FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Hey georgie...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 232 [3478 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 230, 231, 232 Next
Author Message
ZenIsWhen
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 413

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uUbMd.6403$S3.2983@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Quote:

Bwahahaaaa... All this is, is more evidence that you are NOT a
scientist!!!
"Critique"
"Contribution to the Psychology of Personality,"
"Personality Inventory Manual"
"Some factors in the appreciation of poetry, and their relation to
temperamental qualities. Character and Personality"
"Personality and individual differences"
"The language of personality"

NOT ONE experiment in the bunch!!!!

[Hammond]
Horseshit... 90% of those publications report the Factor
Analysis of EXPERIMENTAL data (measurements) on real
people. (Factor Analysis of written questionnaires).

Bull!!!!!

Quote:


Do you even KNOW what an experiment is ... how to do one ...how to
collect
facts and data to FORM a rational conclusion?

[Hammond]
Cut the s**t... I've got an M.S. degree in Physics... and you
have NO DEGREES in Science. Your statment is
DISPROVED by the facts.

What facts?
You've done nothing to show ANY facts that relate to your "god" claims!
You still claim to have a degree, yet the ignorance you post (and the
ignorance of your own attitude) totally contradicts that claim!!

Quote:
Not the mention the FACT that ALL of these topics are in fields you DO
NOT
have a degree in ..... and YOU are the one who constantly bellows about
the ignorance of others - because THEY do not have degrees!!!!!!!

[Hammond]
These are papers on Factor Analysis in Psychometry.
I have published two papers on Factor Analysis and the
first one was "peer reviewed" by 5 Factor Analysts of professorial
rank and unanomously recommended for publication.
That PROVES my competence in the field:

You avoided the question, moron!

Quote:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.

This supermarket rag is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal.
You NEVER (nor do they in any of their web site information) said anything
(before) about ANYONE "peer reviewing" your claims.
Anyone "reading your susbmission" for printing is NOT the same as "peer
reviewed"; any REAL scientist would know that!!!!



Quote:
and, whoa, what do we hve here ... using your OWN - UNSCIENTIFIC crap
(some
"published" at the local Kinko's) - as "evidence"????

[Hammond]
Kinko's... what the hell are you talking about? The
SPOG has been published in two papers both of
them in the peer reviewed academic journal literature:

" HAMMOND, G.E. (1988). The Origin of the Cross. Self published"

Quote:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press.
Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Theory of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic Press)

Pergamon Press is one of the world's leading scientific
publishers... and is not owned by "Kinko's"!

This has ben covered, idiot!
The PUBLISHER has nothing to do with the creditibility of the claim!



Quote:

You're the one who is a "fraud" Zippy!

Then why have you constantly, and totally, ignored the core of ALL of my
rebuttals - only repeating your arrogant, and ignorant, claims?

Why are you back to spamming this newsgroup, when YOU said you would stay
away from here, in your own self created, closet?


Why, in this list, do you corrupt that fact that someone doing work on -
let's say - psychiatric attitudes - does NOTHING to support YOUR claims
about a connection to god?

That's akin to saying ......because the Wright brothers proved we can fly -
I can claim their work supports MY claim that heavier than-air-flight proves
god!

That's nothing more than ignorant folly, by a PRETEND intellectual - NOT the
work of a scientist!
Back to top
G=EMC^2 Glazier
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 527

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Are gravity fields uniform? Reply with quote

Yes as related to the uniformity of mass. Bert
Back to top
DrPostman
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology Reply with quote

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:55:44 -0000, "Mr Clarke"
<ashley@UNBOGUSa-clarke.demon.co.uk> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:

top posting corrected, again.



Quote:
"DrPostman" <Looky@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:49b001dp2puboclopvs6unmj7sa1cuqns7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:42:19 -0000, "Mr Clarke"
ashley@UNBOGUSa-clarke.demon.co.uk> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:

top posting corrected.


