NotDarkYet Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I've seen guys on youtube talking about getting Energy from the Vacuum, and Zero Point Energy. Obviously my first instinct is "if this is possible, then a business man would have created and sold a billion of these units - - so this is BS." But this guy, Tom Bearden, gives public presentations on it. He even has technical papers on it: http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/ Does anybody here have the technical background to debunk (or confirm) any of those "technical papers"?
Will Torbald Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I've seen guys on youtube talking about getting Energy from the Vacuum, and Zero Point Energy. Obviously my first instinct is "if this is possible, then a business man would have created and sold a billion of these units - - so this is BS." But this guy, Tom Bearden, gives public presentations on it. He even has technical papers on it: http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/ Does anybody here have the technical background to debunk (or confirm) any of those "technical papers"? I'm not in any way an experct, but if any of these fringe theories had any validity, every real scientist would be all over it. It would appear in the media, you'd hear Bill Nye talking about it, all the usual suspects. Just with my knowledge of vaccuum energy I'd tell you that it's a crack dream. Empty space does have force, but you need extremely sensitive instruments to detect it, and it's still minuscule. You can't make anything practical out of it.
Guest Gee Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Sure. Zero point energy corresponds to a physics system with a temperature of T = 0K From thermodynamics we know that in order to extract useful work we require heat to flow between from a hot to a cold body. Therefore in order to extract useful work from a zero point system we require heat to flow from a system of T = 0K to a system of T < 0K (a colder body than 0k). As we also know you can not have negative temperature we therefore can not extract useful work from a zero point system. We can then dismiss any claim of such prima facie. 2
NotDarkYet Posted October 1, 2015 Author Posted October 1, 2015 Then what is this guy all about? What does he get out of pursuing this for 15 + years?
papatree84 Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Then what is this guy all about? What does he get out of pursuing this for 15 + years? I'm not saying that you are wrong and zero point energy doesn't exist, but what I quoted you saying above is not an argument. 1
Will Torbald Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Then what is this guy all about? What does he get out of pursuing this for 15 + years? String theory has been around for longer, has a lot of respect and backing, and has yielded zero practical applications and zero testable results. Science is weird like that.
Mister Mister Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Sure. Zero point energy corresponds to a physics system with a temperature of T = 0K From thermodynamics we know that in order to extract useful work we require heat to flow between from a hot to a cold body. Therefore in order to extract useful work from a zero point system we require heat to flow from a system of T = 0K to a system of T < 0K As we also know you can not have negative temperature we therefore can not extract useful work from a zero point system. We can then dismiss any claim of such prima facie. But if that's the case how can there be billions of fiery balls of highly condensed matter in space? Isn't gravitation the flow from cold to hot?
Guest Gee Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Then what is this guy all about? What does he get out of pursuing this for 15 + years? He does not alter the theory in his head based on empirical evidence, the objective holds no primacy over the subjective, he is rejecting reality. I would suppose he gets out of it what all those who reject reality get out of it, the avoidance of legitimate suffering.
rosencrantz Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Looking at the personal background of Bearden (he got his PhD from a diploma mill) and the rejection of his claims by the scientific community, it seems likely that the theory is bogus.However, there is the Casimir effect where two metallic plates are being pushed together https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effectThere is a proper use of the term Zero point energy, that was developed by Planck himself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energyIt is simply the lowest possible energy quantum systems can have. How and if the Casimir effect and the ZPE (proper) are related is not altogether clear.
Guest Gee Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 But if that's the case how can there be billions of fiery balls of highly condensed matter in space? Isn't gravitation the flow from cold to hot? Gravity is the attractive force between two masses which is proportional to the produce of the masses the to the square of the separation between said masses.
rosencrantz Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 Gravity is a property of spacetime, caused by matter. Matter causes spacetime to curve which in turn determines the move of other matter.
Mister Mister Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 Gravity is the attractive force between two masses which is proportional to the produce of the masses the to the square of the separation between said masses. I seriously doubt that definition, and anyway, I'm not sure if that is a yes or no to my question. I'm asking if an effect of gravity is the flow from cold to hot. For example, the Sun attracts matter from the cold of space and compresses it into the heat of matter.
rosencrantz Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 I'm asking if an effect of gravity is the flow from cold to hot. The direction is always from high pressure to low pressure. Hot air rises up in a cold room and so on.
