“*John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties M&M encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether.”*
*An in depth understanding of the LENR mechanism will show that LENR is an etheric effect. LENR implies non-locality.* *Nonlocality* *Definition: a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, contrary to our expectation that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. * *The accepted version of quantum mechanics assumes that all interaction is local. Science now believes that a particle cannot effect another at a distance since there is no either between the two distance particles to support their interaction.* *But the LENR effect is carried on the either were the coordinated collective action of many particles effects other particles at a distance.* *With the acceptance of LERN as real, the current understanding of quantum mechanics will need to be revised, the either will need to be accepted, and most of science will not like that at all. * On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X < [email protected]> wrote: > John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties > M&M encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether. IMHO Naudt’s paper > describing hydrinos as relativistic hydrogen holds a key to much of this – > and puts the fractional/shrinking hydrogen on a plane 90 degrees to our > spatial axis.. this is where M&M should have been seeking the ether in > parallel to the time axis not on a spatial axis. Likewise I posit larger > virtual particles are not denied access between Casimir boundries as > current theory holds but rather the space time between the surfaces is > twisted via negative equivalent acceleration such that they are able to fit > nicely at the cost of time dilation and Lorentzian contraction where the > universe appears from their perspective to slow down to a crawl in the same > manner we would perceive a spaceship achieving high fractions of C. I think > this is how COE is seemingly violated since it is stipulated that random > motion can not be exploited –instead of throwing reaction mass away from a > spaceship to decrease the interface rate between spaceship and ether > [windshield and rain /Haisch and Rueda] we are using the opposite case of > Casimir geometry that makes the space in the cavity appear larger so that > many more VP can pass thru the region of this etheric axis [reversing the > interaction rate between the physical and etheric axis from what Haisch and > Rueda posit with their analogy of rainstorm and windshield]. This sudden > change/breach in isotropy is in opposition and trumps gravity – although > addition of forces[gravity and Casimir] would not violate COE I posit that > the normally unexploitable property of random motion can now occur because > one spatial axis is by definition required for Casimir geometry and there > are several routes to rectifying the motion such as ionic or molecular > state asymmetries. > > Fran > > > > BTW – reversed my previous theory above in that I now think the Haisch > Rueda analogy may be reducing the number of virtual particles passing thru > the spaceship/windshield which slows time from our perspective while > Casimir effect makes the stationary region in our frame look larger and > therby more vp pass thru accelerating/catalyzing what we pewrceive as > shrunken hydrogen. > > > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:54 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real > upwards, to 35% > > > > Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. > > > > Earlier you said: Not even Pons & Fleischmann can lay claim to having > found the effect. > > > > Which sound to me something like "the great (not even) P&F can't claim > they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly > certian..." > > > > Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was > ignorant of if his effect was real or not. > > > > Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is > a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by > Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. > > > > Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and > has the associated difficulties. > > I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic > hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a > robust aetheric effect to me. > > > > But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have > insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. > > But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing > magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has > an MO that is at odds with a con man. > > > > But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. > > > > As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability > has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
