Re: [Vo]:Time, Mass, Gravity

[Roarty, Francis X]

Dave this is correct, high velocity of object thru the ether or in the case of 
gravity high acceleration of ether thru the stationary object, all formulas 
regarding time dilation have at the heart V^2/C^2 because it is due to the 
Pythagorean relationship between the spatial and temporal axii, Lorentzian 
contraction is both a perspective and a reality where a collision between a 
contracted near luminal object and a stationary object could be avoided under 
certain circumstances because the space time boundary stretches to contain the 
near luminal object. it would appear much slower and contracted in the 
direction of travel from the perspective of the nearby stationary object as it 
flashes past due to Lorentzian contraction. Even a trajectory taking the 
objects thru  overlapping  SPATIAL coordinates would still be offset by what 
appears to both observers as a spatial displacement but is actually a temporal 
displacement  because we are trapped in a 3d ant farm and the mechanics of 
space time have to stretch space while shortening time for the object 
approaching C. the relativistic spaceship is turning outward into the temporal 
boundary that is our ant farm... and the boundaries  stretch forming extra 
dimensional space from our perspective at the cost of one contracted dimension 
from the stationary observers perspective..Lorentzian contraction... IMHO the 
inverted hydrogen or hydrino works in the opposite manner.. instead of 
accumulating the intersection rate of a luminal spaceship with the passage of 
time, ether, virtual particles passing thru this ant farm we exist in to slow 
time, the segregation of the virtual particle passage by casimir geometry 
creates concentrated cavities where time is accelerated. Hence the claims of 
anomalous decay of radioactive gases..  My theory extends casimir's theory that 
larger virtual particles are excluded from the cavity and instead postulates 
the larger particles are still present in the cavity by making the time 
dimension smaller and enlarging the spatial dimension...

Fran

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 1:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Time, Mass, Gravity

I believe that the slowing of time is what an outside observer sees when he 
looks at the gyroscope within the strong field.  Someone located near the 
affected instrument would not see anything unusual or any slowing in its 
rotation.

If the gyroscope remains within the strong field for a long time, it would 
complete fewer revolutions than one that remained at the original position 
above the gravitational field.  The same thing would happen to any clock device 
whether it is atomic or mechanical such as a heartbeat.

I do not believe that mass change makes an important contribution to the 
slowing down of the rotation as seen from above.

I suspect that rotational energy of the scope would be reduced in the exact 
same proportion as that observed for an atomic oscillator at the same location 
when compared to one outside of the field.  You are asking an interesting 
question about where the energy is stored as the gyroscope mass is observed 
moving close to the gravitational source and slowing down.  I would expect COE 
to be preserved so it should be possible to locate the missing energy.

Dave
-Original Message-
From: H Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Sat, Nov 9, 2013 12:51 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time, Mass, Gravity
I don't think it has been tested because the possibility is not predicted by 
General Relativity.  GR says that the observed difference in the passage of 
time is due to the slowing of time rather than a change in the mechanical 
characteristics of the device (a gyroscope in this case) used to measure the 
passage of time.

Harry

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Steve Wallace 
mailto:uberzeitge...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I will have to think this one through. I had not even considered that aspect 
and I haven't read any type of experiments on it. Have you?

Best regards,
Steve

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:33 AM, a.ashfield 
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Steve Wallace,
On possibility would be that the mass of the flywheel also increases, which 
would both explain the flywheel slowing and where the energy goes.

[Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship

[David Roberson]

A question has been on my mind for a long time and I am hoping that someone 
among the vortex crowd has found time to give it consideration.  Acceleration 
is one of the measurements that can be relatively easily calculate by folks 
traveling within their space ship.  And, since the calculated velocity obtained 
by our ship when subjected to a large acceleration can be accurately 
determined, the following mind experiment should be possible in theory.


First, we are stationary and determine that a nearby star is 10 light years 
distant.  Then, we apply a very large acceleration to our ship and begin to 
calculate our velocity relative to the stationary starting point.  After a 
modest period of time, we calculate that our super rocket engine which uses 
anti matter as fuel and attached ship, has reached a calculated velocity of 10 
times the speed of light.  This number is calculated by integrating the 
acceleration that we can easily measure in the reference frame around our ship 
that is also constantly accelerating.


Since we knew the original distance to the star was 10 light years, it suggests 
that we should reach it within 1 year our time at our calculated velocity.  Is 
this what should actually occur?  I realize that an observer located near the 
star and stationary to it would determine our velocity as less than light speed 
and thus take longer than 10 years to reach his location.  Also, the observer 
would detect that time passes slower on our ship due to our relative velocity.  
We of course would see his time as passing slower by the same factor during our 
high velocity trip.


