Can anyone spot the error?

Quote from: QuQu on May 27, 2014, 01:07:12 PM

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

So a true vacuum isn't a vacuum as it contains stray particles just dancing about like loner kids in play grounds. Is this right or am I reading you wrongly?

Oh and giving rise to so called VIRTUAL particles? What does this actually mean?

Better way to describe this in simple terms is to imagine that vacuum is full of ocean of energy. Just like in the real ocean you have waves and other disturbances, the same way this ocean of energy in vacuum is disturbed and constantly "fluctuates". These fluctuations are called virtual particles (personally i think this term is not quite good).

Take in mind that in quantum physics the word "particle" has nothing to do with our normal perception of every day material particles.

Sceptimatc, if the atoms and molecules are all touching and adjusting shape in order to eliminate any 'vacuum' between each other (like soap bubbles), then what is the difference between the states of gas, liquid, and solid?  Do you have a drawing of how the arrangement works as the temperature changes, effecting different elements, alloys, etc?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 08:33:44 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 27, 2014, 01:07:12 PM

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

So a true vacuum isn't a vacuum as it contains stray particles just dancing about like loner kids in play grounds. Is this right or am I reading you wrongly?

Oh and giving rise to so called VIRTUAL particles? What does this actually mean?

Better way to describe this in simple terms is to imagine that vacuum is full of ocean of energy. Just like in the real ocean you have waves and other disturbances, the same way this ocean of energy in vacuum is disturbed and constantly "fluctuates". These fluctuations are called virtual particles (personally i think this term is not quite good).

Take in mind that in quantum physics the word "particle" has nothing to do with our normal perception of every day material particles.

You#re going to have to explain it in very simple terms, because your ocean means it's filled, so try another angle.

Quote from: QuQu on May 28, 2014, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 08:33:44 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 27, 2014, 01:07:12 PM

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

So a true vacuum isn't a vacuum as it contains stray particles just dancing about like loner kids in play grounds. Is this right or am I reading you wrongly?

Oh and giving rise to so called VIRTUAL particles? What does this actually mean?

Better way to describe this in simple terms is to imagine that vacuum is full of ocean of energy. Just like in the real ocean you have waves and other disturbances, the same way this ocean of energy in vacuum is disturbed and constantly "fluctuates". These fluctuations are called virtual particles (personally i think this term is not quite good).

Take in mind that in quantum physics the word "particle" has nothing to do with our normal perception of every day material particles.

You#re going to have to explain it in very simple terms, because your ocean means it's filled, so try another angle.

The quantum vacuum is not an easy concept. Classicaly, a vacuum is a space devoid of matter and energy, so obviously it has zero energy. In quantum physics, however, only the expected value of the vacuum energy is zero (it si the ground state for the quantized EM field), and there are fluctuations. These can be understood as a continuous creation and annihilation of pairs of particles, which are deemed "virtual". They are not physical particles, and they exist only for a very brief moment. It predicted the Casimir effect, for example, which was later measured.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 09:56:32 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 28, 2014, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 08:33:44 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 27, 2014, 01:07:12 PM

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

So a true vacuum isn't a vacuum as it contains stray particles just dancing about like loner kids in play grounds. Is this right or am I reading you wrongly?

Oh and giving rise to so called VIRTUAL particles? What does this actually mean?

Better way to describe this in simple terms is to imagine that vacuum is full of ocean of energy. Just like in the real ocean you have waves and other disturbances, the same way this ocean of energy in vacuum is disturbed and constantly "fluctuates". These fluctuations are called virtual particles (personally i think this term is not quite good).

Take in mind that in quantum physics the word "particle" has nothing to do with our normal perception of every day material particles.

You#re going to have to explain it in very simple terms, because your ocean means it's filled, so try another angle.

The quantum vacuum is not an easy concept. Classicaly, a vacuum is a space devoid of matter and energy, so obviously it has zero energy. In quantum physics, however, only the expected value of the vacuum energy is zero (it si the ground state for the quantized EM field), and there are fluctuations. These can be understood as a continuous creation and annihilation of pairs of particles, which are deemed "virtual". They are not physical particles, and they exist only for a very brief moment. It predicted the Casimir effect, for example, which was later measured.

So basically what I can deduce from all that is, scientists have made up a complete load of old fanny to explain something that cannot be explained rationally.
And people wonder why these scientists are questioned.
One of the reasons why I give simplistic explanations for my model is because it can be understood and I don't have to make up a load of flannel to fit it all in.

