Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

The dark side?

Are you sure?

Of course, I hope you understand that we are talking about the Casimir effect principle.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that is the Far Side of the Moon. Since it is not "Dark" there would be no pressure differences. Scientists know the cause of the Moon getting further away. Why did you not look that up?

We are discussing the Casimir effect as a cause of gravity, I suspect you have not been following.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, I've had a further look as Massie's paper and as I feared he seems to be just a crank. There is an extremely far-fetched attempt to account for the gravity that holds the earth in its orbit round the sun, by means of an (unexplained) "vortex" of ZPE particles. This, he claims, carries the earth along like a cork on a stream, which explains why the Michelson-Morley experiment found no "ether wind". (The obvious objection is that another object could equally well orbit the sun in the opposite direction, which his notion would seem to forbid.)

It all looks like the work of just another of these anti-relativity cranks that are two a penny all over the internet. The funny (or tragic) thing is he goes to great lengths to simulate Newton's Law of Gravitation, ignoring the fact we have observations that show departures from that law in exactly the manner predicted by general relativity! To use a well-known example, GPS would not work without GR.

Like all cranks, this guy has a lot more explaining to do than he seems to realise.

Thanks for taking the time to take a look, the few papers I provided links to are not the only ones around, the principle of the Casimir effect as being in play at the macro level is not going away any time soon, however I acknowledge your opinion on the paper you read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are discussing the Casimir effect as a cause of gravity, I suspect you have not been following.

If you are trying to do that I am definitely not the confused one here.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you are trying to do that I am definitely not the confused one here.

So you seem to be suggesting that scientists who create a scientific hypothesis whose conclusions you disagree are confused individuals

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you seem to be suggesting that scientists who create a scientific hypothesis whose conclusions you disagree are confused individuals

Those that discovered the Casimir effect? No, of course not. But if you mean the ones that made the ignorant hypothesis that you are talking about then yes. The Casamir effect would not cause gravitational attraction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Those that discovered the Casimir effect? No, of course not. But if you mean the ones that made the ignorant hypothesis that you are talking about then yes. The Casamir effect would not cause gravitational attraction.

There are many scientists who have produced papers on this subject, and then there are all the respective peer reviewers and the journals, etc., that's a lot of people you are judging as ignorant without having studied their respective hypotheses, and the math involved. You are welcome to approach science anyway you want though and judge accordingly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So SZ, if you have time and the inclination, would you give this paper published by the Royal Society Journal a quick read and give me your honest opinion. I am not a scientist and as I sort have implied, but I can see no reason logically why the principle involved in the Casimir effect at the micro level, would not only be at play naturally universally, would not also be in play at the macro naturally universally.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0229

 

[Polymath257]

If you were following my comments, we are talking about radiation from the cosmos as a whole, and continuously, that means every em wavelength in existence, at all times, in the context of the Casimir effect principle, and that all wavelengths greater than the Earth Moon distance are excluded from the radiation pressure between them. I take your point that direct em radiation pressure from the Sun at whatever the spectrum would factor in to counter this effect when the Moon was further from the Earth, but it would reinforce it when the "dark side of the Moon' was facing the Sun at conjunction periods, ie. full and new moon.

Light with wavelengths comparable to the Earth-Moon distance would have an incredibly low energy and thereby low radiation pressure. The momentum of a photon is proportional to its frequency, so inversely proportional to its wavelength. The reason the Casimir effect works in the lab is because the distances involved are *small*, so the zpe is relatively large. For wavelengths of the size you are considering the zpe is very, very small.

There would be essentially no difference in radiation pressure depending on new or full moon, except for distance aspects. Unless there is an eclipse, there is no blocking of solar radiation to the moon or by the moon to the Earth. Even then, the amount of radiation pressure is so small compared to the masses involved, there would be almost no effect on the motion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many scientists who have produced papers on this subject, and then there are all the respective peer reviewers and the journals, etc., that's a lot of people you are judging as ignorant without having studied their respective hypotheses, and the math involved. You are welcome to approach science anyway you want though and judge accordingly.

Not on the Casimir Effect for being an explanation for gravity. There are those that have written on the Effect, but it is not a very powerful force.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Light with wavelengths comparable to the Earth-Moon distance would have an incredibly low energy and thereby low radiation pressure. The momentum of a photon is proportional to its frequency, so inversely proportional to its wavelength. The reason the Casimir effect works in the lab is because the distances involved are *small*, so the zpe is relatively large. For wavelengths of the size you are considering the zpe is very, very small.

There would be essentially no difference in radiation pressure depending on new or full moon, except for distance aspects. Unless there is an eclipse, there is no blocking of solar radiation to the moon or by the moon to the Earth. Even then, the amount of radiation pressure is so small compared to the masses involved, there would be almost no effect on the motion.

Radio frequencies whose wavelengths are longer than 385,000 Kms would not add to the pressure between Earth and Moon, but would on the 'dark side'..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not on the Casimir Effect for being an explanation for gravity. There are those that have written on the Effect, but it is not a very powerful force.

I have posted some others earlier, and the one I mentioned to you. I am only saying the principle should work in the macro, i will leave it to scientists to do their thing wrt working out forces.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have posted some others earlier, and the one I mentioned to you. I am only saying the principle should work in the macro, i will leave it to scientists to do their thing wrt working out forces.

I am betting that none of them suggested it could power gravity.

Here is the problem. The pressure from the energy drops immensely as the distance increase. Guess what they did over a hundred years ago. They measured the force of gravity. No need for the Casimir Effect and it is much easier to calculate as well. If you cannot list an equation all that you have is hand waving. It feels good but is worthless in the sciences. And worthless in real life.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am betting that none of them suggested it could power gravity.

Here is the problem. The pressure from the energy drops immensely as the distance increase. Guess what they did over a hundred years ago. They measured the force of gravity. No need for the Casimir Effect and it is much easier to calculate as well. If you cannot list an equation all that you have is hand waving. It feels good but is worthless in the sciences. And worthless in real life.

But science afaik does not know the radiation power of the total em radio frequency continuum spectrum in free space, frequency by frequency. There is no way yet to measure them once wavelengths get to a certain size afaik. If a way is developed to measure them and they amount to a significant force, the Casimir effect in the macro could be shown to be a factor in 'gravity', they could be called gravity waves...wait just kidding, that name is already taken. What are these gravity waves they are detecting btw?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But science afaik does not know the radiation power of the total em radio frequency continuum spectrum in free space, frequency by frequency. There is no way yet to measure them once wavelengths get to a certain size afaik. If a way is developed to measure them and they amount to a significant force, the Casimir effect in the macro could be shown to be a factor in 'gravity', they could be called gravity waves...wait just kidding, that name is already taken. What are these gravity waves they are detecting btw?

Gravity waves are changes in attraction due to an object moving closer or further away at a high rate of speed. Measurable ones can only be measured when two very very massive objects rotate around each other and collide. Such as when two black holes enter their death spiral.

But yes, they do have an equation for those forces. This article has the equation. Good luck:

Casimir effect - Wikipedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Gravity waves are changes in attraction due to an object moving closer or further away at a high rate of speed. Measurable ones can only be measured when two very very massive objects rotate around each other and collide. Such as when two black holes enter their death spiral.

But yes, they do have an equation for those forces. This article has the equation. Good luck:

Casimir effect - Wikipedia

Thank you.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You need to expand you definition of "plasma". All basic atoms which isn´t connected to other basic atoms are in the principle at the plasma stage until these begins to connect more and more to "solid matter" via the E&M forces.

Sorry but this is nonsense. Plasma is a state of matter in which the atoms have some of their orbital electrons removed.

Obviously you didn´t give my definition much pondering before you automatically got into opposition mode.

Plasma is in the principle one of the four fundamental "fluent" states of matter and that´s it. Just as I explained.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
And BEFORE they became stars they all were at the plasma stages, also called "cosmic clouds" which STILL fills up their good part of the Universe.

You need to expand you definition of "plasma". All basic atoms which isn´t connected to other basic atoms are in the principle at the plasma stage until these begins to connect more and more to "solid matter" via the E&M forces.

OK, so we can add the concept of a plasma to the (rather long) list of things you don't understand.

Obviously you missed my "via the E&M forces" which "we can add to the list of things" you don´t comprehend fully because your mind is fully occupated by the (invented) weakest fundamental force.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
So does the galactic energy from which center strong gamma rays are beaming out as real evidence of just nucleosynthetic formation, even of heavier elements.

No. Neither the temperatures, the pressures, nor the energies involved are enough for nuclear reactions.

Where are your logical sense? When strong gamma rays are at stage in galaxies, you immediately should be able to make the logical conclusion that nuclear processes takes place.

It is hilarious that modern cosmologist, physicists and cosmological interested persons can take the by far weakest (invented) force to result in nuclear processes.

One can read several pages of physical encyclopedia of nuclear descriptions WITHOUT any direct notion of the specific E&M fundamental forces. They´re talking of fusions of atoms without even thinking of the E&M properties of atoms.

I said:
Your (re-explosively contradicted) supernovas is not needed in order to explain the full nucleosynthesis at all.

BTW, the repeated "explosions" of "supernovas" are nothing else but electromagnetic discharges just like the similar phenomenon in the Sun.

I'm suspecting that the term 'nucleosynthesis' is yet another concept you don't grasp.

You mean in contrary to modern physics which can explain everything in the Universe? Don´t make me laugh.

When supernovas de facto explodes several times in a row, you can binn that kind of speculative nucleosynthesis because it is obviously contradicted by scientic observations. But of course, this factual evidence is as usually also ignored instead of being taken to account in the "scientific method".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And BEFORE they became stars they all were at the plasma stages, also called "cosmic clouds" which STILL fills up their good part of the Universe.

Evidence?