ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 294 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (August 7, 2024 - August 11, 2024) 2024 ExtraOrdinary Technology Conference

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    ECW E-Cat World

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    Panacea-BOCAF

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    T. Bearden Mirror Site

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    E-Cat World
    NexusNewsfeed ZPE
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    EMediaPress
    Energy Science Forum
    Free_Energy FB Group
    The KeelyNet Blog
    OverUnity Research
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
    Vortex (old Interact)
    Magazine Sites
    Electrifying Times (FB)
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    Space energy has been long demonstrated...
    Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 @ 20:45:15 GMT by vlad

    Science Anonymous writes: by a french physicist who started to denie the dogmatic constantness of the light velocity.

    just actually, if c does change in the space then the energy density of space mc2 can vary dramatically. Just compute it :
    dE = dmc2 + 2mc.dc (if dm = 0) dE = 2mc.dc
    as a gradient of energy does become a force :
    grad(E) = mA = 2mc.grad(c)
    A = 2c.grad(c)
    thus, a variation of some 17 e-6 m/s is enough to obtain a acceleration of 10 m/s-2. MIND IT !!
    so any acceleration is derivated from a space variation of the light velocity !!! Explaining particularly the gravity.
    please visit our site at http://franckvallee.free.fr/SYNERGETICS/introduction-emg.htm
    (sorry explanations are in french)
    Thanks for attention


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 3
    Votes: 2


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Space energy has been long demonstrated..." | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Other speculations based on E=mc^2 (Score: 1)
    by vlad on Monday, March 29, 2004 @ 21:49:25 GMT
    (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
    From the intalek yahoo list:
    Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:07:00 -0600
    From: "William Alek" Subject:
    Re: [antigrav] Ginzburg's Relativity Theory

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: William S. Alek
    > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:31 PM
    > To:
    > Subject: Fwd: Re: [antigrav] Ginzburg's Relativity Theory
    >
    >
    > --- In greenglow@yahoogroups.com, amir javadi
    > wrote:
    > Dear Neil
    >
    > Greetings;
    > The Ginzburg's Relativity Theory is very near CPH theory.
    > By according CPH theory when V==>C, mass converts to energy and for
    > V>C , energy converts to force. But this projection is not for high
    > speed. When velocity of object increases, force converts to energy
    > and when speed of object does decrease, its energy converts to force.

    I actually observed this phenomenon at the Mystery Spot as RED SHIFTING and
    BLUE SHIFTING of frequency.

    > I do not know properties of aether, and I never find aether's
    > properties. Do you know properties of aether?
    >
    > Sincerely
    > Hossein Javadi
    >
    >
    > Robert Neil Boyd wrote:
    > >From "The Divine Cosmos":
    >
    > Relativity theory states that an object gradually increases in its
    > mass once we begin accelerating it. In conventional scientific thought, no
    > object can exceed the speed of light, because as it approaches this
    > speed, the equations state that the object would become infinitely
    > massive. Yet, in very loose terms, Ginzburg found that you could
    > completely reverse (invert) these equations without violating any known
    > scientific observations. This means that instead of growing more massive,
    > an object will actually shed energy back into the aether as it is moved,
    > thus causing it to gradually lose all of its core characteristics of
    > gravitational mass, inertial mass and electric charge as it approaches
    > the speed of light. Ginzburg introduces these new concepts in
    > the next quote:
    > [We have added emphasis and deleted the letters for terms such as
    > "velocity" in order to enhance readability:]
    >

    Velocity is not the correct representation that should be used. I suggest
    using gravitational frames.

    >
    >
    > The main two features of these new equations are:
    > - Both the gravitational mass and inertial mass of a particle decrease as
    > its velocity [speed] increases.
    > - [The] electric charge of a particle [also] decreases as its velocity
    > increases
    >
    > As seen here, an object's overall mass (weight) is represented by
    > both gravitational and inertial masses, which are simply measurements of
    > how gravity and inertia behave on the object. Curiously, both gravity and
    > inertia have essentially identical effects on matter, which is known
    > as Einstein's "Principle of Equivalence". This principle shows us
    > that gravity and inertia are two forms of the same energy at equal
    > strength ?" one moving downward (gravity) and one providing resistance as
    > we move through space (inertia.) This is one of the easiest ways to see
    > that there must indeed be an "aether" or "physical vacuum" that is
    > behind both forces, and Kozyrev had also noted this connection in his own
    > studies. So, once we start accelerating an object, (which we said is like
    > a sponge submerged in water in this new model,) the added pressure will
    > compress the atoms and molecules in the object and cause more and more of
    > its aether to be released.
    >
    > Ginzburg then continues:
    >
    > "...You may not be prepared to abandon immediately the century-old
    > relativistic equations. But once you are ready to do so, you will
    > discover many amazing things:

    This is actually a VERY good idea! Classical relativity will ONLY confuse
    the new model.

    > - Only when a particle is as rest may it be considered as "pure"
    > matter. As soon as the particle begins to move, its gravitational
    > mass and electrical charge will start to decrease in accordance with the
    > new relativistic equations, so that a part of its matter will be converted
    > into a field. When the particle's velocity becomes equal to the ultimate
    > spiral field velocity "C", its gravitational mass and electric charge
    > become equal to zero. At this point, matter will be completely converted
    > into a "pure" field."

    Paul Marmet takes a very similar approach to this. Paul invokes mass-energy
    conservation which states that the faster a particle moves, more of its mass
    is converted to field. To me, this seems to be an absurdity because at the
    Mystery Spot, I observed both a DECREASE in volume AND an INCREASE in mass
    consistant with relativity. The change in ALL space-time metrics listed in
    Table 1 and 2 are consistant with Hal Puthoffs paper identified in section 4:

    http://intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/jbis_final.pdf

    So,
    1. The speed of light is invariant in ALL gravitational frames of reference.
    2. The speed of light is variant across different gravitational frames.

    I think there are issues with Ginzburg and Marmet model.

    >
    > The "ultimate spiral field velocity" of C that Ginzburg mentions is
    > slightly higher than the normal speed of light, due to the spiraling
    > path that he believes all energy must follow. This simple change to the
    > basic relativity equations then leads to a new quantum physics of
    > transmutation, with the concept that an object could completely disappear
    > from our known physical reality. This raises a key question: "Disappear to
    > where? "
    >
    > "...Ginzburg asserts that an object becomes "pure field" as it
    > increases up to light speed. However, there is solid evidence that there
    > are different vibratory levels of aether, and we therefore conclude that
    > as an object is accelerated towards the speed of light, either by linear
    > motion, internal vibration or related energetic action, the missing energy
    > and mass is simply displaced into a higher vibratory level of aether. "
    >
    > This "higher vibratory level of aether" implies ever finer sizes may
    > be involved, since as we know, the higher the energy, the shorter the
    > wavelength.
    >
    > I like this kind of expression, as it supports my notion of the
    > possibility of multiple layers of subquantum particles of various types
    > and sizes.
    >
    > Neil



     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.