Inertia Is an Electromagnetic Interaction?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Tom Valone, author of Zero Point Energy, The Fuel of the Future, testified about technology at the recent Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.

I was interested in what he said about a paper from 1994 that he said was seminal: "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force" by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff.

Here are my notes about what Tom Valone said in his testimony, which was on the final day of the hearing:

  1. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are totally different.
  2. The equivalence principle is a mistake.
  3. Nowadays inertia has been discovered to be a zero point field Lorentz force by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff in "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force." The discovery opens the door to understanding how any ET or UFO craft could possibly travel through the universe.
  4. Inertia is an electromagnetic interaction.
  5. If you can shield inertial mass, miracles happen.
  6. Newton's law F=ma can be modified: If m could be shielded and it lowers, then a could increase for the same amount of force.







posted on May, 7 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
How do we create a shield for this electromagnetic inertial mass?

I hope my question makes sense because i'm clueless on this matter.
edit on 7-5-2013 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 

Very good question. I'm going to watch the archive again, and I'll post it if I can.

By the way, anyone who is interested in those archives, it only costs $3.80 USD. There is some very compelling testimony in those archives.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


I listened to the archive again and couldn't find it, but I found a video online where he's talking about the same thing. The shielding is done with either a high voltage field or a high magnetic field.

Here's a link to the video that will take you to the spot where he talks about it: Link (With a short, irritating commercial break
)
edit on 05/07/13 by Mary Rose because: Fix code



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here are my notes about what Tom Valone said in his testimony, which was on the final day of the hearing:

  1. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are totally different.
  2. The equivalence principle is a mistake.
  3. Nowadays inertia has been discovered to be a zero point field Lorentz force by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff in "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force."
This seems to be self contradictory.
On the one hand, he's citing the paper by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff. On the other hand, he says "The equivalence principle is a mistake", according to your notes.

But the paper by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff cites the equivalence principle as "preliminary independent corroboration":

From your link:

The proposed concept also suggests a physically rigorous version of Mach’s principle. Moreover, some preliminary independent corroboration is suggested for ideas proposed by Sakharov (Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 177, 70 (1968) [Sov. Phys. Dokl. 12, 1040 (1968)]) and further explored by one of us [H. E. Puthoff, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989)] concerning a ZPF-based model of Newtonian gravity, and for the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass as dictated by the principle of equivalence.

Do you see the problem with pointing to a paper that uses the equivalence principle for corroboration, while saying the equivalence principle is wrong?



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Wow. I'm impressed, but, and this is just an opinion of an armchair physicist, I would not agree with his notion (that gravity and inertia are fully separable, as described by him). I think it should be viewed more akin to gravity being a magnetic force that causes inertia, but, it can be shielded against, thus canceling gravities, seemingly, whirlpool effect.

To put this in terms you can understand, image dragging a stick in a circular motion through water to thereby create a whirlpool. If you then take and drop a piece of tissue paper into the whirlpool, it will be forced to the center (or into the path of the water flow) of the whirlpool. The paper would then begin to dissolve much quicker than just placing a piece of tissue on a rested body of water. The reason this happens is because the electron bond, that holds the tissue together, is forced apart by that of the waters much faster moving electron bond.

Now that you have that image in your head, imagine placing a tissue in a water tight tube, and then dropping it into the whirlpool. The tube would shield from the waters rapidly moving electrons because the tube's electromagnetic bond is higher than that of the waters'. The tube in this instance would be the electromagnetic shield he mentioned and the tissue would be the people in the ufo. Once you've made a powerful enough electron shield, you need to magnetically keep it in a safe orbit around the ship so it does not tear the ship apart. But if you could figure out how to do it, you would, in effect, cancel out gravity and thus inertia.

But kudos to him for figuring out inertia, and Einstein's infinite mass problem, can be halted by creating a massless electromagnetic field/shield.

Again just my opinions, and none of what I wrote, should be taken as fact.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
It is interesing to note that this is very close to how the Plejarens told Billy Meiers concerning how their ships opperate. (Just sayin)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


I listened to the archive again and couldn't find it, but I found a video online where he's talking about the same thing. The shielding is done with either a high voltage field or a high magnetic field.

Here's a link to the video that will take you to the spot where he talks about it: Link (With a short, irritating commercial break
)
edit on 05/07/13 by Mary Rose because: Fix code


Oh yes high voltage. I've heard about high voltages for years on experimental craft, even with some use of it at the front of the B2 stealth bomber.

From what he was saying is that you need to pulse the high voltage to get it to do it's thing.

