It's a nice myth and all, but it's A) physically impossible to get such a thing from a "vacuum", a B) impossible to demonstrate in any lab on Earth in my lifetime. How is that not "faith in the unseen"?
Except it has already been demonstrated.
That's an important point.
That point has already been made many times in this thread, starting with the OP:
Why is the
measured pressure exerted by the
Casimir effect negative?
How does that happen? What about Casimir experiments that use spheres, why is there more on the one side of a sphere than on the other?
Why is the
measured pressure exerted by the
Casimir effect negative?
Negative pressure in a vacuum has been measured (Casimir effect)
Has lab-based experiment justification. Is also a result of QED, the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics.
I know that MM.
So now do you aknowledge that with a given configuration a negative pressure is produced by the Casimir effect (
as stated in your citation 
)?
Sadly for you, multiple experiments say you're wrong.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you asking how we can determine that the pressure we measure in Casimir effects is actually a pressure and not some non-pressure force? Well, that's easy: measure its area dependence. If it scales with area, then obviously it's a pressure, pretty much by definition. And it does.
The Casimir effect hasn't failed the physics test. It doesn't require faith because it can be demonstrated quantitatively and objectively (one of the essential separators between science and religion). It's not physically impossible. And it does indeed
occur in the lab. Any argument that it doesn't occur, after having been repeatedly pointed to references showing that it does, would appear to be a demonstration of dishonesty or willful ignorance.
Mozina, why have you not addressed this? The equation used was developed on theoretical grounds and has been *empirically* demonstrated in a lab.
If there were no negative pressure, what is the explanation for the experimental confirmation of the equation?
Michael Mozina doesn't like the physicists' theoretical explanation(s) of the Casimir effect, and has tried to come up with alternative mechanisms that could produce the negative pressures seen in laboratory experiments.
That's fine, even laudable. Unfortunately,
Michael Mozina began to deny the experimental results themselves when posters explained why his proposed alternative mechanisms could not explain those experimental results.
Michael Mozina also argued against the standard explanation of those results, as though his attacks on that standard mechanism could make the empirical fact of negative pressure go away.
In short,
Michael Mozina has been denying and ignoring the results of laboratory experiments. In
Michael Mozina's imaginary universe, the experimental measurements showing negative pressure can be made to disappear by writing stuff like this:
You seem to have a physical disconnect somewhere between your beloved math formulas and empirical physics.
Let's take a good hard look at what you CANNOT justify or verify in the lab.
...snip...
Virtually your *ENTIRE* theory (at least 96%) is dependent upon what you CANNOT demonstrate in the lab, and only 4% is based on empirical physics that you can justify in an empirical manner. How is that not a 'religion" in terms of having "faith in the unseen" (in the lab)?
You guys and girls really do have a physical disconnect between particle physics and your math formulas. You're great at the macroscopic level, but in the microscopic realm, you're like a fish out of water. You just don't "get it".
Your stuff never fails the math test, but it always fails the physics test.
...snip...
It's really too bad your stuff always fails the physics test like all good "religions'. Unfortunately you all chose to put your faith in things that are physically impossible to demonstrate and never occur in the lab, just like any good religion. Those who dare to question your faith in the unseen (in the lab) are put to the "fire" of personal attack, so at the level of peer pressure, it works *EXACTLY* like a religion, right down to the possibility of loosing your funding and being ostracized by the rest of the community. It sure has all the "smell" of a religion since apparently all of it requires "acts of faith" in the unseen in the lab, and numerous ones too, starting with "negative pressure in a vacuum".
You don't have any empirical evidence that a vacuum can hold "negative pressure", in fact you can't even tell us what you would add or subtract from a pure vacuum (devoid of all kinetic energy) to create a 'negative pressure vacuum". Your theory fails the empirical physics test *AND* apparently it even fails the theoretical physics test.
As a stanch lover of empirical physics it's really hard to not to see the comparison. This mythical negative pressure in a vacuum god is about as useless and as impotent in the lab as most religious deities.
Unfortunately none of your claims can be demonstrated in a lab. It's therefore a complete act of faith on the part of the 'believer' and anyone that questions your faith in the unseen (in the lab) is attacked as an individual. Since you can't run around calling folks "evil" or a "spawn of satan" in your quaint little religion, they are called a "crank' or a "crackpot", or you degrade their math skills, virtually execute them, virtually silence them, or all the above in your case.
If you can't do that with your mythical magical negative pressure god, why should I bow your your impotent deity, or your peer pressure? Why is it my fault that your negative vacuum pressure sky deity is a no show in the lab?
Which "effect' and can you demonstrate that effect empirically here and now on Earth?
Michael Mozina has written that kind of stuff before, quite often in fact, but repetition does not erase the obvious contradiction between
Michael Mozina's rhetoric and the replicable laboratory confirmation of negative pressure in Casimir experiments,
including experiments cited by Mozina himself.
I don't see how that contradiction can be explained by
Michael Mozina's inability to bark math, although that may be a contributing factor.
I don't see how that contradiction can be explained by Kruger and Dunning, although their research is undoubtedly relevant.
Hypocrisy may be involved.
What was I thinking? 
Back on ignore you go! 