"DrPostman" <Looky@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:b40sv0ts81ivb15dbg7fj9as9mmp3ei0ot@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:48:46 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:


"Mr Clarke" <ashley@UNBOGUSa-clarke.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cspikh$qc4$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
How old is the term "Free Energy"?
I make it about 2 or 3 years.

From 1987... Course the term go's back a lot further than this....


And Vonnegut came up with the best phrase to describe the
effort:
"Nothing compares to the complicated futility of ignorance."


Thankyou to those that have studied the appreciation of PM and Free
Energy
in more depth than I have. My estimated term is contrived from its
increased
use
on internet mail lists over this period.
Someone must have dug it up!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------


That quote hit home pretty hard, eh?


Quote:
Not as much as Perpetual Motion will hit you!
(No quote)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------

What sort of threat is that, you top posting pud?






--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULTŪ #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com

"I venture to say there is no one writing on the
Internet today who is providing a greater purpose
for mankind than that found in my writings."
- Felonious Ray, destroyer of irony meters
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: string theory Reply with quote

D,

Whenever I tell people to always derive theories from common
experience, they invariably accuse me of being a simpleton. Well, if
the laws of physics are universal, there better be only three
dimensions or else we're not living in the same universe.

Physics today is suffering from the same disease as the rest of the
world: too many ego's trying to feed too many hungry families, so they
have to keep turning out theories. You know "Publish or perish". It's
like at school they made you come up with a 1000 word essay, and you
have to add a few extra unnecessary words here and there.. they added a
few extra dimensions... I bet these people don't even care about
physics, they treat it like they're working in a sausage factory.
People who care about physics are actually here, you're talking to
them.

--Bart
Back to top
Fred
science forum addict


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: string theory Reply with quote

<bpj1138@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107456140.506678.154360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

D,

Whenever I tell people to always derive theories from common
experience, they invariably accuse me of being a simpleton. Well, if
the laws of physics are universal, there better be only three
dimensions or else we're not living in the same universe.

How quaint.

Quote:
Physics today is suffering from the same disease as the rest of the
world: too many ego's trying to feed too many hungry families, so they
have to keep turning out theories. You know "Publish or perish". It's
like at school they made you come up with a 1000 word essay, and you
have to add a few extra unnecessary words here and there.. they added a
few extra dimensions... I bet these people don't even care about
physics, they treat it like they're working in a sausage factory.
People who care about physics are actually here, you're talking to
them.

--Bart

Did you write this all by yourself?
Back to top
Vendicar Decarian
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology Reply with quote

"slavek krepelka" <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4200B01D.62CCFD6A@sympatico.ca...
Quote:
Whatever you may call fundamental particles are components of the
universe. You have mentioned the energy from "vacuum" a few times in
this thread. That energy is part of the universal energy and therefore
part of the only known PMM. So, it is not free energy in the sense of
coming from nothing. Vacuum is not nothing, it just is not material as
matter is defined.

That is correct. So the act of removing energy from that Vacuum is no
more mysterious than removing it from a spring.

Yet the idea has been called <crackpot> by Franz Heymann.

I have simply pointed out that it has already been done, and Franz is the
crackpot here.



"slavek krepelka" <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4200B01D.62CCFD6A@sympatico.ca...
Quote:
As you can see, whoever argues that you cant
obtain energy from vacuum and that the energy from vacuum is not free in
at least some sense has severe comprehension problems and somewhat
insufficiently developed faculties.

Yes indeed. Vacuum energy exists, it's real, it's obtainable, and those
who claim , as Franz does, that extracting it is <crackpot science> are
cooks themselves.
Back to top
Vendicar Decarian
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology Reply with quote

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
Quote:
news:t%SLd.2115$m22.529@read1.cgocable.net...
Oh is it now. Tell us Franz. Where does the energy come from to
drive electron tunneling in semiconductors?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ctqfd4$832$15@sparta.btinternet.com...
Quote:
The energy before and the energy after are equal. No problem

Which is a non-answer. Where did he energy needed to climb the potential
barrier come from Franz?


Quote:
Where does the energy come from to
produce Hawking radiation (presuming it exists)?