I also understand that we can measure the distance to the star once we reach 
our stable velocity by using radar signals for example.  The signal would leave 
our ship at a velocity of light relative to us and head toward the star which 
appears to be significantly closer to us by Lorentz contraction.  Our high 
specification radar beam would reach the star and some would reflect back 
toward us.  The frequency of the reflected beam would be shifted by the 
velocity of the star relative to our velocity and we could thus accurately 
calculate the star's relative velocity which would be the same as the velocity 
the observer sees us moving toward him.


The observer near the star has his own radar which he directs towards us.  He 
also determines the same relative velocities by measuring the reflected signal 
from our ship, so everyone is in agreement that the space between us is closing 
at a velocity that is somewhat less than light speed.


Since velocity is relative, the observer near the star concludes that he is the 
one moving rapidly toward us and we are stationary.  From his perception the 
Lorentz contraction of the distance between both parties is the same as we 
located upon the high velocity ship calculated earlier.  He therefore 
determines he and the nearby star will close the gap in much less than 10 years 
of time passing.


I have a strong suspicion that something is not quite correct about this 
experiment and hope that others would explain where it is wrong.  If the 
concept as presented is accurate then travel above the speed of light would be 
possible provided an engine of enough power were possible to construct and the 
occupants could survive very high levels of acceleration that would be required 
to make such a journey possible within a reasonable time frame.


For example, to reach approximately one times the speed of light from start 
with one "G" acceleration takes a year of time according to my calculations.  
Thus, it would require at least 10 "G's" applied for over a year to make the 
above 10 light year journey practical.  And, a reverse acceleration at the far 
end of the journey would be required unless passing the observer were the only 
requirement.


Perhaps this subject has been discussed earlier on vortex, but it might be 
interesting to bring it back up as a refresher in relativity.  It is always 
interesting to better understand the relationship between time and motion as we 
ponder the strange behavior of LENR systems.


Dave

Re: [Vo]:LENR through light

[Axil Axil]

In electrodynamics , *circular
polarization*[1]of
an electromagnetic
wave  is a
polarizationin
which the electric field of the passing wave does not change strength
but only changes direction in a rotary manner.
Circular polarization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

In electrodynamics the strength and direction of an electric
fieldis defined by what
is called an electric
field vector . In the
case of a circularly polarized wave, as seen in the accompanying animation,
the tip of the electric field
vector,
at a given point in space, describes a circle as time progresses. If the
wave is frozen in time, the electric field vector of the wave describes a
helix along the direction of propagation.

Circular polarization is a limiting
caseof the more general
condition of elliptical
polarization . The
other special case  is the
easier-to-understand linear
polarization
.
The phenomenon of polarization arises as a consequence of the fact that
light  behaves as a
two-dimensional transverse
wave
.


The magnetic field vector is pointed in the direction of propagation of the
light wave and emanates from a really small center of the circular light
wave.
 -

distortion of circular polarization of light waves result in anapole
magnetic monopoles, where the magnetic field derives from the light wave
comeing from a POINT.


*http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/**papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf*





*Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles*

 One kind of spin-phase topological defects already reported in polariton
quantum fluids are the so-called half-vortices23,24. Different from integer
quantized vortices in scalar fluids where the phase winds from zero to 2p
when going around the vortex core25, half vortices present a simultaneous
rotation of p of both the phase and the polarisation angle around their
core. These objects have been recently predicted to behave like
monopoles26, but
experiments have so far reported half-vortices pinned to local
inhomogeneities of the sample24, preventing any probing of the monopole
physics.


In this work we report the generation of a different kind of vectorial
topological excitation in a flowing polariton condensate, oblique dark
half-solitons. They are
characterised by a notch in the polariton density of the fluid, and a
simultaneous phase and polarisation rotation of p 2 in the condensate
wavefunction across the soliton27 (as opposed to a phase jump of p for dark
solitons in scalar condensates28). This is manifested in the
*circular polarisation basis* as a deep notch present in only one
polarisation component. We map the polarisation and phase of these objects
evidencing their complex spin structure, and we show that they are indeed
accelerated by the action of the intrinsic effective magnetic field present
in our microcavities, thus behaving as magnetic monopoles

.
* Any field that is concentrated into point source has extreme strength.*

[Vo]:spin polariton bullets

[Axil Axil]

spin polariton bullets

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.6344v1.pdf

*Motion of spin polariton bullets in semiconductor microcavities*

Spin bullets of high polariton density exist. The spin packets travel with
speeds of the order of 1,000,000 m/s due to the ballistic propagation and
drift of exciton-polaritons from high to low density areas. The speed is
controlled by the angle of incidence of the excitation beams, which changes
the polariton group velocity.

