- Thank you received: 0
The Big Bang never happened
18 years 7 months ago #14953
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
quote:
Wasn't it you that said gamma rays can create electrons if they pass near a proton? Or ion?
The creation of electron pairs from gamma rays is well known.
quote:
They actually observe that effect in plasma experiments, where "free energy" is produced from what they prefer to call the Aether Energy. Aether Energy exists at the center of galaxies too, right?
I do not understand what you mean.
quote:
Science today is realizing that the era of specialization is becoming less and less able to explain phenomenon which is interconnected in many varied fields. Cosmology is a good example in that exclusive dependance on the special "gravitational" forces is unable to explain the observations. It is obvious to me that electromagnetic fields play a role, as does plasma, in the development of stars and galaxies. And rather than incorporate EMF into the theory, strange entities ae invented to maintain the dependance on gravity. The specialist refuses to step outside his box.
Specifically, astronomers observe galactic "outflows" from the center of galaxies. Oort calulated a long time ago that the matter outflow from the center of a galaxy was equal to one solar mass per year. Issac Asimov wrote about this and commented that if that were so, then most of the center would have outflowed in the billions of years that a galaxy existed. He speculated that some sort of recycling must be going on.
It is obvious to me that the specialists are attempting to explain the outflow in terms of gravitational inflow. As one professor explained it, astronomers devised the black hole theory because they could not think of any other way the outflows could have occured. What they are saying is that the only way gravity could have created the outflows is with a black hole with an accretion disk. Matter is sucked through the accretion disk, but is resisted to a degree by the outward radiations flow. The matter that does not make it through the accretion disk is flung back outwards, hence the observed outflows.
They do not, however, have any direct observations (pictures) of matter flowing inward. I know that is an extreme statement, but I would like to see one picture that LOOKS LIKE matter is streaming in. It is argued that a spiral galaxy shows by its shape that matter, the stars, are moving inward. But that is only an assumption. It can also be assumed that the shape of a spiral galaxy is showing us that matter is moving outward.
A recent observation was made in the x-ray range showing a uniform glow around a galaxy. They explained how difficult it has been to see matter streaming inward, (I believe them) but because they were using x-ray eyes, they could see the radiation "halo". This was interpreted by the authors as evidence of matter flowing inward, which, they claim, is further evidence that a black hole exists at the center of the halo. I posted the picture above somewhere, it shows a spherical glow in the center of a spiral galaxy. To me the glow looks extremely uniform - too uniform. And obviously unaffected by any of the galaxy it had to go through to get to the center. It makes much more sense that the "halo" is coming from the center and is headed outwards.
How can matter/energy be streaming outward from the center of a galaxy? It is not unreasonable to say that matter/energy is streaming outward from the center, BUT how did it get to the center if the first place? That is the question.
The conventional view has it that matter came from the outside, the other view has it that matter came from, well you give it a name if you want, many have. And many have asked the question "Where is it?" I simply think of it as INSIDE the three dimensions of physical space. It is that which is everywhere. The conventional view has it that this everywhereness is empty. Remember what you said about the Aether does not exist, that the equations do not use the Aether? The other view is that this everywhereness is a kind of energy. Some have called it the Aether. There are many names for it. It is not a secret.
So the center of the galaxy derives the energy from this other place inside of it. That's why the astronomers observe everything moving outward.
National Geographic ran an article on the Sun last year. In that article they called our Sun a ball of plasma. Almost every picture they ran showed the electromagnetic effects going on. Our Sun is a star. A galaxy is made of stars. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the center of a galaxy is like a huge ball of plasma, and it is safe to assume that the energy is coming from within.
Ref:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project122.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Wasn't it you that said gamma rays can create electrons if they pass near a proton? Or ion?
The creation of electron pairs from gamma rays is well known.
quote:
They actually observe that effect in plasma experiments, where "free energy" is produced from what they prefer to call the Aether Energy. Aether Energy exists at the center of galaxies too, right?
I do not understand what you mean.
quote:
Science today is realizing that the era of specialization is becoming less and less able to explain phenomenon which is interconnected in many varied fields. Cosmology is a good example in that exclusive dependance on the special "gravitational" forces is unable to explain the observations. It is obvious to me that electromagnetic fields play a role, as does plasma, in the development of stars and galaxies. And rather than incorporate EMF into the theory, strange entities ae invented to maintain the dependance on gravity. The specialist refuses to step outside his box.
