Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Fran and Robin, I think it is important to keep in mind the fact that the Casimir force equations become meaningless when atoms approach at close rage. Near field effects overwhelm photonic effects, like black body radiation, and joint entangled quantum wave forms become significant. The Casimir force equations are based on the establishment of boundary conditions on zero point oscillations of the vacuum. Boundaries require the separation of matter surfaces, i.e. the existence of distinct matter surfaces. As surfaces approach the boundary conditions necessary for sustaining the accuracy of the Casimir force equations becomes fuzzy and other interactions dominate the forces. While zero point energy, the ground state energy of the vacuum, must remain significant in various forms in condensed matter, the Casimir force itself becomes a nonsensical concept to apply, and the Casimir force equations lose all significance. Of course this is not to say I haven't attempted to make use of close approach Casimir force concepts myself, though mainly as a conceptual guide. I don't subscribe to any specific theory of gravity. They all have their flaws and only mother nature can decide what is correct by arbitrating experiments. However, it makes no more sense to me to attribute the Casimir force to gravity than it does to attribute the force between two magnets to gravity. I suppose the case can be made that all forces are gravity, or the equivalent case that all forces are electromagnetic, including gravity. That is to say that gravity is the result of the push of virtual photons, not attraction due to the exchange of a gravity specific messenger particle. Whatever theory of gravity is selected, GR, gravity as push, gravity as exchange of gravity messenger particle, etc., it makes no sense at all to me to mix theories, i.e. to ascribe relativistic time dilation space warping ideas of GR to cavities which have significance only to boundary conditions for vacuum oscillations. To me it is mixing metaphors, and confusing at best. It certainly makes for endless confused discussion, which I would like to avoid, especially at this time of year. The snow line is dropping down the mountains toward sea level here, and I have many mundane things requiring my time. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Frank Roarty wrote: Horace, you have succeeded in steering me away from using the DiFiore et all proposals for anything other than demonstrating the break in isotropy. In re-reading their paper it appears they are trying to quantify the opposing net gravitational force for the entire structure of layered cavities. That is correct. By building on that false premise I was shooting myself in the foot, The calculated Casimir force is much higher and up converts the ratio of short/long vacuum fluctuations curving space-time proportionally. This is, and is based on, a conglomeration of phantasmagoric hypotheses which makes no sense to me - so I'll not comment. I intend to put the standard Casimir formula for non ideal metals into a spreadsheet so I can compare the results between normal Casimir spacing and reduced spacing for fractional radii (home repairs are delaying me). This then is the force between spheres. Casimir plates are made of atoms. It would be astounding to make casimir plates out of hydino matter. Maybe possible, but difficult in the extreme. Whether you subscribe to hydrino, relativistic or other scenario the narrowest possible plate spacing is reduced by a factor of 137 assuming Bourgoin's math is correct. It is technically very difficult to obtain plate spacings of less than a micron. I seem to recall the narrowest dimensions mentioned for a Casimir force was approximately 10 atoms wide so I would model the minimal spacing at 10x Bohr diameter/137 making the opening too small for even a single normal atom. How do you propose to achieve this? I realize there are some modifications to how the boundary fields of the plates add in very close proximity. I haven't actually read the Lifshitz work yet to see if this will come into play before the minimum 1/137 orbital radius proposed by Bourgoin is achieved. I also think a temperature coefficient will need to be considered based on the difference between Mills' results using a reactor and the slow results of Arata using just Hydrogen and Pd nano materials at room temperature. Best Regards Fran For two large, neutral, parallel conducting plates separated by a distance z in vacuum attract each other with the force per unit area P(z) =F(z) / S = -(pi^2 * reduced h * c) / (240* z^3) Here reduced h is the reduced Planck constant, c is the velocity of light, and S is the area of the plates. The reduced Planck constant is commonly referred to in ascii as h_bar. The force between two neutral conductive plates (ideally conducting and zero temperature) of area A with separation z is given by: F(z,A) = -(Pi^2 h_bar c A)/(240 z^4) The force Fs(z,R) between a sphere of radius R and plate at distance z from a plane, where Rz, is given by Mohideen: Fs(z,R) = -(Pi^3 h_bar c R)/(360 z^3) I think the above must be a typo. A more logical formula is: Fs(z,R) = -(Pi^3 h_bar c R^3)/(360 z^3) There are also corrections that have to be made for finite conductivity, roughness of surface, potentials if nonzero, and temperature. For info on the above see: http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/Casimir/PRL-Mohideen98.pdf We can thus deduce the force per unit area Fu(z) between plates as: Fu(z) = F(z,A) / A = [-(Pi^2 h_bar c A)/(240 z^4)]/A = -(Pi^2 h_bar c)/(240 z^4) Mostpanenko gives the formula for the force F2s between two spheres of radius R1 and R2 as: F2s(z,R1,R2) = -K (R1)^3 (R2)^3 / z^7 where K depends on the material involved. It is important to note that the Casimir force as described above is between objects consisting of ordinary matter, not individual atoms at close range. Forces change dramatically due to non zero point field interactions between atoms at close range. I think beyond all this there are some wonderful things to discover about matter in collision. I think there are special states formed periodically between orbital electrons and nuclei. These states have delayed existences due to electroweak vacuum transactions that occur in the nucleus when electrons are present there. These states are comparatively simple when only hydrogen is involved. However, it just may be wildly possible, fantasmagorically possible, that, during atom-atom, or ion-ion collision of heavier atoms, neutral heavy nuclei can be momentarily formed due to the action of the electron cloud between the colliding nuclei, resulting in momentarily high electron populations in one of the interacting nuclei. If such a nuclear complex can indeed form then transmutation tunneling is feasible resulting in heavy nucleus fusions that ordinarily would require much energy, not just to overcome the Coulomb barrier, but to provide the energy required for the nuclear binding. I think the hydrino state, if it exists, is likely a very unstable short lived
