ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: Maui Fire Breaks SCIENCE as we know it…
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
Lasers/masers. Well, well. So it doesn't matter to you. Just to us laser engineers, I guess.
If you are meaning performing different functions, that is definitely not "coupling." But what different functions are you ascribing to them? Are you using a laser (which can be blocked by clouds) to do aiming for a microwave (which is not blocked by clouds)? If you are able to target with a microwave, why would you need a different aiming system? Just curious.
No, there was sufficient heat to melt the aluminum. You have a poor understanding of thermodynamics. Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature, When the temperatures are the same, there will be no further heat transfer. This is called conduction. I suggest you brush up on thermodynamics.
Supposition vs. Imagination. All this is within my field of experience. Based on your deficient understanding of thermodynamics, I don't think it is within yours.
Name-calling. Pointing out ignorance is no more "name-calling" than pointing out a shortness of height.
For example. Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary. One can say "if" to anything. "If" there are Menehunes, they took revenge on white-faces. That is only an example of an imagined thing.
Now, I am interested in your conclusions about the requirements for the warp drive. It shows that the mountain is really, really steep. I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum, however. And I don't understand how it is possible to "warp" space, when that would be a completely self-referential concept. As a result, you may legitimately conclude that I am less than fully convinced of general relativity. (It is easy to prove the falsity of the Correspondence Principle, for example.)
Oh, rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
The optical problems for laser power projection are inherent in the physics, not the technology. Assume ideal technology---you still get the problems.
The problem here is that I have encountered---and answered---many of these questions early in my career. I am still open to new ideas (e.g., information mechanics by Frederick Kantor, and a different explanation for intergalactic redshift by Halton Arp). Under the circumstances, experience counts.
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") that comes from space expansion seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. We haven 't actually been able to test most of those questions. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional (a one to one mapping from every point in our idea of "space" to every other point in it), and the three dimensions we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from... whatever the fundamental really is. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space (they also have a very high thermal capacity because of their high bond strength, density, and crystalline structure). Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat conduction. I have a background in combustion chemistry, related to jet propulsion and energy production. All the fancy references aside, you don't seem to get the point of Fourier's equation: that there must be a temperature difference between the environment and the object in order for heat to flow into the object. Once they reach the same temperature, no more heat flow. So it is not possible to impose a heat flow independently of the temperature difference. Once the object reaches the same temperature as the environment, the flow stops. This imposes the requirement that the environment must have a temperature HIGHER than the melting point of the material in order for the material to melt.
Space warping and UFOs. I would welcome evidence, but the notion of "warping space" implies some reference background by which the warping might be measured. What would that be, except space? So, I regard the subject as being intellectually ill-posed. I keep in mind that "space" is not a thing; it is a dimension. And it is nothing but measurement. As for UFOs, there has been evidence since the 1940s, all without conclusion. I don't deny the evidence; I only point out that we don't have any conclusion that it supports. What the Navy has released (I have seen it) looks very similar to aberration phenomena that can occur inside optical systems, so when they try to keep up with something, it is on the level of chasing a speck on your glasses. Plenty of misidentifications in the 60-year modern history of the phenomenon. The more convincing evidence, in my book, are the ground residue of observed landings. (J. Allen Hynek was hired by the Air Force to examine and debunk UFO sightings. He coined the famous "swamp gas" explanation. But his repeated exposure to case after case wore down his skepticism, and he eventually emerged as not exactly a proponent, but someone who took their existence as a serious possibility. I was very impressed with this intellectual trajectory. As for myself, I had a lasting lesson from the hoax by George Adamski.)
Time as a continuum. Neither. It seems self-evident that time consists of the present moment. The past no longer exists. The future does not yet exist. I liken time to a region of combustion proceeding along a slow-match: the fire is the present, the past is the ash, and the future is the uncombusted match.
