On Aug 9, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Frank wrote:
The premise IS my theory that a Casimir cavity stretches space- time into a “Hill” as opposed to a “Well” based on the following. 1. Naudts and Bourgoin math that hydrino can exist in a cavity only has a relativistic solution. So spatially the orbital can collapse below Bohr radius because the “displacement” has been partially converted to temporal units.
Unless I missed something, neither the article by Naudts nor by Bougoin has made any statements with regards to cavities. They are discussing the possibility of stable sub-ground state hydrogen based on relativistically consistent orbitals. This kind of analysis is used with regards to inner orbitals of heavy atoms. It has nothing to do with cavities. The orbitals computed are consistent outside of cavities. No cavities involved. The computation does not involve motion of the atom with regards to the observer. It has only to do with the change in mass of the electron, m = gamma*m0, due to relativistic (high energy) circular motion of orbitals. Saying "that hydrino can exist in a cavity only has a relativistic solution." is like saying "that lead (Pb) can exist in a cavity only has a relativistic solution." The cavity is irrelevant to the cited references.
When you link unrelated concepts, like Puthoff's zero point field Casimir effect hypothesis with Prevenslik's photon based Casimir effect hypothesis, or relativistic orbitals with cavity effects, or cavities with huge gravitational effects, then that requires extensive explanation, preferably with quantitative analysis, to convince anyone. Requiring one miracle makes for a troublesome theory. A theory requiring three or four miracles requires extensive quantified justification, to say the least. Without, it just looks like a word salad.
Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
