 |
There are currently, 337 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
|  |
Escape From Gravity
Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 @ 00:25:51 UTC by vlad
|
|
Escape From Gravity by Jeanne Manning
Do we live in a magical era at the same time as we are experiencing stressful days? I find that awe and wonder are very much alive, as paradigms (worldviews) are being stretched. Individuals say their expansion comes not only from spiritual experiences, but also from exposure to scientific breakthroughs.
When they see the impossible becoming possible, it seems, people are thinking more about the primal sea of energy that supports such marvels. Consider two small examples of paradigm-expanders, a tiny levitating toy in the USA and a perpetual-motion sculpture in Norway. And in the larger physical arena, according to visionary engineers, our collective worldview is expanding because we are closer to starship travel than most people believe.
Starships? Yes, anti-gravity technologies may literally get off the ground in the near future. Scientists are taking seriously the possibility of an inertialess drive for spaceships. ....
OVERCOMING INERTIA = LIFT-OFF
Inertia is the tendency of objects in motion to keep on moving
in the same direction, and of a body at rest to remain on the
sofa. When you are standing on a bus which starts with a jerk or
stops suddenly, inertia is the force that throws you onto the
floor.
Then there are the g-forces contorting faces of people in an
accelerating rocket. Gravity and inertia must be overcome somehow
if spacecraft are to perform tricks attributed to supposedly
extraterrestrial objects in the sky. Viewers, including airline
pilots, have described unidentified craft which make sudden sharp
turns without reducing speed, or which accelerate from hovering
to high speed. For occupants of a spacecraft to survive the
sudden changes of location, inertia would have to be canceled or
manipulated in and around the object. This would be in effect a
controllable gravity field. The possibility of inertialess drive
is nearer to us, because mainstream scientists now have a picture
of what might be the cause of inertia.
A few years ago the respected physics journal, Physical
Review, published a paper by B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E.
Puthoff, with a theory about inertia. They point to the fact that
what is popularly known as empty space is not empty; throughout
the universe it is seething with zero-point quantum fluctuations
of electromagnetic energy. The three physicists suggest that
interaction with this zero-point field causes both inertia and
gravity.
If we understand that interaction, can we go to the stars?
Maybe understanding it is a first step. More recently, one of
those three physicists, Dr. Hal Puthoff, elaborated. In the
science magazine Ad Astra, he writes about the vacuum of space as
an energy reservoir, with energy densities as powerful as nuclear
energy or greater. If the zero-point field (ZPF) could be mined
for practical use, it would, everywhere in all galaxies, supply
energy for space propulsion.
How would it work? Puthoff gives clues, such as a phenomena
called the Casimir Effect which pulls closely spaced smooth metal
plates together. Another researcher, Robert Forward, has
demonstrated how electrical energy could be taken from the
electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum by manipulating this
effect. Puthoff also cites a paper by his co-authors, Haisch of
Lockheed and Rueda of California State University, along with Dr.
Daniel Cole of IBM. They propose that the vast reaches of outer
space constitute an ideal environment for ZPF acceleration of
nuclei and thus provide a mechanism for powering up cosmic rays.
He mentions a report published by the U.S. Air Force about the
possibility of using a sub-cosmic ray approach to accelerate
protons in a cryogenically cooled, collision-free vacuum trap and
thus extract energy from the vacuum fluctuations...
What it boils down to, Puthoff says, is that scientific
experiments indicate that human technology can alter vacuum
fluctuations. This leads to the related idea that, in principle,
we could also change gravitational and inertial masses.
Puthoff points out that accepted theories up until now only
looked at the effects of gravity and inertia, instead of at the
origins of these fundamental forces. He notes that the first
scientist to hint that gravity and inertia might be rooted in the
underlying vacuum fluctuations was the Russian dissident Andrei
Sakharov, in a 1967 study.
