[Vo]:OT: trolling taken to a new level

[Eric Walker]

On Reddit, there's a subreddit that follows the exploits of "Ken M", who
comments on Yahoo! News and similar forums that focus on general news.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KenM/
http://i.imgur.com/8h8sgrq.png
http://imgur.com/QpSJ5Og

Sometimes he can be uninformed in several ways, all in the same sentence.
What motivated him to start doing this was the indignation and
self-righteousness of some of the commenters on these sites.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Jones Beene]

From: Roarty, Francis X 

*   Perhaps vacuum energy cannot perform measurable work at our typical 
physical macro velocities relative to C …

Well, it is pretty clear from the literature, starting in 2011 and continuing 
to recent papers - that the DCE the dynamical Casimir effect - can and does 
function to convert virtual photons into real photons. 

Even if we define the photon as massless, this is “work” by most definitions 
even if the base-level effect may not appear like mass is being moved. This 
distinction is mainly semantics, since excess energy from photons has a 
mass-equivalent. There are dozens of DCE papers, starting here. The point is 
the effect is proved in experiment and theory.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714

Beyond that, we have to extrapolate beyond a weak effect requiring a 
superconductor to a robust effect of the SPP in combination with DCE, requiring 
no superconductor (or HTSC). If SPP operates as the paper claims, to convert 
one real photon into two real photons (photon doubling) and DCE gives real 
photons from virtual photons, and the translucent ceramic stores photons, then 
we have set the stage of a “photon chain reaction.” 

Typically the term “photon chain reaction” turns up in descriptions of lasers. 
The glow-stick can be analogized to a semi-coherent type of IR laser where 
there is one predominant IR emission line and lots of secondary light which is 
not coherent. We could call it a superradiant laser.

With any chain reaction, the output grows exponentially. Even if the 
incandescent light source is only 5% efficient initially (it is probably less), 
then net gain is still possible if there is sufficient doubling of photons due 
to the DCE/SPP mechanism.

This MO of photon chain reaction - may sound preposterous to those who are 
invested in nuclear fusion as the source of gain in the glow-stick (assuming 
Parkhomov can be replicated)… but it is crystal clear from actual results that 
in fact, it is far more preposterous to suggest fusion as the main source of 
gain. 

There is little indicia of fusion whereas DCE is proved in both experiment and 
theory. Real fusion in a Parkhomov tube is not proved in either theory or 
experiment. However, transmutation of elements could be a side effect of 
harnessing vacuum energy even if no fusion happens.

BTW – by most definitions of ZPE and its effect on electrons, especially 
Puthoff’s, it is clear that the Mills-effect, or fractional hydrogen, or 
UDD/UDH, or DDL, etc… these are ALL zero point effects - and the energy 
essentially comes from the same virtual photon conversion process as does DCE.

Jones

[Vo]:Re: DCE for SPP

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPPJones--

One further note coming out of Peter’s comments regarding the patent of 
Soininen of today is present below.

The following quote from paragraph 33 of the patent follows:

“Regarding the penetration of the Coulomb barrier around the atom nucleus, 
resonance of a wave function of a particle in a quantum well system has been 
described by David Bohm, “Quantum theory”, Prentice-Hall, New York 1951, which 
is incorporated herein by reference. Specifically, a wave is reflecting back 
and forth across the potential in a quantum well, a wave coming in the quantum 
well from outside enhances the wave inside the quantum well and a strong 
standing wave is built up inside the quantum well when the system is in 
resonance. Further, the waveform of a proton tunnels through the Coulomb 
barrier to the nucleus of an atom with certain probability. Near a resonance 
the waveform intensity of the proton is considerable in the quantum well and 
the probability of fusing proton with the nucleus is increased. The metastable 
state of the fused nucleus may have such a long lifetime in solid state 
structures that it can decay in other ways than by re-emission of the incident 
proton or by emission of gamma-ray photons, and energy is released over 
relatively long time also as lower energy photons (e.g. X-ray photons) or as 
phonons (lattice vibrations) to the surrounding solid lattice.”

This patent has many interesting facts and ideas new to me.  

