Physics

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sww:
Well...actually you can't say which twin would be younger because relativity says that there isn't a preferred frame of reference. So you could just as easily define your reference frame differently and say that the twin that remained on earth was moving and therefore would be younger.

Hence the term paradox.

---

Most have it wrong - the paradox is only in that you have a pair of twins of different ages. You keep talking about a frame of reference paradox that doesn't exist

The inertial frame of reference issue does not apply here - there is a different frame of reference at play, the relativistic one, which is defined by the speed of light. I think someone else may have mentioned it, but i thought it bore repeating.

Also, for the light year issue. Since the distance of a light year is defined by the speed of light, any observer will measure 10,000 light years to be 10,000 light years - but they will disagree on how many MILES are in a light year!! This is because their own time dilation will affect the length (in miles) of a light year. This also means that a person can never go that far because for a person traveling near the speed of light, 10,000 light years is still 10,000 years of travel time (and many more miles than if they were standing still). This is actually a perfect illustration of the difference between the inertial and the relativistic frame of reference.

I suggest you guys reread your copies of "A Brief History of Time." I've read it 10 times and I understand it better each time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by al bundy:
[BEdit: Here's an interesting link regarding just how much we all still have to learn about nature: [URL=http://www.altenergy.org/3/new_energy/zero_point_and_other/hutchinson/hutchinson.html]http://www.altenergy.org/3/new_energy/zero_point_and_other/hutchinson/hutchinson.html[/UR L]

[/B]

---

I read your link on zero point energy - it is a perpetual motion hoax and nothing more. Remember, something that is neither provable nor repeatable is not science, it is pseudoscience (I think someone else mentioned that before).

And the alternate energy thing - I get into arguements about hydrogen fuel cells all the time. People just don't realize that they are simply energy storage devices; Yet another perpetual motion hoax.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple states that we can not know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time. In a vacuum, since all energy states are theoretically at zero you would break the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, there must still be energy in a vacuum and this is known as zero point energy. I believe this has been proven at Fermi Labs. It is theorized that this energy comes from other dimensions so we will not violate any laws of Thermodynamics.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple states that we can not know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time. In a vacuum, since all energy states are theoretically at zero you would break the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, there must still be energy in a vacuum and this is known as zero point energy. I believe this has been proven at Fermi Labs. It is theorized that this energy comes from other dimensions so we will not violate any laws of Thermodynamics.

---

Actually, the implication here for vacuums is that particles and energy continually "pop" into and out of existence in a vacuum. This is also covered in ABHOT, and I'm pretty sure it is NOT called "zero point energy". I can't remember if this has been tested or if it is still mathematical though. The idea of harnessing this however is ludicrous since the quantity of energy is both balanced (protons/positron pairs, for example that destroy each other) and infinitessimal.

Regardless, the whole zero point energy hoax is easy to recognize since it contains all the clear hallmarks of a hoax, ie non-repeatable, unpredictable tests making it impossible to disprove its existence (which is of course the basic premise of the scientific method) and extreme secrecy surrounding the whole concept to prevent any attempt at debunking it (which is the modern extension to peer review).

Here is an article from scientific american about zero point

energy.http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html

One key quote:

"The zero-point-energy community is more successful at advertising and selfpromotion than they are at carrying out bona fide scientific research."

One correction though, it appears that it IS referred to by that name in the scientific community as well.

I don't understand what you mean?

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there has to be energy even in a vacuum. This is known as zero point energy. It is made up of virtual particles so you can not see it, but you can observe it indirectly by the Casmir Effect.

We can't see Neutrinos but nobody claims neutrinos don't exist.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by russ_watters:
Actually, the implication here for vacuums is that particles and energy continually "pop" into and out of existence in a vacuum. This is also covered in ABHOT, and I'm pretty sure it is NOT called "zero point energy". I can't remember if this has been tested or if it is still mathematical though. The idea of harnessing this however is ludicrous since the quantity of energy is both balanced (protons/positron pairs, for example that destroy each other) and infinitessimal.

Regardless, the whole zero point energy hoax is easy to recognize since it contains all the clear hallmarks of a hoax, ie non-repeatable, unpredictable tests making it impossible to disprove its existence (which is of course the basic premise of the scientific method) and extreme secrecy surrounding the whole concept to prevent any attempt at debunking it (which is the modern extension to peer review).

---

There is one way to extract this energy, unfortunately it requires a black hole…

------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
I don't understand what you mean?

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, there has to be energy even in a vacuum. This is known as zero point energy. It is made up of virtual particles so you can not see it, but you can observe it indirectly by the Casmir Effect.

We can't see Neutrinos but nobody claims neutrinos don't exist.

---

Which part don't you understand? Yes there is energy in a vacuum (and matter). But the whole point is that they are both so small and so random as to be useless. Yes they can be seen, but we still don't really know how much there is. Cosmologists are pretty sure the amount is tiny otherwise it would have a major impact on the structure of the universe (there is a lot of empty space out there).

The hoax is the part where people say they have already harnessed it (or think they can).

I thought you meant you believed zero point energy didn't exist.

However, this energy does have a major impact on the universe. When pairs of particles are produced near the event horizon, one particle can get sucked into the black hole before they can both collide and destroy each other. This means it is impossible to predict the future because it is totally random.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
I thought you meant you believed zero point energy didn't exist.

However, this energy does have a major impact on the universe. When pairs of particles are produced near the event horizon, one particle can get sucked into the black hole before they can both collide and destroy each other. This means it is impossible to predict the future because it is totally random.

---

Actually, I just didn't realize that repuatble scientits used that name when referring to the phenomenon of energy and matter in a vacuum.

And for your second part - thats not a property of zero point energy, that (like zero point energy) is a property of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Since you can't ever know the exact position and velocity of any object, you can't make an exact prediction on its future state.

My point was that since information is being sucked into black holes (the particle and antiparticle) you can't predict the future. Black holes operate like a holographic data storage.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

Uuuuhhh...
If I had anything useful to add to this discussion I would...
Of course this gets so far outside the realm of useful information that Im not sure I care.

------------------
"It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his own step." Jeremiah 10:23

I can think of lots of upgrades people make to computers that aren't useful but for their own ego, mate.

But I suggest people here go and read Stephen Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell for the first couple of chapters to get closer to understanding.

This looks like a good place to get my 100th post after 1 year. LOL

------------------
P4 2.2ghz -I set it too stock speed again, no need to oc at this point.
MSI 845 Ultra-ARU w/ATA 133
Antec sx1040b w/400 watt P.S.
512mb DDR 2700
120 Gig IBM Desktar
Radeon 8500
Audigy X-gamer
16x DVD
24x CDRW
Viewsonic 21"
Klipsch Promedia 5.1
3com 10/100 NIC
Toshiba cable modem
FPS DEMON 1 & 2

[This message has been edited by Snake Eyes73 (edited February 11, 2002).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snake Eyes73:
This looks like a good place to get my 100th post after 1 year. LOL

---

You are on FIRE man... Congrats on the big number!!


------------------
If I couldn't type drunk, I'd still be Expensive Sushi.