August 9, 2016
UFT168 – UFT170 discussed some aspects of the Poynting Theorem for gravitation and vacuum fields, my first step will be to apply it with vacuum or aether charge / current density in conventional electrodynamics, the proceed to fluid electrodynamics. I agree that for an AB vacuum there are only vacuum potentials adn no fields. In that case conservation of energy and momentum can be developed with particle like theory for example. We did this some time ago in the ECE2 series. I refer readers to the popular Eckardt Lindstrom papers UFT291 to UFT299 for an extensive discussion. The question of whether Poynting applies to fields or potentials can be answered simply by developing the fields as potentials. A Poynting Theorem can also be developed for fluid dynamics, using Kambe’s version of the Lorentz force equation for a test particle in a fluid field. I don’t think there is any competent scientist or engineer who continues to object to energy from spacetime (ES) as “perpetual motion”. Such an objection would reveal a total ignorance of vacuum physics. It would mean for example that there is no Lamb shift, no anomalous g factor of elementary particles, no Casimir effect, and of course no ES.”
On the contrary: it is only the incompetent so-called engineers such as Valone, Puthoff, Bearden, Hill, etc., who say that energy can be extracted from spacetime. The energy is generally supposed (by real scientists) to be in the form of virtual particles; the associated mass would otherwise be detectable (m = E/c^2). Even the ueber-imaginative Robert Forward did not think that nett energy could be extracted. The fundamental problem is that ‘vacuum energy’ is everywhere; not just in vacua per se. Trying to exploit any source of energy involves having it flow from place to place. Therefore, trying to extract spacetime energy is rather like trying to extract potential energy from a swimming-pool by building a dam across the middle, with the same height of water on each side. Becalmed old-time sailors noticed that isolated groups of ships were nevertheless forced together by a mysterious (non-wind, non-current) force. That force was a macroscopic analogue of the Casimir force. They could have exploited that grouping-motion, but it would still have been just a ‘one-off’. That is another characteristic of a genuine energy-source, Ron, it has to be cyclic. On the subject of the Casimir Effect, a cursory inspection of your simplistic ‘argument by analogy’ calculations seems to suggest to us that the latter will not yield the correct (i.e. experimentally observed) power-law relationship for plate/plate attraction. Still, we are willing to be corrected. Perhaps you could hire a mathematician or a physicist to check that out.