This leads to the realization that polaritons can decouple from their ion
holes and exist in a hybrid state of just electrons and light waves.

Upon coulomb decay, when the electrons leave the bullet structure, does
that bullet structure persist  as just light wave solitons?

Re: [Vo]:LENR through light

[Axil Axil]

Solitary waves have consistently captured the imagination of scientists,
ranging from fundamental breakthroughs in spectroscopy and metrology
enabled by super continuum light, to gap solitons for dispersionless
slow-light, and discrete spatial solitons in lattices, amongst others.
Recent progress in strong Field atomic physics include impressive
demonstrations of attosecond pulses and high-harmonic generation via
photoionization of free-electrons in gases at extreme intensities of *10^^14
W/cm2. *



Soliton dynamics in the multiphoton plasma regime



http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.5748.pdf


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:20:35 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> > If the energy of the light wave where compressed into a soliton of 1
> >nanometer in diameter carrying a power density of 100
> terawatts/cm2(highest
> >observed nanoplasmonic hot spot power density)  would that not compress
> the
> >electric field of the light wave localized in the hot spot.
>
> I suggest you take another look at the experiment you are quoting, and
> extract
> the actual energy in the laser pulse, and the area over which it was
> spread.
> That will give you an energy flux. Since you know what the material is,
> you can
> make a guess at how many atoms absorbed the energy, and determine very
> roughly
> how much each one got. You can also calculate how much each electron would
> get
> if the pulse were absorbed by electrons.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR through light

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:16:32 -0500:
Hi Axil,

I didn't say I was going to do it, I suggested that you do it. :)

>Solitary waves have consistently captured the imagination of scientists,
>ranging from fundamental breakthroughs in spectroscopy and metrology
>enabled by super continuum light, to gap solitons for dispersionless
>slow-light, and discrete spatial solitons in lattices, amongst others.
>Recent progress in strong Field atomic physics include impressive
>demonstrations of attosecond pulses and high-harmonic generation via
>photoionization of free-electrons in gases at extreme intensities of *10^^14
>W/cm2. *
>
>
>
>Soliton dynamics in the multiphoton plasma regime
>
>
>
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.5748.pdf
>
>
>On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:20 AM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:20:35 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> > If the energy of the light wave where compressed into a soliton of 1
>> >nanometer in diameter carrying a power density of 100
>> terawatts/cm2(highest
>> >observed nanoplasmonic hot spot power density)  would that not compress
>> the
>> >electric field of the light wave localized in the hot spot.
>>
>> I suggest you take another look at the experiment you are quoting, and
>> extract
>> the actual energy in the laser pulse, and the area over which it was
>> spread.
>> That will give you an energy flux. Since you know what the material is,
>> you can
>> make a guess at how many atoms absorbed the energy, and determine very
>> roughly
>> how much each one got. You can also calculate how much each electron would
>> get
>> if the pulse were absorbed by electrons.
>> [snip]
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:LENR through light

[pagnucco]

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:21:02 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>Light intensity at 10^^12 (watts/cm2) produces a strong Electric field at
>>(10^^9) Volts/meter.
> Over a distance of 1 nm (10 Angstrom) this is just 1 Volt.
> [...]

This is correct, but it only shows that a localized electron can only
attain 1eV when crossing that gap unobstructed.

For an electron, 1[eV] corresponds to an approximate momentum of
4 * 10^(-25) [N*sec]  {'N' = Newton}

However, if an electron is trapped in that field, i.e., the mean position
of its wave function is fixed, for a time T instead of accelerating thru
collision-free, it gains a momentum impulse

  = T[sec] * e[C] * 10^9[Volt/meter] {where 'e' = electron charge[Coulomb]}
  = T[sec] * (1.6^10^(-19)[C]) * 10^9 [N/C]
  = T * 1.6^10^(-10) [N*sec]

So, in the latter case, the electron gains T*(10^14) times more momentum.
('T' measured in seconds.)

Possibly, this happens when the electron collides with a particle of
equal and opposite momentum.

In quantum mechanics, a highly localized or oscillatory wave functions
can posses high momentum (or kinetic energy) even when not moving much.

