All relative measurements between different inertial frames share a Pythagorean relationship with the time axis. The gamma formula relies on the ratio of V^2/C^2. Relative measure suggests that the vacuum [ether] does move and at different rates proportional to gravitational fields - It is equivalent to spatial acceleration where an object approaching C also experiences less time passage as evidenced by the Twin Paradox. In real life, relativistic updates are required to account for accumulated time dilation of GPS satellites in orbit. From our relatively stationary perspective time appears to slow as objects achieve high fractions of C either thru linear acceleration or the equivalent acceleration of strong gravitational fields. My posit is that stationary objects do not necessarily mark a zero reference for time dilation! There are numerous claims of accelerated radioactive decays and accelerated spontaneous emissions dealing with microwave suppression or Casimir geometry. My point is that suppressing vacuum energy density may be a way to directly manipulate the C^2 portion of the Gamma formula regardless of the objects spatial velocity - instead of the equivalent acceleration of a deep gravity well slowing time this would be an equivalent negative acceleration of a gravity warp accelerating time such that objects in such a "suppressed" region would perceive even stationary objects outside the region as accelerated relative to their C^2/V^2 quotient. By directly manipulating C you sidestep the Pythagorean penalty requiring objects with spatial velocities approaching C before any significant changes occur. CERN's experiment may have introduced a small measure of suppression that accumulates over the length of the ring - we know that time dilation of a laser through a Casimir cavity is infinitesimally small and the effects are far less for the suppression of a microwave cavity but given the length of the ring these effects might accumulate to measurable levels - I can't say why these results would suddenly appear now, relative to this experiment, when not seen previously but would be keen to know how this experiment differed from previous. Fran
-----Original Message----- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point > Vorts, > > So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed > it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with > the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm > about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. > Imagine my dissapointment... > > > Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, > correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, > its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? > And the time dilation and mass increase is "relative" to the velocity > based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a > straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at > .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by > the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to > one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? > > If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic > velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? > If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that > zero point? The "velocity of the vaccum". Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, "metaphysics". Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or "where", it exists?
