Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 08:11 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:l6YLf.1098$d9.909(a)read2.cgocable.net... > > "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. the Universe is a wonderful place is it not? A
From: QCD Apprentice on 25 Feb 2006 09:32 Bill Ward wrote: > 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? Not necessarily. Grand unification is something people have dreamed of, but there really isn't any evidence for it except that if you run the coupling constants it looks like they might intersect all at one point. That of course assumes though that the physics doesn't change at all in over *10* orders of magnitude in energy.
From: QCD Apprentice on 25 Feb 2006 09:42 Scott Nudds wrote: > "Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > >>Oh. I thought from the subject line that you were claiming >>that free energy can be extracted from the vacuum. >> >>Borrowing is not the same as extracting. > > > That depends on how long you borrow it for and how much you borrow. > Ultimately all the energy you generate degrades to unusable heat, so it's > borrowed in that sense. Yet we find it useful to do so. > > Also realizing that ZPE is real, and not some illusion or accounting > gimmic, opens the question of weather it's possible with the right setup to > just keep pulling energy out of free space. > > I am unhappy with the arguments behind the evaporation of black holes, > where the arbitrary decision is made to subtract the energy of the infalling > virtual particle from the mass of the hole because the total mass of the > universe must be constant. Not mass, energy. The energy of the universe must remain constant because all interactions we know of strictly conserve energy. Even though particles can be off shell in QFT, at each vertex energy is conserved. > I see no reason why the total mass must be constant, and I see no reason > to arbitrarily assign as negative the mass of the infalling particle. > > The process - if it occurrs at all, probably causes the black hole mass to > increas at the expense of lower ZPE density around the surface of the black > hole. > > > "Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > >>If you don't have to repeat the process, why not just allow >>two masses to attract each other, exerting a force over a >>distance? Why invoke the Casimir force? > > > Because Casimir is not a field that originates from an elementary > particle, but a force that originates from space itself. No, the Casimir force most certainly is the result of having elementary particles. The entire original argument was based upon virtual photons and the boundary conditions imposed on two flat plates.
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 09:52 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:TCQLf.1081$d9.239(a)read2.cgocable.net... > >> "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message >> > Whatcha gonna do, slap me silly? > >> "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote >> Too late. You're already silly. > > What's the point of being serious with a liar like you? The funniest part is that you're both silly and serious at the same time.
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 09:55
"Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:FARLf.1086$d9.106(a)read2.cgocable.net... > > "Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message >> Oh. I thought from the subject line that you were claiming >> that free energy can be extracted from the vacuum. >> >> Borrowing is not the same as extracting. > > That depends on how long you borrow it for and how much you borrow. What you borrow has to be given back. So it's not free. You said free. You didn't say borrowed. > Ultimately all the energy you generate degrades to unusable heat, so it's > borrowed in that sense. That's the point of the first law of thermodynamics. Looks like you believe in it after all. Only when it's convenient, of course. |