Fran, I agree with that line of thinking, the closer you are to the surface of a "black hole" the more ionization, condensing, collapse and decay. The vacuum has to first convert you to entropy before you are added to its surface, which requires a lot of "work" on you. This is really the "firewall paradox" physicists are just realizing.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=black-hole-firewall-paradox We really need to consider throwing time out altogether as decay rate is variable throughout space IMO. Most black holes are so small they suffer indigestion and are also constipated at the same time... Stewart On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Frank roarty <[email protected]> wrote: > Jones, > This is parallel to my conjecture regarding Puthoff atomic model of > the elements and vacuum pressure being modified by quantum geometry such > that the elements exposed to the change > Are able to achieve new ground states but which the Naudt's paper > interprets as relativistic. I remain convinced that fractional hydrogen > from > ½ to 1/137 is actually more energetic than ground state and we should be > using the anomalous radioactive decay claims as a yard stick to estimate > just how energetic these relativistic atoms become. My point is that the > decay rate becomes far more pronounced when you consider how down averaged > the reading becomes relative to the small fraction of measured gas that > actually became fractionalized by the geometry. It is that small fraction > of > gas atoms that aged perhaps thousands or millions of years from our > perspective because their vacuum density relative to ours was equivalent > to > our density relative to a black hole. So from our perspective these > hydrinos > look smaller / Lorentz contracted but are actually aging much faster while > from their perspective they are existing in normal space and time - without > interaction the translation by itself would not result in anomalous heat > but > any asymmetrical reactions occurring during this accelerated lifetime > transitioning between different fractional values becomes compounded. Just > the difference in inertia between atomic and molecular forms of hydrogen > may > be enough to react differently to changes in geometry opposing the > translation for one more than the other and taking on the role of a > Maxwellian "sort" inside the tapestry of geometries. The end result could > be > much older but faster moving hydrogen of different fractional values > occurring closer together even the same spatial coordinates from our > perspective. > Fran > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 2:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Worth a look, relativity speaking > > > Yes this is a classic paper, Peter. > > Another interesting conjecture wrt LENR - and to the activity in the host > metal which could promote a transfer of energy (in some unknown way) when > loaded with hydrogen - is to analyze the list of elements by density, but > correlated to atomic weight. > > There are a number of metals that are "out of place" in this listing - in > being much denser than they should be based on AMU - with the implication > of > having a higher % of anomalously heavy electrons per unit of atomic wt > (AMU). > > The top three are Ruthenium, Rhodium and Palladium (in that order) but they > are close to each other and all way out of place -being denser than lead > while much lower in AMU. > > If this parameter (which we can call "highest proportion of relativist > electrons per AMU") was to be found accurate for LENR gain, especially with > deuterium instead of protium, then Ruthenium should be superior than > Palladium... unless another physical property figures into the equation - > which is probably the case. > > That parameter would probably be "deuteron conductivity," which is superior > for Palladium... but could be possibly improved in Ruthenium by alloying... > perhaps. > > From: Peter Gluck > > The clasaic 20+ years old paper about this is > in the Journal of Chemical Education, onr of my favprite > papers: > http://voh.chem.ucla.edu/vohtar/fall02/classes/172/pdf/172rpint.pdf > > Till now, as far I remember mercury has not played a role > in > LENR. I have once suggested it could be used > to create active sites, by blowing hydrogen charged with > mercury vapors over a metal by forming very local > amalgam islands and these can be processed further. > > Just an idea, it was never tested. I have worked with > mercury in electrolysis plants and once even as heat > transfer agent in a cyclohexanol to cyclohexanone plant. > Nasty stuff- to be avoided if possible. The evil stuff kills my pet metal > aluminum. > > Peter > > Poser of the Day: Why is the element mercury a dense > liquid? > > - there have been prior (incomplete) explanations, but it > turns out that > relativity is the culprit. > > The inner electrons of Hg become much heavier than normal > electrons because > they are moving very near lightspeed - thus the higher > density of the metal > is NOT due to the nucleus but instead is due to electrons. > IOW - it is not > an issue of atomic weight, per se (mercury is denser than > lead which is to > the right of it in the periodic table). > > This could have implications for LENR (to be explained in > later post). > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201302742/abstract > > but this video makes it clearer (please ignore the 'bad > hair' day) > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnsHtYYKf0 > > As for one of the possible LENR connections to very heavy > electrons - check > out Fig 12 and 13 > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf > > Notice that two transmutation elements of remarkable high > density turn up. > Osmium is the densest of all elements and Rhenium is very > close. Both would > have an excess of very heavy electrons. > > However, this begs the question of cause and effect. > > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
