Edtharan

Not really. If material/energy ejected at light speed from the sun's explosion is halfway to Earth, then it will arrive in another four minutes. But it's already taken four minutes to get to where it is, so the "heads up" time doesn't change.

If the light was released from it when it was half way to us, then yes.

But if the Sun exploded, then the light form the explosion would occur at the surface where it already is, and this is 8 light minutes away. As nothing can travel faster than light, then we would see this light before the light released by the matter at the half way point.

So we would know about it 8 minutes after the sun exploded because the explosion occurs where the sun is now/I] and that light would take 8 minutes to reach us.

A Black Hole is a region of space where the Gravitational Field is so strong, anything that comes within a certain distance from its centre will never escape.

For instance, if you compressed our sun to less than 3km across, then anything that came within that 3km region would never escape. However, outside this area, the gravity of the sun would not change. Earth would continue in its exact same orbit, just as if the sun had not been turned into a black hole.

The reason this occurs (well the most common reason we know of by far) is due to gravity. Gravity is the weakest of the 4 known forces, but it is universally attractive (where as the others have repulsive effects along with the attractive effects). Because Gravity is always attractive, it means that with enough mass, you can get truly "astronomical" forces.

To give you an idea how weak gravity is, you can take a small fridge magnet that weighs only a few grams and the attractive force between it an a piece of metal can hold it own weight against the entire gravitational force of the Earth that weighs around 5.9736×10^24 kg. However, you can get far force out of gravity because it always attracts where as magnets can also repel.

Gravity follows the Inverse Square law. This is the principle by which the strength of gravity is inversely related to the square of the distance from the centre of mass. The result is that if you double the distance, you get 1/4 the force, or if you halve the distance you get 4 times the force.

So if you were to cause the Earth to shrink to 1/2 its radius, then the strength of gravity at the surface will be 4 times (4g) what it is now. Or if you expanded the Earth up so that the radius was 2 times the radius, then gravity would only be 1/4 of what it is today.

According to Relativity, gravity is caused by the warping of Space Time. This is a bit hard to imagine and many attempts to do so suffer from oversimplification (like using the analogy of a rubber sheet) and so aren't exactly correct (so don't assume that because you understand the analogy that you understand what is being demonstrated by the analogy).

To understand it better you need to understand Geodesics. Put simply a Geodesic is the shortest path between two points that follow the surface. On a flat surface this is a Straight line. On a curved surface a straight line is called a Geodesic.

In a vacuum, light follows the Geodesic (always takes the shortest path between two points). If space is curved, then light will appear to curve.

Near a black hole, the amount that light will curve will cause it to always curve back in towards the black hole if it is within the "Event Horizon", for the Sun, as I said earlier, is around 3km from the centre of its mass (but as the sun is far bigger than this the sun won't turn into a black hole).

If you were to draw the geodesics for this region of space, inside the Event horizon, then the lines would form a sort of spiral in towards the "Singularity" (centre of the black hole).

That is incorrect. You are quite ignoring the effects of crustal shortening associated with orogeny. The net effects of crustal shortening, mid-ocean ridge crust generation and crustal destruction by subduction have to balance over a periods of centuries.

They do not need to balance over a period of years. Plates move a centimetres a year. Consider how much movement occured when the Christmas tsunami struck Indonesia and newrby nations. That was the release of compression of several metres that had been ongoing for decades.

Also, when you factor in that tectonic plates are slightly elastic and can buckle too, then you can easily have (over short periods and even quite long ones) variability in the rates of subduction and formation.

I don't think so. Distance from the sun has no effect on the seasons, so I wouldn't expect them to be correlated.

I know that the distance it moves is not enough to effect the seasons (otherwise why would we get Summer in one hemisphere and Winter in the other), but the Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular, it is slightly elliptical it also means that at one point it will be closer to the sun than at the opposite side of the orbit. From what I remember of Astronomy classes, it is when the angle of the Earth due to its tilt (rather than the orbit) exposes one hemisphere to more sunlight than the other, and currently when the Southern Hemisphere is in this position that the Whole Earth is slightly closer to the Sun due to its slightly elliptical orbit.

Over time this does change and the Northern Hemisphere was once closer (and will be again).

The Maya, who lived in South America around 2000 B.C, had 5 epochs of world history. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th epochs happened in the remote past. Their 5th epoch will end on December 21, 2012. The Maya believed that on this date a global catastrophe would occur. The survivors would enter into the 5th dimension and become more in harmony with the universe.

