Zero Point Energy doc
Download 0.97 Mb. View original pdf
|
| ZP OWER C ORPORATION PAGE OF 352 Z ERO P OINT E NERGY assumes that recycling occurs in this case as it does throughout the rest of nature. Current alternatives to Einstein's warped space scenario tend to fall into two main categories. 1. Casting a shadow or "push" type processes such as proposed in my earlier Casimir Effect analogy and certain tachyon models. 2. "Pull" type processes such as is associated with the Einstein Spatial Ether Sink model. Those who propose an ideal gas type ether sink model have both "pull" and "push" components. The "pull" or absorption creates a localized rarefaction and the surrounding ether provides the "push. Push" models have a problem in that an infinite universe filled with their stuff is required or at some point their model runs out of push and must dissipate. I am not aware of any infinite thing, only processes. When one divides by zero, one is saying, "I can decide not to divide as many times as I wish" Likewise, there is no limit on the number of times one body can orbit another if ware and tare, friction, etc. can be eliminated. Nor is there any theoretical limit on how long something can last, if certain laws of nature are suspended. Likewise there is no limit on how far the universe can expand into the nothingness beyond, save for any internal constraints possessed by the universe itself. But there is no scientifically documented infinite thing. Pull" type models such as mine have the challenge of explaining what causes the sink. I beg the issue of why mass absorbs Einstein Spatial Ether for the moment, much as Einstein begged the issue of how mass warps "space but I note that the absorption and emission of photons by electrons and other particles is a well documented fact and I point to the expansion and possible contraction of the universe as involving the same process as my theory. I note only that if one entity can externalize "space, it is not unreasonable to expect another to internalize it. Thus, this paradigm goes one step further in the explanatory process. Streaming, which is here the counterpart to curving "space, is explained as the result of absorption is referenced to other theoretically accepted processes. Henry Lindner has a homepage that describes an ether sink model, which is close to mine. However, his ether does not posses "inertia, a concept which is crucial in my model. Steven Rado has a homepage and a book, which I have referenced previously. In both he uses the terminology sink vortex. I agree with the sink part of his concept, but not the vortex aspect as he applies it to gravity. His use of vortices seems to be more readily applicable to electromagnetism. |