Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Roarty, Francis X wrote:

> 
>  I am proposing that Lorentz contraction
> can occur in the opposite direction creating a time dilation where the
> gas diffused in a Casimir cavity appears to accelerate while the orbital
> diameter quite correctly calculates smaller than ground state because it
> is contracting away on the temporal axis.

I didn't quite follow this; English explanations, as always, tend to be
a bit fuzzy.  Could you characterize this reversed Lorentz contraction
mathematically, and show where you believe it comes from?

Lorentz contraction, so called, takes place when we shift our point of
view from one reference frame to another, and mathematically, it falls
out of the Lorentz transform for mapping coordinates in one inertial
frame to another.  What frames are we discussing here, and what
transform, exactly, are you proposing using which will result in
reversed contraction and (apparently) reversed time dilation?


> This only explains catalytic
> action but I suspect a Rigid catalyst can restrict access to the
> temporal axis such that only atoms can translate between hydrino and
> hydrogen states. Therefore monatomic gas diffusing deep into a temporal
> corridor

What, exactly, is a temporal corridor?

Could you characterize it mathematically?  (The English phrase "temporal
corridor" doesn't do a lot for me, I'm afraid.)

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

The June 2009 LENR seminar at University of Missouri presenters  
kept an

open mind towards the methods employed to produce anomalous heat. The
numerous reports of excess heat manifestations across bubble fusion,
LENR and Casimir cavities are well documented and often replicated but
the physics remains controversial. I propose that all these
manifestations are based on Casimir cavities.



Some brief opinions follow, for what they are worth.

The effect of the Casimir force on orbitals of atoms or molecules in  
cavities is complex and experiment shows much less effect than  
expected by current theory.  See Ground States and the Zero-Point  
Field, H.E. Puthoff,Scott Little, Michael Ibison, Earthtech  
International, Inc., 2000:


http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/src/srcreport.htm

The very small reduction in orbital size, and thus orbital energy,  
due to relief of Casimir pressure would not appear to justify an  
expectation of significant fusion.  I think it doesn't come close to  
the 1/N hydrino state for N large, and besides, the hydrinos are not  
thought to require a cavity to exist.  These kinds of assertions  
would in any case require at least some kind of quantitative analysis  
to be credible.


I must admit to having speculated that a scenario of repeated orbital  
size changes fueled by the ZPF might indeed produce excess heat.  
Here's my take on that:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/AtomicExpansion.pdf

You might find the references interesting or useful in developing  
your theory.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

I wrote: "You might find the references interesting or useful in  
developing your theory."


By the above I meant the references cited in the Atomic Expansion  
Hypothesis article at:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/AtomicExpansion.pdf

namely:

1. H. E. Puthoff, "Everything for Nothing," New. Sci., vol. 127, p.  
52 (28 July 1990).


2. H. E. Puthoff, "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point- 
Fluctuation-Determined State," Phys.

Rev. D, vol. 35, p. 3266
(1987).

3. D. C. Cole and H. E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the  
Vacuum," Phys. Rev. E, vol.

48, p. 1562 (1993).

4. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy  
Research," Spec. in Sci. and

Tech., vol. 13, p. 247 (1990).

5. Timothy Boyer, "The Classical Vacuum," Scientific American, p. 70,  
August 1985


6. Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum Really Empty?",  
American Scientist,

March-April 1980, p. 154

7. H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy  
Research", Speculations in

Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 247-257, 1990.

8. US Patent 4,394,230, "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SPLITTING WATER  
MOLECULES,"

Henry K. Puharich, Attorney, Agent, or Firm - Mandeville and Schweitzer


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

I have a better explanation with animation at http://byzipp.com/energy/ but
basically it is just trig. I am saying that our perspective relative to the
equivalent speed approaching an event horizon has a corollary in the Casimir
cavity where I propose all vacuum fluctuations are "up converted" as QED
refers to the inhibition of longer wavelengths between narrowing conductive
plates. QED suggests the restricted longer wavelength flux are replaced with
shorter wavelengths. I am proposing that they are the same longer flux
twisted on the time axis which simply appears shorter from our perspective
AND I posit that all the flux regardless of frequency twist as one fabric
inside the cavity. I believe that this is a form of Lorentz contraction in
that space time inside the cavity is slowed relative to outside the cavity
and that atoms diffused in the cavity see outside the cavity in the same way
we observe the twin approaching an event horizon only now from our
perspective time is accelerated instead of slowed. 

The trig would be our temporal vector at some low angle say about 10 degrees
above horizontal representing the spatial axii while the paradox twin
approaching an event horizon might be up aroung 85 degrees which causes the
accepted Lorentz contraction as time and space trade parameters while the
vector length remains constant. I am proposing  catalysts all create Casimir
cavities which accelerate their reactions from our perspective by actually
Widening the time axis while compressing the spatial axis. This is still a
relativistic displacement but max acceleration is now on the temporal axis
and the spatial vector appear to take on fractional quantum states.

I have another blog regarding this subject here
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/comment/reply/22908 


Roarty, Francis X wrote:

> 
>  I am proposing that Lorentz contraction
> can occur in the opposite direction creating a time dilation where the
> gas diffused in a Casimir cavity appears to accelerate while the orbital
> diameter quite correctly calculates smaller than ground state because it
> is contracting away on the temporal axis.

I didn't quite follow this; English explanations, as always, tend to be
a bit fuzzy.  Could you characterize this reversed Lorentz contraction
mathematically, and show where you believe it comes from?

Lorentz contraction, so called, takes place when we shift our point of
view from one reference frame to another, and mathematically, it falls
out of the Lorentz transform for mapping coordinates in one inertial
frame to another.  What frames are we discussing here, and what
transform, exactly, are you proposing using which will result in
reversed contraction and (apparently) reversed time dilation?


> This only explains catalytic
> action but I suspect a Rigid catalyst can restrict access to the
> temporal axis such that only atoms can translate between hydrino and
> hydrogen states. Therefore monatomic gas diffusing deep into a temporal
> corridor

What, exactly, is a temporal corridor?

Could you characterize it mathematically?  (The English phrase "temporal
corridor" doesn't do a lot for me, I'm afraid.)

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Frank wrote:
> I have a better explanation with animation at http://byzipp.com/energy/ but
> basically it is just trig. I am saying that our perspective relative to the
> equivalent speed approaching an event horizon has a corollary in the Casimir
> cavity where I propose all vacuum fluctuations are "up converted" as QED
> refers to the inhibition of longer wavelengths between narrowing conductive
> plates. QED suggests the restricted longer wavelength flux are replaced with
> shorter wavelengths. I am proposing that they are the same longer flux
> twisted on the time axis which simply appears shorter from our perspective
> AND I posit that all the flux regardless of frequency twist as one fabric
> inside the cavity. I believe that this is a form of Lorentz contraction in
> that space time inside the cavity is slowed relative to outside the cavity
> and that atoms diffused in the cavity see outside the cavity in the same way
> we observe the twin approaching an event horizon only now from our
> perspective time is accelerated instead of slowed.

I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.

If tau is the local time for a tiny observer located inside the cavity,
and t is time for an external observer, what's dt/dtau?

And why should it be anything other than 1?

I have no idea what you mean by "longer flux twisted on the time axis";
I have no idea what it means to twist something on the time axis.  Could
you show the transform you have in mind?

For example, for the Lorentz transform, with c=1 and g=dt/dtau, and
motion along the x axis, we have

 | tau |   |   g -vg  0  0 |
 | x'  |   | -vg   g  0  0 |
 | y'  | = |   0   0  1  0 |
 | z'  |   |   0   0  0  1 |

unless I typed it in wrong.  That's a hyperbolic rotation, of course,
but it doesn't sound like you have that in mind, and in any case it is
the unity transform unless the frames are in motion with respect to each
other.  In the present case, the frames are stationary with respect to
each other, and the Lorentz transform is just I.

So, what transform are you proposing using, and how are you proposing
applying it in order to obtain something other than dt/dtau=1 in this case?


> 
> The trig would be our temporal vector at some low angle say about 10 degrees
> above horizontal

How can you have a temporal vector at some angle above horizontal?  That
seems to mix space and time measures in a way that doesn't make a lot of
apparent sense; perhaps you need to define some terms here.  What's a
"temporal vector"?


