Remember me
▼ Content

Is Quantum Vacuum energy a reality?



Page 1 of 3123>
Is Quantum Vacuum energy a reality?03-09-2019 13:24
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
I have been reading, over the years about quantum vacuum energy, that is the energy that is in between atoms. I first heard about it from Physicist Fred Allen Wolfe when he said that every time that physicists tried to measure the energy in the quantum vacuum, their instruments went off scale and they couldn't measure it. Since then I have read more about it from various people in the US, one is namely Dr Steven Greer. There is another engineer from India who says he has cracked it.

Greer said that units have been produced that will power a home or small business and he is endeavouring to obtain funding to further the development. People have said, "If the power companies heard about this, they would be all over it. Why? It is very cheap. So cheap that it would not make them any money and would, once implemented would end their business. So cheap that it would seriously alter the geopolitical climate of the whole world. There would be no such thing as an energy poor country and oil-rich countries would have had their day. Many people have been killed for far less of a threat.
"Poppy cock," you may say, but isn't it very suspicious that the media will not even give the subject much lip service. They don't suggest it as an alternative, they don't condemn it, they hardly even mention it. (unless I've missed some obscure article).

What do others on this forum think about it? Have you heard of any working prototypes or any suppression? With respect of the worlds pollution problem, it ticks all the boxes. It lifts energy poor countries out of their energy reliance on other countries, it has no pollution what so ever. Politicians would hate it because of the massive job losses so they will not promote it. It would even eclipse the invention of the computer.
03-09-2019 14:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
sceptic777 wrote:one is namely Dr Steven Greer.


Do you understand how this is supposed to work? Sounds reaally tough for ordinary folks to grasp. I had no clue what they are talking about but it sounds really interesting:
https://siriusdisclosure.com/energy/the-new-earth-incubator-fund/
03-09-2019 17:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Sounds like 'Cold Fusion', again... Probably well beyond my grasp, a lot of this high education stuff, reads like science fiction to me. Guess everything started as dream, at some point. What I do know, is you never get anything for free in this world, you work and pay for everything.
03-09-2019 19:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1112)
If you give this guy money I guarantee you won't see a penny back from your investment.
03-09-2019 20:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
spot wrote: If you give this guy money I guarantee you won't see a penny back from your investment.

What is this world coming to? I agree with spot. It takes a special type of gullible to fall for this scam.

Steven M. Greer MD wrote: Since neither the governments of the world nor major corporations have moved decisively towards disclosing these technologies, a new private consortium is needed to achieve this goal.

So no major corporation sees any income potential.

No government sees any tax revenue potential.

Medical doctor Greer, however, isn't blinded like the others. He recognizes the revolutionary potential to "develop a basic new energy technology that could then be adapted in countless ways to provide usable power that is clean, limitless, safe and essentially free"

... if only there are sufficient investors who want to lock in on the ground level and make an almost practically guaranteed 6000% return on investment ... or more!

He's not asking for much ...

Steven M. Greer MD wrote:Frankly, the less funding there is committed to the effort, the riskier it becomes. Under-capitalizing such an effort leaves it vulnerable to failure on multiple fronts.

An initial budget in the $100 Million- 200 million would ensure success on both the technological, strategic and PR fronts. While the project could succeed with less, it becomes riskier the less capitalized it becomes. Every energy and macro-economic special interest on earth will endeavor to undermine this project, and we should be prepared.


When all the $100 - $200 Million has been acquired, I wager that investors will suddenly hear one of the following excuses:

Steven M. Greer MD wrote:Any attempt to alter or subvert the open-source, mass PR and live-streaming approach outlined above would almost certainly result in failure and probably prove fatal for those involved. Past efforts using trade secrets, multiple patents dividing the IP into allegedly hidden technologies, and efforts to be "discreet and quiet" have all failed. We have many examples (recent ones) of fatal strategic errors being made by well-funded but misguided efforts.


I'm going to hold onto my money, but I encourage the greenies of the European Union to go all in and see how it works out for them.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2019 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sounds like 'Cold Fusion', again... Probably well beyond my grasp, a lot of this high education stuff, reads like science fiction to me. Guess everything started as dream, at some point. What I do know, is you never get anything for free in this world, you work and pay for everything.


Dead on right. Your gut feeling happens to be pretty accurate!

