RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Frank roarty]

I agree it is isotropic in freespace above the plank scale but IMHO it can vary 
at other than the normal gravitational square law thru suppression when 
conductive geometries segregate the density of vacuum wavelengths into regions 
larger than the plank scale which we associate with London forces, van der 
Walls and Casimir force. I also suspect large magnetic and voltaic fields can 
affect this density in conjunction with other fields or quantum effects of 
geometry. I am convinced that “suppressed region” of a Casimir cavity 
represents a segregation of shorter wavelengths in the cavity that are fed by a 
larger region of slightly  stretched wavelengths that exactly balance out to 
the isotropic value we experience at the macro scale but unlike the tiny 
wormholes in the chaotic foam beneath the Plank scale these breaches in 
isotropy are large enough for physical matter to interact with in opposition to 
the normal square law..I posit it is these 2 competing forces where the 
isotropy is broken that allows the caveat of COE regarding gas law to be 
suspended, allowing for regions of altered space large enough to interact with 
moving gas atoms makes a Maxwellian demon possible. In an isotropic environment 
random motion of gas can not be harnessed but when you have a tapestry of 
different vacuum densities formed by a rigid catalyst or nano powders this 
random motion of gas becomes biased. I believe the ionic and molecular forms of 
gas oppose the random motion between different regions while atomic gas is able 
to change into the new fractional values or DDL unopposed.

Fran

 

From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

 

Ok, cool. That is where we differ.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Yes, isotropic.

 

2014-04-29 18:44 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart  >:

Isotropic?



On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  > wrote:

Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes, sure, 
but that is "potential" energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the vacuum 
for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small...

 

2014-04-29 18:38 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :

Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ?

 

If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ?



On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good enough

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing because he is 
used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that, think it is good 
enough. 



 

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com





 

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com





 

-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com  

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Ok, cool. That is where we differ.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Yes, isotropic.
>
>
> 2014-04-29 18:44 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart 
> 
> >:
>
>> Isotropic?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha 
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes,
>>> sure, but that is "potential" energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the
>>> vacuum for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small...
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-04-29 18:38 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :
>>>
 Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ?

 If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ?


 On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good
> enough
>
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing
>> because he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to 
>> that,
>> think it is good enough.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

Yes, isotropic.


2014-04-29 18:44 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :

> Isotropic?
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
>> Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes,
>> sure, but that is "potential" energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the
>> vacuum for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small...
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-29 18:38 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :
>>
>>> Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ?
>>>
>>> If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>>>
 Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good
 enough

 On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing
> because he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to 
> that,
> think it is good enough.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Isotropic?

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes,
> sure, but that is "potential" energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the
> vacuum for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small...
>
>
> 2014-04-29 18:38 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart 
> 
> >:
>
>> Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ?
>>
>> If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart 
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good
>>> enough
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>>
 Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing
 because he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that,
 think it is good enough.


 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

>>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

Vacuum? What kind of vacuum? If you are talking about field theory, yes,
sure, but that is "potential" energy. It can be set to 0. But, there is the
vacuum for GR, the lambda. Which is small... really small...


2014-04-29 18:38 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :

> Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ?
>
> If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ?
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
>> Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good enough
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing
>>> because he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that,
>>> think it is good enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Do you think we have vacuum in our atmosphere ?

If yes, do think it is smooth and isotopic ?

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good enough
>
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing because
>> he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that, think
>> it is good enough.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Ok, I misinterpreted you, I thought you said he thought it was good enough

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing because
> he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that, think
> it is good enough.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

Yes, I read that, but I don't agree with him. It's not convincing because
he is used to a great precision, but I, that I am not used to that, think
it is good enough.


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Funny, his words are different then your interpretation (
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/opod.htm):  To me he is saying they are "not
convincing".  Excuse the weird font, I pasted from his site.


However, ray tracings using them are not convincing. ..

They would require different simulation approaches and such models have an
uncomfortable degree of arbitrariness. However, a credible explanation is
needed both for these pillars and to some extent also for elliptical halos
themselves.




On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Maybe, why not? These days we can film while watching the final image.
> Besides, he says there were 2 pictures known. So, we also could also
> consider that he did not see while not watching with his eyes first. As for
> the physicist, it seems that while not reproducing exactly, it was good
> enough. There must be something missing, but it is a small correction, by
> comparing the simulation and the picture.
>
>
> 2014-04-29 17:57 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :
>
> Are you saying the camera lense created the phenom and that the
>> photographer did not see it with his own eyes first?
>>
>> The physicist is even saying he cannot recreate the scene with his
>> optical halo program using flattened pyramidal crystals
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>>> And also aligned with the photographer...
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-04-29 17:31 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :
>>>
>>> Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally
 aligned with our solar brane.


 On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape,
> which is not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

Maybe, why not? These days we can film while watching the final image.
Besides, he says there were 2 pictures known. So, we also could also
consider that he did not see while not watching with his eyes first. As for
the physicist, it seems that while not reproducing exactly, it was good
enough. There must be something missing, but it is a small correction, by
comparing the simulation and the picture.


2014-04-29 17:57 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :

> Are you saying the camera lense created the phenom and that the
> photographer did not see it with his own eyes first?
>
> The physicist is even saying he cannot recreate the scene with his optical
> halo program using flattened pyramidal crystals
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> And also aligned with the photographer...
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-29 17:31 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :
>>
>> Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally
>>> aligned with our solar brane.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>>
 This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, which
 is not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.



 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Are you saying the camera lense created the phenom and that the
photographer did not see it with his own eyes first?