Guest Gee Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 I seriously doubt that definition, and anyway, I'm not sure if that is a yes or no to my question. I'm asking if an effect of gravity is the flow from cold to hot. For example, the Sun attracts matter from the cold of space and compresses it into the heat of matter. Then read a physics text book because this is the definition of Netonian gravity. It is not responsible for heat flow.
shirgall Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 I seriously doubt that definition, and anyway, I'm not sure if that is a yes or no to my question. I'm asking if an effect of gravity is the flow from cold to hot. For example, the Sun attracts matter from the cold of space and compresses it into the heat of matter. The closest you get to this with gravity is treating gravity as if it was a massive electrical charge. This was explored as a possible solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations, and it's called the Reissner–Nordström metric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reissner%E2%80%93Nordstr%C3%B6m_metric I'm not an expert in General Relativity... and it's been a couple decades since I really studied this stuff (I studied Engineering Physics in my undergrad years).
Will Torbald Posted October 5, 2015 Posted October 5, 2015 I seriously doubt that definition, and anyway, I'm not sure if that is a yes or no to my question. I'm asking if an effect of gravity is the flow from cold to hot. For example, the Sun attracts matter from the cold of space and compresses it into the heat of matter. That is not accurate. Things flow from hot to cold, not from cold to hot. What you are asking about is called "thermodynamics" and it's a separate set of laws and physics from gravity. This video explains gravity from Einstein's theories
Mister Mister Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 That is not accurate. Things flow from hot to cold, not from cold to hot. What you are asking about is called "thermodynamics" and it's a separate set of laws and physics from gravity. This video explains gravity from Einstein's theories Yes I'm familiar with that model, I always found it weird because it seems like it already assumes gravity in its model - also it seems to me like because of friction, all orbits would eventually decay which we don't see. You can say that gravity "curves space", but if we designed this model way out in space, it wouldn't work - it only works when we conceptualize the Earth underneath the model pulling the objects down - so to me it still doesn't describe why objects fall towards large masses, or what mass even is in the first place. Maybe there are answers to these questions but it doesn't totally make sense to me.
shirgall Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Yes I'm familiar with that model, I always found it weird because it seems like it already assumes gravity in its model - also it seems to me like because of friction, all orbits would eventually decay which we don't see. You can say that gravity "curves space", but if we designed this model way out in space, it wouldn't work - it only works when we conceptualize the Earth underneath the model pulling the objects down - so to me it still doesn't describe why objects fall towards large masses, or what mass even is in the first place. Maybe there are answers to these questions but it doesn't totally make sense to me. The model describes how, not why. The map is not the territory. Every object places on the analogy's sheet of rubber pulls it down across the entire sheet, but the amount it pulls down drops by in proportion to the cube root of the distance from the object, and the amount it pulls down at the center is proportional to its relative mass. Yes, you have assert that mass and gravity exist because this is a model of how mass and gravity interact. As a result, you will see that all objects fall towards one another, but the amount they fall is in proportion to the relative difference in their masses. The sun, being the giant bowling ball in the middle of the sheet, will only move a tiny amount compared to the cue ball of Jupiter a long way away from it. Give each object sufficient velocity orthogonal to the pull of another, and you can get it or orbit. Making this analogy work in real life in only useful for a short period of time because there are other things like friction and so on that mess it up, and there are also things the model does not represent that happen in real life, like solar wind.
Will Torbald Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Yes I'm familiar with that model, I always found it weird because it seems like it already assumes gravity in its model - also it seems to me like because of friction, all orbits would eventually decay which we don't see. You can say that gravity "curves space", but if we designed this model way out in space, it wouldn't work - it only works when we conceptualize the Earth underneath the model pulling the objects down - so to me it still doesn't describe why objects fall towards large masses, or what mass even is in the first place. Maybe there are answers to these questions but it doesn't totally make sense to me. Since I am not floating, I am going to assume gravity exists. Actually, Einstein's model has been confirmed "way out in space" by every observation of it. It is the most accurate description of gravity ever conceived so far. We just know it has certain limits, and that larger theories are necessary to explain them, but the limits are in the fringes of reality, not in space or the sun.
NotDarkYet Posted October 7, 2015 Author Posted October 7, 2015 To be clear, I don't believe this Bearden guy. I'm asking because Anarcho-capitalism was a "crazy" idea to me 10 years ago, and I'm so glad I explored it before I rejected it out of hand. Figured I'd ask smart people what they thought of this Zero Point stuff.
Alan C. Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 There is nothing wrong with asking questions. The peer review process is not about proving people wrong. It's important for filtering out nonsense, and also to get different perspectives in the event that something is overlooked. There are very brilliant people who do physics for a living (eg. Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking). All they do is physics, and sometimes they cogitate on ideas for years. Ideas are subjected to extreme rigor, analysis, and scrutiny, and if there are ways to circumvent known physical laws then I'm sure they'd discover it.
