Why has New Energy not yet been adopted by the mainstream, bringing about a widespread revolution in thought and culture?

How are we to move beyond the stifling pre-conceptions of the Industrial Revolution, which chiefly stem from the early class of inefficient technologies developed since its inception?

The governing theoretical principles of modern industrial science, that insist no surplus energy can ever arise in nature, form a critical stumbling block to the advent of New Energy. For, anomalous effects have been heretofore pre-judged by many orthodox pundits as being unworthy of deeper study.

It is as if empiricism alone has dogmatically informed the world-view of Physics, such that no grasp of more subtle realities can evolve out of its philosophy. Yet, empiricism must necessarily borrow from the intuitive and interpretive realms of thought in order to lead to balanced insight. Philosophy is about how we see the world, and Natural Philosophy (the predecessor of Physics) must accept all empirical evidence, even that which contradicts prevailing theory.

Perhaps more importantly, the social (and even religious) convictions that suggest there is 'no such thing as a free lunch' reinforce the view that the Universe does not have the capacity to release an overabundance of power. Whereas, even at the theoretical limit of thermal energy (Absolute Zero) there has been observed incessant kinetic activity known as 'Brownian Motions'. These so-called 'vacuum fluxuations' are also the basis of the term 'Zero Point Energy', for they are attributed to a primordial field of force that arises from where there should exist 'zero' energy (capacity to do work). This is the clearest evidence that the vacuum of space is not empty, but rather pregnant with as yet undetermined potency.

This realization has led to the evolution of the term 'PLENUM' in lieu of 'vacuum' as it connotes an abundant reality behind the spatial dimension in which the visible (phenomenal) Universe resides.

As this concept has not yet been satisfactorily proven to have practical utility in revolutionizing our approach to energy generation, New Energy Movement strives to demonstrate an array of unconventional systems that promise conclusive resolution of any doubt.

It is often asked: Why have these advances not been commercialized and made to replace existing sources of energy?

The best answer to this honest query is that we are at the very inception of the New Energy Revolution. It is a situation akin to the early work of Marie Curie, discoverer of atomic energy, when she wrapped a radium needle in beryllium foil to produce bursts of radioactive 'rays' visible on photographic film. This was some of the earliest evidence of nuclear fission. And while her researches confirmed the powerful energy that showed up in radioactivity was a fundamental property of every atom of matter, it would take a prolonged industrial effort to turn these discoveries into the X-ray camera, nuclear reactor and atomic bomb.

This is where we stand today: on the threshold of a New Energy Age. As with all revolutions, only by persevering toward an unequivocal 'proof of principle' can the coming paradigm be inaugurated. Until then, its early examples will be relegated to the sphere of academic debate.