18-03-2005 09:40									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I've never heard of a Telsa energy.

Well, not Tesla energy. But an ether that is permeated with energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_theory_of_gravity

Please note that Tesla was sometimes pretty far out and subsequently a lot of nutballs have glommed on to him for various conspiracy theories. But he was a genius of the highest order as well, so...

	18-03-2005 09:48									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, not Tesla energy. But an ether that is permeated with energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_theory_of_gravity Please note that Tesla was sometimes pretty far out and subsequently a lot of nutballs have glommed on to him for various conspiracy theories. But he was a genius of the highest order as well, so...

I beleive he never even published that.

	18-03-2005 10:49									#33
	Remove this text

quote: The vacuum energy is actually very small (Believe it or not, 10^-120 smaller than originally predicted)

No, I don't believe it.

	18-03-2005 11:10									#34
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse quote: The vacuum energy is actually very small (Believe it or not, 10^-120 smaller than originally predicted) No, I don't believe it.

/shrug, that's what I heard. Sue me. (Actually I never really managed to learn non-classical physics yet, bleh. Only on Classical Physics 2, atm)

	18-03-2005 11:11									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The difference between dark matter and dark energy is that dark energy increases when you increase the volume of the universe. Dark matter does not. This has serious consequences.

Dan, the reason that we don't think that dark energy is the vacuum energy is that the vacuum energy is something like (depending on who you believe) 10^40 to 10^120 times too large.

Supersymmetry "fixes" this to the extent that it kills off the vacuum energy entirely, leading to a zero cosmological constant (zero dark energy density). The idea that you'll somehow use supersymmetry (with some sort of enormously tiny supersymmetry-breaking term, I suppose) to erase all but a very tiny bit of the vacuum energy in order to properly explain the observed cosmological constant is called fine-tuning. Physicists don't like that. Even more troubling, the need to fine-tune crops up over and over again in particle physics. For instance, the hierarchy problem.

The reason this happens is that particle physicists are idiots.

	18-03-2005 11:12									#36
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Bill3000 /shrug, that's what I heard. Sue me. (Actually I never really managed to learn non-classical physics yet, bleh. Only on Classical Physics 2, atm)

See the post immediately above this one. That 10^120 number describes something else...

	18-03-2005 11:14									#37
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Bill3000 /shrug, that's what I heard. Sue me. (Actually I never really managed to learn non-classical physics yet, bleh. Only on Classical Physics 2, atm)

With another 6 or 7 years of physics and mathematics education you might be able to not understand this at the level that I don't understand this.

	18-03-2005 11:23									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

As to the Tesla thing, if Tesla postulated anything like that without evidence then his ideas were just as useless as were the classical atomists'. Without solid experimental evidence for your flights of fancy you're simply practicing intellectual masturbation. Without some sort of mathematical framework it's not even all that intellectual.

	18-03-2005 13:21									#39
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The idea that you'll somehow use supersymmetry (with some sort of enormously tiny supersymmetry-breaking term, I suppose) to erase all but a very tiny bit of the vacuum energy in order to properly explain the observed cosmological constant is called fine-tuning. Physicists don't like that.

It's also known as ad hoc hypothesis, possibly as a more general term.

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Even more troubling, the need to fine-tune crops up over and over again in particle physics. For instance, the hierarchy problem.

Generally speaking, the more ad hoc hypotheses are required for a theory to explain things, the deeper trouble it is in.

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The reason this happens is that particle physicists are idiots.

Nice

	18-03-2005 13:28									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The need by physicists to contrive 'dark energy' and 'dark mass' to try and make the universe work, and with all their contriving they still cannot explain how galaxies could form apparently very quickly after the big bang (ie redshifted radiation from 12 billion plus years ago indicate galaxies existence earlier than they should have been able to form), an inability to satisfactorily explain the sharpness of the edges of Saturn's rings, are some of the very reasons why I have rejected physicists explanations and place my belief in the bible. The speculations of physicists have become so contrived in the last 15 years or so, that a rejection of their basic ideas and a search for a totally different paradigm is both reasonable and necessary to explain the current state of the universe and our solar system.

	18-03-2005 13:35									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

From one extreme to the other!

	18-03-2005 13:37									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

If at first you don't succeed, try try again.

Going to the Bible because we can't explain everything right now is like giving up your job hunt after the first interview and moving back in with your parents.

I can just imagine what your type would have said in the 1920s during the development of quantum theor...

	18-03-2005 14:36									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

There is no physical evidence for dark matter, it is a contrived solution because 'big bang physics' does not satisfactorily explain the state of the universe. There is no physical and very little theoretical support for dark energy, but it is a contrived solution to an expanding universe problem. There is actually no physical evidence proving an expansion of space, which dark energy has been created to explain. The simple fact is that the theory of space expansion creates very severe theoretical problems because it requires a continual loss of energy from the universe, contradicting the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. ( For those who wish to query this, each and every photon travelling in expanding space is losing energy and momentum as it is being redshifted with no corresponding energy of momentum gain elsewhere to balance it out) Because there seem to be flaws in logic of physicists, many are now searching wildly for another answer ie 'just maybe the mass of the electron was different in the past' or 'maybe the speed of light has not always been constant'. You do not need to read many issues of the New Scientist magazine or Scientific American magazine to see these sorts of conjectures these days. The thing is there will never be anything other than highly contived solutions to big bang problems because in high probability the big bang never happened. On too many levels, and as more evidence is gained from the skies, the contradictions inherent in the theory just multiply and multiply without any likely answers, so it is a theory that is basically past it use-by date, only with no apparent successor, they try to persist with it. It is time for physicists to get real, face facts, and abandon this illogical idea of a big bang.