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
Quote:
Hawking radiation has to exist, unless there is something seriously
amiss with QED, which is in fact the best verified theory man has ever
produced.

Every current theory is the best verified theory man has ever produced.
Including the theory that the sun rotates around the earth.


"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
The positive energy of the real partner which escapes from the
vicinity of the event horizon is equal and opposite to the negative
gravitational energy of the other partner.

Since the particles in the particle pair are symmetric the same could be
argued for the particle that falls in, and hence it's total energy
contribution to the black hole is zero. Hence by your argument it's mass is
not reduced.

Constantly wrong Franz strikes again.



"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
Quote:
And Franz, where did the energy come from that deflected the scale
balance
that was used to measure the Casimer force?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
Permanent magnets also exert forces on one another. They, too, obey
the rules of energy conservation, like the Casimir force does.

So Franz, you are now admitting that you can store and remove energy from
the vacuum? Interesting. Earlier you claimed that extracting energy from
the vacuum was, how did you put it? <Crackpot science>.

Snicker....

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
From the same stable comes the statement that if the three spatial
components of four-momentum are not conserved, the laws of physics
will depend on whether you are in London or in New York.

Or on a planet orbiting the sun, or 13 billion light years away at the
edge of the visible universe.

I have little doubt that the physics one one side of the earth is very
much the same as that on the other. I have strong doubts that this is the
case at the origin of existance.


Quote:
Second, since the removal of energy from the vacuum has already
been
accomplished through the measurement of the Casimer force,

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
Balls.
The measurement of the existence of a force is not synonymous with the
existence of an energy.

It is only through the extraction of energy that force can be measured.

If a force exists that accelerates two plates together, as was the case in
the original experiment that measured the Casimer force, when these two
plates come together, energy has been liberated.

Liberated from where Franz?

In the original experiment energy had to be expended to separate the
plates during the procedure of nulling their relative charge. Where did
that energy go Franz?



"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
If you bring two solid surfaces together, work is done *by the Casimir
force*, resulting in a negative potential energy, analogous to a
binding energy.. When you replace them, an exactly equal amount of
work will have to be done *by you*.

Indicating that you can store energy in the vacuum and later extract it
from the vacuum.

I note once again that you referred to the extraction of energy from the
vacuum as <crack science> If I remember correctly.

Snicker....



Quote:
your assumption
that energy can not come from nothing is simply an acceptance of the
existance of free vacuum energy that you initially referred to as
crank
science.

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
I only referred to it as crank science because that is precisely what
it is.

Contradicting yourself again I see.




"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
Well, you may, since you seem to be unable to understand the
difference between space itself expanding and objects moving apart in
space.

I understand quite well Franz. So, I ask.. From whence does the energy
come?


"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
By r=the way, if I were you, I would lay off talking about energy in
the context of a global gracitayional effect. Neither you nor I know
enough GR to comment usefully on that topic.

I have never heard of the term "gracitayional" I must admit.

Please define the term for me.



Quote:
Tell us Franz. Has vacuum energy been tapped to perform work or
not?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Quote:
Neve, never.

That's interesting, just 4 paragraphs above you admitted that energy could
be extracted.

Snicker....

Still laughing at Franz.

If a force exists that accelerates two plates together, as was the case in
the original experiment that measured the Casimer force, when these two
plates come together, energy has been liberated.

Liberated from where Franz?

In the original experiment energy had to be expended to separate the
plates during the procedure of nulling their relative charge. Where did
that energy go Franz?
Back to top
george Hammond1
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in
message news:11045dfsh07c302@corp.supernews.com...


<snip hecklebot trash>


[Hammond]
Cite your CV or get off this thread hecklebot.

====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE

http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
====================================
please ask you news server to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===================================
Back to top
slavek krepelka
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology Reply with quote

Hi Vendicar,

There were times when people who called me whatever may have gotten
under my skin once in a while. It seems that you yourself still suffer
from this syndrome. It does not really matter who calls who what. What
matters is what you may learn in your life and what you can do with it.