Mister Mister Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Since I am not floating, I am going to assume gravity exists. Actually, Einstein's model has been confirmed "way out in space" by every observation of it. It is the most accurate description of gravity ever conceived so far. We just know it has certain limits, and that larger theories are necessary to explain them, but the limits are in the fringes of reality, not in space or the sun. Sorry I don't think you understood. I am just pointing out that, in this model, an object creates DOWNWARD depressions in the rubber sheet of space-time, cause a seeming attraction because objects tend to fall DOWNWARDS. If you set up this same model on a space shuttle it wouldn't work without the pull of gravity already. I understand it is an attempt to mathematically describe how gravity works, I just never thought it was a very good model. I also never understood how supposedly Einstein rejected Ether theory, but his theory rests on gravity as the curvature of spacetime. But if spacetime can curve, then it has substance right? So what is the difference between Aether which moves in vortices, and spacetime which can curve and compress. Also I realize we've strayed from the topic a bit, I just hoped you could clarify for me.
Guest Gee Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Sorry I don't think you understood. I am just pointing out that, in this model, an object creates DOWNWARD depressions in the rubber sheet of space-time, cause a seeming attraction because objects tend to fall DOWNWARDS. If you set up this same model on a space shuttle it wouldn't work without the pull of gravity already. I understand it is an attempt to mathematically describe how gravity works, I just never thought it was a very good model. I also never understood how supposedly Einstein rejected Ether theory, but his theory rests on gravity as the curvature of spacetime. But if spacetime can curve, then it has substance right? So what is the difference between Aether which moves in vortices, and spacetime which can curve and compress. Also I realize we've strayed from the topic a bit, I just hoped you could clarify for me. Aether theory was disproved by Michelson and Morley in 1887. I have not studied general relativity thus can not explain space-time stuff but here is a link to such a topic on physics.stackExchange http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/102910/why-would-spacetime-curvature-cause-gravity
shirgall Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Sorry I don't think you understood. I am just pointing out that, in this model, an object creates DOWNWARD depressions in the rubber sheet of space-time, cause a seeming attraction because objects tend to fall DOWNWARDS. If you set up this same model on a space shuttle it wouldn't work without the pull of gravity already. I understand it is an attempt to mathematically describe how gravity works, I just never thought it was a very good model. I also never understood how supposedly Einstein rejected Ether theory, but his theory rests on gravity as the curvature of spacetime. But if spacetime can curve, then it has substance right? So what is the difference between Aether which moves in vortices, and spacetime which can curve and compress. Also I realize we've strayed from the topic a bit, I just hoped you could clarify for me. The rubber sheet device is a way to explain by analogy, it is not the theory itself. They are describing the effects of mass in a relatable way. The analogy is rather limited, but it gets the point across at more easily than trying to explain tensors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
Will Torbald Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Sorry I don't think you understood. I am just pointing out that, in this model, an object creates DOWNWARD depressions in the rubber sheet of space-time, cause a seeming attraction because objects tend to fall DOWNWARDS. If you set up this same model on a space shuttle it wouldn't work without the pull of gravity already. I understand it is an attempt to mathematically describe how gravity works, I just never thought it was a very good model. I also never understood how supposedly Einstein rejected Ether theory, but his theory rests on gravity as the curvature of spacetime. But if spacetime can curve, then it has substance right? So what is the difference between Aether which moves in vortices, and spacetime which can curve and compress. Also I realize we've strayed from the topic a bit, I just hoped you could clarify for me. It's not a downward force, it's an attraction force. There's no up or down in outer space, just "towards me, or away from me". Gravity makes things move towards you. The gravity of the Earth curves spacetime to create a slope towards itself, not downwards. The space shuttle floating in space is in orbit because gravity keeps it curving towards the ground instead of being flung in a straight line outwards.
Mister Mister Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 It's not a downward force, it's an attraction force. There's no up or down in outer space, just "towards me, or away from me". Gravity makes things move towards you. The gravity of the Earth curves spacetime to create a slope towards itself, not downwards. The space shuttle floating in space is in orbit because gravity keeps it curving towards the ground instead of being flung in a straight line outwards. Yes I completely understand that. I'm talking about a criticism of the model with the rubber sheet representing space time. I'm saying, why does an object make a depression in the rubber sheet in the first place. Anyway I'm going to read the stuff shirgall and Graham sent in an effort to understand better.