Self-reference. I'm not a fan of the "Big Bang." It is an artifact of the assumption that the distance redshift is a Doppler shift. Even Edwin Hubble, the discoverer of the distance redshift, argued against that assumption, from reasons of astronomic compatibility with observation. The idea that there is no direction from which it proceeds is flim-flam, in my opinion. There is a quantum vacuum, sure enough, and it is demonstrated by the Casimir Force, which should give some pause to notions of special relativity. And the famous elevator thought experiment fails, once one is allowed to have multiple accelerometers within the elevator car. A gravity field can clearly be distinguished from a centripetal field, and from a linear acceleration without observation of the exterior universe. So, there is no "correspondence" between frame acceleration and gravity.
Thermal conductivity. The metric of conductivity is measured typically in terms of watts per (meter-kelvin). Here is an interesting summary of conductivities encountered in normal experience. https://material-properties.org/thermal-conductivity-of-materials/ Omitting the measurement units for the sake of simplicity, the conductivity of duralumin (an aluminum alloy) is 140. Steel is 50-54 or lower. rubber is 0.5, asphalt/concrete is 0.75, limestone & brick are 1.3, wood is from 0.13 to 0.17. So, while aluminum will tend to rapidly assume a uniform temperature. its ability to bleed off into the axle or onto the hard ground is very poor. And aluminum vapor combustion is ferociously hot. (Aluminum will evaporate below its boiling point, just as water will evaporate at room temperature.) The poor conductivity of the ground will require a high temperature for any heat input, and the temperature will penetrate only slightly into the ground. I have an iron stove insert and have spent decades being cautious about touching it. The fire is hotter, of course (literally orange-hot, based on the color of the coals). There is no need to lecture me on fire.
Considering that this was the crux of my argument against a tire melting a wheel, I am not sure why you seem to think I don't understand this principle.
This however is only true for direct heat transfer (conduction/convection). There are other ways to heat up an object, such as by causing the molecules to vibrate via microwaves. The environment can be 0 Kelvin and you can heat up an object by making the molecules vibrate, because when you get down to it, "heat" in an object made up of molecules is just molecular vibrational energy. If you appreciate that principle of "what heat really is," you can appreciate that my argument is completely consistent with what you think I am not understanding.
Aluminum (like all things made of molecules) will be able to absorb a total amount of energy (usually measured in Joules or BTUs) before it melts. The fact that it has a high conductivity means that it will have a relatively uniform temperature regardless of the source of input, unless that source is very concentrated (like a blow torch, in which case, see my previous explanation that I still don't think you fully appreciated). The tire will give off a certain amount of heat energy as it burns. It will almost certainly have far more heat energy stored in its hydrocarbons than is required to melt the tire (though it will have far from a complete combustion, but still, I have no doubt it is more than sufficient), but it has to get that energy into the wheel somehow. The easiest way is to heat up the local environment sufficient that the environment itself is hotter than the wheel. But except for the small part of the tire that is at the very bottom of the wheel, most of that energy is going to go somewhere else because the local environment is at about 25 C.
The heat energy (Joules e.g.) that does go into the wheel is going to leave the wheel through any contact it has (if those contacts are colder than the wheel) or through the air (if the air is colder than the wheel). WHATEVER the conductivities of the contacts are will help determine the rate of heat flow. In other words, the conductivities only set the rate of the flow, they don't change the principle of a "heat sink". With regards to the iron, it will get hotter and hotter, and because the temperature difference is important for heat transfer rate, the rate of heat flow will slow over time. Before it slows down too much though, it will likely take away quite a bit of the total Joules of energy available because there is a lot of iron, and it transfers relatively quickly in iron.. With regards to the ground however, it won't slow very much because the ground acts as a sink. Instead the heat will continue to flow into the ground at WHATEVER RATE it flows into the ground for the entire time.
Now if there is enough heat energy (lots of fuel) that isn't true, and the local ground will get hot and the transfer rate will slow or stop, but the ground is a really big environment with a reasonably fast heat transfer rate and a huge thermal capacity so the dissipation rate won't change much over the half hour or whatever it takes for a tire to burn.
