Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[AndromedaRXJ]

That's 39 orders-of-magnitude more mass/energy than the entire known Universe in every cubic centimeter! Suffice it to say, when you add up all the cubic centimeters that make up the entire known Universe the total amount of energy is of such an incomprehensible magnitude we might as well consider it infinite.

"Might as well consider it infinite."

Uhh... no! A finite number is a finite number no matter how large it is. 1e+94 grams of energy is finite and isn't enough to achieve light speed. Also, why is that site measuring energy in grams and not joules?!

The problem with zero-point energy is, it requires that we spend more energy extracting it than the amount of energy we could ever receive from it. It exists as a ground state of a quantum mechanical system. All ground states require more energy to put into it than what can be taken out.

An analogy would be extracting the gravitational energy of a ball that's sitting on the ground. In order to extract that energy, you have to pick up the ball, which increases it's gravitation potential, then drop the ball, which would convert that potential energy into usable work. The problem is, you spent energy picking up the ball. So the net energy yield is less than what you put in to extracting it.

The ball's gravitational potential energy is at it's ground state (minimum point. i.e. zero-point)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Might as well consider it infinite."

Uhh... no! A finite number is a finite number no matter how large it is. 1e+94 grams of energy is finite and isn't enough to achieve light speed. Also, why is that site measuring energy in grams and not joules?!

The problem with zero-point energy is, it requires that we spend more energy extracting it than the amount of energy we could ever receive from it. It exists as a ground state of a quantum mechanical system. All ground states require more energy to put into it than what can be taken out.

An analogy would be extracting the gravitational energy of a ball that's sitting on the ground. In order to extract that energy, you have to pick up the ball, which increases it's gravitation potential, then drop the ball, which would convert that potential energy into usable work. The problem is, you spent energy picking up the ball. So the net energy yield is less than what you put in to extracting it.

The ball's gravitational potential energy is at it's ground state (minimum point. i.e. zero-point)

You do not read my posts...and you are being petty....the Patent awarded to Dr Mead was for converting high frequency zero point electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy. If you understand the technology proposed...the principle is simple and not expensive... Zpe is electromagnetic like all radio and light waves...all the way down to the infinitesimal wavelengths where the energy density is infinite...

And concerning the zpe energy potential....the only reason the article said...'might as well consider it infinite' is that they considered a finite universe and in addition used a cutoff frequency less than infinitely high....and no one knows that for sure, they were just being conservative.. The other point is that you have noted in my previous post that I consider the universe infinite, so whatever the ultimate energy potential in a cubic square centimeter is....multiply it by infinite and you have infinite energy...

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You do not read my posts...and you are being petty....the Patent awarded to Dr Mead was for converting high frequency zero point electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy. If you understand the technology proposed...the principle is simple and not expensive... Zpe is electromagnetic like all radio and light waves...all the way down to the infinitesimal wavelengths where the energy density is infinite...

Zero-Point Energy is still the ground state of a quantum mechanical system. It's the reason things can't be cooled down to absolute zero as all quantum mechanical systems have an intrinsic non-zero ground state.

Frequency doesn't necessarily equate to total energy either.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

As for Dr. Mead, everything I googled (that's not from a fringe science website) tells me he designed a schematic meant for extracting high frequency EMR.

The other point is that you have noted in my previous post that I consider the universe infinite, so whatever the ultimate energy potential in a cubic square centimeter is....multiply it by infinite and you have infinite energy...

So because you personally believe the universe is infinite, you think you have a point? You can't project your personal opinions about the universe as if they're fact. Second, even if the universe were infinite, it would only mean all the infinite energy in the universe is distributed over an infinite space. How are you gonna take something that occupies infinite space, and put it into a finite space? There's no infinite amount of energy contained in finite space. Infinite energy density is when you have some number of energy (finite) contained in a point of zero volume. The density is infinite, but the total energy in the point is still finite.

 

[mystic64]

You do not read my posts...and you are being petty....the Patent awarded to Dr Mead was for converting high frequency zero point electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy. If you understand the technology proposed...the principle is simple and not expensive... Zpe is electromagnetic like all radio and light waves...all the way down to the infinitesimal wavelengths where the energy density is infinite...

And concerning the zpe energy potential....the only reason the article said...'might as well consider it infinite' is that they considered a finite universe and in addition used a cutoff frequency less than infinitely high....and no one knows that for sure, they were just being conservative.. The other point is that you have noted in my previous post that I consider the universe infinite, so whatever the ultimate energy potential in a cubic square centimeter is....multiply it by infinite and you have infinite energy...

ben d you do know your physics! Which is why I like reading what you post. A physicist from Stanford University once told me that you can not talk to a physicist if you can not speak his/her language. And I am a bit handycapped when it comes to language . Andromeda is assuming that this energy has to be lifted up in order to be dropped. This is not actually the case. All that has to be done is to open the gate, so to speak, to let it in. Preferably in small amounts . The mass that is involved with our measurable reality is just a small amount of the mass that is involved with the creation of our measurable reality. The rest of the mass, that is not a part of our measurable reality, is what provides the push that creates the relative stability of our measurable reality. Without this huge mass for push (so to speak) the mass in our measurable reality would rapidly slow down and fall back into the slower velocity timeframe that it came from (was accelerated into our velocity timeframe from). Now what is fun is that with certain electromagnetic frequency environments one can relax the space-time (for lack of any other term) barrior that is created as mass increases in velocity. And one can cause some of that push pressure to be leaked into our measurable reality. And one is not creating energy/matter because that energy/matter already exists, it is just not in our measurable reality. Also, what we can measure is just the tip of the iceburg with the rest of the iceburg being what provides the push.

Now what does this have to do with faster than light travel? Understanding how to tamper with the barrior that is created by velocity at the lower end of our measurable reality will help us to understand how to tamper with the barrior that is created by velocity at the upper end of our measurable reality. And it is my opinion that it is not going to take massive amounts of energy to create the electro-magnetic frequency environments that allows one to tamper with this velocity barrior. The only problem is that the "ripples and eddies" that are created when mass is accelerated enough to break through this velocity barrior are what create the physics of our measurable reality . So, tampering with this phenomenon is probably going to also create some unusual or strange physics phenomenons. Opps ! And astophysics is already encountering some of these physics oddities, they just do not understand them yet.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Andromeda is assuming that this energy has to be lifted up in order to be dropped. This is not actually the case. All that has to be done is to open the gate, so to speak, to let it in. .

i.e. relying on quantum fluctuations, which is out of our control.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

"Turning again to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle one finds that the lifetime of a given zero-point photon, viewed as a wave, corresponds to an average distance traveled of only a fraction of its wavelength. Such a wave ''fragment'' is somewhat different than an ordinary plane wave and it is difficult to know how to interpret this."

