The indisputably observed universal redshift (aka Hubble redshift) proves that energy isn’t conserved as the 1st “law” would demand.
Zero-point energy isn’t even up for debate, the only question is how do we harness it. Based on the evidence, it seems someone out there has harnessed it (see: Pentagon UFO disclosure movement)
Good on you for actually watching the video though
Based on the evidence, it seems someone out there has harnessed it (see: Pentagon UFO disclosure movement)
The idea of zero-point energy is that our vacuum is metastable but not the absolutely lowest possible energy state, and that we're currently in a local minimum. Pump energy into a vacuum in the right way and the vacuum could maybe get over that 'hump' go down into a lower energy state, and release energy in the process. Okay, fine.
I'm highly dubious of how well quantum field theory can even apply to these kind of conditions, since we don't have a unified theory. But even if it is, we know that energy levels found in e.g. CERN, or any number of other supercolliders across the world, aren't enough to trigger vacuum decay, because they haven't caused vacuum decay. Ditto with the energy densities found in the nuclear bombs. Or cosmic rays. Or anything else on Earth.
When Einstein disproved Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, apples did not start falling up. Newton's Laws are still approximately good for a wide range of masses and speeds, and you have to get well outside those masses and speeds to see Newton start to break down. Same here. If there is a way to somehow force the vacuum into a lower energy state, the trigger point has to happen well beyond any energy we can currently explain or make accurate predictions for. And that's a pretty broad range.
In other words, in a best-case scenario where some pretty dodgy assumptions are true, you have to spend a LOT of energy to get energy. Which means it's nothing like the free energy the video describes.
Your “best case scenario” doesn’t appear to be the case experimentally, see: the Casimir effect. It’s a question of tapping into this source at scale and in a tunable manner
Did you watch the video or are you just replying to my comment in a vacuum?
The Casimir Effect doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy, and doesn't show a false vacuum; it's analogous to saying that capillary action, which is sometimes referred to as 'negative pressure', means that there's a way of getting less than zero air.
But also, the Casimir Effect was known theoretically for fifty years before it was experimentally verified. The same theory which predicts Casimir also predicts that there's absolutely no way to get energy out of it, and doesn't require our vacuum to even be false to begin with. If you want zero-point energy, you have to go well outside any scale that current quantum field theory can explain. And as I said earlier, that range is pretty broad.
Did you watch the video or are you just replying to my comment in a vacuum?
I'm definitely replying to your comment in a vacuum. You're the one saying that it's a false vacuum, not me.
Let's be real; the person you're replying to literally believes in no-shit magic. Actual magic. He think you can set things on fire with mind energy. His grasp of scientific principles is questionable at best.
I'm definitely replying to your comment in a vacuum. You're the one saying that it's a false vacuum, not me.
Actually what you quoted me saying is that the characteristics of ufos, as seen in government disclosures, indicates they’ve tapped into it to power their “impossible” maneuvers and accelerations
The indisputably observed universal redshift (aka Hubble redshift) proves that energy isn’t conserved as the 1st “law” would demand.
No... these concepts aren't even related.
Red-shifting and Blue-shifting is the doppler effect for light. That's all.
Red-shift isn't universal, some stars move away from us (red shift), while others are moving towards us (blue shift). The universe is universally expanding, but that's not a red shift. And all that that means is that the distance between atoms themselves is getting further.
None of that, literally none of that, has anything to do with the conservation of energy.
Zero-point energy... frankly I have no idea again what this has to do with the red shift of objects, let alone the idea of "free energy". You can't change energy without work... that's literally what it means. We literally define it to mean that. That's what a change in energy is.
Listen, don't give this person your money. He is a criminal. He is lying to you. Don't give him your time and attention either, but definitely don't give him money.
Who do you think knows more about the subject, you, or actual cosmologists/astrophysicists/etc?
It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity.
