Agreed. But is this just a matter of semantics here, creating energy as opposed to capturing, or generating or tapping into?
A poor choice of words to be sure.
.. the boy cried wolf so many time that when the wolf did indeed show, the villagers did not come to investigate.
So what was the moral of the story? Not to cry wolf when there is none; or if something is important or desirable to know, is it not worth checking out on the off chance it might be correct?
Both I suspect. But regardless of learning the lesson not to cry wolf, wolf has already been cried many times before, that damage is done. Do we stop investigating?
BTW: I hear it told that the Big Bang, was quite an energetic event. And hey we've just discovered that dark matter might actually exist.
Hey, I got my popcorn, and my beer. :-))
Ahhh...but here we have the classic "apples to oranges" analogy.
On the one hand we have the laws of probability. On the other hand we have the laws of physics.
Ignore the laws of probability at your leisure.
Ignore the laws of physics at your peril.
But I digress. Indeed, it is only semantics as you say.
But when someone makes the claim to be able to create energy they had best be prepared to be scoffed at.
Some may asked to be convinced and will then observe. Most will say "First Law of Thermodynamics!" and move on.
I am intrigued to be sure but the inventors of this "new technology" would have been better served if they'd simply stated "We have a device that is 100% efficient."
When they use the language that they did, many will not even stop to ask for proof. Foolish? Perhaps.
In any event, I sent them an email address so I can be informed when the evaluation is complete. I read the whole website and as I said...I am intrigued.
P.S. The math behind the whole dark matter 'discovery' is a little daunting, neh? I think I read the article here on FR somewhere...
And I prefer chocolate with my beer but its a moot point since I don't have any of either. Poop. =;^(