silly.
What I did say is that after 400 years of the growth of energy use at 3%/yr, the resulting 65,536 times more energy flow would be enough to start to boil them based on the waste heat of all that energy flow. The sun is not included in the calculation.


How much energy in a can of oil depends on the size of the can. If he means a 1 quart or liter can, OK. If he means a 55 gal. can, then that's different. Also, a wave is bigger than 1000 55 gal. cans. So, waves are not concentrated, like oil is.
Lightening is silly as an energy source. They last less than a sec. You don't know when or where they will hit the ground.


I also didn't mean to imply that spaceships would use oil for fuel. What I meant is that the number of solar cells that it would take to make the liquid O2 and H2 to fuel a Saturn 5 rocket in a year (not over 10 yrs.) is a really huge number. So, just getting to the moon and back using solar cells for all energy needs requires a huge area of solar cells.
Getting to another star is almost impossible using any tech we have now or can even reasonably think we can develop. We will need major discoveries. Anti-matter seems like a good fuel, but we can't make a pound of it or store it for a month. We need to make big advances to use anti-matter.

If you don't even look, you won't find the evidence Steve. I gave you a link to the book. I am not even suggesting you buy it, but that is the evidence so if you want to know more, you'll have to buy it. If you do buy it and read it, then it will convince you because he explains everything. I gave you a snippet, there is so more evidence in the book. But whatever, there is actually no evidence it is a tomb anyway.

The rest, meh. We are going round in circles here. I am saying fossil fuels are not needed as you can harness energy in other ways and ET would most definitely had taken another technological path given fossil fuels are inefficient and you don't really address my point but give me some notion that fossil fuels are going to boil ocean, we'd use all the energy in 400 years or that lightening is rubbish because we don't know when it will strike. Who cares. There are other ways to harness energy, that alone means fossil fuels are not needed for energy period.

[Steve_American]

If you don't even look, you won't find the evidence Steve. I gave you a link to the book. I am not even suggesting you buy it, but that is the evidence so if you want to know more, you'll have to buy it. If you do buy it and read it, then it will convince you because he explains everything. I gave you a snippet, there is so more evidence in the book. But whatever, there is actually no evidence it is a tomb anyway.

The rest, meh. We are going round in circles here. I am saying fossil fuels are not needed as you can harness energy in other ways and ET would most definitely had taken another technological path given fossil fuels are inefficient and you don't really address my point but give me some notion that fossil fuels are going to boil ocean, we'd use all the energy in 400 years or that lightening is rubbish because we don't know when it will strike. Who cares. There are other ways to harness energy, that alone means fossil fuels are not needed for energy period.

B0ycey, you have said several times that fossil fuels are "inefficient".

I suggested that you meant not concentrated like nuclear power is. You seemed to reject that correction, and repeated your usage.

Some facts you may not realize are =>
1] A barrel of oil is 42 US gal.
2] A barrel of oil is the energy of a man working hard for about 5 years.
3] So, filling your gas tank puts energy into it equal to about 2.5 years of a man working hard.
4] At $10/hour this is $10 x 8hr/day x 5days/week x 52weeks/yr x 2.5 yr = $52,000 worth of work.
6] At $4/gal this costs you $4/gal. x 22gal./tank =$88/tank
7] This means oil is 52,000/88 = 590 times more work/$ than a human can do.
. . . As power it is some what more concentrated. You can burn 88 gal. in 1/2 day. It takes a human 2.5 years to do that much work. The ratio is 1825 to 1. [Here I converted years into days as 2.5 x 365 = 912.5 days and divide it by 0.5 to get = 1825.
8] Using oil seems very efficient compared to humans working.
9] The engine to use the oil weights a ton maybe. The reactor to use nuclear power weights much, much more. The reactor produces more power than the car engine does. But, the weights/power ratios seem to still be in favor of the engine.

