Numerous claims of anomalous heat between atomic hydrogen and catalysts
supports the [url=http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2]"relativistic";
hydrogen theory of Jan Naudts[/url]. Naudts theory resolved the controversy
regarding fractional hydrogen but introduced "relativistic" hydrogen inside a
stationary reactor! This is not hydrogen accelerated through space to luminal
velocities; this concept requires "equivalent motion" between time and space
but unlike the slowing of time by a gravitational mass associated with normal
equivalence; this solution accelerates time. When defects or cavities occur in
a conductive mass meeting Casimir geometry the opposition to time flow is
reversed, the cavity is comparable to a small whole in a large sail that
releases the pressure accumulated by the "plates" into an "accelerated" stream
many times faster than the isotropic rate outside the cavity. The accelerated
stream inside the Casimir cavity relative to the spatial axis places any matter
inside the cavity into a different inertial frame relative to matter outside
the cavity through "equivalence". Applying Naudts interpretation to Casimir
effect reveals that larger virtual particles are not "displaced" instead the
virtual particles are in a different inertial frame and only appear smaller
like the fractional hydrogen this theory is based on. The theory dictates a
moving time stream like
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory]Lorentz Ether
theory[/url] which is presently less preferred than Special relativity but
equally valid mathematically. The conclusion extends Lorentz Ether theory to an
ether with a "variable" rate based on mass and Casimir effect.
[url=http://www.byzipp.com/scenic2.swf]see animation[/url], It means that Time
is only isotropic at the mesoscopic scale and can be broken abruptly inside a
Casimir cavity. There is growing reason to consider that Casimir force is based
on the same principle as the strong nuclear force. The Puthoff atomic model is
kept from decaying by this "etheric motion" and Tesla's conjecture that the sun
consumes more energy than it generates also appears supported by this concept.
IMHO time is a stream of ether that manifests itself as virtual particles when
it intersects the spatial axis in the "present". These virtual particles
permeate all atomic and subatomic matter, driving both orbital motion and the
stiction we call the strong force in the nucleus.
>From Wikipedia: Lorentz's initial theory created in 1892 and 1895 was based on
>a completely motionless ether. It explained the failure of the negative ether
>drift experiments to first order in v/c by introducing a auxiliary variable
>called "local time" for connecting systems at rest and in motion in the ether.
>In addition, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the
>introduction of the hypothesis of length contraction in 1892. However, other
>experiments also produced negative results and so Lorentz was forced in 1899
>and 1904 to expand his theory to (nearly) all orders in v/c by introducing the
>Lorentz transformation, and to assume the electromagnetic nature of all
>forces. Guided by the principle of relativity the theory ("The New Mechanics")
>was further developed in 1905 by Henri Poincaré, and also by Lorentz in 1909.
>Poincaré corrected some mistakes of Lorentz's theory, and maintained that also
>non-electromagnetic forces had to be taken into account. Many aspects of
>Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works
>of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski.
Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian"
interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction
and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference (which
plays the role of Lorentz's immobile ether), leads to the complete Lorentz
transformation. Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible
to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence
of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity
principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly
preferred over LET. Another important reason for preferring SR is that the new
understanding of space and time was also fundamental for the development of
general relativity.