Also, an electron is a fermion, so it really needs to be represented by
a 4-component spinor in the Dirac equation.  It can undergo more
oscillation within the spinor.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Re: [Vo]:LENR through light

[pagnucco]

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:20:35 -0500:
> Hi, [snip]
>> If the energy of the light wave where compressed into a soliton of 1
>>nanometer in diameter carrying a power density of 100
>> terawatts/cm2(highest
>>observed nanoplasmonic hot spot power density)  would that not compress
>> the electric field of the light wave localized in the hot spot.
>
> I suggest you take another look at the experiment you are quoting, and
> extract the actual energy in the laser pulse, and the area over which
> it was spread. That will give you an energy flux. Since you know what
> the material is, you can make a guess at how many atoms absorbed the
> energy, and determine very roughly how much each one got. You can
> also calculate how much each electron would get if the pulse were
> absorbed by electrons [...]

Robin,

While the information you suggest acquiring is valuable, I think the
important issue is not bulk energy absorption, but how hot "hot spots"
can get - that is, how energy can be super-focused to LENR levels.
Collective effects could occur when oppositely charged particles collide
in strong localized currents or plasmon e-m fields, and result in
surprisingly high energy concentrations.

 -- Lou Pagnucco

Re: [Vo]:LENR through light

[Axil Axil]

In a polariton based hot spot, the electrons are part of a dipole where the
hole makes the electron a boson. Therefore *unlimited numbers *of electrons
can populate a hot spot.

The electrons combine with light and lose weight. They can weight as little
as 20 micro electron volts. These low mass polaritons will become entangled
and form a high temperature BEC.

When the Hot spot becomes mobile and forms  a polariton bullet, these boson
connected electrons lose their holes and the electrons leave the hotspot
repelled by the coulomb force.. Only light remains and this light based
soliton spin structure may have been observed in many LENR experiments as
monopoles.

As I posted elsewhere, the magnetic field of this monopole comes from a
POINT in the center of a  EMF current ring making it extremely concentrated
and very powerful. This energy focusing is what enables energy levels to
reach high enough power levels for nuclear disruption to occur.





On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM,  wrote:

> Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> > In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:21:02 -0500:
> > Hi,
> > [snip]
> >>Light intensity at 10^^12 (watts/cm2) produces a strong Electric field at
> >>(10^^9) Volts/meter.
> > Over a distance of 1 nm (10 Angstrom) this is just 1 Volt.
> > [...]
>
> This is correct, but it only shows that a localized electron can only
> attain 1eV when crossing that gap unobstructed.
>
> For an electron, 1[eV] corresponds to an approximate momentum of
> 4 * 10^(-25) [N*sec]  {'N' = Newton}
>
> However, if an electron is trapped in that field, i.e., the mean position
> of its wave function is fixed, for a time T instead of accelerating thru
> collision-free, it gains a momentum impulse
>
>   = T[sec] * e[C] * 10^9[Volt/meter] {where 'e' = electron charge[Coulomb]}
>   = T[sec] * (1.6^10^(-19)[C]) * 10^9 [N/C]
>   = T * 1.6^10^(-10) [N*sec]
>
> So, in the latter case, the electron gains T*(10^14) times more momentum.
> ('T' measured in seconds.)
>
> Possibly, this happens when the electron collides with a particle of
> equal and opposite momentum.
>
> In quantum mechanics, a highly localized or oscillatory wave functions
> can posses high momentum (or kinetic energy) even when not moving much.
>
> Also, an electron is a fermion, so it really needs to be represented by
> a 4-component spinor in the Dirac equation.  It can undergo more
> oscillation within the spinor.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
>
>

[Vo]:Distant artificial atoms cooperate by sharing light, physicists show

[Axil Axil]

What this article might prove is that entangled Hot Spot
quasiparticles (artificial
quantum systems) a exist in the N'H reactor might share gamma radiation
over long distances between them, collectedly store such EMF  and also
to synchronize
to emit powerful radiation much more efficiently displaying superradiance
(a very bright source of radiation).

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-distant-artificial-atoms-cooperate-physicists.html#jCp

RE: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Dave,

 

...

 

> ...After a modest period of time, we calculate that our super rocket
engine which

> uses anti matter as fuel and attached ship, has reached a calculated
velocity of

> 10 times the speed of light.  This number is calculated by integrating the

> acceleration that we can easily measure in the reference frame around our
ship

> that is also constantly accelerating.

