Clocks on the Space Shuttle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle> ran slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS> and Galileo <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)> satellites run slightly faster.[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#cite_note-Ashby-1> Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (seeexperimental confirmation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation> below), for instance by small disparities inatomic clocks <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clocks> on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime>) will bend due to differences in either gravity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity> or velocity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity> – each of which affects time in different ways.[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#cite_note-HSWTime-2>[3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#cite_note-EdLu-3>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a view arount in quantum physics that time does not exist on the > atomic level. Time may be a consequence of entangelment of particles. In > the macro world in which we live, gravitation distroys entanglemet since an > entangled particle when it moves far from its entangled partners will be > rendered decoherent. Time will advance for this far ranging wonderer due > to the changes imposed on the particle by gravity. Gravity is the force > that shapes the world in which we live. > > Time speeds up close to the earth because gravity is stronger there but > time increases when the particle is moved farther from the earth. > > Ashby, Neil (2003). "Relativity in the Global Positioning System" > <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf> > ). *Living Reviews in Relativity > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Reviews_in_Relativity>* *6*: > > But when the system of particles remains withing the same small local > volume, time does not flow, it may even run backward and undue events that > has already occured. > > The take away, Special relitivity may not be applicable to interactions > between atoms and subatonic particles. > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Matt, >> >> The fields are all quickly starting to grow together..[snip] lithium >> ions to chemically break the metal oxide catalyst into smaller and smaller >> pieces."Breaking down metal oxide into tiny particles increases its surface >> area and exposes lots of ultra-small, interconnected grain boundaries that >> become active sites for the water-splitting catalytic reaction," [/snip] >> lithium and nickel may be a super activator in the dogbone as well ..making >> the powder particles and any oxides smaller, and Jones has trotted out iron >> as one of the possible candidates for the secret sauce. >> >> Way back when I first came to vortex I trotted out the idea that hydrinos >> are actually relativistic like the 05 paper by Jan Naudts suggested and >> that the effect could be NESTED to the point where hydrogen loads into >> supressive cavities smaller than the hydrogens own atomic size [TARTUS like >> :_)] from the external observers perspective while appearing normal to >> their own local but time dilated observer. I think these effects normally >> self destruct in the presence of oxides but this latest discovery is >> activated in situ by the lithium while submerged which sounds like the same >> process occurring in the dogbone when the lithium wets the reactor walls. >> It is also why I am convinced these tests have to brought online with >> matched drives and heat sinking to exploit OU ….to quote the song “you aint >> seen nothing yet” I believe most of these destroyed reactors represent self >> destructs with far higher COP than we have time to harness ..seems to me we >> need better- faster heat sinking before we even learn how much power is >> really under the hood! >> >> Fran >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Mats Lewan [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:29 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Single-catalyst water splitter from Stanford >> produces clean-burning hydrogen 24/7 >> >> >> >> >> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june/water-splitter-catalyst-062315.html >> >> >> >> (No big surprises). >> >> >> >> Mats >> >> www.animpossibleinvention.com >> >> >> > >
