[Vo]: Algae ponds
Hi, If the ponds are covered with transparent plastic, and inflated with a slight overpressure, then fresh water can be collected as a byproduct. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
RE: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
Hi Horace, Would you consider gravitational charge to be the same thing as mass? If not, why not? How do you use the term virtual such that it applies to the real world? That is, how can an object exist without really existing? Super massive black holes are hypothesized to exist, but as of yet, there is no hard evidence that they do. How can your theory prove the existence of super massive black holes? Also, there is evidence to suggest that the length scales of astrophysics are wrong. If it turns out the perceived distances between galactic objects is wrong, and the Newton calculations for gravitational force are correct, would your theory still predict dark energy? I find several ideas in your theory to be heading in the right direction, such as the identification of gravitational charge as separate from electrostatic charge. However, it is unclear to me what dimensions gravitational charge has in your theory. It is also unclear what the force law is that mediates gravitational charge. For example, Coulomb's electrostatic force law and Newton's gravitational force law quantify the forces between electrostatic charge and mass, respectively. There are empirically derived constants that mediate the forces between the dimensions of charge and mass, respectively. In your theory, it is unclear whether gravitational charge is the same thing as mass, charge, or something completely different. I'll need to see your answers before taking this further. Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae GRAVITATIONAL PENUMBRAE APRIL 6, 2007 BACKGROUND An exploration of the concepts of gravimagnetism were discussed in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Gravimagnetism.pdf and: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GR-and-QM.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PlankG.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GraviCalcs.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EarthWobble.pdf An isomorphism between gravity and electromagnetism was developed. In this theory of gravimagnetism the graviton is defined as the analog of the virtual photon. The graviphoton is defined as the analog of the photon. Gravitational charge, the analog of positive and negative Coulombic charge, is defined as positive when it is a positive imaginary quantity (contains +i), and negative when it is a negative imaginary quantity (contains -i). Imaginary here means a quantity containing the imaginary number i, the square root of minus one. A gravitational field G or gravimagnetic field K are imaginary analogs to the electromagnetic fields E and B. An electrostatic attraction occurs when a virtual photon is exchanged between a positive and negative electrostatic charge. An electrostatic repulsion occurs when a virtual photon is exchanged between like electrostatic charges. Due to the effect of the i coefficient in gravitational fields, a gravitational repulsion occurs when a graviton is exchanged between a positive and negative gravitational charge. A gravitational attraction occurs when a graviton is exchanged between like gravitational charges. By the isomorphism, every conceivable electromagnetic quantity, relationship, and law has a precisely defined gravimagnetic equivalent. The theory of gravimagnetism leads to many fully quantified and verifiable implications, some of which differ from those of general relativity. For example: 1. Gravity diminishes with distance due to graviton red shift due to increased relative and receding velocity with distance (analogous to the regular Hubble shift.) This may in part account for dark energy. 2. Gravimagnetic fields can in part account for excess galactic forces and precession of the equinox, and errors in estimation of distant mass values. 3. Virtual photons carry no gravitational charge, thus black holes can exhibit electromagnetic effects beyond the event horizon. 4. A black hole above a threshold mass can emit matter carrying gravitational charge opposed to the charge of that black hole. The effect of the black hole's gravimagnetic and electromagnetic fields on such an emission would be to form it into polar jets. 5. Parts of space, especially near super massive black holes, may be filled with mass containing negative gravitational charge. This could account in part for dark energy and large apparent voids in space. 6. Newton's f=ma contains no imaginary portions, thus inertia is primarily an electromagnetic effect. 7. The gravimagnetic analog to Plank's constant, h_g = -h, unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and determines the momentum carried by graviphotons, etc. However, gravimagnetic theory also permanently dis-unifies gravity and electromagnetism in the sense that the forces exist in differing dimensions and have