The basic problem is that space is not a form of energy. He is claiming that it is, and is calling it 'quantum vacuum' to make it sound 'scientific'. His 'quantum vacuum' is not a vacuum at all. It is simply the open space between molecules.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 23:05
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
"Quantum vacuum energy" is just words. There is however, something called "virtual particles" which enter and exit our space all the time everywhere. If they could achieve enough energy they could be come real particles and maybe somehow energy could be extracted.
Another phrase is "dark energy" which is also difficult to identify and define. It may not be energy at all. What happens is that galaxies are moving apart from one another and "dark energy" is assigned to be the cause.
What i think it is, is the fact that where there is a lack or a paucity of gravity, as between galaxies, the extra dimensions unpack themselves into our 3 dimensional space, thus providing extra space and there fore a greater distance is measured between galaxies. This is called the "expansion of space". Caused by "dark energy" which some call "quantum vacuum energy", it is a very small amount of energy but if calculated in sum over a large amount of space, it amounts to a lot.
Edited on 03-09-2019 23:07
03-09-2019 23:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
"Quantum vacuum energy" is just words. There is however, something called "virtual particles" which enter and exit our space all the time everywhere. If they could achieve enough energy they could be come real particles and maybe somehow energy could be extracted.

So you want to get energy from virtual particles? How do you know they are energy at all?
keepit wrote:
Another phrase is "dark energy" which is also difficult to identify and define. It may not be energy at all. What happens is that galaxies are moving apart from one another and "dark energy" is assigned to be the cause.

Galaxies are moving away from each other in our little corner of space that we can observe. We have no idea what is happening elsewhere. Such movement does not require a cause.
keepit wrote:
What i think it is, is the fact that where there is a lack or a paucity of gravity, as between galaxies, the extra dimensions unpack themselves into our 3 dimensional space, thus providing extra space and there fore a greater distance is measured between galaxies. This is called the "expansion of space". Caused by "dark energy" which some call "quantum vacuum energy", it is a very small amount of energy but if calculated in sum over a large amount of space, it amounts to a lot.

Space is not energy.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 02:40
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
keepit wrote:
"Quantum vacuum energy" is just words. There is however, something called "virtual particles" which enter and exit our space all the time everywhere. If they could achieve enough energy they could be come real particles and maybe somehow energy could be extracted.
Another phrase is "dark energy" which is also difficult to identify and define. It may not be energy at all. What happens is that galaxies are moving apart from one another and "dark energy" is assigned to be the cause.
What i think it is, is the fact that where there is a lack or a paucity of gravity, as between galaxies, the extra dimensions unpack themselves into our 3 dimensional space, thus providing extra space and there fore a greater distance is measured between galaxies. This is called the "expansion of space". Caused by "dark energy" which some call "quantum vacuum energy", it is a very small amount of energy but if calculated in sum over a large amount of space, it amounts to a lot.


Isn't that how the warp engines work on the starship Enterprise? Wasn't that also used in the 'Back to the Future' movies, for time travel, and 'Terminator'? People watch too much TV these days, and sometimes have trouble separating the science, from the fiction, which have always shared a close relationship. They both often start from a fantasy or a dream, one develops something useful, the other develops something entertaining. Both can sort of feed off the imagination of the other. In science fiction, there were communication devices, with very long range, that could be carried in a pocket, worn on your wrist like a watch... They are real now, quite common, even kids have them. Just a dream, somebody's fantasy. Science also provides a lot of material for books and movies, the entertainment type. Some were ideas, that eventually proved flawed, or simply fraud. Some of the material is misused, or greatly embellished, artistic licence, doesn't have to be accurate, or realistic.

I'm a huge fan of science fiction, always have. I like the kind that are almost possible, the ones that get you thinking that it might be possible, someday. I like perpetual motion machines, and free-energy devices too, for similar reasons. It just the part that gets you thinking, the trick is not to get suck into believing. Climate Change is science fiction, which, unfortunately, some people believe to be true, invested a lot of money, and the delusion is so strong, they feel a need for everyone to join in on the fantasy. Of course, I'm insane, because I deny, and don't believe as the 'sane' people do. Well, actually, I probably am insane, I don't think or believe like most people. I just don't think everyone else is insane, who doesn't believe as I do, just different.
04-09-2019 03:07
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Harvey,
My thought about extra dimensions isn't connected to warp drive to my knowledge. Or cell phones, or insanity.
The Large Hadron Collider is working to prove the existence of Kalusa Klein gravitons which would indicate the possibility of extra dimensions.
Even if they find the KK gravitons, i don't quite see how they or anyone nowadays is going to prove that extra dimensions move in and out of our dimensions. It's just an hypothesis of mine. Maybe someday.
04-09-2019 03:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
My thought about extra dimensions isn't connected to warp drive to my knowledge. Or cell phones, or insanity.
The Large Hadron Collider is working to prove the existence of Kalusa Klein gravitons which would indicate the possibility of extra dimensions.
Even if they find the KK gravitons, i don't quite see how they or anyone nowadays is going to prove that extra dimensions move in and out of our dimensions. It's just an hypothesis of mine. Maybe someday.


