Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
Mark, That was a good paper, thanks for posting On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: You might look at this paper as well; I've mentioned it many moons ago. Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields, Xing-Hao Ye http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 Abstract The electric and magnetic fields are investigated on the basis of quantum vacuum. The analysis of the electromagnetic energy and force indicates that an electric field is a polarized distribution of the vacuum virtual dipoles, and that a magnetic field in vacuum is a rearrangement of the vacuum polarization. It means that an electromagnetic wave is a successional changing of the vacuum polarization in space. Also, it is found that the average half length of the virtual dipoles around an elementary charge is a=2.8 *10^(-15)m. The result leads to the step distribution of the field energy around an electron, the relation between the fine structure constant and the vacuum polarization distribution, and an extremely high energy density of the electromagnetic field. Finally, Anyone who has seen the mag-field-lines in iron filings has to at least wonder if this is an obvious manifestation of the polarization discussed in the above paper... 'Fields' are not just convenient mathematical constructs, but a real physical phenomenon which directly influences matter. The scientist in me then wonders if the iron filings are following a polarization of atoms in the air??? But I would bet that you would see the same thing if done in a vacuum... -Mark Iverson *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:02 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago... I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work... Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good... but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking... NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math... and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is... it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson *From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
U R welcome, ChemE!
Does anyone know if the astronauts have ever done the magnet and
iron-filings kind of thing while in zero-g???
Anyone know of such an experiment done in a vacuum in 1g???
Is my assumption valid that the mag-field lines would still be
obvious... i.e., that this is possibly a physical manifestation of the
polarization of the vacuum...
-mi
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Mark,
That was a good paper, thanks for posting
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
wrote:
You might look at this paper as well; Irsquo;ve mentioned it many moons
ago.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields, Xing-Hao Ye
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
Abstract http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
The electric and magnetic fields are investigated on the basis of
quantum vacuum. The analysis of the electromagnetic energy and force
indicates that an electric field is a polarized distribution of the
vacuum virtual dipoles, and that a magnetic field in vacuum is a
rearrangement of the vacuum polarization. It means that an
electromagnetic wave is a successional changing of the vacuum
polarization in space. Also, it is found that the average half length of
the virtual dipoles around an elementary charge is a=2.8 *10^(-15)m. The
result leads to the step distribution of the field energy around an
electron, the relation between the fine structure constant and the
vacuum polarization distribution, and an extremely high energy density
of the electromagnetic field. http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
Finally, http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
Anyone who has seen the mag-field-lines in iron filings has to at least
wonder if this is an obvious manifestation of the polarization discussed
in the above paperhellip; lsquo;Fieldsrsquo; are not just convenient
mathematical constructs, but a real physical phenomenon which directly
influences matter. The scientist in me then wonders if the iron filings
are following a polarization of atoms in the air??? But I would bet
that you would see the same thing if done in a vacuumhellip;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
-Mark Iverson http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2
From: John Berry [mailto: berry.joh...@gmail.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('berry.joh...@gmail.com') ]
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('berry.joh...@gmail.com')
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:02 AM
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('berry.joh...@gmail.com')
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more
like religious types.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of
space due to the speed of light limit.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Only it requires acceleration.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around
a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
I can find it if anyone is interested.
