Inertia Is an Electromagnetic Interaction?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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."

Obviously you're paraphrasing a bit, but that's the general idea I got from reading it.


Originally posted by Bedlam
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.
If you make that thread I'd be interested in reading it, but if you start it can you mention that in this thread, so I know where to look for it?




posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I put a place-holder on RATS, I've got a week of pure hell here at the customer site then I get three weeks off. Should have some time to start loading the thread up then.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
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)


You break down the structure of the space-time continuum using high voltages, incredibly strong direct current electromagnetic fields. Best way to do this would be using a Faraday disc, or as modified by Tesla, two parallel discs rotating in opposite directions:

en.wikipedia.org...

This can be scaled down to nanoscale:

www.theregister.co.uk...



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
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.


Not to claim any special expertise, but my bullsh!t meter does not rest at the zero reading. Main reason being why this fixation on quarks. Leptons have inertial mass too, don't they? I probably need to read up on all of this, but why are quarks "monopoles" in this context?

Note to Mary Rose - you complained that physicists avoid "vortices". They don't, as evidenced by the very legit Nielson-Oleson theory.


edit on 10-5-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stormcell
You break down the structure of the space-time continuum using high voltages, incredibly strong direct current electromagnetic fields.


I think you break common sense and common courtesy with this rather silly statement. "Incredibly" does not physics make.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I know next to nothing about classic physics, much less modern physics. I actually feel I have no place making a comment here except this observation.

The basic idea seems similar to the premise in the book "First Men in the Moon" by H. G. Wells concerning their method of space travel. By using some type of gravity shielding on their space capsule and then selectively unshielding areas to allow gravity to pull and steer the ship. Like manipulating the mass to zero then back again sort of.

Probably way off the mark here, so sorry for my ignorance.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Tom Valone, author of Zero Point Energy, The Fuel of the Future, testified about technology at the recent Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.


Here is another screenshot from his presentation:




posted on May, 11 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Obviously you're paraphrasing a bit, but that's the general idea I got from reading it.


Would it make sense that Valone agrees with Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff that inertia is a zero-point-field Lorentz force, but disagrees with them about the equivalence principle? In his presentation, Valone made reference to Einstein being mistaken, and did not mention the equivalence principle in relation to the paper he was citing as seminal.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
CEO of Searl Aerospace Inc. Russell Anderson seems to be saying that inertia is an electromagnetic interaction in a library lecture presented last month - Link



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
CEO of Searl Aerospace Inc. Russell Anderson seems to be saying that inertia is an electromagnetic interaction in a library lecture presented last month - Link




The term 'inertia' refers to a bodies mass right? So are you saying the existence of mass is due to electromagnetic interaction?



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The term 'inertia' refers to a bodies mass right? So are you saying the existence of mass is due to electromagnetic interaction?


Maybe. I’m not sure.

In the OP:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
  • Inertial mass and gravitational mass are totally different.


  • I’m still searching for an answer to this:


    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    Would it make sense that Valone agrees with Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff that inertia is a zero-point-field Lorentz force, but disagrees with them about the equivalence principle? In his presentation, Valone made reference to Einstein being mistaken, and did not mention the equivalence principle in relation to the paper he was citing as seminal.





    posted on May, 23 2013 @ 06:25 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mary Rose
    Tom Valone, author of Zero Point Energy, The Fuel of the Future, testified about technology at the recent Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.


    On this page, Valone demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The Van der Waals relativistic solution for the Casimir effect is an alternative calculation which specifically does not rely on zero-point energy. So it goes against his own pronouncements. Even without that depth of analysis, his statement "Casimir force, also called van der Waals forces" is just plain wrong. The van der Waals forces include something as mundane as the dipole interaction, which you can find in the freshmen physics text.

    But I guess the woo-woos won't be able to tell, so he doesn't need to care either. He's playing the stupid, and he probably knows that.


    edit on 23-5-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



    posted on May, 23 2013 @ 06:58 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by buddhasystem

    Originally posted by micpsi
    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.


    Not to claim any special expertise, but my bullsh!t meter does not rest at the zero reading. Main reason being why this fixation on quarks. Leptons have inertial mass too, don't they? I probably need to read up on all of this, but why are quarks "monopoles" in this context?

    Note to Mary Rose - you complained that physicists avoid "vortices". They don't, as evidenced by the very legit Nielson-Oleson theory.

    I was not fixating on quarks. According to the string version of QCD, coloured quarks are magnetic monopole solutions of the SU(3) gauge field equations. The Higgs field imparts an effective mass to these gauge fields (the quanta of which are eight gluons) through its coupling to them. It is not any strong interaction between the Higgs and gluons or quarks that generates the quark's mass. It is their scalar self-coupling. Similarly for leptons.
    Quarks are regarded in the string model as the monopole endpoints of vortices in the Higgs field. In the case of electromagnetic field governed by U(1) symmetry, vortices have been observed in Type-II superconductors and liquid helium, and photographed (see here). SU(3) vortices have been mathematically proven to exist and form the basis of the string model of confinement of quarks.


    edit on 10-5-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)
    edit on 23-5-2013 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:27 AM
    link   
    Reading Antigravity: The Dream Made Reality by John Searl supporter John A. Thomas Jr., I'm impressed by this: Apparently Sir Oliver Lodge believed that the inertia in mass is due to the ether in it.