Re: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
Horace wrote (on 4-6-07): An isomorphism between gravity and electromagnetism was developed. In this theory of gravimagnetism the graviton is defined as the analog of the virtual photon. The graviphoton is defined as the analog of the photon ... Hi Horace, It's good to hear from you. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention a good general interest book on electromagnetism in cosmology: The Electric Sky by Don Scott -- is a 256 page book with 86 illustrations (62 color) based on the work of plasma cosmologists. Say goodbye to dark matter, dark energy, and black holes that not only defy expectations, but sober- minded credibility. ``Price of the book is $25.00. S H is $5 for domestic Media mail or $8 for Priority mail. Canada is $7 for Standard $10 for Priority. Outside the U.S.-- $12 foreign Standard, or $15 Global Priority. Additional information on the book can be found, and orders placed at: http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm'' I'm including below an interesting discusion with you in June, 2003, just to bring everyone up to date. Jack Smith -- Horace wrote: Inirtia must in fact be an electromagnetc force. Jack Smith wrote: How does this relate to your statement that centrifugal force is the force of inertia? Horace wrote: There is a very strong relation. First, the subject theory provides an indication that the centrifugal force, i.e. inertia, is indeed a real force. Indulge me for a moment now while I take the risk of grinding an old ax, if way prematurely. Due to the possibility the force involves interaction with the rest of the universe, or at least the vacuum itself, the notion that all motion, including angular motion, is relative, is nonsense, as is the notion that a centrifugal force does not exist. Yes, it is true I think despite the fact that pundits from MIT and other prestigious places, who have written books on mechanics that are of highest intellectual quality and barely fathomable, think otherwise. As I have said here a number of times in the past, the proposition that rotation is merely relative I easily prove to myself as bunk by merely spinning around fast in my desk chair. I feel the outward force in my legs, when I rotate relative to the stars and do not when I don't. The notion may be true on a universal basis, but clearly is not on a local basis. There are a number of possible balancing centripital forces, which is the other ingredient required for circular motion and things like orbits. The obvious one is the electrostatic force (even in its masked co-form as magnetism). In this case the force is real because each of the components comprising the force, i.e. each variable multiplied to compute the force, is real. The force of gravity is real because two imaginary components, mass, are multiplied together in the force computation. The electrostatic forces in material bonds are similarly electromagnetic and thus real. For these reasons, we would expect the force of inertia, which balances these forces to also be real. For this reason, we would further expect the strong nuclear force, which counteracts the inertia of the partially charged quarks, to be real also. Another possible source for a centripetal force is mass ejection, i.e using inertia against inertia to create circular motion. A rocket that flies in circles is using this means. In this case we use inertia against inertia, so it is not possible to tell if it is imaginary or real. Now, here is what I think is by far the most intriguing fact. The force of inertia is far greater than any possible exchange of photon energy can provide. When we push on a shopping cart to accelerate it, we get a momentum exchange that would take thousands of watts worth of photons to achieve. When we push an a shopping cart, however, it radiates only in a barely detectable fashion, and little of that is related to its acceleration. So, it seems likely that there there IS a way to grab a foot-hold on the vacuum without radiating. What is the most exciting indication of the subject theory is that this foothold has nothing whatsoever to do with gravity. (At least nothing very obvious. We still have the unanswered questions of why inertial mass and gravity are so closely related and why fields have gravitational mass.) At any rate, the theory leads us in a very clear direction with respect to a space drive. That direction leads in the direction of grabbing a foothold on the vacuum electromagnetically, or possibly in the direction of inertial mass suppression via electromagnetic manipulation. An additional and totally weird possibility remains. That is the possibility of manufacturing mass with negative inertia, or at least matter which contains negative inertial components. This would be very strange matter indeed. The mass would react in an attractive way gravitationally speaking. It would weigh positively on a scale, but its buoyancy in water would indicate one mass and if it
