In order to detect gravity waves those items need to work on the very small scale. Here's some work going on to build the sort of devices we need to build a gravity detector.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/squeezed-light-a-small-step-forward-toward-detecting-gravitational-waves.ars

@Lou

Harvesting the power in radiowaves isn't that new of a concept. It's been an idea for decades at least. We talked about it in my college physics class and modeled it, that was twenty years ago.

Everything has an amount of energy, including radiowaves. That energy is fairly small. With today's technology a capture and storage device for something that needs a good amount of power, say an electric car, wouldn't be possible. The costs would far exceed using other technologies such as gas.

As electronics progress they should get smaller and use less power. There are limits in nature for these things. We're still quite a way off. Though recently Intel has shown a CPU that runs on 10milliwatts . Now you're talking something close to where we might be able to harvest radiowaves. Oh and I'm sure you'll note this uses a solar cell which is where we harvest lightwaves. The current issue is the 0 and 1 state in a computer are fairly well apart as energy levels. In the milliwatt scale they're very close. The chips must detect the energy far more accurately in order to operate there. I think it'll come.

But, again - nothing magical or radical here. Simple physics concepts known for decades....Science continues, as always, to progress.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Sep-2011 at 02:51 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: In order to detect gravity waves those items need to work on the very small scale. Here's some work going on to build the sort of devices we need to build a gravity detector. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/squeezed-light-a-small-step-forward-toward-detecting-gravitational-waves.ars

Good luck with that...
Alot of money wasted...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Harvesting the power in radiowaves isn't that new of a concept. It's been an idea for decades at least. We talked about it in my college physics class and modeled it, that was twenty years ago. Everything has an amount of energy, including radiowaves. That energy is fairly small. With today's technology a capture and storage device for something that needs a good amount of power, say an electric car, wouldn't be possible. The costs would far exceed using other technologies such as gas. As electronics progress they should get smaller and use less power. There are limits in nature for these things. We're still quite a way off. Though recently Intel has shown a CPU that runs on 10milliwatts . Now you're talking something close to where we might be able to harvest radiowaves. Oh and I'm sure you'll note this uses a solar cell which is where we harvest lightwaves. The current issue is the 0 and 1 state in a computer are fairly well apart as energy levels. In the milliwatt scale they're very close. The chips must detect the energy far more accurately in order to operate there. I think it'll come. But, again - nothing magical or radical here. Simple physics concepts known for decades....Science continues, as always, to progress.

"Concepts" are one thing. Alienscientist gave "specifics". Now (2009) Nokia annouces actual theory being put into practice. And I was talking about "free" energy, not low power cpus...

@Lou

Quote:

Concepts" are one thing. Alienscientist gave "specifics". Now (2009) Nokia annouces actual theory being put into practice. And I was talking about "free" energy, not low power cpus...

The 'concepts' as you call it are fairly specific. You can calculate the energy in a wave. As the the 'alienscientist' says there's trillions of electromagnetic waves hitting the planet at any time. And for decades we've been capturing those EM waves. More formally you know them as solar panels. This is one type of capturing part of the EM spectrum noise. And we make use of other EM too. Have you seen Wireless battery chargers? How to do this is well known. 'Alienscientist' could do this with physics we've known for nearly two centuries. EM Inductive Theory happened in the early 1800s.

Correct you were not talking low power CPUs. You need to apply the 'free energy' to some device to get it to do work. How much 'free energy' is in that radiowave? (again you can calculate this with known physics.) Is there enough 'free energy' to power a car down the road or a very tiny requirement of energy in, as my example, a milliwatt CPU?

@Lou

Quote:

Good luck with that... Alot of money wasted...

Perhaps. Though the point of Research and Development is to bring us to new frontiers and understanding. It's very difficult, I'd say impossible, to do a cost benefit analysis. In order to perform such a thing one would have to know for sure the final outcome. And doing R&D is exactly because we don't know the final outcome.

