It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Obviously you're paraphrasing a bit, but that's the general idea I got from reading it.
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."
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?
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.
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)
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.
Originally posted by stormcell
You break down the structure of the space-time continuum using high voltages, incredibly strong direct current electromagnetic fields.
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.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Obviously you're paraphrasing a bit, but that's the general idea I got from reading it.
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
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?
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Inertial mass and gravitational mass are totally different.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by micpsi
The theory of Puthoff & Haig that inertia is due to an electromagnetic interaction must be wrong . . .
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.
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.
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.
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?