Why is this thread locked?

[Garth]

Why is this thread locked: what's wrong with this?

It was dealing with a published, if speculative, theory and a paper that was published in Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 14, No. 8, 479 – 498 (2005) / DOI 10.1002/andp.200510147.

It was just getting interesting...

Garth

 

[Astronuc]

Well, ostensibly it's under review since it deals with a speculative paper.

Also, according to pervect "The bad news: their theories don't have much (if anything) in the way of experimental support, nor are they particularly well received by the mainstream."

And the discussion diverged from addressing points made in the paper to claims that one author is a quack.

I was wondering if any of the suppositions made in the paper have been substantiated. The first three references are papers by A. Rueda and B. Haisch (and others), in which they show . . . . But do they?

Is is just mathematical gymnastics? How does one devise an experiment to test the claims?

Passive gravitational mass?

 

[turbo]

Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff are following paths arising from Sakharov's definition of the quantum vacuum as an elastic solid with which matter interacts and from which interaction gravitation and inertial effects arise. This idea is not all that new, nor are they the only ones thinking in this direction. Thanu Padmanabhan is working along similar lines, and he is a prolific researcher who has published some heavily-cited papers.

http://www.iucaa.ernet.in/~paddy/

You can find links to some of his papers on his homepage. I think his direction is promising, however his model of the vacuum is of a static background field, not a dynamic participant in the interaction with matter. Having corresponded with Puthoff at some length, I think that he is more amenable to modeling a dynamic vacuum capable of polarization in its interaction with matter. If he (and others) are on the right track, the excess gravitational effects observed in galaxies and clusters may arise from matter's interaction with highly polarized (densified) vacuum, resulting in a G that is variable and not constant. These ideas are off the beaten track, but that does not make the people exploring them quacks or any of the other ad hom labels that some folks delight in tossing around.

 

[pervect]

It was locked (not by me, though I support the decision) because the thread has a large potential to degenerate into a brawl, due to strong feelings by differing parties. We have enough of a problem with that in the relativity forum already.

The topic is also not all that relevant to relativity - but apparently other forum mentors don't want a brawl about Puthoff, Haisch, etc. in their forums, either :-).

 

[jtbell]

After browsing some of the previous threads about Puthoff and his zero-point energy stuff, I agree that it's not worth opening that can of worms again.

 

[Garth]

I understand and agree.

Garth