Even if zero-point EMR is at some extremely high frequency, zero-point photons themselves travel a fraction of the distance of their actual wavelength, then seemingly disappear. Zero-Point EMR is fragmented. Basically, it provides extremely high power (energy per unit time) but low total energy. There's a difference between power and energy. I think that's what the misunderstanding is here. ben d things that extremely high frequencies automatically means a ton of energy. Frequency implies energy density as well as energy transfer per unit time (power), but not total energy.

Dr. Mead made a device to capture and harness these fluctuations, which means the device is able to capture extremely high frequency EMR, but the device doesn't allow him to control these fluctuations. Basically, the device sits there and takes whatever the Universe wants to give it. So it's unreliable.

Analogy: My computer has an 800 watt power supply. I can keep my computer on indefinitely (ignore the fact that it can break or the city power can shut off). It uses 800 joules of energy per second. So every minute, it uses 48,000 joules of energy. Now say my computer relied on zero-point quantum fluctuations. The power supply (that functions as Dr. Mead's device) receives a sudden surge of, say... 800 billion watts of power. But the power is only there for a nanosecond. So the computer runs for only a nanosecond. It received 800 billion watts of power, but the total energy is the power divided by the time (1 nanosecond). That's 800 billion divided by 1 billionth of a second, which is 800 joules of energy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Zero-Point Energy is still the ground state of a quantum mechanical system. It's the reason things can't be cooled down to absolute zero as all quantum mechanical systems have an intrinsic non-zero ground state.

Frequency doesn't necessarily equate to total energy either.

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

As for Dr. Mead, everything I googled (that's not from a fringe science website) tells me he designed a schematic meant for extracting high frequency EMR.

So because you personally believe the universe is infinite, you think you have a point? You can't project your personal opinions about the universe as if they're fact. Second, even if the universe were infinite, it would only mean all the infinite energy in the universe is distributed over an infinite space. How are you gonna take something that occupies infinite space, and put it into a finite space? There's no infinite amount of energy contained in finite space. Infinite energy density is when you have some number of energy (finite) contained in a point of zero volume. The density is infinite, but the total energy in the point is still finite.

I said that I was talking about leading edge science applications from the get go, not hack academia, here is a link showing Dr Mead was the project manager for Advanced Propulsion Systems for US AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CA 93524-7048.....
http://alnaspaceprogram.org/papers/advanced propulsion study.pdf

Ultimately the frequency is the main factor that determines energy, for the higher the frequency component of zpe, the smaller the wavelength, meaning higher energy...infinite frequency means infinite energy density... Apparently you do not understand the fundamentals of EM radiation theory... And Dr Mead's patent concerned extracting electrical energy from the EM component of zpe....all radiation is electromagnetic...that includes zpe...

What on earth has the ground state of the QV got to do with what I've been saying...what is your point?

The universe is infinite...that is not a belief, but a fact based on scientific and logical reasoning...it is you who believes.....in a finite universe... Explain to me how this came about...the finite universe that is? haha...

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I said that I was talking about leading edge science applications from the get go, not hack academia, here is a link showing Dr Mead was the project manager for Advanced Propulsion Systems for US AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CA 93524-7048.....
http://alnaspaceprogram.org/papers/advanced propulsion study.pdf

I've already read about Dr. Mead. I know what he did.

Ultimately the frequency is the main factor that determines energy

No. It determines power, energy flux and energy density, not total energy.

Think of a gamma ray (high frequency) hitting an object for 1 nanosecond vs radiowaves (low frequency) hitting an object for a billion years. Which object receives more total energy for the duration of the time the EMR hits it?

What do you think frequency in a general sense means? What does frequent mean? E.g. Say I frequently travel on an airplane for a year (say... once a month), and then never travel again. Now say I infrequently travel on a plane once a year for 50 years? Which scenario did I have a higher frequency of travelling? The first scenario. Now which scenario did I travel more total times? The second scenario.

A quantum fluctuation may grant you an immense amount of frequency but only for the slightest moment.

infinite frequency means infinite energy density... Apparently you do not understand the fundamentals of EM radiation theory

You don't understand basic math. Infinite density =/= infinite stuff. Black holes have infinite density, but no infinite mass.

And Dr Mead's patent concerned extracting electrical energy from the EM component of zpe....all radiation is electromagnetic...that includes zpe...

His device is designed to capture and handle extremely high frequencies, but he can't control the quantum fluctuations or excite the ground state at will.

What on earth has the ground state of the QV got to do with what I've been saying...what is your point?

Everything! Dr. Mead's design relies on quantum fluctuations that are out of his (and everyone's) control. He's not able to control the fluctuations (excite the ground state).

The universe is infinite...that is not a belief, but a fact based on scientific and logical reasoning...it is you who believes.....in a finite universe... Explain to me how this came about...the finite universe that is? haha...

It doesn't matter really. If the universe is infinite, it doesn't change the fact that finite energy occupies a finite space. If the universe is infinite, the infinite energy contained in it is distributed over an infinite amount of space. It's not like you'll traverse infinite space eventually collecting infinite energy to then place it in a finite space.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've already read about Dr. Mead. I know what he did.



No. It determines power, energy flux and energy density, not total energy.

Think of a gamma ray (high frequency) hitting an object for 1 nanosecond vs radiowaves (low frequency) hitting an object for a billion years. Which object receives more total energy for the duration of the time the EMR hits it?

What do you think frequency in a general sense means? What does frequent mean? E.g. Say I frequently travel on an airplane for a year (say... once a month), and then never travel again. Now say I infrequently travel on a plane once a year for 50 years? Which scenario did I have a higher frequency of travelling? The first scenario. Now which scenario did I travel more total times? The second scenario.

A quantum fluctuation may grant you an immense amount of frequency but only for the slightest moment.

You don't understand basic math. Infinite density =/= infinite stuff. Black holes have infinite density, but no infinite mass.

His device is designed to capture and handle extremely high frequencies, but he can't control the quantum fluctuations or excite the ground state at will.

Everything! Dr. Mead's design relies on quantum fluctuations that are out of his (and everyone's) control. He's not able to control the fluctuations (excite the ground state).

