Roarty, Francis X wrote: > 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--
You seem to have forgotten that I also asked a number of very specific questions, all of which were directed at understanding what you were trying to say, and none of which you answered. You apparently ignored all of them. You gave two links in your messages, but did not even suggest that any of my questions were answered in either of them; certainly an animation, the first thing you provided, was not going to answer the questions I asked. As far as I can tell you either never read the questions that I asked, or did not understand them. If it's the latter, you should have said so and asked for clarification. If, on the other hand, you felt the couldn't be answered in the present domain of discourse, you should have said so, and said why. Ignoring them was not a good plan if you hoped to discuss your theory. > I [ ... ] must focus on only 1 point at a time. So why can't you focus on one question, write down the answer, .... and then focus on the next question for a while, write down that answer... ... and then do it again, until you get to the end of the list of questions... and THEN, *after* addressing each question in turn, send the response? Whatever... Let's look at the item you answered. In your reply you said: > 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 [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? Time is not a spatial dimension, after all, and there *is* a difference between time and space, even in special relativity. The "radius" is a distance measure between the nucleus and the electron, which is, in classical terms, determined by finding the coordinates of an event at the nucleus and an event at the electron, determining that their time coordinates *match* in our frame of reference, and then finding the difference in their space coordinates. In other words, the absolute value of the interval between an event in the nucleus and one at the electron is the radius of the orbit (in our frame of reference) *if* the time coordinates of the two events match (in our frame of reference). Now, you say the radius is rotated into time, and so it appears shorter in space. Please explain how (in principle) you would measure the size of the radius, and what it means for it to be rotated into time.