But you can see how these ideas, hopes, and dreams, capture the imagination. Even if the experiments fizzle, they can still inspire a science fiction book or movie, loosely based on the work. Unfortunately, thinks that capture the imagination of others, can also be used to snag a wallet or checkbook as well. There are free-energy scams going on all the time, loosely based on actual work done, or in progress. Actually, very convincing presentations, even demonstrations on YouTube. Who doesn't get excite over getting free stuff? There are a lot of people out there, with more money, than education or common sense. Our government is run by quite a few of them, and unfortunately, they have a limitless checkbook... Fortunately, they like to do any stealing, don't like someone else dipping in, so the don't often get taken in, although they occasionally partner up, if it's a big enough project, where a few billion disappearing wouldn't be missed, and they have the support and encouragement of the voters, sort of like 'Climate Change'...
04-09-2019 04:03
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
I guess my imagination gets out of hand too but i think that is where creativity comes from. I've heard that creativity is the result of an idle mind. Not quite true but maybe there's some truth to it.
04-09-2019 17:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
Into the Night wrote:The basic problem is that space is not a form of energy. He is claiming that it is, and is calling it 'quantum vacuum' to make it sound 'scientific'. His 'quantum vacuum' is not a vacuum at all. It is simply the open space between molecules.

Under the Quatum Vacuum theory, if I increase the distance between two molecules, do I increase the amount of Quantum Vacuum energy or do I decrease it?

If the answer is that it increases, shouldn't we find huge stores of Quantum Vacuum energy just above our atmosphere in which molecules are more distantly separated? Couldn't our satellites be powered by this abundant (and free!) Quantum Vacuum energy as opposed to relying on solar cells?

If the answer is that it decreases, then shouldn't we find huge stores of Quantum Vacuum energy in compacted garbage? Couldn't we just build our power plants on landfills and be powered by this abundant (and free!) Quantum Vacuum energy as opposed to relying on hydroelectric and on trying to burn fossils that don't burn?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2019 17:21
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
As the universe expands, space increases and dark energy increases in total but not in concentration.
Don't ask if space beyond the visible universe is also expanding. That would be too hard a question.
Actually galaxies that are out near the edge of the visible universe are moving away so fast because of the vast amount of new space coming into existence that the distant galaxies will and are becoming invisible to us.
04-09-2019 17:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit wrote: As the universe expands, space increases and dark energy increases in total but not in concentration.

What if the universe isn't expanding, but everything in it is just shrinking in place?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2019 18:18
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
I know, i know, the sky is falling and the ground is sinking beneath my feet but it doesn't matter because they're both moving at the same rate.

I tried to figure out that shrinking scenario a while back but couldn't. The expanding scenario was much easier.

I guess it's kind of like shrinking the economy or expanding the economy.

Help, help, the ice is melting and i don't want to be the incredible shrinking man (the movie).
Edited on 04-09-2019 18:37
04-09-2019 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
As the universe expands,

How do you know it's expanding? Does the universe have boundaries? Have you seen them?
keepit wrote:
space increases

Space cannot increase in an infinite universe. If two objects are in the same space, their relative position does not increase or decrease the space they are in.
keepit wrote:
and dark energy increases in total but not in concentration.

Space is not energy.
keepit wrote:
Don't ask if space beyond the visible universe is also expanding. That would be too hard a question.

Yet you seem to be able to claim what is happening there. You seem to be moving goalposts around a lot here.
keepit wrote:
Actually galaxies that are out near the edge of the visible universe are moving away so fast because of the vast amount of new space coming into existence

Space cannot increase in an infinite universe. You speak as if the universe were not infinite, as if you have seen the boundaries of it. Have you?
keepit wrote:
that the distant galaxies will and are becoming invisible to us.