It’s so funny how douchey you guys act while obviously being the ignorant ones, too lazy and intellectually dishonest to do anything even approaching “investigating claims” so you just endless yap in the comments without sayinganything
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds proportional to their distance. In other words, the farther a galaxy is from the Earth, the faster it moves away. A galaxy's recessional velocity is typically determined by measuring its redshift, a shift in the frequency of light emitted by the galaxy.
frankly I have no idea again what this has to do with the red shift of objects
Both demonstrate that the story of existence is clearly far more complex than those who cry “mUh fiRsT LaW” would seem to think is possible.
It’s funny how you frame your message so condescendingly but you don’t even seem to know much at all about the subjects. Have you really never heard of cosmological redshift? This is like 80 years old, everyone knows about it, basic stuff, in terms of cosmology atleast.
Newton's First Law isn't the same as the conservation of energy. It's related to it, but it's not the same. And again, red-shifting is a behavior, not a law. There is the Hubble-Lemaitre Law, but that's not the same as red-shifting. You are being bamboozled because someone is teaching you to conflate and confuse words and meanings.
"The story of existence" isn't defined by Newton's laws. Newton just created a system to explain kinematics by identifying it's simplest component parts. That system has held entirely true. We already know where Newtonian Mechanics falls apart, which is why Einsteinian Mechanics and Quantum Physics exists, but those fundamental laws do not actually change. It's only that the math context and assumptions Newton was using aren't sufficient.
It should concern you, being on the same side of an issue as that insane shill
Have you read what the guy who’s Phd thesis was ”Cosmological Consequences of Topological and Geometric Phenomena in Field Theories”, yet? Or are you still just yapping based on gut feeling?
Read what preeminent cosmologist Sean Carroll has to say then get back to me:
It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.)
The indisputably observed universal redshift (aka Hubble redshift) proves that energy isn’t conserved as the 1st “law” would demand.
Zero-point energy isn’t even up for debate, the only question is how do we harness it. Based on the evidence, it seems someone out there has harnessed it (see: Pentagon UFO disclosure movement)
Good on you for actually watching the video though
The idea of zero-point energy is that our vacuum is metastable but not the absolutely lowest possible energy state, and that we're currently in a local minimum. Pump energy into a vacuum in the right way and the vacuum could maybe get over that 'hump' go down into a lower energy state, and release energy in the process. Okay, fine.
I'm highly dubious of how well quantum field theory can even apply to these kind of conditions, since we don't have a unified theory. But even if it is, we know that energy levels found in e.g. CERN, or any number of other supercolliders across the world, aren't enough to trigger vacuum decay, because they haven't caused vacuum decay. Ditto with the energy densities found in the nuclear bombs. Or cosmic rays. Or anything else on Earth.
When Einstein disproved Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, apples did not start falling up. Newton's Laws are still approximately good for a wide range of masses and speeds, and you have to get well outside those masses and speeds to see Newton start to break down. Same here. If there is a way to somehow force the vacuum into a lower energy state, the trigger point has to happen well beyond any energy we can currently explain or make accurate predictions for. And that's a pretty broad range.
In other words, in a best-case scenario where some pretty dodgy assumptions are true, you have to spend a LOT of energy to get energy. Which means it's nothing like the free energy the video describes.
Your “best case scenario” doesn’t appear to be the case experimentally, see: the Casimir effect. It’s a question of tapping into this source at scale and in a tunable manner
Did you watch the video or are you just replying to my comment in a vacuum?
The Casimir Effect doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy, and doesn't show a false vacuum; it's analogous to saying that capillary action, which is sometimes referred to as 'negative pressure', means that there's a way of getting less than zero air.
But also, the Casimir Effect was known theoretically for fifty years before it was experimentally verified. The same theory which predicts Casimir also predicts that there's absolutely no way to get energy out of it, and doesn't require our vacuum to even be false to begin with. If you want zero-point energy, you have to go well outside any scale that current quantum field theory can explain. And as I said earlier, that range is pretty broad.
