Thanks for the extensive response -- it has taken me a while to go through it, and I'm sure I didn't do it all justice!
Frank wrote: > > Stephen, > > Snip--- >> The hydrino radius >> between the nucleus and orbital has a temporal rise and spatial run > [snip] > > Let's stop right there. The "present", for any observer, has zero > thickness along that observer's time axis. What does it mean for the > radius of the orbit to have an increased extent along the time axis? > > Reply---- > The observer is a theoretical construct but matter exists in a 4 > dimensional world. You can not prove the "present" has zero thickness In fact, I'm not really sure it does -- I have serious doubts that human consciousness could exist if "the present" had no thickness! But in the standard models of physics, as well as in our common assumptions about the everyday "real world", it has no thickness; witness the phrase "What time is it?" and note that it's singular. All experiments which measure the elapsed time between two events implicitly assume that there is *one* time at which an event takes place, rather than a *range* of times, which is what the present having nonzero thickness would seem to imply. > although it may be both negligible and average to a constant local > width this changes at the extremes. I must admit that I can not > prove my theory either but the width of the "present" is not defined > to my knowledge. Nobody can "prove" any theory, of course. All you can do is make predictions from the theory and then test them. If the predictions are born out, the theory is "supported" but still not "proved" in that the very next prediction made from the theory may be wrong. Reality fully conforms to no theory invented by humans (so far, at least). A single incorrect prediction proves a theory wrong in some global sense, but depending on how many predictions the theory can make *correctly*, it may still be a useful theory. Newtonian mechanics and gravity theory is "wrong" in the sense that it predicts incorrect values for the orbit of Mercury and predicts all kinds of wrong stuff at very high energies, but none the less it's still a very useful theory for an awful lot of situations. > I contend temporal width varies microscopically with each element in > the periodic chart relative to its' permittivity to vacuum > fluctuations but it averages out at larger scales to form local > constants allowing us to ignore it and use non relativistic equations > for most everyday comparisons. Now I don't think I'm following this. Relativity also assumes zero thickness for the present, and zero "temporal width" for objects we perceive, so I don't see the connection with relativistic equations here. Notably, every "event" has four coordinates, three space and one time, and they're all simple numbers. How would you measure the temporal width of an element? Is it possible, in principle? And a question about a definition: What do you mean by "permittivity to vacuum fluctuations"? > The known time dilation approaching an event horizon and the known > change (up conversion) of vacuum fluctuations in a Casimir cavity > form opposite ends of a spectrum. I don't think it is a coincidence > that the conductive pores in skeletal catalysts are of Casimir > geometry and posit that Casimir force is the engine for all catalytic > action whether it be from pores, spacing between nano particles or > even the atomic geometry of the elements themselves forming adjacent > outcroppings - if it forms parallel conductive plates on any scale it > will have Casimir force and therefore the catalytic property of > "accelerating" reactions may be a far more accurate term then > presently presumed. This then is where my speculation regarding a > spectrum from Casimir cavity to speed of light was born. OK I must ask once again: What is dt/dtau, where tau is time in the Casimir cavity and t is time for an external observer? (Qualitatively, is it larger or smaller than 1?) I'll explain the question, in case you're not following me: An observer outside the cavity watches a clock, watching 't' go by. An observer inside the cavity (who is very small), who also has a clock (measuring time "tau"), sends messages to the observer outside the cavity. The inside observer sends a message once every "tau" second. So, the observer outside the cavity, by observing the messages from down inside, can also observe 'tau' go by. The rate at which 't' goes by, relative to the rate at which 'tau' goes by, is 'dt/dtau'. Qualitatively, is time inside the cavity passing FASTER or SLOWER than time outside? > When I first heard Black light was confirmed by Rowan to produce > excess heat last October I immediately looked up the pore size of > Rayney nickel and for all of a week thought I was the only one to > figure it out it was a Casimir cavity before discovering Haisch and > Moddell had already patented a similar cavity scheme based on Casimir > cavities back in May 08. Then I got busy trying to reverse engineer > what was happening at Black Light making the giant assumption that > the confirmation was legitimate. :-) > I had the same notion of Casimir effect you mentioned to Horrace but > started communicating with Thomas Prevenslik who has authored much in > ZPE theories and learned the theory is disputed with QED who can > explain all with