hoola

yes, hawking at the horizon is not an example, but I am referring to the interior of the hole. What happens inside the horizon to a pair, should they show up, or are they excluded?

thanks bender, the casimir experiment does reduce the appearances of some wavelenghts, but is there a theoretical prohibition against removing them completely ? If they are separated at BH horizons, what happens in the interior?

is there any known link of superconductivity to virtual particle behavior? Would the exclusion of virtual particles tend to reduce the "noise" in the system if that were possible? If not, would it be possible to exclude the particles from a given region under any condition ?

yes, I was mixing the two as they seem related through some fundamental character. If the distortions, or "stretching" of the virtual particle pair orbits relate to gravitation, the "stretching" of time (slowing) becomes a phenomena of gravitation as it takes longer to circumvent an elliptical orbit vs. a circular one for the affected pair. The pair must appear/annialate within a certain time period, and the longer physical route demands time to slow down so that the exchange can be accomplished within the time limit required.

is there a plank-time corrected "scientific second", with a multiple of the plank-time minimum as standard?

if gravitation effect is via virtual particle orbits and their distortions from an unmodified state, is there a possibility to affect the particles in some way with an electric charge or magnetic fields? Does not the casimir effect show that the pairs can be sensed in a rather crude physical way, therefore, manipulable?

Is there a theoretical smallest physical disturbance that would cause a wave to occur? Would it be possible to create a wave with an electrical or electomagnetic stimulus?

Is it accurate to say that work is a form of interactive communication between particles, fields, etc. and that causes work by changing the interactive elements to some degree, and is that degree of change a measure of entropy?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that energy has a property, not is a property? If so, what sets the parameters of said property? This infers an informational substrate, namely string theory, which is a string of numbers, allowing an algorithmic loop soup delineating a developing sub-planck medium of great attractors.

so, if all is energy, what is energy but a repeating coindcident set of algorithmic loops that express an observed phenomena. If minor variations within each particular description of one component deliver an equivalent effect to differing minor random variations (within tight limits), do not these alterations represent the hidden variables Einstein referred to ?

As the proton and other fundamental nucleons are described as having "mass energy", in the proton, what percentage of the overall mass is composed of matter, vs. the amount of energy? It would seem logical that the proton has a higher matter to energy ratio, as opposed to the electron, which seems reversed in proportion.

Trump=Fermi paradox

excellent response, and once again, thank you...

thank you for the good info....I only ponder that even if gravity overpowers lamda beyond the last star, what happens to the expansion energy that cannot sway those star's orbits? Doesn't that energy have to be expressed in some physical way?

Could the expansion of space affect the star rotations in the outer regions of galaxies? Since lamda has negligent effect on solar system scales, newton prevails. With the outer stars of galaxies being gravitationally bound to the core, and with their orbital distances resisting the increase, could not lamda be converted into a small forward thrust?

janus, you perhaps do not understand the idea. I would not lob about black hole bowling balls to create gravity waves any more than I would shake a magnet at a coil to create a RF signal.. My idea deals directly with the fundamentals of gravity (once understood) and does not involve moving parts, all is done through computers and their power requirement is what I was referring to...If you want to discuss the concept of "gravity having parts" , and if so would they be subject to careful tinkering, or if gravity could be separated out from the other forces to deal with just one without messing up the others, or if gravity will ever be understood, that would be cool... strange, no I didn't see the matrix. the last SF movie I could sit through was Quiet Earth, anyway, if we can dabble with the moving parts of an atom as we do, it is only a matter of time before we move onto dabbling directly with the information that describes that same atom, and the same for space-time (gravity). As to the Shawyer context request: go on utube and check out the NASA report on the vaccuum test of the EM engine Shawyer developed. Tests indicate it generates thrust without propellant, only needing electrical input. One idea of how this happens is that the microwaves "push against" space, causing the acceleration of the test vessel.

