It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by -PLB-
edit: I read the link, I think it may be a good idea to update the Wikipedia page with this information. I am a bit reluctant to do it myself as I am not really comfortable with this subject.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by buddhasystem
I mean the Zero-point energy page. There isn't much information about measurement results, the different approaches to calculate it, and the discrepancies between them.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by -PLB-
edit: I read the link, I think it may be a good idea to update the Wikipedia page with this information. I am a bit reluctant to do it myself as I am not really comfortable with this subject.
Do you mean the "Renormalization" page on Wiki? In what sense you think it's incorrect?
Originally posted by -PLB-
I mean the Zero-point energy page. There isn't much information about measurement results, the different approaches to calculate it, and the discrepancies between them.
What kooky people is he talking about? Nevermind, don't answer that if you're talking about somebody else. However if you want to confess to being such a person, I guess that wouldn't violate the T&C.
People talk a lot about "vacuum energy" or "zero-point energy" - that is, the energy density of empty space. .... Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy somehow, all our problems would be solved.
There is a link to renormalization on the zero point energy page, it's in the section called "varieties".
Originally posted by buddhasystem
I agree. I also don't see a link to renormalization, which I think is an omission given the physics involved (however my memory is rusty since I took these classes aeons ago). It's a chewy subject, to be sure.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy . . .
Originally posted by -PLB-
According to wikipedia:
Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. . . .
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . Sometimes kooky people get really excited about the idea that if we could only use this energy . . .
An author using this language demonstrates an attitude that puts him in a non-trustworthy category as far as I'm concerned. Not credible.
I've heard renormalization described as a cop-out.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
You sound rather bitter I would say.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
Your opinion is of no more value than anyone else's.
Like this?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
I certainly know best about where my time and energy should go and where it shouldn't.
You could learn more from buddhasystem in 5 minutes that you can in 5 hours of reading Keely's nonsense. And you were saying you know a scam when you see one, yet you're researching the "science" of one of the more noted scam artists who bilked investors out of more than 110 million of today's dollars when the Keely motor company was founded in 1872, and no working motor was ever produced?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have Universal Laws Never Before Revealed: Keely's Secrets in my stack of books waiting to be read. It's under Schrodinger's Universe, The Math Book, and Adventure with Real Magic. When I've finished reading The Blood and its Third Element - almost there - I'll get to the others. So much to learn...
What about Scientific American?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Your judgment and research skills are not of any interest to me.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Science isn't about intentions but about following the proper procedures.
Originally posted by -PLB-
But aside from that, I find it denigrating and insulting towards basically all the people who invested so much of their life in science to suggest they are corrupted liars serving a hidden agenda.
Originally posted by -PLB-
The whole idea of technology being suppressed is kind of absurd.