Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
More... http://vimeo.com/27247968 This simulation depicts a exploding star that produces load of magnetic field lines that can disrupt the surface of the exploding star. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is an assumption that energy is transferred from the core of the sun to the surface via photons. This is most likely not true. Magnetic field lines may well move most of the energy from inside the sun to the surface where it excites the corona to very high temperatures in the millions of degrees. The surface of the sun is only 5505 °C. However, the temperature increases very steeply from 5505 degrees to a few million degrees in the corona, in the region 500 kilometers above the photosphere. This is the opposite for what would be expected for heat transfer through black body radiation. The same EMF heat transfer mechanism could well be true for supernova explosions. The surface of the exploding star could be blow off instantaneously through an intense pulse of EMF. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 17 years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound footing. If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then I'm surprised that they only got if wrong by a factor of 2 for the supernova. Good point about the lack of precision in the estimates. I used a footnote but failed to include the original reference (it was to Wikipedia [1]). The Wikipedia article in turn references an article by NASA [2]. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun [2] http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
More... here is another very good simulation of magnetic effects in a supernova http://www.space.com/25771-big-bang-universe-supernova-simulations.html On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: More... http://vimeo.com/27247968 This simulation depicts a exploding star that produces load of magnetic field lines that can disrupt the surface of the exploding star. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is an assumption that energy is transferred from the core of the sun to the surface via photons. This is most likely not true. Magnetic field lines may well move most of the energy from inside the sun to the surface where it excites the corona to very high temperatures in the millions of degrees. The surface of the sun is only 5505 °C. However, the temperature increases very steeply from 5505 degrees to a few million degrees in the corona, in the region 500 kilometers above the photosphere. This is the opposite for what would be expected for heat transfer through black body radiation. The same EMF heat transfer mechanism could well be true for supernova explosions. The surface of the exploding star could be blow off instantaneously through an intense pulse of EMF. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 17 years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound footing. If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then I'm surprised that they only got if wrong by a factor of 2 for the supernova. Good point about the lack of precision in the estimates. I used a footnote but failed to include the original reference (it was to Wikipedia [1]). The Wikipedia article in turn references an article by NASA [2]. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun [2] http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:21:34 -0400: Hi, ...but it's the light that we are measuring, so affects that delay the propagation of light are significant. More... here is another very good simulation of magnetic effects in a supernova http://www.space.com/25771-big-bang-universe-supernova-simulations.html On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: More... http://vimeo.com/27247968 This simulation depicts a exploding star that produces load of magnetic field lines that can disrupt the surface of the exploding star. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: There is an assumption that energy is transferred from the core of the sun to the surface via photons. This is most likely not true. Magnetic field lines may well move most of the energy from inside the sun to the surface where it excites the corona to very high temperatures in the millions of degrees. The surface of the sun is only 5505 °C. However, the temperature increases very steeply from 5505 degrees to a few million degrees in the corona, in the region 500 kilometers above the photosphere. This is the opposite for what would be expected for heat transfer through black body radiation. The same EMF heat transfer mechanism could well be true for supernova explosions. The surface of the exploding star could be blow off instantaneously through an intense pulse of EMF. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 17 years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound footing. If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then I'm surprised that they only got if wrong by a factor of 2 for the supernova. Good point about the lack of precision in the estimates. I used a footnote but failed to include the original reference (it was to Wikipedia [1]). The Wikipedia article in turn references an article by NASA [2]. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun [2] http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:23:03 -0700: Hi, That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 17 years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound footing. If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then I'm surprised that they only got if wrong by a factor of 2 for the supernova. On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The delay is caused by the photons trying to fight their way through the plasma and gas. Even after the explosion has taken place, some of them still have to fight their way through the expanding plasma cloud ... Note also that in a star like the sun, the estimated time for radiation to reach the surface is between 10,000 and 170,000 years [1]. I'm not sure exactly how this time is apportioned for different starting points from the center. But nonetheless if these values can be compared to the 4 hour delay, then we can get a rough estimate of the speedup: 10,000 years / 4 hours = 8.76581E7 hours / 4 hours ~ 21,914,531 So if you're right about the delay being due to the light traveling slower in the milieu of the supernova than in a vacuum, even then there's been a 21 million-fold increase in its velocity, which seems reasonable. I imagine they're measuring the start of the four hours by looking for radiation from the direction of the source above some minimum intensity? Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 17 years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound footing. If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then I'm surprised that they only got if wrong by a factor of 2 for the supernova. Good point about the lack of precision in the estimates. I used a footnote but failed to include the original reference (it was to Wikipedia [1]). The Wikipedia article in turn references an article by NASA [2]. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun [2] http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