The physicist is even saying he cannot recreate the scene with his optical
halo program using flattened pyramidal crystals



On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> And also aligned with the photographer...
>
>
> 2014-04-29 17:31 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :
>
> Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally
>> aligned with our solar brane.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>
>>> This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, which
>>> is not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

And also aligned with the photographer...


2014-04-29 17:31 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :

> Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally
> aligned with our solar brane.
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
>> This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, which
>> is not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

*"highly flattened pyramidal plate crystals similar to those invoked for
elliptical halos*", so ascribing that former picture for a camera is a not
bad hypothesis. But also, the sun occupies 1/2 degree on the sky, so, it
should be around 1%... although the sun is sky is too bright in comparison
to those pictures in that website.


2014-04-29 17:28 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :

> From the words of the physicist/halo expert (he has a great website):
>
> http://www.atoptics.co.uk/opod.htm
>
> *The arcs are unexplained.   We need more observations to establish their
> full extent and dependence on solar altitude. The only two known
> observations were both at the same sun height of 1°.*
>
> *It's tempting to ascribe the pillar echoes to wobbly, highly flattened
> pyramidal plate crystals similar to those invoked for elliptical halos.
> However, ray tracings using them are not convincing. *
>
> *Sun pillars are thought to be sometimes made by large plates with
> imperfections and even snowflake like appendages. These could have tilted
> facets due to steric hindrance and drift downwards with peculiar gyratory
> motions. They would require different simulation approaches and such models
> have an uncomfortable degree of arbitrariness. However, a credible
> explanation is needed both for these pillars and to some extent also for
> elliptical halos themselves. *
>
> *Look carefully at sun pillars - they might have surprises!*
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *ChemE Stewart* 
> Date: Monday, April 28, 2014
> Subject: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
> To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
>
>
> http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
>
> On Monday, April 28, 2014, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  *From:* David Roberson
>>
>>
>>
>> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for
>> the CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe
>> and is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large
>> massive objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material
>> could occur in matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy
>> by radiation as with normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually
>> by the condensation of the dark matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Right, it is not an arc, it is a cusp of vacuum energy, gravitationally
aligned with our solar brane.

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, which is
> not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

>From the words of the physicist/halo expert (he has a great website):

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/opod.htm

*The arcs are unexplained.   We need more observations to establish their
full extent and dependence on solar altitude. The only two known
observations were both at the same sun height of 1°.*

*It's tempting to ascribe the pillar echoes to wobbly, highly flattened
pyramidal plate crystals similar to those invoked for elliptical halos.
However, ray tracings using them are not convincing. *

*Sun pillars are thought to be sometimes made by large plates with
imperfections and even snowflake like appendages. These could have tilted
facets due to steric hindrance and drift downwards with peculiar gyratory
motions. They would require different simulation approaches and such models
have an uncomfortable degree of arbitrariness. However, a credible
explanation is needed both for these pillars and to some extent also for
elliptical halos themselves. *

*Look carefully at sun pillars - they might have surprises!*



-- Forwarded message --
From: *ChemE Stewart* 
Date: Monday, April 28, 2014
Subject: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 


http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

On Monday, April 28, 2014, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* David Roberson
>
>
>
> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and
> is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive
> objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could
> occur in matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by
> radiation as with normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by
> the condensation of the dark matter.
>
>
>
> Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

This is probably due the camera, an not the sky, due the V shape, which is
not an arc, which is usually as seen on sky.



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

Radiation Jets= condensed vapor on the wings of 2 air planes. ( or if you
refer the long tail from the sun to W, mutilple reflections within the lens
until hit the photon detector)

W= lens flare, specifially, Glory,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(optical_phenomenon) , more
specifially, acircumzenithal arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumzenithal_arc , from the lens system of
the camera. That is, this is effect is due classical tunneling of light,
probably on thin shells over lens of the camera



2014-04-29 13:45 GMT-03:00 ChemE Stewart :

> More brane leakage from the other side...
>
>
> http://inspirehep.net/record/811530/plots
>
>
>
>
-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Thanks, I had looked at that one.  Conventional physics will tell you it is
all done from hexagonal ice crystals.  They don't necessarily tell you how
they all form/align to create the beautiful gravitational lensing patterns.

They ALSO MAGNIFY

Amazingly these two ice halos beautifully match the mean orbits of the
inner two planets Mercury and Venus seen from the surface of the earth.
This means that when you look at a double ice halo, you are really seeing
the spheres of the mean orbits of Mercury and Venus, hanging in the sky.
There they are!

*This is an extraordinary coincidence. What is going on? Every circle fits.
Sunlight and ice crystals paint rainbows for orbits!*
Here is another what I think is a cusp of vacuum energy showing signs of
gravitational radiation:

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/opod.htm

He admits that he cannot recreate that with just ice crystals. I think that
is a "Gazigawatt" of Vacuum Energy...

We got one of those buggers the same day comet ISON pulled a disappearing
act around the Sun.  I think she broke up and increased local vacuum
energy, creating a very cold, condensing, low pressure winter and things
like polar vortexes and stuff as all of that vacuum stuff decays.

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/12/04/meet-ison-the-cusp-of-the-problem/

Also, lots of atmospheric lensing in the jet streams before hurricane Sandy
as she was pulling a big vacuum:

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/04/22/today-we-hunt-for-cosmic-strings/

Same thing happen't before typhoon Haiyan

http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/17/lotsa-lensing/

I'm hav'n a good time with physorcists with my blog. I think this place is
crawling with vacuum.  I have spent $189 so far looking for it...