Concluding his Ad Astra article with a quote from science
fiction author Arthur C. Clarke saying that highly advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic, Puthoff adds that
fortunately such magic appears to be waiting in the wings of our
deepening understanding of the quantum universe in which we
live.... Read the whole article here: http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue11/ar11gravity.html
|
| |
|
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: Escape From Gravity (Score: 1) by ElectroDynaCat on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 @ 20:11:07 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | | The connection of gravity to the zero point flux is intuitive. Many cite the work of Lesage as having a connection to the zero point flux. This theory which dates back to the time of Newton, postulates the universe as being awash in energetic particles that transfer gravitational forces by their absence in the shadow cast by dense objects. |
|
|
Statement from Hal Puthoff on Warp Drive (Score: 1) by vlad on Sunday, December 11, 2005 @ 20:24:55 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | From: Jack Sarfatti To: Hal Puthoff Date:
December 5, 2005 12:03:56 PM PST
As I showed in statements you made to reporters like Nick Cook and the guy at Aviation Week you gave that impression to the lay readers. Simply check with people who are not physicists who read the stuff where you are cited. You have not been clear abot that with the media. Make a clear and unambiguous statement and I will put it in Star Gate for the written record.
examples of what I mean
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/putnasa.htm [www.keelynet.com]
http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue11/ar11gravity.html [www.atlantisrising.com]
http://users.rcn.com/zap.dnai/zpe-fly.htm [users.rcn.com]
Paper Hal Puthoff presented at the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics
conference at Lewis Research Center
Overview of Theory and
Experiments H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D. Institute for
Advanced Studies at Austin 4030 W. Braker Lane, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78759-5329
Voice (512)
346-9947, Fax (512) 346-3017 E-mail: puthoff@aol.com ----------------------------------------------------
Can the Vacuum be Engineered for Spaceflight applications?
ABSTRACT
Quantum theory predicts, and experiments verify, that empty space (the vacuum) contains an enormous residual background energy known as zero-point energy (ZPE).
Originally thought to be of significance only for such esoteric concerns as small perturbations to atomic emission processes, it is now known to play a role in large-scale phenomena of interest to technologists as well, such as the inhibition of spontaneous emission, the generation of short-range attractive forces (e.g., the Casimir force), and the possibility of accounting for sonoluminescence phenomena.
ZPE topics of interest for spaceflight applications range from fundamental issues (where does inertia come from, can it be controlled?), through laboratory attempts to extract useful energy from vacuum fluctuations (can the ZPE be "mined" for practical use?), to scientifically-grounded extrapolations concerning "engineering the vacuum" (is "warp- drive" space propulsion a scientific possibility?). Recent advances in research into the physics of the underlying ZPE indicate the possibility of potential application in all these areas of interest.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.07/es_warp_pr.html [www.wired.com] ------
In a message dated 12/5/2005 1:33:10 P.M. Central Standard Time, sarfatti writes:
Good to know that you & Hal finally agree with what I have said...
--- Puthoff wrote: Never thought any differently, ever. (a) Casimir Effect is too small to ever be considered useful for propulsion, and (b) Casimir Effect does not change center of mass of its structure (momentum conservation). Mention of Casimir Effect in my writings is only to report on experimental evidence that demonstrates the reality of matter/vacuum interactions.
Hal Puthoff -------------
[Sarfatti writes]: In fact however, Hal is not correct about (b) since in principle the
stress-energy tensor of the Casimir effect does warp space-time the way
needed to get part of the Alcubierre warp source field (not all of it).
However, unless there is a huge hyperspace effect, not likely, the Casimir
warping is too weak for practical application. Even above it is clear to me
that Hal & Eric are not distinguishing the QED Casimir force for plates
of area A separated by a along 3- direction:
F(Casimir) ~
(hc/a^4)A
which, as Hal says correctly there "does not change center of
mass of its structure (momentum conservation)" from the qualitatively
different direct warping effect from the different equation in weak
field limit for simplicity
R00(induced curvature) =
(G/c^4)[t00(Casimir) + t11(Casimir) + t22 (Casimir) +
t33(Casimir)
Indeed using De Witt's formula previously cited by Hal and
found in Matt Visser's "Lorentzian Wormholes":
t00(Casimir) +
t11(Casimir) + t22(Casimir) + t33(Casimir)
= t00(Casimir)(1 - 1 - 1 + 3)
= +2t00(Casimir)
Note that too(Casimir) = Casimir energy density < 0
also gives dominating negative pressure in the 3 longitudinal direction
giving a net anti-grav effect.
Also note definition
t00 + t11
+ t22 + t33 = too(1 + 3w)
in above Casimir anisotropic case gives w =
+1/3 cited by Hal without proper explanations and caveats.
But again
this will be too weak. Not only is QED Casimir force weak but this gravity
warping from Casimir ZPE is weaker than it by the dimensionless
factor
(Planck Area)(Plate Area)/(Plate Separation)^4
|
|
|
|
|