Which is a non-answer. Where did he energy needed to climb
the potential barrier come from Franz?

Franz Heymann wrote:
It does that by going off its mass shell.

Which is meaningless when the particle in question is subject to
an external field.

Franz Heymann wrote:
That is allowed by the Uncertainty Principle for short periods.
You appear to know nothing about quantum physics.

Actually it isn't allowed, even by the HUP, since that would require te
particle to become temporarily virtual.

Every current theory is the best verified theory man has ever produced.
Including the theory that the sun rotates around the earth.

Franz Heymann wrote:
Of course.
Your point being?

Clearly it is that since every current best theory is the best verified
theory ever produced, your comment that the current theory is the best
verified theory carries little, if any weight.
Snicker.

Since the particles in the particle pair are symmetric

Franz Heymann wrote:
No, they are not.

Particle/antiparticle pair creation isn't symmetric?
What universe are you living in Franz?
Again, from whence does the energy come Franz?

Franz Heymann wrote:
The one which escapes is created as a real particle.

Snicker. So in your view then during virtual pair production,
one of the particles created is real and the other virtual?
Bahahahahahahah....

Franz Heymann wrote:
The other one is created off its mass shell. It becomes real only
after its interaction with the gravitational field of the BH.

So we have one real, and the other that is virtual becoming real
after it experiences a gravitational field. But then it vanishes, and the
other remains real inside the black hole where it no longer exists.
Snicker. Such nonsense.
Where does the energy for the pair production come from Franz?

the same could be argued for the particle that falls in, and
hence it's total energy contribution to the black hole is zero.
Hence by your argument it's mass is not reduced.

Franz Heymann wrote:
You missed out on the essential asymmetry on
which the whole argument depends.

There isn't any asymmetry of course since particle pair
production is always symmetric.
Constantly wrong Franz strikes again.

"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message

And Franz, where did the energy come from
that deflected the scale balance
that was used to measure the Casimer force?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote

Permanent magnets also exert forces on one another.
They, too, obey the rules of energy conservation,
like the Casimir force does.

So Franz, you are now admitting that you can store and
remove energy from the vacuum?

Franz Heymann wrote:
Don't put words into my mouth. That is a very poor way of
furthering an argument.

Yet it is exactly what you have claimed.
Pathetic....

Franz Heymann wrote:
The energy has to be stored *before* it can be
removed, except for the imbalances which the uncertainty
principle allows for very brief periods.
I never said or implied otherwise.

Energy has already been stored in the vacuum.
It exists, and has already been extracted from the
vacuum field. Your claim was that this was nonsense
and crackpot science.
Now you claim otherwise.
Snicker...

Interesting. Earlier you claimed that extracting energy from
the vacuum was, how did you put it? <Crackpot science>.

Franz Heymann wrote:
It is indeed crackpot science.

In direct contradiction to your claim above. You can't even
keep youself consistant across two sentences Franz.

Or on a planet orbiting the sun, or 13 billion light years
away at the edge of the visible universe.

Franz Heymann wrote:
If all you are doing is to express agreement with me,
why did you not just say "yes"?

Not even bright enough to recognize the failure of his own argument.
Pathetic.

I have little doubt that the physics one one side of
the earth is very much the same as that on the other.
I have strong doubts that this is the
case at the origin of existance.

Franz Heymann wrote:
That's beside the point. Some call it moving the goal posts.

You mean like redefining momentum to keep it constant
under relativistic conditions?
Redefining temperature to make the laws of
thermodynamics more valid?
Snicker...

It is only through the extraction of energy that force can be
measured.

Franz Heymann wrote:
Crap. We are not discussing measurement techniques.

No, we are discussing your laughable opinion that dispite
the fact that energy has been extracted from the vacuum
a fact known for decades, and repeated often, through
a known effect that is readily measured by existing devices
like scanning tunnling microscopes, and an effect that
must be compensated for in microelectronic
engineering,
Franz, continues his delusion that it's impossible.
Bahahahahahahh.

