Axil, I think you need to add ether or aether to your spell check dictionary.
Either or both, but not neither or you end up with 'either' ;) On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > “*John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties > M&M encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether.”* > > > > *An in depth understanding of the LENR mechanism will show that LENR is an > etheric effect. LENR implies non-locality.* > > > > *Nonlocality* > > > > *Definition: a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, > contrary to our expectation that an object is influenced directly only by > its immediate surroundings. * > > > > *The accepted version of quantum mechanics assumes that all interaction is > local. Science now believes that a particle cannot effect another at a > distance since there is no either between the two distance particles to > support their interaction.* > > > > *But the LENR effect is carried on the either were the coordinated > collective action of many particles effects other particles at a distance.* > > > > *With the acceptance of LERN as real, the current understanding of quantum > mechanics will need to be revised, the either will need to be accepted, and > most of science will not like that at all. * > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >> John, I agree this is an etheric effect and has the same difficulties >> M&M encountered trying to prove a spatial based ether. IMHO Naudt’s paper >> describing hydrinos as relativistic hydrogen holds a key to much of this – >> and puts the fractional/shrinking hydrogen on a plane 90 degrees to our >> spatial axis.. this is where M&M should have been seeking the ether in >> parallel to the time axis not on a spatial axis. Likewise I posit larger >> virtual particles are not denied access between Casimir boundries as >> current theory holds but rather the space time between the surfaces is >> twisted via negative equivalent acceleration such that they are able to fit >> nicely at the cost of time dilation and Lorentzian contraction where the >> universe appears from their perspective to slow down to a crawl in the same >> manner we would perceive a spaceship achieving high fractions of C. I think >> this is how COE is seemingly violated since it is stipulated that random >> motion can not be exploited –instead of throwing reaction mass away from a >> spaceship to decrease the interface rate between spaceship and ether >> [windshield and rain /Haisch and Rueda] we are using the opposite case of >> Casimir geometry that makes the space in the cavity appear larger so that >> many more VP can pass thru the region of this etheric axis [reversing the >> interaction rate between the physical and etheric axis from what Haisch and >> Rueda posit with their analogy of rainstorm and windshield]. This sudden >> change/breach in isotropy is in opposition and trumps gravity – although >> addition of forces[gravity and Casimir] would not violate COE I posit that >> the normally unexploitable property of random motion can now occur because >> one spatial axis is by definition required for Casimir geometry and there >> are several routes to rectifying the motion such as ionic or molecular >> state asymmetries. >> >> Fran >> >> >> >> BTW – reversed my previous theory above in that I now think the Haisch >> Rueda analogy may be reducing the number of virtual particles passing thru >> the spaceship/windshield which slows time from our perspective while >> Casimir effect makes the stationary region in our frame look larger and >> therby more vp pass thru accelerating/catalyzing what we pewrceive as >> shrunken hydrogen. >> >> >> >> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:54 AM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real >> upwards, to 35% >> >> >> >> Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying. >> >> >> >> Earlier you said: Not even Pons & Fleischmann can lay claim to having >> found the effect. >> >> >> >> Which sound to me something like "the great (not even) P&F can't claim >> they definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly >> certian..." >> >> >> >> Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was >> ignorant of if his effect was real or not. >> >> >> >> Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is >> a real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by >> Rossi's knowledge or belief surrounding such. >> >> >> >> Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and >> has the associated difficulties. >> >> I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic >> hydrogen gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a >> robust aetheric effect to me. >> >> >> >> But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have >> insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion. >> >> But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing >> magician or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has >> an MO that is at odds with a con man. >> >> >> >> But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless. >> >> >> >> As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that >> probability has nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
