Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(JMB) Unhappily, the existence of the zero point field is a consequence of thermodynamics. A lot of people tried to get usable energy against its second principle ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A lot of people have succeeded obtaining above unity energies. This by itself falsifies your contention. Whether or not it is usable energy is not the question to ask at this time. Obviously, if the second law is valid, energy has to come from somewhere. It sounds like you are saying that matter and energy always existed.

How can the ZPE be a consequence of thermodynamics when by definition it is found when the thermodynamics is at sero?

JMB, I think I read you in the stardrive forum, so you are well aware of what the mathemeticians are doing with the ZPE. I'd like to read you say that everything is only classical over there and see how long your letter would last.

What is a mystery to me is what is your take on redshift? You say that the CREIL effect can produce redshift that mimics doppler redshift, but I don't think I ever heard you say that this falsifies cosmological Doppler redshift. So, what are you really saying?

If you are saying that there are observed redshifts that are not Doppler, then aren't saying also that the theory that redshift is only Doppler is false?

The 2nd law you refering to here is only valid in limited perameters because it is about heat. Heat is not energy as is light, EMF, microwave, radio, x-ray, infrared, or whatever other range radiation is observed at. This is a very important detail that needs to be understood if you want to advance the cause of science. Look at the photosynthesis process as an example; the energy wave plants use in what they do is ~500nm and if you apply thermal rules to this energy you get an operating temperature of ~5,000 kelvin. You can see my point here I hope-plants cook at 350 kelvin and water boils at 373.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> it is about heat. Heat is not energy as is light, EMF, microwave, radio, x-ray, infrared, or whatever other range radiation is observed at. This is a very important detail that needs to be understood if you want to advance the cause of science. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Heat is vibration. Light is vibration. So why doesn't a "law" applicable to molecules not at all applicable to atoms?

The 2nd law is true and correct where mass is being effected by energy. Energy in and of itself such as electrical or light energy does not have to interact with matter. Only when energy does interact with matter in a way that infrared radiation is generated do the thermal effects happen. In the process of photosynthesis or any photoelectric or photochemical process the energy interacts without any heating. The same is true for nuclear reactions. This is quite clear if you look at a light emitting diode or LED and a incandesent bulb. The LED emits 100% light in one frequency and no heat is observed whereas the bulb is emiting all over the spectrum. Only a fraction of the energy is visible light and most of the energy is emited as heat. They both use the same electrical energy. There must be better examples than this but it should help in seeing the 2nd law does not apply to energy but does apply when it interacts. There are lots of things to discover about energy and matter that have nothing to do with the second law.

Thanks for that information Jim, it filled up a lot of holes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Look at the photosynthesis process as an example; the energy wave plants use in what they do is ~500nm and if you apply thermal rules to this energy you get an operating temperature of ~5,000 kelvin.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The basis for my thinking is the system. The system has above all a quality of emergence, in which parts together creates new wholes which have qualities the parts themselves did not have. So I have no problem imagining something that is greater than everything, especially when everything is just a part of something else.

And it is not surprising that a plant would find someway to use this property to adapt to supposed high energy levels.

I believe that all matter is actually a field, and a field is something that forms from a relationship. And it seems to me that particles are really relationships of some sort. I don't think there is such a thing as a "particle" expecially one existing by itself. So i a very general way I believe that everything is a relationship. For example all matter is but different relationships of positive and negative fields. Could be that sub-atomic matter likewise is but different relatinships.