It doesn't matter really. If the universe is infinite, it doesn't change the fact that finite energy occupies a finite space. If the universe is infinite, the infinite energy contained in it is distributed over an infinite amount of space. It's not like you'll traverse infinite space eventually collecting infinite energy to then place it in a finite space.

AndromedaRXJ, you are all over the place...incoherent even...you are out of your depth when it comes to the understanding of zpe. If we are going to seriously discuss it, you need to at least understand how frequency and wavelength from the get go. Do you understand the Casimir Effect and the reason for it....I suggest you do some serious reading up on this subject... Until then, there is nothing much I can say as I have already shown you patents on zpe energy extraction and papers on zpe engineering possibilities based on the this understanding... Btw, here is another link to a patent for extraction of energy from the zpe if you are interested, this one by Dr Haish et al...http://www.calphysics.org/Patent7379286.pdf . And I also attach a pdf doc of Dr Mead's patent as it the diagrams are clearer...

Ok...Infinite Energy PotentialmThe Unified Field — the zero point vacuum of spacetime — is infinite in its energy potential..... http://cosmometry.net/infinite-energy-potential . And again your understanding is not up to it.....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

AndromedaRXJ, you are all over the place...incoherent even...you are out of your depth when it comes to the understanding of zpe.

Honestly my points have been quite simple and specific.

1. Frequency equates to energy flux, power (work per unit time), and density. It does NOT equate to total energy.
2. Extracting zero-point energy relies on quantum fluctuations (waiting for the surge in power to happen).

If you want to give up, go ahead. But I can go all day with this.

If we are going to seriously discuss it, you need to at least understand how frequency and wavelength from the get go.

I understand that frequency and wavelength don't equate to total energy. Apparently you don't.

Do you understand the Casimir Effect and the reason for it....I suggest you do some serious reading up on this subject... Until then, there is nothing much I can say as I have already shown you patents on zpe energy extraction and papers on zpe engineering possibilities based on the this understanding... Btw, here is another link to a patent for extraction of energy from the zpe if you are interested, this one by Dr Haish et al...http://www.calphysics.org/Patent7379286.pdf . And I also attach a pdf doc of Dr Mead's patent as it the diagrams are clearer...

Calphysics.org? Really dude, I literally just posted a link to that site a few posts back! A link that explicitly explains that zero-point energy is mostly unusable!

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

"Zero-point energy is the energy that remains when all other energy is removed from a system. This behaviour is demonstrated by, for example, liquid helium. As the temperature is lowered to absolute zero, helium remains a liquid, rather than freezing to a solid, owing to the irremovable zero-point energy of its atomic motions. (Increasing the pressure to 25 atmospheres will cause helium to freeze.)"

"How could such an enormous energy not be wildly evident? There is one major difference between zero-point electromagnetic radiation and ordinary electromagnetic radiation. Turning again to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle one finds that the lifetime of a given zero-point photon, viewed as a wave, corresponds to an average distance traveled of only a fraction of its wavelength. Such a wave ''fragment'' is somewhat different than an ordinary plane wave and it is difficult to know how to interpret this."

In the first example, in order to extract the zero-point energy of helium, it would have to be frozen solid. But you can't freeze helium. The zero-point energy is irremovable, which is why the atoms of helium continue to move freely (it remains liquid). The zero-point energy keeps the atoms moving.

Other substances can, of course, be frozen, but never to absolute zero. It's zero-point energy prevents this and is not removable (otherwise, we'd freeze things to absolute zero).

Ok...Infinite Energy PotentialmThe Unified Field — the zero point vacuum of spacetime — is infinite in its energy potential..... http://cosmometry.net/infinite-energy-potential . And again your understanding is not up to it.....

cosmometry.net is not a legit scientific site. It's misinterpreting the physics behind zero-point energy, which is also what you're doing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Honestly my points have been quite simple and specific.

1. Frequency equates to energy flux, power (work per unit time), and density. It does NOT equate to total energy.
2. Extracting zero-point energy relies on quantum fluctuations (waiting for the surge in power to happen).

If you want to give up, go ahead. But I can go all day with this.



I understand that frequency and wavelength don't equate to total energy. Apparently you don't.



Calphysics.org? Really dude, I literally just posted a link to that site a few posts back! A link that explicitly explains that zero-point energy is mostly unusable!

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

"Zero-point energy is the energy that remains when all other energy is removed from a system. This behaviour is demonstrated by, for example, liquid helium. As the temperature is lowered to absolute zero, helium remains a liquid, rather than freezing to a solid, owing to the irremovable zero-point energy of its atomic motions. (Increasing the pressure to 25 atmospheres will cause helium to freeze.)"

"How could such an enormous energy not be wildly evident? There is one major difference between zero-point electromagnetic radiation and ordinary electromagnetic radiation. Turning again to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle one finds that the lifetime of a given zero-point photon, viewed as a wave, corresponds to an average distance traveled of only a fraction of its wavelength. Such a wave ''fragment'' is somewhat different than an ordinary plane wave and it is difficult to know how to interpret this."

In the first example, in order to extract the zero-point energy of helium, it would have to be frozen solid. But you can't freeze helium. The zero-point energy is irremovable, which is why the atoms of helium continue to move freely (it remains liquid). The zero-point energy keeps the atoms moving.

Other substances can, of course, be frozen, but never to absolute zero. It's zero-point energy prevents this and is not removable (otherwise, we'd freeze things to absolute zero).



cosmometry.net is not a legit scientific site. It's misinterpreting the physics behind zero-point energy, which is also what you're doing.

Haha....you don't understand what you are reading....I actually bolded it for you when I originally posted it.....here again for you from Dr Mead....."Because it exists in a vacuum, zero point radiation is homogeneous and isotropic as well as ubiquitous. In addition, since zero point radiation is also invariant with respect to Lorentz transformation, the zero point radiation spectrum has the characteristic that the intensity of the radiation at any frequency is proportional to the cube of that frequency. Consequently, the intensity of the radiation increases without limit as the frequency increases resulting in an infinite energy density for the radiation spectrum. With the introduction of the zero point radiation into the classical electron theory, a vacuum at a temperature of absolute zero is no longer considered empty of all electromagnetic fields. Instead, the vacuum is now considered as filled with randomly fluctuating fields having the zero point radiation spectrum."

