Zero Point Energy doc
Download 0.97 Mb. View original pdf
|
| ZP OWER C ORPORATION PAGE OF 352 Z ERO P OINT E NERGY I assumed from the start that math of both Special and General Relativity must on the whole be good, but that a different reality must underpin this math. This model has mass absorb space not warp it, but the result mathematically should be as if space were Riemannian. At least one Noble Prizewinner has had similar doubts about the curved space paradigm while basically accepting the math. The following is a quote from p of Steven Weinberg's Gravitation and Cosmology. Atone time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the geometric interpretation of the theory of gravity has dwindled to a mere analogy, which lingers in our language like 'metric" "affine connection' and 'curvature, but is not otherwise very useful" I was not alone in the belief that the underlying mechanism for how gravity works was not understood. In the May 1994 Scientific American article, Unbearable Lightness, the statement is made that "... researchers have never attained a satisfactory understanding of the fundamental nature of gravity" In the October 1995 issue of Discover, Ed Belbruno, a mathematician at the U. of Minnesota, is quoted assaying, "However you have to understand what gravity is and we don't understand it" In QED Richard Feynman states, "Gravitation is, so far, not understandable in terms of other phenomena" Even Kip Thorne, who in my opinion pushes curved space to the limit, acknowledges in pages 399 through 403 of his book, Black Holes and Time Warps, that a flat space paradigm in which gravity influences the lengths of rulers and the speed of clocks provides the same results as the curved space paradigm. I started by trying to explain everything using a model based solely on the Casimir Effect and submitted that thinking to several people four or five years ago. Getting no response, perhaps because the Casimir Effect has been regarded as a short range force or just because I am a layman. I took it to mean my ideas were unsound, but I now know that is not necessarily the case. I also now know that Haisch and Rueda and Putoff are proposing that inertia is a Zero Point Field Lorentz Force, Puthoff treats gravity as aside effect of Zero Point Fluctuations and Yilmaz and Alley treat the gravitational field as having mass energy equivalence and call fora correction to Einstein's field equations. Alan Schwartz is attempting to show that the Casimir Effect causes the Equivalency Principle to not hold precisely. I will take a detour and discuss my Casimir Effect Paradigm briefly because I am still open to the Casimir Effect playing a modulating role on my |