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Some corrected text of mine from prior post. The force between two neutral conductive plates (ideally conducting and zero temperature) of area A with separation z is given by: F(z,A) = -(Pi^2 h_bar c A)/(240 z^4) The force Fs(z,R) between a sphere of radius R and plate at distance z from a plane, where Rz, is given by Mohideen: Fs(z,R) = -(Pi^3 h_bar c R)/(360 z^3) I think the above is *not* a typo. There are also corrections that have to be made for finite conductivity, roughness of surface, potentials if nonzero, and temperature. For info on the above see: http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/Casimir/PRL-Mohideen98.pdf We can thus deduce the force per unit area Fu(z) between plates, the Casimir pressure, as: Fu(z) = F(z,A) / A = [-(Pi^2 h_bar c A)/(240 z^4)]/A = -(Pi^2 h_bar c)/(240 z^4) I think a good formula for the Casimir force F2s between two zero K temperature perfectly metallic spheres of radius R1 and R2 is: F2s(z,R1,R2) = -(Pi^3 h_bar c)*((R1 * R2)/(R1 + R2)) / (360 z^3) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Something to consider with regards to Casimir cavities and any proposed ionizing or other effects requiring energy greater than the ionizing energy for the atoms making up the cavity. If such ionizing effects existed with the cavity, then they would ionize the atoms forming the cavity. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation
I agree, in fact the ionization would have to be spread across both plates equally to keep them uncharged relative to each other or by definition it would no longer be a Casimir cavity. Regarding other effects I agree with one caveat, The permanent restriction of longer vacuum fluctuations caused by bracing the plates apart is a static bias already in balance between the cavity and the lattice. Relative motion of H1 to the plates via gas law exposes the atom to different regions where natural variations in plate spacing change the local value of Casimir force and therefore local restriction of longer vacuum flux proportionately. My point is this energy is already accounted for and any acceleration this imparts to the atom would be negligible to draw down the field established between the plates and cavity. Best Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:46 PM To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation Something to consider with regards to Casimir cavities and any proposed ionizing or other effects requiring energy greater than the ionizing energy for the atoms making up the cavity. If such ionizing effects existed with the cavity, then they would ionize the atoms forming the cavity. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:45:48 -0800: Hi, [snip] This then is the force between spheres. Casimir plates are made of atoms. It would be astounding to make casimir plates out of hydino matter. Maybe possible, but difficult in the extreme. ..perhaps not all that difficult. Consider the situation where Hydrino molecules condense into a liquid then freeze into a solid. That solid would have very close crystal planes. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:45:48 -0800: Hi, [snip] It is technically very difficult to obtain plate spacings of less than a micron. [snip] Normal solids already have crystal lattice spacing on the order of Angstroms. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:40 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:45:48 -0800: Hi, [snip] This then is the force between spheres. Casimir plates are made of atoms. It would be astounding to make casimir plates out of hydino matter. Maybe possible, but difficult in the extreme. ..perhaps not all that difficult. Consider the situation where Hydrino molecules condense into a liquid then freeze into a solid. That solid would have very close crystal planes. Just a few minor problems that might have to be dealt with there: (1) A source of enough hydrinos has to be produced such that they can be accumulated in pure form. (2) The hydrinos have to actually exist, and have a half life long enough to condense. (3) Some kind of vessel has to be able to hold the hydrinos without having them diffuse though it like a gas.. (4) To use these hydrinos in the context this problem was posed you then have to be able to make Casimir cavities or plates separated sufficiently that the resulting space is useful in creating more hydrinos, and yet the spacing is large enough to accomodate the hydrino candidates. (5) The hydrinos have to bond to multiple other hydrinos sufficiently well to form a solid that won't come apart when close to another surface made of the same stuff. To get an idea of the difficulty of a 1 micron plate separation experiment using metal plates, see: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/src/srcreport.htm Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:45:48 -0800: Hi, [snip] It is technically very difficult to obtain plate spacings of less than a micron. [snip] Normal solids already have crystal lattice spacing on the order of Angstroms. How is the relevant? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:46:23 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:45:48 -0800: Hi, [snip] It is technically very difficult to obtain plate spacings of less than a micron. [snip] Normal solids already have crystal lattice spacing on the order of Angstroms. How is the relevant? Think of a single crystal as two crystals separated by a single lattice spacing. The separation distance between the two is exactly one lattice spacing. Now you have two plates effectively with near perfectly smooth surfaces separated from one another by a very small distance. Note that real plates also have surfaces comprising atomic lattices, so the only difference in this case is the separation distance which is vastly smaller than anything we could achieve mechanically. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:45:42 -0800: Hi, [snip] ..perhaps not all that difficult. Consider the situation where Hydrino molecules condense into a liquid then freeze into a solid. That solid would have very close crystal planes. Just a few minor problems that might have to be dealt with there: (1) A source of enough hydrinos has to be produced such that they can be accumulated in pure form. (2) The hydrinos have to actually exist, and have a half life long enough to condense. Mills claims to have already achieved both, though this has not been replicated AFAIK. (3) Some kind of vessel has to be able to hold the hydrinos without having them diffuse though it like a gas.. May not be a problem at the temperatures at which they freeze, or at least for a while. Particularly if they tend to clump together so that the aggregate is larger than normal atomic spacing (see below). (4) To use these hydrinos in the context this problem was posed you then have to be able to make Casimir cavities or plates separated sufficiently that the resulting space is useful in creating more hydrinos, and yet the spacing is large enough to accomodate the hydrino candidates. You would never be able to get a whole hydrogen atom as such into such a lattice, however you could get individual protons and electrons into it. Whether or not that would be useful I don't know. (5) The hydrinos have to bond to multiple other hydrinos sufficiently well to form a solid that won't come apart when close to another surface made of the same stuff. Crystals don't normally come apart, because they are bound by internal attractive forces. I suspect that magnetic forces can bind Hydrino molecules. My reasoning goes like this. There is a small energy difference between ortho and para Hydrogen due to the magnetic moments of the nuclei. This internuclear magnetic force would rapidly get stronger as Hydrino molecules get smaller, due to the third power increase of magnetic forces with distance (if I correctly recall your previous posts on that topic). This can then give rise to a top-and-tail magnetic bond between molecules. Moreover, the Casimir force itself will also hold the crystal lattice together. I have a vague recollection of having once calculated that the magnitude of the Casimir force at normal lattice spacing of iron was about the same magnitude as the tensile strength of steel, however I may have gotten that wrong. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Robin, I would agree that defects in the lattice like 4nm gaps between graphite would form cavities but the problem with using the lattices themselves as the cavity is that I think lattice structures represent just the opposite effect. Diatomic metal atoms start out covalent then form almost free electron bonds (metallic) which concentrates mass and therefore vacuum flux very locally. If the geometry is arranged to form flat plates and then 2 of these plates are brought close together the isotropy is broken - the 2 concentration zones starve the narrow cavity reservoir. Here for once I can use DiFiore et all to good use - the reason their 10 E-14 calculated force was so small is because they were looking for a net effect for a stack of cavities with respect to the ambient external gravitational field - the problem is that the isotropy is broken only very very locally and the depletion zones where longer wavelength flux are discouraged is balanced by a larger distributed area where longer flux are encouraged in the lattice. This is not in opposition to the wavelength propagation having to be a multiple of the spacing but rather a property of the material that enhances this effect - as Horace pointed out all Casimir cavities do not have to be metal and many materials will have a small Casimir effect but the rigid cavities made of metal do seem to be the most active and associated with excess heat. I believe that lattices down convert flux just like cavities up convert flux and we can't have one without the other. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:46:23 -0800: Hi, [snip] On Oct 7, 2009, at 12:41 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:45:48 -0800: Hi, [snip] It is technically very difficult to obtain plate spacings of less than a micron. [snip] Normal solids already have crystal lattice spacing on the order of Angstroms. How is the relevant? Think of a single crystal as two crystals separated by a single lattice spacing. The separation distance between the two is exactly one lattice spacing. Now you have two plates effectively with near perfectly smooth surfaces separated from one another by a very small distance. Note that real plates also have surfaces comprising atomic lattices, so the only difference in this case is the separation distance which is vastly smaller than anything we could achieve mechanically. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Horace, you have succeeded in steering me away from using the DiFiore et all proposals for anything other than demonstrating the break in isotropy. In re-reading their paper it appears they are trying to quantify the opposing net gravitational force for the entire structure of layered cavities. By building on that false premise I was shooting myself in the foot, The calculated Casimir force is much higher and up converts the ratio of short/long vacuum fluctuations curving space-time proportionally. I intend to put the standard Casimir formula for non ideal metals into a spreadsheet so I can compare the results between normal Casimir spacing and reduced spacing for fractional radii (home repairs are delaying me). Whether you subscribe to hydrino, relativistic or other scenario the narrowest possible plate spacing is reduced by a factor of 137 assuming Bourgoin's math is correct. I seem to recall the narrowest dimensions mentioned for a Casimir force was approximately 10 atoms wide so I would model the minimal spacing at 10x Bohr diameter/137 making the opening too small for even a single normal atom. I realize there are some modifications to how the boundary fields of the plates add in very close proximity. I haven't actually read the Lifshitz work yet to see if this will come into play before the minimum 1/137 orbital radius proposed by Bourgoin is achieved. I also think a temperature coefficient will need to be considered based on the difference between Mills' results using a reactor and the slow results of Arata using just Hydrogen and Pd nano materials at room temperature. Best Regards Fran For two large, neutral, parallel conducting plates separated by a distance z in vacuum attract each other with the force per unit area P(z) =F(z) / S = -(pi^2 * reduced h * c) / (240* z^3) Here reduced h is the reduced Planck constant, c is the velocity of light, and S is the area of the plates. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 5:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Frank wrote: The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart H2 restoring monatomic energy levels. Fran, I had decided to leave you with your fantasies, but I just can't help myself! I have to make one more try at getting some common sense with regard to DiFiore at al. The 10^-14 newtons is a *force*, not an acceleration. DiFiore at all state: ... to increase the total force and obtain macroscopic dimensions, Nl = 10^6 layers can be used, each having a diameter of 35 cm, and thickness of 100 nm, for a total thickness of about 10 cm. This is a device of volume Pi * (35 cm/2)^2 * (10 cm) = 550 cm^3. It is a device comprised of layers of SiO2 and aluminum. The combined density is about 2.65 g/cm^3, so the weight is about (2.65 g/cm^3)* (550 cm^3) = 1.46 kg. If you ignore the much more massive power supply required, the maximum acceleration that can be obtained is: a = f/m = (10^-14 N)/(1.46 kg) = 6.8x10^-15 m/s^2 This is true no matter how big you build you engine. Suppose you wanted to use such a 10^-14 newton device to provide thrust for a modest 1000 kg space craft. We have: a = f/m = (10^-14 N)/(1000 kg) = 10^-17 m/s^2 Acceleration does not have an exponential effect on velocity. It has a linear effect on velocity. In fact, if we accelerate for t seconds we obtain a velocity of: v = a * t Suppose we want to see how long it takes for the space craft to go from 0 to 60 mph, to see what kind of hot rod we have. Think it can do it in 10 seconds? Let's see: t = v/a = (60 mph)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = (96.5 km/h)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = (26.8 m/s)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = 2.68 x 10^18 seconds = 8.49 x 10^10 years which is older than the age of the known universe. Hopefully I haven't made a simple mistake. Please check my work. The acceleration provided by (10^-14 N)/(1.46 kg), i.e. 6.8x10^-15 m/ s^2, can not produce any practical effects. It cannot provide useful velocities in a century, nor can it be engineered to provide useful kinetic energy or forces. Applied to an atom, it certainly can not provide enough energy in a lifetime to ionize the atom. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Hi Mauro, Please call me Fran - It is how I distinguish bill collectors from good people, Yes you pretty much have my argument with only a couple misplaced assumptions, Yes I do have a twin hydrogen that somehow communicates with me that he is much older not younger -not going into a gravity well here but rather into a gravity hill (we are the observers in the deeper gravity well from the perspective of inside the cavity) we have a lower ratio of short/long vacuum flux just as the event horizon has a much lower ratio still (long wavelength flux 2 thz are proposed more gravitationally active). [snip] 1) the idea of time as a physical dimension. Time having a coordinate axis over which things can move. As time in thee physical realm is a result of movement, attributing physical reality to time is completely misleading. [end snip] I do not say that time has a spatial dimension but a coordinate axis does not have to be spatial, It can be orientation of matter to the temporal dimension which might be the best we can hope to quantify from our physical reality (which requires both time and space to manifest itself like trying to measure a quantity of water while underwater). I'll be honest here and admit that relativity always confused me -why velocity near C without acceleration is not relativistic, It did seem that the velocity was part of the equation to manifest relativistic effects although I guess the math could argue any acceleration creates an inconsequential inertial frame and we are surrounded by relativistic effects. Now I find myself saying that spatial confinement can also encourage relativistic effects but only if a differential has already been established via Casimir effect. The depletion zone of up converted vacuum flux curves space time for the orbital wavelength of the H1 inside the cavity making it appear faster from our perspective but still normal from its own perspective - the normal chaotic Distribution of motion due to gas law however is confined to only 2 spatial axis meaning that heat energy can contribute unevenly toward the curved axis from our perspective allowing the H1 to age more rapidly - the axis is time and the displacement is not in spatial increments. I would argue that the fractional states derived by Bourgoin reflect relativistic perspective of the H1 orbital and that 1/137 * Bohr radius would allow the 1/ds^3 in the Casimir formula to approach subatomic values Yes you can send for the men in white coats - I did just suggest the H1 could be so accelerated from our perspective to approach subatomic Casimir nooks and crannies. The premise is that we aren't getting something for nothing - we are trading time for energy and get really old hydrogen exiting the cavity. Whether we choose to leverage this for catalytic action or by choosing the correct rigid cavity material to oppose formation of relativistic H2 and harvest heat. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 8:01 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation Hi Frank I pretty much understand what you're trying to do. And I'm trying to show you that it's absurd. You're trying to use descriptive geometrical tools(reference frames) to try to model physical reality. You're putting a microscopic reference frame inside a Casimir cavity, and then trying to attribute and derive the physical properties of the interior of the cavity to that fictitious geometrical construct. Who's in that frame of reference? Your microscopical twin? Does he wears a wrist watch? Or he'll somehow come up from there and tell you that he's now much younger than you? You can even succeed in your attempt. That is, you can produce some mathematical formulas that work at predicting some things. But they will not change the fact that your fundamental physical constructs are wrong. A new paradigm is needed, to properly model and understand these phenomena, and also other phenomena. I'm trying to show this all the time, the most clearly as possible, on my posts here on vortex. I understand that Physics is a constructive endeavor, and that many people have spent a lot of time studying and understanding some complex physical theories, but that does not change the fact that these theories are wrong. And they are wrong in the worst possible way: they are fundamentally wrong. They started with erroneous physical intuitions and ideas, and evolved from then on, producing what is now a vast field of knowledge, with have in some cases completely absurd foundations from a physical point of view. Take relativity theory, by example. I have shown here, the most clearly as possible, that two of the most fundamental ideas of relativity theory are misleading: 1) the idea of time as a physical dimension. Time having a coordinate axis over which things can move. As time in thee physical realm is a result of movement
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
that arises between reference frames, [end snip] Mauro, I think radial acceleration of H1 inside a cavity is relativistic creating reference frames without the need for spatial displacement approaching C. I suggest however the acceleration is invisible from within the frame where the orbital wavelength and velocity remain Bohr and C. I am proposing that the spatial confinement and equivalent acceleration caused by a relativistic up conversion of vacuum flux means the confined monatomic hydrogen has a huge relativistic radial acceleration from our perspective. I am not talking linear acceleration where the Pythagorean concept of spatial axis at 90 degrees to temporal requires acceleration while at high fractions of C to start diverging on the time axis. I believe the Casimir cavity allows for a huge discount in the normal speeds required for relativistic effects. The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart H2 restoring monatomic energy levels. The outside and inside of the cavity are spatially stationary to each other, the gravitational isotropy is broken by the plates meaning the fast moving field outside is slowed inside making the flux twist from our perspective appearing faster because we no longer see a direct view of a waveform but instead view it from a turned profile which appears to get smaller going away and faster as the cycles continue to contract into the distance. This is a difference in relative motion where g outside is faster than g' inside which means the spatial coordinates are basically unchanged and the H1 is predominantly accelerating on the time axis, it might appear to contract as the flux twist further and further but it would stay centered on its original spatial coordinates and if a ruler could be extended to the seemingly evacuated space from which it contracted the ruler itself would also contract to prove all the original spatial coordinates are still occupied and the contraction is the effect of curved space-time on the light emanating from the object. Curiously I don't think it matters if we are accelerating or decelerating -if you picture vacuum flux as a waveform on a scope as a direct perspective (our inertial frame) and then twist it on its' center in either direction it will turn its' profile to us and appear smaller and faster for up-conversion or down conversion. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding the nature of light, and of light's velocity. Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light, because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely, leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light. Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Frank wrote: The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart H2 restoring monatomic energy levels. Fran, I had decided to leave you with your fantasies, but I just can't help myself! I have to make one more try at getting some common sense with regard to DiFiore at al. The 10^-14 newtons is a *force*, not an acceleration. DiFiore at all state: ... to increase the total force and obtain macroscopic dimensions, Nl = 10^6 layers can be used, each having a diameter of 35 cm, and thickness of 100 nm, for a total thickness of about 10 cm. This is a device of volume Pi * (35 cm/2)^2 * (10 cm) = 550 cm^3. It is a device comprised of layers of SiO2 and aluminum. The combined density is about 2.65 g/cm^3, so the weight is about (2.65 g/cm^3)* (550 cm^3) = 1.46 kg. If you ignore the much more massive power supply required, the maximum acceleration that can be obtained is: a = f/m = (10^-14 N)/(1.46 kg) = 6.8x10^-15 m/s^2 This is true no matter how big you build you engine. Suppose you wanted to use such a 10^-14 newton device to provide thrust for a modest 1000 kg space craft. We have: a = f/m = (10^-14 N)/(1000 kg) = 10^-17 m/s^2 Acceleration does not have an exponential effect on velocity. It has