Regardless, the ground will absorb a certain total amount of Joules over time and the iron will absorb a total amount of Joules over time, as will the wheel itself and the air. The fuel will transfer a certain amount of Joules to the wheel, and if the total sum of all that energy flowing in and out is ever greater than total heat capacity of the wheel, it will melt.
I've melted aluminum a few times in a kiln. I have some idea what it takes. I do not see that happening in the environment that it is in without extra help (open to air, no fire around it, only fuel is a tire and maybe gasoline that is a couple feet away burning in a completely different direction). The lack of previous melting wheels is a testament to my estimation.
You were starting out from the premise that a burning tire would be insufficient to melt an aluminum wheel. Or that it could happen even without the tire flame temperature being higher than the aluminum melting point (I have a hard time recovering this thread). I pointed out that (1) burning gasoline and/or rubber had a theoretical flame temperature adequate to melt aluminum, and (2) there was no way the aluminum could receive enough heat to melt without the higher flame temperature. So, on the whole, I don't see that we have any disagreement by now.
Microwaves would just be reflected. The same principle applies to radiative transfer. The incoming flux times the absorption coefficient would have to be high enough to be greater than the black-body radiation times the emission coefficient. But where is the evidence of any of that? The "local environment" is the flame of the burning gasoline and/or burning rubber. Made all the hotter when the combustion is occurring in a cavity where the thermal radiation is returned to the combustion. I provided the thermal conductivities. When the path is dimensionally narrow, such as an axle, the flow will be minor. When the ground has very low conductivity, the point of contact will be at the aluminum temperature, but the conductive gradient will be low and there will not be much thermal conduction to the ground in the time available to melt the aluminum. When the molten aluminum spread out thinly enough, it covered enough area for the surface conduction (and evaporation) to bring it below the melting point. I mean, I did this for a living. Your arm-waving is only that.
I've seen aluminum melt in a gas-fired forge about half the size of a suitcase. Pretty fast. No need for a kiln. All that is required is to be surrounded by the flame. It doesn't occur to you that the auto fuel tank probably lost its integrity by the initial fire, sprang a leak, lit off, and continued leaking gasoline onto the ground underneath the car, where it burns and ignites the tires. The tires surround the wheels. Burning rubber is no slight matter, as demonstrated by the "necklacing" committed by terrorists in South Africa. One tire, a bit of petrol, and a match, and the poor victim is rendered like a side of pork. Yes, the rubber can burn...and it can burn at a high enough temperature to melt the aluminum. You can hardly say that the wheel is somehow distant from the tire.
The energy component of the energy momentum tensor (T00) in the solution to the Alcubierre metric is a function of the velocity (v^2), the physical shape of the transition region (the bubble shape) as a function of the interior (df/dr)^2, and the size of the interior relative to the exterior ((y^2 + x^2)/r^2). Changing any of those things changes the energy requirements. Thus going slower than the speed of light (or much slower as the case may be) substantially reduces the energy requirements. Changing the size of the exterior bubble relative to it’s inside can also substantially reduce the energy (at least the negative energy), and changing the shape of the bubble itself can decrease it as well (or possibly increase it as a trade off for altering the relative interior/exterior dimensions).
Solutions to changing the shape of the bubble have accomplished substantial reductions in the required energy, as have solutions that change the size of the exterior relative to its interior (think the tent in Harry Potter). Interestingly, if such a bubble were to be made, I think the objects inside would appear smaller than they are (the light path (geodesic) from the interior to the exterior is "focused" at the smaller boundary). Then again, it depends on the exact shape of the boundary (it might spread (diffuse) the light e.g.). Regardless, I think this would cause some interesting visual effects upon a change in momentum (direction or speed) as the warp bubble itself (including its boundary) would be motivating the change, and would thus be changing shape slightly, altering the path for the light.
