Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Even if we have no idea whatsoever what a something is, that lack of definition does not lead to the conclusion that that something therefore does not exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You might say the same about the Tooth Fairy or other fictional pop culture characters. The lack of definition does not prove they don't exist, but it does remove them from the arena of serious scientific discussion. The same is true for any topic where you cannot define the terms you need.

Clear meanings of concepts are different from knowing or not knowing specific properties such as size or mass, especially for theoretical concepts that have yet to be discovered or measured. But the terms used must have some specific meaning for their consideration to be intelligible and common to all discussants.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have my own word. But only I have an intimate grasp of what I mean.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you cannot convey something important about a subject (such as this) to others, two things follow: (1) Attempts to converse with others about it will be a waste of time; and (2) you should be questioning whether the subject has any counterpart in external reality, or exists just in your mind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I like to use the word "INSIDE" all caps because that is the only place I can imagine it to be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The medium of fish is inside the medium of water. The medium of gravitons is inside the medium of elysium. The medium of stars is inside the medium of galaxies. Do any of these resemble your meaning of the phrase "inside space"? If not, perhaps you could try defining "inside" and "space" separately. As things stand, you are not communicating a meaning of the phrase to me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Some use the word "vacuum" to describe empty space. What I am saying with my word is that there is something INSIDE the vacuum. The vacuum is not empty, it is, like the Chinese say, "full".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Vacuum" is distinguished from "void" in most lexicons. A "void" is truly empty. A vacuum has properties and ZPE, and may contain fields and transmit light. In the Meta Model, vacuum is more than filled -- it contains an infinite number of infinitesimal points, all of which are occupied on some scale or they would not exist. (You still need to read chapter one of <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i> to get the ideas behind Meta Model basics.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do attribute a quality to the INSIDE. I regard it as PURE ENERGY. What I mean by that is energy not doing anything. So it is an energy which cannot be measured in time or space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Oh, great: energy that is not energy. So next I must ask what you mean by energy if it is not doing anything and can't be measured in time or space.

From my perspective, you have a cloud of mysticism surrounding many physical concepts. I prefer my concepts crisp and sharply in focus. If I see any mystical haze around a concept, it must be penetrated and cleared up or the entire concept approaches uselessness for me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Here is where we part ways. I am assuming that you are assuming that Elysium is all of it. I differ from you in that I assume more, I go further and say that even the Elysium has a source. You might ask how could I assume more than everything? OK.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Derailed again. I said scale is infinitely divisible and no scale is special. I said elysium is like on ocean on a mega-planet, and is a mere speck of nothingness in the infinite universe. I said elysium has a beginning, an end, and a source just as any other medium does. Yet somehow, you translated this into "elysium is everything".

Let me say this more clearly. If we were fish in the sea, water would be a very important medium for us. But it is not "everything". There is a whole universe around it and inside it consisting of non-water-like things. Our ocean is not even special in the bigger picture. Our ocean had a beginning and will have an end. It had a source. But it is just a feature of our environment, not a characteristic of the universe at large. All these same things are true of elysium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What I mean by inside empty space is precisely that it does not occupy space, it is inside space. However I cannot point to it without pointing at something. Maybe what I am trying to say is that INSIDE and space are the same thing, and that while others might think of space as being empty, I think of it as being full.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think of space as full also, yet can make no sense of this. Do these definitions fit your usages at all? <ul><li>"inside": the interior part of something; the part that is enclosed by or surrounded with something.</li><li>"empty": not containing or holding anything.</li><li>"space": the unbounded three-dimensional expanse in which all matter exists.</li></ul>Are these the meanings you are using? With these meanings, the phrase "inside empty space" doesn't make a lot of sense.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't know if I am clear or not clear.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Let me say this about that: You are not being perfectly clear. (Nixonian references, for those over forty.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maybe it can't be said. Maybe the Tao te Ching is right when it says line one the "Tao explained is not the Tao."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Clear thinking is addictive. Once you have tasted it, everything else leaves a bad taste. I have yet to find limits to its applicability.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">are you (or who?) replacing the classical notions of EMF and gravity with a new stuff you call Elysium? Or is Elysium something than makes up EMF and Gravity?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium is simply a medium that carries light. It is not in any way causative of gravity, although gravity does affect elysium. Elysium plays a larger role in E&M because Coulomb attractions and repulsions are mainly caused by elysium modified heavily by gravity near mass.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(I cannot believe)photons do not fly around forever because they are photons. Every single one of them has a secret invisible battery pack required by the second Law in order to sustain itself. Or equivalent...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This will remain mysterious to you until you jettison the photon concept and start thinking in terms of light being pure waves. But we’ve already covered that and are being redundant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why do you have to have particles of elysium? I cannot picture particles doing all this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysons have no role yet in any of this. They are defined as the constituents of elysium simply because all mediums must have constituents. But they must not be confused with "photons", with which they have nothing in common. -|Tom|-

