In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:15:07 -0800: Hi, [snip] >We are apparently talking apples and oranges. First, I think it is >essential to distinguish inertial mass from gravitational mass.
I doubt Hal would agree with you, but it's anyone guess which of you is correct. >Just >because controlling the local ZPF may change inertial mass does not >mean it affects gravitational mass or the inherent energy of any >particle. There may be some evidence for this position. 1. I have seen a film of a US jet undergoing a high G maneuver where a spherical bubble suddenly appears around the cockpit area of the plane for an instant when the G forces would be at their max. I have always wondered if this wasn't a demonstration of black technology at work (designed to relieve the G forces on the pilot - effective but kept to short periods of use when needed most because it is energy intensive?) 2. The frequently reported right angle turns of UFOs. >If inertial mass is indeed due to the ZPF, then it is due >only to a very small low frequency portion of the ZPF bandwidth. The >ZPF badwidth is thought to extend to the Planck frequency. Ordinary >leptons and barions are very large with respect to the vast majority >of the ZPF spectrum, and are not thought to couple with it "all the >way down". I don't understand this. However I have also often wondered if perhaps the ZPE is not evenly spread across all frequencies, but perhaps concentrated around those frequencies which represent the majority of particles in the Universe. >AFAIK, the forces of inertia are forces related to >momentum exchanges, not energy, and involve the exchange rates of >virtual photons internal to or within the wave function of the >particle, and with the vacuum. By "not energy" do you mean not rest mass related energy? It seems to me that they must inherently be coupled to kinetic energy. > >The challenge in building an inertial drive then is changing the >ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass, or at least the >equivalence of that through momentum change, through influence or >control of the ZPF. Alternatively, some means may be found to >interface directly with the ZPF to tap its momentum. The former seems to relate to my point one here above, and the latter perhaps to my point 2? > >As I noted earlier, the central problem with the methods posted in my >"ZPE-Casimir Inertial Drive" article: > >http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf > >is apparent violation of COM. If any of the methods proposed extract >momentum from the ZPF directly it is not by design. I thus don't >think the Casimir drive concepts have the same credibility that the >Casimir energy extraction schemes do. Still, it is food for thought. > I don't think a force can exist without having two "ends". If only one end is obviously attached to a particle, then the other must of necessity be attached to something, even if that something is far removed - e.g. the rest of the Universe (the ZPF may provide the coupling that links the two). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
