 |
There are currently, 164 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
|  |
On Gravity
Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 @ 12:50:14 UTC by vlad
|
|
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
You may be interested to browse my Presentation:
Comprehensive Gravity Control
It is placed recently to: http://users.elo.com.br/~deaquino/Gravity%20Control.ppt
Possible comments/questions are welcomed.
Prof. Fran De Aquino
Physics Department, Maranhao State University
> From: Jack Sarfatti:
Statements at end noteworthy for the military defense researchers in the group
> Date: April 4, 2005 12:08:50 AM PDT
> Subject: emergent gravity - zielinski cited
>
> New version
>
> http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf 2megs
>
> updates and corrects what I wrote while at Kavli in UCSB at the theater physics conference - that is theater not theoretical :-)
>
-----------------
--- In greenglow@yahoogroups.com, "tmaniac999" wrote:
Hey Bill,
What I think would be very interesting is to figure out how zero point energy interacts relativistically with mass. I fail to see the beauty in what you said, I don't get it as usual. It seems like a game in semantics.
I guess my view is also just fundamentally different from yours, I'm of the same opinion as Einstein, and the rest of conventional science.
I wonder what Putoff thinks. Though, I don't get, perhaps this is where I fail, how acceleration through the zero point field isn't the same as gravity. I mean, if the zero-point field's inertia inducing mechanism is EM in nature, then wouldn't a changing vector motion induce a kind of "mass current" into an object endowing it with inertia/momentum? I certainly DO FAIL to understand how said acceleration to a certain vector of velocity stores the energy in the object. Though, maybe it's like orbit levels in the atom. Any object with mass which is accelerated nestles into a quantized emergy level of some very small but substantial increment. This energy level is maintained in uncurved space once the object ceases its acceleration. Of course, this stored energy would in turn curve space, so space around the object would fail to be flat completely.
I also fail to understand how zero-point energy erupts into space, nor how gravitational bodies influence it. I suppose they must optically bias the photons coming out of the ZPE. I mean, gravity tells space how to curve and that curve tells light where to go.
Obviously, photons from zero point fluctuations couldn't be the only explanation for intertia and gravity. It is how e-p pairs interact with mass to produce those fluctuations is what interests me more. Maybe they operate resonantly due to impacts with mass and produce some kind of cyclotronic like motion that produces resistance to accerlation. What are the dynamics of a virtual plasma anyway?
Ed
----------
Ed, et al,
The question is, "where does an inertial mass get its mass from?" As an inertial mass is accelerated (relative change of motion), its mass increases. This mass diverges (RED SHIFTS) to infinity as it approaches the speed of light. The answer can ONLY come from one source - from empty space itself. In other words, space is composed of uncondensed mass. As an inertial mass accelerates, uncondensed mass, or space, "condenses" onto the object as more mass. A consequence of this condensation is that the space surrounding the object "shrinks" or contracts as well as the object. http://www.intalek.com/Pictures/InertialMass.jpg
On the other, a gravitational mass exhibits universal mass attraction, and RED SHIFTS or increases in mass as the two objects approach each other. Again, mass condenses onto matter as more mass. And again, a consequence of this condensation is that the space surrounding the object "shrinks" or contracts as well as the object. http://www.intalek.com/Pictures/GravitationalMass.jpg
Are you recognizing a pattern here??? A NEW principle of equivalence??? http://www.intalek.com/Pictures/Equivalence.jpg
This is definitely NOT Einstein!
Here is Einstein's GREATEST blunder: http://www.intalek.com/Pictures/EquivalenceBroken.jpg
Observe a difference in mass?
Now, going back to this diagram: http://www.intalek.com/Pictures/GravitationalMass.jpg
You'll observe something very interesting. An object of mass at distance INFINITY (i.e., enters OUR universe) has a MINIMUM mass. It acquires more mass according to universal mass attraction as shown. This "extra" mass can ONLY come from one "place" - from space itself!
Now, if you attempt to push this object from infinity to, lets say, our position in this universe, you will NOT get very far because of the divergence issue of moving an inertial mass. On the other hand, if I "add" mass instead, and move the object gravitationally, the divergence issue is ELIMINATED! So, where is this added mass coming from? This answer should be easy? Right? http://www.intalek.com/Pictures/VehicleVectoring.jpg
Speeds for beyond the speed of light are POSSIBLE using a gravity drive!
The development and use of a gravity drive reveals the TRUE intelligence of a civilization. Are we there yet? Can we see beyond an inertial mass?
I will cover this in detail at the upcoming conference in June at the Inventor's Conference: http://www.nuenergy.org/iw/2005/conference2005.htm
See you there!
Bill
William S. Alek FREE ENERGY, Antigravitational and Time Travel Technologies
-----------
Hal Fox writes:
Dear William Alek,
As a former Missile System Engineer I can affirm that the speed of gravity is much faster than the speed of light. For example, I I want to sent a rocket to the moon I can't aim the rocket at where the moon appears to be (corrected for moon's continued motion). I have to aim at where the moon actually IS and correct for the moon's motion during the transit time of the rocket.
