Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 09:57 "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message news:APQLf.162$8d1.118(a)read1.cgocable.net... > > You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom. No, Nuddly. You can't avoid having people notice that you're perseverating by simply snipping out the part where I noted that you are perseverating.
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 10:00 "Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote in message news:87SLf.30864$Id3.14026(a)fe04.news.easynews.com... > > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:ReqdnSOivdGp1WLeRVn-jg(a)comcast.com... >> > > >>>> Apparently you are not aware that Asimov wrote considerably more than >>>> just science fiction. Of course, scientific illiteracy is probably not >>>> surprising in a guy who claims uranium ore isn't radioactive. >>>> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111 >>> >>> Tom, you are such a liar. such an awesome liar. >> >> You're *still* claiming, even in the face of direct evidence to the >> contrary, that you never wrote that? > > I never wrote that uranium ore isnt radioactive you mendacious lad. Show > us all where I did. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/3e7735df963ea111 >> Your continued pretence that you haven't been thoroughly busted is just >> appalling. Just who do you think you're fooling? > > I seem to be fooling you right now Tom. In the sense of making you look > like one. I don't think that one fooled anybody at all, Archie. Not even you.
From: Tom on 25 Feb 2006 10:01 "Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote in message news:CbSLf.223516$6Q3.154921(a)fe07.news.easynews.com... > > But but but. Shouldn't Martin already know that? He *claims* to be a > physicist. What do you claim to be, Archie?
From: Archangel on 25 Feb 2006 10:18 "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:74adnQonteqi7Z3ZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote in message > news:APQLf.162$8d1.118(a)read1.cgocable.net... >> >> You are a spectacularly energetic public Liar Tom. > > No, Nuddly. You can't avoid having people notice that you're > perseverating by simply snipping out the part where I noted that you are > perseverating. > Scott, for Gods sake ask the nerd what 'perseverating" means. He just came across it in a pop-psychology book and this is his first opportunity to trot it out. He's been waiting for weeks for the opportunity... It will make him feel better, honest. Be nice to the afflicted... However annoying they are. A
From: Bill Ward on 25 Feb 2006 13:53
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:37:04 -0500, "Scott Nudds" <void(a)void.com> wrote: > >"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 meant where did the multiverse come from. The concept just pushes the original question back one notch. > > >> >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. How would one do the comparison? > > >> >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. Again, how would one do the comparison? Wouldn't an observer be keeping the same time as the watch? It should appear normal (well, a bit more dense). >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. Good choice. > > >"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. Descartes and Camus in the same thought. I'm impressed. |