Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Scott Nudds on 25 Feb 2006 01:09 "Archangel" wrote > you think he is a massive liar too? So do most people in here. Well when Tom contradicts himself 5 times in a row, alternating between the same two yet contradictory positions each time, there can only be two conclusions... willful deceit, or terminal brain damage. Alas I have never found a Republican/Conservative for which this behavior was not observed. It is a fundamental characteristic of their psyche. And here I am being absolutely serious and absolutely honest. George Bush and his entire cabinet are other fine examples.
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 01:06 "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:GrGdnd4J3pi_4WLenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message > news:LZJLf.126$8d1.100(a)read1.cgocable.net... >> >> "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote >>> Ah, and you, in your vast wisdom, know the complete truth about how the >>> universe was created. I see. >> >> One need not know the complete truth in order to know that the origin of >> the universe is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Indeed any >> basic >> text on the subject worth it's salt, will comment on this fact. > > Ah ha! So you don't know the complete truth! That means in some respect > at least, you must be wrong. If you weren't, then you would acknowledge > knowing the complete truth. That's it, then. You're wrong. You've > admitted it. Why bother to argue any further with someone who has > admitted he's wrong? Not knowing the complete truth of a matter means you are wrong about another matter? Good logic Tom. A
From: Bill Ward on 25 Feb 2006 03:23 On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:57:39 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote: > >"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? You probably meant per cubic centimeter, didn't you? > >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. Then where did that come from? Is it turtles all the way down? > >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. Relative to what? > >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. Don't the g, weak, EM, and strong forces all merge as you go back in time to the energies and densities near the Big Bang? And what does the "rate of flow of time" mean? Compared to what? Some sort of absolute or meta-time? > >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. I was half kidding, thanks for your thoughtful response. Looking backward, at some point it seems to me there will always be an unanswerable question, where science must end and faith begin. Right now the unanswerable question seems to be, "Why are we here?"
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 04:51 "Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:44000af6.43954547(a)localhost... > On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:57:39 -0500, "Scott Nudds" > <void(a)void.com> wrote: > >> >>"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? > > You probably meant per cubic centimeter, didn't you? >> >>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. > > Then where did that come from? Is it turtles all the way > down? > >> >>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. > > Relative to what? >> >>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. > > Don't the g, weak, EM, and strong forces all merge as you go > back in time to the energies and densities near the Big > Bang? > > And what does the "rate of flow of time" mean? Compared to > what? Some sort of absolute or meta-time? >> >>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. > > I was half kidding, thanks for your thoughtful response. > > Looking backward, at some point it seems to me there will > always be an unanswerable question, where science must end > and faith begin. Right now the unanswerable question seems > to be, "Why are we here?" well most of us with an IQ of more than 100 are here to laugh at Tom. A
From: Scott Nudds on 25 Feb 2006 07:37
"Scott Nudds" > >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. "Bill Ward" wrote > Then where did that come from? Is it turtles all the way > down? M theory - it's the latest craze. > >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. "Bill Ward" wrote > Relative to what? Current spacetime. > >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. "Bill Ward" wrote > Don't the g, weak, EM, and strong forces all merge as you go > back in time to the energies and densities near the Big > Bang? There are no measurements of the speed of the strong force, and only questioned measurements of the speed of gravity. But theoretical arguments are strong and it is presumed that the speed of propagation of these fields is the same as that of light, and will therefore experience the same alteration in speed with the an increase in the density of the scattering field. > And what does the "rate of flow of time" mean? Compared to > what? Some sort of absolute or meta-time? Compared to a watch that you have now. It doesn't matter much which one since the subject is the limit as the density goes infinite. > >Given the constraint that there is no outside to our universe, it seems to > >me that this is the answer to your question. "Bill Ward" wrote > I was half kidding, thanks for your thoughtful response. I know, but I wanted a change of pace. "Bill Ward" wrote > Looking backward, at some point it seems to me there will > always be an unanswerable question, where science must end > and faith begin. Right now the unanswerable question seems > to be, "Why are we here?" That question presumes that there is a subjective answer. The only valid answer is that since we can ask the question, we are here. But need not be. |