It is quite unproductive to argue what you have found out for yourself
as correct with somebody who has uncritically lapped up the teachings
designed to protect others.

In any case, learn and grow and let mosquitoes buzz with spite. They are
of no concern to you.

My kind regards, Slavek.




Vendicar Decarian wrote:
Quote:

"slavek krepelka" <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4200B01D.62CCFD6A@sympatico.ca...
Whatever you may call fundamental particles are components of the
universe. You have mentioned the energy from "vacuum" a few times in
this thread. That energy is part of the universal energy and therefore
part of the only known PMM. So, it is not free energy in the sense of
coming from nothing. Vacuum is not nothing, it just is not material as
matter is defined.

That is correct. So the act of removing energy from that Vacuum is no
more mysterious than removing it from a spring.

Yet the idea has been called <crackpot> by Franz Heymann.

I have simply pointed out that it has already been done, and Franz is the
crackpot here.

"slavek krepelka" <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4200B01D.62CCFD6A@sympatico.ca...
As you can see, whoever argues that you cant
obtain energy from vacuum and that the energy from vacuum is not free in
at least some sense has severe comprehension problems and somewhat
insufficiently developed faculties.

Yes indeed. Vacuum energy exists, it's real, it's obtainable, and those
who claim , as Franz does, that extracting it is <crackpot science> are
cooks themselves.
Back to top
slavek krepelka
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: string theory Reply with quote

Fred wrote:
Quote:

"slavek krepelka" <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41FED324.E4F0AEB2@sympatico.ca...

"Dimension" is a classic term assigned to a spatially oriented static
length.

If you want to use such an unusual definition for the word dimension,

Oh, is that a definition? To be honest, I have never heard a definition
of an Euclidean geometry dimension. Yet, it is quite self-explanatory to
whoever is familiar with that geometry.

Quote:
perhaps you could have saved us this dispute

Interesting, you actually see this as a dispute? You are quite amusing.
I have only tried to explain to D where his mental confusion with ST
comes from.

by clarifying your working
Quote:
definition of the word before making your statment.

Elementary dear Watson; Substance, not a definition.

Quote:
Forgive me my insistence, but I have to insist that time is not
a spatially oriented static length, therefore using the term dimension
for time is inappropriate and confusing.

I wonder if anyone else shares your definition.

Have I defined anything? Should it matter to me and to whoever if anyone
should, or should not share anything I may say?

Quote:
By the same token, using the term dimension for a set of mathematical
subroutines dealing with time and vector change is also inappropriate
and confusing. It builds up an impression in a layman and many a learned
man that there are actually more dimensions than the bare minimum of
Euclidean three and most of all that they are as valid as Euclidean
three.


So, you are suggesting the the term dimension is applicable only in the
manner that the concept is used in Euclidean geometry?

Yup. I guess you may call an apple a pear in Oz, but here it does not
really apply. If someone has come up with something which suffers a
principial difference from something else, that someone should have come
up with a different term. If that someone did not, it may only mean that
this someone either had serious problem with language comprehension, or
a serious problem with comprehension of the discussed subject, or both.

Quote:
Just to let you know,
in modern physics the word dimension is very important even outside of the
context of Euclidean geometry.

Which only shows that your ability to comprehend what I have originally
written leaves a lot to be desired. Are you trying to insinuate that
despite my pointing out to D that the word dimension has different
meaning within the context of ST, or STR, from that in EG, that I am not
aware of its importance in ST and STR?

My kind regards, Slavek.
Back to top
Franz Heymann
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology Reply with quote

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:KrBMd.2423$m22.1828@read1.cgocable.net...
Quote:

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:t%SLd.2115$m22.529@read1.cgocable.net...
Oh is it now. Tell us Franz. Where does the energy come from
to
drive electron tunneling in semiconductors?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ctqfd4$832$15@sparta.btinternet.com...
The energy before and the energy after are equal. No problem

Which is a non-answer. Where did he energy needed to climb the
potential
barrier come from Franz?