Nothing about that increases space. It's just a galaxy moving beyond our ability to see it.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
I know, i know, the sky is falling and the ground is sinking beneath my feet but it doesn't matter because they're both moving at the same rate.

I tried to figure out that shrinking scenario a while back but couldn't. The expanding scenario was much easier.

Why is that easier? What if the universe has no boundaries and therefore is not expanding or shrinking? What if the universe has always been here, and always will be here?
keepit wrote:
I guess it's kind of like shrinking the economy or expanding the economy.

Economies have boundaries. Does the universe have boundaries?
keepit wrote:
Help, help, the ice is melting and i don't want to be the incredible shrinking man (the movie).

Does changing your size have anything to do with the size of the universe? What about a universe that has no size...it's infinite?


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 21:16
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
There are some good questions here. It's just that they are too hard to answer for me.
04-09-2019 21:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
Into the Night wrote:

How do you know it's expanding? Does the universe have boundaries? Have you seen them?

Space cannot increase in an infinite universe. If two objects are in the same space, their relative position does not increase or decrease the space they are in.

Space is not energy.

Yet you seem to be able to claim what is happening there. You seem to be moving goalposts around a lot here.

Space cannot increase in an infinite universe. You speak as if the universe were not infinite, as if you have seen the boundaries of it. Have you?

Nothing about that increases space. It's just a galaxy moving beyond our ability to see it.

This is a kind of speculation that I enjoy. What is the nature of that which is beyond what we can observe?

At least with the quantum world we can observe everything around it and be relegated to merely interpolating. The nature of the quatum world lies within firm observable boundaries that allow us to at least make usable models that can be tested.

... but what about extrapolating beyond what we can observe?

Allow me to momentarily play Devil's Advocate, i.e. IBDaMann, and say that I discover that the universe is not infinite but rather is fixed in size and always has been. Does that change anything? Is there anyone who would care? How would that affect the amount of "free" quantum vacuum energy available in my landfill?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2019 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
There are some good questions here. It's just that they are too hard to answer for me.


I understand. I also understand why.

There are two theories about the universe. One more popular than the other (thanks to schools teaching religion as 'science').

These theories are the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of the Continuum. Neither are theories of science.

All theories begin as circular arguments. Those that are not theories of science remain circular arguments. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

The circular argument is not, in and of itself, a fallacy. It is simply taking something on faith. A religion can best be described as anything based on a circular argument, with arguments extending from it. All religions are based on some initial circular argument and extend arguments from that.

In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is (namely, the Son of God and part of the godhead).

Variations in this faith designate Christ AS God.

This initial circular argument has arguments extending from it, such as the argument that the Ten Commandments were written by God and given to Moses, a prophet of God. But the initial argument remains the same.

Religions do not require a god or gods. Examples of this is the religion of atheism, which uses the initial argument that no god or gods exist. Everything else about atheism stems from that initial circular argument, or argument of faith.

Since it is not possible to prove the existence (or non-existence) of any god or gods, these arguments remain circular in nature. These are theories. They are not falsifiable. They are not provable. They will remain as theories forever. They cannot be destroyed.

Let's just say that Jesus Christ walks up to you one day, shakes your hand, and tells you who He is. Do you believe Him? Again, it is taken on faith, and faith alone.

As to the universe, since we cannot see any boundary, we do not know if it even has one. Thus, any discussion of the size of the universe is pure conjecture. They are arguments of faith.

The Theory of the Big Bang states that the universe began as a 'singularity', and will possibly return to the 'singularly' again. Indeed, under that theory, it must. Everything that has a beginning has an end.

The Theory of the Continuum states that the universe has always been, and always will be. Things like galaxies, planets, stars, etc. move around in it, but the universe itself has always been and always will be.

Which theory is true? Perhaps neither! There is no way to test either theory for falsifiability. Neither theory can be proven False, and no theory is ever proven True.

Science is made up of a set of falsifiable theories. Since any theory about an unobserved past event (or non-event!) is not falsifiable, science has no theories about any past unobserved event. This includes the beginning of the universe, if indeed it ever had one.

Space in and of itself is not energy. Objects moving nearer to each other or farther from each other do not change anything about the space they are in. Energy is not created or destroyed. The objects are simply in a different relative position to each other.