Will Torbald Posted October 7, 2015 Posted October 7, 2015 Yes I completely understand that. I'm talking about a criticism of the model with the rubber sheet representing space time. I'm saying, why does an object make a depression in the rubber sheet in the first place. To be honest, nobody knows. Einstein's theory only describes what is happening, not why it is happening. There are theories like quantum loop gravity and super string theory that try to explain why and how, but they are still too young and untested to see if they are true. It's an excellent question, by the way- why does? It's the holy grail of physics. 1
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Gravity is a property of spacetime, caused by matter. Matter causes spacetime to curve which in turn determines the move of other matter. Postclassical Physics Is Authoritarian Irrationalism How can space curve when it is empty? Is space itself a substance? Whether it is or not, a solution that wouldn't contradict itself about nothingness being able to bend is to assume an outside dimension where gravity takes place but is connected to 3D at the endpoints. So imagine gravitons submerged in 4D transmitted and knocking the submerged part of other 3D bodies closer in a boomerang effect.
Will Torbald Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Postclassical Physics Is Authoritarian Irrationalism This affirmation without rational proof is expressed in authoritarian terms. Not even trying.
shirgall Posted October 10, 2015 Posted October 10, 2015 How can space curve when it is empty? Is space itself a substance? Do you have three years to talk about the math and physics? Start with tensors. Attacking a analogy for being weak is not a compelling argument.
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 This affirmation without rational proof is expressed in authoritarian terms. Under Decadent Thought Control, Originality Is a Crime That Must Be Stamped Out by All Loyal Peasants No, it is an assertion, a cry in the wilderness. Unlike the dogmatism of self-appointed experts granted prestige by permanently immature students seeking an intellectual father-figure, it is not a consensus-clique statement expressed in the same way that Fundamentalists quote the Bible.
Will Torbald Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Under Decadent Thought Control, Originality Is a Crime That Must Be Stamped Out by All Loyal Peasants No, it is an assertion, a cry in the wilderness. Unlike the dogmatism of self-appointed experts granted prestige by permanently immature students seeking an intellectual father-figure, it is not a consensus-clique statement expressed in the same way that Fundamentalists quote the Bible. Science is open to debate and scrutiny, with the evidence being shared to the public. If there are people who blindly follow research results like gospel that's unfortunate, but science is specifically designed for scrutiny and skepticism of previously held ideas. 1
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Science is open to debate and scrutiny, with the evidence being shared to the public. If there are people who blindly follow research results like gospel that's unfortunate, but science is specifically designed for scrutiny and skepticism of previously held ideas. Science Has a Closed Self-Justifying Design That is the "Ad Angelum" argument. Science is ruled by autocratic scientists, who try to hide the damage done by their neurotic, vindictive, self-righteous, and power-hungry personalities by intimidating critics with cries of Ad Hominem, which is certainly admissible evidence against them and not at all the irrelevant attack they claim it is. They want us to believe they are dispassionate, unbiased, disembodied, and idealistic spirits, far superior to the humans who reject them for being nerds. 1
shirgall Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Science Has a Closed Self-Justifying Design That is the "Ad Angelum" argument. Science is ruled by autocratic scientists, who try to hide the damage done by their neurotic, vindictive, self-righteous, and power-hungry personalities by intimidating critics with cries of Ad Hominem, which is certainly admissible evidence against them and not at all the irrelevant attack they claim it is. They want us to believe they are dispassionate, unbiased, disembodied, and idealistic spirits, far superior to the humans who reject them for being nerds. Your "us versus them" attitude here is contrary to my experience. Science is a methodology not a castle to be claimed by Nobel lords (pun intended).
Will Torbald Posted October 13, 2015 Posted October 13, 2015 Science Has a Closed Self-Justifying Design That is the "Ad Angelum" argument. Science is ruled by autocratic scientists, who try to hide the damage done by their neurotic, vindictive, self-righteous, and power-hungry personalities by intimidating critics with cries of Ad Hominem, which is certainly admissible evidence against them and not at all the irrelevant attack they claim it is. They want us to believe they are dispassionate, unbiased, disembodied, and idealistic spirits, far superior to the humans who reject them for being nerds. That is the "Scientists are jerks" objection. I won't deny that scientists can be neurotic, vindictive, self-righteous, and power-hungry. But scientists are not science. Science is a body of knowledge and the scientific method is the way to acquire it - and that makes it immune to criticisms of personality.
Recommended Posts