It does that by going off its mass shell. That is allowed by the
Uncertainty Principle for short periods. You appear to know nothing
about quantum physics.

Quote:
Where does the energy come from to
produce Hawking radiation (presuming it exists)?

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
Hawking radiation has to exist, unless there is something
seriously
amiss with QED, which is in fact the best verified theory man has
ever
produced.

Every current theory is the best verified theory man has ever
produced.
Including the theory that the sun rotates around the earth.

Of course.
Your point being?

Quote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
The positive energy of the real partner which escapes from the
vicinity of the event horizon is equal and opposite to the
negative
gravitational energy of the other partner.

Since the particles in the particle pair are symmetric

No, they are not.
The one which escapes is created as a real particle.
The other one is created off its mass shell. It becomes real only
after its interaction with the gravitational field of the BH.

Quote:
the same could be
argued for the particle that falls in, and hence it's total energy
contribution to the black hole is zero. Hence by your argument it's
mass is
not reduced.

You missed out on the essential asymmetry on which the whole argument
depends.
Quote:

Constantly wrong Franz strikes again.

No. Not once in the whole of the discourse with you.

Quote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
And Franz, where did the energy come from that deflected the
scale
balance
that was used to measure the Casimer force?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Permanent magnets also exert forces on one another. They, too,
obey
the rules of energy conservation, like the Casimir force does.

So Franz, you are now admitting that you can store and remove
energy from
the vacuum?

Don't put words into my mouth. That is a very poor way of furthering
an argument.
The energy has to be stored *before* it can be removed, except for the
imbalances which the uncertainty principle allows for very brief
periods. I never said or implied otherwise.

Quote:
Interesting. Earlier you claimed that extracting energy from
the vacuum was, how did you put it? <Crackpot science>.

It is indeed crackpot science.
Quote:

Snicker....

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message

At this stage you surreptitiously snipped the context of the reply of
mine which folows down here.

Quote:
From the same stable comes the statement that if the three spatial
components of four-momentum are not conserved, the laws of
physics
will depend on whether you are in London or in New York.

At this stage, you snipped something surreptitiously once more.

Quote:
Or on a planet orbiting the sun, or 13 billion light years away at
the
edge of the visible universe.

If all you are doing is to express agreement with me, why did you not
just say "yes"?
Quote:

I have little doubt that the physics one one side of the earth is
very
much the same as that on the other. I have strong doubts that this
is the
case at the origin of existance.

That's beside the point. Some call it moving the goal posts.


Quote:
Second, since the removal of energy from the vacuum has
already
been
accomplished through the measurement of the Casimer force,

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Balls.
The measurement of the existence of a force is not synonymous with
the
existence of an energy.

It is only through the extraction of energy that force can be
measured.


Crap. We are not discussing measurement techniques.
How much energy is extracted when a chemical balance is used? And
don't bother boring us with irrelevancies here.

Quote:
If a force exists that accelerates two plates together, as was the
case in
the original experiment that measured the Casimer force, when these
two
plates come together, energy has been liberated.

Liberated from where Franz?

The molecular configurations in the two plates.
Do you still not understand the correspondence between the Casimir
force and van de Walls' force?

Quote:
In the original experiment energy had to be expended to separate
the
plates during the procedure of nulling their relative charge.

No charge annulment occurred.
Only a relaxation of the polarisation of molecules near the surgaces.

Quote:
Where did
that energy go Franz?

To the restoration of the surface molecules to their unpolarised
states.

Quote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
If you bring two solid surfaces together, work is done *by the
Casimir
force*, resulting in a negative potential energy, analogous to a
binding energy.. When you replace them, an exactly equal amount
of
work will have to be done *by you*.

Indicating that you can store energy in the vacuum and later
extract it
from the vacuum.

I have no quibble with that. Why do you bring it up?
The topic unbder discussion is your assertyion that free energy is
available to be extracted from a vacuum.

Quote:

I note once again that you referred to the extraction of energy
from the
vacuum as <crack science> If I remember correctly.

