Axil, well put! It is exactly as you say " that perhaps insufficient consideration may have been given to the integration with the larger system." , the mainstream considers the isotropy of open space a sort of ground state because virtual particles and Casimir effect were not considered. Nano regions can be suppressed via Casimir effect to attain vacuum densities far lower than we observe at the macro scale. Mainstream only wants to consider changes in vacuum density / inertial frames as a functions of relativistic acceleration or equivalent acceleration adhering to square law. Fran
-----Original Message----- From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:DCE for SPP In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:53:18 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Let us get to the bottom of this fear. Expand... It depends on exactly what is meant by negative energy. If meant in an absolute sense, then I am very doubtful. However if it's just a consequence of only considering too small a system (i.e. where the boundaries are chosen too small), then I have no problem with it, other than that perhaps insufficient consideration may have been given to the integration with the larger system. > >On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:36 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 9 Feb 2016 20:04:51 -0500: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >Do you believe the the Penrose mechanism can also add a multiplier effect >> >to the extraction of energy from the vacuum in the dark mode SPP? >> > >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process >> >> I'm always a bit suspicious of theories that make use of "negative energy". >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