For example -- I doubt anyone said in the 1950s that we have to fund NASA because in the 70s the technology will make a really good kidney dialysis machine.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Concepts" are one thing. Alienscientist gave "specifics". Now (2009) Nokia annouces actual theory being put into practice. And I was talking about "free" energy, not low power cpus... The 'concepts' as you call it are fairly specific. You can calculate the energy in a wave. As the the 'alienscientist' says there's trillions of electromagnetic waves hitting the planet at any time. And for decades we've been capturing those EM waves. More formally you know them as solar panels. This is one type of capturing part of the EM spectrum noise. And we make use of other EM too. Have you seen Wireless battery chargers? How to do this is well known. 'Alienscientist' could do this with physics we've known for nearly two centuries. EM Inductive Theory happened in the early 1800s. Correct you were not talking low power CPUs. You need to apply the 'free energy' to some device to get it to do work. How much 'free energy' is in that radiowave? (again you can calculate this with known physics.) Is there enough 'free energy' to power a car down the road or a very tiny requirement of energy in, as my example, a milliwatt CPU?

Recall, I am the one who said it's an EM universe...

Nokia already defined the trickle-charger for batteries. When cpus and all the other components can run on the trickle alone, the battery will become useless.

Induction is not 'free' in your example and solar panels use specific frequencies and hence are inefficient. What was proposed by Alienscientist only loses 20% efficiency when the sun goes down.

Last edited by Lou on 21-Sep-2011 at 12:39 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Good luck with that... Alot of money wasted... Perhaps. Though the point of Research and Development is to bring us to new frontiers and understanding. It's very difficult, I'd say impossible, to do a cost benefit analysis. In order to perform such a thing one would have to know for sure the final outcome. And doing R&D is exactly because we don't know the final outcome. For example -- I doubt anyone said in the 1950s that we have to fund NASA because in the 70s the technology will make a really good kidney dialysis machine.

I'm just saying after 400 years, it's time to focus on something else...

@Lou

Quote:

Recall, I am the one who said it's an EM universe...

Meh. Recall that science says it's a universe that we understand has 4 primary forces and have yet to rectify how they fit nicely into 1. EM being part of that. This certainly does not prove that EM is the ONLY force as you so claim.

Quote:

When cpus and all the other components can run on the trickle alone, the battery will become useless

YUP! And that's the point of my post. How do we use this in a useful way other then trickling the charge into a battery. But, again there's not enough 'free energy' to power a thousand watt car instead we'd power a few milliwatt device.

Quote:

Induction is not 'free' in your example and solar panels use specific frequencies and hence are inefficient.

Correct both devices use specific frequencies. But, herein the principle is the same. The frequency of light is captured in a solar panel. There are frequencies hitting earth from outside the planet. Within the earth there are frequencies from radio, TV, microwaves, cell phones etc. Capture those and charge a battery or power a device doesn't really matter the principle is Induction something known since the 1830s. Sorry, nothing Alienscientist is radical or new. He just appears to not be knowledgeable in science or history.

And again nothing is 'free' in the sense that using energy is lossy and making energy is lossy. Though it may be 'free' in the sense that we don't absorb the loss on earth to make the energy when we use an X-Ray made by the sun around Betelguese. That sun would absorb the loss. --- Unfortunately there's no free lunch in the universe.

Quote:

I'm just saying after 400 years, it's time to focus on something else...

I might add no one's stopping you. You are free to invest your money or your own scientific mind into perptual motion research, zero point energy, and detecting if there's any life on Nibiru. Importantly what we need is evidence and it's been welcomed here quite a bit and the EM Universe, Nibiru, and Planet X -- all have fallen short.

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Sep-2011 at 02:09 PM.

Reminder all ELENIN Doomsday Monday, Sept 26th! Ran to the hills

Note to self buy more popcorn.

@BrianK

'Free' energy is a matter of perspective. The universe emits EM whether I use it or not, that's 'free'-enough for me.

Gravity has yet to be detected. It's evidence still falls short. The difference between Bose-Einstein condensates and matter containing polarized molecules in all random directions is the difference between EM and your mythical gravity. As for the supposed nuclear forces, when we can see and measure that small, we can make better theories. I've already linked data that shows the relation between relativity and quantum mechanics. There are plenty of scientist that believe it's an electric and holographic universe.

While Niburu's existence hasn't been proven beyond doubt, it hasn't been disproven. I supposed we'll know once and for all by the Y3K...

Last edited by Lou on 21-Sep-2011 at 06:22 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

'Free' energy is a matter of perspective. The universe emits EM whether I use it or not, that's 'free'-enough for me.

That's not 'free' that's simply unused energy.

Quote:

There are plenty of scientist that believe it's an electric and holographic universe.

Belief does not construct reality. Else we wouldn't need to use energy or cars or planes or dream of teleporters. We'd just think it into being.