The Maya didn't know about the 4th dimension, so how could they have made the claim that the survivors would be taken to the 5th dimension. Also, "dimension" is just: A direction of measurement perpendicular to all other dimensions.

The term "Dimension" has been so misused by 3rd rate sci-fi authors that this misunderstanding has permeated into popular culture and then used because it "sounds technical". It is used like a magic spell or technobabble, it is used to baffle the audience (people who don't actually know what Dimension really means).

As an amateur magician there is a maxim that is often used: "If you can't impress them with intelligence, then baffle them with Bullshit."

It is from a quote by someone, but I don't know who.

All the faces of the Great Pyramid meet at one point, the apex.

Actually, no. There is a face on the bottom of the pyramid and it doesn't meet at the apex.

This means the height of the pyramid may be considered as a time scale.

This does not follow. Maybe you could explain you reasoning more.

It is a bit like saying: A cube has all sides equal, therefore it represent space. It does not actually make sense without the explanation of why you think it represents what it does.

That is to say, the height is a time span that starts from a large base representing the progress and prosperity of a civilization and rises to a peak at the apex representing catastrophe.

This is a logical fallacy called: Begging the Question.

IF the pyramid it representative of a timeline of catastrophe, then it therefore represents a time of catastrophe.

The question is, what if the pyramid is not supposed to be representative of a catastrophic timeline? As you haven't established this fact, other than using the conclusions based on the pyramid being a timeline of catastrophe.

You are using the conclusion to prove the premise that the conclusion is based on. This does not actually prove the initial premise. You need to provide proof that is not based on the initial premise.

1.The French professor, Claude Schaeffer, made enormous excavations in the Near East and came to the conclusion that a devastating catastrophe occurred in Asia Minor, Caucuses, Indian Plateau, the Middle East, and Egypt between 2400-2300 B.C. The catastrophe was so enormous that everything was simultaneously destroyed. It spread ruins to the valley of the Nile and terminated the Old Kingdom period. All the cities of Caucasus, Anatolia, Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Jordan and Cyprus were completely destroyed. It was such an encompassing catastrophe, sudden and simultaneous, that the walls of all these cities were thrown from their foundations.

So from a single dig in a single place he come to the conclusion that a wide spread disaster destroyed everything in that massive area simultaneously. This would classify as a Hasty Generalisation logical fallacy.

Not only that, this catastrophe does not fit in with the time line you propose where by another catastrophe occurs in 2012.

If your time line and this evidence you presented are correct, then there should be a period of 5125 years between these catastrophes.

If there was one in 2400bc, then lets add 5125 to that which give us: 2725AD (2300bc would give us: 2825AD). So it seems like we have a few years left.

This "evidence" disproves you claim that either the next catastrophe will occur in 2012, that the catastrophes are cyclic, that the Egyptians were able to predict these catastrophes or that the claims by the Archaeologists are correct. However,if any of these are wrong, your entire hypothesis is incorrect, and one of them has to be wrong.

3.P.Tomkins in his book "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" mentions that salt deposits were found in the Queen’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid. He writes: The walls of the Queen’s Chamber are unblemished limestone blocks, beautifully finished, but early explorers found them mysteriously encrusted with salt as much as half an inch thick."

Even in the recent Tsunami in Indonesia, it didn't leave salt deposits of this thickness. So there must have been some other cause for these deposits. Actually in Egypt, Salt was a valuable commodity (it was also known as Natron). Even into Roman times Salt was very valuable (hence the term Salary, which share the same linguistic root as Salt). This means there is another more plausible explanation for the salt deposits, being the "treasure" that was buried. Also, Salt was used in mummification rituals as it desiccated the corpse.

5. In 1965, two American scientists, D. Ninkovich and B. Heezen, published a paper in which they presented evidence regarding the eruption of the volcanic island of Thera, located north of Crete in the eastern Mediterranean. The excavated cultural remains reveal that there was an explosion on the island around 1500 B.C. The explosion caused massive destruction to the island and put an end to the Minoan Empire. Originally, the Great Pyramid was near the banks of the river Nile. The huge tidal wave from the Mediterranean Sea, caused by the explosion, would raise the Nile and flood the areas surrounding it including the great Pyramid.

So now we have dates ranging from 2400bc to 1500bc as the date for the last catastrophe, however, all these dates still do not allow, using the time period you say is written into the structure of the Great Pyramid itself, the time of the next catastrophe to be in 2012.

