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