Even position has to be described in relative terms. There is no 'absolute zero position' for the universe. What we call 'zero' is strictly up to us and is chosen by us for the convenience of that moment. This is true of any measurement. The zero reference of that measurement is strictly up to us to choose.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

How do you know it's expanding? Does the universe have boundaries? Have you seen them?

Space cannot increase in an infinite universe. If two objects are in the same space, their relative position does not increase or decrease the space they are in.

Space is not energy.

Yet you seem to be able to claim what is happening there. You seem to be moving goalposts around a lot here.

Space cannot increase in an infinite universe. You speak as if the universe were not infinite, as if you have seen the boundaries of it. Have you?

Nothing about that increases space. It's just a galaxy moving beyond our ability to see it.

This is a kind of speculation that I enjoy. What is the nature of that which is beyond what we can observe?

At least with the quantum world we can observe everything around it and be relegated to merely interpolating. The nature of the quatum world lies within firm observable boundaries that allow us to at least make usable models that can be tested.

... but what about extrapolating beyond what we can observe?

Allow me to momentarily play Devil's Advocate, i.e. IBDaMann, and say that I discover that the universe is not infinite but rather is fixed in size and always has been. Does that change anything? Is there anyone who would care? How would that affect the amount of "free" quantum vacuum energy available in my landfill?

.

I would conclude that it would necessarily place a limit on what we call space. Some people might care, but it's pointless. It would not affect the 'free quantum vacuum energy in your landfill' because space, even limited space, is not energy.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 21:51
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Somehow you got off on the wrong foot.
When the term "dark energy" is used, it doesn't mean that it is really energy.
I think it is hidden dimensions moving in and out of our dimensions. The "dark energy" is just a calculation and it doesn't explain the physical mechanism.
04-09-2019 22:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
Into the Night wrote:I would conclude that it would necessarily place a limit on what we call space.

Absolutely. It would then engender a new universal distance constant that cannot be measured but that can be expressed as a greek symbol.

Max distance -> ζ


Into the Night wrote: Some people might care, but it's pointless. It would not affect the 'free quantum vacuum energy in your landfill' because space, even limited space, is not energy.

Ahh, but that space between compacted molecules would then represent a non-zero percentage of ζ! Think of all the ways that the zero energy contained therein could be implied to be a non-zero value for something ... you know ... by shifting semantic goalposts between distance and energy and distance and energy ... there's no limit to extent one could take that. The potential is truly unlimited.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2019 22:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit, you need to explain your apparent need to claim to know what you admit you don't know:

keepit wrote:When the term "dark energy" is used, it doesn't mean that it is really energy.


... followed by:

keepit wrote:I think it is hidden dimensions moving in and out of our dimensions. The "dark energy" is just a calculation and it doesn't explain the physical mechanism.


So what you meant to write is "When the term "dark energy" is used, it could really be energy."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2019 23:50
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Rather than nitpick, could you produce something constructive.
05-09-2019 02:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
Somehow you got off on the wrong foot.

No, I assure you I have both of my own feet. They are the correct feet for me.
keepit wrote:
When the term "dark energy" is used, it doesn't mean that it is really energy.

So...'dark energy' is not energy? WTF???
keepit wrote:
I think it is hidden dimensions moving in and out of our dimensions.

Dimensions are not energy either. No dimension moves in or out of any other dimension. X is X, Y is Y, Z is Z, and time is time.
keepit wrote:
The "dark energy" is just a calculation and it doesn't explain the physical mechanism.

A calculation??? Please show the equation and and explain it.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2019 02:56
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
ITN,
I didn't do the calculations. Someone else did.
I'm talking about the physical mechanism.
Maybe i wasn't very clear.
05-09-2019 03:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I didn't do the calculations. Someone else did.

So how do you know any calculations were done?
keepit wrote:
I'm talking about the physical mechanism.

Then you are just making it all up? Or quoting some science fiction you heard somewhere?
keepit wrote:
Maybe i wasn't very clear.

You seem to be becoming less clear all the time.

I think it's because you are basically quoting some science fiction you heard somewhere, and you don't even realize you're doing it.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2019 03:24
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
This is especially for you ITN - Often wrong, never in doubt.