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
John
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('vortex-l@eskimo.com')
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
wrote:
javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('zeropo...@charter.net')
I donrsquo;t know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned
previously that the concept of inertia being
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
Magnetic field lines can be mapped using a compass. Iron-filings act like miniature compass needles when sprinkled on paper covering a magnet. Friction between the paper and an iron-filing ensures the iron-filing will pivot like a compass needle. In zero-g the iron-filings would need to be placed in a viscous suspension. Harry On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:26 PM, MarkI-Zeropoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: U R welcome, ChemE! Does anyone know if the astronauts have ever done the magnet and iron-filings kind of thing while in zero-g??? Anyone know of such an experiment done in a vacuum in 1g??? Is my assumption valid that the mag-field lines would still be obvious... i.e., that this is possibly a physical manifestation of the polarization of the vacuum... -mi On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:07 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote: Mark, That was a good paper, thanks for posting On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint *zeropo...@charter.net* wrote: You might look at this paper as well; Irsquo;ve mentioned it many moons ago. Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields, Xing-Hao Ye *http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2* http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 Abstract http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 The electric and magnetic fields are investigated on the basis of quantum vacuum. The analysis of the electromagnetic energy and force indicates that an electric field is a polarized distribution of the vacuum virtual dipoles, and that a magnetic field in vacuum is a rearrangement of the vacuum polarization. It means that an electromagnetic wave is a successional changing of the vacuum polarization in space. Also, it is found that the average half length of the virtual dipoles around an elementary charge is a=2.8 *10^(-15)m. The result leads to the step distribution of the field energy around an electron, the relation between the fine structure constant and the vacuum polarization distribution, and an extremely high energy density of the electromagnetic field. http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 Finally, http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 Anyone who has seen the mag-field-lines in iron filings has to at least wonder if this is an obvious manifestation of the polarization discussed in the above paperhellip; lsquo;Fieldsrsquo; are not just convenient mathematical constructs, but a real physical phenomenon which directly influences matter. The scientist in me then wonders if the iron filings are following a polarization of atoms in the air??? But I would bet that you would see the same thing if done in a vacuumhellip; http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 -Mark Iverson http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 *From: *John Berry [mailto: *berry.joh...@gmail.com*] *Sent: *Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:02 AM *To: **vortex-l@eskimo.com* *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint *zeropo...@charter.net* wrote: I donrsquo;t know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic lsquo;dragrsquo; between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years agohellip; Irsquo;ve visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad workhellip; Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: ldquo;Well, I canrsquo;t find any errors in your math, and the physics looks goodhellip; but it just canrsquo;t be.rdquo; Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talkinghellip; NOT! It was Bernie Haischrsquo;s concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the mathhellip; and take a look at the 1994 paper and yoursquo;ll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda ishellip; itrsquo;s like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, herersquo;s a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) *http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3*http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3http
RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago. I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work. Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good. but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking. NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math. and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is. it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago... I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work... Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good... but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking... NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math... and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is... it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson *From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move
RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
RE: near-field papers I would most definitely like any references. I've also been told by a very skilled RF engineer that the electric and magnetic fields in the near-field are not necessarily coupled; not sure if that is the exact term he used, but his point was that the near field is somewhat, or can be somewhat, different from the far-field. -mark From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago. I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work. Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good. but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking. NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math. and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is. it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front
RE: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