Franz Heymann wrote:
How much energy is extracted when a chemical
balance is used? And
don't bother boring us with irrelevancies here.

What difference does that make?
Your claim is that extraction is "crackpot science", when in fact,
energy extraction is as evident as any relatavistic effect.

If a force exists that accelerates two plates together,
as was the case in the original experiment that measured
the Casimer force, when these two
plates come together, energy has been liberated.
Liberated from where Franz?

Franz Heymann wrote:
The molecular configurations in the two plates.

Are you seriously claiming that the Casimir force
is due to the chemical attraction between the plates?
Bahahahahahahahahah....

In the original experiment energy had to be expended
to separate the plates during the procedure of nulling
their relative charge.

Franz Heymann wrote:
No charge annulment occurred. Only a relaxation
of the polarisation of molecules near the surgaces.

Wrong again Franz. Charge anullment was accomplished
through direct electrical contact between the two plates.
Ignorant about history as well I see.

Where did that energy go Franz?

Franz Heymann wrote:
to the restoration of the surface molecules to their
unpolarised states.

There are no surface molecules Franz. The experiment was
conducted with metal plates for which the entire plate
is essentially a single metalic crystal.
Surface molecules...... bahahahahahahah.. Such foolishness...

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote

If you bring two solid surfaces together, work is done
*by the Casimir force*, resulting in a negative potential
energy, analogous to a binding energy..
When you replace them, an exactly equal amount of
work will have to be done *by you*.

Indicating that you can store energy in the vacuum and >
later extract it from the vacuum.

Franz Heymann wrote:
I have no quibble with that. Why do you bring it up?

Clearly because you have denied the possibility -

Franz Heymann wrote:
The topic unbder discussion is your assertyion that free
energy is available to be extracted from a vacuum.

Which we have seen has already been done without any
energy being stored in the vacuum by the experimenter.
Where did that energy come from Franz?

I note once again that you referred to the extraction of
energy from the vacuum as <crack science> If I
remember correctly.

Franz Heymann wrote:
Yes. Of course it is crackpottery.

Contradicting yourself again Franz? Snicker...

Franz Heymann wrote:
You have forgotten that the origin of this discussion was
the extraction of free energy from a vacuum.

Which we have seen has already been done without any
energy being stored in the vacuum by the experimenter.
Where did that energy come from Franz?

"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote

Well, you may, since you seem to be unable to understand the
difference between space itself expanding and objects moving
apart in space.

I understand quite well Franz. So, I ask.. From whence does
the energy come?

Franz Heymann wrote:
What energy?

The energy extracted through the measurement of the Casimir force?
Still laughing at Franz.

Franz Heymann wrote:
Do remember that the topic of this discourse is the
extraction of free energy from the vacuum.

I do... Free Vacuum Energy has already been extracted from
the vacuum Franz though the measurement
of the Casimir force.
Where did that energy come from Franz?

If a force exists that accelerates two plates together,
as was the case in the original experiment that measured
the Casimer force, when these two
plates come together, energy has been liberated.

Liberated from where Franz?

Franz Heymann wrote:
The action of bringing the two plates together.
The more cogent question is where the energy has gone to.
It has gone into polarisating the surface molecules of the plates.

There are no molecules comprising the surface of metal plates Franz.
Snicker.
The energy also goes into heating the plate surface, accelerating
particles of gas that were between the plates, stretching springs
through the deformation of atomic bonds in the springs themselves.
I.E. work is done. Where did the energy come from to do that work Franz?

In the original experiment energy had to be expended to separate the
plates during the procedure of nulling their relative charge. Where did
Where did that energy go Franz?

Franz Heymann wrote:
If you understeood my previous reply, you would know the
answer to this one.

Do you maintain that the energy comes from the altered surface
chemistry of the plates?
bahahahahahahahah.....

Franz Heymann wrote:
By the way, I am intensely bored with you.

Your phychological state doesn't interest me Franz.
Neither does your shoe size.
Still Laughing at Franz....

"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.

"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.

"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.

"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.