You would need to give proof of a catastrophe in 3113bc for this claim to be true. And, as the dating is so exact (a specific day on a specific year) for the next catastrophe, you would also have to show specific dating for the last catastrophe.

There are other theories which claim that the Great Pyramid was not built in the Old Kingdom but at a much earlier date, around 10000 B.C. I have found also possible evidence of a global catastrophe that may have occurred after this date. The data below reveals that a major cataclysm happened all over the world between 10000 and 9000 B.C. Its devastating powers, in Egypt, may have caused settling to the ramp of the Grand Gallery. The following are a few examples:

IF you are right, the dates still do not match with you claim that the next catastrophe will occur in 2012ad.

Show proof that a global disaster occurred some time in 3113BC and your claims might be a bit more solid (it still wont prove it though).

Also, if these disasters are periodic (like you claim) then you will also have to show that they occurred in 8238BC too (although it is close to your 9000bc time, it is still over 700 years off, and archaeologists can pinpoint dates this old to a margin of error less than this).

10. The islands of Leakhov, Stolbovoin, Belkov, and the New Siberean Island are packed with mammoth bones. Some skeletons and carcasses were found complete, but the majority was torn about by a gigantic force. Microscopic studies of the skin revealed red blood corpuscles, a sign of sudden death by suffocation. Also, the explorers of the New Siberian Island found some trees uprooted and others partly up-right and buried in the frozen soil. They believe a forest existed on the Island before it was suddenly devastated between 10000-9000 B.C.

Mammoths existed in an Ice Age. This means that when they died, they would have been frozen and not decomposed. They have even found frozen Mammoths still intact today.

So over the period of the Ice Age, Mammoths would have crossed frozen river and occasionally one would fall in and drown (death by suffocation?). Over the thousands of years that the Ice Age existed, there would have been a lot of mammoths that would have died this way and they would accumulate in places where they would be washed by the river.

This completely explains this "evidence" that you ahve presented about the Mammoths and other animals. If you note, all these proofs of Disaster occur in places that would have been covered in the Ice Age.

This Global Disaster that you are talking about is the end of the Ice Age, and we know about it already (and it wasn't sudden, it occurred over thousands of years).

Although this notion of space time continuum is intuitively appealing, it is, at best, incomplete. Consider, for instance, a spinning body in empty space. It is expected to experience centrifugal force. Now imagine that the body is stationary and the whole space is rotating around it. Will it experience any centrifugal force?

 

It is hard to see why there would be any centrifugal force if space is empty nothingness.

Most examples of "spinning bodies in empty space" are really composite objects (planets, people, buckets of water, etc), as such particles on one side of the object are in motion (and in acceleration) relative to particles on the other side of the object.

Think about it this way. If you had a solar system spinning in empty space (like they do) would you expect each planet to experience a "centrifugal" force in relation to the other planets as they orbit the sun?

Of course, because in the solar system you can easily see that the planets are not the same object. However, with an object like a person, we tend to think of them as a "Solid" object, but in reality they are a composite object made up of atoms.

The question should be: Does a fundamental point like particle with spin experience centrifugal/centripetal force?

Its a one pocket billards table out there with the sun being the pocket and the asteroids being the cue ball.

It might be a 2 pocket table. We might be able to send them into the Moon and thus liminat the threat completely from that asteroid (although if it is big enough it might just knock smaller bits off the moon and send them at us - but at least they won't be as bad as the original one hitting us)

closest to the sun in the Winter and farthest in the Summer. Of course, we still have our seasons the way they are here in the northern hemisphere due to the sun's angle at which its rays strike the earth.

IIRC it is closer to the sun in the Southern Hemisphere's Sumner, and further away in the Northern Hemisphere's Sumner (southern hemisphere's winter).

Earth is already in a slightly elliptical orbit,

Yes, that is why I said a more eccentric/elliptical orbit.

One definition for life involves growth, reproduction and metabolism. Virus can reproduce, but since they don't metabolize, they are not considered alive. They really can't grow either, except in numbers. Cells show all three aspects, as do higher life forms.

The interesting thing about viruses is that they had to have evolved from something that is alive.

They share many DNA traits with other living organisms, and so are very likely to share some common ancestor. Also, they would have had to develop after other organisms as they can not reproduce without their host.

This means that even if virus are not "alive" according to some criteria, they did indeed come from something that would have once passed those criteria.

Personally, because there is no "Elan Vital" that causes something to be Alive, and that all organisms are really just complex chemical reactions, I believe that the definition of something as being "Alive" is necessarily blurry. Viruses are a case in point.

The only conclusive way to show human intervention is to show the earth never warmed as much, at any point in earth history, when humans were not present.

This is incorrect. What we have to show is that without human action, the world at the moment would not be warming.

It is not how much warming has taken place, but whether or not warming is occurring, and this can only be shown if we can show that it would not have warmed without out our actions.

The way this is being done is by eliminating all known naturally occuring causes of warming.

However, as there is current natural causes of warming (and cooling) going on, we have to see if the degree of their effect matches the amount of warming we can see. Currently, all evidence points to the fact that there is not enough natural warming forces that can account for the degree of warming that we are seeing.

The expansion can't be into nothing so it is into itself.

This is a common misconception. A better way of thinking of the expansion of the universe is not to think of it like a balloon blowing up, but that the distances between things is getting bigger without them having to move (inertia = 0 and acceleration = 0).

The balloon type analogy is often used because it is easier for people to think of Expansion like that (even though it is incorrect).

Because it is just the distance between things that is getting bigger, and not that the Universe is blowing up like a balloon, it doesn't need anything to "expand into".

No, but the earth would be pulled closer to the sun. It would still be an orbit though.

The way this would happen is that as the Earth "Fell" towards the Sun, it would accelerate (get faster), and if something is in a lower orbit it needs to orbit faster. Eventually an equilibrium would be reached and it would settle into a stable orbit.

However, this orbit would not be circular. The way the planet would settle into a stable orbit would lead it to become more eccentric (elliptical). This is because a faster moving object will move away form the Sun.

So on one hand the increased mass will cause the Earth to be pulled closer and this will cause it to accelerate and avoid being pulled further in. On the other hand, this increased velocity will cause the Earth to move away form the sun, which would slow it down and cause it to move inwards again.

As this would occur in different parts of the orbit, the Earth would enter into a more Elliptical/Eccentric orbit.

I ahve found this to be a good explanation: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=PlayList&p=0696457CAFD6D7C9&index=0

I want to make sure I understand you. You think that life is basically some chemical mixture?

Actually it would be better to say that life is a process that involves certain "chemical mixtures".

Think about it. A computer is made up of a bunch of components (resistors, capacitors, integrated circuits, etc). But unless they are arranged in a particular way and have a particular process going on (driven by electricity), then they do nothing. They are everything that makes up a computer, but they are not a computer.

Such is life. You can have all the atoms that make up a living organism, but unless they are arranged in a certain way and have a certain process going on (metabolism) then they are not alive (other processes - like decomposition - occur when they die).

The question you should think about is what is it that changes when some thing that was alive no longer has life. What is that dividing line between alive and dead.

Quite obviously: The process.

The processes of metabolism stop.

Well it is not quite that simple as some metabolic processes continue for a little while, but the process that those processes require for continuation will have stopped, so they will eventually stop too.

And the processes of decay start.

In fact, much of the processes of decay are caused by other organisms using the material of the original organisms in their processes of metabolism.

As an example: If you turn off the power point to your computer, the processes that rely on the process of the flow of electricity will cease to operate. A battery (or capacitor) will allow some processes to continue for a while (like the internal clock), but eventually these will stop if the processes that renew requirements of a process stop (eg: charging the battery in the battery back up for the internal clock).

If another computer (say one in a digital watch) was able to utilise the power in the batter backup of the internal clock of a computer, then this would be like a scavenger feeding on a dead body.

Alright, Please give us your understanding of how life got on this planet.

Just simply as you can, explain your point of view in a way that would not be considered delusional or perverse.

Actually the problem with Abiogenisis (the beginning of life) on Earth is not that we don't have a mechanism for how it got started, it is that we have too many. We don't know which one it was.

Here is one (not mine but a good explanation of one of the possible mechanisms):

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=PlayList&p=0696457CAFD6D7C9&index=0

There is a much simpler design.

If you make a spoke arrangement and place magnets on the ends of the spokes all facing the same direction (eg: all the north sides are aligning in the clockwise direction), then make another such arrangement but have the magnets aligned in the opposite direction (eg: all the north sides are aligned in a counter clockwise direction).

When these "gears" interlock, the magnets are arranged so that they always repel each other (north to north, south to south). This means as one spins, it pushed the magnets (and hence the spokes) of the other "gear" thus transferring the motion through the gear chain.

