Hi All, I'm having a hard time getting my mind around the fifth force, but I find Don Hotson's explication of Dirac's epos helpful. (These epos entirely filling the universe make a plausible basis for action at a distance, but so far I'm sticking to graavitons that travel orders of magnitude faster than light.) The epos might provide a medium that could be some kind of sub-atomic rail gun.
Jack Smith Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11-28-07: Few things in science are as contentious, or as unpredictable as the "weather"; but during an electrical storm, many vorticians have witnessed and thought about how and what --- "in the weather" could end up being the possible pathway to a viable alternative energy source. Is the so-called "fifth force" part of that emerging pathway, and is ZPE itself related to this hypothetical force? And/or is a fifth power-law also at work, or even related to the fifth force, perhaps in an inverse way? ... Here is the 'Fifth Force' paper, alluded to in earlier posts: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theorypapers/F%5E2%20102307web3.pdf ... There are a few-fair-facts regarding weather, which are in general agreement and provide a ground-level foundation on which to build an alternative energy scheme: first- the earth-ionosphere cavity- which is a gigantic natural capacitor, and is sometimes referred to as the "fair weather field" (FWF). This 10 km thick zone of atmosphere has a charge potential of up to 500,000 volts, with the earth being the virtual cathode. Near the surface, the voltage gradient is said to be a whopping, but nearly unnoticed ~100 volts mer meter. The Earth has a net negative charge of about a million coulombs, which is not really much, from a square meter perspective. The upper atmosphere has a roughly equal and opposite charge, so that the Earth as a whole is roughly neutral, or slightly net negative. At elevations above the clouds, atmospheric electricity is layered into charge bands, and forms an "electrosphere" in which the Earth is surrounded. The electrosphere layer begins above 10 km, and has such a high electrical conductivity that the near constant electric potential of the alternating layers is mystery. All of the layers are ionized by solar and cosmic radiation, but solar UV is by far the strongest component. The "fair weather field" (FWF) is also an observation that the surface of the Earth has an excess of electrons, and that an absolutely neutral 'ground' is a bit of a misnomer. As to what dynamic interplay of deep earth physics can supply an excess of electrons over 4 billion years, well... that is a whole new Pandora's box, so to speak. The photoelectric effect is said to be the proximate cause of freeing electrons from matter (fair weather = more UV = more free electrons) and traditionally, the dynamics of what makes the electrons "migrate" upwards has been based solely on water vapor. That was the "expert" opinion prior to Mills. In his "Fifth Force" paper, R. Mills of BLP says however the electron itself is anti-gravitational. He does not go into detail about all the repercussions of this, but needless to say, one of the biggest wrt "the weather" could be the "role reversal": that free electrons in the FWF carry water vapor up, and not vice versa. Given the opportunity, according to Mills, the 'hyperbolic' electron would accelerate away from the earth's gravitational field at a very high rate: a = 5.96 x 10^13 m/sec^2. This does not happen due to immediate interaction of electrons with surrounding matter, but there is a net migration upwards over time. If this rate of acceleration could be enhance only slightly, then net excess energy could be cohered, at the expense of gravity presumably ... The obvious way to harness this effect (given the caeavts) is to (first) find out what keeps electrons from rapidly moving away in the first place (and undoubtedly this involves the Dirac epo field) and then to modulate that factor. Looking back through the vortex archives, there are plenty of postings from Fred Sparber on how to pull-off a type of FWF energy source involving static or Van de Graff effects, but Fred was not benefiting from Mills' insight, nor was a particular experiment available then ... My immediate personal agenda for this taking this approach, and giving RM the benefit of the doubt ... Jones BTW - not to assume that any reader has been following this argument close enough to realize that the "fifth" power law has not yet been expounded upon... that may happen later, but Frank Gimer set the ground work (literally if clay=ground) in an older posting: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00733.html --------------------- Donald Hotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear John [John A. Kassebaum], I would like to suggest a new model of the 'orbitsphere' (perhaps so different that it warrants a different name) but which at least qualitatively solves many of the problems with Mills' 2D model. However it will take a bit of spadework. The major unaddressed problem with SQM can be stated