Peter, your thoughts about matter "sucking" ZPE and accruing mass may be extremely important. Your theory is a fascinatingly possible explanation for how the Earth has grown to its present size. If I brought you a box of broken glass, then assembled it into a perfect sphere, with no leftover pieces, it would be impossible to convince you that: Really, it had to have been a glass bowl! The following link demonstrates this very thin. First, Neal Adams, (Of Marvel Comics Fame as the main artist!) started with a virtual Earth. Then he pasted a map of the Ages of the Ocean floor. He then remove the newest sections of the ocean floor, leaving big gaps. Then, he moved all of the remaining segments together, and they only fit together on a slightly smaller Earth. He does this some seventeen times more: In the end, He ends up with all of the continents fitting together. They fit together onto a sphere that is 60% of the present EarthAll continents and large islands are completely surrounded by other continents and large islands---fitting together very well!The continents and large Islands completely cover this smaller here are no more oceans. This is backed up by abundant geological evidence. identical fossils in all areas where the pieces fit together, where fossils are available.Mountain ranges are better-explained by the wrinkling of the continents as they adapt to the ever-flattening re-curvature of the Earth's surface. This Growing Earth Theory has been around for more than a century. Really the only reason this theory has been rejected is because no one believes that new matter could be accumulating, inside the Earth. Study all of these videos very seriously, because they may be the best proof that your theory is really true, since it would explain the "impossible" accumulation of new matter inside the Earth! Perhaps we can calculate this effect, using your theory, and then see if it matches the observed rate of the Earth's Growth. If you write your theory in a good technical style, I could help you publish it in the NPA Journal---they are very open minded. Please contact me and let me know what you think. Must-See Videos: http://nealadams.com/nmu.html
Wm. Scott Smith+509 290 4318+509 326 1307GMT - 8 hours > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:17:37 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Vo]:Thoughts about Mass and Gravitation and zeropoint. > > Hi, > > my thesis is that matter sucks up energy and this is the reason for gravity. > I dont know in which frequency range this happens, but I think matter > sucks up zeropoint energy and converts it to matter. > > There was a similar theory that was discussed by Clerk Maxwell and > Boltzmann and others. They had the idea gravity is caused by radiation > pressure. Matter absorbs this radiation and so we get an attraction > force, which is a pressure force from outside. > Maxwell calulated this and finally came to the conclusion, that under > this condition matter must infinitely heat up, and so this idea was > finally rejected. > Now, he did not know "e=m*c^2". What happens if the energy is converted > into mass? > > Lets use air as an example for energy. Speed of sound is independent > from pressure, but it is dependent from temperature. > c ~ sqrt(T). If c is speed of sound and T is temperature, then c is > proportional dependent from squareroot of temperature. > c^2 ~ T. c squared is proportional to temperature. > T = p* c^2. p is the proportional factor. > > Now, lets replace t by energy and p by mass, then we get e =m*c^2. > > Because mass sucks up energy, the energy density near to a mass must be > lower than far away. > With lower temperature in air we get lower speed of sound. > With lower energy density in space we get slower speed of c. > Therefore light is bent by gravitation. > > But c is always measured constant! How this? > This is, because we use c to measure space and time. Distance is > measured by an electromagnetic wavelength and time is measured from a > resonancy frequency of atoms. So c is constant by definition of the > measurement method. > > So, instead measuring slower speed of c we must measure dilated time and > dilated space as Einsteins relativity theory predicts. > > Peter > >