 

I think you need to go into more detail as to why your thought experiment
apparently glosses over the fact that the hypothetical space ship can
somehow reach a velocity 10 times the speed of light. Someone like me would
first like to know why it is that your thought experiment can somehow
overcome this little light barrier problem. Since you don't seem to be
applying anything believable in the virtual sense, or from a science fiction
POV, like a hypothetical Star Trek warp drive to justify the fantastic speed
of your space ship, I'm left at a loss as to how to take your thought
experiment seriously. The use of a mathematical integral equation to explain
why the ship has somehow reached 10 times the speed of light is of little
use here. The "barrier" I can't get past is the fact that I don't think all
the anti-matter plus positive-matter annihilating each other in the entire
universe could get your space ship to reach 100% the speed of light, let
alone 10 times that. Are you using a warp drive A worm hole? Is your
hypothetical experiment deliberately choosing not to consider the effects of
relativity? If that really is the case you should clearly state that that
was your intention. Not to do so gives me the impression that you are
totally ignorant of the effects of relativity - and I can't believe that of
you! ;-)

 

Did I miss something important in your interesting thought experiment?
Perhaps I did! ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

 

Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship

[James Bowery]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> Did I miss something important in your interesting thought experiment?
> Perhaps I did! ;-)
>
You missed time dilation.

[Vo]:FYI: Radiation from an accelerating neutral body: The case of rotation

[Mark Jurich]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/i2013-13134-9

Abstract:

When an object is bound at rest to an attractional field, its rest mass (owing 
to the law of energy
conservation, including the mass and energy equivalence of the Special Theory 
of Relativity) must decrease.
The mass deficiency coming into play indicates a corresponding rest energy 
discharge. Thus, bringing an
object to a rotational motion means that the energy transferred for this 
purpose serves to extract just as
much rest mass (or similarly “rest energy”, were the speed of light in empty 
space taken to be unity) out of
it. Here, it is shown that during angular acceleration, photons of fundamental 
energy h̟/2π are emitted,
while the object is kept on being delivered to a more and more intense 
rotational accelerational field, 
being the instantaneous angular velocity of the rotating object. This 
fundamental energy, as seen, does
not depend on anything else (such as the mass or charge of the object), and it 
is in harmony with Bohr’s
Principle of Correspondence. This means at the same time, that emission will be 
achieved, as long as the
angular velocity keeps on increasing, and will cease right after the object 
reaches a stationary rotational
motion (a constant centrifugal acceleration), but if the object were brought to 
rotation in vacuum with no
friction. By the same token, one can affirm that even the rotation at a 
macroscopic level is quantized, and
can only take on “given angular velocities” (which can only be increased, bit 
by bit). The rate of emission of
photons of concern is, on the other hand, proportional to the angular 
acceleration of the object, similarly to
the derivative of the tangential acceleration with respect to time. It is thus 
constant for a “constant angular
acceleration”, although the energy h̟/2π of the emitted photons will increase 
with increasing ̟, until the
rotation reaches a stationary level, after which we expect no emission —let us 
stress— if the object is in
rotation in vacuum, along with no whatsoever friction (such as the case of a 
rotating diatomic molecule,
for instance). If the object reaches its final state in a given medium, say 
air, and “friction” is present, such
as the case of a dental drill, then energy should keep being supplied to it, to 
overcome friction, which is
present either inside the “inner mechanism of rotation” or in its surroundings. 
In other words, the object
in the latter case, would be constantly subject to a friction force, countering 
its motion, and tending to
make it fall to lower rotational energy states. Any fluctuations in the power 
supply, on the other hand, will
slow down the rotating object, no matter how indiscernibly. The small decrease 
in the rotational velocity
is yet reincreased by restoring the power supply, thus perpetually securing a 
stationary rotational motion.
Thereby, the object in this final state, due to fluctuations in either friction 
or power supply, or both, shall
further be expected to emit a radiation of energy h̟f /2π, where ̟f is the 
final angular velocity of the
object in rotation. What is more is that our team has very successfully 
measured what is predicted here,
and they will report their experimental results in a subsequent article. The 
approach presented here seems
to shed light on the mysterious sonoluminescence. It also triggers the 
possibility of sensing earthquakes
due to radiation that should be emitted by the faults, on which the seismic 
stress keeps increasing until
the crackdown. By the same token, also two colliding (neutral) objects are 
expected to emit radiation.

Source: 
http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/new-article-by-professor-tolga-yarman/
( 
http://drmyronevans.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/epjplus-galleyproof-radiation-13.pdf
 )

Additional Reading: 
http://www.tolgayarman.com/Makaleler/UMA/UMA%20-%20Mass%20Decrease%20-%20Radiation%20-%202%20-%20November%2012.pdf

Re: [Vo]:LENR through light

[pagnucco]

Whoops! - I realize my analysis cannot be correct.
I should have replaced the classical constant force with a linear
potential, which should give a different answer.  Needs to be reworked.
-- Lou Pagnucco
pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
> Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:21:02 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>>Light intensity at 10^^12 (watts/cm2) produces a strong Electric field
>>> at
>>>(10^^9) Volts/meter.
>> Over a distance of 1 nm (10 Angstrom) this is just 1 Volt.
>> [...]
>
> This is correct, but it only shows that a localized electron can only
> attain 1eV when crossing that gap unobstructed.
>
> For an electron, 1[eV] corresponds to an approximate momentum of
> 4 * 10^(-25) [N*sec]  {'N' = Newton}
>
> However, if an electron is trapped in that field, i.e., the mean position
> of its wave function is fixed, for a time T instead of accelerating thru
> collision-free, it gains a momentum impulse
>
>   = T[sec] * e[C] * 10^9[Volt/meter] {where 'e' = electron
> charge[Coulomb]}
>   = T[sec] * (1.6^10^(-19)[C]) * 10^9 [N/C]
>   = T * 1.6^10^(-10) [N*sec]
>
> So, in the latter case, the electron gains T*(10^14) times more momentum.
> ('T' measured in seconds.)
>
> Possibly, this happens when the electron collides with a particle of
> equal and opposite momentum.
>
> In quantum mechanics, a highly localized or oscillatory wave functions
> can posses high momentum (or kinetic energy) even when not moving much.
>
> Also, an electron is a fermion, so it really needs to be represented by
> a 4-component spinor in the Dirac equation.  It can undergo more
> oscillation within the spinor.
>
> -- Lou Pagnucco
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship

[David Roberson]

Steven,

The hypothetical ship is undergoing an acceleration of 10 "G's".  This is 
determined by an accelerometer on board that is quite accurate.  If this level 
of acceleration is applied for the 1 year period, then I can calculate that my 
resulting velocity would be approximately 10 times c greater than the initial 
velocity of the ship.  I am not aware of any GR factor that must be applied to 
accelerations of such a small value(10 G).  At the moment, I see no reason to 
take into account my velocity relative to any other observer since these 
determinations would be entirely relative.

Do you know of any form of correction to acceleration that needs to be applied 
according to GR?  There may be one of which I am not aware.  If acceleration 
can be accurately determined then change in velocity should be the integral of 
that value over the time it is applied by definition.

After I posed the original question I realized that most of the mass of the 
space ship would need to be converted into energy in order to propel the 
remaining mass at a velocity that is equal to or greater than c according to 
the on ship calculations.  I suppose that a calculation of the amount of ship 
mass per second exhausting the rear of the vehicle at a relative velocity of c 
to generate a total acceleration of 10 G's would demonstrate the problem as 
this level of acceleration continued for the total 1 year period.   The problem 
appears to be the same one encountered by standard chemical rockets that reach 
a velocity several times that of the exhaust stream.  There is only so much 
rest mass that could be converted into kinetic energy in this particular case.

I am aware of the standard SR calculation that limits the observed velocity of 
the ship to be less than c.  That is the reason for the thought experiment.  My 
suspicion is that the results one obtains for a stationary observer when taking 
into account time dilation and SR for the relative velocity are comparable to 
that expected according to Newtonian calculations for a traveler on the ship.  
In that case, the space man concludes that he is traveling faster than c so it 
takes less time to travel the distance than expected.  I am sorry that it is 
difficult to explain what I am thinking.

You ask if the thought experiment is intended to neglect SR and the answer is 
partially yes.  It is to reach some form of comparison between SR and Newton.  
The twin paradox is difficult for me to accept and I seek a better 
understanding.   Both twins are moving relative to the other by the exact same 
velocity.  Why not reach the same calculation for time dilation?  If 
acceleration is the key, then how is that applied in this case?

You know that I relish asking questions which generate turmoil among the crew. 
:-)

Dave


-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Nov 14, 2013 10:26 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship



Dave,
 
...
 
> ...After a modest period of time, we calculate that our super rocket engine 
> which
> uses anti matter as fuel and attached ship, has reached a calculated velocity 
> of
> 10 times the speed of light.  This number is calculated by integrating the
> acceleration that we can easily measure in the reference frame around our ship
> that is also constantly accelerating.
 
I think you need to go into more detail as to why your thought experiment 
apparently glosses over the fact that the hypothetical space ship can somehow 
reach a velocity 10 times the speed of light. Someone like me would first like 
to know why it is that your thought experiment can somehow overcome this little 
light barrier problem. Since you don't seem to be applying anything believable 
in the virtual sense, or from a science fiction POV, like a hypothetical Star 
Trek warp drive to justify the fantastic speed of your space ship, I'm left at 
a loss as to how to take your thought experiment seriously. The use of a 
mathematical integral equation to explain why the ship has somehow reached 10 
times the speed of light is of little use here. The “barrier” I can’t get past 
is the fact that I don't think all the anti-matter plus positive-matter 
annihilating each other in the entire universe could get your space ship to 
reach 100% the speed of light, let alone 10 times that. Are you using a warp 
drive A worm hole? Is your hypothetical experiment deliberately choosing 
not to consider the effects of relativity? If that really is the case you 
should clearly state that that was your intention. Not to do so gives me the 
impression that you are totally ignorant of the effects of relativity – and I 
can’t believe that of you! ;-)
 
Did I miss something important in your interesting thought experiment? Perhaps 
I did! ;-)
 
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
 

Re: [Vo]:Local Calculated Velocity of Space Ship

[jwinter]

On 15/11/2013 12:44 AM, David Roberson wrote:
...Since we knew the original distance to the star was 10 light years, 
it suggests that we should reach it within 1 year our time at our 
calculated velocity.  Is this what should actually occur?
Yes this is correct and this is the essence of the twins paradox.  There 
is no limit to your accumulated velocity as measured by yourself using 
your clocks that are slowing down the faster you go.  If you were a 
photon (or had no rest mass) you could travel the 10 light years in an 
instant of your time but still take 10 years of observers time.


 I realize that an observer located near the star and stationary to it 
would determine our velocity as less than light speed and thus take 
longer than 10 years to reach his location.  Also, the observer would 
detect that time passes slower on our ship due to our relative 
velocity.  We of course would see his time as passing slower by the 
same factor during our high velocity trip.

Yes.

I also understand that we can measure the distance to the star once we 
reach our stable velocity by using radar signals for example.  The 
signal would leave our ship at a velocity of light relative to us and 
head toward the star which appears to be significantly closer to us by 
Lorentz contraction.  Our high specification radar beam would reach 
the star and some would reflect back toward us.  The frequency of the 
reflected beam would be shifted by the velocity of the star relative 
to our velocity and we could thus accurately calculate the star's 
relative velocity which would be the same as the velocity the observer 
sees us moving toward him.
That is correct.  However for us to measure how fast our signal leaves 
our ship, we need 2 clocks - Say one at the back of the ship where the 
signal is launched from and one at the front of our ship to time how 
long it takes to travel the length of the ship.  The signal *only* 
leaves our ship at the speed of light *if* we have taken care to 
re-synchronise our clocks (using the so-called Einstein method) after 
reaching a steady speed.  If instead we kept the same synchronisation 
that we had before we started to accelerate, then we would measure the 
same speed that any previously stationary observer (remote or otherwise) 
measures (ie the light pulse would travel *much* slower than c 
travelling from the back of our ship towards the front, and *much* 
faster than c in the reverse direction! (this is not well known and is a 
surprise even to many physicists).


The important thing here is that once we have reset our clocks to be 
synchronous in our new high speed inertial frame, (or once we consider 
ourselves to be at rest), then all distances with respect to our new 
coordinate system have changed.  In particular the 10 light year remote 
star, has now instantly (with the synchronism or the consideration that 
we are stationary) become only 1 light year away.  That is why it will 
only take us one light year to reach it.  Distances in the reverse 
direction (places behind us) are likewise increased (instead of 
decreased) simply by the change of inertial reference frame.


However if we consider ourselves using our initial clock 
synchronisation, then we know our true accumulated speed because we can 
see that the light pulse is only just travelling a bit faster than us 
(it takes the pulse a very long time to travel from the back of the ship 
to the front) and so we are travelling just a shade slower than c.  Also 
since any clock tick rate is given by an oscillation time, if we use the 
round trip time of a light pulse travelling from the back of the ship, 
to the front and back again, as our oscillation tick time, then we know 
that our time is ticking a lot slower than it was before we 
accelerated.  If we divide the known distance (10 light years) by our 
speed measured this way (~0.99c or thereabouts) then we know how many 
ticks of our (slowed down) clock will happen in that distance - and it 
will be 1 years worth.  Since our clock seems to us to be ticking at its 
normal rate, we will get there in what feels to us like a year.