    On pages 42 and 47 of the 130 page .pdf file:


    Sir Oliver Lodge imagined the space fabric as having a microcellular structure, each cell being a vortex whose size was of the order of the size of the fundamental particles, or even smaller. The medium was frictionless and the rotational velocity of the vortices related to the velocity of light. The intrinsic energy of the ether was in the motion in the vortices. This attributed an ultimate energy source to space itself. Lodge also imagined that the ether had an enormous inertia and density. The inertia in mass was due to the ether in it, and solidarity of matter was virtual. . . .

    Lodge deals with the problem of inertia by attributing the property to the ether itself. Matter, he claims, has no inertia as such, but acquires an induction as it moves though the space fabric, or more correctly, the space fabric moves through it. The induction constitutes a change of energy seen as kinetic energy, and the state of motion lasts as long as the induction lasts. The theory also asserts that the ether itself has an enormous inertia and is in a preferred state of rest. Small movements give rise to big effects, for example as in gravitational fields. However, small movement does not mean slow movement. The idea that the cellular vortices circulate at the speed of light might be extended to larger fluxes. The conclusion to this is that matter accelerated by force fields cannot exceed the speed of light and the approach to it would be exponential.



    posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 08:34 AM
    link   
    A hadronic state of a superstring is the mouth of a Nielsen-Olesen vortex (whirlpool) in the ambient Higgs field (type II superconductor) whose coupling to the superstring generates its mass. Superstrings are the monopole endpoints of SU(3) colour flux that is expelled by the Meissner Effect from the superconducting Higgs field, squeezed into quantised bundles and channeled along the vortices linking monopoles of opposite charge. SU(3) monopoles have a magnetic charge defined modulo 3 in units of the Dirac unit, which allows formation of only either monopole-antimonopole pairs (mesons) or bound states of three monopoles (baryons).
    The theory of Puthoff & Haig that inertia is due to an electromagnetic interaction must be wrong because neutrinos have a slight mass, as demonstrated by the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations, but yet are electrically neutral, so that they cannot couple to the zero-point electromagnetic field.
    Oliver Lodge's ether theory turns out to be right once we interpret his ether as the Higgs field, whose quanta circulate around the SU(3) colour flux, just as Cooper pairs in superconductors do around U(1) magnetic flux, producing vortices in the Higgs superfluid that bind together quarks.



    posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 08:58 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by micpsi
    The theory of Puthoff & Haig that inertia is due to an electromagnetic interaction must be wrong . . .


    Do you mean to say Puthoff & Haisch (and Rueda)?



    posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 07:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by micpsi
    The theory of Puthoff & Haig that inertia is due to an electromagnetic interaction must be wrong because neutrinos have a slight mass, as demonstrated by the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations, but yet are electrically neutral, so that they cannot couple to the zero-point electromagnetic field.


    Can't you think about some way to couple via the gauge bosons?
    W+-?



    posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 08:22 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by micpsi
    The theory of Puthoff & Haig that inertia is due to an electromagnetic interaction must be wrong because neutrinos have a slight mass, as demonstrated by the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations, but yet are electrically neutral, so that they cannot couple to the zero-point electromagnetic field.


    That is only evidence that the theory of Puthoff's is incomplete, not necessarily entirely wrong. Puthoff's theory is how charged particles can gain inertia. Neutrinos have very very small rest mass after all compared to all other massive particles. Might they gain mass through a different, weaker mechanism than Puthoff's or a weak 2nd or 3rd order effect?

    edit on 3-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
    edit on 3-6-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 08:26 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by micpsi

    I was not fixating on quarks. According to the string version of QCD, coloured quarks are magnetic monopole solutions of the SU(3) gauge field equations. The Higgs field imparts an effective mass to these gauge fields (the quanta of which are eight gluons) through its coupling to them. It is not any strong interaction between the Higgs and gluons or quarks that generates the quark's mass. It is their scalar self-coupling. Similarly for leptons.


    How does this "similarly for leptons" work? You said Higgs imparts a mass to the fields associated with gluons.



    posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:07 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by mbkennel
    That is only evidence that the theory of Puthoff's is incomplete, not necessarily entirely wrong. Puthoff's theory is how charged particles can gain inertia. Neutrinos have very very small rest mass after all compared to all other massive particles. Might they gain mass through a different, weaker mechanism than Puthoff's or a weak 2nd or 3rd order effect?


    But it doesn't seem to be consistent with reality at all. Some theorists have calculated that the massive amounts of energy as predicted by Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff would cause the entire universe to collapse due to the gravitational forces that would result.

    It still seems there is no valid alternative to the mainstream view of the zero-point field. It's not really a big deal, otherwise it would have serious cosmological implications.





    new topics
    top topics
     
    8
    << 1    3 >>

    log in

    join