Specifically, astronomers observe galactic "outflows" from the center of galaxies. Oort calulated a long time ago that the matter outflow from the center of a galaxy was equal to one solar mass per year. Issac Asimov wrote about this and commented that if that were so, then most of the center would have outflowed in the billions of years that a galaxy existed. He speculated that some sort of recycling must be going on.
It is obvious to me that the specialists are attempting to explain the outflow in terms of gravitational inflow. As one professor explained it, astronomers devised the black hole theory because they could not think of any other way the outflows could have occured. What they are saying is that the only way gravity could have created the outflows is with a black hole with an accretion disk. Matter is sucked through the accretion disk, but is resisted to a degree by the outward radiations flow. The matter that does not make it through the accretion disk is flung back outwards, hence the observed outflows.
They do not, however, have any direct observations (pictures) of matter flowing inward. I know that is an extreme statement, but I would like to see one picture that LOOKS LIKE matter is streaming in. It is argued that a spiral galaxy shows by its shape that matter, the stars, are moving inward. But that is only an assumption. It can also be assumed that the shape of a spiral galaxy is showing us that matter is moving outward.
A recent observation was made in the x-ray range showing a uniform glow around a galaxy. They explained how difficult it has been to see matter streaming inward, (I believe them) but because they were using x-ray eyes, they could see the radiation "halo". This was interpreted by the authors as evidence of matter flowing inward, which, they claim, is further evidence that a black hole exists at the center of the halo. I posted the picture above somewhere, it shows a spherical glow in the center of a spiral galaxy. To me the glow looks extremely uniform - too uniform. And obviously unaffected by any of the galaxy it had to go through to get to the center. It makes much more sense that the "halo" is coming from the center and is headed outwards.
How can matter/energy be streaming outward from the center of a galaxy? It is not unreasonable to say that matter/energy is streaming outward from the center, BUT how did it get to the center if the first place? That is the question.
The conventional view has it that matter came from the outside, the other view has it that matter came from, well you give it a name if you want, many have. And many have asked the question "Where is it?" I simply think of it as INSIDE the three dimensions of physical space. It is that which is everywhere. The conventional view has it that this everywhereness is empty. Remember what you said about the Aether does not exist, that the equations do not use the Aether? The other view is that this everywhereness is a kind of energy. Some have called it the Aether. There are many names for it. It is not a secret.
So the center of the galaxy derives the energy from this other place inside of it. That's why the astronomers observe everything moving outward.
National Geographic ran an article on the Sun last year. In that article they called our Sun a ball of plasma. Almost every picture they ran showed the electromagnetic effects going on. Our Sun is a star. A galaxy is made of stars. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the center of a galaxy is like a huge ball of plasma, and it is safe to assume that the energy is coming from within.
Ref:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project122.html
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #10380
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tapping Zero-Point Energy
by Moray B. King
P.O. Box 859
Provo, UT 84603
ABSTRACT
The hypothesis for tapping the zero-point energy (ZPE) arises by combining the theories of the ZPE with the theories of system self-organization. The vacuum polarization of atomic nuclei might allow their synchronous motion to activate a ZPE coherence.
Experimentally observed plasma ion-acoustic anomalies as well as inventions utilizing cycloid ion motions may offer supporting evidence. The suggested experiment of rapidly circulating a charged plasma in a vortex ring might induce a sufficient zero-point energy interaction to manifest a gravitational anomaly. An invention utilizing abrupt E field rotation to create virtual charge exhibits excessive energy output.
INTRODUCTION
Today's physics might allow the possibility of tapping virtually limitless quantities of energy directly from the fabric of space.
Such a surprising conjecture arises by merging two separate theoretical areas of modern physics:
1) The theories of the zero-point energy (1-5) (ZPE) that model the vacuum as containing real, energetic fluctuations of electric field energy, and 2) the theories of system self-organization (6-13) which not only open the possibility of inducing coherence in this energy, but also provide the underlying principles on how this could be achieved (10).
At first this hpyothesis might seem to be a blatant violation of the conservation of energy. But the key question is:
Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist?
If so, a real energy is already present and its conservation would not be an issue.