Please note that travel will probably keep me off the board for a week or so, especially for involved discussions such as this one.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
(Tommy)

What I mean by inside empty space is precisely that it does not occupy space, it is inside space. However I cannot point to it without pointing at something. Maybe what I am trying to say is that INSIDE and space are the same thing, and that while others might think of space as being empty, I think of it as being full.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I think of space as full also, yet can make no sense of this. Do these definitions fit your usages at all?
"inside": the interior part of something; the part that is enclosed by or surrounded with something.
"empty": not containing or holding anything.
"space": the unbounded three-dimensional expanse in which all matter exists.
Are these the meanings you are using? With these meanings, the phrase "inside empty space" doesn't make a lot of sense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Fine, IF I were to use those definitions, THEN I want to say --
Space, the unbounded three-dimensional expanse, when it does not contain or hold anything, is full of something.

I am sure you will agree.

Here is where we disagree; you are taking that something to be some kind of thing, a substance such as elysium or gravitons.

To me that "something" means "something else" and NOT a thing. It is a No-Thing.

So if you are looking for crisp and clear things, then No-Thing will not mean anything to you.

From my perspective, you have a cloud of mysticism surrounding many physical concepts. I prefer my concepts crisp and sharply in focus. If I see any mystical haze around a concept, it must be penetrated and cleared up or the entire concept approaches uselessness for me.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But a concept, any concept, is not the whole picture. Can I explain myself? (And maybe a little bit of deep mysticism as well) Humans attained knowledge through the use of the concept. A concept is a mental representation
of something. It can be argued that all knowledge is conceptual. We can say something like "It is raining outside" to someone else and they will understand. But they won't know!

To know means simply to step outside into the rain, when it becomes something like, "oh, it's cold!" So what Deep Mysticism is about is stepping outside into the rain and not contemplation of what rain is. All Deep mysticism is like this. Step outside into the rain if you want to know what reality is.

Reality is not constrained by our concepts. What we think, however, is a concept. To some, reality is only what we think, our concept of it. This is ok, our concepts are all we got. But to think that reality
has the same limitations that our concepts have becomes problematic.

To think that when there is no concept, there is nothing worthwhile there, well, that's exactly how it works out. It is how you think it is.

I think that when space is empty of all things, there is Something Else going on. That's all I know for sure.

Tom, youse guys need to get your act together. First you say you don't want just an archive, Larry wanted to hear what I thought, now you don't like what I think and apparently are not aware of the archive of data on, on, a nonconventional source of energy. So here is all of it in one place.

Act One

(ONE)

quote]GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS

Conclusions

The black-body radiation law, the photoelectric effect,
Compton effect, and Crookes' radiometer can all be united with a
wave model of electromagnetic radiation without particle structure.
Light-quanta are illusions caused by the discreteness of electrons
and the invisibility of light.

Planck's constant provides information about an electron’s relation
to an atomic nucleus, but implies nothing about light. His
constant implies ‘quantizition’ in matter, and consequently in
emission as well as in absorption of light, but not during light
transmission.

The ether is a physical reality. Quantization is a mathematical
necessity and does not prove zero process time.
The constancy in light speed demonstrates this speed to be a
property of an ether.

Remarks

The fact that light is not quantized at the Planck level does not
exlude the possibility that the ether could be quantized at a lower
level. The ether could, for instance, be constituted of undetectable
neutrinos. A velocity vector could be defined as an average
value of many neutrino velocities, and thereby define the velocity
of an ether.

The fact that moving electrons demonstrate a wavelike behavior
in some experiments can also be explained by an
ether/electron interaction. A ship moving in water can serve as a
metaphor for this idea.[/quote]

(TWO)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Something from Nothing Revisited - 04/04/01
written for KeelyNet by Jerry W. Decker - free to copy/reprint
www.keelynet.com/primer.htm
You are visitor # since April 6th, 2001.

Most mainstreamers have the erroneous conception that alternative science fans, experimenters and researchers are looking to 'create' something from nothing in order to provide power necessary to run their perpetual motion machines or free energy devices.

The majority of people I know and communicate with are seeking one thing, a working free energy or gravity control device. Something we all can see, test, build (or buy) and use to make all of our lives easier.

It gets ever more tedious having to explain and correct people who write or call in, calling me and others who think along similar lines flakes, fools, idiots or other choice insults.

They haven't bothered to study the very subjects they are ranting against, they haven't bothered to ask questions, follow any discussions or read any documents relating to the subject. Yet they have no problem writing rude or insulting letters, full of ad hominem attacks, believing themselves to be the possessor of all that is right and true.

Where does the error lie?

I've often thought of writing up a webpage explaining it in terms and analogies the 'critics' can understand, so that is what this page is attempting to do.

This paper is intended to address four key points which I consider as the basis for all energy production;

1) the concept of aether/zpe
2) creation of energy from nothing
3) thermodynamics
4) conversion



the 'Lost Aether' now called ZPE (zero point energy)
Purists prefer the term Aether but I think the term should be used interchangeably with the newer ZPE, also called the spacetime metric or vacuum energy. It is spelled with an A to avoid confusion with the chemical ether.

Much like the popular 'Browns' gas' which was essentially stolen from Dr. Rhodes who patented it in 1966 and has continued with additional research, I think the cleanest, most rational thing to do at this late stage is to call it 'Hydroxy gas' as used during WWII and earlier.

Because of such confusions, I choose to use the term Aether in combination to form 'Aether/ZPE' and so include the old and the new.

In a nutshell, aether/zpe is the energetic 'quantum foam' of space. It permeates and sustains the universe. It pops in and out of existence in a ceaseless 'jitter' and in its wake produces the effect of gravity, other energies and the localizations (precipitations of energy) that produce matter. Just as E=MC^ where matter can be exploded to produce immense forces, so too can energy be coalesced and precipitated to produce matter.

It has been detected by Casimir as an immense pressure by the forces exerted on two dielectric plates and erroneously described as an 'attraction' as extracted from this rectifying chaos file;
The Casimir force is a short range attraction between any two objects caused by...electromagnetic fluctuations in the vacuum. ... any two plates, whether conductor or dielectrics, would experience a fourth power force law ... also proportional to the dielectric constant of the plates. ...

The equations are only valid down to a separation distance proportional to the minimum wavelength at which the plates are still a good conductor or the dielectric constant is not unity. For distances closer than that ... attractive force will ... increase ... at a rate proportional to the third power of the separation distance. ...

The closest separation distance ...[that has been attained is 14 Angstroms]... (about five atoms) with two crossed cylinders of mica....

...the measured force between the two mica cylinders was over ten tons per square meter!

I won't belabor the explanation of aether/zpe with all the information available on the net but I do want to make one other point.

Nature seeks equilibrium. When equilibrium is disturbed, it produces polarization, a separation into two distinct forces, a positive - pressure wave and a negative - vacuum wave, both of which seek to rejoin in order to achieve an equilibrium that matches the ambient environment.

Whenever you have polarities, you have a gradient for each polarity. This gradient can be thought of as having the greatest inensity on the outside of the wave where it is furthest from the ambient zero reference.

Gravity decreases as you ascend from the earth. In this case, it means it is strongest nearest the earth. Therefore, you have a gradient which can be tapped to use the gravity increase over distance (height) to produce work.

Aether/ZPE being omnipresent also has densities that are gradients. The Casimir plates do not push together when even an inch apart, but place them within 14 angstroms and the pushing of the ambient ZPE forces them together with a pressure of 10 tons per square meter as earlier quoted.

Do not tons convert to pressure? Can we not take advantage of this pressure as Maclay is attempting under the auspices of his $300,000 NASA grant?

There is a new science coming which will revolutionize the world in ways we cannot now imagine.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

(THREE)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

"Searching for the Universal Matrix in Metaphysics

Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology 2, No. 8, p. 22

Templeton Foundation Press, April 2002

H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D.

Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
Austin, Texas 78759


Throughout mankind's cultural history there has existed the metaphysical concept that man and cosmos are interconnected by a ubiquitous, all-pervasive sea of energy that undergirds, and is manifest in, all phenomena. This pre-scientific concept of a cosmic energy goes by many names in many traditions, such as ch'i, ki or qi (Taoism), prana (yoga), mana (Kahuna), barakah (Sufi), élan vital (Bergsonian metaphysics), and so forth."

"Complementary to the above metaphysical concept, contemporary physics similarly posits an all-pervasive energetic field called quantum vacuum energy, or zero-point energy, a random, ambient fluctuating energy that exists even in so-called empty space."

"(The adjective zero-point means that such energy or activity exists even at a temperature of absolute zero where no thermal agitation effects remain.) Thus, even in the absence of matter, in the modern view empty space or vacuum is never truly particle or field free, but rather is the seat of continuous virtual particle-pair creation and annihilation processes, as well as so-called zero-point fluctuations of such fields as the electromagnetic field. Originally thought to be of significance only for such esoteric concerns as small corrections in atomic emission processes (e.g., the Lamb shift), it is now understood that vacuum fluctuation effects play a central role in large-scale phenomena of interest to technologists as well, such as the enhancement or inhibition of the spontaneous emission of light in atomic processes, the generation of short-range attractive forces between closely-spaced materials, and the possibility of extracting useful energy from vacuum fluctuations, the "Holy Grail" of energy research.

Should we further consider the possibility that such random vacuum energy might be subject to influence by consciousness or intention, then, given that it is well understood by physicists that a restructuring or "cohering" of vacuum energy would have physical consequences for matter, animate or inanimate, such could provide a rational basis for healing or other processes that are part and parcel of the pre-scientific view."

"In such fashion the similarities, differences and possible synthesis of the pre-scientific and modern concepts of an all-pervasive energy field can be considered.
As a physicist specializing in fundamental quantum physics and yet interested in these issues, I have an abiding interest in "pushing the envelope" with regard to the present scientific paradigm. This includes the issue as to whether what we know of the life process itself can find rapprochement with modern quantum physics, or whether and how it needs to be extended. Given my own earlier decade-plus background as Director of the Cognitive Sciences program at SRI Intern'l in the '70's and early '80's, investigating remote viewing and other so-called "paranormal" phenomena, the life-science data I have to integrate all by themselves push the envelope (Proc. IEEE 64, 329 (1976); Jour. Sci. Exploration 10, 63 (1996)."