[Yes, my figures are rough estimates, except the barrels of oil =5 years of work. Also, I hope my calculations are correct.]

I'm asserting that this info shows that it is hard to imagine that aliens on a planet that has no fossil fuels will discover nuclear power.
You think that the ancient Egyptians discovered how to get energy out of a very big pile of big rocks, so you think you know how they could.
I'm not going to believe that. It is an extraordinary claim, and so, it needs good, solid evidence. So far, you have pointed to one book. While this is evidence, it isn't solid evidence. It has not convinced one expert that you can point to. It may have, but you can't say who it is.
.

[B0ycey]

My point is Fossil fuels are inefficient in the sense you only use a fraction of the energy potential @Steve_American. You could only assume that if ET can reach the far distances of the galaxy, they would have mastered Zero Point Energy rather than use something that is inefficient like fossil fuels.

As for the pyramids, your opinion is noted. However there is significantly more evidence it is a power plant than a tomb.

[ingliz]

@Steve_American

@B0ycey thinks Ancient Aliens is a documentary.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey thinks Ancient Aliens is a documentary.

Or maybe I do my own research and don't just accept narratives.

[Steve_American]

My point is Fossil fuels are inefficient in the sense you only use a fraction of the energy potential @Steve_American. You could only assume that if ET can reach the far distances of the galaxy, they would have mastered Zero Point Energy rather than use something that is inefficient like fossil fuels.

As for the pyramids, your opinion is noted. However there is significantly more evidence it is a power plant than a tomb.

Perhaps they were all "cenotaphs". Maybe they buried the Pharaohs somewhere else to confuse the grave robbers.
I agree that there is little to no evidence that the pyramids contained bodies.

ce·no·taph
/ˈsenəˌtaf/
noun
a monument to someone buried elsewhere, especially one commemorating people who died in a war.

[Steve_American]

My point is Fossil fuels are inefficient in the sense you only use a fraction of the energy potential @Steve_American. You could only assume that if ET can reach the far distances of the galaxy, they would have mastered Zero Point Energy rather than use something that is inefficient like fossil fuels.

As for the pyramids, your opinion is noted. However there is significantly more evidence it is a power plant than a tomb.

I agree that IF Aliens reached other stars, they are not using fossil fuels to get there.

However, my point is that to access nuclear power, or any other sort of concentrated energy, all aliens will have to use the concentrated energy of fossil fuels or some other such stepping stone.

This like what I learned in metallurgy class. Because it is impossible to smelt copper and tin in an open fire (because its openness means there is always some O2 in contact with the copper oxide, so it is impossible for carbon monoxide to pull the Oxygen off the molecules of copper oxide), it is necessary for a society to have pottery kilns before it can discover smelting by accident. The kilns keep the O2 out.

You, however, are assuming that Aliens somehow didn't need the precondition that I'm claiming is necessary. So, you are assuming I'm wrong to prove I'm wrong.

OTOH, if you are right that Aliens have reached earth then I'm totally wrong. But then, so is Fermi's Paradox.

Lurkers note, recently it was announced that we have discovered evidence that there may be life on a nearby planet. However, that is just evidence of primitive life, not evidence of intelligent life or of spacefaring aliens. So, this has no bearing on my claim in this thread.
.

[B0ycey]

Perhaps they were all "cenotaphs". Maybe they buried the Pharaohs somewhere else to confuse the grave robbers.
I agree that there is little to no evidence that the pyramids contained bodies.

ce·no·taph
/ˈsenəˌtaf/
noun
a monument to someone buried elsewhere, especially one commemorating people who died in a war.

Just so you are aware, the "official narrative" is that the Pyramids are a tomb for the pharaoh Khufu and there is a "so called" sarcophagus within the kings chamber. I say 'so called' because it would actually be too small to be one and it is undecorated - not to mention it had no lid or body, but that is the official narrative. You can believe it is a cenotaph if you like, but like me believing it was likely a power plant, such belief would be against the narrative I just want you to know.