The real issue centers on how random fluctuations could become coherent. Any spontaneous coherence seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is generally understood to mean systems should evolve toward random behavior, not toward coherence.
This point is thoroughly discussed in the theories of system self-organization (11,12). Prigogine (13) won the 1977 Nobel prize in chemistry for defining the conditions under which a system could evolve from randomness toward coherence. The conditions are that the system must be far from equilibrium, nonlinear in its dynamics and have an energy flux through it. These conditions are expressed in general system theory terms, and it turns out that the already published theories of the ZPE can, under certain circumstances, fulfill these conditions.
Despite the intriguing possibility offered by system theory, no purely theoretical discussion could ever prove that the zero-point energy could be tapped as an energy source. Only an experiment coupled with the theory would be convincing. This article discusses how observed anomalies associated with the ion-acoustic oscillations in plasmas could be a manifestation of a coherent ZPE interaction and in particular, how the cycloid motion of a a plasma's nuclei might induce a sufficient ZPE coherence to manifest a gravitational anomaly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
More at www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project122.html
by Moray B. King
P.O. Box 859
Provo, UT 84603
ABSTRACT
The hypothesis for tapping the zero-point energy (ZPE) arises by combining the theories of the ZPE with the theories of system self-organization. The vacuum polarization of atomic nuclei might allow their synchronous motion to activate a ZPE coherence.
Experimentally observed plasma ion-acoustic anomalies as well as inventions utilizing cycloid ion motions may offer supporting evidence. The suggested experiment of rapidly circulating a charged plasma in a vortex ring might induce a sufficient zero-point energy interaction to manifest a gravitational anomaly. An invention utilizing abrupt E field rotation to create virtual charge exhibits excessive energy output.
INTRODUCTION
Today's physics might allow the possibility of tapping virtually limitless quantities of energy directly from the fabric of space.
Such a surprising conjecture arises by merging two separate theoretical areas of modern physics:
1) The theories of the zero-point energy (1-5) (ZPE) that model the vacuum as containing real, energetic fluctuations of electric field energy, and 2) the theories of system self-organization (6-13) which not only open the possibility of inducing coherence in this energy, but also provide the underlying principles on how this could be achieved (10).
At first this hpyothesis might seem to be a blatant violation of the conservation of energy. But the key question is:
Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist?
If so, a real energy is already present and its conservation would not be an issue.
The real issue centers on how random fluctuations could become coherent. Any spontaneous coherence seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is generally understood to mean systems should evolve toward random behavior, not toward coherence.
This point is thoroughly discussed in the theories of system self-organization (11,12). Prigogine (13) won the 1977 Nobel prize in chemistry for defining the conditions under which a system could evolve from randomness toward coherence. The conditions are that the system must be far from equilibrium, nonlinear in its dynamics and have an energy flux through it. These conditions are expressed in general system theory terms, and it turns out that the already published theories of the ZPE can, under certain circumstances, fulfill these conditions.
Despite the intriguing possibility offered by system theory, no purely theoretical discussion could ever prove that the zero-point energy could be tapped as an energy source. Only an experiment coupled with the theory would be convincing. This article discusses how observed anomalies associated with the ion-acoustic oscillations in plasmas could be a manifestation of a coherent ZPE interaction and in particular, how the cycloid motion of a a plasma's nuclei might induce a sufficient ZPE coherence to manifest a gravitational anomaly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
More at www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project122.html
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #10383
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It results from general properties of the waves:
The absorption of a field is the addition of an opposite field. But it is impossible to generate a field opposite to the field generated by a small source using small sources. Therefore, it remains a residual field.
In acoustics, the "active absorption" of a noise is tried with loud speakers. It works, but is far from perfect... Happily, the acoustical waves have an attenuation term; As EM waves do not have such an attenuation term, it remains a stochastic field.
This stochastic field cannot be absorbed: a source of field amplifies or attenuates existing fields; thermodynamics shows that the entropy of the EM waves has its lowest value for the ZPE; thus, a hope to get energy from the ZPE is a hope to destroy the Carnot principle.
Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It results from general properties of the waves:
The absorption of a field is the addition of an opposite field. But it is impossible to generate a field opposite to the field generated by a small source using small sources. Therefore, it remains a residual field.
In acoustics, the "active absorption" of a noise is tried with loud speakers. It works, but is far from perfect... Happily, the acoustical waves have an attenuation term; As EM waves do not have such an attenuation term, it remains a stochastic field.
