Yeah, I usually take this explanation route as well, but does it really match the first hydrino state below the normal ground state, for sure the lowest hydrino state are relativistic.
/Stefan On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Roarty, Francis X <[email protected] > wrote: > Stefan, > > I think Jan Naudts nailed it with his 05 paper describing the hydrino as > relativistic hydrogen.. the fractional orbitals are actually Lorentzian > contraction along a single axis from the perspective of the hydrino looking > out at us in the distance.. We outside the active geometry seem to slow > down in the same way as the Paradox twin approaching C appears to slow down > from our stationary perpective.. the nano Ni geometry opposes longer > wavelength of virtual particles which, if we apply Naudts solution for the > hydrino, would suggest the full wavelengths still occupy this suppressed > region by altering space-time. A smaller dimension of time to free up more > space while keeping a constant 4d volume. Where near C velocity shrinks one > spatial axis due to the Pythagorean relationship between V^2 and C^2 and > slows time, the suppression of longer vacuum wavelengths by nano geometry > shrinks instead the time axis to "create" more space in its local frame.. > we never see it because the orbital appears to contract from our > perspective.. note the isotropy we consider "stationary" in our macro world > correlates to a certain vacuum density which can be broken by the > suppression of longer wavelengths by nano geometry - We know that the > inverse of boundary spacing cubed can trumps gravity's square law once > boundary separation approaches the lower nano range. I think the nice > fractional steps of the hydrino are simply the same preferred orbital > levels we see in 3d translated to another axis. > > > > I think you are already aware that skeletal cat geometry > and nano powder geometry are essentially the same even though one is a > leached out of solid and the other formed by bulk packing arrangement of > individual grains. > > Fran > > > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 11:14 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:If and only if > > > > I've continue to read about Randy Mill's theory. What struck me us not > shown to enough detail is if the hydrino states are physically attainable. > It is clear that any such state should not have a solution that radiates, > but given a mathematical state that does not radiate, it can be in such a > state that any disturbance of it will radiate and take it further away and > then increase the radiation an boom, off goes the electron in radiation > this would mean that it is impossible to push an electron to this state. > To really understand I would think that a physical model of the charge > distribution needs to be in place, not just an add hoc charge field. This > charge field must be a result of a nonlinear term in the Maxwell's > equations and a search for that physics can probably be guided by > understanding why QM and Mill's theory tell the same story. > > > > Cheers! > > >