You seem to be talking about apsects of zero point energy which has got nothing to do with EM radiation that the papers I am referring to.....There are many aspects of zpe that researchers may be studying as the wiki piece shows...."Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field."..... That is what I mean....you are all over the place.....and mostly talking about stuff that is irrelevant to the zpe EM electrical energy extraction that is being discussed....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d you do know your physics! Which is why I like reading what you post. A physicist from Stanford University once told me that you can not talk to a physicist if you can not speak his/her language. And I am a bit handycapped when it comes to language . Andromeda is assuming that this energy has to be lifted up in order to be dropped. This is not actually the case. All that has to be done is to open the gate, so to speak, to let it in. Preferably in small amounts . The mass that is involved with our measurable reality is just a small amount of the mass that is involved with the creation of our measurable reality. The rest of the mass, that is not a part of our measurable reality, is what provides the push that creates the relative stability of our measurable reality. Without this huge mass for push (so to speak) the mass in our measurable reality would rapidly slow down and fall back into the slower velocity timeframe that it came from (was accelerated into our velocity timeframe from). Now what is fun is that with certain electromagnetic frequency environments one can relax the space-time (for lack of any other term) barrior that is created as mass increases in velocity. And one can cause some of that push pressure to be leaked into our measurable reality. And one is not creating energy/matter because that energy/matter already exists, it is just not in our measurable reality. Also, what we can measure is just the tip of the iceburg with the rest of the iceburg being what provides the push.

Now what does this have to do with faster than light travel? Understanding how to tamper with the barrior that is created by velocity at the lower end of our measurable reality will help us to understand how to tamper with the barrior that is created by velocity at the upper end of our measurable reality. And it is my opinion that it is not going to take massive amounts of energy to create the electro-magnetic frequency environments that allows one to tamper with this velocity barrior. The only problem is that the "ripples and eddies" that are created when mass is accelerated enough to break through this velocity barrior are what create the physics of our measurable reality . So, tampering with this phenomenon is probably going to also create some unusual or strange physics phenomenons. Opps ! And astophysics is already encountering some of these physics oddities, they just do not understand them yet.

mystic64, shucks...no, I am not a physicist... but have been keeping abreast of zpe as research unfolds in my retirement...I worked in air force radio, radar systems, satellite coms and imaging systems during my working life..and many of the principles I worked with apply to zpe.. I see the zpe as an ocean of energy that comprises an EM frequency continuum... And yes, the zpe ocean acts like an ocean...the deeper you go, the higher the pressure...Dr Mead's patent works sort of like an electrical power transducer...absolutely no energy is required to tap into the zpe...once working, energy can be extracted from the infinite source.. As the energy is withdrawn from whatever 'depth' (think frequency band), a tendency towards a differential pressure buildup would result in incoming energy to bring about equilibrium.....endlessly....the zpe EM energy equilibrium across the frequency continuum is eternal...

As to engineering the zpe wrt FTL propulsion, altering inertia and gravity, etc.....yes I am sure there will be many 'ripples and eddies' that will have feedback that will surprise... And fwiw, that would also happen with the electrical energy extraction if a humungus amount was extracted suddenly...the differential pressure I referred to would not be able to be balanced immediately and a feedback vortex would develop..(like the hurricane)... But back to FTL, so far as I understand the principles involved, the spacecraft would not travel on top of the ocean as physical rockets do....but would be immaterial on this plane.... it would be in a bubble of engineered zpe energy (perhaps not EM engineered) traversing inside / down in the zpe ocean....only to surface into the physical domain at the end of the journey.... Space time physics of this world would not apply (except as experienced by personnel in the spacecraft)....

 

[godnotgod]

What does this consciousness you refer to consist of? Can you explain what consciousness is?

I hope you will find something of value as it relates to your question in these videos:

 

[Runewolf1973]

I hope you will find something of value as it relates to your question in these videos:

Thanks, I'll have a look.

 

[godnotgod]

... the spacecraft would not travel on top of the ocean as physical rockets do....but would be immaterial on this plane.... it would be in a bubble of engineered zpe energy (perhaps not EM engineered) traversing inside / down in the zpe ocean....only to surface into the physical domain at the end of the journey.... .

Hmmmm....sorta....kinda like....Earth as a spaceship in an atmospheric bubble hurling silently through The Mystery, and we all awaken from a dream to find ourselves exactly where we are right at this moment.

Oh, the humanity!

We all appear to be on a terribly troubled voyage, in perfectly calm weather.

(Personally, I think it's all just a Big Act!)

 

[mystic64]

mystic64, shucks...no, I am not a physicist... but have been keeping abreast of zpe as research unfolds in my retirement...I worked in air force radio, radar systems, satellite coms and imaging systems during my working life..and many of the principles I worked with apply to zpe.. I see the zpe as an ocean of energy that comprises an EM frequency continuum... And yes, the zpe ocean acts like an ocean...the deeper you go, the higher the pressure...Dr Mead's patent works sort of like an electrical power transducer...absolutely no energy is required to tap into the zpe...once working, energy can be extracted from the infinite source.. As the energy is withdrawn from whatever 'depth' (think frequency band), a tendency towards a differential pressure buildup would result in incoming energy to bring about equilibrium.....endlessly....the zpe EM energy equilibrium across the frequency continuum is eternal...

As to engineering the zpe wrt FTL propulsion, altering inertia and gravity, etc.....yes I am sure there will be many 'ripples and eddies' that will have feedback that will surprise... And fwiw, that would also happen with the electrical energy extraction if a humungus amount was extracted suddenly...the differential pressure I referred to would not be able to be balanced immediately and a feedback vortex would develop..(like the hurricane)... But back to FTL, so far as I understand the principles involved, the spacecraft would not travel on top of the ocean as physical rockets do....but would be immaterial on this plane.... it would be in a bubble of engineered zpe energy (perhaps not EM engineered) traversing inside / down in the zpe ocean....only to surface into the physical domain at the end of the journey.... Space time physics of this world would not apply (except as experienced by personnel in the spacecraft)....

ben d you and I have interacted several times in the past on this message board and I have always enjoyed the experience ! One, because you are patient with me ; and two, because I always learn interesting new things. And we have talked about where you live and its history and to me you are one of the two or three people on this message board that is a person and not just a mind at play . I took a look at the Zero-point energy entry in Wikipedia and found this as interesting:

Gravitation and cosmology
------------------------------
In cosmology, the zero-point energy offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive values of the proposed cosmological constant. [14] In brief, if the energy is "really there", then it should exert a gravitational force.[15] In general relativity, mass and energy are equivalent; both produce a gravitational field. One obvious difficulty with this association is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is absurdly large. Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is handled. It is also arguable[original research?] that undiscovered physics relevant at the Planck scale reduces or eliminates the energy of waves shorter than the Planck length, making the total zero-point energy finite.[citation needed
-------------------------------

ben d, I am not sure but the above seems to indicate that both you and Andromeda are correct, atleast relative to math . So ok, now with that said , what physics is calling "zero-point energy" is the is the grounding reality that I am referring to with my "velocity timeframe" hypotheses. But, because it is the grounding plate, so to speak, my hypotheses for using it to leak energy into our measurable reality is not valid as it presently stands. Unless of course there are two different "zero-point energy" plates, so to speak. The grounding plate would be the cathode and the other plate would be the anode,so to speak. So, the use of emf field environments to tamper with things, for lack of any other term, would actually be the decreasing of the resistance between these two plates. You can create nuclear change at significantly lower pressure and heat with a mixed emf fields environment. The main problem is why does it work? Because, according to today's physics math it can't work because you can not create or destroy matter (The Law of the Conservation of Matter). But because Dr. Hawking's Black Hole math proves mathematically that matter can go somewhere else without being destroyed , then matter should be able to come from somewhere else without being created. So instead of openning a gate so that the ground can come into this reality, it is the openning of a gate between the ground and the anode (the two zero-point energy plates) to create an energy presence between the two Zero-point energy plates in our measurable reality. Which would then make gravity one of the forms that this energy exchange can take.

ben d , it would appear, hypothetically speaking , that Dr. Hawking has the grounding part of the equation which then would bring up the question, hypothetically speaking, "Who in today's theoretical physics has the anode zero-point energy part of the equation?" . And ben d, I have no idea how that would fit into FTLT or the original OP question. But, there has to be a fit somewhere .

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Gravitation and cosmology

In cosmology, the zero-point energy offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive values of the proposed cosmological constant. In brief, if the energy is "really there", then it should exert a gravitational force. In general relativity, mass and energy are equivalent; both produce a gravitational field. One obvious difficulty with this association is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is absurdly large. Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is handled. It is also arguable that undiscovered physics relevant at the Planck scale reduces or eliminates the energy of waves shorter than the Planck length, making the total zero-point energy finite.

ben d, I am not sure but the above seems to indicate that both you and Andromeda are correct, atleast relative to math . So ok, now with that said , what physics is calling "zero-point energy" is the is the grounding reality that I am referring to with my "velocity timeframe" hypotheses. But, because it is the grounding plate, so to speak, my hypotheses for using it to leak energy into our measurable reality is not valid as it presently stands. Unless of course there are two different "zero-point energy" plates, so to speak. The grounding plate would be the cathode and the other plate would be the anode,so to speak. So, the use of emf field environments to tamper with things, for lack of any other term, would actually be the decreasing of the resistance between these two plates. You can create nuclear change at significantly lower pressure and heat with a mixed emf fields environment. The main problem is why does it work? Because, according to today's physics math it can't work because you can not create or destroy matter (The Law of the Conservation of Matter). But because Dr. Hawking's Black Hole math proves mathematically that matter can go somewhere else without being destroyed , then matter should be able to come from somewhere else without being created.

That's probably what should be addressed is in this discussion is the issue with infinity coming up in the math. As the wiki page suggests, the infinity characteristics may only be a feature of the mathematics and not an actual physical feature. I found this page that breaks the issue down even further and gets at the root of it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

"So, when you ask about the energy density of the vacuum, you get different answers depending on whether the person answering you is basing their answer on general relativity or quantum field theory. Let me run through the 5 most common answers, explaining how people reach these different answers:We can measure the energy density of the vacuum through astronomical observations that determine the curvature of spacetime. All the measurements that have been done agree that the energy density is VERY CLOSE TO ZERO. In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter.

1. We can measure the energy density of the vacuum through astronomical observations that determine the curvature of spacetime. All the measurements that have been done agree that the energy density is VERY CLOSE TO ZERO. In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter. One can know something is very close to zero without knowing whether it is positive, negative or zero. For a long time that's how it was with the cosmological constant. But, recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and many other experiments seem to be converging on a positive cosmological constant, equal to roughly 7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter. This corresponds to a positive energy density of about 6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter. The reason they get a positive energy density is very interesting. Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up. Of course, to believe this argument at all, one must have some confidence in general relativity. To believe scientists' attempts to determine an actual value for the energy density of spacetime, one must have more confidence in general relativity, and also other assumptions about cosmology. However, the basic fact that the energy density of spacetime is very close to zero is almost unarguable: for it to be false, general relativity would have to be very wrong."

From what I understand of part 1 is, general relativity would tell you the energy density of vacuum energy is very small.

"2. We can try to calculate the energy density of the vacuum using quantum field theory. If we calculate the lowest possible energy of a harmonic oscillator, we get a bigger answer when we use quantum mechanics than when we use classical mechanics. The difference is called the "zero-point energy". The zero-point energy of a harmonic oscillator is 1/2 Planck's constant times its frequency. Naively we can try calculating the energy density of the vacuum by simply summing up the zero-point energies of all the vibrational modes of the quantum fields we are considering (e.g. the electromagnetic field and various other fields for other forces and particles). Vibrational modes with shorter wavelengths have higher frequencies and contribute more vacuum energy density. If we assume spacetime is a continuum, we have modes with arbitrarily short wavelengths, so we get INFINITY as the vacuum energy density. But there are problems with this calculation...."

The gist of 2 is, getting infinity is based on the assumption that spacetime is a continuum. But a continuous non-descrete spacetime goes completely against the very basic idea of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, which is that everything is quantized, discrete and non-continuous. Only general relativity allows for a continuum, but as part 1 explains, general relativity tells us the energy density is very small.

If the energy density is limited to the Planck Length (the quanta of spacetime), you get an extremely high, but finite number. This is explained in part 3.

"3. A slightly less naive way to calculate the vacuum energy in quantum field theory is to admit that we don't know spacetime is a continuum, and only sum the zero-point energies for vibrational modes having wavelengths bigger than, say, the Planck length (about 10-35 meters). This gives an ENORMOUS BUT FINITE vacuum energy density. Using E = mc2 to convert between energy and mass, it corresponds to a mass density of about 1096 kilograms per cubic meter! But there are problems with this calculation, too. One problem is that treating the vibrational modes of our fields as harmonic oscillators is only valid for "free field theories" - those in which there are no interactions between modes. This is not physically realistic. However, while taking interactions into account changes the precise answer, we are still left with an enormous energy density. The ridiculous ratio between this density and what's actually observed is often called the cosmological constant problem. One way to put it is that in units of Planck mass per Planck length cubed, the cosmological constant is about 10-123. It's hard to make up a theory that explains such a tiny nonzero number.