Re: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
Horace, Most interesting and perceptive, as always. Looks like a 'spring thaw' has settled in over the far North, allowing you to metaphorically peek-out at the lower 48 once again g One quick question, and I'm sure you will be getting plenty more, since you have been focusing on this general field for some time: Did you have a look at the Ibison paper, and do you have any comments on that? In your earlier paper, you cited Jefimenko's idea that the correspondence between gravity and the electromagnetic field is based on causality and the effects of retardation. Is that another way (and precedent) of saying the same thing ? Jones Wiki keeps adding gravity references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yilmaz_theory_of_gravitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizable_vacuum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics_bibliography
[Vo]: H2 on demand
We have mentioned AirGen before. http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=11039 They have developed kind of a Grove Cell - a cross between a battery and a H2 generator (electrolysis cell) which uses an active nano-colloid, in addition to shorted electrodes. The idea is that you pair it with a fuel cell and get a lot more power per weight or volume than an advanced battery. The colloid is 'sacrifical' (i.e appropriate for comment on Easter ;-) but they have never said how much the cost is - to replenish it... which is probably the fly in the ointment as we all know that nano-anything = tres cher. But they have hinted that the colloid can be reactivated, at least partially, in situ. Apparently they had a demo two weeks ago in San Antonio - http://www.h2daily.com/news/hydrogen-generation-technology-to-be-demonstrated-at-nha-exposition-by-airgen-20070312-34-50.html http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage7024.html Funny that they did not get any press coverage on that demo, at least which I can find... maybe Richard has seen it? Jones
Re: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
On Apr 7, 2007, at 6:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, Most interesting and perceptive, as always. Looks like a 'spring thaw' has settled in over the far North, allowing you to metaphorically peek-out at the lower 48 once again g One quick question, and I'm sure you will be getting plenty more, since you have been focusing on this general field for some time: Did you have a look at the Ibison paper, and do you have any comments on that? I haven't seen any recent papers by Ibbotson. I've been away from amateur physics for some time now. It's all just so tedious for me these days, and I have other demands on my time. In your earlier paper, you cited Jefimenko's idea that the correspondence between gravity and the electromagnetic field is based on causality and the effects of retardation. Is that another way (and precedent) of saying the same thing ? No, I think it is saying *exactly* the same thing - with only the slight modification of the use of the imaginary number i to fix some of Jefimenko's computational problems. My little theory is based 100% on Jefimenko's theory of retardation and casuality, as was noted in the defining articles. The implications of this little addition of +-i, however, were astounding to me, and led immediately to numerous conclusions and speculations that could not be drawn from Jefimenko's work. It will be most interesting to see the results from the Gravity Probe B studies. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
On Apr 7, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi Horace, Hello Jack, The old posting you provided looks like it might pre-date my solidification of the gravimagnetic isomorphism concepts, though it certainly contains some of the thinking. In any case, though I expect it won't actually work (based on the NASA Advanced Propulsion Program results for similar things), I did work up some numbers on a possible experimental coaxial thruster along those lines: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CoaxDrive.pdf I liked the pure ZPE based approach a lot more: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf but it was way beyond my means.
