 |
There are currently, 244 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Questions about Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff
Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 @ 22:00:49 UTC by vlad
|
|
From Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars list: Hi,
I was taking a look onto the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff (1998) approach (arXiv:physics/9807023 v1 - 07/22/1998):
"...But inspite of these two limitations, our analysis yielded a remarakbale and unexpected result: that Newton`s equation of motion, f=ma, regarded since 1687 as a postulate of physics could be derived from Maxwell`s laws of electrodynamics as applied to the ZPF. This implication is not an innate property of matter, rather it is an electromagnetically-derived force (or quantum vacuum derived force in a future more general derivation).
... (4) Relativistic rest mass: the relationship of the mass of a body and the total energy available by perfect annihilation of the mass in the body, that is expressed in the E=mc^2 relation of special relativity.
... One can imagine a universe, for example, in which inertial mass m_{i}, and passive gravitational mass m_{g} were different.... but then objects would not fall with the same acceleration in a graviational field and there would be no principle of equivalence to serve as the foundation of general relativity.
... In other words, if one begins with Maxwell`s equations as applied to the ZPF, one finds from the laws of electrodynamics that f_{r}=-m_{zp}a and thus if one assumes that the electromagnetic parameter m_{zp} really is the physical basis of mass, Newton`s third law of equal and opposite forces f=-f_{r} results in a derivation of f=ma from the electrodynamics of the ZPF. That being the case, one can, in principle dispense with the concept of inertial mass altogether. Matter consisting of charged particles (quarks and electrons) interacts with the electromagnetic ZPF and this yields a reaction force whenever acceleration takes place and that`s the cause of inertia."
Question 1: Does this mean, that a sufficient neutral - in the sense of electromagnetical charge - object cannot be accelerated ? (Is this may be explaining in an earlier paper ?)
Question 2: Matter interacts with the electromagnetic ZPF and this is yielding a reaction force in case of acceleration. Does this mean, because, in reality, the ZPF is everywhere, that every body is going to be accelerated in this model ?
Question 3: Why is then the gravitational mass m_{g} equal to the inertial mass m_{i} ? Consequently, the gravitational mass should also be expressed in terms of the ZPF ?
Kay zum Felde
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Questions about Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Sunday, February 20, 2005 @ 23:36:24 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | OK , make the connection with the Equivalence Principle and it becomes apparrent that gravitation is NOT a Fundamental force, which sinks any GUT theory in its own assumptions.
That means that gravity derives its energy from Electromagnetism, via the ZPE. We're getting closer to an understanding of a great mystery, what holds us to the Earth. Its electricity! |
|
|
Re: Questions about Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff (Score: 1)
by Gog on Monday, February 21, 2005 @ 02:02:26 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Indeed, Feynman once stated that gravity may be just a pseudoforce (a biproduct of other forces/fields).
Regarding question 3: Hmm... I've been thinking.. lets make some definitions:
1. ZPF is a field that can have different densities.
2. Due to different densities, there is a "flow" in the ZPF where the "flow" is directed from higher to lower density.
3. The first derivative of the "flow" is called a "gradient" (or nota bene, a "flow" acceleration).
Now... lets consider a stationary mass as being affected by a "gradient" in the manner of a force that is proportional to the gradient (in the direction of larger "flow"). This would mean that the larger the mass, the larger the force would be. Pretty much like gravitation.
And now lets consider an accelerating mass. In a steady state ZPF "flow", it will see a pseudo-gradient of the flow, then resulting in a force on the mass in the opposite direction to its acceleration. Pretty much like inertia.
And the mass would not be able to tell the difference. Equivalence principle.
Now, if this would be true, the inertia of a mass would be smaller when accelerated in the direction of gravitational force and larger when accelerated against it. I don't know if this is the case....
|
|
|
|
|
