Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by dereks
dereks, are you joking? I'm really getting the feeling that you know nothing about physics at all. You keep asking "what vacuum?"
THE VACUUM THAT IS ALL AROUND YOU, the one that radiant energy comes from. You obviously do not realize that the earth floats in the vacuum of space,
and that physics operates in this vacuum. Particle and energy physics does not depend on the atmosphere of the earth. I am not talking about the
simplistic idea of an atmospheric vacuum (which seems to be what you are referring to), but rather the PHYSICS concept of the ethereal vacuum of
space, of which science has confirmed is not empty at all, but is filled with "dark matter", "dark energy", etc.
How do you think satellites or space shuttles work if electronics depends on an atmosphere? Please stop arguing from such a position of ignorance and
get on the same wavelength, if you can.
It is very hard to explain anything to you if you refuse to educate yourself about anything that surpasses simple 7th science class of 30 years
"Ethereal vacuum of space", huh?. Even the 7th grade texts of 1979 knew that the ether had been disproven in 1887. The ether, or aether, was the
stuff that supposedly filled the vacuum, and allowed the transmission of light waves. As such a physics expert, you surely know of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. And as such an expert, perhaps you can explain how these vacuum energy machines evade the obvious problems resulting
from the annihilation operator in the Bogoliubov transformation. Please.
Oh yes, and please show the mathematics for the computation of the average energy densityof both the Dirac vacuum and the bare vacuum.
I did not say aether, I said "ethereal" in order to make sure than any "geniuses" out there didn't think that when I said vacuum I was talking
about a artificial vacuum chamber, but rather the cosmic vacuum, which is a standard feature of the universe and physics. If you don't know that,
then I have nothing further to say to you because you are obviously not in touch at all with REAL physics, or what is happening in the very best
physics labs around the world.
You want math formulas? I'll do you one better... I'll give you a whole system of unified physics that is so cutting edge it is only now being
seriously considered by top physicists and the British government science establishment. It is blowing people's minds because it really does seem to
not only be the elegant mathematical basis for all true traditional physics, but it also explains the real observed world much better, and also
predicts many exciting new possibilities in what man can achieve.
ECE Unified Field Theory - Byron Evans
Listen, okay, just listen... all through scientific history there has always been this same drama played out over and over, and there is no reason why
this time will not be the same. Whenever a new theory is put forth that causes "disruptive" advancement, it is ALWAYS met with ridicule and
violence before it is finally accepted as self-evident. In every innovation there are early-adopters and there are those who lag behind. It is human
nature. Most people are not early adopters, since most people really don't like the discomfort that goes along with drastic change. If Evans is
correct, and at this stage there is a growing number of physicists who are seeing that he just might be, this will mean a major rethink for everyone,
and that is a scary proposition for most people. Everyone realizes that, and that is just the way it goes.
Plus, there is the problem that if an innovation is such that it will render whole sectors of the economy to fail, the governments and their main
corporate benefactors become very nervous and usually work to suppress the advancement.
So, if you want to just poo-poo what I've linked you to, and not take the time to work it through yourself, only because you think that you know
better, or that Evans is wrong because he says things that greatly conflict with your present understanding of physics, then you are just behaving
like one who is not an early-adopter, and you are one of the ones who will come along by-and-by at some point in the future. That's okay if you are
that way, but please don't waste time trying to discuss a new physics advancement until you first go through and study it out. Only then will you be
able to point out the specifics of what you may object to, and only then can an exchange of ideas occur.