Gravity Control by Laser

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5682

http://www.gravitycontrol.org/blog/2010/07/05/gravity-control-by-laser/

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/3903/Warp-Drive-Coming

Do us, and yourself, a favor:

So we get this:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/3903/Warp-Drive-Coming

Thanks for the guidance. I didn't see that editor field when I started the topic, it was because of my browser settings. Anyway, my previous posts can be summarized as so:

****

Hello everybody! I thought it's a good idea to let you know the problem of necessity to the exotic matter for FTL travels has been moved one step forward toward its solution. I am working on that:

Gravity Control by Laser

Emitting solitonized laser beams to boost the negative energy density of squeezed regions of the vacuum

Also, let me say I found here via this thread:

CR4 - Blog Entry: Warp Drive Coming?

I wonder is anyone interested in its technical issues, however I'd like to be informed about the ramifications of that technology, after successfully coming out of the lab.

Could you explain the abstract?

You mention "negative energy" and other notions which are for simple people - as I am - too difficult to deal with.

You also make a incursion in "free energy" field which is, for CR4 participants - a not very well accepted domain.

But of course if your arguments are viable and do correspond to the classic physics I very much respect I will look at you explanations if they are understandable for me.

No problem. God bless Wikipedia which I refer to that for every word or term that I don't understand, indeed, I kept referring to that while working on my paper. What I mean by states having negative energy, can be read in this link:

Squeezed coherent state

To have an insight about the entire story, you can check out this article:

L. H. Ford, T. A. Roman, "Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive", Scientific American, Jan 2000. Link1, Link2

BTW, I don't agree on that blog header too. Also, to have a general picture on my framework, please see this link:

Subject index of Alternate View columns by John G. Cramer

In particular, at the middle of the page, you can see:

Group 6 - Wormholes

With interesting essays, for example:

Natural Wormholes: Squeezing the Vacuum

Well, I think you may have noticed by now that the members here don't really respond to wild claims for breaking the laws of physics unless you've got really good and verifiable evidence.

You're one of hundreds who have claimed to develop FTL solutions, free energy, perpetual motion and greater power output than input. Show the evidence!

I know extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences. I have no claim on violating the laws of physics, free energy & perpetual motion. My only claim is to find a way of traveling with FTL speeds by means of reducing the distance between two points and I don't think there are hundreds of people who claim so. Indeed, as far as I know, there is nobody who has claimed about building a wormhole, if you know someone, please show me, I'd be thankful.

Anyway, I am in the field of theory not practice. I cannot show any practical evidence of this technology. As you may accept, if there would be any practical achievement on this subject, that news would be quite famous throughout the globe, albeit some people believe there might exist progress in this field which are being kept confidential by a few governments, maybe it's so, I am not sure.

However, if you mean theoretical evidences, I can address the citations of my papers:

SPIRES-HEP: FIND C GR-QC/0511086

Exotic Matter and Propulsion within Maxwell's Equations

Agujero de gusano magnético con materia tipo "Phantom"

and my conference paper:

Can the Present Technology Create Gross Amounts of Negative Energy Density?

That's the standard actions that I can present, although I am aware some people would not believe anything until see that by their own eyes, that requires some patience (during the next years) and I would convince them after finishing the job of realizing a spacewarp in my lab.

This is an article that I wrote about three years ago. Unfortunately, that website does not exist anymore, so I thought it might be a good decision to keep that in the internet:
Spacewarp: Relaxing the distances; Breaking the frontiers
Link 1 ; Link 2

bad links. the first one requires registering and the second one gave me a broke message.

I still have a hard time believeing that you can split a soliton into positive and negative, with a soliton beam.. and especially not mirrors..

is there evidence that any of this will work? (sorry I didn't read everything, and don't know the math)

I'm still struggling with the notion that negative energy is not completely fictional. What is the evidence to think it is real?

it would seem to me that if you could do it with one soliton (ie photon) that you would be able to do it with electrons and magnetic lines of force... which would get you probably magnetism that obeys a left hand rule... instead of a right hand rule...

perhaps you could show us some diagrams and layman explanations.

thank you,

Chris

bad links. the first one requires registering and the second one gave me a broke message.

What links do you mean Chris? Please specify the problems with exact each of them. Only this link needs registration to see the full paper:

http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/880/1132/1

Other links have no problem in my computer.

I still have a hard time believeing that you can split a soliton into positive and negative, with a soliton beam.. and especially not mirrors..

About the beam splitting & solitons, well I liked the idea of this paper:

E. W. Davis, H. E. Puthoff, "Experimental Concepts for Generating Negative Energy in the Laboratory," in these proceedings of Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF-2006), edited by M. S. El-Genk, American Institute of Physics, Melville, New York, 2006.

Also, I thought those multiplexing methods at the telecommunication applications can be useful in this case too.

is there evidence that any of this will work? (sorry I didn't read everything, and don't know the math)

These two components, squeezed light and WDMed solitons work, according to the experimental data that we've observed; but combining them as I've proposed, does need further experiments and I am not aware of them. So we need to wait to see confirming or denying it by experimenters IMO; I'm not comfortable with journals, but after furbishing its theoretical content, I might send it to a journal in a future.

I'm still struggling with the notion that negative energy is not completely fictional. What is the evidence to think it is real?