Re: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
If I've already sent this please forgive my senility. 8^) I don't have the time for an extended discussion. However, I will try to answer your questions of the moment. On Apr 7, 2007, at 3:15 AM, David Thomson wrote: Hi Horace, Would you consider gravitational charge to be the same thing as mass? If not, why not? Coulombic charge is the emitter/receiver of the messenger particle of the electromagnetic (EM) field. Gravitational charge is the emitter/ receiver of the messenger particle of the gravimagnetic (GK) field. Coulombic and gravitational charge can be bound into, be contained in, the same particle. Gravitational charge defines gravitational mass, but not inertial mass. Inertial and gravitational mass are maintained in proportion only because in typical matter the two charge carriers are maintained in proportion. Neutrons carry EM charge, but the charges are balanced. Photons, on the other hand, carry no EM charge, but do carry GK charge. How do you use the term virtual such that it applies to the real world? That is, how can an object exist without really existing? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle Messenger particles carry (are) the force of a force field. They travel at finite speed, thus, as Jefimenko Showed, their effects in dynamic systems are delayed, i.e. retarded. This retardation accounts precisely for the magnetic component of both the EM and GK fields, thus there is no need for a magnetic field messenger particle of either the EM or GK variety. This accounts for why the electric and magnetic components of a field depend on the observer's relative motion. Jefimenko has further showed that retardation accounts fully for many relativistic effects. Super massive black holes are hypothesized to exist, but as of yet, there is no hard evidence that they do. A search of the literature will show the above to be highly debatable. It is not a debate in which I have sufficient interest to spend time. How can your theory prove the existence of super massive black holes? It can not. Proof of black holes only comes from observation. The gravimagnetic theory logically necessitates black holes, and further black holes with specific characteristics. The gravimagnetic theory was in fact derived to be consistent with a number of types of assumed observations. I think one of the indications of the power of the theory is the clarity of its explanation of polar jets emitted from black holes. Another is its wide range of quantified predictive abilities. Also, there is evidence to suggest that the length scales of astrophysics are wrong. If it turns out the perceived distances between galactic objects is wrong, and the Newton calculations for gravitational force are correct, would your theory still predict dark energy? Yes, of course. Gravity must necessarily be reduced by the noted effects of propagation delay, gravitational red shift, and graviton absorption. Further, the predicted existence (by symmetry, as well as polar jets) of negative mass charge necessitates the existence of a repulsive gravitational force and negative gravitational matter. The existence of such matter has profound cosmological consequences. Overall, the universe must expand indefinitely, but in localized zones consisting primarily of one charge type or another, a phoenix effect takes place through generations of alternating black hole types. It is possible that negative gravitational mass matter arrives here on earth continuously in the form of cosmic rays, and that it thus occupies the volume of local space in surprisingly high amounts. The energy of cosmic rays greatly exceeds that necessary to overcome the earth or solar system's escape velocity. To my knowledge no determination of length scales has even considered all these things. I find several ideas in your theory to be heading in the right direction, such as the identification of gravitational charge as separate from electrostatic charge. However, it is unclear to me what dimensions gravitational charge has in your theory. Gravitational charge has the dimension of gravitational mass, e.g. kg_g. When it is clear you are talking about gravitational mass and not inertial mass you can simply dispense with the sub g. The more interesting and nebulous thing, and even not explored thing, is the space in which the graviton exists, which includes imaginary dimensions. The travel time between two particles for gravitons and virtual photons need not be the same at all times. If a space warping model is of use, the two subspaces might warp independently. The ratio of charge, or inertial mass, to gravitational mass is not necessarily constant. The change in proportions affects clocks, so manifests as time warp. It is also unclear what the force law is that mediates
Re: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
