Big Bang theorists cheat

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />It seems like there is general agreement about how things are. Its just too bad science is so dogmatic about really dumb things. The BB is a classic example and so is the fusion theory. How come no body questions the fusion theory sinne nothing has come from it despite the untold billions of dollars spent chasing the dream it promises. Why is it assumed stars are powered by fusion? There are lots of other examples of dogmatic behavior in science.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
OK about the BB. But, unhappily, the H bomb exists, showing fusion. Will it work in a plant ? maybe, and if it works it will be great.

JMB, I know there is a bomb that makes helium from a rare form of hydrogen using a fission device but there is nothing there that is explained in a way that would lead a nonpartisian to conclude the process is controlable. The time and money being spent in this research is little more than what has been done over centuries such as the search for unicorns or fountains of youth. Why do you think it would be great to get this knowhow? Cheap energy? No way it has cost a trillion dollars so far and got nothing to show.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by JMB</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />JMB, I know there is a bomb that makes helium from a rare form of hydrogen using a fission device but there is nothing there that is explained in a way that would lead a nonpartisian to conclude the process is controlable. The time and money being spent in this research is little more than what has been done over centuries such as the search for unicorns or fountains of youth. Why do you think it would be great to get this knowhow? Cheap energy? No way it has cost a trillion dollars so far and got nothing to show.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The sources of clean energy (dams, wind, biomass...) and an acceptable reduction of the energy we use and waste are not sufficient, to allow poor people to live well. Therefore, we must choose between coal (plus oil and gas), fission and fusion energy.
It appears that coal is the worst, but unhappily the cheapest because its pollution is not taken into account.
If fission works, it is the best for pollution, and we must hope that it will work. Trying it is not a loss of money.
At the time, we must develop not only the clean sources, but the nuclear fission plants too. At the time, in despite of Tchernobyl, the cost of its electricity in human lives is lower than with other sources.

I'm not so sure that fusion can't be controlled. I once had a friend who worked at Argonne National Laboratory and who was a physicist and who told me about his pet project consisting of a huge dome in which pellets of hydrogen were dropped from the top of the dome and halfway down they were hit with lazer beams from all directions. It sounded too good to be true, but alas, the money was dedicated toward a different device and his idea never got off the ground.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I'm not so sure that fusion can't be controlled. I once had a friend who worked at Argonne National Laboratory and who was a physicist and who told me about his pet project consisting of a huge dome in which pellets of hydrogen were dropped from the top of the dome and halfway down they were hit with lazer beams from all directions. It sounded too good to be true, but alas, the money was dedicated toward a different device and his idea never got off the ground.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Huge laser sets have been built for this experiment. It seems harder than the torus way.

There is more than enough energy for everyone to have it at low cost. The sun provides about 10,000 times the energy needed by all mankind for all time. The reason energy now is too costly for all but the rich is poor engineering not a lack of energy. If and when there is an effort to better engineer energy systems energy will be abundant and low in cost both to the environment and pocket book. This is a matter for decision makers and has nothing to do with science.