🚀 go-pugleaf

I feel that this newsgroups'  participants have digressed from subject matter
too much but as long as we draw some inroads to neuroscience [sometime in the
next dozen posts] we'll be alright.  (I'm comfortable talking about would-be
physics breakthroughs and quantum mechanics).

Richard Sargent wrote:

> Don P. wrote:
>
> > Michael Edelman wrote:
> >
> > > Cap'n wrote:
> > > > kcarmstron@coastnet.com says...
> > > > >
> > > > >What is "zero point energy"
> > > >
> > > >  Energy that is extracted from a vacuum.
> > > >
> > >
> > > More specifically, it refers to the idea that it may be
> > > possible to extract energy from the quantum fluctuations in a
> > > vacuum.
> > >
>
> Physicists know that we are immersed in an energetic field. The existence of
> zero point electromagnetic
>  energy was discovered in 1958 by the Dutch physicist M J Sparnaay.  Mr
> Sparnaay continued the
>  experiments carried out by Hendrik B G Casimir in 1948 which showed the
> existence of a force between
>  two uncharged parallel plates which arose from electromagnetic radiation
> surrounding the plates in a
>  vacuum.
>
> Now, a formal definition...
>
> Z.P.E. [Zero point energy] - The energy remaining in a substance at the
> "absolute zero of temperature (0 K).  This is in accordance with quantum
> theory, in which a particle oscillating with SHM (simple harmonic motion - A
> form of periodic motion in which a point or body oscillates along a line
> about a central point in such a way that it ranges an equal distance on
> either side of the central point and that its acceleration towards the
> central point is always proportional to its distance from it.) does not have
> a stationary state of zero KE (kinetic energy - energy of motion).
> Moreover, the uncertainty principle (The principle that it is not possible
> to know with unlimited accuracy both the position and momentum of a particle
> (Heisenberg UP)) doesn't allow such a particle to be at rest at exactly the
> centerpoint of its oscillations.
>
> > SNIP
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are those who think it's possible to extract energy from
> > > this force, and a number of crackpots and charletans like
> > > Puthoff are pushing it as a source of free energy.
>
> We don't like it when you refer to free-energy seekers as "crackpots and
> charlatans".
>
> > > Most
> > > physicists have their doubts, since the force is a one-way
> > > gradient, like gravity.
>
> How beggarly to think of the fuel of the future in the same category as our
> weakest known fundamental interaction.  If you forgot the others, they [all]
> are:(strongest -->  weakest)
> 1.  Strong interaction (strong nuclear force (between hadrons(any of a class
> of subatomic particles that interact by the strong interaction)/ nucleons))
> 2.  Electromagnetic Interaction (forces between charged particles)
> 3.  Weak interaction  (weak nuclear force (between leptons(any of a class of
> elementary particles that consists of the electron, muon, tau particle and 3
> types of neutrino)/ in decay of hadrons))
> 4.  Gravitional interaction  (force that acts between all bodies that have
> mass; always attractive)
>
> >  Why do you suggest that the ZPE is a one way gradient?I see it as a
> > two-way flow of energy (or charge, etc.).
>
> At least.
>
> >   According to QED
>
> > , a cloud of "Virtual Photons"  manifests
> > around an induced or manifested *charge*.  It has been suggested
> > that this "cloud of virtual photons" -IS- the electric field.  It has
> > also been suggested by "most physicsts"  that this cloud of "virtual
> > photons" actually  comes from *nowhere*.  It has been stated that
> > *charge* - is the ability to create, induce, or manifest  "virtual
> > photons".   Do you subscribe to these mainstream beliefs Michael?
> >
> >  Where do you think the "virtual photons"  that surround an induced
> > charge come from?
> >
> >   Finally, how dare someone like Harold Puthoff,  Floyd Sweet, John
> > Searl,
> > Peirre Sinclaire,  Joseph Newman,  Henry Moray, Hans Coler, etc. (to
> > mention
> > a few) have  the audacity to suggest that the ZPE or Aether can be
> > efficiently
> > tapped for it's energy?  Don't they have any respect for mainstream
> > physics?
>
> I'm losing respect for you as a scientist, even though I haven't developed
> any respect for you since I don't know you.  (you could be a little child
> reading from your father's physics books and playing with the computer)
>
> Thank you for entertaining my comments,
>
> Please do not let the Sender username deceive you,
>
> my name is Peter Sargent.  You can call me Peter as if your IQ was normal.
>
> Peter Sargent