a linear effect on velocity. In fact, if we accelerate for t seconds we obtain a velocity of: v = a * t Suppose we want to see how long it takes for the space craft to go from 0 to 60 mph, to see what kind of hot rod we have. Think it can do it in 10 seconds? Let's see: t = v/a = (60 mph)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = (96.5 km/h)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = (26.8 m/s)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = 2.68 x 10^18 seconds = 8.49 x 10^10 years which is older than the age of the known universe. Hopefully I haven't made a simple mistake. Please check my work. The acceleration provided by (10^-14 N)/(1.46 kg), i.e. 6.8x10^-15 m/ s^2, can not produce any practical effects. It cannot provide useful velocities in a century, nor can it be engineered to provide useful kinetic energy or forces. Applied to an atom, it certainly can not provide enough energy in a lifetime to ionize the atom. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Horrace, I have no issue with your math and understood perfectly how little force anything raised to the -E14 represents. The issue is that any force is there at all. It represents a tiny crack in the isotropy of gravity. I agree that it is an inconsequential force between two plates. Their work however did not consider atoms diffused between these same plates and the effect of heat energy due to confinement on the radial acceleration of the orbitals as the plate spacing approaches the limit of 3D approaching 2D. We know the Casimir force increases inversely with the cube of the distance so if any of these small hydrogen scenarios are correct then we get into a self reducing mode where they could leverage that 1/ds^3 by squeezing into nooks and crannies at least 137 times tighter than their normal radius :_) I haven't replied to Mauro yet because I know I am going to fall into the ether pit, relative motion of the ether through space was disproved by MM but yet the Casimir cavity appears to have a different ratio of short to long flux compared to outside the cavity, they are spatially stationary to each other yet have different gravitational field (albeit inconsequential). this would mean the ether passes through the cavity slower than around it. OK, so now I've said the E word! Best Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 5:23 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation On Oct 3, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Frank wrote: The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart H2 restoring monatomic energy levels. Fran, I had decided to leave you with your fantasies, but I just can't help myself! I have to make one more try at getting some common sense with regard to DiFiore at al. The 10^-14 newtons is a *force*, not an acceleration. DiFiore at all state: ... to increase the total force and obtain macroscopic dimensions, Nl = 10^6 layers can be used, each having a diameter of 35 cm, and thickness of 100 nm, for a total thickness of about 10 cm. This is a device of volume Pi * (35 cm/2)^2 * (10 cm) = 550 cm^3. It is a device comprised of layers of SiO2 and aluminum. The combined density is about 2.65 g/cm^3, so the weight is about (2.65 g/cm^3)* (550 cm^3) = 1.46 kg. If you ignore the much more massive power supply required, the maximum acceleration that can be obtained is: a = f/m = (10^-14 N)/(1.46 kg) = 6.8x10^-15 m/s^2 This is true no matter how big you build you engine. Suppose you wanted to use such a 10^-14 newton device to provide thrust for a modest 1000 kg space craft. We have: a = f/m = (10^-14 N)/(1000 kg) = 10^-17 m/s^2 Acceleration does not have an exponential effect on velocity. It has a linear effect on velocity. In fact, if we accelerate for t seconds we obtain a velocity of: v = a * t Suppose we want to see how long it takes for the space craft to go from 0 to 60 mph, to see what kind of hot rod we have. Think it can do it in 10 seconds? Let's see: t = v/a = (60 mph)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = (96.5 km/h)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = (26.8 m/s)/(10^-17 m/s^2) = 2.68 x 10^18 seconds = 8.49 x 10^10 years which is older than the age of the known universe. Hopefully I haven't made a simple mistake. Please check my work. The acceleration provided by (10^-14 N)/(1.46 kg), i.e. 6.8x10^-15 m/ s^2, can not produce any practical effects. It cannot provide useful velocities in a century, nor can it be engineered to provide useful kinetic energy or forces. Applied to an atom, it certainly can not provide enough energy in a lifetime to ionize the atom. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation
[snip] It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz contraction, because that arises between reference frames, [end snip] Mauro, I think radial acceleration of H1 inside a cavity is relativistic creating reference frames without the need for spatial displacement approaching C. I suggest however the acceleration is invisible from within the frame where the orbital wavelength and velocity remain Bohr and C. I am proposing that the spatial confinement and equivalent acceleration caused by a relativistic up conversion of vacuum flux means the confined monatomic hydrogen has a huge relativistic radial acceleration from our perspective. I am not talking linear acceleration where the Pythagorean concept of spatial axis at 90 degrees to temporal requires acceleration while at high fractions of C to start diverging on the time axis. I believe the Casimir cavity allows for a huge discount in the normal speeds required for relativistic effects. The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart H2 restoring monatomic energy levels. The outside and inside of the cavity are spatially stationary to each other, the gravitational isotropy is broken by the plates meaning the fast moving field outside is slowed inside making the flux twist from our perspective appearing faster because we no longer see a direct view of a waveform but instead view it from a turned profile which appears to get smaller going away and faster as the cycles continue to contract into the distance. This is a difference in relative motion where g outside is faster than g' inside which means the spatial coordinates are basically unchanged and the H1 is predominantly accelerating on the time axis, it might appear to contract as the flux twist further and further but it would stay centered on its original spatial coordinates and if a ruler could be extended to the seemingly evacuated space from which it contracted the ruler itself would also contract to prove all the original spatial coordinates are still occupied and the contraction is the effect of curved space-time on the light emanating from the object. Curiously I don't think it matters if we are accelerating or decelerating -if you picture vacuum flux as a waveform on a scope as a direct perspective (our inertial frame) and then twist it on its' center in either direction it will turn its' profile to us and appear smaller and faster for up-conversion or down conversion. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding the nature of light, and of light's velocity. Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light, because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely, leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light. Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Hi Frank Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense. This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex. Search the archive for Zitter and ZPE for an entertaining read. Mauro Frank Roarty wrote: This thread may seem unrelated to energy but in the same way reactionless drives are contemplated with respect to Casimir cavities these legends may have a kernel of truth. There is no moving linear differential motion of gas atoms like the reactionless drive theories but there are trapped ambient gases that I suspect become agitated via acoustic sources -singing, musical devices or striking stones with a vibrating rod That would allow an elevated pyramid block to be scooted a couple bow lengths or Easter island megaliths to be positioned where we see them today(Coral castle might have been magnetic agitation but still a calcium based stone). This wild speculation would support a 4D perspective of time where the vacuum fluctuations inside the calcium Casimir cavities allow the ambient gas to turn fat on the time axis and even more so where large molecules are concerned. These temporally fat molecules might stick out like needles in a pincushion suddenly turned sideways snagging the temporal walls of the future and past like hanging curtains. My ideas of time extends the coffee cup analogy of professor Ron Mallet who is currently trying to build a time machine based on lasers and coiled fibe. If the present represents a sufficiently small temporal component then it may be possible to exploit the boundary by forcing divergent inertial frames to occur inside one another. My time perspective: My interpretation of 4D Space-time is from a future perspective on the time axis looking down on the zero intersect with the 3D spatial axis called the present. This narrow time interval is only measurable differentially since our time perception is based on relative motion between the fabric of time though space. We can only measure accumulated time dilation measured between different inertial frames such as the twin paradox. C and Bohr radius always appear constant within our inertial frame. At an atomic level a temporal perspective would show orbitals forming halos of different radii while the vortii extending down to the nucleii gets deeper or more shallow depending on acceleration. This is much like the coffee analogy of Ron Mallet, the faster Ron stirs his coffee the more the radius of the frothy center contracts but the vortex also extends further down into the coffee a proportional amount. Ron suggests we can only see the coffee surface in our 3D world. I am suggesting the radius of the frothy center represents the Bohr radius and always appears unchanged just like C appears constant from within any inertial frames. The swirling vortex going down into the coffee gets longer as the radius contracts to keep the volume constant. I propose our time perception inside the Present is based on this constant volume making it impossible for us to sense changes in relative motion of spatial dimensions through time . The Present time frame has a narrow temporal dimension that varies with acceleration. This narrow dimesion will always remain negligible with respect to the spatial dimensions from our perspective because our time perception is inherently scaled by the volume of space moving through time. From the future perspective the Present time frame would appear like a narrow ribbon that gets wider or narrower with acceleration and flattens the material universe down to an atomic plane where all mater is accessible from the time axis. From this perspective all matter, even that which we consider encased inside other matter lies flat on a spatial axis with an unimpeded time axis above and below it. Our 3D illusion of reality is much like an electron gun tracing out a 2d image on a TV screen. From this perspective we exist in an extremely narrow ribbon at the intersect of Future and Past. A single time frame provides a vast quadric volume built upon the cubic volume of 3D space. The electrons are forever trailing behind the nucleus like the tail of a stretchable arrow with the nucleus at its tip sinking into the future with their orbital energy constantly restored by virtual particles winking into and out of existence as postulated by Puthoff in [1] Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state. My suggestion is these virtual particles are traveling through the present from the time axis keeping the orbital open as they squeeze through our spatial dimension. Regards Fran
RE: [Vo]:megalith levitation
Mauro,
I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
cause the object to accelerate atomically and contract but still centered on
its' initial spatial position. I have been struggling with the concept of
Lorentz contraction with linear acceleration vs what occurs inside a Casimir
cavity where my interpretation of up conversion is relativistic meaning
