From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: fluid ether, ZPE, gravity
Keywords: push gravitons ZPE ether gravity
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:04:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes:
>In article nazrael@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (James Robert Vanmeter) writes:

>>Reguarding ether fluid, I think it is probably equivalent to
>>zero-point energy.  There are many theories about ether-fluid
>>to be found in a journal called Speculations in Science and 

>There are seems to be more and more agreement with this thought, lately.

>>Technology.  Reguarding why ZPE exerts no gravitational force,

>Can you provide access information? Where is this journal available,
>and by whom?

>>I think this could be because ZPE causes gravitational force, as
>
>A nice thought. How?

>>in Puthoff's theory.  Which brings me to a question:  in light 
>>of Puthoff's ZPE "push" theory of gravity, is it possible to 
>>consider the graviton as a travelling wave-like deficit of ZPE?

>[rest deleted]


Hal Puthoff recently posted a paper (Phys. Rev. A, v. 39, n.5, pp. 2333-2342,
1989) where he starts from Sakharov's suggestion in 1968 that gravity is an
induced effect associated with zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum.  Puthoff
did derive the gravity law from this along with a few other assumptions.

However, Steve Carlip recently saw an error in the approximation of an
infinite series which when done correctly results in an answer which does not
explain gravity.  I verified Steve's results independently using more rigorous
mathematics (sine integral analysis) which I sent off to Hal Puthoff.

However, not is all lost yet with this approach.  Hal said he used another
approximation (actually a truncation of a series) earlier on in his
mathematical formulation of the problem.  He says that if he uses the full
series (or a lot more terms), that he *may* still end up explaining gravity.
Hal is currently working on this.  I have not had the time to look into this,
and hopefully Steve Carlip will also comment on the basic approach.  Of
course, hope springs eternal in Hal's mind, but as an outsider looking in, I
can only bet - I'd lay the odds at much less than 50-50 that Hal can correct
all the mathematics and still derive the classic gravitational law with the
set of assumptions presented in that paper.

Just my clarification on Hal's work.  Though truth is truth, and what's not
true is not true, I would hope that gravity is an induced effect of ZPF rather
than a fundamental force since that *may* suggest an electrodynamic way to
locally alter gravity (just my practical engineering side coming out here).
It's o.k. in my book to be a dreamer - occasionally -  I always say.

Jon Noring

-- 

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories