Ø
What about quantum
uncertainty/fluctuations of energy?
Vacuum polarisation requires energy input to manifest the virtual
particles as real. That paper I mentioned in the last post says that people are
confusing vacuum polarisation with zpe. The two are not the same.
Ø
What about the 'Big Bang'?
I dunno!? Is Cosmology really Science? Counting angels on the head of a
pin.
R.
From:
John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 September 2006 08:31
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:
Remi, seriously how do
you know energy can't be created or destroyed?
There is a theory saying it can't.
And there are observations where it is conserved.
And observations where it isn't.
Logical thought experiments where it is conserved.
And logical thought experiments where it is not conserved.
Energy exists, has it always been and always be the same exact joule amount for
the uni/multi-verse? What about quantum uncertainty/fluctuations of energy?
What about the 'Big Bang'?
Ok so if energy is conserved then we can also ignore the EMDrive or anything
else that claims to create a reactionless force (Podkletnov) because
reactionless acceleration violates the c of e. (double the time accelerating
equals double the velocity equals double the energy in but 4x the energy
contained in the motion)
Of course this discussion serves no useful purpose, it can never be proven one
way or the other, no matter what Steorn or anyone else is able to demonstrate
there will never be any way to prove that the energy isn't being lost somewhere
else.
Richard Feynman was pretty clear on the energy contained in the vacuum and it
is more than enough to make this a moot point. (although in the case of
unidirectional motion I'm uncertain if anyone could come up with a sensible
mechanism that could support the conservation of energy unless there is s
thrust on something, all the rest of the matter in the universe, an aether)
On 9/10/06, Harry
Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Remi,
> Now when people start talking about violating the *1st Law* it can only
> mean:
>
> 1) The constants of nature have changed over the timescale of your
> experiment.
> 2) That some new force has been found.
Your faith in the first law is strong.
Is it stronger than your religious faith?
Harry
