- Thank you received: 0
Gravity and Neutrinos
- AgoraBasta
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
22 years 2 months ago #2807
by AgoraBasta
Reply from was created by AgoraBasta
Atko,
The link in your message points to the most amazing piece of info of all I read recently. That experiment by Podkletnov actually seems to violate conservation of momentum along with energy and provides a mechanism for propellantless motion. While conservation of momentum may be still observed globally, energy seems to come absolutely free since all the mass in an indefinitely long cylindrical volume is subjected to the same acceleration push which is not relayed back onto the source. Furthermore, since the process is detached from the source, it appears just as good as a long-sought gravitational wave (with infinite momentum and energy since it can't be screened/shielded).
Yet all the paradoxical experimental data in violation of the basic laws gets seemingly no attention in the report! Instead we get some idiotic "theoretical" humble mumbling by Giovanni Modanese, revealing that he's whether a mathematician with zero understanding of physics or he's purposely muddying the waters, just to make it all look harmless. He has an obvious macroscopic quantum electrodynamical system at his hands which simply must interact primarily with the EM component of ZPF, yet he dumbly proceeds to invent a gravitational ZPF-equivalent out of nowhere and analyses it in the formalism of GR! Just think of the utter idiocy of such approach - if there is a special gravitational ZPF, it's exactly the thing that has to be underlying the GR theory, thus can't be added to the equations as a separate member. (Modanese is a quite a renowned theoretician, btw)
A simple qualitative analysis of interaction of the experimental system with the EM ZPF provides much better understanding of the possible physical model. So we have a piece of HTSC (high-temperature superconductor) with magnetic field frozen in, and there's a pulse of ultra-strong electric current with associated magnetic field travelling through such medium and interfacing to slow plasma currents in discharge. Thus we may expect to see an area of disruption in superconducting state travelling through the medium and reaching greatest negative accelerations exactly at the HTSC/plasma junction. The area of disrupted superconductivity contains all the ZPF modes of wavelengths less that its length, while the bulk superconductor contains almost no ZPF modes at all, interacting with the ZPF as one huge "particle", so it's almost as good as if we had a piece of vacuum flying through very dense medium and experiencing violent stop at the junction. So to the vacuum it appears as if a piece of HTSC matter disappears at the junction very fast, and then reappears again as the plasma takes the current away slowly. Thus we basically have an equivalent of the case of violently accelerating mass in the EM ZPF, but here it's the EM ZPF itself that's put into a violent acceleration. I would expect a kind of a mechanical longitudinal shock wave to be generated in this case in the EM ZPF which must act on matter irrespective of the electric charge, just by the proper volume which could be dubbed the "inertial mass" if inertia really is of the ZPF nature and the copious writings on the matter by Rueda, Haisch, Puthoff and many others do bear some connection with reality... (which I believe they do, btw).
So it all seems to be a pulse of directional inertia modification generated in the experiment, rather than a pulse of gravity, or better yet - just a jerk of "aether".
The link in your message points to the most amazing piece of info of all I read recently. That experiment by Podkletnov actually seems to violate conservation of momentum along with energy and provides a mechanism for propellantless motion. While conservation of momentum may be still observed globally, energy seems to come absolutely free since all the mass in an indefinitely long cylindrical volume is subjected to the same acceleration push which is not relayed back onto the source. Furthermore, since the process is detached from the source, it appears just as good as a long-sought gravitational wave (with infinite momentum and energy since it can't be screened/shielded).