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:45 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>
>> More brane leakage from the other side...
>>
>
> You'll love this one:
>
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/27/halos_and_arcs_optical_effects_photographed_by_g_ran_strand.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:45 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> More brane leakage from the other side...
>

You'll love this one:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/27/halos_and_arcs_optical_effects_photographed_by_g_ran_strand.html

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

More brane leakage from the other side...


http://inspirehep.net/record/811530/plots



-- Forwarded message --
From: *Eric Walker* 
Date: Monday, April 28, 2014
Subject: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.


Another thought -- we assume that because conservation of energy is borne
out experimentally on the local scale that it also applies to the cosmic
scale.  But I see no reason other than tradition to assume that the
observable universe is a closed system or that energy is not somehow
seeping into it via some orthogonal pathway.  (I doubt any of that would
have a direct connection to LENR, though.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Xbi-VJkFA

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Roarty, Francis X 
wrote:

>  I agree high voltage or magnetic field is part of it like Tesla’s effort
> to solidify the ether but IMHO it will take 2 independent fields
> interacting with a carrier of some sort – hydrogen or photons – to give ZPE
> a path into our dimension. I suspect the fields will individually segregate
> the vacuum slightly but without a Maxwellian system to exploit the
> segregation it will cancel out, a second field provides this potential thru
> simple alignment of these segregated fields like gravitational lensing
> provides a path for photons to be amplified I think similar can be achieved
> with vacuum, really far out on a limb even suspect UFO’s could be visible
> effects of this alignment of segregated vacuum forming lenses along a
> dilated dimensional path that peers into the future.. not an energy scheme
> but still I suspect all these anomalies of ufo, levitation and zero point
> energy are related to anomalies in vacuum pressure in the same way we
> accept time dilation thru luminal acceleration. I don’t think it was a
> coincidence that Naudts paper on relativistic hydrogen was based on the
> hydrino loaded into a stationary skeletal catalyst in a lab in NJ… there
> isn’t any near luminal displacement or event horizions occurring in NJ so
> what was he trying to say?
>
> Fran
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* MarkI-Zeropoint 
> [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 7:51 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
>
>
>
> That's easy!
>
>   ;-)
>
>
>
> Reduce the turbulence in the stream, which for the Dirac Sea, means using
> an intense electric or magnetic field to polarize the vacuum...
>
>
>
> -mark iverson
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
>
>  Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case for
> this premise:
>
>
>
> 1) Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
> illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects
>
> 2) The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
>
> 3) CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from
> the Dirac sea
>
>
>
> Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to
> use in alternative energy?
>
>
>
> One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of
> some kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.
>
>
>
> There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of
> which are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin…
>
>
>
> *From: *ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
>
> *From: *David Roberson
>
> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and
> is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive
> objects.  I have long
>

RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Roarty, Francis X]

I agree high voltage or magnetic field is part of it like Tesla’s effort to 
solidify the ether but IMHO it will take 2 independent fields interacting with 
a carrier of some sort – hydrogen or photons – to give ZPE a path into our 
dimension. I suspect the fields will individually segregate the vacuum slightly 
but without a Maxwellian system to exploit the segregation it will cancel out, 
a second field provides this potential thru simple alignment of these 
segregated fields like gravitational lensing provides a path for photons to be 
amplified I think similar can be achieved with vacuum, really far out on a limb 
even suspect UFO’s could be visible effects of this alignment of segregated 
vacuum forming lenses along a dilated dimensional path that peers into the 
future.. not an energy scheme but still I suspect all these anomalies of ufo, 
levitation and zero point energy are related to anomalies in vacuum pressure in 
the same way we accept time dilation thru luminal acceleration. I don’t think 
it was a coincidence that Naudts paper on relativistic hydrogen was based on 
the hydrino loaded into a stationary skeletal catalyst in a lab in NJ… there 
isn’t any near luminal displacement or event horizions occurring in NJ so what 
was he trying to say?
Fran


From: MarkI-Zeropoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

That's easy!
  ;-)

Reduce the turbulence in the stream, which for the Dirac Sea, means using an 
intense electric or magnetic field to polarize the vacuum...

-mark iverson

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

 Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case for this 
premise:

1) Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an illusion 
in 3-space except for gravitational effects
2) The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
3) CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the 
Dirac sea

Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to use 
in alternative energy?

One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of some 
kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.

There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of which 
are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin…

From: ChemE Stewart

http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
From: David Roberson
A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the CMB. 
 Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and is 
supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive 
objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could occur in 
matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by radiation as with 
normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by the condensation of 
the dark matter.
Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.


Another thought -- we assume that because conservation of energy is borne
out experimentally on the local scale that it also applies to the cosmic
scale.  But I see no reason other than tradition to assume that the
observable universe is a closed system or that energy is not somehow
seeping into it via some orthogonal pathway.  (I doubt any of that would
have a direct connection to LENR, though.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

An invisible, ancient source of energy surrounds us—energy that powered the
first explorations of the world, and that may be a key to the future...

http://hint.fm/wind/

It is our quantum vacuum/dirac sea powering that wind...


