A question from Rick:
“I wondered what you thought of the Zero-Point energy ideas flying around out there. More of a technical question than philosophical. I have a hard time believing things that I see on all kinds of UFO and conspiracy websites. But, the "fringe" isn't necessarily wrong. I almost prefer the fringe to the status quo.”
Good question Rick. “Zero-Point Energy” refers to the so-called “energy” of the vacuum or “field.” It involves the mysterious “fluctuations” in quantum mechanics. But as you know from reading my “E=mc2” and “Einstein’s Most Important Philosophical Error” papers, energy doesn’t exist. Instead, it is a calculation that describes matter in motion. The “vacuum” or “field” of positivists such as Einstein is nevertheless assumed to contain no matter in motion. The proper use of the word “energy” as a description of matter in motion conflicts with this, so its more confusing connotation normally is used in modern physics. The truth is that there indeed is matter in motion in the “vacuum” or “field.” For centuries, it has been called the “ether.” There is plenty of evidence that the phenomena being discussed around the term “Zero-Point Energy” involves the motion of ether particles. The CBR (cosmic background radiation) is one example in which the “vacuum” of intergalactic space has been found to have a temperature of 2.7K—instead of 0K predicted by Einstein. Temperature is the vibration (or motion) of matter. Thus intergalactic space contains matter: ether particles in motion.
Thus I agree with you that, in this case, the “fringe” is to be preferred over the conventional wisdom promulgated by modern physicists. Whether anyone outside the mainstream will ever be able to harness the motion of ether particles to provide “free infinite energy” is questionable. To transfer vibratory motion from a 2.7K macrocosm, one would have to produce a <2.7K microcosm. I am sure that cooling a microcosm that low would require much more “energy” than it would produce. There may be easier ways to harvest that last 2.7K, but I doubt that. On the other hand, a successful capture of ethereal motion would instantly be the end for positivism. But don’t hold your breath.
Posts
2 comments:
Dear Sir,
I have been exploring your website with great interest after coming across it earlier today when I did a search for "time is motion". I've been musing a lot about this lately and sort of came up with this notion myself as well, combining the fruits of many years of curiosity into scientific insights, none of which seemed totally satisfactory (inasmuch as an untrained and not mathematically inclined mind can determine such).
The following question may be answered elsewhere and could also be posted under of your posts concerned with red shift. If I understood correctly you say that most of the red shift is not indicative of an expanding universe but the effect of the aether, as well as the not quite uniform background radiation being an effect thereof. I wonder if the data from WMAP would be supportive to your theory? Do the variations in temperature, indicated in the most detailed study to date, correlate to the positions of the enormous 'zones of avoidance' in between the galaxy clusters? Is there more red shift in the light from galaxies across these 'voids'? If so, would this not be observational support?
More in general; am I correct in assuming that infinity also means that: there are an infinite number of possibilities, but they all have finite outcomes (i.e. only real outcomes actually exist, and they have to be 'finite possibilities' to actually exist)?
I look forward to learn more from you and will be ordering your book shortly.
With respect,
Arnt de Lange
Arnt
AD: I wonder if the data from WMAP would be supportive to your theory? Do the variations in temperature, indicated in the most detailed study to date, correlate to the positions of the enormous 'zones of avoidance' in between the galaxy clusters? Is there more red shift in the light from galaxies across these 'voids'? If so, would this not be observational support?
[GB: Arnt, excellent question. The WMAP data show intergalactic temperature to be 2.7 degrees Kelvin with only very tiny variations across the sky. In 1965, idealists, thought the CMB (cosmic microwave background) was perfectly homogeneous. Later observations proved, once again, that nothing is constant. As mentioned, the occurrence of any temperature at all is observational support for our claim that intergalactic space is not empty. The “zones of avoidance” that you mentioned are wide areas between galactic clusters where there are no galaxies at all. These zones, of course, are falsifications of the Big Bang Theory. I am unaware of any clarification of why an explosion would leave such huge gaps. I haven’t studied the galaxies across from these zones, but can’t imagine that their redshifts would be any different from those at great distances. In particular, I would suppose that the redshifts at the “event horizon” are all indicative of the 13.8 billion light year distances limited by present instruments.]
AD: More in general; am I correct in assuming that infinity also means that: there are an infinite number of possibilities, but they all have finite outcomes (i.e. only real outcomes actually exist, and they have to be 'finite possibilities' to actually exist)?
[GB: You are right. There are an infinite number of possibilities. There are also an infinite number of impossibilities. My blog of 20120606 was somewhat related, but the surmise in your question is much more sophisticated. When you get into "The Scientific Worldview" (TSW), you will find that I was especially impressed with what I term Bohm’s “infinite universal causality.” Thus, I considered this so important that I ended up using it as the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). Like you, I have toyed with the idea of infinity prevailing before an effect and finity prevailing after an effect. But then, when I tried to list all the causes of a particular effect after it occurred, the list was interminable. This was frustrating for one who was classically trained, but it fits with the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).
Post a Comment