Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
labelNo, but
On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Frank Roarty wrote:
Mauro,
I converted my power point presentation on
fractional quantum states to html. I think it has bearing on your
additional axis from a relativistic perspective http://
www.byzipp.com/energy/excessHeat.htm
Regards
Fran
, August 04, 2009 8:17 AM
To: Vortex-L
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Frank Roarty wrote:
Mauro,
I converted my power point presentation on fractional
quantum states to html. I think it has bearing on your additional axis from
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or labelNo, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space
to me. By
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or labelNo,
but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
labelNo, but I'll read about it.
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Frank Roarty wrote:
s
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
labelNo, but I'll read about it.
]
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you
can read '4th
Frank Roarty wrote:
No, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror space
to me. By example, using the fourth dimension, you can invert a
tridimensional sphere without breaking it. That is, you can put the
inside out and viceversa, through a rotation over a fourth
On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Frank Roarty wrote:
Mauro,
I converted my power point presentation on
fractional quantum states to html. I think it has bearing on your
additional axis from a relativistic perspective http://
www.byzipp.com/energy/excessHeat.htm
Regards
Fran
[Snip]
The longer wavelengths are not replaced with shorter wavelengths inside
the cavity. Space is filled with zero point field which has a
continuous and cubic energy distribution. The shorter wavelength
radiation simply moves right through the plates and cavity unimpeded, as
if the cavity
Hi
Thanks for this post about Hotson's ideas.
Don't know about you, but to me, everything is starting to make a lot of
sense.
Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you
can read '4th spatial dimension'.
And when, relativistically it's said 'time dilation' or 'time
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you
can read '4th spatial dimension'.
Are you familiar with the Dirac concept of reciprocal space?
... or rather, like so many things that have been updated in order to bring
Mauro Lacy wrote:
I was thinking recently that it's not enough for gravity to be explained
merely as a consequence of a distortion of space.
It's not a distortion of space, it's a distortion of spaceTIME, and the
difference is extremely important.
The metric in 4-dimensional spacetime is
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Gravity is *NOT* a force in GR theory, of course, and a body in free
fall follows a geodesic.
I read the principle equivalence as implying gravity is either a force
OR a geodesic path depending on the situation. It is a force (weight)
when a body is subjected to
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
I was thinking recently that it's not enough for gravity to be explained
merely as a consequence of a distortion of space.
It's not a distortion of space, it's a distortion of spaceTIME, and the
difference is extremely important.
Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
Please take into account that when Hotson says 'imaginary direction' you
can read '4th spatial dimension'.
Are you familiar with the Dirac concept of reciprocal space?
No, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space
[mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
Fran,
Don't let Horace's negativity bother you. He can sound like an ass sometimes
and doesn't realize it. I'm sure I can too, come to think of it.
He has
Jones wrote on 7-31-09:
My advice is to read up on everything Don Hotson has
written, and then try to contact him (if he is still
alive). Last time I heard from him was over a year ago
and he was ill. Actually, he is such a good writer, and
poor speaker that everything you need is in his essays.
Thanks, Horace, this was enlightening.
Is it fair to say that,
a) The Casimir force is a surface phenomenon, unlike most common forces,
which act on the body of the material, including all the forces
mentioned below in (b);
b) The net Casimir force which acts on a body due to the presence of
On Aug 1, 2009, at 6:13 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Thanks, Horace, this was enlightening.
Is it fair to say that,
a) The Casimir force is a surface phenomenon, unlike most common
forces,
which act on the body of the material, including all the forces
mentioned below in (b);
Again,
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Hmm -- Horace, I had a question about a somewhat different proposal.
You have proposed that if we let two plates come together, pushed
by the
Casimir force, then slide them apart sideways, and then repeat, we can
get energy out of the
snip
Interestingly, the formulas for computing pressure along ZPF free
lines between atoms match the formulas for computing the van der
Waals retarding interaction between two atoms. It is my impression
that, for this reason, there is some doubt in some of the physics
community the ZPF
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:59 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Yes there are many people that contend that all can be explained
using virtual photons and unbalanced forces inducing an electrostatic
charge pulling the plates together but both schools agree the ratio of
short to long vacuum
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner
Virtual particle pairs pop into existence for an amount of time that does
not violate Heisenberg. This has nothing to do with the ZPF exclusion from
cavities.
Well, I wouldn't be too sure of that. After all, IIRC someone in an Ivory
Tower has
[Snip]
Your frequent use of the term vacuum fluctuations adds to the
confusion in your writing. The term vacuum fluctuations is
typically reserved for the particle aspect of vacuum energy, the
creation of virtual particle pairs, i.e. electron-positron, proton-
neutron, strange pairs, etc.
On Jul 31, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner
Virtual particle pairs pop into existence for an amount of time
that does
not violate Heisenberg. This has nothing to do with the ZPF
exclusion from
cavities.
Well, I wouldn't be too sure of
Frank,
I could ask you to define flux, vacuum flux, short vacuum flux,
long vacuum flux, etc. and ask you questions regarding your
theories, ask you to quantify things, if you are capable of that, and
maybe I can provide personal tutorials on one topic after another,
but I am just too
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner
The use of the term vacuum fluctuations instead of zero point field or
even
vacuum energy in regards to Casimir forces is just throwing another
vegetable into the word salad.
It's a tasty treat though. Puthoff is considered to be a great
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner
The use of the term vacuum fluctuations instead of zero point
field or
even
vacuum energy in regards to Casimir forces is just throwing another
vegetable into the word salad.
It's a tasty treat
, 2009 7:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner
The use of the term vacuum fluctuations instead of zero point
field or
even
vacuum energy in regards to Casimir
conductors. hCpi^2/240a^4 for ideal conductors
Why was my use of the term vacuum flux so wrong?
Fran
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
On Jul 31
Jones,
Thanks for the support, Can you clear up why my views are so
different regarding vacuum fluctuation wavelengths? I know that 1.7Thz is
thought to be the dividing line where frequency below are thought to be
gravitationally active and I know that these flux must fit in whole number
. hCpi^2/240a^4 for ideal conductors
Why was my use of the term vacuum flux so wrong?
Fran
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Casimir force at slab edges
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1
34 matches
Mail list logo