> representing the spatial axii while the paradox twin
> approaching an event horizon 

What's a "paradox twin" and what event horizon is it approaching?


> might be up aroung 85 degrees which causes the
> accepted Lorentz contraction as time and space trade parameters while the
> vector length remains constant. I am proposing  catalysts all create Casimir
> cavities which accelerate their reactions from our perspective by actually
> Widening the time axis while compressing the spatial axis. This is still a
> relativistic displacement but max acceleration is now on the temporal axis

How do you accelerate along the temporal axis?  What does that mean?

Do you mean dt/dtau is an increasing function of ... what, exactly?
What do you use for a time base to measure acceleration along the time axis?


> and the spatial vector appear to take on fractional quantum states.
> 
> I have another blog regarding this subject here
> http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/comment/reply/22908 

I'd like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take
time to read your blog or look at animations.

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[frank]

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.

 

If tau is the local time for a tiny observer located inside the cavity,

and t is time for an external observer, what's dt/dtau?

 

And why should it be anything other than 1?

 

  Because it is a protected harbour where vacuum fluctuations flowing
from future to past intersect with 3D space briefly wink into and out of
existence while keeping atomic orbitalls sustained as in the Puthoff model.
I am positing that we are NOT the opposite extreme from an event horizon and
that our standard ratio of time to space is reflected in the ratio of short
to long vacuum fluctuation wavelengths (AKA large and small virtual
particles) known to vary in Casimir cavities and I suspect approaching an
event horizon, There is variable rate of intersection between time and space
and I am saying the cavity forms a bubble that slows that rate of
intersection relative to outside the cavity.   

 

I have no idea what you mean by "longer flux twisted on the time axis";
larger virtual particles displaced on time axis appear smaller due to
contraction

I have no idea what it means to twist something on the time axis.  Could

you show the transform you have in mind? Sorry I use the tem twist instead
of displacement to simplify the animation. http://byzipp.com/energy/

 

For example, for the Lorentz transform, with c=1 and g=dt/dtau, and

motion along the x axis, we have

 

 | tau |   |   g -vg  0  0 |

 | x'  |   | -vg   g  0  0 |

 | y'  | = |   0   0  1  0 |

 | z'  |   |   0   0  0  1 |

 

unless I typed it in wrong.  That's a hyperbolic rotation, of course,

but it doesn't sound like you have that in mind, and in any case it is

the unity transform unless the frames are in motion with respect to each

other.  In the present case, the frames are stationary with respect to

each other, and the Lorentz transform is just I.

 

My point is there is relative motion, our space time outside the cavity is
rushing around a bubble created by the "up converted" vacuum fluctuations
inside the cavity.

 

So, what transform are you proposing using, and how are you proposing

applying it in order to obtain something other than dt/dtau=1 in this case?

 

 

> 

> The trig would be our temporal vector at some low angle say about 10
degrees

> above horizontal

 

How can you have a temporal vector at some angle above horizontal?  That

seems to mix space and time measures in a way that doesn't make a lot of

apparent sense; perhaps you need to define some terms here.  What's a

"temporal vector"?

 

I am collapsing all 3 spatial axis onto the x axis and time onto the Y. I am
saying we have a normally negligible temporal component that becomes
dominant when for instance  a twin approaches the speed of light and returns
home to find the other twin aged.

Combined vector might be a better term representing the temporal rise over
the spatial run of the vector. This vector would be almost vertical for an
object approaching C and almost horizontal in a Casimir cavity. Jan Naudts
introduced the concept of a relativistic solution for the hydrino and Ron
Bourgoin published a paper that exactly matched the 137 fractional quantum
states claimed by Mills. His formula can be inverted to also suggest 137
super states of the hydrogen atom that I contend would manifest approaching
the event horizon.

 

 

 

> might be up aroung 85 degrees which causes the

> accepted Lorentz contraction as time and space trade parameters while the

> vector length remains constant. I am proposing  catalysts all create
Casimir

> cavities which accelerate their reactions from our perspective by actually

> Widening the time axis while compressing the spatial axis. This is still a

> relativistic displacement but max acceleration is now on the temporal axis

 

How do you accelerate along the temporal axis?  What does that mean?

 

Do you mean dt/dtau is an increasing function of ... what, exactly?

What do you use for a time base to measure acceleration along the time axis?

 

 

> and the spatial vector appear to take on fractional quantum states.

> 

> I have another blog regarding this subject here

> http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/comment/reply/22908 

 

I'd like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take

time to read your blog or look at animations.

 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:




I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.


Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad.  My first  
inkling was it might be a Touring test.  It is indeed a problem when  
a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal and  
inadequately defined vocabulary.  It is further a problem when a  
miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph,  
without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear  
description.  A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a  
possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic  
computational process, though the development of relevant figures is  
admittedly quite outside that realm.  You have to check out the  
references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my  
initial impression.


One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the  
early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for  
any of them to be workable.  One criteria for evaluating competing CF  
theories was the number of miracles required.   The more miracles  
required, the worse the theory.


Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying to  
unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions.  Does your theory  
make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions?  Does it  
provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy producing  
device?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horace,
I don't recognize you as qualified to make such assertions, Most
physicists I communicate with made some effort but you appear incapable
while both demanding and condescending. I don't know how your persona
developed but it is annoying and is destroying your karma.
Hope it is not too late for you
Fran



-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon


On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



> I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.

Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad.  My first  
inkling was it might be a Touring test.  It is indeed a problem when  
a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal and  
inadequately defined vocabulary.  It is further a problem when a  
miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph,  
without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear  
description.  A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a  
possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic  
computational process, though the development of relevant figures is  
admittedly quite outside that realm.  You have to check out the  
references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my  
initial impression.

One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the  
early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for  
any of them to be workable.  One criteria for evaluating competing CF  
theories was the number of miracles required.   The more miracles  
required, the worse the theory.

Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying to  
unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions.  Does your theory  
make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions?  Does it  
provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy producing  
device?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

frank wrote:
>  
> I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.
> 
> If tau is the local time for a tiny observer located inside the cavity,
> 
> and t is time for an external observer, what's dt/dtau?
>
> And why should it be anything other than 1?
> 
>  
> 
>   *Because it is a protected harbour where vacuum fluctuations
> flowing from future to past intersect with 3D space briefly wink into
> and out of existence while keeping atomic orbitalls sustained as in the
> Puthoff model.

So what's dt/dtau?  What *value* does it have?


> I am positing that we are NOT the opposite extreme from
> an event horizon

What does that mean?  I am aware of no claim that we are the opposite
extreme from an event horizon, and in fact I have no clue what it might
mean to be so -- "opposite extreme" in what sense?

> and that our standard ratio of time to space

What's a "ratio of time to space"?

> is
> reflected in the ratio of short to long vacuum fluctuation wavelengths
> (AKA large and small virtual particles) known to vary in Casimir
> cavities and I suspect approaching an event horizon,

*What* event horizon?  You have brought up an event horizon multiple
times; please state what event horizon you're talking about.


> There is variable
> rate of intersection between time and space and I am saying the cavity
> forms a bubble that slows that rate of intersection relative to outside
> the cavity.   *

OK I think I give up at this point.

The 'rate of intersection of time and space' doesn't seem to mean
anything to me.  If you can characterize it mathematically or even
define it clearly using the normal language of physics that's great,
please do so, but to be honest this is sounding more and more like word
salad.


> I have no idea what you mean by "longer flux twisted on the time axis";
> *larger virtual particles displaced on time axis appear smaller due to
> contraction*

The virtual particles appear smaller??  What does that mean?

Please state the equation that describes the contraction.  Your English
explanation still isn't making it clear.


> 
> I have no idea what it means to twist something on the time axis.  Could
> 
> you show the transform you have in mind? *Sorry I use the tem twist
> instead of displacement to simplify the animation.

What is the transform?

What is the equation describing the contraction?

And what is the value of dt/dtau?