Yes. Of course it is crackpottery.
You have forgotten that the origin of this discussion was the
extraction of free energy from a vacuum.

Quote:
Snicker....

your assumption
that energy can not come from nothing is simply an acceptance of
the
existance of free vacuum energy that you initially referred to
as
crank
science.

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
I only referred to it as crank science because that is precisely
what
it is.

Contradicting yourself again I see.

No. Not at all.

Quote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Well, you may, since you seem to be unable to understand the
difference between space itself expanding and objects moving apart
in
space.

I understand quite well Franz. So, I ask.. From whence does the
energy
come?

What energy?

Quote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
By r=the way, if I were you, I would lay off talking about energy
in
the context of a global gracitayional effect. Neither you nor I
know
enough GR to comment usefully on that topic.

I have never heard of the term "gracitayional" I must admit.

Please define the term for me.

We'll let that pass. You are running out of steam.

Quote:
Tell us Franz. Has vacuum energy been tapped to perform work
or
not?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
Neve, never.

That's interesting, just 4 paragraphs above you admitted that
energy could
be extracted.

Snicker....

Still laughing at Franz.

Please feel free to continue.

Do remember that the topic of this discourse is the extraction of free
energy from the vacuum.
Quote:

If a force exists that accelerates two plates together, as was the
case in
the original experiment that measured the Casimer force, when these
two
plates come together, energy has been liberated.

Liberated from where Franz?

The action of bringing the two plates together. The more cogent
question is where the energy has gone to. It has gone into
polarisating the surface molecules of the plates.
Quote:

In the original experiment energy had to be expended to separate
the
plates during the procedure of nulling their relative charge. Where
did
that energy go Franz?

If you understeood my previous reply, you would know the answer to
this one.

By the way, I am intensely bored with you.
Please feel free to have the last word.
I will reply only if I discover you doing some creative editing.

Franz
Back to top
rick++
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Radioactive Dating Is NOT RELIABLE Reply with quote

Carbon dating, which is good for about 50,000 years at the
most, is subject to external influences. The main culprit has
thought to have been minor, but important, changes in
solar output.
Carbon dating is mainly used for dating human culture
and late ice age environmental events. Other dating techniques
are use for older events. Some like fission tracks depend
on the external environment, while others like uranium/lead don't.
Carbon dating now uses a "calibration curve" rather than
single equation to adjust for these changes. The calibration
was made from other dating mechanisms such as tree rings.
Back to top
Fred
science forum addict


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: string theory Reply with quote

"slavek krepelka" <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:42031B85.6D6BE65B@sympatico.ca...

Quote:
Have I defined anything? Should it matter to me and to whoever if anyone
should, or should not share anything I may say?

Now I understand where you are coming from.
Back to top
ZenIsWhen
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 413

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:iZDMd.5568$Nn1.3766@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in
message news:11045dfsh07c302@corp.supernews.com...


snip hecklebot trash


[Hammond]
Cite your CV or get off this thread hecklebot.

Explain why you are trolling other newsgroups, AFTER having said you would
not, turd brain!

PROVE your claims, or go back to the asylum!
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Fifty-Fifty Probability,and Uncertainty Reply with quote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Quote:
Let me say first every thing has a probable chance in the universe.(I
would hope so) Probability is terminology of a kind of
calculating. It gives nothing precise,but % can be used nicely.( Like
this) 1% extremely unlikely 1-10% little chance 10to 40% some
chance,and more likely 40 to65% about 50-50 65 to 99% very
probable 99.999999999 % Virtual certainty All of humankind
fall
into probability from the time the male sperm found that egg. To be
"you" had only a slim chance. To be born on this planet was
still a much slimmer chance. However nature saw to it there would be
a
spacetime where it had to happen. This all comes under the
"Monkey
type writer theory" Bert

Yup, and I thought I was crazy.

--Bart
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 232 [3478 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 230, 231, 232 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:43 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Lawyer: come georgie, pay me pay me Geo Incog New Theories 0 Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:13 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1970s ][ Queries: 12 (0.1506s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]