But there's an even bigger problem, too...."

As I said before, considering Planck length and Planck time, it prevents infinite density since spacetime would be discrete and non-continuous. Honestly, I don't see why this would be ignored in the first place. The post goes on further to say why even an enormous but finite number runs into problems. I won't copy and paste them here though since the main issue was to address the problem of infinity in this discussion. But the link I pasted above has a part 4 and 5.

On a final note, I find it interesting and amusing that the wikipedia article you posted, as well as the link I posted, used the word "naively". Both imply that it's naive to assume the energy density is actually infinite rather than realizing that this is just a math problem and a problem with looking at spacetime as a continuum in quantum field theory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d you and I have interacted several times in the past on this message board and I have always enjoyed the experience ! One, because you are patient with me ; and two, because I always learn interesting new things. And we have talked about where you live and its history and to me you are one of the two or three people on this message board that is a person and not just a mind at play . I took a look at the Zero-point energy entry in Wikipedia and found this as interesting:

Gravitation and cosmology
------------------------------
In cosmology, the zero-point energy offers an intriguing possibility for explaining the speculative positive values of the proposed cosmological constant. [14] In brief, if the energy is "really there", then it should exert a gravitational force.[15] In general relativity, mass and energy are equivalent; both produce a gravitational field. One obvious difficulty with this association is that the zero-point energy of the vacuum is absurdly large. Naively, it is infinite, because it includes the energy of waves with arbitrarily short wavelengths. But since only differences in energy are physically measurable, the infinity can be removed by renormalization. In all practical calculations, this is how the infinity is handled. It is also arguable[original research?] that undiscovered physics relevant at the Planck scale reduces or eliminates the energy of waves shorter than the Planck length, making the total zero-point energy finite.[citation needed
-------------------------------

ben d, I am not sure but the above seems to indicate that both you and Andromeda are correct, atleast relative to math . So ok, now with that said , what physics is calling "zero-point energy" is the is the grounding reality that I am referring to with my "velocity timeframe" hypotheses. But, because it is the grounding plate, so to speak, my hypotheses for using it to leak energy into our measurable reality is not valid as it presently stands. Unless of course there are two different "zero-point energy" plates, so to speak. The grounding plate would be the cathode and the other plate would be the anode,so to speak. So, the use of emf field environments to tamper with things, for lack of any other term, would actually be the decreasing of the resistance between these two plates. You can create nuclear change at significantly lower pressure and heat with a mixed emf fields environment. The main problem is why does it work? Because, according to today's physics math it can't work because you can not create or destroy matter (The Law of the Conservation of Matter). But because Dr. Hawking's Black Hole math proves mathematically that matter can go somewhere else without being destroyed , then matter should be able to come from somewhere else without being created. So instead of openning a gate so that the ground can come into this reality, it is the openning of a gate between the ground and the anode (the two zero-point energy plates) to create an energy presence between the two Zero-point energy plates in our measurable reality. Which would then make gravity one of the forms that this energy exchange can take.

ben d , it would appear, hypothetically speaking , that Dr. Hawking has the grounding part of the equation which then would bring up the question, hypothetically speaking, "Who in today's theoretical physics has the anode zero-point energy part of the equation?" . And ben d, I have no idea how that would fit into FTLT or the original OP question. But, there has to be a fit somewhere .

You have covered a lot of ground so I will try and touch on some points as I go through it....and leave those that I am not sufficiently up to speed on..
There is no proof that there are not shorter EM wavelengths than Planck length, the zpe researchers I have read extend zpe EM wavelengths to, for example, 1 x 10^-95 M ,1 x10^-115 M, etc.. and it is probably goes down to the infinitesimal...

I am not really familiar with your "velocity timeframe" hypotheses, but I see zpe energy pressure of the infinite energy base as the possible source of gravity as well as the already scientifically acknowledged inertia.. The so called attractive force of gravity is actually a pushing force overcoming a lessor pushing force between celestial objects. The outward pressure of zpe plus all stars' radiative pressure is pushing on all material objects... So all stars, planets, etc., of the universe are subject to an incoming spherical wave pressure (amplitude/energy) coming from every direction of space. Taking our planet Earth as an example, the incoming spherical wave front radiation pressure is not homogeneous relative to arrival here as it would be stronger along those radii where there were celestial radiating sources such as stars, etc., are radiating additional pressure....and weaker along radii where there were non-radiating stars and / or absorbing celestial sources such as cosmic dust, planets, moons, etc., that would tend to block and/or absorb the pressure incoming coming their way..

Now the range of wavelengths that constitute this incoming spherical wave front spectrum is theoretically infinite and extends beyond Planck length to the infinitesimal. The spectral frequency distribution however is not homogeneous relative to arrival at Earth for reasons similar to that effecting the radiation pressure, but in this case it is the matter of spectral content of celestial radiating sources such as stars, etc., that differ one from another and also due to the spectral absorbing properties of non-radiating celestial sources such as cosmic 'dust' which is distributed unevenly throughout space..

Now if you understand the Casimir effect, this same principle is at work in the macro universe and thus the pressure pushing say, the Earth and the Moon together from radiative pressure outside the solar system would be less than the pressure pushing them apart due to there being less wavelengths able to fit between the Earth and the Moon pushing then apart... Celestial objects will always find an orbit where the pressure is mostly balanced from all directions...where there is differential pressure, there will be 'gravitational force' moving them...

 

[mystic64]

That's probably what should be addressed is in this discussion is the issue with infinity coming up in the math. As the wiki page suggests, the infinity characteristics may only be a feature of the mathematics and not an actual physical feature. I found this page that breaks the issue down even further and gets at the root of it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

"So, when you ask about the energy density of the vacuum, you get different answers depending on whether the person answering you is basing their answer on general relativity or quantum field theory. Let me run through the 5 most common answers, explaining how people reach these different answers:We can measure the energy density of the vacuum through astronomical observations that determine the curvature of spacetime. All the measurements that have been done agree that the energy density is VERY CLOSE TO ZERO. In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter.

1. We can measure the energy density of the vacuum through astronomical observations that determine the curvature of spacetime. All the measurements that have been done agree that the energy density is VERY CLOSE TO ZERO. In terms of mass density, its absolute value is less than 10-26 kilograms per cubic meter. In terms of energy density, this is about 10-9 joules per cubic meter. One can know something is very close to zero without knowing whether it is positive, negative or zero. For a long time that's how it was with the cosmological constant. But, recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and many other experiments seem to be converging on a positive cosmological constant, equal to roughly 7 × 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter. This corresponds to a positive energy density of about 6 × 10-10 joules per cubic meter. The reason they get a positive energy density is very interesting. Thanks to the redshifts of distant galaxies and quasars, we've known for a long time that the universe is expanding. The new data shows something surprising: this expansion is speeding up. Ordinary matter can only make the expansion slow down, since gravity attracts - at least for ordinary matter. What can possibly make the expansion speed up, then? Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure! In fact, it must have a pressure equal to exactly -1 times its energy density, in units where the speed of light and Newton's gravitational constant equal 1. Positive energy density makes the expansion of the universe tend to slow down... but negative pressure makes the expansion tend to speed up. Of course, to believe this argument at all, one must have some confidence in general relativity. To believe scientists' attempts to determine an actual value for the energy density of spacetime, one must have more confidence in general relativity, and also other assumptions about cosmology. However, the basic fact that the energy density of spacetime is very close to zero is almost unarguable: for it to be false, general relativity would have to be very wrong."

From what I understand of part 1 is, general relativity would tell you the energy density of vacuum energy is very small.

"2. We can try to calculate the energy density of the vacuum using quantum field theory. If we calculate the lowest possible energy of a harmonic oscillator, we get a bigger answer when we use quantum mechanics than when we use classical mechanics. The difference is called the "zero-point energy". The zero-point energy of a harmonic oscillator is 1/2 Planck's constant times its frequency. Naively we can try calculating the energy density of the vacuum by simply summing up the zero-point energies of all the vibrational modes of the quantum fields we are considering (e.g. the electromagnetic field and various other fields for other forces and particles). Vibrational modes with shorter wavelengths have higher frequencies and contribute more vacuum energy density. If we assume spacetime is a continuum, we have modes with arbitrarily short wavelengths, so we get INFINITY as the vacuum energy density. But there are problems with this calculation...."

The gist of 2 is, getting infinity is based on the assumption that spacetime is a continuum. But a continuous non-descrete spacetime goes completely against the very basic idea of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, which is that everything is quantized, discrete and non-continuous. Only general relativity allows for a continuum, but as part 1 explains, general relativity tells us the energy density is very small.

If the energy density is limited to the Planck Length (the quanta of spacetime), you get an extremely high, but finite number. This is explained in part 3.

"3. A slightly less naive way to calculate the vacuum energy in quantum field theory is to admit that we don't know spacetime is a continuum, and only sum the zero-point energies for vibrational modes having wavelengths bigger than, say, the Planck length (about 10-35 meters). This gives an ENORMOUS BUT FINITE vacuum energy density. Using E = mc2 to convert between energy and mass, it corresponds to a mass density of about 1096 kilograms per cubic meter! But there are problems with this calculation, too. One problem is that treating the vibrational modes of our fields as harmonic oscillators is only valid for "free field theories" - those in which there are no interactions between modes. This is not physically realistic. However, while taking interactions into account changes the precise answer, we are still left with an enormous energy density. The ridiculous ratio between this density and what's actually observed is often called the cosmological constant problem. One way to put it is that in units of Planck mass per Planck length cubed, the cosmological constant is about 10-123. It's hard to make up a theory that explains such a tiny nonzero number.

But there's an even bigger problem, too...."

As I said before, considering Planck length and Planck time, it prevents infinite density since spacetime would be discrete and non-continuous. Honestly, I don't see why this would be ignored in the first place. The post goes on further to say why even an enormous but finite number runs into problems. I won't copy and paste them here though since the main issue was to address the problem of infinity in this discussion. But the link I pasted above has a part 4 and 5.

On a final note, I find it interesting and amusing that the wikipedia article you posted, as well as the link I posted, used the word "naively". Both imply that it's naive to assume the energy density is actually infinite rather than realizing that this is just a math problem and a problem with looking at spacetime as a continuum in quantum field theory.

Very well done Andromeda . As a mystic when I go out there and have a look at this stuff, what I see is that the "potiental" is infinite and that the part of this "potential" that is being used is finite. If the math includes the "potential", then the answer is "infinite". If the math just includes what is being used, then the answer is "finite". Adrameda we live in a box, so to speak, but the box is not the whole world. Normal physics is the physics of what it is that is in the box (that which can be measured). Theoretical physics is an attempt to understand that which is out side of the box (that which can not be measured). Andrameda, you are an in the box fellow and nothing that is outside of the box exists. Which is why you will never believe what it is that the "string theory" folks are doing until they start to bring stuff that is outside of the box into the box. And, when they start to do this it will scrare the "pee-wad" out of you. Nothing is set in stone if you want to mess with the foundations of the forces that create that stone.

 

[mystic64]

You have covered a lot of ground so I will try and touch on some points as I go through it....and leave those that I am not sufficiently up to speed on..
There is no proof that there are not shorter EM wavelengths than Planck length, the zpe researchers I have read extend zpe EM wavelengths to, for example, 1 x 10^-95 M ,1 x10^-115 M, etc.. and it is probably goes down to the infinitesimal...

I am not really familiar with your "velocity timeframe" hypotheses, but I see zpe energy pressure of the infinite energy base as the possible source of gravity as well as the already scientifically acknowledged inertia.. The so called attractive force of gravity is actually a pushing force overcoming a lessor pushing force between celestial objects. The outward pressure of zpe plus all stars' radiative pressure is pushing on all material objects... So all stars, planets, etc., of the universe are subject to an incoming spherical wave pressure (amplitude/energy) coming from every direction of space. Taking our planet Earth as an example, the incoming spherical wave front radiation pressure is not homogeneous relative to arrival here as it would be stronger along those radii where there were celestial radiating sources such as stars, etc., are radiating additional pressure....and weaker along radii where there were non-radiating stars and / or absorbing celestial sources such as cosmic dust, planets, moons, etc., that would tend to block and/or absorb the pressure incoming coming their way..

Now the range of wavelengths that constitute this incoming spherical wave front spectrum is theoretically infinite and extends beyond Planck length to the infinitesimal. The spectral frequency distribution however is not homogeneous relative to arrival at Earth for reasons similar to that effecting the radiation pressure, but in this case it is the matter of spectral content of celestial radiating sources such as stars, etc., that differ one from another and also due to the spectral absorbing properties of non-radiating celestial sources such as cosmic 'dust' which is distributed unevenly throughout space..