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horrace-  My mistake, It was Steven's comment I took offense to when he
made inquiries without reading the references and then remarked "I'd
like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take
time to read your blog or look at animations." I stopped answering his
questions when I read that and then saw your comments this AM in a
similar vein and just assumed the same author. 
Sorry
Fran



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

Horace,
I don't recognize you as qualified to make such assertions, Most
physicists I communicate with made some effort but you appear incapable
while both demanding and condescending. I don't know how your persona
developed but it is annoying and is destroying your karma.
Hope it is not too late for you
Fran



-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon


On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



> I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.

Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad.  My first  
inkling was it might be a Touring test.  It is indeed a problem when  
a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal and  
inadequately defined vocabulary.  It is further a problem when a  
miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph,  
without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear  
description.  A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a  
possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic  
computational process, though the development of relevant figures is  
admittedly quite outside that realm.  You have to check out the  
references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my  
initial impression.

One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the  
early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for  
any of them to be workable.  One criteria for evaluating competing CF  
theories was the number of miracles required.   The more miracles  
required, the worse the theory.

Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying to  
unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions.  Does your theory  
make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions?  Does it  
provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy producing  
device?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Roarty, Francis X wrote:
> Horrace-  My mistake, It was Steven's comment I took offense to when he
> made inquiries without reading the references and then remarked "I'd
> like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take
> time to read your blog or look at animations." I stopped answering his
> questions when I read that and then saw your comments this AM in a
> similar vein and just assumed the same author. 

I'm sorry if my "demands" that you define some terms offended you, Frank.

But rather than accusing me of being unwilling to take the effort to
understand your theory, *you* should just take the effort to actually:

 -- define your terms

 -- provide the formula you've derived for dt/dtau

 -- provide the formula for the alleged contraction

 -- provide the formula for the transform you're using which leads to
those values

 -- tell us what event horizon you're talking about

Can you do that?

Absent any equations or definitions of your terms, your theory appears
to be little more than word salad.

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Terry Blanton]

I thought this all sounded familiar:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6156

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Terry Blanton wrote:
> I thought this all sounded familiar:
> 
> http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6156
> 
> Terry

Thanks for the ref, Terry.  It sheds a little light on this.

Funny, my first thought was that Frank sounded a whole lot more coherent
on that thread than he has here -- and then I realized I was reading an
abstract he had quoted, but the abstract was written by someone else
(abstract from patent granted to Haisch and Moddel).

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

By the way, the patent which apparently started Frank off on this, and
the effort to produce a device based on it, are described here:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Jovion_Corporation_and_Zero_Point_Energy

It's an interesting concept:  squash atoms through tiny cavities which
force them to give up energy, and then let the inflate again with energy
from the zero point field.

So you sort of treat the atoms like little sponges;  squeeze out their
energy using tiny cavities, then let them loose to "sponge up" some more
from the ZPF.



Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> 
> Terry Blanton wrote:
>> I thought this all sounded familiar:
>>
>> http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6156
>>
>> Terry
> 
> Thanks for the ref, Terry.  It sheds a little light on this.
> 
> Funny, my first thought was that Frank sounded a whole lot more coherent
> on that thread than he has here -- and then I realized I was reading an
> abstract he had quoted, but the abstract was written by someone else
> (abstract from patent granted to Haisch and Moddel).
> 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:


Does your theory make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions?


If it does not, it isn't a theory as far as I am concerned. It is 
empty speculation.



Does it provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy 
producing device?


This is the only use I have for any theory.

I wish that theory authors would always include a section in their 
papers listing "quantitative or qualitative predictions" and 
suggestions for experimentalists.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Terry Blanton]

Yeah, I posted something on this back in April:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg31261.html

Terry

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> By the way, the patent which apparently started Frank off on this, and
> the effort to produce a device based on it, are described here:
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Jovion_Corporation_and_Zero_Point_Energy
>
> It's an interesting concept:  squash atoms through tiny cavities which
> force them to give up energy, and then let the inflate again with energy
> from the zero point field.
>
> So you sort of treat the atoms like little sponges;  squeeze out their
> energy using tiny cavities, then let them loose to "sponge up" some more
> from the ZPF.
>
>
>
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> Terry Blanton wrote:
>>> I thought this all sounded familiar:
>>>
>>> http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6156
>>>
>>> Terry
>>
>> Thanks for the ref, Terry.  It sheds a little light on this.
>>
>> Funny, my first thought was that Frank sounded a whole lot more coherent
>> on that thread than he has here -- and then I realized I was reading an
>> abstract he had quoted, but the abstract was written by someone else
>> (abstract from patent granted to Haisch and Moddel).
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 23, 2009, at 6:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


By the way, the patent which apparently started Frank off on this, and
the effort to produce a device based on it, are described here:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/ 
Directory:Jovion_Corporation_and_Zero_Point_Energy


It's an interesting concept:  squash atoms through tiny cavities which
force them to give up energy, and then let the inflate again with  
energy

from the zero point field.

So you sort of treat the atoms like little sponges;  squeeze out their
energy using tiny cavities, then let them loose to "sponge up" some  
more

from the ZPF.


This Haisch and Moddel patent is very similar to the thruster concept  
I posted here in 2003:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf

The difference between concepts is I proposed extracting momentum  
from the energy/(inertial mass) change, dp/dt change, instead of the  
energy difference.  Both concepts have the difficulty that the energy/ 
mass change is not experimentally verified, and thus not quantifiable  
for engineering purposes. By converting mass/energy changes in cavity  
traverses to momentum gain, however, energy is then made available by  
converting the thrust into device momentum, especially for space  
propulsion.  Also, if sufficient momentum is gained with respect to  
drive energy input, then such a thruster drive can be mounted on a  
large armature of an electric generator in order to produce  
electrical energy directly.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
I don't recognize you as qualified to make such assertions, Most
physicists I communicate with made some effort but you appear  
incapable

while both demanding and condescending. I don't know how your persona
developed but it is annoying and is destroying your karma.
Hope it is not too late for you
Fran


On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

Horrace-  My mistake, It was Steven's comment I took offense to  
when he

made inquiries without reading the references and then remarked "I'd
like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take
time to read your blog or look at animations." I stopped answering his
questions when I read that and then saw your comments this AM in a
similar vein and just assumed the same author.
Sorry
Fran



Actually, you probably took offense at *both* Steven's and my  
comments.  We are both saying similar things from different  
perspectives.  If you look at our comments carefully, you can see  
that they are actually constructive and provide some meaningful  
questions.  My comments are repeated below, with no one else's text  
quoted to confuse things.



On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad.  My first  
inkling was it might be a Touring test.  It is indeed a problem  
when a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal  
and inadequately defined vocabulary.  It is further a problem when  
a miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph,  
without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear  
description.  A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a  
possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic  
computational process, though the development of relevant figures  
is admittedly quite outside that realm.  You have to check out the  
references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my  
initial impression.


One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the  
early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for  
any of them to be workable.  One criteria for evaluating competing  
CF theories was the number of miracles required.   The more  
miracles required, the worse the theory.


Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying  
to unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions.  Does your  
theory make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions?   
Does it provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy  
producing device?



Yes, my "Touring test" comments can be construed as condescending.   
My apologies for that.  However, they also provide you with an honest  
first impression of at least one reader upon reading your material.   
If you want to continue to leave this kind of impression, that your  
writing is either confused or intentionally confusing, then don't  
bother attempting to refine it or respond to questions.  If you do  
want to improve the clarity of your communication, then the implied  
constructive comments are:


1. When introducing new physical mechanisms or not commonplace  
concepts, provide an adequate reference, derivation, or precise  
description.


2. When using unconventional or new terminology provide clear  
definitions.


3. Where possible provide formulas or numerical values that assist in  
making testable predictions or demonstrate that your concepts have  
some utility.


I really would like to know, does your theory make any testable  
quantitative or qualitative predictions?  Does it provide any  
assistance with engineering a practical energy producing device?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Hmm -- Horace, I had a question about a somewhat different proposal.

You have proposed that if we let two plates come together, pushed by the
Casimir force, then slide them apart sideways, and then repeat, we can
get energy out of the cycle.