	18-03-2005 14:45									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The simple fact is that the theory of space expansion creates very severe theoretical problems because it requires a continual loss of energy from the universe, contradicting the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. ( For those who wish to query this, each and every photon travelling in expanding space is losing energy and momentum as it is being redshifted with no corresponding energy of momentum gain elsewhere to balance it out)

You don't understand GR, grasshopper. If a photon is redshifted simply by the earth's gravitational field, then where has its energy gone?

Conservation of energy is a local property. In curved space it is impossible to define the energy globally.

	18-03-2005 19:10									#45
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Oh, great, the fundies have come home to roost.

God-in-the-Gaps arguments are cop-outs. Just because we can't explain something now doesn't mean we will never will be able to explain it.

	18-03-2005 19:28									#46
	Remove this text

The big bang is purely related to the fact that the universe is expanding, not with the beginning of the universe. (Yay, a similar fallacy to what religious peeps think of evolution) Infation theory goes a bit futhur back, but it's not a complete understanding of what actually CAUSED the big bang, or what happened before the first plank time (10^-43 sec) It simply cannot be described by our theories atm. Gogo no current theory of quantum gravity!

Just because we currently don't understand it doesn't mean we won't. Eventually you'll be stuck saying that the only gap that god can be in is in the uncertaincy principle.

Personally? I'd think we will realize eventually, that the laws of nature IS what we would have considered to be god. The beauty in what is to come in physics will show us that nature can be just as omnipotent and omniprescent as god could.


Regarding conservation of energy in GR:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi.../energy_gr.html

	18-03-2005 19:34									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I keep telling people that gravity is not the only force that can act over cosmic scales. Most of the matter in the universe is plasma. While you cannot support electric fields due to charge imbalances over any appreciable distance, you can easily generate large currents and thus, magnetic fields over cosmic distances.

	18-03-2005 21:30									#48
	Remove this text

Rather than a dark energy with a repulsive force, some cosmologists theorize that their is a gravity leak, causing it to diminish slightly more than the inverse of distance squared.

	19-03-2005 00:10									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker It predicts that a particle with no definite position is at rest

No it doesn't.

	19-03-2005 00:35									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Damn. You guys have confused me.

Now I know why I didn't do too well in high school physics.

	19-03-2005 00:42									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

ignore everybody except the dolphin, me and Ramo.

	19-03-2005 00:46									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Gotcha.

	19-03-2005 00:47									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

If you were learning cosmology and QFT in high school physics then I'm impressed...

We were busy doing stuff like adding vectors together and you were doing Feynman Path Integrals...

	19-03-2005 00:52									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

No, I was learning cosmology and QFT only inasmuch as the vectors stuff leads eventually to cosmology and QFT.

	19-03-2005 01:13									#55
	Put an end to popups!

quote: keep telling people that gravity is not the only force that can act over cosmic scales. Most of the matter in the universe is plasma. While you cannot support electric fields due to charge imbalances over any appreciable distance, you can easily generate large currents and thus, magnetic fields over cosmic distances.

I must admit that I actually had the same thought a couple of weeks ago....

	19-03-2005 01:32									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Well, not Tesla energy. But an ether that is permeated with energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_theory_of_gravity Please note that Tesla was sometimes pretty far out and subsequently a lot of nutballs have glommed on to him for various conspiracy theories. But he was a genius of the highest order as well, so...

Tesla was a smart dude, but I wouldn't consider him a genius of the highest order, especially not when it comes to fundamental physics.

He was more of an inventor and engineer than physicist.

	19-03-2005 01:34									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Inventive genius is still genius, KH.

	19-03-2005 01:40									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I didn't say it wasn't, Az.

But if you read the quoted post it is implying that we should lend credence to Tesla's ether theory based on his qualifications as "a genius of the highest order". I was pointing out that:

a) I don't think that Tesla was even close to the smartest man of his time

b) even if he was, his intelligence was focused on technical matters, and this brings into question his ability to comment usefully on purely scientific matters

	19-03-2005 01:42									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I'd never think about arguing with you seriously about biochemistry, Azazel, even though I could kick your ass six ways from sunday in mathematics or physics...

	19-03-2005 01:50									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I didn't say it wasn't, Az. But if you read the quoted post it is implying that we should lend credence to Tesla's ether theory based on his qualifications as "a genius of the highest order". I was pointing out that: a) I don't think that Tesla was even close to the smartest man of his time b) even if he was, his intelligence was focused on technical matters, and this brings into question his abilities to comment usefully on purely scientific matters

Oh, I fully agree with both points! Just there is a certain tendency among all scientists to look down on engineers. I just think it's very wrong.

quote: I'd never think about arguing with you seriously about biochemistry, Azazel even though I could kick your ass six ways from sunday in mathematics or physics...

Yeah, of course everyone knows his own disciplines, no doubt about that. However one does have to wonder: is this completely ok, or should more people be more multi-disciplinary in their approach?
Btw, I am not the biochemist, KH. Organic chemistry is what I do.