SUPER COSMOS
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 @ 07:34:04 GMT
Topic: Science


JR writes: Subject: Congratulations on the publication of your book!

Dear Jack,

Congratulations! Your book has gone "live" and is now available for sale on the AuthorHouse website http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999! Your book will soon be available for sale through thousands of retailers nationwide! A courtesy copy of your book SUPER COSMOS, is being mailed to you.

Michael Ibison writes: Ken's alleged charge clusters have ZPF on the outside. Therefore they should be analized as (geometry-dependent) Casimir enclosures. What I said about (automatic) collapse in the case of w=-1 does not apply here. For example, a Casimir sphere tends to explode, whereas a cylinder tends to collapse. Hal once suggested Ken's EVs are toroids.

- Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:29 AM
To: michael ibison

Subject: A matter of priority of discovery re: Ken Shoulders "charge cluster" EVOs


On Sep 21, 2005, at 5:51 AM, michael ibison wrote:
Here we are talking about an enclosure with ZPF on the inside and nothing on the outside. Such a container will tend to collapse according to the supposition that w = -1.
- Michael


What Michael should have written was

Here what Jack Sarfatti has been talking about is an enclosure with ZPF on the inside and nothing on the outside. Such a container will tend to collapse according to the supposition that w = -1.


This model is published in my new book SUPER COSMOS. It is already on Ken Shoulders website and my idea for this came out of my several meetings with Ken in North Beach in past two years. Hal's model of same published in Phys Rev is completely different. Yes, Phys Rev publishes wrong papers! So do all the peer-reviewed journals.

On Sep 21, 2005, at 6:15 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Memorandum for the Record


Michael Ibison and I agree on this key point!


Thanks Michael. This is exactly my point and it is a key theme in all THREE of my books since 2002. It is how I explain Ken Shoulders charge clusters where Hal uses the wrong w = + 1/3. Haisch's SED theory needs w = +1/3 has Hal correctly pointed out. That's why the whole CIPA program was a colossal waste of $ IMHO. It never had a chance of working. That's why Matt Visser called it "psychoceramics" in his book "Lorentzian Wormholes."


On Sep 21, 2005, at 5:51 AM, michael ibison wrote:


It is not nonsense. The ZPF is called virtual photons because they are not like real photons. They do not exert a positive pressure as do ordinary (radiation) photons. w is the relation between the energy and the pressure in the equation of state. w=1/3 is the rule for ordinary radiation photons. This means that for every Joule of radiation energy there is 1/3 Pascal of pressure. The 1/3 has to do with the number of space dimensions; the pressure acts in all 3 directions pushing outwards on an enclosure containing the radiation. The ZPF, by contrast, generates -1 Pascal's pressure for each Joule of energy. This means there is force tending to *collapse* an enclosure containing ZPF. This property is not directly related to the Casimir effect which is the result of the difference between 2 pressures and is geometry dependent. Here we are talking about an enclosure with ZPF on the inside and nothing on the outside. Such a container will tend to collapse according to the supposition that w = -1.
- Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: cosifan
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:07 PM
To: Puthoff
Cc: Bernard Haisch; Bill Hamilton; Eric Davis; michael ibison; sarfatti
Subject: Re: Virtual Photons?


Where you said, w = +1/3 is the equation of state for EM fields in the vacuum.
Jack came back saying those were virtual photons. I trashed his
email so I don't have the exact quote but I thought that was nonsense..
If the vacuum energy density is ~10^122 or some such then how can it be
virtual photons?.........Rmc


Puthoff wrote:

In a message dated 9/20/2005 6:58:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time, cosifan writes:
What all this talk about virtual photons
from Jack?

[Puthoff]Many physicists consider the ZPE photons are virtual. The stochastic electrodynamic types think they are real. An ongoing controversy.
Hal





This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1520