You might look at this paper as well; I've mentioned it many moons ago. Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields, Xing-Hao Ye http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.1305v2 Abstract The electric and magnetic fields are investigated on the basis of quantum vacuum. The analysis of the electromagnetic energy and force indicates that an electric field is a polarized distribution of the vacuum virtual dipoles, and that a magnetic field in vacuum is a rearrangement of the vacuum polarization. It means that an electromagnetic wave is a successional changing of the vacuum polarization in space. Also, it is found that the average half length of the virtual dipoles around an elementary charge is a=2.8 *10^(-15)m. The result leads to the step distribution of the field energy around an electron, the relation between the fine structure constant and the vacuum polarization distribution, and an extremely high energy density of the electromagnetic field. Finally, Anyone who has seen the mag-field-lines in iron filings has to at least wonder if this is an obvious manifestation of the polarization discussed in the above paper. 'Fields' are not just convenient mathematical constructs, but a real physical phenomenon which directly influences matter. The scientist in me then wonders if the iron filings are following a polarization of atoms in the air??? But I would bet that you would see the same thing if done in a vacuum. -Mark Iverson From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 1:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Yes, when beliefs are challenged, most scientists end up acting more like religious types. To explain my idea most simply, it is magnetic hysteresis like drag of space due to the speed of light limit. Only it requires acceleration. Secondly I have found scientific papers claim that the near-field around a dipole transmits instantaneously within the quarter wave length. I can find it if anyone is interested. John On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 7:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I don't know if your EM inertia is the same thing, but I mentioned previously that the concept of inertia being a kind of electromagnetic 'drag' between accelerated matter and the vacuum of space was first derived/proposed by Haisch/Rueda many years ago. I've visited Dr. Rueda several times at his office, Cal State Long Beach, which is where I did my undergrad work. Their first paper on this topic was: B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev A 48 (1994) 678 It derived the formula for inertia, F=ma, from the zero-point field; F=ma was a fundamental equation not thought to be derivable. Comments from the peer-reviewers went something like this: Well, I can't find any errors in your math, and the physics looks good. but it just can't be. Gee, that sure sounds like a scientist talking. NOT! It was Bernie Haisch's concept, but Dr. Rueda did all the math. and take a look at the 1994 paper and you'll get some idea of just what kind of mathematician Rueda is. it's like 40+ pages of mostly equations. Anyway, here's a reference for a followup paper they did in 2005: Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis Alfonso Rueda, Bernard Haisch (Submitted on 13 Apr 2005 (v1), last revised 15 Apr 2005 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504061v3 This caught my eye when scanning the conclusions: (7) An experimental prediction has been made that the mass of the resonant electromagnetic zero-point field modes within a cavity should add to the mass of the cavity structure. -Mark Iverson From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html
[Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
I have shared this concept before, here is try 2, I'd really like some feedback I hope it is easy to understand and I think it is potentially important. The concept is that if a coil powdered with flat DC is suddenly moved, each side of the solenoid sees it is in a new position and yet because changes in the magnetic field are assumed to occur at C, they initially find that they have moved relative to the other side, one side sees it has moved closer and the other further away from the other. Hence the repulsion of the 2 sides becomes uneven, this results in an inertial like force, as if the magnetic field has it's own mass. Ascii art of the coil orientation in the first example: - O - Legend: O = coil, - arrow showing direction of acceleration. Interestingly this can be reversed, if we now have 2 coils in attraction and move then suddenly at once it is attraction that becomes imbalanced, each coil sees the old position initially, the rear coil sees a stronger attraction to the front coil as it has moved closer to where it sees it was while the front coils attraction to the rear one is decreased. This leads to a force that actually helps the applied acceleration! Ascii art of the coil orientation in the second example: - | | - Legend: | =One coil side on, - arrow showing direction of acceleration. Does it disagree with the laws of equal and opposite action (which also implies breaking the conservation of energy)? Not necessarily, the magnetic fields are accelerating and could emit a magnetic variation of cyclotron radiation, as such this would not breach these laws and more than a light propulsion system would. However the magnetic fields could be sourced from permanent magnets, and while this would not give the desired lightness, it would mean that any energy would be pulled from atomic energy. I would assert that this could only fail if the speed of light is breached by the near-field of a magnet. There is work from the DOE in this direction also, so it is certainly not absurd. http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnetic-propulsion1.htm Can anyone see any problems, improvements, suggestions where to go from here? John
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:47 AM Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I have shared this concept before, here is try 2, I'd really like some feedback I hope it is easy to understand and I think it is potentially important. The concept is that if a coil powdered with flat DC is suddenly moved, each side of the solenoid sees it is in a new position and yet because changes in the magnetic field are assumed to occur at C, they initially find that they have moved relative to the other side, one side sees it has moved closer and the other further away from the other. Hence the repulsion of the 2 sides becomes uneven, this results in an inertial like force, as if the magnetic field has it's own mass. Ascii art of the coil orientation in the first example: - O - Legend: O = coil, - arrow showing direction of acceleration. Interestingly this can be reversed, if we now have 2 coils in attraction and move then suddenly at once it is attraction that becomes imbalanced, each coil sees the old position initially, the rear coil