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>  Axil--
>
> The article cited below has the following explanation of the Casmir effect
> in a static situation of two mirrors:
>
> >>>"This attractive force is caused by the radiation pressure exerted by
> virtual photons outside the mirrors and the fact that this pressure exceeds
> the pressure between the mirrors because of the limited number of modes of
> electromagnetic vibration that are permitted within this gap. In other
> words, the force results from a mismatch of electromagnetic modes in space.
> "<<<
>
> Sounds like a new  EMMMF  (electro-magnetic modes mismatch force) force
> for consideration in LENR energy coupling  and overcoming electro static
> barriers between items making up a conduction surface between two nano
> particles of the external surfaces of a hollow nano cylinder.   Such a
> force may be all that is required to force a H close enough to a Ni
> surfaces being squeezed by EMMMF to react.
>
> The quoted  statement does not explain the force as far as I can
> tell.  However,  It refers to radiation pressure which is caused by a
> transfer of linear momentum between the virtual photon and the real matter
> electrons of the real mirror.  This suggests that a virtual photon and a
> real photon have the same effect on matter.  It seems to imply that the
> flux of virtual photons with its integrated momentum hitting the mirror
> from the inside is less than the flux and momentum of the virtual photons
> hitting the mirror from the outside because fewer occupy the vacuum between
> the mirrors as a result of the limited number of modes allowed per a unit
> of 2-D space. Also in the 2-D space it may be that their direction of
> propagation is limited along in a plane such that a transfer of momentum
> normal to the plane does not exist.
>
> I wonder what determines the energy/momentum of the virtual photons in the
> vacuum inside and outside the mirrors' surfaces.If there is a spectrum
> of energy of the virtual photons, what determines that?  It seems a measure
> of the static Casmir force would allow a calculation of the  of the density
> of virtual photons in the vacuum at virtual temperatures along with the
> changing constraint on the modes of E/M vibration density as the space
> approaches a 2-D condition.  This may  allow determining what that  virtual
> temperature is and hence the expected spectrum of the virtual photons in
> the vacuum.
>
> If the ambient virtual temperature of the vacuum explains the
> comsic background microwave spectrum, wouldn't that be note worthy for the
> astrophysics guys?
>
> Finally, I had a problem visualizing the thinness of the mirrors in a
> real experiment.  Also that they apparently reflect from both sides
> equally.
>
> Bob
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 28, 2014 1:08 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
>
>
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/nov/17/how-to-turn-darkness-into-light
>
> Photons are formed from the vacuum as a part of the virtual particle
> formation process. But do photons give up vacuum energy if they
> annihilate with their antiparticle? Does the photon have an
> antiparticle(antiphoton) that can give back energy to the vacuum?
>
> If there is no anti-photon, won't the virtual photon made real over time
> add somehow to the CBR?
>
> Can someone explain how the Casmir virtual photon process works to keep
> the vacuum energy balanced at zero?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case
>> for this premise:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
>> illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects
>>
>> 2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
>>
>> 3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from
>> the Dirac sea
>>
>>
>>
>> Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to
>> use in alternative energy?
>>
>>
>>
>> One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of
>> some kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, som

RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[MarkI-Zeropoint]

That's easy!
  ;-)

Reduce the turbulence in the stream, which for the Dirac Sea, means 
using an intense electric or magnetic field to polarize the vacuum...


-mark iverson

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

 Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case 
for this premise:


1) Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an 
illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects

2) The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
3) CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from 
the Dirac sea


Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put 
to use in alternative energy?


One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of 
some kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.


There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some 
of which are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin…


From: ChemE Stewart

http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html 


From: David Roberson
A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for 
the CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the 
universe and is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and 
other large massive objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation 
of material could occur in matter that has no way to release the 
gravitational energy by radiation as with normal matter.  Perhaps the 
CMB is generated gradually by the condensation of the dark matter.

Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf 

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

The article cited below has the following explanation of the Casmir effect in a 
static situation of two mirrors:

>>>"This attractive force is caused by the radiation pressure exerted by 
>>>virtual photons outside the mirrors and the fact that this pressure exceeds 
>>>the pressure between the mirrors because of the limited number of modes of 
>>>electromagnetic vibration that are permitted within this gap. In other 
>>>words, the force results from a mismatch of electromagnetic modes in space. 
>>>"<<<  

Sounds like a new  EMMMF  (electro-magnetic modes mismatch force) force for 
consideration in LENR energy coupling  and overcoming electro static barriers 
between items making up a conduction surface between two nano particles of the 
external surfaces of a hollow nano cylinder.   Such a force may be all that is 
required to force a H close enough to a Ni surfaces being squeezed by EMMMF to 
react. 

The quoted  statement does not explain the force as far as I can tell.  
However,  It refers to radiation pressure which is caused by a transfer of 
linear momentum between the virtual photon and the real matter electrons of the 
real mirror.  This suggests that a virtual photon and a real photon have the 
same effect on matter.  It seems to imply that the flux of virtual photons with 
its integrated momentum hitting the mirror from the inside is less than the 
flux and momentum of the virtual photons hitting the mirror from the outside 
because fewer occupy the vacuum between the mirrors as a result of the limited 
number of modes allowed per a unit of 2-D space. Also in the 2-D space it 
may be that their direction of propagation is limited along in a plane such 
that a transfer of momentum normal to the plane does not exist.  

I wonder what determines the energy/momentum of the virtual photons in the 
vacuum inside and outside the mirrors' surfaces.If there is a spectrum of 
energy of the virtual photons, what determines that?  It seems a measure of the 
static Casmir force would allow a calculation of the  of the density of virtual 
photons in the vacuum at virtual temperatures along with the changing 
constraint on the modes of E/M vibration density as the space approaches a 2-D 
condition.  This may  allow determining what that  virtual temperature is and 
hence the expected spectrum of the virtual photons in the vacuum.  

If the ambient virtual temperature of the vacuum explains the comsic background 
microwave spectrum, wouldn't that be note worthy for the astrophysics guys?

Finally, I had a problem visualizing the thinness of the mirrors in a real 
experiment.  Also that they apparently reflect from both sides equally.  

Bob   
  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?


  
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/nov/17/how-to-turn-darkness-into-light


  Photons are formed from the vacuum as a part of the virtual particle 
formation process. But do photons give up vacuum energy if they annihilate with 
their antiparticle? Does the photon have an antiparticle(antiphoton) that can 
give back energy to the vacuum?


