It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 44
39
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
edit: I read the link, I think it may be a good idea to update the Wikipedia page with this information. I am a bit reluctant to do it myself as I am not really comfortable with this subject.


Do you mean the "Renormalization" page on Wiki? In what sense you think it's incorrect?




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I mean the Zero-point energy page. There isn't much information about measurement results, the different approaches to calculate it, and the discrepancies between them.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I mean the Zero-point energy page. There isn't much information about measurement results, the different approaches to calculate it, and the discrepancies between them.


I agree. I also don't see a link to renormalization, which I think is an omission given the physics involved (however my memory is rusty since I took these classes aeons ago). It's a chewy subject, to be sure.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by -PLB-
edit: I read the link, I think it may be a good idea to update the Wikipedia page with this information. I am a bit reluctant to do it myself as I am not really comfortable with this subject.


Do you mean the "Renormalization" page on Wiki? In what sense you think it's incorrect?



Originally posted by -PLB-
I mean the Zero-point energy page. There isn't much information about measurement results, the different approaches to calculate it, and the discrepancies between them.


The zero point energy page and the vacuum energy page both might need a little work but the difference between them is so trivial (at least in QFT) I wondered why they have two separate pages. Then I read the talk page for vacuum energy and see that merging the two is one of the discussion topics:

en.wikipedia.org...:Vacuum_energy

The discussion about merging them was over five years ago, but they said most of the comments favored keeping them separate, but I don't see those comments, maybe they archived them? The zero point energy page talks a lot about vacuum energy, but the vacuum energy page doesn't even mention zero-point energy, except for a link in the "see also section", though the article is tagged as needing work.

But after reading PLB's question maybe I can guess why they don't want to merge them. Vacuum energy is a broader term, which happens to be nearly synonymous with zero point energy in quantum field theory. However if you refer to the source I quoted earlier:

What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?

Of the five answers, the answer I think is most likely to be right, answer #1, is about vacuum energy as determined through observations related to general relativity, not quantum field theory.

So PLB, I think the answer to why the zero point energy page wouldn't explain this method of general relativity is because technically I think zero point energy and vacuum energy are only synonymous in quantum field theory, but I'm not sure they are synonymous in GR though I see some people use the the terms interchangeably.

If I were going to write Wikipedia's entries I would probably write one article for vacuum energy, and explain that there are two approaches to it through both general relativity and quantum field theory. Then within the quantum field theory section it would address zero point energy.

The term "Zero-point energy" could re-direct to that link for vacuum energy even though only part of it is about zero point energy, and the other part is about vacuum energy related to GR. But they decided not to merge the two for reasons I can guess at but don't fully understand, and don't appear to be documented.

By the way I have to ask about this statement from that link:


People talk a lot about "vacuum energy" or "zero-point energy" - that is, the energy density of empty space. .... Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy somehow, all our problems would be solved.
What kooky people is he talking about?
Nevermind, don't answer that if you're talking about somebody else. However if you want to confess to being such a person, I guess that wouldn't violate the T&C.

edit on 24-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I agree. I also don't see a link to renormalization, which I think is an omission given the physics involved (however my memory is rusty since I took these classes aeons ago). It's a chewy subject, to be sure.
There is a link to renormalization on the zero point energy page, it's in the section called "varieties".

en.wikipedia.org...

But there's no "see also" section at the end like on the vacuum energy page if that's what you were referring to, the format of the wiki articles is inconsistent.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

. . . Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy . . .


An author using this language demonstrates an attitude that puts him in a non-trustworthy category as far as I'm concerned. Not credible.


Originally posted by -PLB-
According to wikipedia:

Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. . . .


I've heard renormalization described as a cop-out.

Dirac had something to say about renormalization.

I think the posts on this thread on the issue of infinite energy in the vacuum indicate a great deal of uncertainty on the topic, and highlights the need for re-evaluating old assumptions in physics.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


How is it a cop-out when a model works after renormalization? Isn't the criteria for a model that it makes useful prediction and not if we like it or not? It is not unlikely that in the future scientists will find models that do not need normalization, and are more accurate. But that doesn't automatically mean those models will be more useful, they may only give us additional insight. We still use newtons laws of motion in many situations even though we know they are not 100% accurate.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


It's a cop-out within the context of the need for a unified theory.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

. . . Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy . . .


An author using this language demonstrates an attitude that puts him in a non-trustworthy category as far as I'm concerned. Not credible.


Oh look who's talking. How about labeling science community at large a prejudiced and ossified bunch as an attitude? How about passing categorical statements without any knowledge of the subject, for an attitude?


I've heard renormalization described as a cop-out.