On Apr 7, 2007, at 6:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: In your earlier paper, you cited Jefimenko's idea that the correspondence between gravity and the electromagnetic field is based on causality and the effects of retardation. Is that another way (and precedent) of saying the same thing ? I wrote: No, I think it is saying *exactly* the same thing - with only the slight modification of the use of the imaginary number i to fix some of Jefimenko's computational problems. My little theory is based 100% on Jefimenko's theory of retardation and casuality, as was noted in the defining articles. The implications of this little addition of +-i, however, were astounding to me, and led immediately to numerous conclusions and speculations that could not be drawn from Jefimenko's work. Oops! I misread the question! I read the above as ... correspondence between gravity and the *gravimagnetic* field is based on causality and the effects of retardation. Sorry! I don't think Jefimenko meant that the correspondence between gravity and the electromagnetic field is based on causality and the effects of retardation. I don't either. The importance of causality and retardation is that these considerations demonstrate the necessity of and fully account for the magnetic fields B and K given the existence of fields E and g provided they carried by finite speed messenger particles, and are thus causal. The similarity of laws and constants, at least in part, between gravity and electrostatic fields has long been noted. Jefimenko showed that E implies the existence B, and thus, similarly, g implies K. However, he did not establish a full isomorphism, and had to tweek individual laws as he examined them in order to make some kind of correspondence. Regards, Horace Heffner
[Vo]:
Dear Vo, Following is-are some general comment. The contributor will delete text that is not germane ,per se Should the reader[s] wish to commnet or contribute: (A) Please use clear text OK to refer to known text, contribution (B) Prefer BBGB and ...or.HB NB BS Engineering. (C) If the response is a guess or a theory please identify it as such (D) Most desired will be real known work... performed by the contributor. On 4/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: vortex-digest DigestVolume 2007 : Issue 205 Today's Topics: [Vo]: Approaches for biological and [ Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Will it Play in Peoria? [ Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality [ Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality [ Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza - reality [ Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza [ Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza [ Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Biofuel Bonanza [ R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [Vo]: Power Paint [ Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [Vo]: Gravity is a Push [ Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Gravity is a Push [ Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Gravity is a Push [ Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [Vo]: gravity anomaly measured[ Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Gravity is a Push [ Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Gravity is a Push [ Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: [Vo]: Gravity is a Push [ Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [Vo]: Fwd: Gravity is a Push [ Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [1]A semi parabolic reflector, such as the dishes used for TV in the 1970 to 1995 era... 11 feet in diameter yield from 8 to 15 KW Thermal THIS IS reality . The paper below is NOT a good description of any method to use general sunlight. check it out... PLEASE Now, here is a good paper -- which I hope is technically accurate -- that explains a lot about photosynthesis and plant efficiency: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/14/5251 QUOTES: The average solar radiation available for a flat-plate collector in the U.S. is 5 kW·h/m^2 per day (1 kW·h = 3.6 x 10^6 J). Conservatively, 100 million residences, each with an available roof area of 90 m^2, receive 5 x 10^19 J of solar energy, which is equal to half of the annual energy consumption in the U.S. Typical commercially available PV cells offer nominal efficiencies of 15%, with higher levels attainable up to a theoretical efficiency for silicon PV cells of 32%; however, a significant fraction of the installation costs are related to infrastructure, such as supporting framework, wiring, power inverters, and grid connections. For example, in a study published in 2003 of a 35-kW PV array (2), the total reported cost was $239,945 ($6.86/W), with infrastructure comprising 35–40% of the total amount. This system saved $2,678 per year in energy costs compared with the preinstallation expenditures. If, hypothetically, the same installation could be made with cells at 1/10 the current price and 32% efficiency but the same infrastructure costs, the system would cost $100,000 and save $8,000 per year. Based on these values, it is apparent that improving efficiency and reducing device costs is vital to using PV technologies but that addressing infrastructure costs will also be necessary. . . . SO.. 100,000 for an old time 11 foot diameter dish NO.. This paper does not mention green sulfur bacteria. - Jed JED et al ... do your own math. Jed Rothwell wrote: I believe it would take more like 10,000 acres ... Farmland in Illinois costs between $3,000 and $5,000... so this would be a $40 million investment for the land alone, processing equipment would bring the cost up to $140 to $200 million. 50 kilowatts per hour would be too much and 50 kWhr per day would be too little. Frankly, too little factual detail is known to even guess, and that was a poor guess at that ... but planners and alternative energy advocates must give the reports which have been published the benefit of the doubt. There is a likelihood, based on these reports, that what appears to be in excess of 100% of the solar energy falling on a pond area is being converted into biofuel, and that could be true even if only 5% of the photons were being utilized. NB: 11 feet in diameter .. 5 to 12 KW Thermal . Cost??? Maybe 30 to 50 USD. _ Jones In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 5 Apr 2007 07:10:16 -0400:
