Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 00:47 "QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dtnsei$367$1(a)news.doit.wisc.edu... > Martin Swain wrote: >> Scott Nudds wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> the laws of >>> thermodynamics are 1. statistical in nature and hence subject to >>> violation, >> >> >> Then why don't I get an occasional rebate from the power company? >> Howcome my gas tank doesn't randomly fill up? You're full of poo, >> that's why. The laws of thermodyamics describe physical systems, >> not statistical distributions. >> >> You dude, are a well known troll. > > I don't know whether or not this man is a troll, but it is true that > thermo/stat mech deals with ensembles and isn't necessarily true on small > scales, either in number or time. But but but. Shouldn't Martin already know that? He *claims* to be a physicist. A
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 00:48 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:LTLLf.139$8d1.2(a)read1.cgocable.net... > > "Martin Swain" wrote >> Yes we are all very impressed by your vocabulary. Also enlightened >> by your attitude. Now where is the documentation I requested? > > Since I have said nothing about perpetual motion, I do no feel anyway > obligated to respond to your request for information regarding perpetual > motion machines. > > This should have been obvious to any thinking person. > > What's your excuse? > he has tattoos and climbs large rocks for amusement. A
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 00:48 "Martin Swain" <martin_swain(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:x3MLf.2497$M52.2483(a)edtnps89... > Scott Nudds wrote: >> "Martin Swain" wrote >> >>>Yes we are all very impressed by your vocabulary. Also enlightened >>>by your attitude. Now where is the documentation I requested? >> >> >> Since I have said nothing about perpetual motion, I do no feel anyway >> obligated to respond to your request for information regarding perpetual >> motion machines. > > You did say something about free energy. Furthermore you said it > had been demonstrated experimentally. Where is the documentation? > > I have asked you for it repeatedly. > >> >> This should have been obvious to any thinking person. >> >> What's your excuse? > > I don't like you. Wow. That's mature of you... School must be out. A
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 00:51 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:gvNLf.150$8d1.82(a)read1.cgocable.net... > . > "Martin Swain" wrote >> Thank you. I still don't like you. If you see me coming you'd better >> duck. > > Whatcha gonna do, slap me silly? > > Your spectacular loss here should teach you to avoid exposing your vast > ignorance to public view. > Scott, could you do the same thing with Tom, Mika and Satyr please, I enjoyed watching what you did to young Martin and these others are even more stupid. A
From: Scott Nudds on 25 Feb 2006 00:57
"Bill Ward" wrote > Where do you think the ZPE field came from? That depends on how you define time. I am more interested in knowing where it does come from for as space increases in volume, the ZPE field should decrease in magnitude and with it the various coupling constants that characterize the strength of interactions between elementary particles. But these have not been observed to change substantively over the last 10 billion years or so, while the volume of space has apparently increased greatly. If so then if the energy content per square cemtimeter has remained the same, where has the additional energy come from? There is some speculation that it is an ongoing process in which energy is leaking in from some alternate universe and that we are part of a larger encompasing set of universes called a multiverse. I think it more likely that the evaporative threshold for the ZPE field decreases over time so that energy is always available for mediating interactions. I am also partial to considering space as static and in which scales of length are constantly contracting to give the illusion of expansion and recession with distance. In any case, one major problem that I have never seen addressed is the issue of the permittivity of free space in a very compact, dense volume. Even with the standard model, as you run it back in time, energy densities increase, altering the permittivity of free space, and slowing the speed of light. As densities go infinite, c goes to zero, and when c is reduced the rate of flow of time is also reduced. So as the universe becomes more compact, it's compactification slows relative to our rate of flow of time. So depending on your defintiion of time, the universe can be both infinite in age or finite. Asking where ZPE comes from therefore depends on ones' defintion of time. If one considers local time, then there is no answer since there is no beginning. Given the constraint that there is no outside to our universe, it seems to me that this is the answer to your question. |