So basically what I can deduce from all that is, scientists have made up a complete load of old fanny to explain something that cannot be explained rationally.
And people wonder why these scientists are questioned.
One of the reasons why I give simplistic explanations for my model is because it can be understood and I don't have to make up a load of flannel to fit it all in.

Basically, the reason why your "model" fails so much, so often, and so spectacularly, is because it is so simplistic and vague that you can't make any prediction, therefore nobody has any concrete way to test it. 

In other words, you just make shit up as you go.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 01:04:48 PM

So basically what I can deduce from all that is, scientists have made up a complete load of old fanny to explain something that cannot be explained rationally.
And people wonder why these scientists are questioned.
One of the reasons why I give simplistic explanations for my model is because it can be understood and I don't have to make up a load of flannel to fit it all in.

Basically, the reason why your "model" fails so much, so often, and so spectacularly, is because it is so simplistic and vague that you can't make any prediction, therefore nobody has any concrete way to test it. 

In other words, you just make shit up as you go.

True, and he is someone who does not understand how everyday things like the movement of the sun and satellites work.  If he admitted he did it puts an end to any fe theory.

So basically what I can deduce from all that is, scientists have made up a complete load of old fanny to explain something that cannot be explained rationally.

If that's your sole deduction ("a load of old fanny") from this detailed explanation, then it simply indicates that your understanding of scientific terminology is somewhat lacking sceptimatic.  What spaceman spiff has posted is the contemporary view of science.  Are you really so arrogant/naive/deluded to believe that you know more about our universe than millions of academically-accredited scientists all over the world?  Seriously?

And people wonder why these scientists are questioned.

Nope.  The only people that "question" them are a handful of flat earth believers.  The rest of the world's population has reached their collective considered opinion that the theories of science are sound, logical, and accurate, and that there's no reason to disbelieve theories that've been developed by scientists for centuries.  You're the one out of step my friend.

One of the reasons why I give simplistic explanations for my model is because it can be understood and I don't have to make up a load of flannel to fit it all in.

I'm guessing the true reason you "give simplistic explanations" is not because we're unable to understand the deeper tenets of science, but more so because you cannot. Sorry.

And, ironically, the vast majority of your "scientific" explanations turn out to be exactly that—a load of old flannel.

Quote from: spaceman spiff on May 28, 2014, 11:22:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 09:56:32 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 28, 2014, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 08:33:44 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 27, 2014, 01:07:12 PM

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

So a true vacuum isn't a vacuum as it contains stray particles just dancing about like loner kids in play grounds. Is this right or am I reading you wrongly?

Oh and giving rise to so called VIRTUAL particles? What does this actually mean?

Better way to describe this in simple terms is to imagine that vacuum is full of ocean of energy. Just like in the real ocean you have waves and other disturbances, the same way this ocean of energy in vacuum is disturbed and constantly "fluctuates". These fluctuations are called virtual particles (personally i think this term is not quite good).

Take in mind that in quantum physics the word "particle" has nothing to do with our normal perception of every day material particles.

You#re going to have to explain it in very simple terms, because your ocean means it's filled, so try another angle.

The quantum vacuum is not an easy concept. Classicaly, a vacuum is a space devoid of matter and energy, so obviously it has zero energy. In quantum physics, however, only the expected value of the vacuum energy is zero (it si the ground state for the quantized EM field), and there are fluctuations. These can be understood as a continuous creation and annihilation of pairs of particles, which are deemed "virtual". They are not physical particles, and they exist only for a very brief moment. It predicted the Casimir effect, for example, which was later measured.

So basically what I can deduce from all that is, scientists have made up a complete load of old fanny to explain something that cannot be explained rationally.
And people wonder why these scientists are questioned.
One of the reasons why I give simplistic explanations for my model is because it can be understood and I don't have to make up a load of flannel to fit it all in.

This "complete load of old fanny" made predictions, such as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift which were confirmed later.

This "complete load of old fanny" made predictions, such as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift which were confirmed later.

Judging by sceptimatic's previous lack of understanding of even the basics of space and vacuums, I'm predicting that there's no way he's gonna even consider the Casimir effect.