As far as I remember, the lowest energy requirements (using "negative matter") were on the order of 100-1000kg (E=mc^2) to make a bubble sufficient to drive a reasonable size ship, though if I remember correctly that was for v>c (or maybe v=c), so probably a fair bit less if your relative delta v is only a couple thousand miles an hour. Still a lot though, and every change in momentum requires more energy. I haven’t really considered how the exterior surface of the bubble would interact with the atmosphere, though I think it should act just like any other hard physical object (due to a pressure differential and/or build up of air at the boundary), which means drag, sonic booms, etc., thus more energy, though you can potentially change its shape and its size to reduce that interaction.
The energy requirements for the solutions I am aware of are pretty large, though there may be solutions that reduce it sufficiently, and/or it could be that GR is the wrong model to use in this scope, and movement through space however the hell you want and/or controlling inertia is trivial if you understand gravity on a more fundamental level ( if it is really an E&M effect for example).
I think you have an insuperable obstacle in the absence of "negative matter." (I don't think you mean antimatter.)
I do not mean antimatter, I mean mass that "pushes" instead of "pulls" (to expand space instead of contract it). But it doesn't necessarily have to be negative mass. It can be "negative energy," because it is "energy" that shapes space according to GR, not mass (mass works too because mass is just energy). A "negative energy" is seen in the Casimir effect, and in Hawking radiation (one observed, one theoretical) so it's not without precedence. What we call "Dark Energy" could also potentially be a negative energy and it certainly seems to expand space. Our cosmological models say "it's not negative energy it's negative pressure" (even though it acts exactly like negative energy), but quite frankly, our cosmological models are all wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong, but they hold onto them with both hands and won't let go mostly I think to keep their jobs (paraphrased from my graduate cosmology professor). That's an aside however.
Except for the Casimir effect (which is an observation), these are all "arguments from the model," not arguments from actual evidence. The models we have, have nothing to do with how things really are, they are just models. They are useful, but what can really happen (all possible phenomena) is unknown and unknowable if we rely on the models themselves. Every time we get a new observation that wasn't predicted by a previous model, we make a new model or modify an existing one by injecting new axioms, which is really the same thing an entirely new model. We call it "the same model," (the Standard Model has fundamentally changed numerous times e.g.) but it's really not, because it required completely new premises (and subsequent math) to fit observation.
So yes, I don't have any idea what "negative matter" might mean as an observable, but to create a warp bubble or a wormhole (according to GR) all we really need to be able to do is expand space. We know how to contract space pretty well, just put mass/energy into it. We don't know how to expand space very well, but we have observations that suggest that it does that fairly often on its own. Just because we don't have very good models that allow us to engineer the expansion of space on command, doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean someone else hasn't figured out how to do it.
I said I did not think you were referring to antimatter, which exists. The Casimir effect has nothing to do with "negative energy." It has to do with the restriction of allowable wavelengths in the Casimir gap, creating an imbalance in the vacuum fluctuation of photons. As the gap gets smaller, the allowable wavelengths are increasingly excluded and the differential pressure is perceived / measured as an increasing force. In some ways, it is similar to the Van der Waals force, as an effect that results from close contact of matter.
I have no particular love for any of the popular cosmology models. There is good evidence against them all (see Halton Arp's work), including the suggestion that we actually have a steady-state universe. Fred Hoyle may be vindicated. Frederick Kantor also has an alternative explanation of the distance-redshift relationship, based on the loss of positional information of the long-distance propagating photon. (Kantor put his theory to the test by using it to predict the masses of all the known leptons. He was accurate to within small fractions of a percent.)
It follows that I have no credence in "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy." I had an interesting conversation with a practicing astronomer on the subject of cosmology, and we were of a like mind about the necessity of scientific honesty including the recognition of "We don't know." Too many people get wrapped up in hypotheses without any evidence to back them up. As a result of this cultish captivity, a true pioneer like Arp was summarily denied observation time because he was following an open-minded pursuit of truth that was not based on the "standard model."