ATS Great Debate
Round Two

Quicksilver v. RealFight

Topic: Zero-Point energy is a real technology, supressed by factions of our government.

Quicksilver will take the affirmative position, agreeing with the statement and will have first opening statement.

RealFight will take the contrary position, disagreeing with the satement, and will have first closing statement.

Editing of your posts is strictly prohibited! For obvious reasons. Editing your post results in immediate forfeiture.

1- Competitors assigned the affirmative position go first with an opening statement, and have right of passing their opening statement post to their contrary position competitor. Opening statements cannot contain links.

2- Each competitor in turn contributes FOUR posts to support their side of the topic. (For a total of five posts) These are the only posts within the debate that may contain links to articles, or embedded pictures/graphics. (one link or graphic per post).
For round two, no more than 12 hours between posts or you forfeit your turn.

3- The competitor representing the contrary position has first right of closing statement. As with the opening statement, they have an opportunity to pass to their competitor representing the affirmative position. Closing statements cannot contain links.

4- Each competitor can submit one rebuttal to their competitors closing statement, but cannot exceed 200 words. Rebuttals are not required.

This is a total of 12 posts, the debate is closed, and voting begins. Forum members will vote on the merits of your capabilities arguing your side of the position, not their opinion of the position.

The debate begins immediately. Opening statement from the affirmative side is due by 17:00 GMT tomorrow, or the opening statement is passed to the contrary side.

Good luck, and have fun.

where is everyone?

Im learning bout zero energy ill post the opening in a few

Since Quicksilver has not posted his opening statement in the last three days, I am assuming that the opening statement has been passed to me.

Zero Point Energy means Zero Energy

Something for nothing, that is the very pemise of zero point energy. The very idea that we have free energy as a resource available to us and that the goverment is stopping us from using it is absurd. Our goverment and other goverments has funded studies into zero point energy, this funding is long gone after conculding that this is not a answer to our energy needs, now or in the future.

Lets look at why. First energy exists, it cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be converted from one form into another. In that conversion process, some energy is lost, in the form of friction or heat, so the efficiency of the energy transfer process is ALWAYS less than 100 percent. A free energy device will appear to produce more energy than it uses or equal. The key word is appear, perpetual motion does not exist nor does zero point energy. There have been claims made. None have ever been proved. There are still people in the world that are asking for you to invest in this idea. These people will have you belive in free energy, if only you will send them money to futher their research. If you belive that ... I've got some better ideas to research, just send me money.

I will debunk any idea that zero point energy exists today and that our goverment is holding this from us.

Since it has been 12 hours plus... I once again assume that Quicksilver has forfeited his post to me, out of respect for Quicksilver...I will wait a a little longer before I post. Quicksilver I hope that everything is well with you and I hope that we can continue this debate.

Don't be Sucked in by Zero Point Energy

The concept of getting energy from an empty vacuum inevitably turns out to violate at least one law of thermodynamics. The conventional view is that the energy in a vacuum is minuscule at best. Using Einstein's law, E=mc^2, given the equivalence of mass and energy, the amount of energy in a vacuum would be minute if it exists at all. There are absolutely no zero-point devices in existence.
Steve K. Lamoreaux, a physicist at Los Almos National Laboratory said "The zero-point energy community is more successful at advertising and selfpromotion than they are at carrying out bona fide scientific research".
The pseudoscience of zero-point energy has existed for decades. Why is there no proof of it's existence? Knowing the immense benefit zero-point energy could provide mankind, why would anyone, including the government, suppress this technology?

Sorry for the absence i went awol while on vaction forgot my powercord for the laptop lol dummy me.

How can you say it does not exist?? Because it has not been proven?? My question to you has it been disproven? Look at the recent discovery of dark matter. It was long disputed if it was real or not and many people like were closed minded and believed it to be fake. Now they are back trakcing and discovering tehre reasoning is false. And you ask why the government would keep it a secret. Just imagine a everlasting supply of energy put in the wrong hands. A zero point energy device would be the most valuable tool or weapon ever. How many people knew about the atomic bomb prior to the first one dropping.

Quicksilver, I'm glad that you could join the debate.


>>>Topic: Zero-Point energy is a real technology, supressed by factions of our government.<<<

Originally posted by Quicksilver
And you ask why the government would keep it a secret. Just imagine a everlasting supply of energy put in the wrong hands. A zero point energy device would be the most valuable tool or weapon ever.

My point exactly. Zero-point energy would be the greatest discovery that mankind has ever achieved. It would provide us with an unlimited, non-polluting energy source. In addition, it could also give us a propulsion system that would make interplanetary travel possible. Sounds too good to be true...it is! Hundreds, even thousands of scientists, have worked on free energy theories for decades. Do you think that if zero-point energy was real, any one person, or group of persons, would not have previously claimed the notariety/financial gain that would accompany such a monumental discovery?

As for dark matter, my understanding is that it is still a hypothesis, i. e., not "real." Websters dictionary defines the word "real" as "actual," "existing." The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary defines the word "real" as "existing in fact or actuality," "genuine," "authentic."