power requirements are the simplest thing to do if you can afford the bill...as in the computer you are using. More expensive is the data feed...so the analogy holds and actually should have a theoretical max efficiency, such as in any engine...so much pseudo-gravity can be created per KW input. The first computer driven warps (using this more direct method) might need as much power as the eniac, but it seems shawyer has shown that at least some distortions in space can be made with simple klystron microwaves, and with reasonable efficiency for such an early technology... how can reality be altered? Develop a computer to "look at" the universe it is in, and within a finite geometric space it will, by pre-programming, create a similar but subtly different logic set condition, mirroring closely the tool set of the standard model, via subtly altered algorithms, one of which determines gravity function. The beauty of this model is that the altered logic set will disappear when the power is turned off and the affected region returns to standard model dynamics. Another rule may be is that the CPU of the computer has be physically outside the affected area or else the altered logic would skew the process with a feedback loop between the two. What is the Shawyer engine doing? on the surface it develops thrust, but that simple observable implies an alteration of "standard" reality beneath, within the test zone. You might say that the best i could hope for is all just simulation, but that represents an early step. I have been describing a "co-generative" type of warpage with the computer. With microwaves, the influence seems more of an "interference" upon standard dynamics, hence much easier than the computer, analogous to the tin can telephones vs. modern radio...

first off, I never implied that gravity waves traveled faster than C..secondly, the power consumption requirements are mere details to be worked out at dinner and will quickly be made more efficient, as the required computer goes from ENIAC size to that of the apple watch you might be wearing..and that gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces is meaningless..and who brought up the weak force? But lastly, the "not even close to reality" put-down is pretty cool...as my idea is to alter reality "closely" on the microscopic scale within a small region, so you kinda stumbled into a backwards truth there, my dear Mordred...Uum..definitly yes

I am not talking about other universes, just this one. And, gravity's simple visible effects are not to be confused with mathematical calculations that support it's appearance in this universe...those are more delicate elements, and once understood, then the problem is solved..the solution could be to have a supercomputer set up with the program that mimics the actual formula , then alter the computers programming subtly to enlicit the desired physical change within a specific region. I don't think any power gains, or perpetual motors could be made, as the computer's energy use should always be larger than any predicted gains offered by manipulating gravity..although velocity gains may be more closely tied to the theoretical possibilities allowed by the formula, and less affected by the power use issue, perhaps allowing faster than light velocity...

I was only using the distorted orbit idea as one possible way that gravity might manifest...since the mechanism of gravity is not well understood, my thinking is that some method will be avialable to communicate using G waves once the actual mechanism is found, whatever it turns out to be. Some might think that it is technically impossible, if so, what are the reasons for thinking so...thanks

Could they eventually be used for communications if the source of gravity's functionality is tied to the orbits of virtual particles, and generate waves by distorting these orbits directly? Didn't Shawyer have some claims last year of creating thrust, with microwaves? From the claims he made, if seems he was generating something similar to an artificial gravity within a region of the test cavity.

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD...

what about the issue of fundamentals?.....where did these "matters" come from? Perhaps you are considering them as the steps necessary to create this BB, as a self-contained generator, and not just a "spin-off" from another universe? At some point "these, those, and all other matters" had to originate from the void at least once, even if this is not the first universe (or BB) to come along.

IF the mind consists of 3 roughly independent co-processors sharing internal and external sensory inputs, that is a problem over and above problems what "normal mammalian" brains have, as within,say a dog..... the intellect is not yet developed, and with only two "orbiting bodies", the association is more stable in relative terms as a direct analogy to the 3 body problem. Also inferred is the issue of entanglements...with 2 entangled mental states (if such states can become chaotically and momentarily entangled), what happens when another state enters the overall physiologic structure, as in the human mind, forcing these mammalian structures into a new and perhaps novel arrangement? I use the entanglement term loosely, mostly as an analogy to cross communications between states in a "make and break" type connection, with the awareness shifting within the arrangement, and modifying these psuedo-entanglements by "close observation"

nice to hear this, and hopefully soon we will learn how to generate/receive low level G waves and use them as a replacement for traditional EMF and get rid of those damn ugly cell towers...