This stochastic field cannot be absorbed: a source of field amplifies or attenuates existing fields; thermodynamics shows that the entropy of the EM waves has its lowest value for the ZPE; thus, a hope to get energy from the ZPE is a hope to destroy the Carnot principle.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #17065
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Originally posted by Tommy
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
[JMB}
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It results from general properties of the waves:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
[tommy]
You are correct (indirectly) if you depend on classical Maxwell. But there is an unseen aspect of Maxwell, which has been ignored if hot hidden.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Cryptic Cydonia
Page 2
''Hyperdimensional Physics''
by Richard C. Hoagland
The arcane subject of "Hyperdimensional Physics."
Unknown to most current physicists and students of science (if not the general media and public), the beginnings of modern physics launched over 100 years ago by the so-called "giants" -- Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell and many others -- laid a full and rich tradition in this currently little-known field: the open, heatedly debated scientific and philosophical premise that three-dimensional reality is only a subset of a series of higher, hyperspatial, additional dimensions, which control not only the physics of our very existence, from stars to galaxies to life itself ... but potentially, through time-variable changes in its foundations--
Dramatic coming changes in our lives.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In 1867 Thompson, following decades of inquiry into the fundamental properties of both matter and the space between, proposed a radical new explanation for the most fundamental properties of solid objects -- the existence of "the vortex atom." This was in direct contradiction to then prevailing 19th Century theories of matter, in which atoms were still viewed as infinitesimal "small, hard bodies [as] imagined by [the Roman poet] Lucretius, and endorsed by Newton ..." Thompson's "vortex atoms" were envisioned, instead, as tiny, self-sustaining "whirlpools" in the so-called "aether" -- which Thompson and his 19th Century contemporaries increasingly believed extended throughout the Universe as an all-pervasive, incompressible fluid. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even as Thompson published his revolutionary model for the atom, Maxwell, building on Thompson's earlier explorations of the underlying properties of this "aetheric fluid," was well on the way to devising a highly successful "mechanical" vortex model of the "incompressible aether" itself, in which Thompson's vortex atom could live -- a model derived in part from the laboratory-observed elastic and dynamical properties of solids. Ultimately, in 1873, he would succeed in uniting a couple hundred years of electrical and magnetic scientific observations into a comprehensive, overarching electromagnetic theory of light vibrations ... carried across space by this "incompressible and highly stressed universal aetheric fluid ..." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So, my question is "what about this?"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does the zero-point energy REALLY exist? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
[JMB}
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It results from general properties of the waves:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
[tommy]
You are correct (indirectly) if you depend on classical Maxwell. But there is an unseen aspect of Maxwell, which has been ignored if hot hidden.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Cryptic Cydonia
Page 2
''Hyperdimensional Physics''
by Richard C. Hoagland
The arcane subject of "Hyperdimensional Physics."
Unknown to most current physicists and students of science (if not the general media and public), the beginnings of modern physics launched over 100 years ago by the so-called "giants" -- Helmholtz, Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell and many others -- laid a full and rich tradition in this currently little-known field: the open, heatedly debated scientific and philosophical premise that three-dimensional reality is only a subset of a series of higher, hyperspatial, additional dimensions, which control not only the physics of our very existence, from stars to galaxies to life itself ... but potentially, through time-variable changes in its foundations--
Dramatic coming changes in our lives.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In 1867 Thompson, following decades of inquiry into the fundamental properties of both matter and the space between, proposed a radical new explanation for the most fundamental properties of solid objects -- the existence of "the vortex atom." This was in direct contradiction to then prevailing 19th Century theories of matter, in which atoms were still viewed as infinitesimal "small, hard bodies [as] imagined by [the Roman poet] Lucretius, and endorsed by Newton ..." Thompson's "vortex atoms" were envisioned, instead, as tiny, self-sustaining "whirlpools" in the so-called "aether" -- which Thompson and his 19th Century contemporaries increasingly believed extended throughout the Universe as an all-pervasive, incompressible fluid. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even as Thompson published his revolutionary model for the atom, Maxwell, building on Thompson's earlier explorations of the underlying properties of this "aetheric fluid," was well on the way to devising a highly successful "mechanical" vortex model of the "incompressible aether" itself, in which Thompson's vortex atom could live -- a model derived in part from the laboratory-observed elastic and dynamical properties of solids. Ultimately, in 1873, he would succeed in uniting a couple hundred years of electrical and magnetic scientific observations into a comprehensive, overarching electromagnetic theory of light vibrations ... carried across space by this "incompressible and highly stressed universal aetheric fluid ..." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So, my question is "what about this?"
