I apologize, I just started reading these posts. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference.
Really? I'm going to have to delve into this, because my primary issue with relativity and physics in general as I've learned more and more about the relations between time, mass, and velocity is the statement that there is not. To my mind, I cannot conceive of a universe in which there is not a single center point, either "stationary" or moving, but by moving causing everything to move in relation to it, so appearing to be "stationary" that we can relate too. A specific velocity that matches that ground state that, once reached, mass should approach zero and the effects caused by increasing mass (time dilation) vanish. Thank you for another interesting line of discussion VO! On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > John, Fran, > > I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space > around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult > time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a > reference. Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to > everything else that is not directly, and physically attached to it. It > makes more sense to me to just accept the fact that there is no absolute > reference frame about which everything develops. > > On many occasions I find it quite advantageous to visualize myself > residing within a certain chosen frame to understand what is taking place > during collisions, etc. When chosen carefully, the observations that can > be made reveal behavior that is hidden by the complexity normally > encountered when a convenient one is randomly picked. The same laws of > physics must be followed for each observer so one that chooses wisely can > obtain a great advantage. > > When you speak of time variations that each observer encounters you are > getting into a truly exciting subject that is endlessly interesting. Of > course, each observer detects nothing unusual about the way time unfolds in > his constant velocity world. It is only when he observes others living in > other reference frames that are moving relative to him that he notices > strange behavior. I suspect that taking this aspect into consideration > might unlock some of the mysteries that keep us asking questions about > nature. For instance, I have mentally adjusted my frame of reference on > occasions to include moving at nearly the speed of light relative to some > experimental setups to see if it can be used to explain what occurs. So > far I have hit difficult barriers but I hope to one day gain information > that clarifies these events. > > I suppose that our main task is to continue to ask questions and not > accept the current descriptions of physics without adequate proof. It is > safe to assume that there is much left to be learned in the sciences and > that new understanding begins with good questions. We should encourage > discussions about the behavior of time, ethers, and whatever else comes > into focus even if they do not agree with our current understanding. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roarty, Francis X <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 10:57 am > Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > John, > I think Ed Storm coined the NAE as a Nuclear Active > environment.. not really defining how the lattice geometry does what it > does but rather just defining the area where it occurs.. these hot spots do > sometimes produce trace amounts of nuclear ash but not enough to account > for the anomalous energy claimed… I am a neo Lorentzian theorist, IMHO the > ether is moving through our 3D plane at a rate that defines our basic unit > of time and is why we will always experience C as 300 million m/s –if the > ether were to vary we would be blissfully unaware of it as our “awareness” > will always match the rate of the ether passing through our plane..in > effect it is our time base and is why we have the odd time dilation effects > where the paradox twins are unaware of each others differences in inertial > frames until they get back together and realize they were living at > different rates. > Fran > > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]?>] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:42 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > NAE is not an acronym I am familiar with. > I see it can mean nuclear active environment. > > Have you tried the image? > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > [email protected]> wrote: > John, I never left the path..perhaps this makes me a nutty troll but > didn’t Tesla already treat this like an electrical science, He proposed > that super high voltages could stiffen or “solidify” the ether. If I recall > the story correctly Lorentzian theory was never proven wrong only less > elegant than Einstein’s but with equivalent results and later in life > Einstein did embrace ether theory. Casimir theory is an example of this > where the results can be adequately explained from either perspective and > when it comes down to brass tacks ..does it really matter which theory you > choose? I choose ether theory because it is easy to visualize and requires > less math skill to make a point. I like the Haisch - Rueda example of a > car accelerating into a rainstorm increasing the pressure and resistance to > forward motion with acceleration as being equivalent to acceleration > through the ether..approach C and the pressure increases at a Pythagorean > rate between time and space pushing the vector up from zero toward 90 > degrees on the time axis [time dilation occurs in positive direction –slows > from our perspective].. What IMHO is occurring in these NAE –and it agrees > with the Naudt’s paper which redefines the hydrino as “relativistic” > hydrogen, is that the “rain” in the Haisch-Rueda experiment which defines > the “baseline” of rainfall- ether at zero velocity is actually capable of > being “shielded” at the nano scale.. Casimir plates like all macro world > matter experience ether intersecting our plane at 90 degrees from all > spatial directions but can take advantage of conduction and geometry to > shield a tiny cavity where the “pressure” as Puthoff would call it is > reduced.. putting the passengers in that car at a lower pressure than what > we consider the baseline in the macro world.. the hydrogen atoms are those > passengers and do not need to accelerate to achieve relativistic > effects..instead of compressing the rainfall by accelerating the NAE is > simply suppressing the rainfall – much easier to do without any energy > requirements other than to build the geometry in opposition to stiction > forces. Of course any hydrogen migrating in and out of these NAE cavities > will translate back and forth through different inertial frames and gain > nothing without some asymmetrical process that opposes the migration in one > direction vs the other..allowing us to tap the translation for energy as if > the car was changing velocities… also note that the vector for occupants of > this NAE – car is now toward negative 90 degrees and it is we who appear > to slow down from dilation from the perspective of the occupants in this > lower pressure environment.. > Regards > Fran > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:21 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > I have been in Vo's ugly nest of believers for a very long time. > > I think in general a more accurate sentence might be a nest > of skeptics and jaded ex-believers (oh, and some nuts and trolls, and nutty > trolls). > > Anyway I have some developments in the direction of influencing the > aether sufficient to make it felt by most people. > > My goal is to make this into a science, not dissimilar too electrical > engineering. > And I am hoping to gain suggestions and other intput, and since this is > very easy to experiment with some may wish to collaborate. > > I can probably prove the reality of this to anyone interested with the > investment of only 2-3 minutes and no materials needed. > > This is the science of the future (and perhaps the past) that will > provide Free Energy, Antigravity and a Star Trek level technology in > general. > > Anyone want to take the path less traveled? > > John > > >