Now, I don't pretend to understand the Casimir effect at any but the
most superficial level.  However, it *seems*, on the surface, a lot like
a "push gravity" theory, in which we're being constantly bombarded by
some kind of radiation which "pushes" on all sides equally, and the
apparent gravitational field of an object is due to its shading us from
the "global G-particle field".

The chief difference I see here is that, AFAIK, a "push gravity" field
is conservative.  In fact, as I understand it, the only detectable
difference between "push gravity" and Newtonian gravity is in very
intense fields, where the "push gravity" field may "hit the rails" and
start "clipping".

As I understand it, the reason the sliding-plate thing doesn't work to
produce energy with push gravity is that the "push" comes from impact by
particles coming from *all* *directions* over an entire hemisphere.
When we're sliding the plates apart, there is a "push" force acting on
both *edges* of the sliding plate, but the trailing edge is "partly
shaded" by the other plate.  (See attachment.)  Consequently the "push"
on the leading edge is slightly larger than the "push" on the trailing
edge, and the work done sliding the plates apart ends up the same as if
they were just pulled apart directly.

The question this brings up is, does something similar happen with the
Casimir force?  Does the adjacent conductive plate reduce the
possibilities for virtual particles appearing at the trailing edge of
the plate, and hence reduce the "push" on that end, and so result in the
need to "do work" to slide the plates apart sideways?

It may be that the fact that you can make a conductive plate arbitrarily
thin would imply that this mechanism doesn't happen or at least doesn't
exactly cancel the energy gained.  But I don't understand the Casimir
effect, which is why I'm asking.


Horace Heffner wrote:

> The difference between concepts is I proposed extracting momentum from
> the energy/(inertial mass) change, dp/dt change, instead of the energy
> difference.  Both concepts have the difficulty that the energy/mass
> change is not experimentally verified, and thus not quantifiable for
> engineering purposes. By converting mass/energy changes in cavity
> traverses to momentum gain, however, energy is then made available by
> converting the thrust into device momentum, especially for space
> propulsion.  Also, if sufficient momentum is gained with respect to
> drive energy input, then such a thruster drive can be mounted on a large
> armature of an electric generator in order to produce electrical energy
> directly.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
> 
> 
> 
> 
<>

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horrace,
Horace,
 Your criticism was harsher but constructive and you read my information
where as Steven just implied his time was much more valuable and
wouldn't bother reading my support blogs unless I made a better case--
either criticism was within the scientific method individually but I
mistakenly identified you as the author of both - therefore I perceived
the same author telling me he didn't have time to read the support
material then coming back and asking questions related to that material.
- I will be more careful in the future but was so overwhelmed by the
number of questions I lost my ability to concentrate - I wanted to
answer many things at once and so ended up answering nothing very well.

I have read your suggestions and will make some attempt to clarify
things but must focus on only 1 point at a time. That point in this
reply is that the Bohr radius remains constant in a hydrino but we only
perceive the spatial component which has contracted. The hydrino radius
between the nucleus and orbital has a temporal rise and spatial run
different from the hydrogen radius but the length of the hypotenuse
remains constant. For a fractional ground state of 1/n it is just
Pythagoreans:  Bohr radius ^2 = (Bohr/N)^2 + Y^2  where Y solved for
distance can be converted to time by C/Y  

Fran

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon


On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

> Horace,
>   I don't recognize you as qualified to make such assertions, Most
> physicists I communicate with made some effort but you appear  
> incapable
> while both demanding and condescending. I don't know how your persona
> developed but it is annoying and is destroying your karma.
> Hope it is not too late for you
> Fran

On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

> Horrace-  My mistake, It was Steven's comment I took offense to  
> when he
> made inquiries without reading the references and then remarked "I'd
> like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take
> time to read your blog or look at animations." I stopped answering his
> questions when I read that and then saw your comments this AM in a
> similar vein and just assumed the same author.
> Sorry
> Fran


Actually, you probably took offense at *both* Steven's and my  
comments.  We are both saying similar things from different  
perspectives.  If you look at our comments carefully, you can see  
that they are actually constructive and provide some meaningful  
questions.  My comments are repeated below, with no one else's text  
quoted to confuse things.


On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

> Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad.  My first  
> inkling was it might be a Touring test.  It is indeed a problem  
> when a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal  
> and inadequately defined vocabulary.  It is further a problem when  
> a miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph,  
> without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear  
> description.  A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a  
> possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic  
> computational process, though the development of relevant figures  
> is admittedly quite outside that realm.  You have to check out the  
> references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my  
> initial impression.
>
> One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the  
> early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for  
> any of them to be workable.  One criteria for evaluating competing  
> CF theories was the number of miracles required.   The more  
> miracles required, the worse the theory.
>
> Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying  
> to unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions.  Does your  
> theory make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions?   
> Does it provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy  
> producing device?


Yes, my "Touring test" comments can be construed as condescending.   
My apologies for that.  However, they also provide you with an honest  
first impression of at least one reader upon reading your material.   
If you want to continue to leave this kind of impression, that your  
writing is either confused or intentionally confusing, then don't  
bother attempting to refine it or respond to questions.  If you do  
want to improve the clarity of your communication, then the implied  
constructive comments are:

1. When introducing new

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Roarty, Francis X wrote:
> Horrace,
> Horace,
>  Your criticism was harsher but constructive and you read my information
> where as Steven just implied his time was much more valuable and
> wouldn't bother reading my support blogs unless I made a better case--

You seem to have forgotten that I also asked a number of very specific
questions, all of which were directed at understanding what you were
trying to say, and none of which you answered.  You apparently ignored
all of them.

You gave two links in your messages, but did not even suggest that any
of my questions were answered in either of them; certainly an animation,
the first thing you provided, was not going to answer the questions I asked.

As far as I can tell you either never read the questions that I asked,
or did not understand them.  If it's the latter, you should have said so
and asked for clarification.  If, on the other hand, you felt the
couldn't be answered in the present domain of discourse, you should have
said so, and said why.

Ignoring them was not a good plan if you hoped to discuss your theory.


> I  [ ... ]  must focus on only 1 point at a time. 


So why can't you focus on one question, write down the answer,

 and then focus on the next question for a while, write down that
answer...

... and then do it again, until you get to the end of the list of
questions...

and THEN, *after* addressing each question in turn, send the response?

Whatever... Let's look at the item you answered.

In your reply you said:

> That point in this
> reply is that the Bohr radius remains constant in a hydrino but we only
> perceive the spatial component which has contracted. The hydrino radius
> between the nucleus and orbital has a temporal rise and spatial run [snip]

Let's stop right there.  The "present", for any observer, has zero
thickness along that observer's time axis.  What does it mean for the
radius of the orbit to have an increased extent along the time axis?

Time is not a spatial dimension, after all, and there *is* a difference
between time and space, even in special relativity.  The "radius" is a
distance measure between the nucleus and the electron, which is, in
classical terms, determined by finding the coordinates of an event at
the nucleus and an event at the electron, determining that their time
coordinates *match* in our frame of reference, and then finding the
difference in their space coordinates.  In other words, the absolute
value of the interval between an event in the nucleus and one at the
electron is the radius of the orbit (in our frame of reference) *if* the
time coordinates of the two events match (in our frame of reference).

Now, you say the radius is rotated into time, and so it appears shorter
in space.

Please explain how (in principle) you would measure the size of the
radius, and what it means for it to be rotated into time.

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Nick Palmer]

I know Horace and Steven have been commenting on this topic critically but I 
kind of got what Frank was on about the first time (in amongst the confusing 
word salad). The event horizon stuff escapes me... Here is (I think) a 
testable hypothesis that would offer support to this time dilation between 
Casimir plates. Fire short half life particles/atoms though the gap between 
the plates and see if there is an effect on their lifespan.


Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it 

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Mark Iverson]

Stephen wrote:
"Let's stop right there.  The 'present', for any observer, has zero thickness 
along that observer's
time axis." 

What is zero thickness for a human could be a lifetime at the subatomic level...

It all depends on what scale you're talking about... And don't mix scales!

-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Jones Beene]

Yes, but no doubt Nick is a fan of "Lost" and understand the intricacies of 

http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Physics

Serious, folks - Frank has a fascinating alternative to Mills, and it is a
bit unfair to expect from him a perfectly-formed and error-free theory at
this point in time - even in dilated-time  ;-)

>From the perspective of a work-in-progress, it is insightful and helpful. If
it were any more complete, he would not be wasting time on Vortex, to be ...
well ... perfectly frank.

As to its predictive power, yes, I think there could be something to Nick's
suggestion that warrants a closer look.

However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir gap
would be difficult. A minimal beam of ultra cold neutrons comes to mind as a
particle whose decay time is well known, short, and could be influenced by a
short transit time. Matter of fact, I have a vague memory of something
similar already being out there... for different purposes, but it might be
worth a look.

I wonder if a orthogonal laser pulse between plates, spaced at a few nm
might show an effect? Yes, that was a rhetorical question, since we know it
to be true - but isn't this adequately described and/or is time dilation
part of it? The beauty of the photonic route is that you might be able to
predict in advance, and arrange to measure for a predicted Doppler red shift
based on time and other variable - and would not the existence of a few
kinds of gratings or filters already be tentative evidence of how to
proceed?

Jones

Matter of fact, as Nick may realize, Minkowski is a character in "Lost" IIRC
;-) 

Actually, having no TV by choice, I must depend on a few YouTube vids from
this kind of gnosis/prognosis...


-Original Message-
From: Nick Palmer 

I know Horace and Steven have been commenting on this topic critically but I

kind of got what Frank was on about the first time (in amongst the confusing

word salad). The event horizon stuff escapes me... Here is (I think) a 
testable hypothesis that would offer support to this time dilation between 
Casimir plates. Fire short half life particles/atoms though the gap between 
the plates and see if there is an effect on their lifespan.

Nick Palmer

On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> 
> Jones Beene wrote:
> 
>> However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir gap
>> would be difficult
> 
> Akshully  How about, forget the "massive" bit, just substitute
> tritium oxide for deuterium oxide and load any-old-material with Casimir
> sized pores with it, and see if the decay rate drops.

Or rises.

I'm still not clear on whether Frank is proposing time slows down or
speeds up in the gap.


> 
> Dunno if it would be sensitive enough, but in principle it seems like it
> would be simple and clear evidence one way or the other.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Jones Beene wrote:

> However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir gap
> would be difficult

Akshully  How about, forget the "massive" bit, just substitute
tritium oxide for deuterium oxide and load any-old-material with Casimir
sized pores with it, and see if the decay rate drops.

Dunno if it would be sensitive enough, but in principle it seems like it
would be simple and clear evidence one way or the other.

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Steven,
Been briefly auditing when work allows but this is a quickie...
I believe time speeds up from our perspective accounting for the amount
of catalytic action that occurs (if relativistic then reactants are
unaware of the acceleration and actually put in all those extra hours
from their perspective) - and in response to a previous comment, the
reason I kept using the term event horizon as a reference instead of
approaching the speed of light was to establish equivalence at both ends
of the spectrum as the cavity and observer remain spatially stationary
to each other the delta in acceleration must be through equivalence
also. I believe the sea of vacuum flux permeate or "pressure" matter at
slightly different rates that is multiplied in a Casimir cavity, This
differential then creates an equivalent acceleration perpendicular to
space allowing two objects spatially stationary to other to have
different temporal accelerations (just read Puthoffs' "Everything from
Nothing" from list Horace sent me, I think I am using the term
"pressure" in the same way he did)
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon



Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> 
> Jones Beene wrote:
> 
>> However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir
gap
>> would be difficult
> 
> Akshully  How about, forget the "massive" bit, just substitute
> tritium oxide for deuterium oxide and load any-old-material with
Casimir
> sized pores with it, and see if the decay rate drops.

Or rises.

I'm still not clear on whether Frank is proposing time slows down or
speeds up in the gap.


> 
> Dunno if it would be sensitive enough, but in principle it seems like
it
> would be simple and clear evidence one way or the other.
> 

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

Snip
This Haisch and Moddel patent is very similar to the thruster concept I
posted here in 2003:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf

Reply
Horrace
I just read your Inertial paper you referenced from 2003. You were
way ahead of your time and think you should return to that paper and update
it to reflect some of the information we can glean from BLP and Jovion. We
now know that keeping the gas monatomic is important and we also know that
black light plasma should be emitted when linkage to vacuum flux is
established. It doesn't matter who's theory is correct about how the energy
is transferred as long as we agree the plasma emitted is from the hydrogen.
I recall reading that Mills' showed off a Black Light plasma lamp which gave
the witness a sunburn and that a Dutch physicist(Kr..?) is trying to repeat
the lamp in Europe. If such a lamp were available it would make a simple
test for your thruster in that a black light plasma lamp with a portable
supply on one side of a beam balance and equal weight on the other would
exhibit different inertia when on vs off. Adding or subtracting weights
while the plasma is exhibited should have different frictional linkage with
the ZPE field and slow the settle time. I am not saying it would levitate in
fact the opposite is likely in that it would increase inertia making the
lamp harder to move. 

Fran





-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon


On Jul 23, 2009, at 6:01 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> By the way, the patent which apparently started Frank off on this, and
> the effort to produce a device based on it, are described here:
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/ 
> Directory:Jovion_Corporation_and_Zero_Point_Energy
>
> It's an interesting concept:  squash atoms through tiny cavities which
> force them to give up energy, and then let the inflate again with  
> energy
> from the zero point field.
>
> So you sort of treat the atoms like little sponges;  squeeze out their
> energy using tiny cavities, then let them loose to "sponge up" some  
> more
> from the ZPF.

This Haisch and Moddel patent is very similar to the thruster concept  
I posted here in 2003:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf

The difference between concepts is I proposed extracting momentum  
from the energy/(inertial mass) change, dp/dt change, instead of the  
energy difference.  Both concepts have the difficulty that the energy/ 
mass change is not experimentally verified, and thus not quantifiable  
for engineering purposes. By converting mass/energy changes in cavity  
traverses to momentum gain, however, energy is then made available by  
converting the thrust into device momentum, especially for space  
propulsion.  Also, if sufficient momentum is gained with respect to  
drive energy input, then such a thruster drive can be mounted on a  
large armature of an electric generator in order to produce  
electrical energy directly.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank Roarty]

How about circulating a radioactive gas through fine metal powder, assuming
it doesn't become pyrophoric it would create through channel cavities
between the grains instead of dead end cavities inside the metal.



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon



Jones Beene wrote:

> However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir gap
> would be difficult

Akshully  How about, forget the "massive" bit, just substitute
tritium oxide for deuterium oxide and load any-old-material with Casimir
sized pores with it, and see if the decay rate drops.

Dunno if it would be sensitive enough, but in principle it seems like it
would be simple and clear evidence one way or the other.

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Jones Beene]

Given that tritium is expensive, toxic, and tightly controlled and that
there is no requirement for a gas

- and given that you are interested in Mills work and that potassium is a
BLP catalyst, and that 40K is mildly radioactive and available in enriched
form and has a low melting point.

Get hold of a potassium-40 isotope enriched sample, GM meters with
datalogging - some Raney Nickel, and measure the counts before and after
impregnating the sample into the Raney Nickel using heat and vacuum and
exercising due caution. Best to datalog both measurement over several days
or even weeks.



-Original Message-
From: Frank Roarty 

How about circulating a radioactive gas through fine metal powder, assuming
it doesn't become pyrophoric it would create through channel cavities
between the grains instead of dead end cavities inside the metal.



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 


Jones Beene wrote:

> However, getting a massive charged particle to transverse a Casimir gap
> would be difficult

Akshully  How about, forget the "massive" bit, just substitute
tritium oxide for deuterium oxide and load any-old-material with Casimir
sized pores with it, and see if the decay rate drops.

Dunno if it would be sensitive enough, but in principle it seems like it
would be simple and clear evidence one way or the other.

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Given that tritium is expensive, toxic, and tightly controlled and  
that

there is no requirement for a gas

- and given that you are interested in Mills work and that  
potassium is a
BLP catalyst, and that 40K is mildly radioactive and available in  
enriched

form and has a low melting point.

