 |
There are currently, 246 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Space energy has been long demonstrated...
Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 @ 20:45:15 UTC by vlad
|
|
Anonymous writes: by a french physicist who started to denie the dogmatic constantness of the light velocity.
just actually, if c does change in the space then the energy density of space mc2 can vary dramatically. Just compute it :
dE = dmc2 + 2mc.dc (if dm = 0) dE = 2mc.dc
as a gradient of energy does become a force :
grad(E) = mA = 2mc.grad(c)
A = 2c.grad(c)
thus, a variation of some 17 e-6 m/s is enough to obtain a acceleration of 10 m/s-2. MIND IT !!
so any acceleration is derivated from a space variation of the light velocity !!! Explaining particularly the gravity.
please visit our site at http://franckvallee.free.fr/SYNERGETICS/introduction-emg.htm
(sorry explanations are in french)
Thanks for attention
|
| |
|
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.
| |
Average Score: 3
Votes: 2
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Other speculations based on E=mc^2 (Score: 1)
by vlad on Monday, March 29, 2004 @ 21:49:25 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | From the intalek yahoo list:
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:07:00 -0600
From: "William Alek" Subject:
Re: [antigrav] Ginzburg's Relativity Theory
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Alek
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:31 PM
> To:
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [antigrav] Ginzburg's Relativity Theory
>
>
> --- In greenglow@yahoogroups.com, amir javadi
> wrote:
> Dear Neil
>
> Greetings;
> The Ginzburg's Relativity Theory is very near CPH theory.
> By according CPH theory when V==>C, mass converts to energy and for
> V>C , energy converts to force. But this projection is not for high
> speed. When velocity of object increases, force converts to energy
> and when speed of object does decrease, its energy converts to force.
I actually observed this phenomenon at the Mystery Spot as RED SHIFTING and
BLUE SHIFTING of frequency.
> I do not know properties of aether, and I never find aether's
> properties. Do you know properties of aether?
>
> Sincerely
> Hossein Javadi
>
>
> Robert Neil Boyd wrote:
> >From "The Divine Cosmos":
>
> Relativity theory states that an object gradually increases in its
> mass once we begin accelerating it. In conventional scientific thought, no
> object can exceed the speed of light, because as it approaches this
> speed, the equations state that the object would become infinitely
> massive. Yet, in very loose terms, Ginzburg found that you could
> completely reverse (invert) these equations without violating any known
> scientific observations. This means that instead of growing more massive,
> an object will actually shed energy back into the aether as it is moved,
> thus causing it to gradually lose all of its core characteristics of
> gravitational mass, inertial mass and electric charge as it approaches
> the speed of light. Ginzburg introduces these new concepts in
> the next quote:
> [We have added emphasis and deleted the letters for terms such as
> "velocity" in order to enhance readability:]
>
Velocity is not the correct representation that should be used. I suggest
using gravitational frames.
>
>
> The main two features of these new equations are:
> - Both the gravitational mass and inertial mass of a particle decrease as
> its velocity [speed] increases.
> - [The] electric charge of a particle [also] decreases as its velocity
> increases
>
> As seen here, an object's overall mass (weight) is represented by
> both gravitational and inertial masses, which are simply measurements of
> how gravity and inertia behave on the object. Curiously, both gravity and
> inertia have essentially identical effects on matter, which is known
> as Einstein's "Principle of Equivalence". This principle shows us
> that gravity and inertia are two forms of the same energy at equal
> strength รข?" one moving downward (gravity) and one providing resistance as
> we move through space (inertia.) This is one of the easiest ways to see
> that there must indeed be an "aether" or "physical vacuum" that is
> behind both forces, and Kozyrev had also noted this connection in his own
> studies. So, once we start accelerating an object, (which we said is like
> a sponge submerged in water in this new model,) the added pressure will
> compress the atoms and molecules in the object and cause more and more of
> its aether to be released.
>
> Ginzburg then continues:
>
> "...You may not be prepared to abandon immediately the century-old
> relativistic equations. But once you are ready to do so, you will
> discover many amazing things:
This is actually a VERY good idea! Classical relativity will ONLY confuse
the new model.
> - Only when a particle is as rest may it be considered as "pure"
> matter. As soon as the particle begins to move, its gravitational
> mass and electrical charge will start to decrease in accordance with the
> new relativistic equations, so that a part of its matter will be converted
> into a field. When the particle's velocity becomes equal to the ultimate
> spiral field velocity "C", its gravitational mass and electric charge
> become equal to zero. At this point, matter will be completely converted
> into a "pure" field."
Paul Marmet takes a very similar approach to this. Paul invokes mass-energy
conservation which states that the faster a particle moves, more of its mass
is converted to field. To me, this seems to be an absurdity because at the
Mystery Spot, I observed both a DECREASE in volume AND an INCREASE in mass
consistant with relativity. The change in ALL space-time metrics listed in
Table 1 and 2 are consistant with Hal Puthoffs paper identified in section 4:
http://intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/jbis_final.pdf
So,
1. The speed of light is invariant in ALL gravitational frames of reference.
2. The speed of light is variant across different gravitational frames.
I think there are issues with Ginzburg and Marmet model.
>
> The "ultimate spiral field velocity" of C that Ginzburg mentions is
> slightly higher than the normal speed of light, due to the spiraling
> path that he believes all energy must follow. This simple change to the
> basic relativity equations then leads to a new quantum physics of
> transmutation, with the concept that an object could completely disappear
> from our known physical reality. This raises a key question: "Disappear to
> where? "
>
> "...Ginzburg asserts that an object becomes "pure field" as it
> increases up to light speed. However, there is solid evidence that there
> are different vibratory levels of aether, and we therefore conclude that
> as an object is accelerated towards the speed of light, either by linear
> motion, internal vibration or related energetic action, the missing energy
> and mass is simply displaced into a higher vibratory level of aether. "
>
> This "higher vibratory level of aether" implies ever finer sizes may
> be involved, since as we know, the higher the energy, the shorter the
> wavelength.
>
> I like this kind of expression, as it supports my notion of the
> possibility of multiple layers of subquantum particles of various types
> and sizes.
>
> Neil |
|
|
|
|