"Unfortunately, as it now stands, mainstream physics reductionism is leading to an evermore complex picture of nature involving a proliferation of particles, the possibility of yet more "fundamental" forces, the implications of incorporating additional dimensions as in superstring theory, and so forth. Thus, in spite of efforts to develop a grand unified theory to simplify our picture of nature, the actual day-to-day work on this effort is complexifying faster than the hoped-for simplification. Therefore, not only are we missing holism on the grand scale, but a gratifying holism just for the physical sciences alone appears to be a rapidly accelerating goal post.

Contemplation of such provocative issues in both the physical and life sciences led me into investigating an area of physics concerned with what is known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or zero-point energy, a universal background energy pervading all of space and associated with fluctuations of underlying space itself.

Specifically, I began to consider the underlying quantum fluctuations as a fundamental "stuff" out of which a greater synthesis could be built. I hasten to add that I do not mean for such an approach to be simply reductionism on a grander scale, with no room for "nonphysical" factors to play a role. Rather, to the degree that "energy" is involved not only in physical but in nominally non- or para-physical phenomena (including, perhaps, such "mundane" phenomena as thought, charisma, etc., let alone psychokinesis), then such energy patterns might in principle emerge as a result of cohering or patterning the otherwise random, ambient zero-point energy.

For me this hypothesis emerged when I considered how uneconomical Nature would have to be to posit, on the one hand, an all-pervading energetic field of ki or chi, as in the metaphysics of the martial arts and acupuncture, and, on the other hand, also posit an all-pervasive energetic field of quantum zero-point energy. It appeared to me to be more likely that we were dealing with a single underlying substructure which goes by various names in various cosmologies, depending on whether it is in its pre-manifest random form, or patterned at various hierarchical levels, including the "purely material."

"In my third study (Phys. Rev. A 40, p. 4857, 1989; 44, pp. 3382 & 3385, 1991) I showed that on the cosmological scale a grand hand-in-glove dynamic equilibrium exists between the ever-agitated motion of matter on the quantum level and the surrounding zero-point energy field.

One consequence of this is that we are literally, physically, "in touch" with the rest of the cosmos as we share with remote parts of the universe fluctuating zero-point-energy fields of even cosmological dimensions. Who is to say whether, for example, modulation of such fields might not carry meaningful information as in the popular concept of "the Force?"

In a fourth study with colleagues from Lockheed, CIPA and Cal. State at Long Beach (Phys. Rev. A 49, 678,1994; The Sciences 34, 26, Nov/Dec 1994; Science 263, 612, 1994; Spec. in Sci. and Tech. 20, 99, 1997), we have shown that the simple property of inertia possessed by all bodies is simply resistance to being accelerated through the zero-point fluctuations, an extremely fundamental result in physics that provides an underpinning for Newton's Law of inertia."


"In a fifth study (Spec. in Sci. and Tech. 13, 247, 1990; Phys. Rev. E 48, 1562, 1993) I examined the evidence that not only is zero-point energy at the base of a number of fundamental physical phenomena, but that in principle non-polluting energy can be extracted from the fluctuations so as to constitute a new energy source; a concept for which my research group has attracted seed funding, obtained encouraging laboratory evidence, applied for and obtained patents worldwide, and which is the focus of a present in-house program.
Finally, in a sixth study (Phys. Essays 9, 156, 1996; Ad Astra 9, 42, 1997; Jour. Sci. Exploration 12, 295, 1998) I indicate how manipulation of the underlying zero-point-energy spacetime metric opens up the possibility for efficient interstellar propulsion, a concept well-received both in popular writings (e.g., Arthur C. Clarke) and by the mainstream (Air Force, NASA laboratories)."

"All of this characterizes the underlying, ambient, random quantum zero-point-energy sea as a blank matrix upon which coherent patterns can be written, such information constituting at the bottom end of the scale coherent particle and field structures, and, to a zero-point-energy chauvinist like myself, an ascending ladder of possible other information structures, whether it be coherent electromagnetic field structures around living organisms, possibly non-biochemical components of memory, or other more esoteric aspects of Nature. If my goal for this research comes to full fruition, what would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependent field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/information cosmological unity."


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">