I saw the calculations done by Professor Mark Whittle of the U. of Virginia.
I guess you could say i made up the mechanism, it's an original idea.
Based on my posts and your interpretations of them, you're not reading my posts very carefully which is no big deal because i'm just about nobody. However, my posts are clear enough and usually specific enough. Sometimes i make some generalities though which is something that can sound vague.
Read my post and your followup posts and then read this followup and you can see that you got almost every single thing wrong.
Edited on 05-09-2019 03:25
05-09-2019 06:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit wrote: The Large Hadron Collider is working to prove the existence of Kalusa Klein gravitons which would indicate the possibility of extra dimensions.

keepit, there are two things fundamentally wrong with this statement that reveal that you have some emotional equity that isn't particularly interested in hearing information to the contrary.

1. The Haddon Collider can, at most, prove a theory false. That's how the scientific method works. Nothing is ever confirmed in science and nothing is ever proven to be true. All tests are designed to prove something false.

2. You nonetheless operate as though the theory has already been proven to be true even without a falsifiable model to test.

Together, these form the basis for a religious belief, not for science.


If you want science, develop science. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help you put your thoughts into a falsifiable format.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2019 06:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
This is especially for you ITN - Often wrong, never in doubt.

Not wrong, and I am rarely in doubt.
keepit wrote:
I saw the calculations done by Professor Mark Whittle of the U. of Virginia.

You saw these calculations, so I assume he was teaching the equation to you. Please show the equation and explain it.
keepit wrote:
I guess you could say i made up the mechanism, it's an original idea.

What mechanism?
keepit wrote:
Based on my posts and your interpretations of them, you're not reading my posts very carefully which is no big deal because i'm just about nobody. However, my posts are clear enough and usually specific enough. Sometimes i make some generalities though which is something that can sound vague.

Okay. You are claiming to specific. Specific about what?
keepit wrote:
Read my post and your followup posts and then read this followup and you can see that you got almost every single thing wrong.

Not a bit of it. Space is not energy.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2019 06:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit wrote:
Rather than nitpick, could you produce something constructive.

Rather than produce something problematic and full of holes, could you produce something usable?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2019 17:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
IBDM,
You're right, dark energy is far from usable and probably won't be for a long time.
It is a very small quantity per unit volume. And i don't think it is really energy in the usual sense. Not that i'm an expert.

You said, "You nonetheless operate....". That is the way forming hypotheses works.

I just don't get your definitions of science and some other things. Sorry. I wish i understood better what you talk about.
I've never even understood your application of the SB law and the 2nd law.
You were just trained differently than i was (I don't have formal training in most of these things we talk about).

For example, the LHC looks for evidence of particles and draws conclusions if they do find evidence.
If they don't find evidence of something they are specifically are looking for they do admit some doubt but still keep looking. I don't know how they decide to quit looking. Supersymmetry is a good example of this.
I don't see how the aforementioned translates into "the LHC can, AT MOST, prove a theory false).
What theory is the LHC trying to prove false when they look for KK gravitons?
Edited on 05-09-2019 17:14
05-09-2019 17:11
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
ITN,
Please don't be offended but you're way too much work.
And you're not paying me enough - a little joke there.
05-09-2019 19:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit wrote:I just don't get your definitions of science and some other things.

First, it's not my definition.

Second, it's actually quite easy to understand if you don't let Climate religion get in the way.

Science, also known as "the body of science," is just a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Have you heard of this one: E = m*c^2 ? That's in the body of science. How about Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. Radiance = Temp^4 * emiss * boltz? It's in there as well. How about F = m*a ? Yep, it's in there too.

Have you read the Lord of the Rings? It's not in body of science. Have you had a chance to glance at this totally peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change? It's also not in the body of science, nor is any peer-reviewed anything. Being peer-reviewed does not make anything a falsifiable model that predicts nature.

S - T - R - A - I - G - H - T - F - O - R - W - A - R - D.

Let me know if you have any questions.


keepit wrote: I've never even understood your application of the SB law and the 2nd law.

I'm more than happy to explain. I explained it to my kids before they were teenagers. It's utterly intuitive.

Imagine a chunk of metal at room temperature. It's radiating thermal radiation (mostly in the infrared) but you certainly don't feel anything, even if you touch it.

You set the chunk of metal on the stove and get it hot enough that you could fry and egg on it. If you've been out in the cold, you could put your hands close to the metal and feel it warming your hands. With increased temperature the metal radiates with increased power as well. That should be somewhat intuitive.

