Hi Frank I pretty much understand what you're trying to do. And I'm trying to show you that it's absurd. You're trying to use descriptive geometrical tools(reference frames) to try to model physical reality. You're putting a microscopic reference frame inside a Casimir cavity, and then trying to attribute and derive the physical properties of the interior of the cavity to that fictitious geometrical construct. Who's in that frame of reference? Your microscopical twin? Does he wears a wrist watch? Or he'll somehow come up from there and tell you that he's now much younger than you?
You can even succeed in your attempt. That is, you can produce some mathematical formulas that work at predicting some things. But they will not change the fact that your fundamental physical constructs are wrong. A new paradigm is needed, to properly model and understand these phenomena, and also other phenomena. I'm trying to show this all the time, the most clearly as possible, on my posts here on vortex. I understand that Physics is a constructive endeavor, and that many people have spent a lot of time studying and understanding some complex physical theories, but that does not change the fact that these theories are wrong. And they are wrong in the worst possible way: they are fundamentally wrong. They started with erroneous physical intuitions and ideas, and evolved from then on, producing what is now a vast field of knowledge, with have in some cases completely absurd foundations from a physical point of view. Take relativity theory, by example. I have shown here, the most clearly as possible, that two of the most fundamental ideas of relativity theory are misleading: 1) the idea of time as a physical dimension. Time having a "coordinate axis" over which things can "move". As time in thee physical realm is a result of movement, attributing physical reality to time is completely misleading. 2) the idea of light having a specific velocity. Light can't have a velocity, because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to discrete objects. Objects that leave the space behind them completely vacant when moving. And that's something that light does not do. So, you cannot "mix" /v/ and /c/ in the same formula, and then start to happily derive other formulas from that. You can do it, of course, but your results and conclusions will be incorrect. And I want to say here, in the name of truth, that when I say these things I'm merely repeating some century old objections and observations. I'm not saying anything new! these things were known, mentioned and probably discussed when relativity theory was born. And they were completely ignored... some times I tend to think conspiratorially: "They must have had something to hide, that's why they embraced relativity theory". Or "they embraced it because the math worked. They didn't think as physicists, but as mathematicians". And then you have quantum mechanics. Here the situation is slightly different, because quantum mechanics is a well articulated theory. But is nevertheless an incomplete theory. Einstein showed that. Quantum mechanics is a theory based on impossibilities and uncertainties. One that deals with them in a very elegant and clever mathematical and probabilistic ways; but that does not change the fact that they are uncertain and impossible with regard to the theory. Take by example what is maybe the most basic (or known) assumption of quantum mechanics: "we can't know with certainty the velocity and position of an electron at the same time." That's a very well articulated foundation, that is even quantifiable in the theory. But it is nevertheless an uncertainty. And we desire always the opposite from a theory. Here's a possible answer: "Maybe if you stop trying to attribute classical mechanical concepts like velocity and position to elementary particles, the uncertainty will be overcomed. Those uncertainties arise as a consequence of your incorrect basic assumptions: That you assume you're dealing with discrete particles." If you model the electron as a temporary (dynamical) arrangement, one that changes depending on its surroundings, and look for some fundamental quantities that are nevertheless preserved(or transferred), you'll overcome the uncertainties of quantum mechanics. So, in my opinion, it's better to try to build new theories from the ground up, trying to have the right physical intuitions and foundations for them, than to try to add new minarets to the old castles. Venerable as they may be, they are built on sand. I'm sorry, but someone must say this, as clearly as possible. And we must start with the effort of building a new paradigm. And the sooner, the better, as usual. And please don't forget: that's only my opinion. Best regards, and have a nice sunday Mauro Frank wrote: > [snip] It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of > velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz > contraction, because that arises between reference frames, [end snip] > > Mauro, > I think radial acceleration of H1 inside a cavity is relativistic > creating reference frames without the need for spatial displacement > approaching C. I suggest however the acceleration is invisible from within > the frame where the orbital wavelength and velocity remain Bohr and C. I am > proposing that the spatial confinement and equivalent acceleration caused by > a relativistic "up conversion" of vacuum flux means the confined monatomic > hydrogen has a huge relativistic radial acceleration from our perspective. I > am not talking linear acceleration where the Pythagorean concept of spatial > axis at 90 degrees to temporal requires acceleration while at high fractions > of C to start diverging on the time axis. I believe the Casimir cavity > allows for a huge discount in the normal speeds required for relativistic > effects. The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary > suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is > a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the > force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows > heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of > combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate > by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the > cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart > H2 restoring monatomic energy levels. > > The outside and inside of the cavity are spatially stationary to each other, > the gravitational isotropy is broken by the plates meaning the fast moving > field outside is slowed inside making the flux twist from our perspective > appearing faster because we no longer see a direct view of a waveform but > instead view it from a turned profile which appears to get smaller going > away and faster as the cycles continue to contract into the distance. This > is a difference in relative motion where g outside is faster than g' inside > which means the spatial coordinates are basically unchanged and the H1 is > predominantly accelerating on the time axis, it might appear to contract as > the flux twist further and further but it would stay centered on its > original spatial coordinates and if a ruler could be extended to the > seemingly evacuated space from which it contracted the ruler itself would > also contract to prove all the original spatial coordinates are still > occupied and the contraction is the effect of curved space-time on the light > emanating from the object. Curiously I don't think it matters if we are > accelerating or decelerating -if you picture vacuum flux as a waveform on a > scope as a direct perspective (our inertial frame) and then "twist" it on > its' center in either direction it will turn its' profile to us and appear > smaller and faster for up-conversion or down conversion. > Regards > Fran > -----Original Message----- > From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:38 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation > > It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of > velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz > contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a > consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding > the nature of light, and of light's velocity. > Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light, > because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to > discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material > entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material > object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely, > leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace > behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light. > Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of > the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything > regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying > phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that. > > > > >