I'm definitely replying to your comment in a vacuum. You're the one saying that it's a false vacuum, not me.
Let's be real; the person you're replying to literally believes in no-shit magic. Actual magic. He think you can set things on fire with mind energy. His grasp of scientific principles is questionable at best.
Actually what you quoted me saying is that the characteristics of ufos, as seen in government disclosures, indicates they’ve tapped into it to power their “impossible” maneuvers and accelerations
I recommend the video
No... these concepts aren't even related.
Red-shifting and Blue-shifting is the doppler effect for light. That's all.
Red-shift isn't universal, some stars move away from us (red shift), while others are moving towards us (blue shift). The universe is universally expanding, but that's not a red shift. And all that that means is that the distance between atoms themselves is getting further.
None of that, literally none of that, has anything to do with the conservation of energy.
Zero-point energy... frankly I have no idea again what this has to do with the red shift of objects, let alone the idea of "free energy". You can't change energy without work... that's literally what it means. We literally define it to mean that. That's what a change in energy is.
Listen, don't give this person your money. He is a criminal. He is lying to you. Don't give him your time and attention either, but definitely don't give him money.
Imma be real. I don't think you're going to be able to reach him.
And I don't mean you personally can't do it, I mean I don't think there's a combination of words that will get through to him.
It happens sometimes. I get this stuff with the moon landings too.
Cf. My mom
Who do you think knows more about the subject, you, or actual cosmologists/astrophysicists/etc?
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll
It’s so funny how douchey you guys act while obviously being the ignorant ones, too lazy and intellectually dishonest to do anything even approaching “investigating claims” so you just endless yap in the comments without saying anything
https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/4509-Image.html
Both demonstrate that the story of existence is clearly far more complex than those who cry “mUh fiRsT LaW” would seem to think is possible.
It’s funny how you frame your message so condescendingly but you don’t even seem to know much at all about the subjects. Have you really never heard of cosmological redshift? This is like 80 years old, everyone knows about it, basic stuff, in terms of cosmology atleast.
You are being bamboozled. Literally.
Newton's First Law isn't the same as the conservation of energy. It's related to it, but it's not the same. And again, red-shifting is a behavior, not a law. There is the Hubble-Lemaitre Law, but that's not the same as red-shifting. You are being bamboozled because someone is teaching you to conflate and confuse words and meanings.
"The story of existence" isn't defined by Newton's laws. Newton just created a system to explain kinematics by identifying it's simplest component parts. That system has held entirely true. We already know where Newtonian Mechanics falls apart, which is why Einsteinian Mechanics and Quantum Physics exists, but those fundamental laws do not actually change. It's only that the math context and assumptions Newton was using aren't sufficient.
It’s okay to admit you don’t understand Hubble redshift, you don’t need to project out your intellectual insecurities onto others.
Energy is not conserved on the scale of the universe. Where do you think the energy being redshifted is going?
Your comment is on the right track. Glad to see the techies are out trying to unpack it, it's a job we can all do together. To infinity and beyond.
You couldn't be more wrong.
If you have an energy per volume and then increase that volume then your energy per volume should go down.
Why the fuck are you making me defend Gizortnik?
Shalom, my true plan is coming along nicely.
Here are your shekles, golem.
/s <--- (for when someone goes to ConPro and claims this as evidence)
It should concern you, being on the same side of an issue as that insane shill
Have you read what the guy who’s Phd thesis was ”Cosmological Consequences of Topological and Geometric Phenomena in Field Theories”, yet? Or are you still just yapping based on gut feeling?
I was making a joke, graph.
Agreed. I feel dirty
Where does the energy to increase that volume come from you moron? You think that’s an action which can happen freely?
It doesn't take energy to maintain an expansion into nothingness.
Lmfao. You're always so confidently ignorant.
Read what preeminent cosmologist Sean Carroll has to say then get back to me:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
Inb4 kikoTheYounger says Sean Carroll and all the other cosmologists are retarded and he knows better