sees a stronger attraction to the front coil as it has moved closer to where it sees it was while the front coils attraction to the rear one is decreased. This leads to a force that actually helps the applied acceleration! Ascii art of the coil orientation in the second example: - | | - Legend: | =One coil side on, - arrow showing direction of acceleration. Does it disagree with the laws of equal and opposite action (which also implies breaking the conservation of energy)? Not necessarily, the magnetic fields are accelerating and could emit a magnetic variation of cyclotron radiation, as such this would not breach these laws and more than a light propulsion system would. However the magnetic fields could be sourced from permanent magnets, and while this would not give the desired lightness, it would mean that any energy would be pulled from atomic energy. I would assert that this could only fail if the speed of light is breached by the near-field of a magnet. There is work from the DOE in this direction also, so it is certainly not absurd. http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnetic-propulsion1.htm Can anyone see any problems, improvements, suggestions where to go from here? John
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:47 AM Subject: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia I have shared this concept before, here is try 2, I'd really like some feedback I hope it is easy to understand and I think it is potentially important. The concept is that if a coil powdered with flat DC is suddenly moved, each side of the solenoid sees it is in a new position and yet because changes in the magnetic field are assumed to occur at C, they initially find that they have moved relative to the other side, one side sees it has moved closer and the other further away from the other. Hence the repulsion of the 2 sides becomes uneven, this results in an inertial like force, as if the magnetic field has it's own mass. Ascii art of the coil orientation in the first example: - O - Legend: O = coil, - arrow showing direction of acceleration. Interestingly this can be reversed, if we now have 2 coils in attraction and move then suddenly at once it is attraction that becomes imbalanced, each coil sees the old position initially, the rear coil sees a stronger attraction to the front coil as it has moved closer to where it sees it was while the front coils attraction to the rear one is decreased. This leads to a force that actually helps the applied acceleration! Ascii art of the coil orientation in the second example: - | | - Legend: | =One coil side on, - arrow showing direction of acceleration. Does it disagree with the laws of equal and opposite action (which also implies breaking the conservation of energy)? Not necessarily, the magnetic fields are accelerating and could emit a magnetic variation of cyclotron radiation, as such this would not breach these laws and more than a light propulsion system would. However the magnetic fields could be sourced from permanent magnets, and while this would not give the desired lightness, it would mean that any energy would be pulled from atomic energy. I would assert that this could only fail if the speed of light is breached by the near-field of a magnet. There is work from the DOE in this direction also, so it is certainly not absurd. http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnetic-propulsion1.htm Can anyone see any problems, improvements, suggestions where to go from here? John
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for visualization purposes. Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration. Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is applied. Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is created. This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail). And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they aren't). However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize. If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about. The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the DOE for NASA, but their version uses switching which does not paint as certain a picture: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ele...ropulsion1.htm This proves the idea is sound, even IF switched versions are superior in practice. BTW any arguments based on issues with simultaneity will fail, so please think twice before making that objection. Practical versions of this effect as a star drive could involve magnets that undergo changes in magnetic orientation as they are being rapidly accelerated/decelerated to switch between inertia being increased or decreased, and as such
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for visualization purposes. Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration. Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is applied. Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is created. This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail). And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they aren't). However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize. If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about. The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the DOE for NASA, but their version uses switching which does not paint as certain a picture: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ele...ropulsion1.htm This proves the idea is sound, even IF switched versions are superior in practice. BTW any arguments based on issues with simultaneity
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for visualization purposes. Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration. Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is applied. Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is created. This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail). And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they aren't). However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize. If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about. The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work by the DOE for NASA, but their version uses switching which does not paint as certain a picture: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ele...ropulsion1.htm This proves the idea is sound, even IF switched versions are superior in practice. BTW any arguments based on issues with simultaneity
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
