Or maybe the 5th is really the 4th and it is ionizing/decaying space in our 1-3 which is what we percieve as time/aging That leaves the 5-10 for the 6-D torroid at the Earth's core brane and Solar Brane which makes 10 and we are slinging the 4th back and forth between our branes we perceive as gravity and our weather and we are inside the 11th which completes M theory...
Luckily I think these branes suffer chronic indigestion and constipation which gives us a playground Stewart On Monday, December 30, 2013, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > Thanks for the posting Jones... > > One of the KEY elements to the referenced paper is a specific resonant > condition... which is exactly what I've been saying for years. > That (or those) resonant condition(s) are exceedingly rare in normal > matter, > but when they do occur, throw the standard model out the window! The > impossible suddenly becomes possible... > > There have been a number of recent theoretical papers by people who are > outside the LENR field... thus, this is a positive sign that the > theoretical > 'world' is beginning to take this seriously... granted, this may not be > coming fast enough for those of us who have followed LENR since the > beginning, but as more competent theoretical outsiders jump in the frying > pan, the more it will attract attention and that can only help... albeit, > slowly. > > -Mark > > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 5:35 PM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable? > > > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/139182265/Theories-of-variable-mass-particles-and- > low-energy-nuclear-phenomena > > "Theories of variable mass particles and low energy nuclear phenomena" > > Published by Mark Davidson > > Conclusion of Paper: "We want to emphasize that there is no direct > experimental evidence yet that masses of electrons, nucleons, or nuclei can > change significantly in a condensed matter setting.... Nevertheless, it is > this author's opinion that Fock-Stueckelberg or other type of > off-mass-shell > theories are a possible explanation for such variations and that all of the > experiments in LENR can potentially be explained if they are occurring." > > > This is a very deep paper and Davidson is careful to spread the credit > around and not ruffle too many feathers, even though his conclusion > essentially devastates most the popular theories for LENR, when taken to > the > limit. He is probably too circumspect and one hopes that there will be more > from Davidson. > > Apparently, using the old Fock-Stueckelberg theories mentioned (circa > 1941), > opens up modern solutions for the relativistic bound state problem and so > on > (as we are hearing again in the Higgs discussions) providing an > understanding for gain in LENR without the need for fusion (but he does not > really want to go that far in the paper)... but we also realize that a > generalization of Maxwell's theory is required in order that the > electromagnetic interaction be incorporated into the theory which it has to > be. The resulting broader theory involves a fifth gauge field... shades of > Kaluza's conclusion - and he was saying this twenty years ahead of F&S. > > Theodor Kaluza was an extraordinarily genius - possibly on the same level > as > Dirac and Einstein, if not higher. But that is a discussion for another > day. > > Anyway... there could be an echo in the recent threads ... or is that the > 800 pound gorilla in the closet? (make that 125 GeV)...anyway, it looks > like > we are back to the some version of a fifth dimension in order to adequately > explain LENR, not to mention the Higgs... which is sure to engender the > usual negativity. > > In a way, it could be looking more and more like the billions spent on LHC > may yet have some kind of surprising payoff for understanding LENR, but we > are not there yet. What an irony if it plays out that way. > > As for now - perhaps we can sum up best by pleading the fifth. :-) > > > > >
