A Step Closer to the Matrix?

I have to be a little sceptical of someone who, in one page, offers free energy, EM guns shooting down our space shuttles, miraculous healing, and disposal of radioactive waste materials. Call me a skeptic, but that falls firmly under too good to be true.

When will scientists stop trying to make exciting blockbusters like Terminator and The Matrix into historically accurate documentaries?

[Edited on Dec 01, 2003 by UnnecessaryZ]

ZPE does exist, once again, I say, with much reason, to study harder. And pointing to the laws of thermodynamics like they are then ten commandments is no longer a suitable argument by any means.
You have to keep in mind that these laws are from the mid 19th Century and they DO NOT have universal validity yet. They are all assuming closed systems, in equilibrium. Now that is something that DOES NOT EXIST in nature, it was just practical to simplify the whole theory like that. Life does not know about this laws
(thank God) and violates them nicely in local scales.
It is true that the principle of conservation of momentum has generally held true. However, recently we have seen with the development of certain forms of hyperspace modeling, a complete break with orthodox physics. In short, Newtonian physics is being RAPIDLY superceded. The conservation of linerar and angular momentum cannot explain quantum mechanical propagators working across vast dimensions of superspace. (yes, those are all real words I just used Also, note that the existence of white holes and black holes has now basically disproved the first law of thermodynamics. Energy DOES infact leave and enter the known universe dimensionally through white holes and black holes.
So, saying these researchers are all crackpots because of a law of thermodynamics is now no longer different than a southern bible thumper saying that ZPE doesnt exist "cause the good book says so".

But if you really want to be liberated, and want to know the secret of the universe you should go to this page.

http://www.somethingawful.com/learning_triangle/index.htm

*And as far as the Bearden thing, as that seems to be the only researcher that people are mentioning because he IS pretty fucking crazy, please mention the other frigging researchers.

As presented by them? Yes, totally. That's why I said that it does exist in theory but is in no way a practical power source. On the quantum level, subatomic particles composed entirely of "borrowed" energy are constantly popping into existence for a nanosecond or two, then disappearing again. Every theory of zero-point energy I've ever heard involves somehow capturing those particles and using them before they disappear. Needless to say, this is currently impossible. Someday, who knows?

I'm not challenging the validity of what you're claiming (frankly, I don't know enough about it to make any kind of infomed judgement) but could you provide some links to pages talking about some of the phenomena that you brought up? I'm really curious to learn more about them.

It is a sufficient argument until such time as you, or any of the other ZPE crackpots, can provide evidence that they do not apply. Since this is a quite extraordinary claim, it will require extraordinary evidence.

Care to cite a source?

Well that settles it -- you know nothing at all about thermodynamics. Only the introductory level examples include this simplifying assumption. The laws of thermodynamics, in their full and correct mathematical form, do not require this simplifying assumption.

This is a remarkably assinine non-sequitur. And conservation of momentum holds everywhere, at scales from the quantum to the relativistic.

This statement reveals a profound poverty in your understanding of physics. Newtonian physics is long since superseded for those realms for which it is not a good model, i.e. the relativistic and the quantum (notionally, the really big and the really small). However, relativistic and quantum mechanics can be thought of as correction factors for Newtonian mechanics -- the underlying principles of conservation of momentum and energy still hold.

Flipping open a recent textbook on string theory and swiping a few terms you don't understand in an attempt to cow your readers into submission is evidence of a weak and lazy mind.

1) There is no evidence that white holes exist.
2) Matter and energy that enter a black holes does not leave the known universe. Their gravity still affects the visible universe, which indicates that they are still here.

Do you have any other physical phenomena about which you would like to lie?

That sounds like a slightly updated version of Maxwell's Demon. What you have described is thought to happen in nature, but in such a way as to not compromise thermodynamics. If a pair of virtual particles form at the event horizon of a black hole, one member of the pair will be sucked in and the other will escape as Hawking radiation. This is the mechanism by which black holes evaporate. The continued existence of a visible universe may be thought of as evidence that they do in fact evaporate .

---------

---------

Newton's First Law of Motion states a body will remain at rest or move uniformly in a straight line unless compelled by external forces to change this condition. It refers only to an external force which, of course, requires a sceond body to produce that force. These circumstances exlude any possibility for an internal force or other dimensional force which requires no external second body to react against it at all. Newton's Second Law states that force must equal mass times acceleration (F = ma). Similarly, Newton's Third Law States that for every action or force there is an equal or opposite reaction, which implies that ther can never be a force acting in nature unless, again, two bodies are involved. There is one that exerts the force and the one upon which the force is exerted. Moreover, this indicates that whenever energy is manifest there must have been a source in the three-dimensional universe that gave up its force to create it.
Newton's laws, generalizing hte conservation of momentum prinicple, forbid an internal force or force coming from outside of our known reality to be valid. No matter how many weights may shift or gears may turn one can never propel an object by means of anything except a physical, external mechanism. This assumes we are functioning in a closed system with a limited amount of energy avaliable and we can clearly measure that limit. And I will repeat from before, that recent developments of certain forms of hyperspace modeling, have began a complete break with orthodox physics. And I will also repeat what I said after that previously in different words. Many have come to the realization that a whole new reality has outstripped the laws of Newtonian science and has opened up a new era for space navigation and for the reconsideration of cosmology itself. The spiritual and scientific unified implications are incredible. "To take a quantum leap beyond our three-dimensional system is merely to reconstruct or "resuscitate" the physical system beyond a singular relativity, whereby we can consciously experience Life outside this singular frame of space and time." And if you have time to check out some of the sources I cite, you would probably gain a bit of humility, learn alot, would stop using the word crackpot in refernce to researchers of ZPE (at least some of them), and would finally get to see some of that evidence you claim that you are looking for.

---------

---------

Sure.
There are now several societies and conferences world-wide, such as the Institute For New Energy (INE) founded by Hal Foz, Patrick Bailey, and Toby Grotz, that present and sometimes document the results of research in these areas. As this work is not considered as mainstream science within the US, much of the results of these researchers goes by unnoticed in the US. In 1991, the 26th IECEC (Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference) held in Bosto n was one of the first serious international forums for researchers in these areas to come forward voluntarily and present their ideasm theories, and results tot he mainstream scientific community.
"They were met with interest ranging from mistrust to awe, and from feelings ranging from friendship to outright anger." A growing group of organization is now netwroking on a world-wide basis to continue to support and organize this on-going research.
You need to understant that I dont believe everyone should outright accept these researchers, but they way that you immediately discount them without even knowing who they are is in error, and the kind of attitude that I spoke of before, when I quoted in a previous post..."If there is no initial interest-then there wll be no investigation. If there is no investigation, there will be no research to replicate. Your interest will spark the urge to replicate. If there is interest, research, and no replication, then that fact should be published and disseminated with integrity. If there are witnesses to the results and the results were or are repeatable, then I feel the fault and blame lies with the critic and not with the researcher."

So here are some sources for you...
26th IECEC "Proceedings of the 26th IECEC" August 1991: American Nuclear Society Bolume 4 pp.329-492
and ditto for the 27th and 28th IECEC papers.
Evans, Myron W. (1999) "On Whittakers Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuum, PartV The Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New Physics p.76-78
Puthoff, H.E. (1989) "Sources of Vacuum elecctromagnetic Zero-Point Energy" A Physics Review p.4857-4862
"A Critical Review of the Avalable Information Regarding Claims of Zero-Point Energy, Free Energy, & Over Unity Experiments & Devices" PAtrick G Bailey Ph.D., Toby Grotz, & J.J.Hurtak, Ph.D., Ph.D.
Coler, H. (1946) "The Invention of HAns Coler, Relating to an Alleged New Source of Power" and "Pathological Science:An Update" Skeptical Inquirer, Vol.17pp.400-407
GRG, Gravity REsearch Group (1946) "Electrogravitics Systems: An Examination of Electrostatic Motion, Dynamic Counterbary, and Barycentric Control"
ISNE (1993) "Proceedings of the Internation Symposiumon New Energy" International Association for New Science
Seike, S. (1992) "The Principals of Ultra Reality" Space Research Institute
Storms, E. (1993) "The Status of Cold Fusion" 28th IECEC papter
Stefan Marinov " "Regarding Becograft-Letter to Mr. Richard von Wezasacker..."
Hans Neiper "Revolution in Technology, Medicine and Socety"
And many more...
I have also pointed out researchers that are very well documented and you should look into their research before spitting anymore crackpot comments.


---------

---------

If using a few words with a smiley face after them gives you the "evidence" that you need to say that I have a maligned intent, and that I have a weak and lazy mind, and that I am trying to cow my "readers" into submission, then might just give me the impression that you research ZPE claims with same lack of humility and experience. You dont even know me in person, and with no life experience already have a psycho-analysis on the plate, fueled not by the conclusive documentation that you seem to desire from ZPE researchers but by you own desire to shoot someone down. Without knowing me in person, you have no grounds to say this, but you say it anyway. If we met in reality wihtout knowing who each other are, we might even get along, so you should probably lay off the trigger finger for a bit and leave the personal comments for another time.

---------

---------

No doubt, whiteholes are very theoretical as observation in deep space is difficult. If blackholes are stars which become trapped in the gravity fields and are gradually drawn into the singularity from which almost nothing can escape, whiteholes are said to be the couterpars to blackholes - a region where matter and energy emerge from a singularity into the universe at large. There is the possiblity that matter absorbed through a blackhole travels through a four dimensional bridge, called the Einstein-Rosen bridge, and emerges in a new universe that exists simultaneously. At the same time some of the mass that was absorbed by the blackhole comes back into our universe or else we could lose mass at a continual rate. This entergy of mass entering our universe, is what sceintists call a "whitehole".
I would define a whitehole as representing a blackhole of anti-matter with orbiting masses of common matter spiraling upon the anti-matter in the blackhole. Basically a whitehole is a blackhole running backwards.
However, the very theory of whiteholes violates the second law of thermodynamics, but so do the existence of blackholes if they truly remove energy from the universe. Therefore, scientists are now looking for where mass goes after it enters the civinity of a blackhole.
If energy is taken out of our univse by a blackhole, then it is practical to think of a Schwarzschild geometry which consists of a black hole, a white hole, and two Universes connected at their horizons by a wormhole. the basic Schwarzschild blackhole structure could be seen as a light cone cureved in such a way as so that the light is turned inward. According to Einstein, to the outside observer time moves slower as one approaches a blackhole. That means within the blackhole "inside time" might be the opposite direction form "outside time".
reference: a paper on Quark Confinement by Dr. R.J.Palmer, BSc BVSc and B.I. Epstein, BSc Hons MA
I also read a paper that also adresses the gravity comment more specifically, and when I find it again I will reference it.
Also you may want to check out the http://www.padrak.com/ine/ site.

---------

---------

I thank you for the majority of comments so far. You have made this conversation a lot more interesting. We all have a right to discuss our viewpoint on matters according to our own life experience and research, and all of us doing so makes this a lot more colorful. And noone here so far should be faulted for commenting according to what they believe, including you and I. As I stated before, when you call me a lier, you are trying to get personal, which is exactly where you should not go until you actually know someone. We are discussing very grand ideas and concepts of beauty and importance and they arent to bent into an arrow for personal arguments.
I am not a lier for stating what I know according to my research and experience, and you are not a lier for stating what you know according to your research and experience. Just state it, and lay off the personal comments.


[Edited on Dec 01, 2003 by alhim]

Who you callin' a "lier"?

Sorry. Having no understanding of this topic, whatsoever, I had to resort to the cheap shot.

What about the Warp Drive? I mean, can we do that?

Fuck yeah. And what about the "Beam me Up, Scotty." stuff. Huh? Can we do that?

Actually this topic does have a lot of relevance to possible changes in space exploration so maybe random shit kinda like Warp drive is on its way.

Except that none of those assumptions are required for conservation of momentum to hold. Conservation of momentum holds in every physical domain studied so far, without the requirement of simplifying assumptions. Claiming that such assumptions are required constitutes a lie.

This is all argument by assertion. You are claiming that one of the most well-documented physical phenomena known does not in fact exist. This requires more than the naked assertion and vague hand waving you have presented. You have to explain, clearly and concisely, what you are claiming, why it works, and how it accounts for the fact that the conservation of momentum is observed everywhere. Merely citing a source and demanding that I read it is nothing more than argument from authority. As Isaac Asimov once observed, if you come to me with a list of ten thousand even numbers and claim that their sum is odd, I can simply tell you that you are wrong -- I have no obligation to find the error in your arithmetic.

And you still haven't even made the first argument to support your contention that thermodynamics are limited or wrong.

It isn't mainstream science anywhere, for the very simple reason that it isn't science. It runs the full gamut from self delusion to deliberate fraud. And you failed to document what I actually asked you to document, which was the assertion and thermodynamics are not universally applicable. I take it that you concede the point that thermodynamics is universally applicable.

So I take it that you admit that you don't actually understand the vocabulary that you so carelessly flung around? You understand physics in the same way a creationist understand biology -- as an object to attack, not a discipline to understand.

I know what a white hole is. And there's still no evidence that they exist. If they did, they'd be kind of hard to miss. A white hole would have very distinctive spectra. Since they are analogous to black holes, their radiation should be a perfect black body, with no emission lines. This would make them stick out like a sore thumb from the other side of the universe, since the first thing that astronomers do to any newly discovered object is point a spectrometer at it. Since no objects fitting that description have been observed, despite enormous and exhaustive cataloging of the heavens for the past couple of centuries, it is very hard to argue for the existence of white holes, particularly if their existence would challenge the validity of well established, well tested physical laws.

A black hole made of antimatter would be identical to one made of ordinary matter, because antimatter exerts gravitational attraction in a fashion identical to ordinary matter. This is one of the things that makes gravity an odd one out among the fundamental forces. Your conceptualization of a white hole is therefore nonsense.

