swansont

! Moderator Note Then it's really not a topic for discussion on a science site.

IOW = "in other words" He ties his analysis to physics in order to justify the number, something you have not done. You have shown there is this number, that is close to another number. A coincidence. What you have not done is shown any ties to physics that indicates that this is anything more than a coincidence.

You should take note that he is basing the argument on GR. IOW, some actual physics is used as a basis for the analysis.

"Radiometric" is a good catch-all for dating techniques, without getting bogged down on which ones are actually being used, because there are several, and each have their areas of applicability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

! Moderator Note Going moon-landing-hoax is not a winning play on a science board. There is plenty of evidence the landings happened. ! Moderator Note If true, it should not be difficult to show this. In any event, it is not being offered as an option - it is a requirement for your continued participation. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

! Moderator Note Posting claims like this without evidence is not an argument made in good faith. ! Moderator Note You would do well to understand what scientific uncertainty is. It might keep you from posting nonsense ! Moderator Note Hyperbole, especially unsupported hyperbole such as this, has no place in the discussion. (IOW, make your case, with support, that this will have an adverse effect, and keep the pejorative language out of it) If all you want to do is post some zingers, take it elsewhere. This is a science discussion site.

The one I keep objecting to. Your energy density using planck energy and planck length I'm not sure how "consistent with" applies here. The Planck energy is almost 2 x 10^9 J. That's huge on the quantum scale. If you're insisting that the Planck length and time are the smallest increments, isn't it more "consistent" to find a minimum energy? Or at least an energy that makes sense on the quantum scale, for a quantum phenomenon? ℏ is not a minimum energy value, though, since the frequency of quanta can approach zero. What is the "fundamental physics level" of ~2 Gigajoules? I guess that's something for you to investigate. But "limiting density of matter" sounds very much like it's not a vacuum phenomenon If you go to the link in the citation (number 21) the author says "The Planck units have no practical application" and points out that the Planck mass is 17 orders of magnitude larger than the top quark mass, an so makes a conjecture that it's an upper limit. The paper linked to on that site for "limiting density of matter" is in Russian, so I don't know what the actual argument is for density.

Click on the quote button. Put your cursor below the quote box before typing

! Moderator Note Hijack has been split to the appropriate thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72263-is-nature-playing-fair-with-krauss-object/

An energy density. What is the justification that that particular energy density has physical significance? 1. AFAIK Zero-point energy gets contributions from all frequencies. That’s what the Casimir force shows. That’s a reason I have been begging you to look into the actual QM analysis. 2. If 1 is wrong, 2 is irrelevant, but why use that volume? Is that what they are? They aren’t derived from QM. Is vacuum energy a constant? Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

If you’re talking about religious belief, than “a tenet of belief” (or “a tenet of this belief”) would work in some circumstances, where you are referring to one discrete element. Similar to the “point” you mentioned. A specific example or two might clarify this better.

Why would you think the laws of physics don’t apply to you as you sleep?

Good point, which points to another issue that requires explanation: where did it form and how was it ejected from that system? Why is the age of the earth consistent with the age of our solar system? Wouldn’t a captured planet, formed elsewhere, be expected to be older?

It’s a unit. You can put it in terms of fortnights squared, too. Minutes, years, etc. Until you connect it to something with physical significance, it’s numerology. It looks like you’re shopping for a unit system that you want, and you found it. There’s a reason why physicists look at unitless physical constants - they don’t depend on the units you pick. The fine structure constant, for example, is always the same value, regardless of your unit system. And it shows up in EM interactions. What interaction, and formula that predicts it, gives rise to the Planck time, to connect it to this? The wikipedia link labels this as a coincidence. Is that what this is?

I don’t know what “smallest possible quantum oscillation that applies to zero-point energy” means Also saying that the Planck time is “smallest” is not correct, I think. The Big Bang model does not apply before a certain time, but that’s not the same as saying time increments that are smaller can’t exist.

Where did I ask for solubility data? The claim was that the excess CO2 came from the ocean as it warmed. I asked for the science that backed that up. Solubility is only a small part of that answer. One needs to show that there was enough CO2 in the water to begin with, and that warming would release it. Also that humans aren’t releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to account for the increase. That would be insufficient.

And Linus Pauling won Nobel prizes, but that doesn’t mean his opinions on vitamin C were valid. This is simply argument from authority Another partial answer. Solubility is one step, but the claim wasn’t limited to saying CO2 is soluble in water. The important part - by far - is yet to be addressed.

Photons between conductors have to form a standing wave, so not all wavelengths are allowed, unlike free space. So? The “vacuum” label is there to tell you it’s there even when you have nothing. You generally don’t care about the walls of a vacuum, anyway. The Casimir effect is something that tells you zero-point energy is a real phenomenon. The Casimir effect itself is not the vacuum energy, it’s one result of it.

This is science, so not opinion. These effects can be quantified. Where is the science that backs this up?

How did the planet lose the excess kinetic energy, which would be required to be captured? What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

John’s question was what harm is being done. We caused it, so...yes. By phrasing it is “too high” Happer is re-framing the issue, rather than rebutting anything. The CO2 concentration is higher than in pre-industrial times, and that has an effect on climate.

I disagree it’s most laws, and the power inherently lies with the employer. The employers have more influence with lawmakers, and the majority has more influence despite everyone supposedly having equal rights.

That’s not a full answer. Is “optimum for plant growth“ the goal? Why should that be?

The Casimir effect is more specifically about excluded photon modes, because of the boundary conditions in place from having conducting surfaces. I’m not aware of a connection to a false vacuum.

Define “too little” Summarize the points you want to discuss. It’s 50 minutes long. Notably, not a climatologist or biologist. ‘nuff said