This simplified explanation from Scientific American™ may better help him comprehend its principles:  (I've deleted some minor detail)
 
A vacuum is full of fluctuating electromagnetic waves that can never be completely eliminated, like an ocean with waves that are always present and can never be stopped.  These waves come in all possible wavelengths, and their presence implies that empty space contains a certain amount of energy—an energy that we can't tap, but that is always there.

If mirrors are placed facing each other in a vacuum, some of the waves will fit between them, bouncing back and forth, while others will not.  As the two mirrors move closer to each other, the longer waves will no longer fit—the result being that the total amount of energy in the vacuum between the plates will be a bit less than the amount elsewhere in the vacuum.

Thus, the mirrors will attract each other, just as two objects held together by a stretched spring will move together as the energy stored in the spring decreases.

This effect, that two mirrors in a vacuum will be attracted to each other, is what's known as the Casimir Effect.

—I'd appreciate sceptimatic explaining specifically why he believes this effect is a "load of old flannel".  But I'm guessing that we'll get the same old "you people" are brainwashed or gullible, or ignorant or easily fooled, or even just lying.  I'm doubtful we'll get a meaningful response of any kind.  Let's see shall we.
 

The poor cretin will crawl out of his cave and will generate his next big bullshit - don't expect anything different.

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 26, 2014, 07:55:30 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 03:09:11 PM

.... and why air in the brake lines is a big problem.

I look forward to Scepti's version of how air in a brake line really causes the problems it does.

When you're depressing a brake, they aren't 100% air proof. They do allow in extreme small amounts of air over time, which is negligible in most cases, until it builds up and causes a sponginess of the brakes due to it being more easily compressed, which means you lose a lot of immediate force to the brake cylinders that operate your pads/shoes.

So what's the problem?

  Oh, nothing I guess.  I was just expecting something more like;

 "air in the brake line keeps one segment of fluid from contacting the next segment, and so when the pedal is depressed, the fluid molecules become fuming mad that they can't join with the rest of their brothers because of the air, and they demand the air gets out of the way, but the air says it wants it's share of the tube and so the molecules pull out little 'I am the 99%' signs and simply occupies that spot doing nothing, and then the fluid and air start having violent clashes which raises the temperature, thus causing the metal tubing (the mean and greedy 1% keeping the fluid and air confined to their mediocre existence) to distance itself from the angry fluid and air which causes the tube to expand and so the brakes feel spongy"

Quote from: spaceman spiff on May 28, 2014, 11:22:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 09:56:32 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 28, 2014, 09:25:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2014, 08:33:44 AM

Quote from: QuQu on May 27, 2014, 01:07:12 PM

In fact, the vacuum is not empty. It is full of background energy which gives rise to the so called virtual particles. There are several experiments that allow to observe this vacuum energy and particles.

So a true vacuum isn't a vacuum as it contains stray particles just dancing about like loner kids in play grounds. Is this right or am I reading you wrongly?

Oh and giving rise to so called VIRTUAL particles? What does this actually mean?

Better way to describe this in simple terms is to imagine that vacuum is full of ocean of energy. Just like in the real ocean you have waves and other disturbances, the same way this ocean of energy in vacuum is disturbed and constantly "fluctuates". These fluctuations are called virtual particles (personally i think this term is not quite good).

Take in mind that in quantum physics the word "particle" has nothing to do with our normal perception of every day material particles.

You#re going to have to explain it in very simple terms, because your ocean means it's filled, so try another angle.

The quantum vacuum is not an easy concept. Classicaly, a vacuum is a space devoid of matter and energy, so obviously it has zero energy. In quantum physics, however, only the expected value of the vacuum energy is zero (it si the ground state for the quantized EM field), and there are fluctuations. These can be understood as a continuous creation and annihilation of pairs of particles, which are deemed "virtual". They are not physical particles, and they exist only for a very brief moment. It predicted the Casimir effect, for example, which was later measured.

So basically what I can deduce from all that is, scientists have made up a complete load of old fanny to explain something that cannot be explained rationally.
And people wonder why these scientists are questioned.
One of the reasons why I give simplistic explanations for my model is because it can be understood and I don't have to make up a load of flannel to fit it all in.

It PREDDICTED the Casmir affect, which was later MEASURED. In other words they made up a hypothesis that gave a testable prediction, which was then experimentally preferred. If the hypothesis was wrong the experiments which measured the Casmir affect would of found it didn't exist and the hypothesis would or been disproven. You however have yet to provide a single experiment supporting your hypothesis or even given us a single testable prediction.