Dear Hal;
This ia really interesting post. I've previously mentioned my interest
in torsion field physics. Jones hits the nail squarely on the head when
he uses the word pseudoscience. I ordered a copy of Dan Davidson's Shape
Power, it's getting cold here in the great northwest. The bottom line is
does his design get hot, eh?
Jones Beene wrote:
There is an evolving theory, more like an evolving semanics, of what aether "is".
Lets begin with ZPE and its main proponent. Puthoff, without necessarily endorsing an aether by
name, has said that there is a "dynamic equilibrium" (the ZPF) which stabilizes the
electron in a set ground-state orbit. "It seems that the very stability of matter itself
appears to depend on an underlying sea of electromagnetic zero-point energy."
http://ldolphin.org/zpe.html
What are the objections of starting from this end and defining the aether as "ZPF plus" - IOW aether is the Dirac/Hotson epo field [by
definition] in which the base level of energy "bleed-over" into higher dimensions, is defined as ZPE. And furthermore, one can integrate
"gravity" as it operates on the higher dimensions without the need for another "force". IOW there is no "gravity" and
the "graviton" is merely an abstraction of statistical groups of epos. When these are asymmetric, as they often are, there is an
"attraction" but it is based on geometry not a force.
In fluid mechanics, the so-called "cheerio effect" is the tendency for small floating
objects to attract one another - and this is tied to a geometric asymmetry in surface tension and
buoyancy which becomes self-reinforcing. IOW this kind of attraction, which is on the same order of
intensity as gravity, and can serve as a model for it (if one can abstract it to higher dimensions)
is tied to *geometry* and not to a separate kind of "force" per se.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerio_effect
Under Einstein's reconception (or alternative view) of gravity, there is no
"force" of gravity; instead, the curved paths that falling objects 'appear' to
take are an illusion brought on by our inability to perceive the underlying curvature of
the space. The objects themselves are said to be moving in straight lines in a hidden
dimension. But that tends to isolate them from mutual interaction. Or at least it makes
it infinitely complicated.
If there is a hidden structure - the aether of epos, and if it is very dense at the same
time - then voila: it can provide the required curvature in an unusual way, based on its
own geometric properties. If Einstein's gravity is a curvature of space-time, not a force
- then any secondary "attraction" on that curved surface can be explained as a
superset version of the cheerio effect - an asymmetric geometric effect based on surface
interactions. Does this help or hurt the Einstein revisualization, in consort with this
new kind of aether?
The "Einstein-aether theory" is different from this, and even if were more similar - it too is as controversial as anything
with his name on it can be. It is described as a covariant generalization of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed
with both a metric and a unit "timelike" vector field. In effect, it is "like" a subject which we cannot adequately
define anyway <g> (except in terms of perception). Lots of geek humor there, but anyway - such theory has a "preferred
reference frame," and so is not Lorentz invariant. BTW - that "preferred reference frame" could be a single dimension if
there happened to be eight of them to begin with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-aether_theory
Then there is LQG. Is it coming to the rescue or not? Loop quantum gravity is a
quantization of a Lagrangian field theory, equivalent to the usual Einstein-Cartan
theory in that it leads to the same equations of motion describing general relativity
with torsion. As such, it can be argued that LQG respects local Lorentz invariance. It is
not clear if torsion is the "timelike" field of Einstein-aether - or not - as
by the time torsion arrived, there was already enough controversy in the mix to turn
things over to the next generation of theorists.
Almost everyone in 'alternative energy' likes the idea of torsion. This is not
necessarily because it is still classified as pseudoscience, and most of us are
contrarian to the core, but because it may provide a fundamental mechanism to transfer
some of whatever is "in" the aether, out of the aether, as a power source. The
fact that epos may have charge, torsion, density, curvature and gravity as inherent
properties makes it all very facile to fit into somebody's evolving electrogravity
theory, only problem is: there are becoming so many permutations of these ToE's ; not to
mention Lisi's E8, that it boggles the mind.
Wouldn't it be nice and orderly to find that the base level dimension of the E8 corresponds to this
kind of epo field and that everything else builds on top of that? ... and if that is not crazy
enough- how about "time" and "torsion" being interconnected? ... which is the
superset?
Jones
--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! --
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