Put the metal in a furnace and get it red hot. Now you don't even want to get close to it. You can feel the heat from a distance. That's because the power of the thermal radiation is proportional to the (absolute) temperature to the fourth power, i.e. Temp^4, so as the temperature increases the power increases.

(note: if you were to graph the chunk of metal's radiation across the frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, you will find that it makes a bell curve of sorts. When bodies are at "room temperature" the peak of the bell curve is in the infrared. As temperature increases, of course that bell curve gets bigger because of Stefan-Boltzmann but the bell curve itself also shifts to higher frequencies. This falls under Wein's law. When the temperature gets high enough, the bell curve shifts out of the infrared into the red, which is in the visible spectrum and we can see it, and is why we have the term "red hot." )

The last part is "Area." If I have two chunks of metal, X and Y, but Y has twice the surface area of X then at the same temperature they will both have the same Radiance but Y will have twice the power ... meaning at any given point on either of them they are radiating the same radiance but there is twice the total emission power from Y as there is from X.

Radiance = Power / Surface Area ; Power = Radiance * Surface Area

Let me know if you have any questions.

keepit wrote: For example, the LHC looks for evidence of particles and draws conclusions if they do find evidence.

That's religion. It's what religions do. "Evidence" is completely subjective on two levels:

1) What even constitutes "evidence" of something? If you have ever witnessed legal deliberations in chambers, both sides submit everything and the kitchen sink as "evidence" and both sides seek to "disqualify" everything on the opposing side as "not being evidence." What do you claim is "evidence" of the existence of a certain type of particle? Is it what *I* consider to be evidence of that kind of particle? Might I think you're nuts? Anytime you are talking about "evidence" of something you are talking about a subjective decision made by some human that is open for debate.

2) Suppose you find "evidence" ... what does it mean? Am *I* going to say it means the exact same thing *you* say it means? Probably not. Why is that? Because "meaning" is entirely personal and entirely subjective. Everybody interprets meaning per his/her own experience.

... and this is the perfect segue for Into the Night to mention phenomenology as it pertains to human understanding and interpretation of perceived phenomena ("evidence").

... which perfectly leads into engineering tolerances and measurement precision affecting the specific measurements humans receive, the images they see, the sounds they hear, and the total aggregate experience that is to be interpreted by their human minds.

It all makes for one totally subjective resulting conclusion.

Science, on the other hand, involves no subjectivity. That's why Into the Night and I pretty much say the exact same things. Neither our individual perspectives, positions, opinions nor our individual experiences come into play.
Anything I might tell you regarding Stefan-Boltzmann is exactly what Into the Night will say because he can read the equation just as I can ... and just as you can.

keepit wrote: If they don't find evidence of something they are specifically are looking for they do admit some doubt but still keep looking.

This is not science. This is a religious search for the Holy Grail. This is a hunt for Bigfoot.

For this to be science, you must start with a falsifiable model. Why is it called a falsifiable model? (Hint: it answers your question below about when to stop looking) The model will predict what particles you will find under what conditions. When the collider doesn't find those particles as predicted by the model then the model has been shown to be false and you can stop looking.

What do you do at that point? Answer: You modify the model. Then you perform a new search per the new model. But you always start with a falsifiable model.

So, in this case there is no falsifiable model governing the search. There is no science. Every year there are people who do the same thing except they are searching for UFOs. I'm not going to be investing any money in their project.

keepit wrote: I don't know how they decide to quit looking.

Either they will quit when they run out of funding or they will quit once all the donors have ponied up ... and then they abscond with the cash.

Tell me, when do faithful Christians quit searching for Christ? After the first time their prayers aren't answered? ... after the second time? ... or is it more like never?

Tell me, when do Christian ministries stop accepting donations? What is the maximum dollar limit a ministry will accept?

It is not my intention to load this analogy with any connotations. I merely wish to advise you to approach the endeavor as you would a religious organization that wants you to join their flock, i.e. they want you to believe as they do and to make donations. If that's what interests you then you're good to go.

keepit wrote: I don't see how the aforementioned translates into "the LHC can, AT MOST, prove a theory false).

Proving a theory false requires there to be a falsifiable theory in the first place. Without a falsifiable theory, the collider can't help you any more than it can help you find UFOs.

keepit wrote:What theory is the LHC trying to prove false when they look for KK gravitons?