space time is twisted making the longer vac flux appear faster from our
perspective - this gives you a head start of an accelerated inertial frame
inside a stationary cavity through equivalence while also approaching the
limit between 2D and 3d via plate confinement. The confinement allows heat
energy to be redirected into this equivalence vector. Unlike Lorentz
contraction and time dilation where linear acceleration doesn't start to
expose these attributes until significant fractions of C are achieved, the
confinement inside the cavity and head start due to equivalence seem to
point this vector directly into the time axis instead of angled proportional
to acceleration. The huge linear acceleration used in the Twin paradox isn't
necessary or obviously even possible. I am not saying gas atoms just time
travel and get pushed outside of the temporal walls to appear in the future
- they still have to go through time dilation and from their perspective put
in all the normal reactionary time we attribute to catalytic action but I am
saying the geometry allows them a huge discount relative to acceleration -
with 1 dimension almost collapsed and the other 2 very confined any heat
energy is going to contribute to further accelerate this equivalence vector.
Whether we refer to this as a direction or just speeding up the atomic by
further curving the vacuum flux the result is the same.
It's a good thing this is Vortex because I'm past wild speculation above
and don't have a shred of math to support this idea :_)
Hi Frank
Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search the archive for Zitter and ZPE for an entertaining read.
Mauro
[snip]
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro Lacy
Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700
grok wrote:
As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
mounted the barricade and roared out:
The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack
underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
construction we call time, at the physical level.
'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
It is an
The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
matter in space(whatever they are.)
emergent phenomenon. You start there.
You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
relation of matter
and space into something it is not.
You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
something that hasn't.
-- grok.
Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of
velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz
contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a
consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding
the nature of light, and of light's velocity.
Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light,
because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to
discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material
entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material
object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely,
leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace
behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light.
Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of
the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything
regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying
phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.
Frank wrote:
Mauro,
I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
cause the object to accelerate atomically and contract but still centered on
its' initial spatial position. I have been struggling with the concept of
Lorentz contraction with linear acceleration vs what occurs inside a Casimir
cavity where my interpretation of up conversion is relativistic meaning
space time is twisted making the longer vac flux appear faster from our
perspective - this gives you a head start of an accelerated inertial frame
inside a stationary cavity through equivalence while also approaching the
limit between 2D and 3d via plate confinement. The confinement allows heat
energy to be redirected into this equivalence vector. Unlike Lorentz
contraction and time dilation where linear acceleration doesn't start to
expose these attributes until significant fractions of C are achieved, the
confinement inside the cavity and head start due to equivalence seem to
point this vector directly into the time axis instead of angled proportional
to acceleration. The huge linear acceleration used in the Twin paradox isn't
necessary or obviously even possible. I am not saying gas atoms just time
travel and get pushed outside of the temporal walls to appear in the future
- they still have to go through time dilation and from their perspective put
in all the normal reactionary time we attribute to catalytic action but I am
saying the geometry allows them a huge discount relative to acceleration -
with 1 dimension almost collapsed and the other 2 very confined any heat
energy is going to contribute to further accelerate this equivalence vector.
Whether we refer to this as a direction or just speeding up the atomic by
further curving the vacuum flux the result is the same.
It's a good thing this is Vortex because I'm past wild speculation above
and don't have a shred of math to support this idea :_)
Hi Frank
Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search the archive for Zitter and ZPE for an entertaining read.
Mauro
[snip]
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro Lacy
Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700
grok wrote:
As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
mounted the barricade and roared out:
The problem with so called time dimensions, is that they lack
underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
construction we call time, at the physical level.
'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
It is an
The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
matter in space(whatever they are.)
emergent phenomenon. You start there.
You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
relation of matter
and space into something it is not.
You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
something that