However the quote noted above addresses a process for shifting potential energy 
of a nucleus via fusion to phonic energy of a lattice and for me is most 
interesting.  It addresses 
the transition of potential energy of a coherent system to kinetic energy that 
I mentioned in my previous comment on this thread. 

Bob Cook

PS:  
From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPPooo

From: Roarty, Francis X 


Ø  Perhaps vacuum energy cannot perform measurable work at our typical 
physical macro velocities relative to C …


Well, it is pretty clear from the literature, starting in 2011 and continuing 
to recent papers - that the DCE the dynamical Casimir effect - can and does 
function to convert virtual photons into real photons. 

Even if we define the photon as massless, this is “work” by most definitions 
even if the base-level effect may not appear like mass is being moved. This 
distinction is mainly semantics, since excess energy from photons has a 
mass-equivalent. There are dozens of DCE papers, starting here. The point is 
the effect is proved in experiment and theory.


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714


Beyond that, we have to extrapolate beyond a weak effect requiring a 
superconductor to a robust effect of the SPP in combination with DCE, requiring 
no superconductor (or HTSC). If SPP operates as the paper claims, to convert 
one real photon into two real photons (photon doubling) and DCE gives real 
photons from virtual photons, and the translucent ceramic stores photons, then 
we have set the stage of a “photon chain reaction.” 

Typically the term “photon chain reaction” turns up in descriptions of lasers. 
The glow-stick can be analogized to a semi-coherent type of IR laser where 
there is one predominant IR emission line and lots of secondary light which is 
not coherent. We could call it a superradiant laser.

With any chain reaction, the output grows exponentially. Even if the 
incandescent light source is only 5% efficient initially (it is probably less), 
then net gain is still possible if there is sufficient doubling of photons due 
to the DCE/SPP mechanism.

This MO of photon chain reaction - may sound preposterous to those who are 
invested in nuclear fusion as the source of gain in the glow-stick (assuming 
Parkhomov can be replicated)… but it is crystal clear from actual results that 
in fact, it is far more preposterous to suggest fusion as the main source of 
gain. 

There is little indicia of fusion whereas DCE is proved in both experiment and 
theory. Real fusion in a Parkhomov tube is not proved in either theory or 
experiment. However, transmutation of elements could be a side effect of 
harnessing vacuum energy even if no fusion happens.

BTW – by most definitions of ZPE and its effect on electrons, especially 
Puthoff’s, it is clear that the Mills-effect, or fractional hydrogen, or 
UDD/UDH, or DDL, etc… these are ALL zero point effects - and the energy 
essentially comes from the same virtual photon conversion process as does DCE.

Jones

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil,
Perhaps vacuum energy cannot perform measurable work at our typical physical 
macro velocities  relative to C but  vacuum wavelengths / virtual particle 
density does define inertial frames and ,IMHO, can do work if you are not 
outputting reaction mass to push an object toward C. My point is that if you 
harness DCE to move objects between different frames of negative portions of C 
where vacuum density is instead subtracted between different negative values by 
Casimir suppression you get these regions of equivalent negative accelerations 
for free as a property of the lattice defects and quantum geometry,  and the 
normally un-exploitable property of HUP [random motion of gas] accumulates as 
it moves the atoms between these regions forcing a spatial imbalance where they 
start to contract in what I am convinced is actually a negative form of 
Lorentzian contraction and time dilation that fits the claimed anomalies for 
both f/h and tritium. Naudts should have pursued his 2005 math paper further 
but he did endorse the hydrino telling me he understood the implications but 
was afraid to go out on the limb. I continue to endorse a view that these 
negative vacuum regions can be as relativistic wrt open space as, open space is 
to the gravity well of an event horizon, but now the isotropy [vacuum density] 
is re-defined as the difference between the square law of gravitation and  
inverse cube of Casimir suppression. In this definition the hydrogen is able to 
exploit the previously un-exploitable property of random motion [HUP trap] to 
move between these negative frames whereas a positive equivalent would require 
rocket fuel to attain different frames in a gravity well. I believe there then 
exists a set stage for “building” a Heisenberg trap [Maxwellian demon of sorts] 
but nature will always take the path of least resistance and contracted 
hydrogen will forever move through these negative regions avoiding work unless 
we limit their paths and force its motion to perform work.
I suspect the orbitals of f/h molecules oppose changes between inertial frames 
while atoms move freely and after disassociation the atoms reform new molecules 
at whatever inertial region they happen to occupy when they meet just waiting 
for random motion to move them away to regions where their contraction level 
opposes the local density enough to again disassociate the molecule and start 
the cycle over again. Photons from this process are very likely the key to 
engineering this process into a positive loop instead of nature’s desire to 
damp out and seek the easy path but SPP and resonance are beyond my skill set.
Fran