Get hold of a potassium-40 isotope enriched sample, GM meters with
datalogging - some Raney Nickel, and measure the counts before and  
after
impregnating the sample into the Raney Nickel using heat and vacuum  
and
exercising due caution. Best to datalog both measurement over  
several days

or even weeks.



The half-life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years.  Such an  
experiment would be much easier to run with technetium, which has a  
half life of 66 hours.  Technetium is manufactured on a daily basis  
for hospital radiology clinics for various kids of uptake scans. I  
had a heart scan based on positron emission from technetium.  I was  
shocked to see the reading on my geiger counter when I got home and  
placed it near me.  The radioactivity went away after a while.


It is not logical to expect a cavity effect to cause any detectable  
change in the amount of 40K. It is only the *disintegration rate*  
that should be affected while in the cavity.  It is not easy to  
measure that rate in-situ. Once out of the cavity, no difference  
would be detectable because so little of 40K is eliminated in a  
matter of days, even if the half-life is cut by a 1000 to 1 while in  
the cavity.  By using a short half-life isotope, the disintegration  
rate post-cavity will be measurably affected if the in-cavity  
disintegration rate is affected significantly.


Technetium can be chemically separated from whatever apparatus in  
which it is used, and the before and after counts easily compared to  
expected values.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

Technetium would also be a handy element to use to see if Barker's  
method of enhancing alpha decay also works for positron emission  
decay. See United States Patent 5,076,971 Barker Dec. 31, 1991,  
Method for enhancing alpha decay in radioactive materials,Inventors:  
Barker; William A. (Los Altos, CA). Assignee: Altran Corporation  
(Sunnyvale, CA). Appl. No.: 400,180, Filed: Aug. 28, 1989.


That patent doesn't have much life left, even if it was maintained.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Jones Beene]

Horace 

> The half-life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years... It is not logical to 
> expect a cavity effect to cause any detectable change in the amount of 40K. 

Yes, we would be looking for a dramatic change in the decay rate as measured in 
the average microrem per hour, or whatever, but "dramatic" or logical is not 
the problem - it is even less logical to expect the drastic changes which have 
been claimed in such things as thorium remediation. In either case, if there 
was pronounced time dilation at the Casimir geomtery - it could be extreme - 
not gradual.

Admittedly, the operative word there for thorium is "claimed". But speaking of 
the Barker patents, which is a situation of high electrostatic voltage 
containment = a few of those claims were for changes on the order of 10^6 in 
decay rates ... and I am convinced they are accurate, from personal work I have 
done.

I would not hesitate to give 40K a shot, if I were in Fran's shoes and thought 
it would help to validate the theory - but sure, if other isotopes with shorter 
half-lives are available, and can be placed in cavities as easily as by vacuum 
melting - then go for it ... why not.

Then there is always the tactic of cannibalizing your smoke detector ;-)

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:



Horace

> The half-life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years... It is not  
logical to expect a cavity effect to cause any detectable change in  
the amount of 40K.


Yes, we would be looking for a dramatic change in the decay rate as  
measured in the average microrem per hour, or whatever, but  
"dramatic" or logical is not the problem - it is even less logical  
to expect the drastic changes which have been claimed in such  
things as thorium remediation. In either case, if there was  
pronounced time dilation at the Casimir geomtery - it could be  
extreme - not gradual.


Admittedly, the operative word there for thorium is "claimed". But  
speaking of the Barker patents, which is a situation of high  
electrostatic voltage containment = a few of those claims were for  
changes on the order of 10^6 in decay rates ... and I am convinced  
they are accurate, from personal work I have done.



I have not made the point clear.  Suppose your sample of 40 K  
actually does change on the order of 10^6 in decay rate while in the  
cavity, and resumes its old decay rate when outside the cavity.  It's  
new half life is then 1.3 million years.  In one year you consume  
about (1/2)(1/(1.3x10^6) = .00386 of your 40K.  If you run the  
experiment for 36 days, or about 1/10 a year.   You consume about  
(1/10)(. 00386) = 0.00386 of the sample.  Now, after the  
experiment, if you digest the material and extract your 40K, and  
count it, you will have to distinguish a loss of 0.00386 of the  
sample, far less than the accuracy of any kind of extraction that can  
be performed.  Unless you use a short half life isotope, you need to  
measure cavity count rates in-situ, or determine them from calorimetry.


If you use an isotope with a short half life, you only have to run  
the experiment for about the length of the half life to see major  
results. Technetium has a half life of 6 hours (not 66 hours as I  
mistakenly typed earlier, it is 99Mo that has the 66 hour half life,  
and  99mTe is produced from 99Mo in hospitals), so if you run the  
experiment 6 hours and measure the count, it should be about 1/2 the  
original.  If the half life is reduced to 1/1000 of 6 hours,  or 21.6  
seconds, then a 6 hour run will leave only (1/2)^1000 of the original  
material, a robust result!






I would not hesitate to give 40K a shot, if I were in Fran's shoes  
and thought it would help to validate the theory - but sure, if  
other isotopes with shorter half-lives are available, and can be  
placed in cavities as easily as by vacuum melting - then go for  
it ... why not.


Then there is always the tactic of cannibalizing your smoke  
detector ;-)


Jones


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Jones Beene]

But Horace - you do not need to be concerned with weight loss at all, nor
with what happens after the experiment. I think you are basing your
assumptions on the common argon dating method for minerals (the 40K -> 40Ar
dating method). That is not needed here. We do not care about change in
mass. This is a different approach than the argon dating method and it is
similar to what the Barkers did.

 

The only concern is the actual ongoing counts: IOW the actual ongoing decay
rate, IF that rate can be altered by Casimir cavities - that is all that
matters in the simplest experiment.

 

Here is a quick and dirty way to describe it. If this is successful, then
you would definitely want to improve on it, but this can offer a prima facie
case for alteration in the decay rate by Casimir cavities, and can be done
cheaply.

 

 

1)Obtain two identical flat samples of potassium metal (exposure to moisture
must be avoided). Preferably they will be enriched in 40K but that is not
required

 

2)For simplicity obtain two identical GM meters with datalogging and USB
connectors, like the GM-10

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/geiger_counter.html

 

3) Confirm in side-by-side testing that the decay rate of both samples is
nearly identical from a set distance - lets say it is 1000 counts per minute
at 5 cm head-on with the meter aimed down from above. 

 

4) Obtain a gram of Raney nickel powder and loosely cover one of the samples
with it, and remeasure the decay rate. It should not change much but could
be lowered to say 950 due to partial shielding from Raney. The GM-10 will
pick up secondaries from moderately shielded beta decay, and my experience
has been that the loose powder would not change the rate much.

 

4) Place that sample in a vacuum chamber in a shallow mold, covered with the
Ni powder, evacuate for an extended period, and then heat above 146 F, and
give the much denser Ni time to be impregnated with K in the pores, which
extend into that size range

 

5) Now measure again the two samples, for a side-by-side decay rate, as
before - and continue for the next week and datalog. 

 

Is there a significant difference in the average over time between the
Casimir impregnated sample? i.e. if the bulk sample continues at roughly the
same average of 1k counts/hr and the Ni impregnated sample has increased to
1.5 k counts/hr (when it should be slightly less) then you may have enough
of a prima facie case for real time dilation to really think out a much more
elaborate and controlled experiment.

 

The problem - which is seen in the Barker experiments is that the decay rate
is not always increased - with some samples, the rate decreases, depending
on the mineral. The Barker experiment works best (only) with minerals like
pitchblende. There is no or little effect with pure metals. Thinking back on
it now, this is actually consistent with the Casimir/time-distortion
modality - since the mineral, as opposed to a bulk metal, could be
effectively creating a grid of interlocking ceramic Casimir cavities,
especially when high electrostatic voltage is applied.

 

 

 

From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:10 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

 

On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, Jones Beene wrote:






Horace 

> The half-life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years... It is not logical to
expect a cavity effect to cause any detectable change in the amount of 40K. 

Yes, we would be looking for a dramatic change in the decay rate as measured
in the average microrem per hour, or whatever, but "dramatic" or logical is
not the problem - it is even less logical to expect the drastic changes
which have been claimed in such things as thorium remediation. In either
case, if there was pronounced time dilation at the Casimir geomtery - it
could be extreme - not gradual.

