Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 205 guest(s) and 1 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science


Energy Science



Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs


New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.




Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
Alternative Energy News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

A simple thought experiment to support ZPE ideas.
Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 @ 11:28:09 EDT by vlad

Science Anonymous writes: In my restudy of Physics, I have read your works (I cannot read all but browsing through), and have some strange thoughts about our space as well as the structure of particles, but first I would like to send you my idea supporting your arguments of fields emitted from charge(s) (and mass!) :

The problem of static field of a charge:

From the time our genius Gauss presented Gauss’ law for the static electric field, which was used by Maxwell to derive the first equation of the four well-known equations of electro magnetism theory, theorists have failed to notice one strange thing:

a) The Gauss’ law states that the total flux of the static electric field vector of a charge Q through a sphere S enclosing a charge Q can be computed to be equal to the measured value q of such charge. Then one problem arises: If we enclose a charge with n sphere S1, S2,..., Sn we shall have a measured value of n times q. A physical object with a definite measured value q can produce an indefinite measured value of nxq! Other arguments seem not being able to reject and counter this fact. I have exchanged this idea to some other people and got counter arguments as follows:

i. The fluxes going through two spheres S1 and S2 cancel each other because the static electric field goes through sphere S1 with a positive value q (if Q is positive) and goes through sphere S2 with a negative value –q. This happens if an observer stands inside the space volume bounded between S1 and S2 (outside of S1 but inside of S2).
This argument cannot explain the case where an observer stands inside both of S1 and S1, or if he stands outside both of S1 and S2. In this case such observer will see that the static electric field produces the same- signed values of q by the very definition of the sign of flux in Gauss’ law. Then these values cannot be canceled out in this case.

ii. Some other argue that the static field E is only an artificial mathematical vector used to compute the charge field, so it does not have a real meaning to be multiplied to a surface area (m^2) to yield a physical value of a charge. It is funny because all physical values are artificial to compute physical entities and we know that Newton used the notion of force artificially with a vector, which is measured by us with a Newton unit (N). When being multiplied with meters (m) (which is a space unit) the force will produce power measured by Nxm = Watt (which seems not artificial at all when we have to worry to pay the watts bills each month!).
iii. I propose a thought experiment which may support the idea that the static charge field of a charge Q is not static, but being emitted constantly by such charge.

Let a charge Q stand still at the point P1 in a reference frame Oxyz until the time t1, then move it away one meter from the original position to the point P2 in one second and let it stands till again at the time t2 =t1 +1 second.

*) Before the time t1, we put a static field strength measured instrument at a point P3 away from the charge at a distance 300 000 km (s) + 2 meter(s). Nobody can deny that the static electric field exists at P3 all the time until the time point t1. Then a funny scenario happens.
**) At the time t2 = t1 + 1 second, by the current notion of static electric charge field without time parameter, a static charge field always exists if a charge stands still in the reference frame Oxyz. Then at the time t2 the instrument must be able to measure the static charge field produced by Q at P3 away from the point P2 at the distance 300 000 km(s) + 2 meter(s).
But our other genius Einstein stated that no physical process could travel or happen with the speed or velocity higher than light speed in space (300 000 km(s) per second), then no information about a physical process could be sent from a transmitter to a receiver to be detected with a speed higher than light speed. With this, the motion of the charge Q and its information about its presence at the point P2 can be detected only a little bit after the time t2. From the time t1 to the time t2, if we put a tiny light source on the charge Q, light emitted from this source is still traveling and not reaching P3. So no information about the presence of the charge at P2 could reach P3 from at the time t2.

By *), we can detect the presence of Q at P2 at the time t2 with a simple instrument.
By **) we cannot detect the presence of Q at P2 at the time t2.

Einstein was wrong ?! or the people who reject ZPE omitted something?

***) If Einstein is right, then the notion of static charge field is not sufficient to explain this simple experiment.

****) If we still do not accept that the notion of static charge field is not sufficient to explain this experiment, that means that Einstein is wrong and his Relativity theory is flawed seriously!

By choosing ***) we can have links to the notion of ZPE and a constant emission of field from charge and mass, which seems unacceptable to all many people conventionally, but argued by a little other group of people who are considered as funny and erroneous.

By choosing ****), it is unacceptable to many more or less !!.

I hope that this idea may contribute to your arguments of ZPE.

Respectfully yours,




Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

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.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad

Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

Article Rating
Average Score: 3.66
Votes: 3

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"A simple thought experiment to support ZPE ideas." | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.