[NewCandle] Burns vs Shawyer vs...conservation of "momenergy"

[Colin Quinney]

I don't know Steve Burns but I came across his paper on the 15th, two days 
after he put it on his web page.
http://www.geocities.com/sburns808/SWMass.pdf
His paper made me think about that slow light experiment. I know Keith 
thought of that also. They stopped the light if I recall, in which case the 
gravitational mass of one photon should have gone to infinity according to 
Burns' new paper (theory). Yes. I noticed that, but I am not really familiar 
with the slow light experiment enough to say it invalidates Burns.

What struck me is that the paper came out so soon after the September 9 New 
Scientist article about Roger Shawyer's EMDrive..   . And it deals with 
similar subject matter yet from a different perspective. Coincidences are an 
interesting field of study in themselves don't you think?

Granted Shawyer has done his own EMdrive experiments and after careful 
reading page 13 of his experimental summary he "appears" to have eliminated 
the obvious artefacts.

Burns has only theory, maybe only a hypothesis.

The reason I bring this up is because my suspicion that the Mechanism of 
gravity is either EM or something more like nutrino based. Both are "push 
gravity" . I vacilate between the two ideas but suspect gravity is more EM 
related, and therefore engineerable.

If it's EM related, then least-action suggests push gravity is derived from 
dopplered light. Based on conservation of "momenergy". Wavelength increases 
due to interaction with space and to balance momenergy-  a momentum increase 
AS the frequency energy of the photon drops. Light from the edge of the 
universe dopples to a quasi-static EM wave. (ALL penetrating *because* it's 
quasi-static) This implies that space is expanding either interatomically, 
or molecularly- that is via electron mass interaction-  where matter is 
being pushed, not space. Which means if the sidereal universe is infinite 
then we should all be squashed like bugs. So Burns theory probably has an 
error, but like Shawyer, I like his thinking.

Sound nuts? Doesn't matter if it sounds nuts. It's fun. I just have to 
figure out how to do a simple experiment. Either a technique to drop the 
frequncy or drop the velocity within a dielectric. Or both. Seawater. . 
hmm..

Too simple? Probably,

but fun :)

Cheers,
Colin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Nagel" <knagel at gis.net>
To: "Colin Quinney" <crquin at rogers.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: RE: OFF LIST Fw: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor


> Hi Colin.
>
> Please, there is NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE! I am pretty well
> immune to this sort of thin skinned stupidity that is
> so often on display on Vo. If you have a strong opinion,
> and want to argue the facts, FIRE AWAY! I was just having
> a long discussion about this with my lover last night,
> we were bemoaning the fact that it is very difficult to
> have meaningful discussions with people because so many
> folks are insecure and come to discussions looking for
> agreement rather than truth. So I say to you, if you
> think I am wrong, PLEASE TELL ME. I urge you to, it's
> the reason I post my ideas. I may not agree, but I will
> never push people away for this. I formed NewC list to
> try and attract such people, and hopefully we'll see
> new members as time progresses.
>
> As regards phase and group velocity, yes, many people
> including professional academics seem very confused about
> the subject. At some point I should write up some material
> about this, although it's awfully hard to put into words
> sometimes the results of my hands on experiments with waveguides.
> Just another entry on a long "to do" list...
>
> I read the paper this morning, and I'll have to give his
> idea some thought. It bothers me that one can achieve
> positive and negative phase velocities experimentally, if
> I plug that into his equation I get positive and negative
> mass. It also bothers me that it's pretty easy to make
> very slow TEM waves using high permittive and permeable
> materials. No doubt you've seen recent experiments with
> "slow light" where the beam can be _crawling_. If I
> plug that into his equations, I get big forces as Stephen
> suggests. It seems like he ought to be able to do an
> experiment and quickly determine whether the idea has
> merit. Am I mistaken, or is he the guy that used to
> be a hard drive engineer at Maxtor back in the 90's?
> If you know him, tell him about the NewC list and we'll
> discuss it there. I'm really afraid to get a serious
> discussion going on Vo. these days, the trolling has
> become unbearable.
>
> K.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Quinney [mailto:crquin at rogers.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:57 PM
> To: knagel at gis.net
> Subject: OFF LIST Fw: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> Trying to sound "casual" on Email does not work. I read my own submission 
> to
> you on Vortex just now, and I sounded "rude".
> Please accept my apology. That wasn't my intention :)
>
> Maybe the pain I'm in and my frustration about phase vs group velocity 
> came
> out?
> Even the experts seem to be confused. Did you pick up on that?
>
> Burn's paper seems ok but I would like your opinion.. I think I would call
> it a hypothesis and not a theory unless linked to some natural or
> experimental observation.
>
> It looks like an experiment that can be performed, but I suspect you know 
> a
> lot more about EM waveguides and resonances within cables etc than most
> folks on Vo and I would very much like to hear your opinion.
>
> Again, my apology for sounding so peremptory.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Colin Quinney" <crquin at rogers.com>
> To: <knagel at gis.net>
> Cc: <vortex-l at eskimo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: stationary emdrive- inertial anchor
>
>
>> Keith,
>>
Steve Burn's recent paper suggests that to increase gravitational mass we 
must reduce phase velocity.

www.geocities.com/sburns808/SWMass.pdf

GRAVITATIONAL MASS EMULATION WITH A REDUCED
PHASE VELOCITY STANDING WAVE
Steve Burns
9/13/2006

 INTRODUCTION:

 A possible link between gravitational mass and an
 electromagnetic standing wave is explored. A rotating standing
 wave emulates matter as a self-captured EM wave (1). Reducing
wave phase velocity increases mass in the classical sense of
 m=E/v2. Here we will explore a way to electrically generate a
 rotating standing wave with reduced phase velocity in order to
 verify mass increase.


 Colin