Mount these one magnetic bearings and you have a very low friction system.

BTW, why do we consider the mass of the Earth as a point with a radius to a chosen "edge" of the object (Earth), but we stop there at the "edge" as to what is included in that object?

Because it simplifies the maths.

It does mean that we aren't 100% accurate in the calculations, but for most objects and situations this does work fine. However, there are objects and situations where this is not good enough, and in those instances the more complicated calculations are needed and we don't treat an object (like the Earth) as a single point.

An example is looking for oil. One way to look for oil is to look at how the Gravity changes as you pass over more or less dense regions of the Earth's crust.

In this you can't treat the Earth as a single point, but you have to treat it as an object with its mass spread out to its volume (and with variations in the density of this mass).

So, treating an object as a single point is done because it is convenient.

Compare the rates of EVERY plate, or most of the plates. Compare the rates of divergent, convergent, and subduction rates. It may give you the answer if the Earth is expanding or not.

This has been done and it shows that the Earth is not expanding.

A quick google search flagged up this: http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/animate/pltecan.html

Perfect black bodies seem to have characteristics similar to black holes.

There are several major differences:

1) Black holes absorb all radiation.

2) Black holes have certain amount of mass concentrated into a certain area that theory states causes them to be the way they are. Black bodies don't have to ahve a certain mass for its size.

3) Black Bodies emit a certain and very specific set of light frequencies which depend on it temperature. Black holes, while they don't emit radiation themselves, never the less cause radiation to be emitted from the infilling matter as it collides with other matter. This causes a very specific set of frequencies of light to be emitted which is different form black body radiation.

Therefore, Black holes and Black bodies can not be the same things.

2) The above Lutheran fundamentalists dispute Foucault's pendulum by claiming that it was supplied by "an invisible device that made it rotate the way it did, so as to fake a rotating Earth". Hasn't this experiment been repeated elsewhere, latter? With better accuracy and improved devices?

The answer to this is simple. Get them to make one and report their findings. If no one else goes near it, then they can't claim interference.

Also if there was an "invisible device" interfering with them, then they could just build two next to each other. If there was one device like that, then it would affect them differently, if there were two devices, then they would interfere with each other and cause the pendulums to not match the predictions. In any case they could detect the interference.

Are the current theoretical and vague higher dimensions (that which could be considered anything beyond the indubitable spacetime) gateways to the laws and properties of that which is, or has been, predestined in science as "fairytale?"

This is a common misconception about higher dimensions, popularised by bad science fiction stories.

Now as 3 dimensions are higher than 2 dimensions, lets use an analogy of a 2 dimensional being proposing a higher 3rd dimension. In geometry a "Plane" is actually a 2 dimensional surface, so this analogy is pretty good as analogies go.

Now this 2 Dimensional Metaphysicist, proposes that there exists a Higher Plane (2 dimensional surface) that exists above them on the hypothetical 3rd dimension.

You might even picture this as an upper story to a house. These 2D "Flatties" might live on the ground floor, and the Metaphysicist Flatty is talking about the second level of the house.

But, what would lead this Metaphysicist Flatty to think that the physics of that second level of the house to think that the rules of physics are different, just because it is higher in the 3rd dimension.

We don't see the laws of physics change when we ride in a lift.

Dimensions are not stacked upon each other like cards in a deck, dimensions are always are at 90 degrees to every other dimension.

So to answer your question directly: The thing that exists between planes in a higher dimension is that higher dimension, it is not something outside of space time or a source of "fairytale".

If dimensions are universal, is it possible that they do exist more strongly in certain planes than others

"planes" are described by dimensions, so dimensions can't exist in planes.

Dimensions are just directions that are perpendicular (at 90 degrees) to all other directions.

For instance:

Forward and backwards describes a single dimension (1 dimensional). So what direction lies at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to this direction (hint: there are actually at least 3). The first two are easy: Side to side or up and down (and note that they are also at right angles/90 degrees/perpendicular to each other as well).

It takes a bit of maths (which I don't know well enough to present and is complicated anyway), but there is another Dimension that is at right angles too all 3 of those directions/dimensions as well: Time.

To show this requires understanding of how light moves, but as a simplified (ie not exactly right but good enough to help you understand - but is still complicated anyway) explanation:

The maths of how light propagates means that it must travel in a type of straight line called a Geodesic. This is a type of straight line that if viewed only in a local frame of reference (as if you were travelling on the light beam yourself - not that you could ) is always a straight line and conforms to the Euclidean (as if drawn of a piece of paper) notion of a straight line (part of which states that parallel straight lines can never cross).

