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 <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 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 creating a net momentum after accelerating and > stopping the mass, any low frequency radiation would need to be let out if > this is assumed to not breach Newtons 3rd law and the Conservation of > energy. > > > > >