And you wont get ads on youtube if you get the add-blocker extension



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   


Correct me if I'm wrong,

but F=ma is the equation to find the gravitational mass of an object,

Where a = gravitational acceleration.

The Earth’s gravitational field causes items near the Earth to have weight.

It has never been claimed that m = gravitational mass.

m is the inertial mass of an object before acceleration, i.e. gravity.

So "shielding the inertial mass" involves taking the matter away,

which leaves us with no spaceship, only acceleration.

Nothing accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 is pretty fast, but still Nothing.



edit on 8/5/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: there is a reason for everything



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Inertial mass cannot be due to a Lorenz coupling to the zero-point electromagnetic field because this would mean that all electrically uncharged particles, which would not couple to any electromagnetic field, would be massless, whereas we know that the well-established phenomenon of neutrino oscillations implies that neutrinos have a small mass, not a zero mass, which those formulating this theory accepted when they proposed it.

Inertial mass is due to the coupling of the particle to the Higgs field, which fills all space as a Type 2 superconductor, a non-abelian version of the Meissner Effect expelling colour SU(3) flux from the Nielson-Oleson vortices in the Higgs superfluid with quark monopoles at their endpoints, confining them permanently as bound states of three quarks or as quark-antiquark pairs.

The mechanism proposed years ago by Puthoff ("Owl"), Haisch, etc has been overtaken by the discovery at CERN of what is likely to be the Higgs boson. Zero-point energy is a spent force, as far as explaining inertial mass is concerned, and few physicists believe this theory.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you see the problem with pointing to a paper that uses the equivalence principle for corroboration, while saying the equivalence principle is wrong?


Yes.

Maybe I will email Tom Valone.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
Inertial mass cannot be due to a Lorenz coupling to the zero-point electromagnetic field because this would mean that all electrically uncharged particles, which would not couple to any electromagnetic field, would be massless, whereas we know that the well-established phenomenon of neutrino oscillations implies that neutrinos have a small mass, not a zero mass, which those formulating this theory accepted when they proposed it.

Inertial mass is due to the coupling of the particle to the Higgs field, which fills all space as a Type 2 superconductor, a non-abelian version of the Meissner Effect expelling colour SU(3) flux from the Nielson-Oleson vortices in the Higgs superfluid with quark monopoles at their endpoints, confining them permanently as bound states of three quarks or as quark-antiquark pairs.

The mechanism proposed years ago by Puthoff ("Owl"), Haisch, etc has been overtaken by the discovery at CERN of what is likely to be the Higgs boson. Zero-point energy is a spent force, as far as explaining inertial mass is concerned, and few physicists believe this theory.


It's possible to gain inertia both through Higgs and electromagnetism zero point interaction, right? Neutrino mass is extremely small, after all.

And, even in Standard Model understanding, most of the mass of hadrons is not from the rest mass of quarks (i.e. Higgs effect) but the gluons. So Higgs still doesn't explain most of the mass.

Another Q. Have leptons ever been demonstrated, experimentally, to gravitate? Seems obvious, but really has there been a test?



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


I listened to the archive again and couldn't find it, but I found a video online where he's talking about the same thing. The shielding is done with either a high voltage field or a high magnetic field.

Here's a link to the video that will take you to the spot where he talks about it: Link (With a short, irritating commercial break
)
edit on 05/07/13 by Mary Rose because: Fix code


Oh yes high voltage. I've heard about high voltages for years on experimental craft, even with some use of it at the front of the B2 stealth bomber.

From what he was saying is that you need to pulse the high voltage to get it to do it's thing.


Yes, but that's making plasma for boundary layer control. General principles have been in open literature since 2003 or 2004.

www.annualreviews.org...



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
It's possible.

I think some stuff needed for a unified theory is actually out there right in the open in physics equations such as those Einstein has worked with. Problem is that in order to conform the math to things like constants, various factors in those equations were cancelled out. (Put 'em together and factor out as 1, when multiplied may as well not be there.) Nice that it makes the math simplified for certain things you're trying to do, but it covers up certain aspects that are interesting if you were to go back and peruse them in more detail.

However if you were to consider space-time as non-uniform (things like gravity affecting time and therefore the speed of light, rate of time progression not being same everywhere, etc.), you could go back over the old stuff realizing that many constants aren't. They're actually coefficients. (Turns out ratios between certain related phenomena are constant, not the things on either side of that ratio are.) Replay the old tensor formulas in that regard, and don't cancel some things out but leave them there keeping in mind the things that can be done with them. There may be ways to poke at those values instead of just peeking at them. Now you may have some interesting loopholes.