[ingliz]

@B0ycey

"a power plant"

How does it work?

And if you know how it works, why don't you switch it on?

[B0ycey]

I agree that IF Aliens reached other stars, they are not using fossil fuels to get there.

However, my point is that to access nuclear power, or any other sort of concentrated energy, all aliens will have to use the concentrated energy of fossil fuels or some other such stepping stone.

This like what I learned in metallurgy class. Because it is impossible to smelt copper and tin in an open fire (because its openness means there is always some O2 in contact with the copper oxide, so it is impossible for carbon monoxide to pull the Oxygen off the molecules of copper oxide), it is necessary for a society to have pottery kilns before it can discover smelting by accident. The kilns keep the O2 out.

You, however, are assuming that Aliens somehow didn't need the precondition that I'm claiming is necessary. So, you are assuming I'm wrong to prove I'm wrong.

OTOH, if you are right that Aliens have reached earth then I'm totally wrong. But then, so is Fermi's Paradox.

Lurkers note, recently it was announced that we have discovered evidence that there may be life on a nearby planet. However, that is just evidence of primitive life, not evidence of intelligent life or of spacefaring aliens. So, this has no bearing on my claim in this thread.
.

The Fermi's paradox is merely an assumption in any case because nobody can be sure of the values the equations has especially in regards to 'earth like planets'. But actually if intelligent life has already reached Earth, that would actually answer the question it poses in any case, which is 'where are all the aliens?'

As for fossil fuels, I am not assuming anything. Even if you are correct and fossil fuels are needed to start technological advancement, it doesn't mean the civilization would need it indefinitely and hence could be 'off oil' before CO2 admissions caused a climate change crisis
in any case which is what this thread is about. However fossil fuels still need the right conditions to even form in and I don't accept there is one single technological path to take. In fact, if Tesla had his funding I doubt we would even have used the term fossil fuels today but whatever. So I guess what I am saying is that civilizations will evolve to the conditions they have but the fundamental laws of physics stay the same. For example there are so many ways to harness and use energy that we are aware of. So how many ways do you think there are that we are not aware of? And another question could be, if we were rich on another specific element we don't have much of - say for example gold or Uranium, would we of had the same technological route anyway?

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey

"a power plant"

How does it work?

And if you know how it works, why don't you switch it on?

Because it is broke dickhead. It must have had some form of explosion hence why the measurements are all wrong in the Kings chamber and the stones are all cracked, not to mention there are chemical burns within it. If you don't even know anything about this I would just fuck off and let the adults discuss this and you can stick to your trans threads and wave that damn stupid flag.

[ingliz]

why the measurements are all wrong in the Kings chamber

Wrong for what...

A power plant?

[B0ycey]

Wrong for what...

A power plant?

Yes yes Ingliz, and women can have penis's too right? You think your opinion matters to me?

But just so you know, they (measurements) are wrong because a force has pushed the walls out. Funny, considering the rest of the pyramid is so precise don't you think.

[ingliz]

Funny, considering the rest of the pyramid is so precise don't you think.

It's funny because the pyramid is not so precise.

The base of the Great Pyramid of Giza is lopsided due to a mistake made by builders during its construction. The west side of the Pyramid is slightly longer than the east one. This is because the base is not square, with one side 14.4 centimeters longer than the one opposite it.

[B0ycey]

It's funny because the pyramid is not so precise.

The base of the Great Pyramid of Giza is lopsided due to a mistake made by builders during its construction. The west side of the Pyramid is slightly longer than the east one. This is because the base is not square, with one side 14.4 centimeters longer than the one opposite it.

And the Earth isn't a perfect sphere either.

Also, the casing of the pyramid was limestone. Would you measure a car from its chassis or external body?

[ingliz]

And the Earth isn't a perfect sphere either

What the fuck has that to do with it?

You're the one who said the pyramid was ever so precise.