Now if you understand the Casimir effect, this same principle is at work in the macro universe and thus the pressure pushing say, the Earth and the Moon together from radiative pressure outside the solar system would be less than the pressure pushing them apart due to there being less wavelengths able to fit between the Earth and the Moon pushing then apart... Celestial objects will always find an orbit where the pressure is mostly balanced from all directions...where there is differential pressure, there will be 'gravitational force' moving them...

Humm ? Ben d, lets create a hypothetical scenario just for fun ? Lets say that there is an infinite ocean of "particle one" (the smallest possible form of matter) and that the "particle one" that makes up this ocean are in a state of absolute rest/non movement. And lets call this ocean of non moving "particle one" The Deep. Now something comes along and causes a portion of this "The Deep" to vibrate/have movement and then separates this portion (cloud of "particle one") )that has movement from the ocean of non movement ("The Deep"). From there the lower part of this portion (cloud of "particle one") of "The Deep" that is in movement, which has been separated from the non movement portion of "The Deep", is then dried up, so to speak, and matter as we know it comes into existance. Now, at this point in our scenario the question comes up, "How in the heck was it "dried up"?" Well it turns out that if you accelerate a mass to a certain point that you encounter a barrior to farther acceleration and I am calling this barrior the "velocity timeframe barrior". Now if you continue to accelerate this mass to the point where a portion of this mass breaks the barrior and you then park this mass at this edge that you have reached (partly in and partly out, so to speak) the portion of this cloud one our side to the barrior, because of the space-time turbulance that you have created, condences into what we know as matter and from there into panetary bodys and other types of planetary and nuclear fragments. And the physics that science is studying is the result of the turbulance (space-time ripples and eddies that create gravity wells and other similar phenomenon) that was caused when a portion of the accelerate mass broke through the "velocity timeframe barrior". And because only a portion of this accelerated mass is on our side of the barrior and anchored to the portion that is on the other side of the barrior, the portion that is in our side of the barrior vibrates in and out of our side to the barrior. Which is why matter is in our side (that which can be measured) of the barrior only part of the time.

Now what is interesting is that the set pattern "turbulance" that was created when mass was accelerated through the "velocity timeframe barrior" and which defines the physics of our physical reality, can be affected by artificially created turbulance. Ben d, I am not alway right, but I am always close and from there is just a matter of fine tuning things and learning the language of whom ever it is that I am attempting to communicate with. And what I have presented is the simple version, things are a bit more complicated than what I have presented . And what you are describing are the results of the "turbulance" created in the space-time continum, so to speak. And lets face it I am a mystic and not a physicist, I can visualize models based on various givens and then study how those models interact with each other, but I can not then translate the results into a mathematical language. But at the sametime Dr. Hawking has mathematically proven that my hypothesis is possibly valid because my hypothesis predicts the same conclusion that his math does.

note : this post needs edited for spelling and other stuff, but I do not have the time. I have to go shovel snow .

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Humm ? Ben d, lets create a hypothetical scenario just for fun ? Lets say that there is an infinite ocean of "particle one" (the smallest possible form of matter) and that the "particle one" that makes up this ocean are in a state of absolute rest/non movement. And lets call this ocean of non moving "particle one" The Deep. Now something comes along and causes a portion of this "The Deep" to vibrate/have movement and then separates this portion (cloud of "particle one") )that has movement from the ocean of non movement ("The Deep"). From there the lower part of this portion (cloud of "particle one") of "The Deep" that is in movement, which has been separated from the non movement portion of "The Deep", is then dried up, so to speak, and matter as we know it comes into existance. Now, at this point in our scenario the question comes up, "How in the heck was it "dried up"?" Well it turns out that if you accelerate a mass to a certain point that you encounter a barrior to farther acceleration and I am calling this barrior the "velocity timeframe barrior". Now if you continue to accelerate this mass to the point where a portion of this mass breaks the barrior and you then park this mass at this edge that you have reached (partly in and partly out, so to speak) the portion of this cloud one our side to the barrior, because of the space-time turbulance that you have created, condences into what we know as matter and from there into panetary bodys and other types of planetary and nuclear fragments. And the physics that science is studying is the result of the turbulance (space-time ripples and eddies that create gravity wells and other similar phenomenon) that was caused when a portion of the accelerate mass broke through the "velocity timeframe barrior". And because only a portion of this accelerated mass is on our side of the barrior and anchored to the portion that is on the other side of the barrior, the portion that is in our side of the barrior vibrates in and out of our side to the barrior. Which is why matter is in our side (that which can be measured) of the barrior only part of the time.

Now what is interesting is that the set pattern "turbulance" that was created when mass was accelerated through the "velocity timeframe barrior" and which defines the physics of our physical reality, can be affected by artificially created turbulance. Ben d, I am not alway right, but I am always close and from there is just a matter of fine tuning things and learning the language of whom ever it is that I am attempting to communicate with. And what I have presented is the simple version, things are a bit more complicated than what I have presented . And what you are describing are the results of the "turbulance" created in the space-time continum, so to speak. And lets face it I am a mystic and not a physicist, I can visualize models based on various givens and then study how those models interact with each other, but I can not then translate the results into a mathematical language. But at the sametime Dr. Hawking has mathematically proven that my hypothesis is possibly valid because my hypothesis predicts the same conclusion that his math does.

note : this post needs edited for spelling and other stuff, but I do not have the time. I have to go shovel snow .

But there is no state where there is no movement to my understanding....the vibrations of zpe go to the infinitesimal wavelengths at the 'floor' of the 'ocean'...where energy density is infinite... And particles are only spherical standing waves of the relevant zpe frequencies that constitute them.. That's why in the LHC, when particles are smashed...the spherical standing wave dissolves into energy before that energy is able to reform into spherical standing wave of another kind in order to restore equilibrium of zpe in the spacial medium of the experiment...

There was no beginning to matter, for it is as eternal as energy...for as explained above...the so called particles are just a standing wave resonance of the same zpe energy that the particles arose from... The zpe is ubiquitous throughout infinite space...but it is not homogenous and there are gravity ripples and eddies throughout...

But do not imagine I think my model is the only one, or the best one even, to represent the reality behind gravity, inertia, cosmology, etc., for I am always learning and having insights that require modifications to the model.. So if your model works for you in gaining a better understanding of cosmology, that is fine......science is not about consensus...it's about understanding the universe in all its aspects..

I too am a mystic mystic , and totally understand about the visualization you refer to...it is an amazing faculty connected to intuition.. Some people have well developed mathematical 'visualization', others have a different kind of 'visualization'... we are each given the best tools for the task destiny has for us....which ultimately is an inner realization so all is unfolding as it should...