John-- I would say that they do. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for visualization purposes. Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration. Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is applied. Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is created. This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail). And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they aren't). However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize. If made light enough, true net negative inertial resistance could be envisioned, but this doesn't bare thinking about. The principle is based on the same light speed delay as this work
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for visualization purposes. Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration. Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is applied. Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is created. This could then reasonably be assumed to be a variation of a light propulsion (a photon rocket, or a solar sail). And hence not to breach any laws any more than than these are (which they aren't). However because the magnetic fields could be supplied by permanent magnets, the energy could be tapped from atomic states, what would happen I don't know, maybe they would tap energy from the vacuum/ZPE to maintain it, or maybe the mater would somehow disintegrate or just demagnetize. If made light enough, true net negative
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for visualization purposes. Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration. Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is applied. Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation is created. This could then reasonably
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - *From:* John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.comwrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils 1 light second or larger in size for visualization purposes. Decrease of inertia/Negative inertia: If instead of one coil we have 2 in attraction, with one at the front of out spaceship and one at the back, if we suddenly accelerate the rear coil will see it's attraction to the front coil has increased, and the front coil will see it's attraction to the rear coil decreased, again because both coils initially see the old position for the other coil. And if the rear coil is attracted forward more strongly than the front coil is attracted back, this means that there is a net force assisting acceleration. Of course both of these effects would continue as long as acceleration is applied. Why doesn't this break Newtons law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? And if that is broken so is the conservation of energy! If you accelerate an electron you get cyclotron/synchrotron radiation, if you accelerate a magnet it is reasonable to assume some type of EM radiation
Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia
I looked at this and came up with the source of electromagnetic inertia is the acceleration of an energy flow. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter7.html -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Mar 14, 2014 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia Then my idea is bust. But so is Special Relativity. There is no way for my idea to be wrong and Special Relativity to survive. John On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Yes--I meant that I would say they propagate instantaneously. I think the field lines come out straight from the Sun. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- I would say that they do. I assume you mean propagate instantaneously? At least there is still the booby prize of disprovng SR. If they didn't, it seems the magnetic fields coming from the Sun to the earth would consistently have an arc concaved in the opposite direction from the Sun's rotation. I do not think this is observed. However, it may not have been looked for. Bob - Original Message - From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Electromagnetic inertia On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: John-- Three points for clarification: How is the solenoid move, along the axis, perpendicular to the axis or rotate around the axis? In the case of increasing inertia, there is one solenoid and if you saw it as an O of your screen, it would accelerate to the right with that orientation. You could say in this case that the magnetic field axis is perpendicular to the acceleration axis. In the case of decreasing inertia, the axis of of the magnetic field of each coil is aligned to the axis of acceleration, and one coil is in front and one behind. If we were to try this on a spaceship, we would wrap one coil around the front of the spaceship, and one around the rear. Do you assume the electrons within the solenoid move at the velocity and acceleration of the solenoid? If so why? Because electrons tend to stay in the wire. Additionally all electromagnets could be replaced by permanent magnets. Why do you assume the magnetic field moves with the speed of light? It might move instantaneously, in fact I believe that could be the disproof of this idea. But in doing so it destroys Special Relativity, though not my goal this time, it is still a worthwhile discovery. It would seem it moves relative to the electrons motion and with inductive feedback force on the electrons. So a question is how fast does the inductive force happen? That is a good question. After writing this I did find a claim that near-fields propagate instantaneously. But there is no way around it, if they do Special Relativity is a fiction. BTW here is another version that might make it clearer: Increase of inertia: Make a square solenoid air core coil, we will label the sides left, right and up and down. At rest all sides of the solenoid repel the opposite sides equally leading to no net force. If we see the square coil as a square on our monitor and we suddenly accelerate it to the right, the left side of the coil will see it has now moved closer to the right side as it still sees the initial position (both visually and magnetically), it is literally moving into a denser portion of the right sides magnetic field because of a light speed delay, and feels a stronger repulsion. And the right side sees it has moved further away from the left side as it still sees the old position initially again so the right side feels a reduced repulsion as it is in a weaker portion of the magnetic field from the left. This means that a net magnetic force to the left is created, which opposes the initial acceleration. It is as if the rest mass has increased by electromagnetic means. Note: It might help to make these coils