There is an assumption that energy is transferred from the core of the sun to the surface via photons. This is most likely not true. Magnetic field lines may well move most of the energy from inside the sun to the surface where it excites the corona to very high temperatures in the millions of degrees. The surface of the sun is only 5505 °C. However, the temperature increases very steeply from 5505 degrees to a few million degrees in the corona, in the region 500 kilometers above the photosphere. This is the opposite for what would be expected for heat transfer through black body radiation. The same EMF heat transfer mechanism could well be true for supernova explosions. The surface of the exploding star could be blow off instantaneously through an intense pulse of EMF. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: That the estimates for the time taken in the Sun vary between 1 17 years, then this tells me that such estimates are not on a very sound footing. If the difference is a factor of 17 for a constant star like the Sun, then I'm surprised that they only got if wrong by a factor of 2 for the supernova. Good point about the lack of precision in the estimates. I used a footnote but failed to include the original reference (it was to Wikipedia [1]). The Wikipedia article in turn references an article by NASA [2]. Eric [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun [2] http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
The time delay is anticipated as follows: SN 1987A was first observed in February, 1987 when it baffled some scientists with an intriguing anomaly. After a star collapses, traditionally a super nova should immediately emit a burst of neutrinos, followed by a time delayed burst of photons. In the case of SN 1987, this time delay it greater than it should have been as the optical light arrived roughly 7.7 hours after the neutrinos, or 4.7 hours late *instead of the expected 3 hours delay.* Read more at http://www.zmescience.com/space/supernova-speed-of-light-change053456/#UKDuRAvRQzU8Goft.99 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:22 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:30:54 -0700: Hi, I suspect that the explanation is far simpler. It takes photons something like 1 years to exit the sun AFAIK. So photons generated at some distance below the surface are delayed relative to neutrinos generated in the same reaction. I would expect a similar effect to occur during a supernova explosion. In short the slowing doesn't happen in space after they have left the supernova, it happen in the plasma of the supernova itself, before they leave. If this is the correct explanation, then similar delays should be measured for supernova explosions of similar size, irrespective of distance from Earth. Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Of course we have data comparing nearby super nova explosions to those of distant ones. I do not recall anyone finding the delay in relation to the nearby ones. The other issue to consider is that these explosions are extremely energetic. Certainly the amount of time required to tear apart the star is measured in seconds instead of hours. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 1:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:30:54 -0700: Hi, I suspect that the explanation is far simpler. It takes photons something like 1 years to exit the sun AFAIK. So photons generated at some distance below the surface are delayed relative to neutrinos generated in the same reaction. I would expect a similar effect to occur during a supernova explosion. In short the slowing doesn't happen in space after they have left the supernova, it happen in the plasma of the supernova itself, before they leave. If this is the correct explanation, then similar delays should be measured for supernova explosions of similar size, irrespective of distance from Earth. Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problemthe arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Interesting that they expected it to be delayed by 3 hours. How would a star remain together for that long under those extreme conditions? The forces generated by the energy contained in such a small local should be almost beyond imagination. How long does an A bomb remain intact? (few microseconds?) Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 2:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum The time delay is anticipated as follows: SN 1987A was first observed in February, 1987 when it baffled some scientists with an intriguing anomaly. After a star collapses, traditionally a super nova should immediately emit a burst of neutrinos, followed by a time delayed burst of photons. In the case of SN 1987, this time delay it greater than it should have been as the optical light arrived roughly 7.7 hours after the neutrinos, or 4.7 hours late instead of the expected 3 hours delay. Read more at http://www.zmescience.com/space/supernova-speed-of-light-change053456/#UKDuRAvRQzU8Goft.99 On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:22 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:30:54 -0700: Hi, I suspect that the explanation is far simpler. It takes photons something like 1 years to exit the sun AFAIK. So photons generated at some distance below the surface are delayed relative to neutrinos generated in the same reaction. I would expect a similar effect to occur during a supernova explosion. In short the slowing doesn't happen in space after they have left the supernova, it happen in the plasma of the supernova itself, before they leave. If this is the correct explanation, then similar delays should be measured for supernova explosions of similar size, irrespective of distance from Earth. Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Of course we have data comparing nearby super nova explosions to those of distant ones. I do not recall anyone finding the delay in relation to the nearby ones. The other issue to consider is that these explosions are extremely energetic. Certainly the amount of time required to tear apart the star is measured in seconds instead of hours. The delay is caused by the photons trying to fight their way through the plasma and gas. Even after the explosion has taken place, some of them still have to fight their way through the expanding plasma cloud, especially if the explosion was asymmetrical, i.e. if there was initially a lot of mass between us and the point where it initiated, or the star was exceptionally large to begin with. In short there are several factor which could effect the delay, so I'm not surprised that they got it a bit wrong. IMO this is a simpler and hence more likely explanation than new physics. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT): Hi, BTW there may also have been also have been other external gas/dust/plasma clouds between the us and the explosion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
I agree that there should be no new physics involved except for some form of unknown interaction between here and the source of the signals. I suppose we are left with a question as to whether or not sufficient data is available about closer super nova as compared with those far removed. It would not surprise me in the least to find that photons behave differently than neutrinos as they travel throughout vast spatial distances. Electromagnetic fields interact with just about everything in space while neutrinos are moving freely except for the effects of gravity. It is exciting to find an unexpected difference which might reveal new phenomena. Now, how many relatively close by nova do they have as reference? It still seems unusual that several hours elapses before the visual light emerges under normal conditions. Could it be that measuring the neutrino arrival times is difficult due to low count numbers? Seems like only a few are captured during an event. Does anyone know of sets of data that show how consistent the two arrival times have been measured in the past, as that would be interesting to compare? It would also be revealing to know how long the neutrino event lasts since that would imply how long the star remains intact. Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Of course we have data comparing nearby super nova explosions to those of distant ones. I do not recall anyone finding the delay in relation to the nearby ones. The other issue to consider is that these explosions are extremely energetic. Certainly the amount of time required to tear apart the star is measured in seconds instead of hours. The delay is caused by the photons trying to fight their way through the plasma and gas. Even after the explosion has taken place, some of them still have to fight their way through the expanding plasma cloud, especially if the explosion was asymmetrical, i.e. if there was initially a lot of mass between us and the point where it initiated, or the star was exceptionally large to begin with. In short there are several factor which could effect the delay, so I'm not surprised that they got it a bit wrong. IMO this is a simpler and hence more likely explanation than new physics. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Yeah, that is what I have been suspecting which should delay the light but not neutrinos. Perhaps we have stumbled upon a form of CT scan using neutrinos and light time differences to detect density of dust and gas between us and the nova. All we need is for space to remain constant for a few hours along the way. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 1, 2014 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:11:05 -0400 (EDT): Hi, BTW there may also have been also have been other external gas/dust/plasma clouds between the us and the explosion. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: The delay is caused by the photons trying to fight their way through the plasma and gas. Even after the explosion has taken place, some of them still have to fight their way through the expanding plasma cloud ... Note also that in a star like the sun, the estimated time for radiation to reach the surface is between 10,000 and 170,000 years [1]. I'm not sure exactly how this time is apportioned for different starting points from the center. But nonetheless if these values can be compared to the 4 hour delay, then we can get a rough estimate of the speedup: 10,000 years / 4 hours = 8.76581E7 hours / 4 hours ~ 21,914,531 So if you're right about the delay being due to the light traveling slower in the milieu of the supernova than in a vacuum, even then there's been a 21 million-fold increase in its velocity, which seems reasonable. I imagine they're measuring the start of the four hours by looking for radiation from the direction of the source above some minimum intensity? Eric
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jun 29, 2014 10:13 pm Subject: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum To really understand LENR, we must really understand how the vacuum works. There is a new pile of dots involved in this effort that must be strung together before a coherent picture of the vacuum can take shape. It seems that the vacuum takes its behavior from what is flowing in it. This is what makes LENR so complicated. When many different items compete for the management of the vacuums behavior, things really get complicated. One of the dots that has just shown up is the data analysis from Supernova 1987a. --- http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicist-slower-thought.html Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought --- Snip Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours. Scientists at the time attributed it to a likelihood that the photons were actually from another source. But what if that wasn't what it was, Franson wonders, what if light slows down as it travels due to a property of photons known as vacuum polarization—where a photon splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon. That should create a gravitational differential, he notes, between the pair of particles, which, he theorizes, would have a tiny energy impact when they recombine—enough to cause a slight bit of a slowdown during travel. If such splitting and rejoining occurred many times with many photons on a journey of 168,000 light years, the distance between us and SN 1987A, it could easily add up to the 4.7 hour delay, he suggests. EndSnip A beam of light may be a series of discontinuous transfers of energy packets between virtual particles created by the presence of the photon as it travels along. A larger packet of photon energy carried by the vacuum means more virtual particles are produced by the vacuum. An energetic photon must fight through a blizzard of vacuum self-catalyzed virtual particles as it matches its way through space. Neutrinos, on the other hand, produce not virtual particles as it travels along and it can make good time at the supposed speed of light. I suspect that what the vacuum actually does in the way of producing virtual particles is based on the kinds of zero point particles that are floating inside of it. If LENR is ultimately caused by the injection of energy into the vacuum, what the vacuum will do in response can be very complicated based on the kind of stuff that it contains.
RE: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
Any light that originates as a result of absorption and then re-emitted would surely move at the speed of 'c' relative to the scattering source. Dave -Original Message- From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. hoyt-stea...@cox.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 10:31 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave ...Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum
In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:30:54 -0700: Hi, I suspect that the explanation is far simpler. It takes photons something like 1 years to exit the sun AFAIK. So photons generated at some distance below the surface are delayed relative to neutrinos generated in the same reaction. I would expect a similar effect to occur during a supernova explosion. In short the slowing doesn't happen in space after they have left the supernova, it happen in the plasma of the supernova itself, before they leave. If this is the correct explanation, then similar delays should be measured for supernova explosions of similar size, irrespective of distance from Earth. Interesting idea. Would light just being absorbed in dust then re-emitted cause a delay ( highly dispersive, though, I'd guess). From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A complicated vacuum Consider the following: Light could be considered the passing of electromagnetic fields through space. Certainly the wavelength gets much larger as the frequency of the emission approaches zero Hertz. If you take into account that the fact that the time of travel appears to be the same for light of varying wavelengths then something like this might be happening: As the wave propagates through space it encounters charged particles. Each of these will scatter the wave to a degree due to the interaction of the fields with the charged particles. The net wave shape will become more complex as a result and should exhibit interference patterns. I suspect that this will tend to cause the incoming waves to effectively slow down and approach the average velocity of the matter that it encounters. Neutrinos on the other hand are only effected by gravity as far as is known. Could this difference in behavior cause the light to slow down relative to the neutrinos? Dave Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problemthe arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:A complicated vacuum
To really understand LENR, we must really understand how the vacuum works. There is a new pile of dots involved in this effort that must be strung together before a coherent picture of the vacuum can take shape. It seems that the vacuum takes its behavior from what is flowing in it. This is what makes LENR so complicated. When many different items compete for the management of the vacuums behavior, things really get complicated. One of the dots that has just shown up is the data analysis from Supernova 1987a. --- http://phys.org/news/2014-06-physicist-slower-thought.html Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought --- Snip Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours. Scientists at the time attributed it to a likelihood that the photons were actually from another source. But what if that wasn't what it was, Franson wonders, what if light slows down as it travels due to a property of photons known as vacuum polarization—where a photon splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon. That should create a gravitational differential, he notes, between the pair of particles, which, he theorizes, would have a tiny energy impact when they recombine—enough to cause a slight bit of a slowdown during travel. If such splitting and rejoining occurred many times with many photons on a journey of 168,000 light years, the distance between us and SN 1987A, it could easily add up to the 4.7 hour delay, he suggests. EndSnip A beam of light may be a series of discontinuous transfers of energy packets between virtual particles created by the presence of the photon as it travels along. A larger packet of photon energy carried by the vacuum means more virtual particles are produced by the vacuum. An energetic photon must fight through a blizzard of vacuum self-catalyzed virtual particles as it matches its way through space. Neutrinos, on the other hand, produce not virtual particles as it travels along and it can make good time at the supposed speed of light. I suspect that what the vacuum actually does in the way of producing virtual particles is based on the kinds of zero point particles that are floating inside of it. If LENR is ultimately caused by the injection of energy into the vacuum, what the vacuum will do in response can be very complicated based on the kind of stuff that it contains.