Black holes do not remove energy from the universe. Period. Therefore, your argument is based on faulty assumptions.

No. They know where it goes -- into the event horizon. Where it stays, until the black hole evaporates. We know it stays there because we can measure the change in the gravity of a black hole when it eats something large. What happens on the other side of an event horizon remains a matter of speculation among some physicists, but it does not affect the character of physical reality on this side.

This is all very cute, except that it lacks one important thing -- a single shred of credible evidence for any of it. It also presupposes something clearly false -- that black holes remove energy from the universe.

I called you a liar because you have told several lies about the nature of physical physical. To whit:

1) Conservation of momentum is not universally applicable
2) The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not universally applicable
3) Black holes remove energy and mass from the universe

Belief is irrelevant here, especially as your beliefs run head long into physical laws with excellent grounding in two centuries of empirical data. Madcap theorizing by charlatans and crack pots is no match for empirical data.

Maybe. Miguel Alcubierre has made an interesting argument that a warp drive of sorts is possible under general relativity, but the physics is seriously weird and relies on some mathematical oddities in general relativity that may or may not correspond to reality.

Yeah, that was a tongue-in-cheek question on my part. BUT, as you appear to be quite smart in these matters, I would be happy to check out any interesting links you might have.

This article is a half way decent lay man's introduction, and it includes a link to the original paper. It, and its links, should get you started.

You rock. Thanks.

1.) Your comment makes me wonder if you are actually paying attention to what I am saying. Newton's laws are not totally accurate and are being re-examined in terms of a new science. What I am saying is that they are not totally accurate, not that they are wrong and need to make room for the current developments that they cannot explain. (conservation of linear and angular momentum cannot explain quantum mechanic propagators working across vast dimensions of superspace. one instance of many) The table image include in my last major post provides the names of some wonderful researchers and scientists who I think anyone as "scientifically" minded as you could delve into, with the assurance that it is not psuedoscience but very genuine. If you do not delve into them at all, then it is obvious why you cannot see where my comments have their foundation. I cannot "cut and paste" years of researcher's efforts, documentation and experimentation to a suicidegirls.com message board, and due to appropriateness, wouldnt if I could. Saying that my comments are assertions, just says to me that you are not willing to look into the research I have pointed out. No big deal. Im not worried about it, you probably have enough to read at the moment as it is. However in your unwillingness to look int he first place, you have lost your credibility to use any dismissive or insulting words in reference to them. I have a respect for scientists who have paid the personal price for their courage in extending important scientific knowledge "against the standard grain". The way you insult before giving their efforts respect, is what lead to my comment about your very possible lack of humility.
2.)Your quick accusation of "self delusion and deliberate fraud" against the INE reveals a lack of insight and experience into a lot of great things that have already happened, and future possiblities that could come about as a result of their organization, that is, if you even have any experience with them at all. If there is even the slightest chance of this stuff working, then the rewards would be enormous. Also, I documented what you asked me to document. This "contention" as you put it (misleadingly), was stated many times in many different ways in just about all of the sources I cited.
3.)The vocabulary used was completely relevant, used appropriately, and understood. I love biology, spirituality, parapsychology, "paraphysics", science in general, etc., but none of these would I use to attack, but merely to defend against your misplaced adjectives in reference to some great human beings and important discoveries.....vocabulary boy.
4.)Your argument against blackholes removing energy from the universe is the same one used by everyone who argues this point. If you would have paid closer attention to my comment, you would see that I am saying that the reason there is no gravity change is because of the white hole's instanteously bringing energy back into this universe. Your comment is NOT FACT. Period. Yes my comment is theoretical, but so is your statement regarding blackholes evaporating. (blackholes evaporating is a hypothesis that is not supported by evidence, not that I have a problem with this hypothesis.) And a white hole would not stick out like a sore thumb. With current observation techniques, quite the opposite. Also, Anti-matter and matter's similarities do not make them the same thing, and thus your lumping them together in this instance is nonsense.
5.)I do not have time to keep up with pulling apart long posts, and I doubt you do either. So, I agree to disagree with you. If you are not willing to read documentation and look into experimentation before trashing it, then that is your choice. I am arguing for an open-ended universe that has incredible spiritual and physical and scientific implications, and am arguing against a close-eneded universe. My standpoint is much more difficult than yours, but regardless is still backed by quite a lot. You have many areas of expertise, and I hope you follow them to whatever end you wish. I am not convincing you and you are not convincing me. There is no reason to continue this discussion, where there are much better things to do with our time. So lets jsut agree to disagree.
6.)Im hungry. Im gonna eat now.

So, I propose that instead of continuing this discussion, we spend the time that we would typing, on eating. yum.