Well, it would be trying to prove false the falsifiable theory they don't have.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2019 19:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
There's a lot in your post but when it contains things like "religion" when referring to science it just doesn't seem credible, etc.
I'm willing to deal with issues 2 or 3 at a time but when you throw that much stuff that contains so many issues that lead down so many paths it gets impossible to get a handle on anything.
I do admire your thoroughness though, in all seriousness!
Edited on 05-09-2019 19:12
05-09-2019 19:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
keepit wrote: There's a lot in your post but when it contains things like "religion" when referring to science it just doesn't seem credible, etc.

I have bad news for you. You have been conned into letting others do your thinking for you. You have allowed yourself to become unable to distinguish religion from science.

Just remember that I tried to help you. I don't care what you believe. I am not pushing any religious agenda whatsoever, but what is clear to you is that I am not supporting your religious agenda ... and that clearly rubs you the wrong way.

Feel free to ignore what I wrote but I won't be repeating any of it for you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2019 19:30
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Didn't anyone tell you not to inappropriately condescend and patronize?
05-09-2019 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
You're right, dark energy is far from usable and probably won't be for a long time.
It is a very small quantity per unit volume. And i don't think it is really energy in the usual sense. Not that i'm an expert.

You said, "You nonetheless operate....". That is the way forming hypotheses works.

Theory, actually. A hypothesis stems from an existing theory, such as the null hypothesis of a theory.
keepit wrote:
I just don't get your definitions of science and some other things.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Falsifiability simply means there is a test available to try to break the theory (show it's False). It must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. In other words, experiments, research, studies, etc. are all about trying to prove a theory wrong.
keepit wrote:
Sorry. I wish i understood better what you talk about.

You might start by reading up on Karl Popper's definition of science and religion and his reasoning for reaching those definitions.
keepit wrote:
I've never even understood your application of the SB law and the 2nd law.

SB law: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
2nd law: entropy(t+1) >= entropy(t)
keepit wrote:
You were just trained differently than i was (I don't have formal training in most of these things we talk about).

The equations are the same no matter where you go or who trained you.
keepit wrote:
For example, the LHC looks for evidence of particles and draws conclusions if they do find evidence.

Using the collider is a bit like looking for monsters under the bed.

If a child claims there is a monster under the bed, and his parents tell him there isn't, who is making the fallacy? The parents! This fallacy is known as the argument of ignorance. The kid knows his parents are full of shit, but can't quite put his finger on why.

If you look under the bed, and there is no monster, then the monster is not under the bed at the moment, but what about when you are not looking under the bed? Oddly enough, there is no way to prove there is no monster under the bed.

Looking for a particle using the collider is kind of the same way. If you see the particle, you can show it exists. That is not science. That is observation. Science is the theory that such a particle might exist and why, but is the observed particle the one you are looking for? Is the theory itself science? Is it possible to determine of the explained particle can never exist?
keepit wrote:
If they don't find evidence of something they are specifically are looking for they do admit some doubt but still keep looking.

Observations are really not part of science. You don't know if a new particle you found is the one you are looking for. It might behave like the one you are looking for, but is it actually the one you are looking for?

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. What you see is interpreted by what you know. What you know is different from what anyone else knows. Your observations are colored by that difference.

keepit wrote:
I don't know how they decide to quit looking.

How do you know when to quit looking for the monster under the bed?
keepit wrote:
Supersymmetry is a good example of this.

A theory, so far not a scientific one. There is not test available for it.
keepit wrote:
I don't see how the aforementioned translates into "the LHC can, AT MOST, prove a theory false).

It can show that if there is a theory that a particle with a certain behavior can't exist, and one does show up with that behavior, then such a theory is falsified.
keepit wrote:
What theory is the LHC trying to prove false when they look for KK gravitons?

None. If a particle does show up that behaves like the predicted KK graviton, does that mean it is actually a KK graviton, or could be some other particle with similar behavior?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-09-2019 19:34
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Is Quantum Vacuum energy a reality?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface2020-10-2019 23:41
The disconnect between the Trump administration and reality on climate change keeps growing319-03-2019 18:32
Reality check: Maxime Bernier says CO2 isn't a pollutant. Climate scientists say he's wrong024-02-2019 04:38
How America Got Divorced from Reality: Christian Utopias, Anti-Elitism, Media Circus - Kurt Andersen1520-12-2017 01:37
The reality of an open online debate forum015-10-2015 05:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact