QM does not make ZPE energy extraction impossible. QM is not even a complete theory. To suggest that something is impossible because a known incomplete theory says its impossible is exactly the same type of mindset that kept us subject to Luciferian rule for millennia.
If you don't look, you can't find.
We are told not to look at ZPE, despite the fact that every calculation from every theory suggests the ZPF contains a non-zero energy density. Research in that area is purposefully suppressed, both by funding and dogma. Who knows what the truth is?
It's dictated, because it's the most immediately intuitive way of thinking.
Yes and no. Its also the fact that no exception to that "rule" has ever been found (outside of the apparent expansion of the universe itself). But I agree that in general even having the desire to look is verboten. But that doesn't necessarily limit exploration as strictly as you might think.
What happens often is that people find something; it apparently violates CoE and then they look into it and find something new and fundamental. For example, "hot rocks" (radioactive uranium e.g.) violated CoE. But then when you look, you discover fission and E=MC^2, and a whole new world of exploration opens up in the attempt to resolve CoE.
This is why its adhered to. It always proves itself correct in the most exciting ways whenever you look into an apparent violation in your investigation.
In the example of the expansion of the universe, finding that CoE holds there would almost certainly be the most amazing discovery of all time because of what such a discovery would reveal.
Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly that keeping an open mind about it is essential. I think you would be surprised how many physicists do though, at least from my experience. It is the vocal shills that are close minded about such things. Many physicists retain the open minded explorative nature of a child.
I have no doubt that the universe has a way to hit people like a boomerang if they get too distracted, be it in science or elsewhere.
You can only run from reality for so long before you inevitably run into it. I just wish that there was a more conscious effort to look into more "ridiculous" and "obscure" ideas.
Even if we knew for fact that CoE was a de facto immutable law of any system, we should still be studying under which circumstances CoE could be violated and what that kind of world would look like.
In most cases when you even get close to those areas it's immediately shut down, which is the unfortunate antithesis of science.
I don't expect any weird fairy dust magic to suddenly become viable by looking at seemingly ridiculous questions, but at the very least those questions often turned out to be the worm hole to a new paradigm.
Many physicists retain the open minded explorative nature of a child.
I seem to find that behavior predominantly in younger students of physics, e.g. undergraduates and graduates.
Professors seem to entertain the idea in public panels with other faculties, but more often than not appear as if they already had it all figured out and they're just there to shut people up.
Think complex numbers, Cantor, etc.
My sample size is obviously limited, but among the people I came across in academia I always found larger samples of the close-minded kind rather than the childlike (closest to God) kind. And the number of people that don't have an "area of functionality" outside of which they shut their childlike mind off is eerily miniscule.
This appears, so far, to be a common pattern throughout history and not just my anecdotal experience.
Either way, thank you for your post. I wish all conversations will become functionally similar to this or better.
Even if we knew for fact that CoE was a de facto immutable law of any system, we should still be studying under which circumstances CoE could be violated and what that kind of world would look like.
But that's what I'm trying to say. We do. Physicists look into this stuff with earnest intent and without preconceptions all the time. Not all physicists obviously. Many are dogmatic, but of all the scientists I know (and I know many) physicists are the most likely to be open minded of any possibility. Of my teachers and friends, I would say a quarter to a third of the physicists had such open mindedness. That's quite a few people.
Think complex numbers, Cantor, etc.
I used to think it was dogma and hubris that drove these suppressions, but I also know a lot of physicists that would not have suppressed these ideas, rather they would have embraced them wholeheartedly from the get go. Now that I am aware of other drivers of suppression (a world wide Luciferian agenda) I look back on these things as being likely just another level of control.
That doesn't mean all such suppressions are that way. People are resistant to change, but with that additional component, a lot of other things I had previously looked into in the history of physics make a lot more sense. Notably the Michaelson and Morley experiment, Bohmian mechanics and Cold Fusion. All were so obviously suppressed or mischaracterized. It makes me think that these are really good places to look for clues to leveling up physics.
Well, with cold fusion the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. But a deeper look into aether (it already is a fundamental concept in QED, GR, and the standard model but its not allowed to be called aether) might bring about a TOE. The path to that marriage of theories might very well be through Bohmian mechanics. I've actually had that thought for a long time, but now that I know about the potential for active suppression by the PTB I am liking that idea even more.
QM does not make ZPE energy extraction impossible. QM is not even a complete theory. To suggest that something is impossible because a known incomplete theory says its impossible is exactly the same type of mindset that kept us subject to Luciferian rule for millennia.
If you don't look, you can't find.
We are told not to look at ZPE, despite the fact that every calculation from every theory suggests the ZPF contains a non-zero energy density. Research in that area is purposefully suppressed, both by funding and dogma. Who knows what the truth is?
I always had an issue with the energy conservation narrative. It's dictated, because it's the most immediately intuitive way of thinking.
But I've never seen any developments researching the potential existence of systems that defy the conservation of energy.
How are you going to understand the whole by only studying predefined parts? You won't.
Science needs to return to its roots as the quest to unravel the mind of the lawgiver, God.
Yes and no. Its also the fact that no exception to that "rule" has ever been found (outside of the apparent expansion of the universe itself). But I agree that in general even having the desire to look is verboten. But that doesn't necessarily limit exploration as strictly as you might think.
What happens often is that people find something; it apparently violates CoE and then they look into it and find something new and fundamental. For example, "hot rocks" (radioactive uranium e.g.) violated CoE. But then when you look, you discover fission and E=MC^2, and a whole new world of exploration opens up in the attempt to resolve CoE.
This is why its adhered to. It always proves itself correct in the most exciting ways whenever you look into an apparent violation in your investigation.
In the example of the expansion of the universe, finding that CoE holds there would almost certainly be the most amazing discovery of all time because of what such a discovery would reveal.
Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly that keeping an open mind about it is essential. I think you would be surprised how many physicists do though, at least from my experience. It is the vocal shills that are close minded about such things. Many physicists retain the open minded explorative nature of a child.
I have no doubt that the universe has a way to hit people like a boomerang if they get too distracted, be it in science or elsewhere.
You can only run from reality for so long before you inevitably run into it. I just wish that there was a more conscious effort to look into more "ridiculous" and "obscure" ideas.
Even if we knew for fact that CoE was a de facto immutable law of any system, we should still be studying under which circumstances CoE could be violated and what that kind of world would look like. In most cases when you even get close to those areas it's immediately shut down, which is the unfortunate antithesis of science.
I don't expect any weird fairy dust magic to suddenly become viable by looking at seemingly ridiculous questions, but at the very least those questions often turned out to be the worm hole to a new paradigm.
Think complex numbers, Cantor, etc.
My sample size is obviously limited, but among the people I came across in academia I always found larger samples of the close-minded kind rather than the childlike (closest to God) kind. And the number of people that don't have an "area of functionality" outside of which they shut their childlike mind off is eerily miniscule. This appears, so far, to be a common pattern throughout history and not just my anecdotal experience.
Either way, thank you for your post. I wish all conversations will become functionally similar to this or better.
But that's what I'm trying to say. We do. Physicists look into this stuff with earnest intent and without preconceptions all the time. Not all physicists obviously. Many are dogmatic, but of all the scientists I know (and I know many) physicists are the most likely to be open minded of any possibility. Of my teachers and friends, I would say a quarter to a third of the physicists had such open mindedness. That's quite a few people.
I used to think it was dogma and hubris that drove these suppressions, but I also know a lot of physicists that would not have suppressed these ideas, rather they would have embraced them wholeheartedly from the get go. Now that I am aware of other drivers of suppression (a world wide Luciferian agenda) I look back on these things as being likely just another level of control.
That doesn't mean all such suppressions are that way. People are resistant to change, but with that additional component, a lot of other things I had previously looked into in the history of physics make a lot more sense. Notably the Michaelson and Morley experiment, Bohmian mechanics and Cold Fusion. All were so obviously suppressed or mischaracterized. It makes me think that these are really good places to look for clues to leveling up physics.
Well, with cold fusion the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible. But a deeper look into aether (it already is a fundamental concept in QED, GR, and the standard model but its not allowed to be called aether) might bring about a TOE. The path to that marriage of theories might very well be through Bohmian mechanics. I've actually had that thought for a long time, but now that I know about the potential for active suppression by the PTB I am liking that idea even more.