George White writes:
Doesn't this imply that the speed of gravity is the speed of light? The difference between where it actually is and where it appears to be is not zero because of the finite speed of light. You have to aim where it is since by the time the rocket gets there, it will be on the other side of this difference.
Don't forget, that once the rocket gets there, its reference frame is now the same as its destination and when it looks back to its origin, it's looking at the past.
Also, if gravity did propagate at a speed other than the speed of light, the 'c' terms in GTR would be different and of course, GTR has been experimentally verified.
George
---
From: Hal Fox: Dear George White and UfoGuy,
Thank you both for your comments. Thanks UfoGuy for your observations. I worked both with the Sperry Rand Organization (Sergeant Missile) and with Hughes Aircraft (air to air missile). It was strange to me but it was difficult to get an agreement on the speed of gravity among the various scientists that I worked with. However, I am convinced that the speed of gravity is very much faster than the speed of light.
If I am wrong, I shall be pleased to be corrected. Any such correction should be put into a scientific paper and published in our Journal of New Energy. In the meantime, my body is being pulled into my swivel chair at much faster than the speed of light (well only for gravity fluctuations).
Best personal regards,
Hal Fox,
Ed. J. of New Energy
P.S. You will want to see www.starshipcapricorn.org for the latest information from Capt. Helena, Starship Capricorn.
----------
All:
Thank you for your kind words. To me, and I have published this in several papers, the key is to look at black holes. Not even light leaves it because of the gravitational attraction. All you see from a black hole is the gravitational attraction but yet everything less that moves at c such as light, electricity, or magnetism cannot be observed. Hence, anything that leaves the black hole, must do so at greater than c.
Enough said...
Ufoguy...
-----------
Dear Colleagues,
The origination of mass and charge, particles duality, EM and G-fields, nonlocality, energy source of overunity devices, etc. looks to be a coherent consequences of my Unified theory of Bivacuum, Matter and Fields.
The latest version of this theory is just placed at the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0003001
Other related papers are located at: http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Kaivarainen_A/0/1/0/all/0/1
Best wishes.
Alex Kaivarainen
www.karelia.ru/~alexk
-----------
Robert Neil Boyd writes:
:) YAY ! :)
Three cheers for Alex!
You are bringing out just what I have been saying. This understanding is good for everyone, in my opinion. This is an important revelation of the facts of the foundations of our reality. A big step, validating much experimental evidence which is normally swept under the rug by the conventional community. This establishes that the origination of all matter and all forces, is arising from the subquantum domains. This is quite an important realization. Many new technologies will eventually arise from this kind of understanding. Many new discoveries will arise from this spring-board.
I still adhere to the notion that the LaPlacian model for gravitation is the most accurate model. Your expressions are heading in this direction.
:) Best Wishes,
Neil
---------------
In the tapten yahoo group, "Hossein Javadi" writes:
Subject: A New Theory of Eveything
....
Leibniz's Monads and Javadi's CPH Recently I had the pleasure of studying a new TOE (Theory of Everything) called CPH [http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/hjavadi/CPH-English.htm]. CPH has been proposed by an Iranian physicist by the name of Hossein Javadi [http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/hjavadi/index.html]. Mr. Javadi's theory reminds me of Leibniz's Monadology, a model of the world with a tilt to pluralism [http://www.ghandchi.com/301-PluralismEng.htm]. Leibniz's pluralism is closer to the pluralism of atomists (from Democritus to Russell), than to the pluralism of Aristotle.
Full Story
http://www.ghandchi.com/394-MonadsCPHEng.htm
-------------
|
| |
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: On Gravity (Score: 1) by Gardology on Sunday, April 10, 2005 @ 12:49:18 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Current models taught at school assumes NO latency on gravity. This model works fine to keep the moon in its orbit around the Earth. If gravity went by speed of light, how would this match Jupiter's current orbit around the sun? Anyone got a calculator? |
|
|
Re: On Gravity (Score: 1) by mojo on Sunday, April 10, 2005 @ 13:12:08 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Relativistic mass/energy storage is a misnomer. It is just the increasing resistance to motion due to particle/field interaction. Any energy storage appears in the magnetic potentials.
Zero-point energy comes from the quantum foam, which is just a dynamic randomness in the space/time potentials at sub-planck levels. These dynamics are those of a potential space/time scaler/vector/spin field.
Virtual photon emission from the vaccuum is in half energy states. This might imply that the photons are also in a spin 1/2 state, which means that the two 1/2 photons are emitted simultaneously to form a spin paired semi-real photon. Tis may not be limited to light speed.
mojo |
|
|
Re: On Gravity (Score: 1) by mojo on Sunday, April 10, 2005 @ 14:18:33 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Consider space as a fractalized cubic matrix (the Cube of Space), where this matrix is the structural backbone of the space/time potential scaler/vector/spin field.
The ZPE arises from the chaotic dynamics of the lowest level of the fractal. (interior to lowest planck volume).
Influences from mass, charge, and spin ( which are themselves localized symmetries/structures in the field) distort this basic cubic matrix in different ways to produce forces such as gravity and EM.
mojo |
|
|
|
|