ZPE Tops List of
Date: Sunday, December 21, 2003 @ 02:58:47 UTC
Topic: Science
On the top of the chart... YES, the very top:
1. Illuminating the dark Universe.
"Satellite and telescope data cemented the idea that the Universe is composed mainly of dark energy and dark matter."
It is the contention of a few of us that this so-called "dark energy" and "dark matter" are nothing less than cogent cosmological evidence of Dirac's "sea of negative electrons," which Dirac himself called "dark energy."
And more importantly, there is no good reason not to link this hidden feature of reality, Dirac's sea, with the zero point field (the 'sea' being the superset of the ZPF) or with our expanding understanding of the "aether" (epos, or materons). If you google ZPE, you will find a few self-appointed experts who might take exception to this statement... a few will even express shock or indignation, but if you look at their arguments against this linkage, they will invariably be reduced to semantics, and/or differences in 'a priori' assumptions that can be rectified by majority rule (i.e. by incorporation into a revised "meme" for ZPE).
Or else the disagreement will come from skeptics who want to ridicule ZPE and the aether but know that there is no way to deny the logic and mathematics of Dirac's observations. And remember that Michelson & Morley did NOT prove that a luminiferous aether doesn't exist, as many Luddites like to regurgitate, ad nauseum. They proved only that if aether exists, it doesn't present a radiation velocity differential with respect to the direction of motion of the bulk of matter we call Earth. And that is what one would suspect anyway, when taking into account the implications of dimensionality, so the bottom line is that this Michelson & Morley tripe is little more than meaningless, insofar as ZPE or the aether is concerned.
[Ed: Actually Michelson later on proved the aethers existance together with Gale and Pearson (A.A. Michelson, H. G. Gale & F. Pearson, Astrophysical Journal, v. 61, p. 140; 1925). For a discussion over this result see http://www.energyscience.co.uk/le/le05ap2.htm]
If there are minor pre-existing conflicts in this definition (or re-definition), I suggest that those who are interested in ZPE as explicative of some free-energy effects make a conscious effort to continually reinforce the notion that when we speak of ZPE, we are talking about one of the manifestation of Dirac's "sea of negative electrons."
Jones Beene
Thanks to Dr. Mallove, Don Hotsonıs excellent papers, originally published in Infinite Energy, Issues # 43 and 44 as:
"Diracıs Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, IE #43, May/June 2002
"Diracıs Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, IE #44, July/August 2002
Have now been posted by him with permission at:
http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf
|
|