  If there is no anti-photon, won't the virtual photon made real over time add 
somehow to the CBR?


  Can someone explain how the Casmir virtual photon process works to keep the 
vacuum energy balanced at zero? 



  On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case for 
this premise:



1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an 
illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects

2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter

3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the 
Dirac sea



Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to 
use in alternative energy?



One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of some 
kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate. 



There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of 
which are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin… 



From: ChemE Stewart 



http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

From: David Roberson 

A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the 
CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and is 
supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive 
objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could occur in 
matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by radiation as with 
normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by the condensation of 
the dark matter. 

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

I kinda thought it is converting baryonic matter in space back to
dark/vacuum constantly. Ionize, condense and collapse back into vacuum

On Monday, April 28, 2014, David Roberson  wrote:

> Yeah, that is how it was determined to exist in the first place.  Now I
> wonder if the actual process leading to the force that drives the stars
> apart is CMB radiation?  The thought is that CMB exists throughout the
> universe and is approximately equal in all directions of propagation.  It
> is basically pent up energy and must want to expand into a larger space.
>
> I think of it like what would happen if you have a photon of light trapped
> between two perfect mirrors.  Momentum and energy is deposited upon each
> mirror every time a reflection takes place.  Eventually all of the momentum
> and energy ends up in the mirrors.  Before that happens it appears as
> though a continuous force is pushing them apart which comes in pulses timed
> by the reflections.
>
> I suppose that the total energy of the CMB would be reduced with time
> under the conditions considered above so it would have to be refreshed by
> the stored dark energy reservoir.  As we were wildly speculating earlier
> perhaps the interaction of the dark matter with itself performs that
> resupply.  Can gravitational collapse of dark matter convert into dark
> energy?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> 
> >
> To: vortex-l 
> 
> >
> Sent: Mon, Apr 28, 2014 5:51 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
>
>  Dark energy is likely the source of the force which drives stars apart.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[David Roberson]

Yeah, that is how it was determined to exist in the first place.  Now I wonder 
if the actual process leading to the force that drives the stars apart is CMB 
radiation?  The thought is that CMB exists throughout the universe and is 
approximately equal in all directions of propagation.  It is basically pent up 
energy and must want to expand into a larger space.

I think of it like what would happen if you have a photon of light trapped 
between two perfect mirrors.  Momentum and energy is deposited upon each mirror 
every time a reflection takes place.  Eventually all of the momentum and energy 
ends up in the mirrors.  Before that happens it appears as though a continuous 
force is pushing them apart which comes in pulses timed by the reflections.

I suppose that the total energy of the CMB would be reduced with time under the 
conditions considered above so it would have to be refreshed by the stored dark 
energy reservoir.  As we were wildly speculating earlier perhaps the 
interaction of the dark matter with itself performs that resupply.  Can 
gravitational collapse of dark matter convert into dark energy?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 28, 2014 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?


Dark energy is likely the source of the force which drives stars apart.


 

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Terry Blanton]

Dark energy is likely the source of the force which drives stars apart.

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

David,

I tend to think the core of the Earth as "dark matter", possibly a 6-D
space vacuum toroid and dark energy to be all the vacuum energy the
sun/other branes are spewing into space 24/7, which is accelerating as it
leaves the solar brane(our solar wind accelerates) and some/much of it
whizzes by earth(like when a CME misses Earth) and inflates/decays out in
the cosmos and turns into things like comets and asteroids as the vacuum
stuff decays back to baryonic matter. Sort of a inflating/decaying quantum
braneworld scenario. with lots of high energy curled up stuff whizzing
around making life short but interesting...




On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:50 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Here is another interesting question to ponder.  If dark matter interacts
> with other dark matter, is that the source of dark energy?  This thought is
> along the lines of: Conservation of Dark Matter and Energy.  E=M*c*c where
> the M is dark matter and E is dark energy.
>
> If, as we appear to be considering, dark matter interacts very slowly
> among itself and at least one of the results is CMB, could another effect
> be the force that is driving the stars apart?   As Jones seems to be
> suggesting it would be quite useful if a method can be found to enhance
> that conversion rate to power our world.  It seems logical to believe that
> there exists an enormous amount of energy that we so far have not tapped
> which is currently expanding the universe.
>
> Has anyone seen a calculation of the total amount of energy contained in
> the CMB?  Since it propagates throughout the universe and is present to a
> degree at every location, there must be a lot of it around.  It would
> appear that this trapped energy would love to find freedom of movement by
> expanding the region that it occupies.  This process should result in an
> expansive force.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: ChemE Stewart 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Apr 28, 2014 4:25 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?
>
>  1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
> illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects
>  In addition to gravitational effects I think it is electromagnetic
> (think magnetosphere) and weakly ionizing/decaying 3-space (think
> ionosphere) and electromagnetic/lightning discharge during storms and
> decaying and condensing surroundings creating protons and creating WATER
> (think troposphere and low pressure weather disturbances).O2 + quantum
> vacuum ionization energy --->2O-- + 4H+ = 2H2O.  If you ionize oxygen you
> get nitrogen, which between the two make up most of the atmosphere.
> 2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
> Agreed
> 3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the
> Dirac sea
> Agreed.  I think the residual radiation changes because the Dirac Sea
> varies in vacuum concentration - it is stringy and brany.  I think the Sun
> is vomiting this stuff at us and "leaking branes", i.e. the Earth is
> "pulling a vacuum" on the Sun.
> Our oceans/water are really a result of our decayed/condensed quantum
> gravity field.
> I am still thinking the electromagnetic pulsed field from a magnetron or
> klystron is possibly causing the Dirac sea to "leak" protons or
> something...Maybe nature pulls positive charge from the vacuum to offset
> the electromagnetic field from a Doppler to keep a balance?
>  I think it relates to the Doppler Shift. Dopplers signals get warped and
> bent and are subject to anomolous clear air reflections all of the time.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>  Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case
>> for this premise:
>>
>> 1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
>> illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects
>> 2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
>> 3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from
>> the Dirac sea
>>
>> Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to
>> use in alternative energy?
>>
>> One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of
>> some kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.
>>
>> There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of
>> which are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin…
>>
>> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>>
>> http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
>>   *From:* David Roberson
>> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for
>> th