And I've heard that certain phrases in Chinese are extremely rude. I don't speak a word of Chinese, but it makes me suspect it's not a nice language. Besides, I think that differential geometry is a pseudo-science because it does not rely on transcendental mediation as a tool to explore the resonance flow of cymatic vortex as it defines the dynamics of fractal collapse of the space-time toroidal manifold. So there.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You sound rather bitter I would say.

It's difficult to have a civilized discussion under such circumstances.

Sarcastic ridicule does not a productive thread make; I propose that the thread be allowed to die and disappear from recent posts - I'm sure people are tired of seeing it.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

You sound rather bitter I would say.


I would say that in the field I work in, critical thinking is a way of life and the method by which we advance knowledge and technology. Long story short, bullcr@p doesn't fly, and neither do pompous statements from persons without requisite knowledge (less from persons without desire to put effort into learning). So what you call "bitterness" is a natural reaction of a healthy and productive mind. I would not presume to give advice to Sam Adams brewmasters about how to improve their Boston Lager, but an equivalent of this is happening in these threads day in, day out. I wouldn't want to look quite ridiculous making philosophical statements about how that beer can be improved by adding a pinch of bath salts, but some people insist on being in that role.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your opinion is of no more value than anyone else's.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Your opinion is of no more value than anyone else's.


Sure, tell that to you doctor when he's trying to help. Or to the technician who's been called to fix that heating problem in your building. Certainly he abides by obsolete and stagnated notions of technology and is unaware of the true power of number 9 or of the fact that the Universe is actually a donut. You know best, Mary.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I certainly know best about where my time and energy should go and where it shouldn't.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I certainly know best about where my time and energy should go and where it shouldn't.
Like this?


Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have Universal Laws Never Before Revealed: Keely's Secrets in my stack of books waiting to be read. It's under Schrodinger's Universe, The Math Book, and Adventure with Real Magic. When I've finished reading The Blood and its Third Element - almost there - I'll get to the others. So much to learn...
You could learn more from buddhasystem in 5 minutes that you can in 5 hours of reading Keely's nonsense. And you were saying you know a scam when you see one, yet you're researching the "science" of one of the more noted scam artists who bilked investors out of more than 110 million of today's dollars when the Keely motor company was founded in 1872, and no working motor was ever produced?

Scientific American revealed Keely's secrets, but you probably think their opinion is no better than anyone else's too right? They revealed that Keely's secrets were air lines hidden in his lab connected to a hidden compressor in the basement that he used to fool people into thinking his devices used his version of "vacuum energy", but they were really running on compressed air.

Keely may be worthy of study with regard to how even investors can be so gullible and such large sums of money can be lost investing in scientifically unsound schemes, but I find it difficult to believe how people 139 years after the Keely Motor company was formed deny the Scientific American article that REALLY exposed his TRUE secrets. The only person I understand denying it is the guy who runs the Keelynet.com website because he makes money from it.

So here are Keely's secrets in a nutshell: Make a fancy looking device. Claim it gets energy from the vacuum or the changing colorful, similar lingo he used to describe the source. Then hide air lines hooked up to a compressor and power the device with those. Take money from investors. Go to the grave without ever making a device that works (without the compressed air).

Reading Keely for scientific insight is like going to a witch doctor for medical advice. There are much better sources of information in either case.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur,

Your judgment and research skills are not of any interest to me.

I'll trust my own.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Your judgment and research skills are not of any interest to me.
What about Scientific American?

Is that also of no interest in your pursuit of science?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Mainstream publications are often not in a search for the truth but rather serve the interests of the powers that be when certain situations arise. One has to be discerning when reading them.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Science isn't about intentions but about following the proper procedures. A scientist with the intention of finding the truth can deliver complete junk, a scientist who just does the job to get paid can deliver excellent work.

But aside from that, I find it denigrating and insulting towards basically all the people who invested so much of their life in science to suggest they are corrupted liars serving a hidden agenda. That is basically what you are doing. Its a very paranoid and malicious world view. The whole idea of technology being suppressed is kind of absurd. Both the competition between countries and corporations and a very open media (Internet) make that utterly impossible. Unless you think only evil people can do great discoveries, it will reach the media.
edit on 25-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Science isn't about intentions but about following the proper procedures.


Science is a search for the truth. Proper procedures - yes - sometimes what is considered "proper" can be wrong-headed, or mainstream institutions may not follow proper procedures.


Originally posted by -PLB-
But aside from that, I find it denigrating and insulting towards basically all the people who invested so much of their life in science to suggest they are corrupted liars serving a hidden agenda.


I have not suggested that scientists are corrupted liars.


Originally posted by -PLB-
The whole idea of technology being suppressed is kind of absurd.


No, it's not. Among others - Tesla. Reich. Rife.

BTW, Wikipedia is not trustworthy when it comes to topics like this.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join