Quote:

While Niburu's existence hasn't been proven beyond doubt, it hasn't been disproven

It's not up to the non-believers to prove a negative. It's up to those that 'believe' to provide the proof. The best we can say at this time is there is no physical evidence yet proving Nibiru exists.

And when that same group tells us Elenin is impacting earth due to unproven magical forces and the doom and gloom doesn't happen on 9/26/2011 their already weak claims look even weaker. It simply illustrates how much non-evidence they have. Again I back to belief does not construct reality. Just because you might believe BigFoot blew up the Twin Towers doesn't make it so, it's still Saudi born Terrorists.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: 'Free' energy is a matter of perspective. The universe emits EM whether I use it or not, that's 'free'-enough for me. That's not 'free' that's simply unused energy.

This 'untapped' energy source is the basis for the video from Alienscientist that I linked. Infact if you listened to his first words, he says there is no such thing as FREE energy in a prior video.

Quote:

Quote: While Niburu's existence hasn't been proven beyond doubt, it hasn't been disproven It's not up to the non-believers to prove a negative.

Why?

Quote:

It's up to those that 'believe' to provide the proof.

Why?

Quote:

The best we can say at this time is there is no physical evidence yet proving Nibiru exists yet.

Fixed that one for you.

Quote:

And when that same group tells us Elenin is impacting earth due to unproven magical forces and the doom and gloom doesn't happen on 9/26/2011 their already weak claims look even weaker. It simply illustrates how much non-evidence they have. Again I back to belief does not construct reality. Just because you might believe BigFoot blew up the Twin Towers doesn't make it so, it's still Saudi born Terrorists.

Well, I think there is some labelling going on as well as generallizations. 'That group' is not an organized group. Anyone who actually bothered to read Sitchin's book wouldn't have been in that 'same group'. Even the sight you linked assumed 2011/12 is the year Sitchin said Niburu is coming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision
Quote:

However, Sitchin, who died in 2010, denied any connection between his work and Lieder's claims. In 2007, partly in response to Lieder's proclamations, Sitchin published a book, The End of Days, which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at 556 BC, which would mean, given the object's supposed 3,600-year orbit, that it would return sometime around AD 2900.

Last edited by Lou on 21-Sep-2011 at 09:07 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: It's not up to the non-believers to prove a negative. It's up to those that 'believe' to provide the proof. Why?

Proving a negative gets into a debate of evidence of absence vs absence of evidence. It's fairly improbable if not impossible to do that sort of thing. The 'believers' have the characteristics of claim of the object, the characteristics of the objects, and thereby the burden of proof. Nibiru is X in diameter, traveling at Y speed, and is Z light years away. If such an object is so they have the burdern to say here's a telecope showing exactly what we said is, is. What often happens is the non-believers bring the evidence (hey we mapped your sky it's not there) and then the believers simply move the goal post. Which BTW has been throughly demonstrated in this thread.... And soon to be demonstrated again as the sky won't be blackened and the start of end days won't happen this coming Monday. (Come on Elenin's even Evil hates working Mondays.)

Quote:

'That group' is not an organized group. Anyone who actually bothered to read Sitchin's book wouldn't have been in that 'same group'. Even the sight you linked assumed 2011/12 is the year Sitchin said Niburu is coming.

Sure 'that group' is the set of people that have been telling us over and over of the end of the world from Nibiru in 2012 and it's beginning in Sept 2011. Perhaps they all read wrong. Which is why I go back to they are the ones that need to bring the evidence. We've evidenced their silly Elenin the Earthquake generator into oblivion. The response was a combination of building an imaginary force without evidence and has already shown to be moving the goalpost. I'm now seeing Elenin may be late and really happen in Oct from the same crowd. They need to take a step back, breath, and do some analysis and logic. Perhaps they should all agree with you that Y3K is what Stichin meant. Though the next step is still yet to happen, prove Stichin correct and not talking out his own butt.

Quote:

In 2007, partly in response to Lieder's proclamations, Sitchin published a book, The End of Days, which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at 556 BC, which would mean, given the object's supposed 3,600-year orbit, that it would return sometime around AD 2900

I wish I'd be around to see it not happen.

EDIT:
Quote:

Quote: The best we can say at this time is there is no physical evidence yet proving Nibiru exists yet. Fixed that one for you

Perhaps you should take out the first yet. Having yet twice seems fairly repeatively and less clear. But, I wasn't an English major so...