If you look at mass as representing energy, it might get more "fun". The relationship between energy and the surface area of a given volume are kind of interesting, and gravity might not be that far removed from capacitance. Coulomb's constant and c are a bit tied together too. (Also by definition, but exploiting it to full effect has been limited.)

Now if a field associated with an object at rest is spherical, and a field of an object in motion could be considered as a teardrop shape, if you can figure out how to alter that field by some means, then yes it should have some effect on the other things associated with it. (Keep in mind that coefficients can give equivalents a multiplier effect, depending on which side your dealing with a small change might be useful. Yet some things would be very resource intensive to have any effect. The real trick would be figuring out if you can sucessfully steer an elephant by tickling him with a feather.)

Which makes me wonder what could have been if Tesla had lived another decade and actually got a hold of some formulas the early nuclear physicists were working on. (Then again there's a supposed conspiracy of Tesla's last works being confiscated by the FBI, so maybe he was actually working on it.)

Then again maybe I'm just an half-crazy idiot for reading a little bit here and there and thinking of stuff like that.
edit on 9-5-2013 by pauljs75 because: minor edit



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


You know, there may be some earlier ground work on that, and I think I might be able to put my hands on some references to general boundary layer control going back to the sixties. I get two days away from work starting at 7 am so when I wake up I'll see what I can find. At one time they were flying a test bed that was swiss cheesed like a backwards air hockey table and used the compressor intake of the jet to suck the boundary layer off the wing. It had bug issues.

ETA: I assume you've got access to jstor et al, do you read technical Russian? The base work we stole developed after they did, so Russian might be what it's in.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
Another Q. Have leptons ever been demonstrated, experimentally, to gravitate? Seems obvious, but really has there been a test?

There have been a number of experiments that have established constraints but to my knowledge none to date have been sensitive enough to be conclusive.



edit on 9-5-2013 by EasyPleaseMe because: Fat fingers



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Sounds good to me, when you going to try it to see if it works?



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The project I was thinking about was the X-21. It sucked bugs into the wing perforations, also if there was any rain or dense vapor it would sometimes freeze in the perfs due to the pressure drop.

I have found some fun NACA docs all the way back to WW2 that were trying the same thing, didn't know it went back that far.

I'm going to try to categorize the info I'm finding and start a thread, since we sort of discuss the thing off-topic here and there. (like this) Not sure if it ought to go to RATS, Aircraft or S&T. I'd feel less queasy on RATS where they'd have to manually go look if I screw up in a minor way.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Anyone know of a reference chart for the controlling factors to the spin of all subatomic particles? It would be considered quackery, I guess, but I would still like to see what others are thinking.

I'm wondering which particles might be able to force the weak force to become stronger/more stable. I think that must be the key to keeping the ship from being ripped apart/crushed from the shield. Maybe control the spin of fermions (I guess) to stabilize/super cool/condense the ship, but then what controls the spin of those? Is it dark energy, or is it simply the spin of other subatomic particles that creates fermions and the weak force effect? If it is other subatomic particles, has anyone tried to map that out?

My line of thinking is that effects are like colors, they're just sensations brought on by the movement of energy/strings/photon dust or whatever. Color, heat, mass, time, etc are just a way to measure the sensations, and a more real world view is that everything is a convection whirlpool of bonded particles (convection being caused by the spin/oscillation of nuclei which then forces molecular/subatomic bonds to break thus causing less mass/gravity, but it is really just particles fleeing from the convection whirlpool of "dense matter".)

Or to put it other way, if we can force nuclei to keep their pace, we can keep the ship from being destroyed. Maybe there is a metal, we haven't discovered, that keeps a great molecular bond when pumped full of some weird electrons/dark energy/photon dust?
edit on 5/10/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Maybe I will email Tom Valone.


I did make use of the contact form on his website but so far I have not received a reply.

I wish there were a YouTube video of his testimony so that others could check me to see whether I misunderstood him. That is not going to happen as far as I know because there is to be a documentary made from the hearing and copyright will be enforced on YouTube. I checked the YouTube channel of the person who organized the hearing, Stephen Bassett, to see whether Tom Valone's testimony is one of his videos but a search brought up nothing.

If there is a member who has access to the archives and can listen to Tom Valone's testimony - please post.

That really does seem like a direct contradiction. I presume what was being said in the Abstract is "Some independent corroboration is suggested for the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass."






top topics
 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join