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #10386
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
So, my question is "what about this?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Puzzled then sceptic.
So, my question is "what about this?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Puzzled then sceptic.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 7 months ago #10387
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Are you skeptical about your skepticalness too? I am skeptical about a bit of stuff floating around the Universe for billions of years interacting a million times over with other bits of stuff and still remain as good as new. Not to mention stuff that zips around at the speed of light. Instantaneous acceleration on top of it.
I notice that you are being honest so I will be honest with you. No theory is going to satisfy, it is the experiment, the actual experience of stepping into the rain to know what wetness means, that becomes a new knowledge and satisfies. When I opened my computer up this morning, the first thing I saw in the clutter of my desktop was this article by Morley B King. I even copied the introduction because I knew I was going to use this. Then I opened up my mail and read yours.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tapping Zero-Point Energy
by Moray B. King
P.O. Box 859
Provo, UT 84603
ABSTRACT
The hypothesis for tapping the zero-point energy (ZPE) arises by combining the theories of the ZPE with the theories of system self-organization. The vacuum polarization of atomic nuclei might allow their synchronous motion to activate a ZPE coherence.
Experimentally observed plasma ion-acoustic anomalies as well as inventions utilizing cycloid ion motions may offer supporting evidence. The suggested experiment of rapidly circulating a charged plasma in a vortex ring might induce a sufficient zero-point energy interaction to manifest a gravitational anomaly. An invention utilizing abrupt E field rotation to create virtual charge exhibits excessive energy output.
INTRODUCTION
Today's physics might allow the possibility of tapping virtually limitless quantities of energy directly from the fabric of space.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So what does this mean? What it means to me is that if we can find and detect and use this energy from the fabric of space, and according to King that is what we have actually done, then why not Nature? Why not the Universe?
It also means that I have to figure out how come these two messages appeared at once on my computer, but after a thousand similar coincidences, concluded that there had to be something else going on out of the ordinary not talked about in our textbooks, something happening somewhere we can't see, something interconnecting everything. That is the conclusion I reached based on my experiences.
So the obvious next questions is what does science know about this?
What science did is delete the part of Maxwell that talked about the same thing
puzzled and then skeptical
I notice that you are being honest so I will be honest with you. No theory is going to satisfy, it is the experiment, the actual experience of stepping into the rain to know what wetness means, that becomes a new knowledge and satisfies. When I opened my computer up this morning, the first thing I saw in the clutter of my desktop was this article by Morley B King. I even copied the introduction because I knew I was going to use this. Then I opened up my mail and read yours.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tapping Zero-Point Energy
by Moray B. King
P.O. Box 859
Provo, UT 84603
ABSTRACT
The hypothesis for tapping the zero-point energy (ZPE) arises by combining the theories of the ZPE with the theories of system self-organization. The vacuum polarization of atomic nuclei might allow their synchronous motion to activate a ZPE coherence.
Experimentally observed plasma ion-acoustic anomalies as well as inventions utilizing cycloid ion motions may offer supporting evidence. The suggested experiment of rapidly circulating a charged plasma in a vortex ring might induce a sufficient zero-point energy interaction to manifest a gravitational anomaly. An invention utilizing abrupt E field rotation to create virtual charge exhibits excessive energy output.
INTRODUCTION
Today's physics might allow the possibility of tapping virtually limitless quantities of energy directly from the fabric of space.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So what does this mean? What it means to me is that if we can find and detect and use this energy from the fabric of space, and according to King that is what we have actually done, then why not Nature? Why not the Universe?
It also means that I have to figure out how come these two messages appeared at once on my computer, but after a thousand similar coincidences, concluded that there had to be something else going on out of the ordinary not talked about in our textbooks, something happening somewhere we can't see, something interconnecting everything. That is the conclusion I reached based on my experiences.
So the obvious next questions is what does science know about this?
What science did is delete the part of Maxwell that talked about the same thing
puzzled and then skeptical
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.317 seconds