In general, it is a bad idea to cite lots of bad videos.
Links to a video "promote" it on search engines...
Links to a video "promote" it on search engines...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I think some of the brighter stars are at that level of scaleThey are bigger than an atom.
Did you had the chance to read the following:Yes.
Do you understand what
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:12:55
There is no need for any sort of matter/electron beam or a laser in the empty space to get that VE.Nobody said there was, did they?
Do you agree with our scientists that the energy in the empty pace that is called vacuum energy - VE has real energy (as we detect by Casimir effect) that can convert virtual pair into real mass pair?No, of course not.
Yes or no please.
incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks
Can you please tell me. at what level of photon density, EM radiation becomes itself a source of radiation and photons start to create and emit new photons without being annihilated in that process?No, I can not tell you that.
Light from light - it's yet just another of those "amzing" claims of yours,It's not a claim I ever made, is it?
And where exactly is the part which says, that near-fields are using EM waves to propagate?Is your hypothesis that they propagate by taking the bus?
Is an antenna sending out the near-field into space?That seems to be pretty pointless semantics.
You can't use a beam of photons at the wavelenght of 1024nm, to heat something to 10000°C, no matter how big is the photon density. Since 1024nm is the wavelenght characteristic to blacbody radiation at around 2500°C, to heat something beyond this temperature, you will need to use photons at shorter wavelenghts. By increasing the number of photons (intensity of radiation) at 1024nm in the beam, you will only decrease the time at which this beam will heat something to the temperature of 2500°C.- but not beyond that level
Or do you really try telling me, that you (an unknown guy from internet) has a better understanding of cavity QED, than a bunch of people with phd in photonics and/or quantum physics?No, but I am, for example, showing that you do not understand the implications of quite simple bits of science like the conservation of energy.
This phenomenon is predicted by CEN.Who is Cen?
Do you agree that our Scientists think that:Do you understand what
"the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles)."
If you still worry about it then:
Did you even read the question?What about the following:I have already answered this question by the following message:
That does not explain how the virtual particles became real particles.Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
Do you have any problem with this explanation?Yes.
How did those short-lived virtual particles in the vacuum turn into long-lived real particles?and also
how the virtual particles became real particles.
If it comes from some Brane or other imagination - then please explain how it had been created there without breaking the conservation law.The laws of physics apply in our universe (or, at least, our bit of it).
Tell me, where would I get, if I would blindly trust in your superior knowledge and understanding, just like you would like me to do?Further than you will get by contradicting yourself.
So what about multiple sources? let's say that you have a region of space with 1mln Sun-like stars (to simplify, let's assume that all have the same color and brightness as our Sun) - if you then use a huge lense, to concentate their light in one tiny spot, wouldn't that spot be 1mln times brighter than the Sun?
It's one of the laws of optics, though it's essentially just a statement of the energy conservation law.
You can't use a mirror, lens, or combination of them to get an image which is brighter than the source.
Why were you not aware of this?
But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?
But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?It does not have a wavelength; it has a size based on the wavelength.
No it doesn't - it has a size/volume, which... depends on the dominant wavelength (λ)
Secondly, this doesn't really have to do with rejection of the misnomer of "initial state," than a well-traced history support that at least one point of the universe was hot.And that's why you should read stuff through before you post it.