The observer near the star has his own radar which he directs towards 
us.  He also determines the same relative velocities by measuring the 
reflected signal from our ship, so everyone is in agreement that the 
space between us is closing at a velocity that is somewhat less than 
light speed.

Yes.


Since velocity is relative,
This is an assumption which cannot be proved. Given a peek out the 
window at the CMBR, we could determine our velocity with respect to the 
rest of the matter in the universe - which conceptually at least is an 
absolute value.


...the observer near the star concludes that he is the one moving 
rapidly toward us and we are stationary.  From his perception the 
Lorentz contraction of the distance between both parties is the same 
as we located upon the high velocity ship calculated earlier.  He 
therefore determines he an

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Radiation from an accelerating neutral body: The case of rotation

[David Roberson]

This abstract suggests that photons are emitted as a mass is accelerated in a 
rotational manner within a bound field.  This seems contrary to what is 
normally expected, which is that photons are generated by the acceleration of 
charged particles and their associated changing fields.  What determines the 3D 
spatial orientation of the emitted photons in this case?

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Mark Jurich 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Fri, Nov 15, 2013 12:17 am
Subject: [Vo]:FYI: Radiation from an accelerating neutral body: The case of 
rotation




http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/i2013-13134-9
 
Abstract:
 
When an object is bound at rest to an attractional field, its rest mass (owing 
to the law of energy


conservation, including the mass and energy equivalence of the Special Theory 
of Relativity) must decrease.
The mass deficiency coming into play indicates a corresponding rest energy 
discharge. Thus, bringing an
object to a rotational motion means that the energy transferred for this 
purpose serves to extract just as
much rest mass (or similarly “rest energy”, were the speed of light in empty 
space taken to be unity) out of
it. Here, it is shown that during angular acceleration, photons of fundamental 
energy h̟/2π are emitted,
while the object is kept on being delivered to a more and more intense 
rotational accelerational field, 
being the instantaneous angular velocity of the rotating object. This 
fundamental energy, as seen, does
not depend on anything else (such as the mass or charge of the object), and it 
is in harmony with Bohr’s
Principle of Correspondence. This means at the same time, that emission will be 
achieved, as long as the
angular velocity keeps on increasing, and will cease right after the object 
reaches a stationary rotational
motion (a constant centrifugal acceleration), but if the object were brought to 
rotation in vacuum with no
friction. By the same token, one can affirm that even the rotation at a 
macroscopic level is quantized, and
can only take on “given angular velocities” (which can only be increased, bit 
by bit). The rate of emission of
photons of concern is, on the other hand, proportional to the angular 
acceleration of the object, similarly to
the derivative of the tangential acceleration with respect to time. It is thus 
constant for a “constant angular
acceleration”, although the energy h̟/2π of the emitted photons will increase 
with increasing ̟, until the
rotation reaches a stationary level, after which we expect no emission —let us 
stress— if the object is in
rotation in vacuum, along with no whatsoever friction (such as the case of a 
rotating diatomic molecule,
for instance). If the object reaches its final state in a given medium, say 
air, and “friction” is present, such
as the case of a dental drill, then energy should keep being supplied to it, to 
overcome friction, which is
present either inside the “inner mechanism of rotation” or in its surroundings. 
In other words, the object
in the latter case, would be constantly subject to a friction force, countering 
its motion, and tending to
make it fall to lower rotational energy states. Any fluctuations in the power 
supply, on the other hand, will
slow down the rotating object, no matter how indiscernibly. The small decrease 
in the rotational velocity
is yet reincreased by restoring the power supply, thus perpetually securing a 
stationary rotational motion.
Thereby, the object in this final state, due to fluctuations in either friction 
or power supply, or both, shall
further be expected to emit a radiation of energy h̟f /2π, where ̟f is the 
final angular velocity of the
object in rotation. What is more is that our team has very successfully 
measured what is predicted here,
and they will report their experimental results in a subsequent article. The 
approach presented here seems
to shed light on the mysterious sonoluminescence. It also triggers the 
possibility of sensing earthquakes
due to radiation that should be emitted by the faults, on which the seismic 
stress keeps increasing until
the crackdown. By the same token, also two colliding (neutral) objects are 
expected to emit radiation.
 
Source: 
http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/new-article-by-professor-tolga-yarman/
( 
http://drmyronevans.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/epjplus-galleyproof-radiation-13.pdf
 )
 
Additional Reading: 
http://www.tolgayarman.com/Makaleler/UMA/UMA%20-%20Mass%20Decrease%20-%20Radiation%20-%202%20-%20November%2012.pdf