However, this is where Geodesics differ from the Euclidean straight line. Under A Geodesic, although locally lines conform to the Euclidean rules, the surface can deform and "warp". This leads to strange effects.

For one:

In Euclidean geometry, you can never have a triangle (3 straight lines that intersect at 3 points) where the Angles formed add up to more or less than 180 degrees. This is a good experiment to try on a piece of paper: See if you can draw a triangle that the angles add up to more or less than 180 degrees (Hint: you can't do it).

But under Geodesics (also known an Non Euclidean Geometry), this rules does not hold. It is possible to have a triangle that the angles add up to more or less than 180 degrees.

If you don't believe me then try it for yourself:

The surface of a basket ball is a good example of a non Euclidean Space.

Take 3 pieces of string, some sticky tape and a protractor (you know those things form school that you use to measure angles with).

First take one of the pieces of string and stick it to the basket ball. Then stretch the string out and stick it to another place on the basket ball. This forms the first side of the triangle.

Next, take the second piece of string and tape one end exactly on one of the ends of the first piece of string. Now tape the loose end some where else on the ball (make sure to stretch the string tight). This forms the second side of the triangle.

Take the third piece of string and tape one end to the free end of the second piece of string and then tape the last end back onto the first string to that the 3 pieces form a triangle.

Finally, measure and add up the 3 angles and you will find that they add up to more than 180 degrees.

But this is a triangle! All 3 lines are straight, you can measure them with a ruler, plus a piece of string stretched tight between only two points will be straight.

Welcome to the world of non Euclidean space.

The strings don't form Straight lines in Euclidean Space, but are the type of straight line called a Geodesic.

Now as I said earlier, light travels along Geodesics. This means we can detect "warps" in space-time by looking to see if two parallel lines either cross or diverge. By charting these Geodesic lines through a region of space, we can determine the shape of the space.

Round space, like a ball, creates spaces where parallel lines converge. Funnel shaped spaces create parallel lines that diverge (except if they go either side of the funnel, then they converge).

It turns out that gravity makes funnel shaped warps in space-time, we can see this due to certain galaxies cause light from a galaxy behind it to converge (remember either side of a funnel causes parallel lines to converge), but light that only passes just off to the side causes the light rays to diverge.

However, there is a slight problem. If we use just 3 dimensions of space to chart the warps that gravity causes by drawing the geodesics, then it doesn't quite match up. For the geodesic to match up to what we really see, there actually has to be another dimension that gravity is warping: A 4th Dimension.

This is direct proof of higher dimensions.

Although this mapping of warps using geodesics tells us that there is a higher dimension, it doesn't actually tell us what that dimension actually is. Through other experiments and theories, it can be shown that the other dimension has to be Time. The main reason is that objects that move through these warps experience a warp to their time as well as their space (the speed of atomic clocks changes - they run slower in stronger gravity).

Now the important thing about geodesics is that at the local level, they always are the same as a Euclidean straight line. In the warp due to gravity, this means that for someone standing next to the clock, it does not appear to be running slow, but for someone far away from the gravity it will appear to be running slow (as will you).

The Casmir Effect is a natural phenomena involving quantum fluctuations and zero-point energy. Because it has been observed, there is something to indicate we might be able to tap into this source.

As Klaynos said, you can't actually do this.

To get the energy from the plates, you would have to let them move together. This would allow you to extract the energy from the attractive force between the plates into kinetic energy and then from that into whatever form you liked (most likely electrical).

To reset the plates to extract more energy, you would need to move the plates apart. However to do this would take, at best, the same amount of energy you were able to extract from it. But when you factor in losses due to the fact that no system is perfect, it actually takes more energy to reset the plates than you would be able to extract in the first place.

Glass absorbs Blue and Red light more than it does Green light. So when the light form the candle passes through the glass, more Red and Blue light is absorbed, so you notice the Green light more.

The earth is quite literally continually missing the sun.... (as the others have said, this is due to it's tangential motion)

As Arthur Dent (from Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy) found out. The way to fly is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

The Earth has "thrown" itself at the Sun, but it keeps missing because it is also moving sideways.

the nuclear batteries as used in pace makers are not so good for high wattage applications such as running a car.

What about Trickle Charging regular batteries?