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[David Roberson]

Here is another interesting question to ponder.  If dark matter interacts with 
other dark matter, is that the source of dark energy?  This thought is along 
the lines of: Conservation of Dark Matter and Energy.  E=M*c*c where the M is 
dark matter and E is dark energy.

If, as we appear to be considering, dark matter interacts very slowly among 
itself and at least one of the results is CMB, could another effect be the 
force that is driving the stars apart?   As Jones seems to be suggesting it 
would be quite useful if a method can be found to enhance that conversion rate 
to power our world.  It seems logical to believe that there exists an enormous 
amount of energy that we so far have not tapped which is currently expanding 
the universe.

Has anyone seen a calculation of the total amount of energy contained in the 
CMB?  Since it propagates throughout the universe and is present to a degree at 
every location, there must be a lot of it around.  It would appear that this 
trapped energy would love to find freedom of movement by expanding the region 
that it occupies.  This process should result in an expansive force.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 28, 2014 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?



1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an illusion 
in 3-space except for gravitational effects

In addition to gravitational effects I think it is electromagnetic (think 
magnetosphere) and weakly ionizing/decaying 3-space (think ionosphere) and 
electromagnetic/lightning discharge during storms and decaying and condensing 
surroundings creating protons and creating WATER (think troposphere and low 
pressure weather disturbances).O2 + quantum vacuum ionization energy --->2O-- + 
4H+ = 2H2O.  If you ionize oxygen you get nitrogen, which between the two make 
up most of the atmosphere.
2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
Agreed
3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the Dirac 
sea
Agreed.  I think the residual radiation changes because the Dirac Sea varies in 
vacuum concentration - it is stringy and brany.  I think the Sun is vomiting 
this stuff at us and "leaking branes", i.e. the Earth is "pulling a vacuum" on 
the Sun.
Our oceans/water are really a result of our decayed/condensed quantum gravity 
field.
I am still thinking the electromagnetic pulsed field from a magnetron or 
klystron is possibly causing the Dirac sea to "leak" protons or 
something...Maybe nature pulls positive charge from the vacuum to offset the 
electromagnetic field from a Doppler to keep a balance?

I think it relates to the Doppler Shift. Dopplers signals get warped and bent 
and are subject to anomolous clear air reflections all of the time.




On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:


Taking all of thistogether, there seems to exist a prima facie case for this 
premise:
 
1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is anillusion 
in 3-space except for gravitational effects
2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation fromthe Dirac 
sea
 
Now comes the interestingpart. Can this information, if valid, be put to use in 
alternative energy?
 
One seemingly obvious wayto proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of some 
kind. If it is a leak, then wewant to increase the flow rate. 
 
There are many ways toincrease the flow rate of various streams, some of which 
are applicable tomicrowave photons … so let the games begin… 
 
From:ChemE Stewart 
 
http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html


From:David Roberson 
A thought just came to mewhile considering alternate explanations for the CMB.  
Dark matter isassumed to be distributed throughout the universe and is supposed 
to clumptogether around galaxy centers and other large massive objects.  I 
havelong wondered how this congregation of material could occur in matter that 
hasno way to release the gravitational energy by radiation as with 
normalmatter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by the condensation of 
thedark matter. 
Or … perhaps dark matteris another aspect of the Dirac Sea ? 
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf

 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects

In addition to gravitational effects I think it is electromagnetic (think
magnetosphere) and weakly ionizing/decaying 3-space (think ionosphere) and
electromagnetic/lightning discharge during storms and decaying and
condensing surroundings creating protons and creating WATER (think
troposphere and low pressure weather disturbances).O2 + quantum vacuum
ionization energy --->2O-- + 4H+ = 2H2O.  If you ionize oxygen you get
nitrogen, which between the two make up most of the atmosphere.

2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter

Agreed

3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the
Dirac sea

Agreed.  I think the residual radiation changes because the Dirac Sea
varies in vacuum concentration - it is stringy and brany.  I think the Sun
is vomiting this stuff at us and "leaking branes", i.e. the Earth is
"pulling a vacuum" on the Sun.

Our oceans/water are really a result of our decayed/condensed quantum
gravity field.

I am still thinking the electromagnetic pulsed field from a magnetron or
klystron is possibly causing the Dirac sea to "leak" protons or
something...Maybe nature pulls positive charge from the vacuum to offset
the electromagnetic field from a Doppler to keep a balance?

