On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:08 Jones Beene wrote [snip] Why do we need a competing term with nano? Because the mesoscopic object has BOTH classical and quantum features as well as a mix of both, all at the same time in the same particle. It is simply a wider range, and implies a composite. It also implies complexity.[/snip]
Jones, A similar point I have been trying to emphasize is the very local vs quantum accumulated "forces" over a larger geometric area. Suppression is by nature a tradeoff that falls off at an inverse exponential rate between parallel plate surfaces while the local motion of gas atoms is still governed by the immediate "forces". These are the same forces at different scales, The Puthoff model of chaotic vacuum flux restoring balance to the ground state results in the random motion of gas at the very local scale but rapidly organizes into a gravitational segregation for the appropriate geometry on a larger scale. I guess we can throw chemical bonding into the very local scale also since it is the same force again seeking to push matter into the least opposing configuration for the passage of flux through our spatial plane. From a neo Lorentz perspective -4D- the nuclei presents much more opposition than orbital to this flow and the electrons trail behind like tethered balls on the time axis. During suppression this micro relativistic well appears to stretch from our perspective which is why I believe gas atoms can translate freely but bonded electrons oppose the translation since they are being pulled down 2 different wells but are tied together at the top. Regards Fran