Admittedly, the operative word there for thorium is "claimed". But speaking
of the Barker patents, which is a situation of high electrostatic voltage
containment = a few of those claims were for changes on the order of 10^6 in
decay rates ... and I am convinced they are accurate, from personal work I
have done.

 

 

I have not made the point clear.  Suppose your sample of 40 K actually does
change on the order of 10^6 in decay rate while in the cavity, and resumes
its old decay rate when outside the cavity.  It's new half life is then 1.3
million years.  In one year you consume about (1/2)(1/(1.3x10^6) =
..00386 of your 40K.  If you run the experiment for 36 days, or about
1/10 a year.   You consume about (1/10)(. 00386) = 0.00386 of the
sample.  Now, after the experiment, if you digest the material and extract
your 40K, and count it, you will have to distinguish a loss of 0.00386
of the sample, far less than the accuracy of any kind of extraction that can
be performed.  U

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

Stephen,
Horace did hit home regarding your questions that I never answered.
I am starting to pick up the lingo from ongoing threads and citations but
the math is still a struggle for me but let me take a swing at some of your
questions with what I have learned...

[Snip]
If tau is the local time for a tiny observer located inside the cavity,
and t is time for an external observer, what's dt/dtau?

[Reply]
External t is 1 second per second
Internal tau has at least 137 states where dt/dtau varies from 1 to infinity
approaching C or instantaneous from our perspective   
-
[Snip]
And why should it be anything other than 1?

[Reply]
The change in ratio of short wavelength vacuum fluctuations to long due to
"up conversion" doesn't have to be due to exclusion of long flux wavelength
and replacement by shorter wavelength fluctuations, The relativistic
solution Jan Naudts introduced in a 2005 paper "On the hydrino state of the
relativistic hydrogen atom"  http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2 
 which contends that the sub zero state argument overlooks relativistic
effect inside Casimir cavities. I am applying Naudts' logic to the
interpretation of "up-conversion" and positing that the same long wavelength
flux can appear to be short flux if the plates induce a relativistic effect.
Call it Lorentz contraction or twisting on the temporal axis or as Jones
pointed out the imaginary axis described by Hotson's paper on Dirac
Equation-Sea of Negative Energy, the point is the same that space-time is
distributed differently inside a Casimir cavity and tau has a different rate
than t.


[Snip]
I have no idea what you mean by "longer flux twisted on the time axis";
I have no idea what it means to twist something on the time axis.  Could
you show the transform you have in mind?

For example, for the Lorentz transform, with c=1 and g=dt/dtau, and
motion along the x axis, we have

 | tau |   |   g -vg  0  0 |
 | x'  |   | -vg   g  0  0 |
 | y'  | = |   0   0  1  0 |
 | z'  |   |   0   0  0  1 |

unless I typed it in wrong.  That's a hyperbolic rotation, of course,
but it doesn't sound like you have that in mind, and in any case it is
the unity transform unless the frames are in motion with respect to each
other.  In the present case, the frames are stationary with respect to
each other, and the Lorentz transform is just I.

So, what transform are you proposing using, and how are you proposing
applying it in order to obtain something other than dt/dtau=1 in this case?

[Reply]
I will review the Lorentz transform and get back to you on this one as the
matrix you supply is a struggle for me. I gather it is a 4D coordinate
system where Y and Z are stationary relative to each other while X and tau
are accelerating at time rate g instead of 1 but but need to investigate
what v, and c represent.





[Snip]
> 
> The trig would be our temporal vector at some low angle say about 10
degrees
> above horizontal

How can you have a temporal vector at some angle above horizontal?  That
seems to mix space and time measures in a way that doesn't make a lot of
apparent sense; perhaps you need to define some terms here.  What's a
"temporal vector"?

[Reply]
I collapsed XYZ space onto the horizontal axis and assigned time to the Y
axis where past is down and future is up such that all temporal vectors must
be somewhere between 0 and 90 with our standard value far displaced from C
at 90 degrees which is why I arbitrarily chose a low value of 10 degrees and
would put an object approaching an event horizon up around 85 degrees.

[Snip]
> might be up aroung 85 degrees which causes the
> accepted Lorentz contraction as time and space trade parameters while the
> vector length remains constant. I am proposing  catalysts all create
Casimir
> cavities which accelerate their reactions from our perspective by actually
> Widening the time axis while compressing the spatial axis. This is still a
> relativistic displacement but max acceleration is now on the temporal axis

How do you accelerate along the temporal axis?  What does that mean?

Do you mean dt/dtau is an increasing function of ... what, exactly?
What do you use for a time base to measure acceleration along the time axis?

[Reply]
To accelerate along the time axis is relativistic -if 2 stationary objects
in 3D have different temporal accelerations the objects will get smaller
relative to the observer. The tiny observer inside the cavity will see the
outside world get smaller and likewise the external observer will see the
object inside the cavity get smaller. They both see temporal displacement as
distance but the arm that reaches down into the cavity is equally distorted
shrinking along the path such that if you closed your eyes and imagined
everything full scale you could easily grab a

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2009 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote

I have no idea what you mean by "longer flux twisted on the time axis";
I have no idea what it means to twist something on the time axis.  Could
you show the transform you have in mind?

For example, for the Lorentz transform, with c=1 and g=dt/dtau, and
motion along the x axis, we have

 | tau |   |   g -vg  0  0 |
 | x'  |   | -vg   g  0  0 |
 | y'  | = |   0   0  1  0 |
 | z'  |   |   0   0  0  1 |

unless I typed it in wrong.  That's a hyperbolic rotation, of course,
but it doesn't sound like you have that in mind, and in any case it is
the unity transform unless the frames are in motion with respect to each
other.  In the present case, the frames are stationary with respect to
each other, and the Lorentz transform is just I.

Stephen,
I reviewed Lorentz transforms in order to answer your last
remaining question. Now that I understand what you were asking I
realized the assumption that the frames are stationary to each other and
the Lorentz factor is 1 is where I lost you. I am positing that outside
the cavity has equivalent motion compared to the shielded exclusion zone
created inside the Casimir cavity. I am proposing the change in the
ratio of short to long wavelength vacuum fluctuations caused by
up-conversion in a Casimir cavity is evidence of acceleration through
equivalence. The observer inside the cavity sees us curved down gravity
well in the same way we perceive matter approaching an event horizon
down a still deeper well. I am not talking planetary gravity wells here
but rather a default time stream of 1 second per second every observer
experiences from his or her frame. I am suggesting a delta can be
manufactured via Casimir cavities that reduces that stream down to a
still harbor inside the cavity and causes a very abrupt change in space
time with the plates creating a boundary. I don't believe in fractional
quantum state atoms from a 4D perspective and suggest the math is only
solving for the spatial units while the Bohr radius is being maintained
through Lorentz contraction. A relativistic solution as both Naudts and
Bourgoin have suggested. 

Best Regards
Fran 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

Frank,

If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you  
describe the process and result?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horace,
I think you are implying something incongruous with my proposal
but I don't get the connection. I know suggesting equivalence bounded by
Casimir plates instead of deep gravity well is a lot to swallow but
Christian Beck has already proposed that vacuum fluctuations below
1.7thz are gravitationally active and we know these are the fluctuations
that get restricted in a Casimir cavity. Therefore If you restrict the
gravitationally active fluctuations the cavity takes on a value lower
than default. This creates the same sort of differential as approaching
an event horizon (or C through equivalence).
Best Regards
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 9:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon


On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

Frank,

If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you  
describe the process and result?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 7, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
I think you are implying something incongruous with my proposal
but I don't get the connection. I know suggesting equivalence  
bounded by

Casimir plates instead of deep gravity well is a lot to swallow but
Christian Beck has already proposed that vacuum fluctuations below
1.7thz are gravitationally active and we know these are the  
fluctuations

that get restricted in a Casimir cavity. Therefore If you restrict the
gravitationally active fluctuations the cavity takes on a value lower
than default. This creates the same sort of differential as  
approaching

an event horizon (or C through equivalence).
Best Regards
Fran


If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you
describe the process and result?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horace,

  I feel like I am falling into a trap here but a blue filter
restricts all wavelengths but blue.