Yet all the paradoxical experimental data in violation of the basic laws gets seemingly no attention in the report! Instead we get some idiotic "theoretical" humble mumbling by Giovanni Modanese, revealing that he's whether a mathematician with zero understanding of physics or he's purposely muddying the waters, just to make it all look harmless. He has an obvious macroscopic quantum electrodynamical system at his hands which simply must interact primarily with the EM component of ZPF, yet he dumbly proceeds to invent a gravitational ZPF-equivalent out of nowhere and analyses it in the formalism of GR! Just think of the utter idiocy of such approach - if there is a special gravitational ZPF, it's exactly the thing that has to be underlying the GR theory, thus can't be added to the equations as a separate member. (Modanese is a quite a renowned theoretician, btw)
A simple qualitative analysis of interaction of the experimental system with the EM ZPF provides much better understanding of the possible physical model. So we have a piece of HTSC (high-temperature superconductor) with magnetic field frozen in, and there's a pulse of ultra-strong electric current with associated magnetic field travelling through such medium and interfacing to slow plasma currents in discharge. Thus we may expect to see an area of disruption in superconducting state travelling through the medium and reaching greatest negative accelerations exactly at the HTSC/plasma junction. The area of disrupted superconductivity contains all the ZPF modes of wavelengths less that its length, while the bulk superconductor contains almost no ZPF modes at all, interacting with the ZPF as one huge "particle", so it's almost as good as if we had a piece of vacuum flying through very dense medium and experiencing violent stop at the junction. So to the vacuum it appears as if a piece of HTSC matter disappears at the junction very fast, and then reappears again as the plasma takes the current away slowly. Thus we basically have an equivalent of the case of violently accelerating mass in the EM ZPF, but here it's the EM ZPF itself that's put into a violent acceleration. I would expect a kind of a mechanical longitudinal shock wave to be generated in this case in the EM ZPF which must act on matter irrespective of the electric charge, just by the proper volume which could be dubbed the "inertial mass" if inertia really is of the ZPF nature and the copious writings on the matter by Rueda, Haisch, Puthoff and many others do bear some connection with reality... (which I believe they do, btw).
So it all seems to be a pulse of directional inertia modification generated in the experiment, rather than a pulse of gravity, or better yet - just a jerk of "aether".
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 2 months ago #2841
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
The work of Podkletnov is generally regarded as fraudulent in its entirety because he manufactured data and listed a non-existent co-author for his "replication" and was forced to withdraw the paper. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 2 months ago #3165
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The work of Podkletnov is generally regarded as fraudulent in its entirety because he manufactured data and listed a non-existent co-author for his "replication" and was forced to withdraw the paper. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Tom,
Which work exactly do you mean? The earlier one with the rotating superconductor disk or the one I tried to discuss?
The work of Podkletnov is generally regarded as fraudulent in its entirety because he manufactured data and listed a non-existent co-author for his "replication" and was forced to withdraw the paper. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Tom,
Which work exactly do you mean? The earlier one with the rotating superconductor disk or the one I tried to discuss?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 2 months ago #2808
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Which work exactly do you mean? The earlier one with the rotating superconductor disk or the one I tried to discuss?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
The withdrawn paper was supposedly a replication of the original rotating superconductor paper (circa 1995?). The second paper was fraudulant. That together with the failure to replicate the results in the first paper by the NASA Huntsville group have led to the opinion that the whole thing was either sub-standard work or fraudulent. -|Tom|-
The withdrawn paper was supposedly a replication of the original rotating superconductor paper (circa 1995?). The second paper was fraudulant. That together with the failure to replicate the results in the first paper by the NASA Huntsville group have led to the opinion that the whole thing was either sub-standard work or fraudulent. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 2 months ago #2809
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The withdrawn paper was supposedly a replication of the original rotating superconductor paper (circa 1995?).
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I was discussing a work dated August 2001, it's available at [url] www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0108/0108005.pdf [/url]. Fascinating...
The withdrawn paper was supposedly a replication of the original rotating superconductor paper (circa 1995?).
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I was discussing a work dated August 2001, it's available at [url] www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0108/0108005.pdf [/url]. Fascinating...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 2 months ago #2904
by Atko
Replied by Atko on topic Reply from Paul Atkinson
Interesting analysis. (curses - started writing this before Tom's comments re the fraudulence of Podkletnov's work; wasn't aware of this) Something that dropped out of your post, and that I hadn't entertained previously was excitation, or wave activity in the graviton field itself. Does anything actually, or rather, theoretically, cause wave propagation in the graviton field? And if such waves exist, how does this fit in with localised disturbances in the graviton field - e.g. by massive bodies like planets or stars? Presumably the motion of a planet or star with respect to the graviton field will cause a "wake" or vortex which should have detectable effects, causing disproportionate levels of gravitational pressure either side of an object caught in that wake. Have such effects been observed - say on HEO satellites? Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere (I really must get a copy of LeSage's book!).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.339 seconds