To the best of my knowledge, the reasons in favor of reality of the negative energy are more than the reasons against its existence as a real phenomenon. For instance, I suggest reading this paper:
M. J. Pfenning, L. H. Ford , "Quantum Inequality Restrictions on Negative Energy Densities in Curved Spacetimes", Doctoral Dissertation

In particular, the Chapter 2 entitled as "How Negative Energies Arise in QFT" in pages between 10/15 to 26/31. Moreover, see this rather layman note:

The Casimir effect: a force from nothing

Damn, the above link needs sign-up too; anyway, everything about the Casimir effect as the biggest evidence of the negative energy so far, can be informative in this way. For example, this experiment:

G. Bressi, G. Carugno, R. Onofrio, G. Ruoso (2002), "Measurement of the Casimir force between parallel metallic surfaces", Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 041804.

it would seem to me that if you could do it with one soliton (ie photon) that you would be able to do it with electrons and magnetic lines of force... which would get you probably magnetism that obeys a left hand rule... instead of a right hand rule...

Since squeezing the vacuum is the main goal, we need to consider just light beams. We have nothing to do with the electric and magnetic fields in this configuration.

perhaps you could show us some diagrams and layman explanations.

There are nice diagrams in some of my sent links, if you mean a specific kind of diagram, those might be helpful, otherwise maybe that diagram needs to be drawn in the first place!

Thank you mansouryar.

You can just label me a non-believer. no disrespect intended. With the Casimir effect, I have trouble believing that any experimental setup was able to isolate the effect well enough to be determined. (free from ANY gravitational influence (earth, sun, moon, etc.)) All of the other possible forces and energies would completely overwhelm the search. even positioning two conductive plates in a vacuum, with no vibration or motion, has to be nearly impossible. How does the casimir attraction compare to the gravitational attraction? How do they measure the impurity of the conductor? (count electrons?) How did they eliminate magnetic attraction, gravitational attraction, electric attraction, etc.? How does one measure probability fields anyway?

I think that the evidence that this negative energy does not exist, is that absolute zero does exist. (the cessation of all positive energy.)

I think that if you were going to look for negative energy, you need to use absolute zero to find it, because it will be the only thing still moving.. (probably a bad assumption on my part.)

If you spin a disk, and try to extract the motion from one side of the rotation... then the disk must stop spinning. you will only have one side of the disk.. and the energy will be converted to inertia and heat. the negative portion of the sine wave of the spinning disk is just a graphic representation... it isn't reality. a picture of a thing is no the thing itself.

just my opinion.

I would love to have interstellar travel as much as anyone else.. but I don't think this is the way. I think the craft must act like it is at absolute zero, so that the subatomic particles can not interact with the subspace (time), and is therefore not limited by c.

at any rate, I am not a serious participant in this discussion, so please do not let my comments affect your research. It will be a simple matter to show people the evidence of negative energy, once it has been clearly resolved and accumulated.

Cheers,

Chris

Physics is a cool branch of science; in which we are not sure about most of the content of the universe (i.e., dark matter & dark energy). There are various theories about the time, and we are not sure even about the dimensions of the universe! We don't have certainties like the math theorems, therefore we need to approximate and disregard some extreme assumptions. The point is, this approach works and as long as another approach would cause more accurate results, why should we change these factors?

The negative sign for the energy in a special state of the Casimir effect is a mathematical implication. Its physical consequences have been observed in the lab with a good precision. For instance, see these:

arXiv.org Search Results for the words Casimir effect experiment in the title of the published physics papers from 1992 to 2010

Also, there are other reviews about the Casimir force when the experimental conditions are not as perfect as an ideal theoretical framework:

arXiv.org Search Results for the words Casimir effect finite temperature in the title of the published physics papers from 1992 to 2010

Anyhow, I wish you had given some sources for your opinions which are wrong in my opinion; and I would like to know people's thoughts about the applications & ramifications of this innovation, if its realization would be assumed already.

Your last sentence is pretty right Chris, the ultimate evidence for this claim, is generating and accumulating the negative energy in gross magnitudes. There is no other way …

This page contains some links to interesting articles. I suggest reading them; however those are rather old, but consider the progress in this field is unfortunately slow:

http://www.earthtech.org/press/index.html

For example, this article is informative IMO:

http://www.earthtech.org/press/2004.03_aviation_week.pdf

Reading this story made my day:
.
Breaking the Law of Gravity
By Charles Platt
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html
.
Don't care to its publishing date, it's really well-written & straightforward. I wish all the science journalists would have written this style.
This is a search results list on Podkletnov at arXiv. Just want to have this link in somewhere to not forget it.

Thank you. Good links. That Wired article, in particular, is well thought out, well written, and VERY thought provoking, on a whole raft of fronts from the hard science involved, to the Human Relations "Science" dealing with why we tend to disbelieve so much that is ultimately proven to be, at least partly, good, and true, science. As a practicing engineer, and a tutor and judge of Science Fair (read that "applied science, at the school kid's level, both Middle and High School) I am always heartened when I see something this well thought out which, even though it doesn't allow solid conclusions, offers so much promise, and so much scope, for our current crop of budding scientists and physicists to explore, and our current crop of budding engineers to develop and apply. Way to go, boss. Charles Platt, you ROCK? And all you gravity modification researchers, keep at it. It can't evade you forever.

I like this news, wanted to share: Nasa Seeks 'Warp Drive', Anti-Gravity Space Craft http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2010/05/nasa-seeks-warp-drive-anti-gravity.html