induced charge and virtual photons independent of > virtual particles "pushing" (they hate that term with a passion) the > plates closed. Really!! I hadn't heard that. > Both theories however agree that the > plates braced apart do form a permanent exclusion zone regardless of > wavelength suppression theory or up-conversion where short wavelengths > replace the long... I jumped on this common ground that there was simply a > "non standard" ratio of short to long wavelength vacuum fluctuations between > the plates as being the "difference" that allows anomally to occur. OK I think I followed that. > In studying the history between Mills vs Park vs Naudts I was spoon > fed Jan Naudts equations by a sibling. His use of relativistic Klein > Gordon equations made me realize that the "up conversion" of vacuum > fluctuations could have a relativistic solution - imagine a sine wave > across your scope twisting on the Z axis disappearing into the > screen and getting smaller from our perspective is actually getting > higher in frequency or conversely you could say the virtual particles > in between the plates would give the appearance of getting smaller. I > made the leap that these shorter fluctuations are the same longer > fluctuations in some fashion changed due to their shielding by a > Casimir field generated by the plates. The "up conversion" may > actually represent more of a relaxation of the zone like a "trapped > pool" vs the rushing stream outside the cavity. Since these > fluctuations represent the canvas upon which atomic matter is painted > and For that matter keep the orbits from decaying I assumed the > hydrogen atom also was redistributed - Here Mills already told me > what to look for a smaller hydrogen he called "hydrino" Looking back > it may prove his use of catalyst vs Casimir cavity might turn out to > be only semantics. I thought Mills observed hydrino formation outside cavities also, in the presence of a catalyst? That seems like a significant difference. > My early animations are all gone now and even the present incarnation > may not be 100 percent accurate showing the orbital of monatomic > hydrogen twisting and getting smaller as they permeate into a pair of > moving plates - the twisting was my method for implying the > translation being onto the time axis which I posit opens inversely to > the closing of the spatial axis between conductive plates. The plates > are supposed to represent a special case of Casimir cavity / rigid > catalyst that confines this opening to the temporal axis such that > only the atoms can translate freely and molecules or compound get > stuck, So that in the case I animate the dihydrinos form already on > the time axis but as the plates start to open you see the molecule > ripped apart then a blue photon emitted as the restored hydrinos > reform into a molecule in a repeated cascade till the atoms escape or > the cavity overheats and melts the plates closed. I was only recently > reminded of the Lorentz contraction and realized my theory is really > only an alternate form where outside the cavity is analogous to the > event horizon due to whatever ambient rate at which time intercepts > our spatial axis vs the relaxed condition of the fluctuations inside > the shielded cavity. I think we need to slow down here and I need to ask for some definitions. What do you mean by an "event horizon"? In usage familiar to me, an "event horizon" is a place where dt/dtau becomes infinite. There is a horizon around a black hole, which is the best known example. In an accelerated reference frame, there is an event horizon at some distance behind the accelerating observer, called a "Rindler horizon". In both cases, a photon emitted on the opposite side of the horizon from the observer can never reach the observer (though the Rindler horizon vanishes as soon as the accelerating observer runs out of fuel, of course). But I see no event horizon anywhere around these Casimir cavities. So, I'm not sure we're talking about the same entity. I still don't understand what you're doing with the time axis but we can worry about that later. > > Also communicated with Model regarding his SED based prototype over > concern that any reactionary forces would simply prevent the circulation of > monatomic gas thru his Casimir "colums" - he convinced me this would not > occur and has equations included in his patent - I took this as another > possible indication that the anomaly had a relativistic source in that > vacuum fluctuations could "organize" to break the bonds of a temporally > displaced dihydrino without presenting a spatial bias to resist the gas > supply. He never would tell me how he intended to supply monatomic gas :_) > But like me was also interested in finding a cheaper bulk material to form > the cavities as milling plates and insulators with perfectly aligned .1u > columns is very expensive! I have suggested crystalline shaped bulk nano > materials where the facets might form Casimir cavities between the facets > much like his columns as opposed to the Mills cavities which are likely > melting down in their brief thermal reaction. I don't suppose zeolites are applicable here? They're not conductive, which maybe makes them useless for this purpose...? > > Sorry for the detour into my past - back to work > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > Snip1 > Time is not a spatial dimension, after all, and there *is* a difference > between time and space, even in special relativity. The "radius" is a > distance measure between the nucleus and the electron, which is, in > classical terms, determined by finding the coordinates of an event at > the nucleus and an event at the electron, determining that their time > coordinates *match* in our frame of reference, and then finding the > difference in their space coordinates. In other words, the absolute > value of the interval between an event in the nucleus and one at the > electron is the radius of the orbit (in our frame of reference) *if* the > time coordinates of the two events match (in our frame of reference). > > Snip2 Now, you say the radius is rotated into time, and so it appears > shorter > in space. > > Reply both > Time does not act like a spatial dimension in that we must accelerate or > deaccelerate relative to another frame to observe a divergence but the > Lorentz contraction is an indication that matter is going somewhere. If you > built a ring with a 1 light year diameter you would expect the radius to be > 1/2 the diameter but if you place it around a star the circumference would > remain the same as would the diameter calculated from the circumference but > if you could fly straight across your ring through the star the distance > traveled would greatly exceed your true diameter. Right; the metric is not constant and spacetime is not flat in the presence of mass. Near a star the radial term in the Schwarzschild metric is dr^2/(1-2M/r) which is larger than dr^2, which means the distance traveled across the circle is larger than circumference/(2 pi r). > At macro scales it is hard > to imagine that the sun isn't straight overhead at mid day because we have > evolved vision with the premise that we can see in a straight line but light > follows the curvature of space. Eh... but the curvature of spacetime doesn't affect that -- the light goes straight from the Sun to the earth. It takes a bit longer to get here than you might have guessed from the circumference of Earth's orbit but it doesn't bend along the way. There's aberration, of course, due to Earth's motion through space, but that's a classical effect and has nothing to do with curvature of spacetime. > Also making relativity an issue is that you > really can't approach the observed object at C without approaching C > yourself but you could harvest the temporal effects by storing terminally > ill patients near C until technology catches up with their disease. I am > proposing that when you drop reactants into a catalyst and harvest hours of > work performed in only a fraction of that time you are also harvesting a > relativistic effect. > > --------------------------------------------------- > > snip > Please explain how (in principle) you would measure the size of the > radius, and what it means for it to be rotated into time. > > reply > The radius to the nucleus remains the constant of the Bohr model, I am > saying that non relativistic equations for fractional quantum states are > likely solving only for the spatial value of the orbital diameter which we > observe while we are incapable of observing distance on the time axis but > since we know the bohr length then the first fractional quantum state means > the spatial parameter would appear to be 1/2 Bohr while the nucleus assumed > to be in the middle is displaced on the time axis similar to the sun down a > gravity well. the distance to the nucleus remains Bohr length but now has a > temporal component equal to the square root of Bohr length squared /2 > I think there may be a problem here. You seem to be assuming you can *displace* the nucleus in time, which is to say move it a little ahead or a little behind on the time axis. Let's see if we can clarify this concept a bit with a cruder example. Take a rod, with two ends, A and B. Now, assume for a moment we have *displaced* end "A" five minutes into the future. At 12:00 sharp, an observer at end "B" looks a the other end of the rod. Think about this: What does he see? Answer: He see end "A" as it is, *at* *12* *o'clock*. The part of the rod which was "displaced" into the future isn't there yet, according to "B"; it will be there 5 minutes later. In the mean time, what B sees is "A" as it would have been five minutes earlier, absent the displacement. The consequence is that the displacement really didn't do anything, as far as B is concerned. If there is some process taking place at A -- say, a clock ticking away -- it will seem to have *LOST* five minutes in B's reference frame: A's clock will read 11:55 when B's reads 12:00. If there are observers at both ends of the rod, they'll conclude that their clocks are out of sync and need to be adjusted. Nothing more! They'll have no way of telling there was some kind of temporal displacement at work; it will just look like A's clocks skipped a beat. Does this make sense? Are we both still on the same page here? So, appealing as the intuitive concept of displacing the nucleus along the time axis may be, I think you really, really need to write down the math describing what happens, and see how it plays out. Because it looks to me like it might not have the effect your intuition tells you it would have.