As for the atomic bomb, it was first tested on U.S. soil in Alamagordo, New Mexico in 1945. This event drew world-wide attention. The government then proceeded to integrate atomic energy as a major source of energy, both for electricity and for propulsion systems, i.e., submarines.

If zero-point energy was real, why wouldn't any government utilize this "alleged" more superior, energy source, as opposed to atomic or nuclear energy?

real fight go search for zero point energy on google. YOu fill find thousands of pages of pages with bout half of them having credible hypotheseis taht would work in theory. And that is information to the common person. Just think what information our government has.

Like i said before it is merly too dangerous to reveal to the public. yes it would be the greatist achievement ever but it is upredictable and the government feels that the people cannot handle the shere power of it. RealFight answer me this if you were the government would you release that you had that kind of power. You would imediatly be the prime target by every crime organization and terrorist group who long for power. Also every government minus our strongest allies would be against you. It would be too big of a threat to them to ignore it and let you have it. Would you want that?? Do you think "they" would want that.

The Point of " Zero-Point Energy" is That it is Pointless

Quoted by Quicksilver:

"real fight go search for zero point energy on google. YOu fill find thousands of pages of pages with bout half of them having credible hypotheseis taht would work in theory."

The internet is notorious for containing useful and useless information. The Internet is saturated with speculation about zero point energy, with many
claiming to have solved the problem of being able to tap into zero-point energy by using coils, magnets, and
crystals. Consider the following statement from a respected physicist: "These claims come along every 10 years or so and nothing ever comes of them. They're all cases of 'voodoo science'," said Robert Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland."

As far as searching for "zero-point energy" on Google, here is a point that I would like to make; if you type in "immortality devices" on Google, you may be surprised at the vast number of returns that you will get. Does this mean that since Google gave a large return on various immortality devices that can allegedly offer mankind the priceless possession of eternal life, that such devices are real, and more importantly, actually work? Do you have yours? I don't have mine! Just because these subjects are on the internet, it does not mean that zero-point energy, nor immortality, are real.

Quoted by Quicksilver:

"Like i said before it is merly too dangerous to reveal to the public. yes it would be the greatist achievement ever but it is upredictable and the government feels that the people cannot handle the shere power of it. RealFight answer me this if you were the government would you release that you had that kind of power."

Was atomic energy too dangerous to be released to the public? It now serves as a source of tremendous energy for the United States, as well as other countries. As far as being "dangerous," atomic energy is far more dangerous than zero-point energy. Atomic energy was a deterrent during the Cold War era. If zero-point energy was available to us, it could be a deterrent, as well as a protection device. With the amount of energy alleged that zero-point energy could provide, could not such things as protective force fields, become a reality? In this day and age where countries are vying for the energy resources held by rival countries, zero-point energy would invariably end the conflicts involving energy sources. If a country did in fact, have this resource available, why would that country not use it to shift the balance of power?

I would like to offer this firm statement. Many avenues can be taken in debating whether or not zero-point energy exists, or does not exist. Once all of these avenues have been removed, a very concrete and irrefutable fact emerges; the laws of physics. One of the most useful thing you can learn from physics is what cannot happen. If a concept, theory, hypothesis, etc., is forbidden by a well-established physical law, then it simply will not happen, no matter how much you might want it to exist.

As far as the dangers of zero-point energy they are as numerous as pages of these soo called imortallity devices. A nuclear power plant in the hands of terrorist would ony be a minute danger compared to a zero point energy technology in the wrong hands. You would have th epower to destroy planets solor systems ect.

But realfight you have yet to answer my question about if you were in charge of the government would you truly think the world would be ready to handle it and would you release it. Also would you argee with my argument of dark matter and how it has been found. Many leading science sources (who has long denied it) now acknowledge its existance. This is the same with dark matter. Also real fight you have yet to provide hard undeniable evidence disproving its existance. So what since i cant prove it does it not mean it existice??? People could not prove teh earth was round for centuries does it mean it was flat till it was proven to be round.

Zero Point Technology is "REAL"... REALLY NOT!!
Definition of REAL... Existing in FACT... Genuine...Authentic.

Zero point energy is a theory that has not been proven as REAL! Once again I refer to the laws of physics...
The shortcomings of zero-point reseachers is that they give no indication or proof, of where the energy they are allegedly “creating” originates. They, without exception, break the two basic laws of thermodynamics, which say that all the energy in a closed system is constant. So if energy is “made” in one area, it must have come from some other area in the system. This means that it is impossible to set up a perpetually moving mechanism without an outside source of energy, as no motion can occur without using energy.

Energy cannot be transferred from an area of lower energy to an area of higher energy, without some external effect being felt in the system. So all systems must evolve from coherence to a state of randomness due to random external effects caused by energy fluctuations. Therefore, there are two problems with the theory of zero-point energy that I am going to present. First, if outer space actually contained this alleged enormous amount of energy, then its gravitational effect would cause the universe to be reduced to approximately ten inches in diameter. Second, energy that supposedly exists as in a uniform density state, simply cannot supply energy. An example of this would be the concept of building a dam, for the purpose of generating electricity, in the middle of a completely calm, flat lake. There would not be a flow of water to activate the turbine.

With this aside, zero-point energy is a theory, as well as dark matter.

Quoted by Quicksilver:
"Also would you argee with my argument of dark matter and how it has been found. Many leading science sources (who has long denied it) now acknowledge its existance. This is the same with dark matter.

Dark matter, as the name implies, does not reflect light. The only evidence that suggests its existence is the gravitational pull that it manifests in relation to the stars and the rate of rotation of the galaxies which still is only a hypothesis and does not fit the definition of "real". In addition, zero-point energy does not fit the definition of "real." Therefore, to answer your question as to whether or not I agree with your argument concerning dark matter, the answer is an emphatic, "No." Furthermore, the dark matter hypothesis is scientifically irrelevant in regard to zero-point energy.

Quoted by Quicksilver:
But realfight you have yet to answer my question about if you were in charge of the government would you truly think the world would be ready to handle it and would you release it.

To answer this question, I would say, "Yes, the world would be ready to handle it (if zero-point energy actually existed)", and "Yes, I would release it (if zero-point energy actually existed.)." Just as atomic energy was released to the world, as history shows, the benefits of releasing atomic energy far outweigh the disadvantages. With the amount of funding and the enormous number of people that would be involved throughout the countries of the world, there would be no way to supress this technology on a world-wide scale. During the Cold War era, the United States was not the only country working on atomic energy. The same holds true concerning zero-point energy research. When in time, if zero-point energy is discovered as being real and concrete, its discoverer will make it public, due to the fact that that it would wield such an enormous amount of political influence as well as benefit the human race.

This argument just hit me dang and the end.The universe is infinite. The universe is a perfect example of zeropoint energy. It constantly grows and grows and this is accepted by the majority of scientist. By looking at the universe and ever growing it dispoves the lawas of thermodynics and einstines thoery on relitivity.

Realfight never did show any hard scientic evidence disproving the existance of free energy. I have givin the reasons why th egovernment would conceal it. As u can see from the argument above that zero-point energy can exist. But i leave you with this how can you not say it is there when the research is incomplete.

It was great debating with you Realfight. Hope my absence doesnt "rock the vote"

CLOSING STATEMENT

ZERO-POINT ENERGY: THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM

Quoted by Quicksilver:
Realfight never did show any hard scientic evidence disproving the existance of free energy.

In addressing this statement, I would like to say that "hard scientific evidence" is not available when a particular subject is in a state of theory. According to the Houghton Mifflin Dictionary, the word "theory" is defined as 1. "A system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or explain a set of phenomena. 2. "Speculation." 3. "Hypothesis or supposition." Such is the case involving zero-point energy.

Quoted by Quicksilver:
But i leave you with this how can you not say it is there when the research is incomplete.

Quicksilver, this very statement, is in itself, an admission that zero-point energy is still in the theoretical stage, i.e., that it is not real. In other words, if a theory is still in the research stage, a sufficient amount of proof has not been substantiated in order to move the theory from that of being abstract to that of being concrete. Making claims which defy the physical laws of nature makes as much sense as claiming that 2+2=5 or claiming that a triangle has four sides.

Quoted by Quicksilver:
This argument just hit me dang and the end.The universe is infinite. The universe is a perfect example of zeropoint energy. It constantly grows and grows and this is accepted by the majority of scientist. By looking at the universe and ever growing it dispoves the lawas of thermodynics and einstines thoery on relitivity.

Yes, the universe is infinite; that is because the laws of physics tells us that it is. However, the universe is not "a perfect example" of zero-point energy. In the first place, zero-point energy does not exist. Those laws that say what is impossible are the best tested, the most general, and the most absolute laws of physics. If someone comes to you with a theory that depends on an unknown force, you can be sure that they are talking nonsense. Anyone who introduces an unknown force must explain why it has never been detected and why it has never before been found necessary. The laws of thermodynamics tells us that it is impossible for zero-point energy to exist. For example, there are those who postulate that a calm, flat lake contains a huge amount of heat energy and therefore, it must be possible to tap some of it. Unfortunately, a large body of water tends to be all at the same temperature (thermal equilibrium). The point being here is that you can only get useful work from heat when a temperature difference exists.

Quoted by Quicksilver:
I have givin the reasons why th egovernment would conceal it.

Quicksilver, I have to say that you did not offer any viable reasons as to why the government would conceal zero-point energy if it existed. The reasons that you suggested in your previous posts did not present any sound evidence that would cause the government to supress zero-point energy. Due to the fantastical dreams that zero-point energy could fulfill, any one person, organization, or country, who should stumble upon this "holy grail" of energy, would surely disclose its existence with the rest of the world.

Quicksilver, it has been my pleasure to have participated in this debate with you.

Since the twelve hour mark has passed since posting my closing statement, I am assuming Quicksilver has passed on his option to post a rebuttal. I would like to affirm that I too, am passing on my option to post a rebuttal.

When and where is the vote. I also suggest a time limit be set for the voting

The winner is declared Realfight, by vote of 10 to 3.

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by dragonrider]