I think it relates to the Doppler Shift. Dopplers signals get warped and
bent and are subject to anomolous clear air reflections all of the time.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case for
> this premise:
>
>
>
> 1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
> illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects
>
> 2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
>
> 3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the
> Dirac sea
>
>
>
> Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to
> use in alternative energy?
>
>
>
> One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of
> some kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.
>
>
>
> There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of
> which are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin…
>
>
>
> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
>
> *From:* David Roberson
>
> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and
> is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive
> objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could
> occur in matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by
> radiation as with normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by
> the condensation of the dark matter.
>
> Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[H Veeder]

Could the dirac sea also explain the observed red shift?
Harry


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case for
> this premise:
>
>
>
> 1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
> illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects
>
> 2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
>
> 3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the
> Dirac sea
>
>
>
> Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to
> use in alternative energy?
>
>
>
> One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of
> some kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.
>
>
>
> There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of
> which are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin…
>
>
>
> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
>
> *From:* David Roberson
>
> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and
> is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive
> objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could
> occur in matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by
> radiation as with normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by
> the condensation of the dark matter.
>
> Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Axil Axil]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/nov/17/how-to-turn-darkness-into-light

Photons are formed from the vacuum as a part of the virtual particle
formation process. But do photons give up vacuum energy if they
annihilate with their antiparticle? Does the photon have an
antiparticle(antiphoton) that can give back energy to the vacuum?

If there is no anti-photon, won't the virtual photon made real over time
add somehow to the CBR?

Can someone explain how the Casmir virtual photon process works to keep the
vacuum energy balanced at zero?


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case for
> this premise:
>
>
>
> 1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an
> illusion in 3-space except for gravitational effects
>
> 2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter
>
> 3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the
> Dirac sea
>
>
>
> Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to
> use in alternative energy?
>
>
>
> One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of
> some kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate.
>
>
>
> There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of
> which are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin…
>
>
>
> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html
>
> *From:* David Roberson
>
> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and
> is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive
> objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could
> occur in matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by
> radiation as with normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by
> the condensation of the dark matter.
>
> Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Jones Beene]

Taking all of this together, there seems to exist a prima facie case for this 
premise:

 

1)Dark matter is inherent in the quantum vacuum, meaning it is an illusion 
in 3-space except for gravitational effects

2)The quantum vacuum = Dirac sea = dark matter

3)CMB is not a relic of a Big Bang but is residual radiation from the Dirac 
sea

 

Now comes the interesting part. Can this information, if valid, be put to use 
in alternative energy?

 

One seemingly obvious way to proceed is to consider CMB as a “leak” of some 
kind. If it is a leak, then we want to increase the flow rate. 

 

There are many ways to increase the flow rate of various streams, some of which 
are applicable to microwave photons … so let the games begin… 

 

From: ChemE Stewart 

 

http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

From: David Roberson 

A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the CMB. 
 Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and is 
supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive 
objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could occur in 
matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by radiation as with 
normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by the condensation of 
the dark matter. 

Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ? 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf

 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[David Roberson]

Good question.  If dark matter and dark energy exist then they must have 
consequences.  The researchers may have been looking in the wrong places thus 
far.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 28, 2014 2:06 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?



From:David Roberson 
 
A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanationsfor the CMB.  
Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout theuniverse and is supposed 
to clump together around galaxy centers and otherlarge massive objects.  I have 
long wondered how this congregation ofmaterial could occur in matter that has 
no way to release the gravitationalenergy by radiation as with normal matter.  
Perhaps the CMB is generatedgradually by the condensation of the dark matter.
 
Or … perhaps darkmatter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
 
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf

 
 

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

http://m.phys.org/news/2011-08-dark-illusion-quantum-vacuum.html

On Monday, April 28, 2014, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  *From:* David Roberson
>
>
>
> A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
> CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and
> is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive
> objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could
> occur in matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by
> radiation as with normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by
> the condensation of the dark matter.
>
>
>
> Or … perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Jones Beene]

From: David Roberson 

 

A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the
CMB.  Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and
is supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive
objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could occur
in matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by radiation
as with normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by the
condensation of the dark matter.

 

Or . perhaps dark matter is another aspect of the Dirac Sea ?

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.2908.pdf

 
 

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[David Roberson]

A thought just came to me while considering alternate explanations for the CMB. 
 Dark matter is assumed to be distributed throughout the universe and is 
supposed to clump together around galaxy centers and other large massive 
objects.  I have long wondered how this congregation of material could occur in 
matter that has no way to release the gravitational energy by radiation as with 
normal matter.  Perhaps the CMB is generated gradually by the condensation of 
the dark matter.

The distribution of dark matter throughout the universe would be indicated by 
the radiation pattern associated with the CMB if this idea has merit.  Another 
feature of this theory would be that the dark matter would take far longer to 
condense into organized collections of material than that observed by regular 
matter.   Telescopic observations of normal galaxies from far into the past via 
distant viewing could be a method of estimating how the dark matter is 
presently arranged in our galaxy for instance.

How would one explain the distribution of material that dark matter is composed 
of if it does not have a method of releasing stored gravitational energy?  I 
can not imagine any process that would allow this type of matter to collect 
into a small batch which seems to be cooler by definition unless that energy 
can be released by some mechanism.  What would be better than a slow release at 
the very low end of the spectrum?  Strong interaction would seem to suggest 
rapid energy release and high temperatures as with ordinary matter.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 28, 2014 11:33 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?


-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

The link you noted for the Finders University  discusses process physics,
but I did not see anything about the microwave background radiation coming
from a Dirac sea.   Is there a separate paper that is more explicit?


I have confused notes on the origin of this detail, but here is a paper from
China which goes a step further and assumes the temperature of thermal
motion of Dirac sea equal the temperature of Cosmological Microwave
Background... It is unfortunately not well written but if there is a valid
mathematical connection, then at least the prima facie case has been made.

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/A_Naive_Model_of_The_Cosmological_Vac
uum_Energy_Density_Dirac_Sea.pdf


 

RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Jones Beene]

Here is a paper which assumes the temperature of thermal
motion of Dirac sea equal the temperature of Cosmological Microwave
Background... if there is a valid mathematical connection, then at least the
prima facie case has been made.


http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/A_Naive_Model_of_The_Cosmological_Vac
uum_Energy_Density_Dirac_Sea.pdf

There are a couple of applications that come to mind. Remember the Penzias
"ear"

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/eli_sonafrank/penzias_and_w
ilson.jpg

Now, merge that device, merged with Project Echo - large Mylar reflectors in
orbit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite

... and we can throw in a low power version of Stewart's Doppler radar to
boot, which is aimed at the Mylar reflector :-)

The idea is that one uses microwaves of the correct wavelength, at low duty
pulsation, to activate several cubic kilometers of "vacuum" between the
ground and the orbiting reflector in space - so that the there is a high-Q
ring after each pulse - which is then reflected back to earth to be
collected in a modified "ear" antenna... 

This is somewhat similar to the idea of beaming back solar power, as in this
story

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/space-solar/

In fact, microwaves could be amplified that way as well - but with far fewer
solar cells to first create a microwave beam, and then with "beam
amplification" via Dirac/CMB oscillation between two large reflectors,
before being sent to the ground. This would be kind of like a giant maser in
space, requiring only a fraction of the solar cells in the Navy design. The
maser could reflect a beam back and forth over hundreds of km, hopefully
with CMB amplification on every bounce.





<>

RE: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 

The link you noted for the Finders University  discusses process physics,
but I did not see anything about the microwave background radiation coming
from a Dirac sea.   Is there a separate paper that is more explicit?


I have confused notes on the origin of this detail, but here is a paper from
China which goes a step further and assumes the temperature of thermal
motion of Dirac sea equal the temperature of Cosmological Microwave
Background... It is unfortunately not well written but if there is a valid
mathematical connection, then at least the prima facie case has been made.

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/A_Naive_Model_of_The_Cosmological_Vac
uum_Energy_Density_Dirac_Sea.pdf

<>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

The link you noted for the Finders University  discusses process physics, 
but I did not see anything about the microwave background radiation coming 
from a Dirac sea.   Is there a separate paper that is more explicit?


Bob
- Original Message - 
From: "Jones Beene" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:08 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?



Poser of the Day ...

Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is almost universally assumed 
to
be the photon remnants which are left over from the "Big Bang" of 
cosmology.

That assumption has more holes than Swiss cheese. Compounding one error in
another is the best that can be said for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

This Big-Bang explanation is by default essentially - but it makes no
logical sense in an unbounded (expanding) Universe that we should detect a
fairly uniform relic from 14 billion years ago, which is red-shifted to 
such

an extreme degree.

Another explanation for CMB dawned on me this morning.

CMB could be ongoing "leakage" from the Dirac sea, instead of a
multi-billion year old relic of an event that probably never happened to
begin with. The more one thinks about it, even if one is not a contrarian 
by

nature, the more appealing it can sound - and so far, the objections seem
fewer than the mainstream view (if you accept Dirac and question the Big
Bang).

I was about to say that "you heard it first on Vortex" but a quick search
indicates that at least one other reference to a CMB <=> Dirac-sea
connection has turned up.

http://www.flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/caps/staff-postgrads/info/cah
ill-r/process-physics/

Not surprising that he is from Adelaide...

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

That's right.  I think our weather contains decaying strings of vacuum in
the jetstreams attached to our earth d-brane, which "inflate" into
supercells (closed strings) of decaying vacuum which ionize and condense
everything and produce water vapor and precipitation. The vacuum streams to
Earth in the Solar wind.

The vacuum bends the doppler radar's EMF and interacts with it.

Branes bring rain.
Brane drops keep falling on my head
Hurribranes and branespouts kinda thing :)
We are LENR brane decay from the stormy Dirac sea.

Just my take on it






On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

> This is one of the main reasons for the theory of inflation.
>
>
> 2014-04-28 11:08 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene :
>
>  we should detect a fairly uniform relic
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[Daniel Rocha]

This is one of the main reasons for the theory of inflation.


2014-04-28 11:08 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene :

>  we should detect a fairly uniform relic
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Is the CMB leakage from Dirac's Sea?

[ChemE Stewart]

Jones,

I think you are right and it is also responsible for a part of the normal
background radiation here on Earth, which increases slightly during many
storms, many of which I think are caused by an increase in local vacuum
energy and not just hot and cold. We were born into a world where "space is
not smooth".  I think the Dirac sea is a stormy sea and we are "Riders on
the Storm"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJm0kNm-2Y




On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Poser of the Day ...
>
> Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation is almost universally assumed
> to
> be the photon remnants which are left over from the "Big Bang" of
> cosmology.
> That assumption has more holes than Swiss cheese. Compounding one error in
> another is the best that can be said for it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
>
> This Big-Bang explanation is by default essentially - but it makes no
> logical sense in an unbounded (expanding) Universe that we should detect a
> fairly uniform relic from 14 billion years ago, which is red-shifted to
> such
> an extreme degree.
>
> Another explanation for CMB dawned on me this morning.
>
> CMB could be ongoing "leakage" from the Dirac sea, instead of a
> multi-billion year old relic of an event that probably never happened to
> begin with. The more one thinks about it, even if one is not a contrarian
> by
> nature, the more appealing it can sound - and so far, the objections seem
> fewer than the mainstream view (if you accept Dirac and question the Big
> Bang).
>
> I was about to say that "you heard it first on Vortex" but a quick search
> indicates that at least one other reference to a CMB <=> Dirac-sea
> connection has turned up.
>
>
> http://www.flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/caps/staff-postgrads/info/cah
> ill-r/process-physics/
>
> Not surprising that he is from Adelaide...
>
>
>
>
>
>