From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:18 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

I don't believe that the vacuum does work.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:36 PM, 
> wrote:

I'm always a bit suspicious of theories that make use of "negative energy".

It's what is needed to do negative work.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:OT: trolling taken to a new level

[H LV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5ZDJrJsnYw

Harry

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Reddit, there's a subreddit that follows the exploits of "Ken M", who
> comments on Yahoo! News and similar forums that focus on general news.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/KenM/
> http://i.imgur.com/8h8sgrq.png
> http://imgur.com/QpSJ5Og
>
> Sometimes he can be uninformed in several ways, all in the same sentence.
> What motivated him to start doing this was the indignation and
> self-righteousness of some of the commenters on these sites.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:15:18 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:36 PM,  wrote:
>
>I'm always a bit suspicious of theories that make use of "negative energy".
>>
>
>It's what is needed to do negative work.

Is that work, that once having been done, requires even more work to fix up the
result? :)

>
>Eric
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:38 PM,  wrote:

>It's what is needed to do negative work.
>
> Is that work, that once having been done, requires even more work to fix
> up the
> result? :)
>

I was wondering what it was myself. :)  It was fun to think about.  Now I
see why the physicists wanted to say that negative energy is unphysical.

Eric

[Vo]:Re: DCE for SPP

[Bob Cook]

It would seem that the same issues Robin raises  that apply to the concept 
of negative energy apply to negative mass.  Mass may be merely a continuous 
function with the boundary between negative and positive mass being 
associated with the boundary between virtual and real existence.  Here I am 
thinking of the Dirac Sea as being on the other side of the boundary 
separating negative and positive mass and energy.


Philippe Hatt has an interesting theory involving negative mass for the 
construction of the protons and neutrons from positive and negative mass 
consideration.


It may be that Robin's "system" is the key.  The system that includes both 
sides of the Dirac Sea and our real 4-D universe.   And of course the 
"system" may even be different than that.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 1:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:53:18 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]

Let us get to the bottom of this fear. Expand...


It depends on exactly what is meant by negative energy. If meant in an 
absolute

sense, then I am very doubtful. However if it's just a consequence of only
considering too small a system (i.e. where the boundaries are chosen too 
small),

then I have no problem with it, other than that perhaps insufficient
consideration may have been given to the integration with the larger system.




On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:36 PM,  wrote:


In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:04:51 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Do you believe the the Penrose mechanism can also add a multiplier 
>effect

>to the extraction of energy from the vacuum in the dark mode SPP?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

I'm always a bit suspicious of theories that make use of "negative 
energy".

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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



Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Russ George]

It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of value
to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate us
about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the findings.

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Roarty, Francis X]

Axil, well put! It is exactly as you say " that perhaps insufficient
consideration may have been given to the integration with the larger system." , 
the mainstream considers the isotropy of open space a sort of ground state 
because virtual particles and Casimir effect were not considered. Nano regions 
can be suppressed via Casimir effect to attain vacuum densities far lower than 
we observe at the macro scale. Mainstream only wants to consider changes in 
vacuum density / inertial frames as a functions of relativistic acceleration or 
equivalent acceleration adhering to square law.
Fran

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:53:18 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let us get to the bottom of this fear. Expand...

It depends on exactly what is meant by negative energy. If meant in an absolute
sense, then I am very doubtful. However if it's just a consequence of only
considering too small a system (i.e. where the boundaries are chosen too small),
then I have no problem with it, other than that perhaps insufficient
consideration may have been given to the integration with the larger system.


>
>On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:36 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:04:51 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >Do you believe the the Penrose mechanism can also add a multiplier effect
>> >to the extraction of energy from the vacuum in the dark mode SPP?
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
>>
>> I'm always a bit suspicious of theories that make use of "negative energy".
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:maybe the best account and video of first LIGO gravity wave 2015.09.14: The New Yorker: Rich Murray 2016.02.11

[H LV]

I think it is more likely ​the Earth burped.

Harry​

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> maybe the best account and video of first LIGO gravity wave 2015.09.14:
> The New Yorker: Rich Murray 2016.02.11
>
> http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2016/02/maybe-best-account-and-video-of-first.html
>
>
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/gravitational-waves-exist-heres-how-scientists-finally-found-them
>
> [ about 1 minute video, time slowed down about 100X -- the two black holes
> spiral around each other, making 11 half-turns before merging suddenly
> the black holes are invisible, so we see their twisted space-time showing
> highly distorted swirling views of their far away galactic background --
> this happened
> 1.3 billion years away ( 1.3 billion years ago -- our nearest neighbor
> galaxy Andromeda is about 2.2 million lightyears away ( 2.2 million years
> old from us -- our galaxy is about 0.1 million lightyears wide... ]
>
> TODAY 10:30 AM
> Gravitational Waves Exist: The Inside Story of How Scientists Finally
> Found Them
> BY NICOLA TWILLEY
>
> "Just over a billion years ago, many millions of galaxies from here, a
> pair of black holes collided.
> They had been circling each other for aeons, in a sort of mating dance,
> gathering pace with each orbit, hurtling closer and closer.
> By the time they were a few hundred miles apart, they were whipping around
> at nearly the speed of light, releasing great shudders of gravitational
> energy.
> Space and time became distorted, like water at a rolling boil.
> In the fraction of a second that it took for the black holes to finally
> merge, they radiated a hundred times more energy than all the stars in the
> universe combined. They formed a new black hole, sixty-two times as heavy
> as our sun and almost as wide across as the state of Maine.
> As it smoothed itself out, assuming the shape of a slightly flattened
> sphere, a few last quivers of energy escaped.
> Then space and time became silent again."
>
> [ Another source says they reached a top speed of half the speed of light
> as they merged... ]
>
> "On  Sunday, September 13th, Effler spent the day at the Livingston site
> with a colleague, finishing a battery of last-minute tests.
> “We yelled, we vibrated things with shakers, we tapped on things, we
> introduced magnetic radiation, we did all kinds of things,” she said. “And,
> of course, everything was taking longer than it was supposed to.”
> At four in the morning, with one test still left to do — a simulation of a
> truck driver hitting his brakes nearby — they decided to pack it in.
> They drove home, leaving the instrument to gather data in peace.
> The signal arrived not long after, at 4:50 A.M. local time, passing
> through the two detectors within seven milliseconds of each other.
> [ In Louisiana and in Oregon, 1,865 miles apart ]
> It was four days before the start of Advanced LIGO’s first official run."
>
> "Since the September 14th detection, LIGO has continued to observe
> candidate signals, although none are quite as dramatic as the first event.
> “The reason we are making all this fuss is because of the big guy,” Weiss
> said. “But we’re very happy that there are other, smaller ones, because it
> says this is not some unique, crazy, cuckoo effect.”
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
>
>
> "These sites are separated by 3,002 kilometers (1,865 miles).
> Since gravitational waves are expected to travel at the speed of light,
> this distance corresponds to a difference in gravitational wave arrival
> times of up to ten milliseconds."
>
> "After an equivalent of approximately 75 trips down the 4 km length to the
> far mirrors and back again, the two separate beams leave the arms and
> recombine at the beam splitter."
>
> "Based on current models of astronomical events, and the predictions of
> the general theory of relativity, gravitational waves that originate tens
> of millions of light years from Earth are expected to distort the 4
> kilometer mirror spacing by about 10E−18 m, less than one-thousandth the
> charge diameter of a proton. Equivalently, this is a relative change in
> distance of approximately one part in 10E 21.
> A typical event which might cause a detection event would be the late
> stage inspiral and merger of two 10 solar mass black holes, not necessarily
> located in the Milky Way galaxy, which is expected to result in a very
> specific sequence of signals often summarized by the slogan chirp, burst,
> quasi-normal mode ringing, exponential decay."
>
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.19361
>
> "One black hole was about 36 times the mass of the Sun, and the other was
> about 29 solar masses.
> As they spiraled inexorably into one another, they merged into a single,
> more-massive gravitational sink in space-time that weighed 62 solar masses,
> the LIGO team estimates."
> [ So, 3 solar masses was radiated away as invisible 

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[Axil Axil]

If the vacuum can be induced to generate more virtual particle production
in one location then another location of the vacuum must produce less
virtual particle production to keep the average energy production of the
vacuum zero.

The suppression of virtual particles through this unbalancing method is
termed negative vacuum energy.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:38 PM,  wrote:
>
> >It's what is needed to do negative work.
>>
>> Is that work, that once having been done, requires even more work to fix
>> up the
>> result? :)
>>
>
> I was wondering what it was myself. :)  It was fun to think about.  Now I
> see why the physicists wanted to say that negative energy is unphysical.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:maybe the best account and video of first LIGO gravity wave 2015.09.14: The New Yorker: Rich Murray 2016.02.11

[Rich Murray]

maybe the best account and video of first LIGO gravity wave 2015.09.14: The
New Yorker: Rich Murray 2016.02.11
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2016/02/maybe-best-account-and-video-of-first.html


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/gravitational-waves-exist-heres-how-scientists-finally-found-them

[ about 1 minute video, time slowed down about 100X -- the two black holes
spiral around each other, making 11 half-turns before merging suddenly
the black holes are invisible, so we see their twisted space-time showing
highly distorted swirling views of their far away galactic background --
this happened
1.3 billion years away ( 1.3 billion years ago -- our nearest neighbor
galaxy Andromeda is about 2.2 million lightyears away ( 2.2 million years
old from us -- our galaxy is about 0.1 million lightyears wide... ]

TODAY 10:30 AM
Gravitational Waves Exist: The Inside Story of How Scientists Finally Found
Them
BY NICOLA TWILLEY

"Just over a billion years ago, many millions of galaxies from here, a pair
of black holes collided.
They had been circling each other for aeons, in a sort of mating dance,
gathering pace with each orbit, hurtling closer and closer.
By the time they were a few hundred miles apart, they were whipping around
at nearly the speed of light, releasing great shudders of gravitational
energy.
Space and time became distorted, like water at a rolling boil.
In the fraction of a second that it took for the black holes to finally
merge, they radiated a hundred times more energy than all the stars in the
universe combined. They formed a new black hole, sixty-two times as heavy
as our sun and almost as wide across as the state of Maine.
As it smoothed itself out, assuming the shape of a slightly flattened
sphere, a few last quivers of energy escaped.
Then space and time became silent again."

[ Another source says they reached a top speed of half the speed of light
as they merged... ]

"On  Sunday, September 13th, Effler spent the day at the Livingston site
with a colleague, finishing a battery of last-minute tests.
“We yelled, we vibrated things with shakers, we tapped on things, we
introduced magnetic radiation, we did all kinds of things,” she said. “And,
of course, everything was taking longer than it was supposed to.”
At four in the morning, with one test still left to do — a simulation of a
truck driver hitting his brakes nearby — they decided to pack it in.
They drove home, leaving the instrument to gather data in peace.
The signal arrived not long after, at 4:50 A.M. local time, passing through
the two detectors within seven milliseconds of each other.
[ In Louisiana and in Oregon, 1,865 miles apart ]
It was four days before the start of Advanced LIGO’s first official run."

"Since the September 14th detection, LIGO has continued to observe
candidate signals, although none are quite as dramatic as the first event.
“The reason we are making all this fuss is because of the big guy,” Weiss
said. “But we’re very happy that there are other, smaller ones, because it
says this is not some unique, crazy, cuckoo effect.”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO


"These sites are separated by 3,002 kilometers (1,865 miles).
Since gravitational waves are expected to travel at the speed of light,
this distance corresponds to a difference in gravitational wave arrival
times of up to ten milliseconds."

"After an equivalent of approximately 75 trips down the 4 km length to the
far mirrors and back again, the two separate beams leave the arms and
recombine at the beam splitter."

"Based on current models of astronomical events, and the predictions of the
general theory of relativity, gravitational waves that originate tens of
millions of light years from Earth are expected to distort the 4 kilometer
mirror spacing by about 10E−18 m, less than one-thousandth the charge
diameter of a proton. Equivalently, this is a relative change in distance
of approximately one part in 10E 21.
A typical event which might cause a detection event would be the late stage
inspiral and merger of two 10 solar mass black holes, not necessarily
located in the Milky Way galaxy, which is expected to result in a very
specific sequence of signals often summarized by the slogan chirp, burst,
quasi-normal mode ringing, exponential decay."


http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.19361

"One black hole was about 36 times the mass of the Sun, and the other was
about 29 solar masses.
As they spiraled inexorably into one another, they merged into a single,
more-massive gravitational sink in space-time that weighed 62 solar masses,
the LIGO team estimates."
[ So, 3 solar masses was radiated away as invisible gravitational energy --
about 5 % conversion of mass into pure energy... ]

Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:53:18 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Let us get to the bottom of this fear. Expand...

It depends on exactly what is meant by negative energy. If meant in an absolute
sense, then I am very doubtful. However if it's just a consequence of only
considering too small a system (i.e. where the boundaries are chosen too small),
then I have no problem with it, other than that perhaps insufficient
consideration may have been given to the integration with the larger system.


>
>On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:36 PM,  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:04:51 -0500:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >Do you believe the the Penrose mechanism can also add a multiplier effect
>> >to the extraction of energy from the vacuum in the dark mode SPP?
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process
>>
>> I'm always a bit suspicious of theories that make use of "negative energy".
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

By the way, gravitational waves were the topic of my dissertation so feel
> free to ask any question about the topic. It is very fascinating.
>

Given enough time, development and resources, will it be possible to build
one or more apparatuses that will resolve the layout of the surrounding
cosmos in three (and four) dimensions?

What is the smallest body that can be detected, in theory and in practice?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Giovanni Santostasi]

By the way, gravitational waves were the topic of my dissertation so feel
free to ask any question about the topic. It is very fascinating.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> It opens a complete different window on the Universe.
> The analogy that is often given is imagine the cosmic show is like a TV
> show. Until now we had video but not audio. Finally we turned the audio on.
> Gravitational waves are a different but complementary way to observe the
> universe.
> We already learning things we could not learn before just using EM
> radiation. For example that there are black holes systems with such large
> masses.
> This has consequences in terms of galaxy evolution and how stars were
> formed.
> And this is just the beginning.
> The ultimate price is when we will see the gravitational waves from Big
> Bang.
> While the Microwave Cosmic Background tell us abut the universe at a very
> early stage (500 K years) we cannot receive any earlier information about
> the universe using EM radiation.
> The equivalent gravitational wave background when detected will tells
> information from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Only
> gravitational radiation can give us a picture of the universe that early.
>
> Also information from events like the one just observed eventually would
> give us clues on how gravity and quantum mechanics work together.
> The consequences of this discovery are enormous.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Russ George 
> wrote:
>
>> It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of
>> value to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate
>> us about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the
>> findings.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Giovanni Santostasi]

It opens a complete different window on the Universe.
The analogy that is often given is imagine the cosmic show is like a TV
show. Until now we had video but not audio. Finally we turned the audio on.
Gravitational waves are a different but complementary way to observe the
universe.
We already learning things we could not learn before just using EM
radiation. For example that there are black holes systems with such large
masses.
This has consequences in terms of galaxy evolution and how stars were
formed.
And this is just the beginning.
The ultimate price is when we will see the gravitational waves from Big
Bang.
While the Microwave Cosmic Background tell us abut the universe at a very
early stage (500 K years) we cannot receive any earlier information about
the universe using EM radiation.
The equivalent gravitational wave background when detected will tells
information from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Only
gravitational radiation can give us a picture of the universe that early.

Also information from events like the one just observed eventually would
give us clues on how gravity and quantum mechanics work together.
The consequences of this discovery are enormous.





On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of
> value to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate
> us about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the
> findings.
>

Re: [Vo]:OT: trolling taken to a new level

[Jack Cole]

Dirtpigs - I like it.  :)



On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Reddit, there's a subreddit that follows the exploits of "Ken M", who
> comments on Yahoo! News and similar forums that focus on general news.
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/KenM/
> http://i.imgur.com/8h8sgrq.png
> http://imgur.com/QpSJ5Og
>
> Sometimes he can be uninformed in several ways, all in the same sentence.
> What motivated him to start doing this was the indignation and
> self-righteousness of some of the commenters on these sites.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[H LV]

In another report I heard black hole collisions are thought to occur only
once in a million years.
Is that true?

Also how can they know for certain that this not a seismic event? After all
there is a great deal we do not know about the Earth's interior.

Harry

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> By the way, gravitational waves were the topic of my dissertation so feel
> free to ask any question about the topic. It is very fascinating.
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It opens a complete different window on the Universe.
>> The analogy that is often given is imagine the cosmic show is like a TV
>> show. Until now we had video but not audio. Finally we turned the audio on.
>> Gravitational waves are a different but complementary way to observe the
>> universe.
>> We already learning things we could not learn before just using EM
>> radiation. For example that there are black holes systems with such large
>> masses.
>> This has consequences in terms of galaxy evolution and how stars were
>> formed.
>> And this is just the beginning.
>> The ultimate price is when we will see the gravitational waves from Big
>> Bang.
>> While the Microwave Cosmic Background tell us abut the universe at a very
>> early stage (500 K years) we cannot receive any earlier information about
>> the universe using EM radiation.
>> The equivalent gravitational wave background when detected will tells
>> information from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Only
>> gravitational radiation can give us a picture of the universe that early.
>>
>> Also information from events like the one just observed eventually would
>> give us clues on how gravity and quantum mechanics work together.
>> The consequences of this discovery are enormous.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Russ George 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of
>>> value to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate
>>> us about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the
>>> findings.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LIGO Gravity Waves... So what?

[Ludwik Kowalski]

Like Russ George (see below), I see no connection between our CMNS field and 
gravity waves.

Ludwik
=
On Feb 11, 2016, at 9:26 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

> It opens a complete different window on the Universe. 
> The analogy that is often given is imagine the cosmic show is like a TV show. 
> Until now we had video but not audio. Finally we turned the audio on. 
> Gravitational waves are a different but complementary way to observe the 
> universe. 
> We already learning things we could not learn before just using EM radiation. 
> For example that there are black holes systems with such large masses. 
> This has consequences in terms of galaxy evolution and how stars were formed. 
> And this is just the beginning. 
> The ultimate price is when we will see the gravitational waves from Big Bang. 
> While the Microwave Cosmic Background tell us abut the universe at a very 
> early stage (500 K years) we cannot receive any earlier information about the 
> universe using EM radiation. 
> The equivalent gravitational wave background when detected will tells 
> information from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Only 
> gravitational radiation can give us a picture of the universe that early. 
> 
> Also information from events like the one just observed eventually would give 
> us clues on how gravity and quantum mechanics work together. 
> The consequences of this discovery are enormous. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Russ George  wrote:
> It seems the announcement of showing gravity waves are real is only of value 
> to obscure academic discussions. Unless someone here might illuminate us 
> about some practical derivatives that might be revealed due to the findings.
> 
> 

[Vo]:an approach to the LENR crucial Principles

[Peter Gluck]

Just published
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-11-2016-lenr-much-desired-crucial.html

Solutions grow in many places

Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: DCE for SPP

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPPJones--

Most definitions of work derive from F=MA.   E=Ft.  I did not learn that EM 
energy, photons were work.  However, definitions change with time.  In addition 
I was not taught that all energy was equivalent.  This was a concept that 
Einstein suggested, as far as I know.  It was not taught in physics classes in 
the 50’s and early 60’s to my knowledge.  Neither was Dirac’s Sea discussed.  
The appearance of particles out of nothing was a mystery, as far as I remember. 
 

That being said, I tend now to agree with the idea that there is a source of 
energy that is not real, but comes from the ZPE source—Dirac’s Sea or whatever 
you may want to call the source.

With respect to the idea that all types of energy—potential energy or kinetic 
energy (mass in motion in a real space-time set of dimensions)—are equivalent 
colors my thoughts about LENR.  Understanding how one type of potential energy 
is changed to another and/or kinetic energy of a mass is the real question.   
And the mechanism for connection of energy in Dirac’s Sea to the real world is 
another important question.  

As you and Fran are suggesting, it is the latter question that needs attention 
and is at the heart of explaining the various LENR phenomena.  The former 
question is also important IMHO when it comes to converting spin energy to 
phonic vibrational energy.  Given the relationship between spin and angular 
momentum of a particle, it seems that they both—spin and phonic energy—are a 
form of kinetic energy—in other words mass in motion in the real world.  The 
small quanta associated with any system’s change of spin energy is a key axiom 
IMHO.  It leads to the necessity for a coherent system in a resonance that 
allows these small quanta to be distributed within the coherent system with a 
change from from spin—angular momentum—energy to kinetic (phonic) energy.   It 
may be that a “spinor” particle exchanges to the Dirac Sea.  

Bob Cook 
.  
From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DCE for SPP

From: Roarty, Francis X 


Ø  Perhaps vacuum energy cannot perform measurable work at our typical 
physical macro velocities relative to C …


Well, it is pretty clear from the literature, starting in 2011 and continuing 
to recent papers - that the DCE the dynamical Casimir effect - can and does 
function to convert virtual photons into real photons. 

Even if we define the photon as massless, this is “work” by most definitions 
even if the base-level effect may not appear like mass is being moved. This 
distinction is mainly semantics, since excess energy from photons has a 
mass-equivalent. There are dozens of DCE papers, starting here. The point is 
the effect is proved in experiment and theory.


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/424111/first-observation-of-the-dynamical-casimir-effect/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714


Beyond that, we have to extrapolate beyond a weak effect requiring a 
superconductor to a robust effect of the SPP in combination with DCE, requiring 
no superconductor (or HTSC). If SPP operates as the paper claims, to convert 
one real photon into two real photons (photon doubling) and DCE gives real 
photons from virtual photons, and the translucent ceramic stores photons, then 
we have set the stage of a “photon chain reaction.” 

Typically the term “photon chain reaction” turns up in descriptions of lasers. 
The glow-stick can be analogized to a semi-coherent type of IR laser where 
there is one predominant IR emission line and lots of secondary light which is 
not coherent. We could call it a superradiant laser.

With any chain reaction, the output grows exponentially. Even if the 
incandescent light source is only 5% efficient initially (it is probably less), 
then net gain is still possible if there is sufficient doubling of photons due 
to the DCE/SPP mechanism.

This MO of photon chain reaction - may sound preposterous to those who are 
invested in nuclear fusion as the source of gain in the glow-stick (assuming 
Parkhomov can be replicated)… but it is crystal clear from actual results that 
in fact, it is far more preposterous to suggest fusion as the main source of 
gain. 

There is little indicia of fusion whereas DCE is proved in both experiment and 
theory. Real fusion in a Parkhomov tube is not proved in either theory or 
experiment. However, transmutation of elements could be a side effect of 
harnessing vacuum energy even if no fusion happens.

BTW – by most definitions of ZPE and its effect on electrons, especially 
Puthoff’s, it is clear that the Mills-effect, or fractional hydrogen, or 
UDD/UDH, or DDL, etc… these are ALL zero point effects - and the energy 
essentially comes from the same virtual photon conversion process as does DCE.

Jones