Horrace, Horace, Your criticism was harsher but constructive and you read my information where as Steven just implied his time was much more valuable and wouldn't bother reading my support blogs unless I made a better case-- either criticism was within the scientific method individually but I mistakenly identified you as the author of both - therefore I perceived the same author telling me he didn't have time to read the support material then coming back and asking questions related to that material. - I will be more careful in the future but was so overwhelmed by the number of questions I lost my ability to concentrate - I wanted to answer many things at once and so ended up answering nothing very well.
I have read your suggestions and will make some attempt to clarify things but must focus on only 1 point at a time. That point in this reply is that the Bohr radius remains constant in a hydrino but we only perceive the spatial component which has contracted. The hydrino radius between the nucleus and orbital has a temporal rise and spatial run different from the hydrogen radius but the length of the hypotenuse remains constant. For a fractional ground state of 1/n it is just Pythagoreans: Bohr radius ^2 = (Bohr/N)^2 + Y^2 where Y solved for distance can be converted to time by C/Y Fran -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Horace, > I don't recognize you as qualified to make such assertions, Most > physicists I communicate with made some effort but you appear > incapable > while both demanding and condescending. I don't know how your persona > developed but it is annoying and is destroying your karma. > Hope it is not too late for you > Fran On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Horrace- My mistake, It was Steven's comment I took offense to > when he > made inquiries without reading the references and then remarked "I'd > like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take > time to read your blog or look at animations." I stopped answering his > questions when I read that and then saw your comments this AM in a > similar vein and just assumed the same author. > Sorry > Fran Actually, you probably took offense at *both* Steven's and my comments. We are both saying similar things from different perspectives. If you look at our comments carefully, you can see that they are actually constructive and provide some meaningful questions. My comments are repeated below, with no one else's text quoted to confuse things. On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad. My first > inkling was it might be a Touring test. It is indeed a problem > when a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal > and inadequately defined vocabulary. It is further a problem when > a miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph, > without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear > description. A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a > possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic > computational process, though the development of relevant figures > is admittedly quite outside that realm. You have to check out the > references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my > initial impression. > > One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the > early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for > any of them to be workable. One criteria for evaluating competing > CF theories was the number of miracles required. The more > miracles required, the worse the theory. > > Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying > to unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions. Does your > theory make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions? > Does it provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy > producing device? Yes, my "Touring test" comments can be construed as condescending. My apologies for that. However, they also provide you with an honest first impression of at least one reader upon reading your material. If you want to continue to leave this kind of impression, that your writing is either confused or intentionally confusing, then don't bother attempting to refine it or respond to questions. If you do want to improve the clarity of your communication, then the implied constructive comments are: 1. When introducing new physical mechanisms or not commonplace concepts, provide an adequate reference, derivation, or precise description. 2. When using unconventional or new terminology provide clear definitions. 3. Where possible provide formulas or numerical values that assist in making testable predictions or demonstrate that your concepts have some utility. I really would like to know, does your theory make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions? Does it provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy producing device? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
