| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"The TimeLord" |
| Date: |
15 May 2007 12:48:04 AM |
| Object: |
Re: SCR CTC |
Abrams1117 wrote in alt.sci.time-travel:
From:
http://vsevcosmos.livejournal.com/22610491.html
Basically this is requote of
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609117
[...]
Can someone translate this into 'English'?
Thx
Basically in section 2 he quotes the Tipler metric, ie the one that
shows that it is possible to go backward in time around a massive
rotating cylinder.
In section 3 he assumes some arguments that Ning Li proposed back in
the 1980s and early 1990s. Here are some links in reference to her work:
http://www.scansite.org/scan.php?pid=157
http://www.americanantigravity.com/gravitywaves.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/tampere.html
A picture of her (center) and Dr Larry Smalley (right), who headed
UAH's relativity work, is at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1281736.html
I believe the guy on the left is Dr Douglas Torr.
As you might guess, her ideas were not very well received in the
physics community; especially at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville (UAH). I had the chance to hear one of her presentations
and in the midst of all the shouting back and forth, I never
understood what the controversy was really all about. As best as I
could tell, people got hung up on the Eg and Bg concept. However, it
seems that Eg is just the gravitational acceleration vector and Bg is
defined so that Maxwell's equations work for gravity with mass density
replacing charge density.
Anyway, deMatos works to a conclusion, from the assumption that Frank
Tipler and Ning Li are correct, that in a superconducting ring (SCR)
if the Cooper pair fraction of the total charge is larger than 1/8,
then the spinning SCR begins to behave like Tipler's cylinder without
needing all that mass. Typically the Cooper pair fraction is 10^-7 in
superconducting materials currently produced. - That's essentially it.
The basic weakness in deMatos' paper is that he relies on Ning Li
being correct in her theory, which is almost universally rejected by
physicists. It's odd that he is now reversing himself, since he has
already published a paper where he claims to have evidence that Ning
Li's Bg (London moment) didn't exist. It's posted here:
http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
.
|
|
|