as 'What the hell are we standing on?' Take for instance the hydrogen atom, and blow it up to solar system size. If the proton were the size of the sun, the (still a point!) electron would not even orbit within the solar system--it would be 20 times as far from the sun as Pluto. That this point-electron can exclude everything else from this immense sphere is beyond strange. (An 'extended' electron hardly solves this problem.) To say this exclusion is the result of some mystical 'possibility wave' is blatant hand-waving. However Mills' 2D soap bubble is hardly better. Even aside from its interaction problems, how could such a structure resist the immense forces necessary to cause it to become 'degenerate'? My proposed solution requires but a single, large assumption: that the Dirac equation means what it says, not what QED has misinterpreted it to say. Dirac's equation has four roots: it calls for electrons and positrons of positive energy, and electrons and positrons (or at least + and - charges) of negative energy. Adopting a kinetic definition of energy gives an unequivocal answer to the question 'what is negative energy?' In this definition, almost mandated by the Lorentz relationships, energy is the motion of charges; mass is a harmonic (standing wave) motion of charges. Virtually every equation of QM (including the Dirac) includes 'i', which calls for the function to extend into an 'imaginary' direction. In this kinetic definition, 'positive' energy would be the motion of charges in a 'real' direction; negative energy would be the motion of charges in some 'imaginary' direction. According to QM, every ionic charge is immediately surrounded by infinite numbers of electron-positron pairs. ('Epos'). (They call them 'virtual', but there is no excuse for this qualifier, especially since these epos are required to account for the most precise measurement in all of physics, the magnetic 'g' factor.) With an ionic electron, the positron ends of the pairs surround the electron. But this unbalances the epo, causing another epo to attach to it, ad infinitum, causing chains of epos to stretch from each negative ion to some positive ion, forming the EM field. (For a diagram, see p. 58 of my Dirac articles, published in 'Infinite Energy' issues 43 and 44, available at <www.infinite-energy.com> or <www.openseti.org>. This is the only causal, direct-contact model of the EM field of which I am aware.) The gross violation of conservation involved in these infinite numbers of epos is removed if they are not 'created', as QM says they are, but merely 'raised in state' from negative to positive energies from Dirac's sea of negative-energy epos. Vibrating in one 'real' dimension, they would have no inertia, or mass. (This also directly explains 'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) which calls explicitly for this 'sea'.) Since the energy is directed in 'imaginary' directions, this explains why it is seldom directly measurable--but its effects are everywhere, not the least of them being that the 'vacuum' has at least half a dozen measurable properties. Each epo would be a boson--and a below-zero sea of bosons would form a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). That 'our reality' is immersed in a vast BEC explains a great deal. Plasma physicists point out that the universe is 99.999% plasma, 'solid matter' making up less than .001%. The stars, galaxies, and interstellar gas are all plasmas. Plasma is the 'natural state'; we are the far-out exceptions. And plasmas follow their own rules, many of their characteristics being similar to those of a BEC, exhibiting self-organization, being excellent conductors, superfluid, and non-local. I suggest that these characteristics are derived from the underlying BEC. However I suggest we can eliminate that .001%. When an electron is 'captured' by a proton, I suggest that it supplies the 'order parameter', the phase angle which allows it to construct a crystalline structure (BEC) of epos surrounding the proton, all pulled up from the negative-energy 'sea'. This BEC would embody colletively the electron's attributes (every part of a BEC must have a single wave function, that of the electron) with a chain of epos everywhere the Schroedinger equation would suggest the 'possibility' of the electron's presence. This would form an immensely strong roughly spherical structure, + and - charges alternating, perhaps similar to a crystal formed by an ionic salt. It would be very resistant to deformation, and would explain along the way such mysteries as the 'exclusion principle'. It seems to me that this would be an 'orbitsphere' composed of real substance. I suggest that everywhere QM calls for a 'psi wave', instead of its being, in Einstein's phrase, a 'spukhafte Fernwirkungen' or a spooky 'ghost wave', it is actually a physical, causal structure of epos formed into a BEC. If a single assumption can solve many problems, I suggest it is at least worth some consideration. And this assumption solves many of them. (See my Dirac articles, above, for more.) Best, Don Hotson
