Mauro,
I did vaguely recall some controversy over carbon 14 dating
regarding samples taken from the pyramids but held my tongue less I be
considered a crackpot, This does get back to your comment in that limestone
may qualify as a Casimir cavity since calcium is a rare earth metal and very
conductive no matter that conduction is limited to the size of the calcium
grains and I think it is by nature a porous powder meaning it would have the
voids filled with whatever ambient atmosphere that happened to be present
when the rock formed.
I started this thread after coming across the Lorentz contraction
and realized the concept I was so poorly trying to convey about the hydrino
being a relativistic effect is already accepted approaching C thru
equivalence at an event horizon. I therefore now couch my theory in terms of
Lorentz contraction where the quiescent pool inside the protected Casimir
cavity is to the observer outside the cavity equivalent to how that same
observer is to an event horizon. I am saying that the zero point field
always has an "equivalent" acceleration which is obvious approaching C near
an event horizon but not so obvious in deep space. In the case of an event
horizon the difference in acceleration is slowly accumulated by the square
of the distance to accumulated matter in a gravitational well which requires
the observer to remain outside the gravitational field to see the effects.
In the case of the Casimir cavity the effect is very localized and very
abrupt bordered by the plates but essentially the same. A tiny observer
inside the cavity sees events occurring outside the cavity slowed down just
as we observe events near an event horizon.
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Hydrinos", "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon"
stuff.
Hi,
There seem to be some evidence that nuclear decay is not so stable as
thought:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
And a negative result, for completeness :)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265v1
All this talk about time dilation, Lorentz contraction, "event horizon",
would be better understood in my opinion in terms of changes in ABSOLUTE
velocity (absolute relating to that? relating to that that is not
moving. And what is not moving? Empty space isn't. Do you want a
preferred reference frame? you'll have to look for it in the void: The
void is not moving, because the void is nothing, and that which is
"nothing", can't move.)
All the rest(i.e. "matter" and "energy") is moving!:
Macroscopically, our galaxy is probably accelerating towards somewhere,
and is rotating on its axis. Our solar system is travelling inside our
galaxy arm, in a curved path, and probably rotating around a some
"center". Our planet is rotating on its axis, and following the curved
path of the Sun.
Microscopically, elementary "particles" are no more than tiny
rotating(i.e. moving) "things".
If yo start to slow down or stop all or some of that movement,
"anomalous" things start to happen. Ask those crazy nutating Sufis, if
you don't believe me :-)
Maybe thougths and reflections on the nature of turbulence can shed
light on all this. And we'll slowly start to realize the intimate
correlation between the macrocosmic and the microcosmic.
Best regards,
Mauro
OrionWorks wrote:
> Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV:
>
> Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is
> possibly bound to the effects of "time dilation" play an integral role
> in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus, specifically
> when an atom decides to "decay"?
>
> An empirical observation, one that my brain has never been able to
> adequately grasp, is how seemingly deterministic the rate of nuclear
> decay appears to be, particularly when one takes into account very
> large samples of unstable atoms. That "half lives" can be determined
> with such incredible accuracy boggles my mind.
>
> Or am I simply repeating speculation (albeit less eloquently) that has
> already been brought up in recent threads concerning "Hydrinos",
> "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>
