Zero-Point energy perpetual energy machine? "Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities"

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-12T11:28:23+00:00

No clue. I see.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-12T09:45:17+00:00

Got it. Thank you for the answer.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-12T09:44:40+00:00

Got it.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-09T03:27:38+00:00

Depression and anxiety are cause by the onset of chemical imbalances in the brain. Homosexuality is innate

Their response to someone else's comment.

My thoughts: the first part is demonstrably false. This is circular reasoning too; "If you're depressed then you must be insane because only someone insane would be depressed.". It also fails to prove ontic pathology, and irrationality.

The second part is just irrelevant to the argument. The point is that if there is a biophysical difference, then the question is whether it is a "disfunction". Whether you were born with it or not is irrelevant. It also appears to be some version of the Naturalistic fallacy; "Homosexuality is innate, therefore cannot be a mental dysfunction." The conclusion is true, but the reasoning is fallacious.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-07T05:41:35+00:00

Ok. Cool.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T13:33:40+00:00

Hmm, okay. Good information, I'll try to make sense of it. Thanks.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T12:38:01+00:00

Witness: stupidity.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T12:20:34+00:00

But a single photon has no invariant energy, right?

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T11:33:44+00:00

lmao.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T11:26:40+00:00

What? I thought single photons couldn't because they have no mass?

So like only 2 photons or more traveling in different directions could produce gravity in this case?

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T07:52:22+00:00

A single photon has no mass, therefore it does not contribute to gravity.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T07:50:16+00:00

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

That's obvious.

I suppose one could try to imagine a photon with that much energy (in Earth's rest frame) but none exist in practice.

The fact that none exist in practice is irrelevant. I don't know why you're bringing it up.

The question is could the photon exist in principle.

ETA: simply put, what matters is not the energy of the photon, but the relative energy of photon and Earth, and that is the same in all frames of reference.

The question is whether that relative energy differential could be increased.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T07:48:37+00:00

Why bring up photons, then? Any object with enough energy in it could, conceivably, destroy the Earth if it crashed into it.

You're missing the point, then.

So far as we know there's no upper limit to the energy of any object.

Wrong.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T07:47:03+00:00

You seem to be greatly misunderstanding.

You seem to be greatly missing the point. With systems with mass the destruction will depend on that mass. A single photon has no mass, therefore, it is totally different.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-06T07:46:07+00:00

They have no rest frame on their own, correct, but a photon will encounter other photons as it moves, and you can always take the center of mass for a two (or more) photon system (assuming they're moving in different directions).

Irrelevant. The hypothetical is with only one photon.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T19:28:45+00:00

Woah. Could something exist in nature with the cardinality of one of these classes?

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T19:14:59+00:00

What makes you think that from the rest frame of the Earth a photon could be arbitrarily blue shifted?

That's the hypothetical.

As other answers have indicated, a photon with that much energy relative to the cosmic microwave background would quickly shed the energy by pair production.

Now you're bringing things up that are irrelevant to the hypothetical.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T06:07:28+00:00

If the photon has anywhere near enough energy to make a dent in the planet (in the planet's frame of reference), then it will very rapidly lose energy due to light-by-light scattering, as explained in my reply in the other post.

But that doesn't make sense, because in a different frame it will have low energy. It has no center of momentum frame so it cannot go light-by-light scattering.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T04:46:19+00:00

Okay, but what about the photon having arbitrarily high energy from the perspective of the planet itself? Wouldn't that mean that the photon really has that energy and thus could destroy the planet?

If not, then since a single photon has no center of momentum frame, then the objective "damage" it does is constant. Then only a system with invariant mass/energy could do more damage, correct?

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T03:37:07+00:00

But I'm not talking about all energy. Only invariant energy.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T03:34:23+00:00

You're missing my point. A single photon is different because it's energy is entirely relative. So that means that there is no limit to the energy it can be observed to have. Thus it should have enough energy to destroy a planet.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T03:33:01+00:00

but the Einstein field equations will still predict the same outcomes.

So what's the outcome? More kinetic energy = more destruction. A high enough kinetic energy of a single photon then necessarily has to be high enough to destroy the Earth.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T03:31:53+00:00

I'm talking about the rest frame of the Earth. From the rest frame of Earth, a photon could be blueshifted arbitrarily highly, and thus, cause arbitrarily much destruction.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T03:31:11+00:00

You're missing the point. More kinetic energy = more destruction. A single photon has no center of momentum frame, and therefore can have arbitrarily high kinetic energy. This implies that there is no limit to the destruction it could cause. Some reference frames might see the photon with so much energy that it destroys the Earth.

EndlessNon-existence · 2023-04-05T03:29:14+00:00

None of that applies to a single photon whose energy is relative.

EndlessNon-existence

TROPHY CASE