I can see where you are coming from, which implies nature operates off a vacuum at her most basic level, which I agree with.
For me the question is how much energy is pumped into that vacuum and is it isotropic and smooth or actually forming strings and multidimensional branes depending upon how much vacuum energy that is pumped into it in the local space. I see what I think is a tremendous amount of lensing and bending of electromagnetic radiation (light and Doppler) during storms on Earth, which I think is high energy vacuum inflation and decay. In a typical gas, when you pump energy into it it expands and/or gets hot. In our atmosphere, the highest energy storms have severe cold fronts associated with them and the lowest pressures along a very thin line of condensing, completely opposite what one would expect. It think along this line you will find strings of vacuum, probably with a BEC surrounding them and ionized plasma. Like I have said before, IMHO our weather is really our decaying quantum gravity field inflating above us and condensing everything around it. I think inflating vacuum sucks you in and then spits you out releasing entropy, like a tornado. Stewart On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Roarty, Francis X <[email protected]> wrote: > Stewart, > > I think part of the confusion is the way we consider time and gravity at a > macro scale with an isotropy where time is constant in an inertial frame and > gravity only changes at the square of distance, gravity has a constant / > slow to change spatial vector at macro scale while at a nano scale it is > more like the winds of Chicago with changes in direction and pressure > occurring based on proximity and size of buildings that obstruct the flow. > The slow to change temporal dilation via near C velocities imposes a false > impression upon us about how difficult it is to change this vacuum pressure > because we are in competition with C – trying to make a difference in a > Pythagorean relationship on that scale is necessary in normal space..BUT.. > in a lattice or other conductive geometries you can modify vacuum pressure > in the opposite direction without use of energy or velocity because we are > instead using geometry to “impede” the native flow.. meaning that you can > actually go slower than “stop” from a 4D perspective –and it is we that > appear to “SLOW” [in a Paradox twin sense] from the perspective of these > hydrogen atoms sheltered from the pressure in these umbrella like Casimir > cavities/nano geometries.. IMHO the Paradox Twin phenomena can be achieved > very easily by impeding virtual particle flow with nano geometry as > compared to trying to accelerate it with near C motion. I posit that, which > we consider catalytic action, is actually based on a combination of this > same relativistic dilation and sudden changes in the rate of this dilation > brought on by the changes in chemical geometry of catalysts in a reaction > relative to moving reactants – even just adding liquids together in water > and observing sudden color changes could be explained by chemical geometries > of the catalysts WRT the reactants AND would go far in my mind to explain > why catalysts are said to not participate or get used up in a > reaction..they are too busy forming the nano umbrellas which vary the vacuum > pressure and give the non catalysts in the reaction a free white water ride > thru these CHANGES in VP pressure which I believe discount energy > threshold requirements for reactions allowing them to occur much more > rapidly – I am not saying the dilation is so acute that the reactions are > happening at their normal rate from their own local perspective [although > there has to be some level of dilation present] but rather it is the rapid > tearing at an inverse cube rate in opposition to the normal inverse square > law of the macro isotropy that accelerates the reaction time by discounting > the energy needed. I posit that catalytic action is already a form of ZPE > that has been rolled into the COE but which fails to take into account the > possibility of larger dilation factors of the nano powders and skeletal cats > cited in most of these anomalous heat claims. > > Fran > > > > From: ChemE Stewart [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:magnetism, does it effect space and time? > > > > Yes, more magnetic flux more decay. Oscillating magnetic fields induce > electrical currents which can cause decay. > > > > I think gravity(quantum vacuum) and magnetic fields are related. I've tried > to fit it to M Theory and relate it to what you and Jones and Ed and Fran > are all sharing. > > > > I think our gravitational fields are made up of closed strings of quantum > vacuum (extra dimension curled up, i.e plasmoids) streaming between our > solar brane and earth brane in the solar wind, which warp space slightly > around them. > > > > The strings inflate and decay in our atmosphere and power our jet streams > and weather(through condensing of the atmosphere) and cause geomagnetic and > electromagnetic upsets, which are worse after CME's which can also trigger > accelerated decay and Earthquakes, etc. > > > > I think the Earth's magnetic fields are triggering inflation of quantum > vacuum from the solar wind in a similar way that magnetic fields are > interacting with the vacuum in LENR and that microwave drive NASA is > testing. > > > > I think we are living in the inflation phase of our "local" universe. We > live in slight vacuum all of the time and this vacuum energy is > variable(weather disturbances) and therefore so is "Time". That is why > background radiation goes up many times during storms. > > > > Once we learn to control this vacuum "inflation" (which I think is Dark > Energy) we will be on our way. > > > > Stewart > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 12, 2014, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > More gravitational flux, more decay. > > > > Don't you mean more magnetic flux, more decay? > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:16 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > > Everything is decaying faster around pulsed microwave radar towers, I am > convinced of that. As I mentioned before, I think "time" is really a rate > of decay. More gravitational flux, more decay. "Time is really the decay > it takes to go from one place to the other", which varies. > > > > Just my take on it. > > > > Stewart > > > > On Tuesday, August 12, 2014, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > It looks to me like magnetism speeds up the march of time by straitening > out the curved space imposed by matter on space/time. The larger that the > density of matter is, the greater is the effects of magnetism to accelerate > time. > > > > Does anybody has an opinion one way or the other? > >