Last edited by BrianK on 21-Sep-2011 at 09:59 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 21-Sep-2011 at 09:16 PM.

@BrianK

Do you find it a bit ironic that the earthquake that hit the US east coast on the 23rd of August was around the same time as that wave in your video link that supposedly hit Elenin?

@Lou

Quote:

Do you find it a bit ironic that the earthquake that hit the US east coast on the 23rd of August was around the same time as that wave in your video link that supposedly hit Elenin?

You're asking me if there's something ironic about the timing between the 19th of August hit of Elenin and the 23rd of August Earthquake? One might see irony if there was some sort of unexpected causitive relationship. I know of nothing proven to be causally linked between those 2 events within this 4 day time. A long answer for -- No.

@Lou

Quote:

However, Sitchin, who died in 2010, denied any connection between his work and Lieder's claims. In 2007, partly in response to Lieder's proclamations, Sitchin published a book, The End of Days, which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at 556 BC, which would mean, given the object's supposed 3,600-year orbit, that it would return sometime around AD 2900.

So what actual tangible evidence do you have to support the idea that there were E.T's wandering round on this planet in 556BC. Apart that is from a few misrepresented artefacts and made up "translations" of ancient documents, and a mountain of wishful thinking. The whole trick to "predictions" is to keep them vague, and set them far enough into the future that by the time your prophecy fails, nobody remembers who you were or what you said.

Quote:

Quote: It's not up to the non-believers to prove a negative. Why?

If scientific progress had to stop every five minutes to disprove every stupid idea, and explain basic principles to people who cannot count to above ten without taking off their shoes and socks, we would still be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That would mean that there would be no computers, or cars, but there would be religious wars.
"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist." Is an argument that has been presented to me to prove that I am wrong on the subject of religion. Do you support that Godbotherer?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

Quote: In 2007, partly in response to Lieder's proclamations, Sitchin published a book, The End of Days, which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at 556 BC, which would mean, given the object's supposed 3,600-year orbit, that it would return sometime around AD 2900 I wish I'd be around to see it not happen.

That's the way, try a bit of wishful thinking. Lou certainly seems to believe that it will work.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

That's the way, try a bit of wishful thinking. Lou certainly seems to believe that it will work.

Yes I was being flipent.

I'm all for looking for Nibiru. People have pointed their telescopes at that space and come up with nothing. We're then told 'Oh we read the book wrong it's X'. Which in turn comes up with nothing. And the goal post is moved again.

Monday here is to be warm and sunny. I'm betting on the meterologists above the Elenin prediction of the sky being darkened by the comet.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: However, Sitchin, who died in 2010, denied any connection between his work and Lieder's claims. In 2007, partly in response to Lieder's proclamations, Sitchin published a book, The End of Days, which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at 556 BC, which would mean, given the object's supposed 3,600-year orbit, that it would return sometime around AD 2900. So what actual tangible evidence do you have to support the idea that there were E.T's wandering round on this planet in 556BC. Apart that is from a few misrepresented artefacts and made up "translations" of ancient documents, and a mountain of wishful thinking. The whole trick to "predictions" is to keep them vague, and set them far enough into the future that by the time your prophecy fails, nobody remembers who you were or what you said.

I don't know so much about 556BC, as I clearly wasn't there but there's plenty of that in recent history.

Quote:

If scientific progress had to stop every five minutes to disprove every stupid idea, and explain basic principles to people who cannot count to above ten without taking off their shoes and socks, we would still be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That would mean that there would be no computers, or cars, but there would be religious wars. "God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist." Is an argument that has been presented to me to prove that I am wrong on the subject of religion. Do you support that Godbotherer?

I don't believe in any religion. This would include anything to do with any 'god(s)' or a 'God'. On a brighter note it means I don't believe in a satanic entity as well.

As for science, they are wrong all the time and spend as much time correcting their erroneous ways as anything else.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/why-my-fellow-physicists-think-they-know-everything-and-why-theyre-wrong.ars
Infact it's standard practice to have a theory be accepted as fact until it is disproven.
So yes, if you ask me, every stupid idea does indeed need to be completely disproven.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method:
Quote:

Any scientific theory is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered.

Infact, most scienfic progress is/are corrections.

Last edited by Lou on 22-Sep-2011 at 02:48 PM.