Best Regards

Fran

 

If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you  

describe the process and result?

 

Best regards,

 

Horace Heffner

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 

 

 

BTW below is the reference re 

Recent work by Christian Beck at the University of London and Michael
Mackey at McGill University may have resolved the 120 order of magnitude
problem. In that case dark energy is nothing other than zero-point
energy. Measurability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy
  and Electromagnetic dark energy
  they propose that a phase
transition occurs so that zero-point photons below a frequency of about
1.7 THz are gravitationally active whereas above that they are not.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

You would not say the red light is up-converted as it is passed  
through the filter?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/




On Aug 7, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
  I feel like I am falling into a trap here but a blue filter  
restricts all wavelengths but blue.

Best Regards
Fran

If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you
describe the process and result?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/



BTW below is the reference re
Recent work by Christian Beck at the University of London and  
Michael Mackey at McGill University may have resolved the 120 order  
of magnitude problem. In that case dark energy is nothing other  
than zero-point energy. Measurability of vacuum fluctuations and  
dark energy and Electromagnetic dark energy they propose that a  
phase transition occurs so that zero-point photons below a  
frequency of about 1.7 THz are gravitationally active whereas above  
that they are not.

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horace,

No, glass is not conductive and you don't have the spacing
between conductive plates required to create the quantum effect, The
Casimir effect is one of the few forces besides normal gravity that
interact with vacuum flux.  I snipped blog correction below.

 

Snip from http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=14004 :

To build on the above premise for my own theory of how energy is
extracted from these fractional state hydrogen atoms in a cavity or
catalyst,  I assume a relativistic solution for fractional quantum
states <http://www.byzipp.com/energy/excessHeat.htm>  inspired by Jan
Naudts paper (5 August 2005). "On the hydrino state of the relativistic
hydrogen atom <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2> ". First however
I must digress, The twin travelling near C would perceive the other twin
and all physical properties back on earth as occurring at a rate of
multiple seconds per second. Additionally Lorentz contraction of objects
travelling at significant fractions of light speed causes the objects
observed by the travelling twin to appear smaller (actually both twins
would observe contraction as the effect is due to "distance" on the time
axis). Fractional quantum state hydrogen exhibits increased reaction
rate and contraction and is based on relativistic math suggesting
something similar to an event horizon should be expected. The argument
becomes whether a Casimir cavity can create "equivalence"  where inside
the cavity becomes a protected harbor that views outside the cavity just
as we view an event horizon.

 

Best Regards

Fran



From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

You would not say the red light is up-converted as it is passed through
the filter?

 

Best regards,

 

Horace Heffner

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 

 

 

 

On Aug 7, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:





Horace,

  I feel like I am falling into a trap here but a blue filter
restricts all wavelengths but blue.

Best Regards

Fran

 

If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you 

describe the process and result?

 

Best regards,

 

Horace Heffner

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 

 

 

BTW below is the reference re

Recent work by Christian Beck at the University of London and Michael
Mackey at McGill University may have resolved the 120 order of magnitude
problem. In that case dark energy is nothing other than zero-point
energy. Measurability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy
<http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605418>  and Electromagnetic dark energy
<http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364>  they propose that a phase
transition occurs so that zero-point photons below a frequency of about
1.7 THz are gravitationally active whereas above that they are not.

 

 

 

 

 





 

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horace,

Yes, I now I used "distance" improperly below but was trying
to suggest why it appears to contract and didn't want to digress further
into v^2/C^2.

Best Regards

Fran

 

snip

actually both twins would observe contraction as the effect is due to
"distance" on the time axis

 



From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

Horace,

No, glass is not conductive and you don't have the spacing
between conductive plates required to create the quantum effect, The
Casimir effect is one of the few forces besides normal gravity that
interact with vacuum flux.  I snipped blog correction below.

 

Snip from http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=14004 :

To build on the above premise for my own theory of how energy is
extracted from these fractional state hydrogen atoms in a cavity or
catalyst,  I assume a relativistic solution for fractional quantum
states <http://www.byzipp.com/energy/excessHeat.htm>  inspired by Jan
Naudts paper (5 August 2005). "On the hydrino state of the relativistic
hydrogen atom <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2> ". First however
I must digress, The twin travelling near C would perceive the other twin
and all physical properties back on earth as occurring at a rate of
multiple seconds per second. Additionally Lorentz contraction of objects
travelling at significant fractions of light speed causes the objects
observed by the travelling twin to appear smaller (actually both twins
would observe contraction as the effect is due to "distance" on the time
axis). Fractional quantum state hydrogen exhibits increased reaction
rate and contraction and is based on relativistic math suggesting
something similar to an event horizon should be expected. The argument
becomes whether a Casimir cavity can create "equivalence"  where inside
the cavity becomes a protected harbor that views outside the cavity just
as we view an event horizon.

 

Best Regards

Fran



From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

You would not say the red light is up-converted as it is passed through
the filter?

 

Best regards,

 

Horace Heffner

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 

 

 

 

On Aug 7, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

 

Horace,

  I feel like I am falling into a trap here but a blue filter
restricts all wavelengths but blue.

Best Regards

Fran

 

If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you 

describe the process and result?

 

Best regards,

 

Horace Heffner

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 

 

 

BTW below is the reference re

Recent work by Christian Beck at the University of London and Michael
Mackey at McGill University may have resolved the 120 order of magnitude
problem. In that case dark energy is nothing other than zero-point
energy. Measurability of vacuum fluctuations and dark energy
<http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605418>  and Electromagnetic dark energy
<http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364>  they propose that a phase
transition occurs so that zero-point photons below a frequency of about
1.7 THz are gravitationally active whereas above that they are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

The snip you provide seems irrelevant to the issue at hand.   The  
space between conductive plates having certain wavelengths excluded  
therein is analogous to the space beyond the glass on the side  
opposed to the light source also having certain wavelengths excluded  
from it.  A lower frequency portion of a spectrum  is excluded in  
both cases. The analogy holds especially well with regards to the  
most relevant fact that in neither case is any frequency or energy  
"up-converted".  Some frequencies from a broad spectrum are merely  
excluded in both cases.  No frequencies are changed.   Energy is only  
excluded, not transformed.  The term "up-converted" then merely  
creates confusion.  It draws an unnecessary cloak of complexity, or  
possibly just confusion, over something readily taught and understood  
in 8th grade science class.


The Casimir effect is not a force that interacts with the zero point  
field.  It is a result of the action of the zero point field on  
matter, its isotropic nature, and its cubic energy distribution.  It  
is also notable that the Casimir force does not require conductive  
surfaces to manifest, but that is a side issue, irrelevant in this  
case and certainly not an issue that breaks the analogy at hand.


If you have any credible reference that says zero point field  
frequency or energy is actually up-converted by or within Casimir  
cavities then will you please provide it?


A bit outside the scope of all this is the fact the zero point field  
may not exist at all.  The Casimir force could just be the result of  
van der Walls forces, which are not thought by everyone to be a  
result of the zero point field.  It is merely a hypothesis.


Lastly you again use the phrase "vacuum flux", but you have still not  
defined it.  Flux of what in or from the vacuum?  In fact, what do  
you mean by "flux"?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/


On Aug 7, 2009, at 7:42 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
No, glass is not conductive and you don’t have the  
spacing between conductive plates required to create the quantum  
effect, The Casimir effect is one of the few forces besides normal  
gravity that interact with vacuum flux.  I snipped blog correction  
below.


Snip from http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=14004 :
To build on the above premise for my own theory of how energy is  
extracted from these fractional state hydrogen atoms in a cavity or  
catalyst,  I assume a relativistic solution for fractional quantum  
states inspired by Jan Naudts paper (5 August 2005). "On the  
hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom". First however I  
must digress, The twin travelling near C would perceive the other  
twin and all physical properties back on earth as occurring at a  
rate of multiple seconds per second. Additionally Lorentz  
contraction of objects travelling at significant fractions of light  
speed causes the objects observed by the travelling twin to appear  
smaller (actually both twins would observe contraction as the  
effect is due to "distance" on the time axis). Fractional quantum  
state hydrogen exhibits increased reaction rate and contraction and  
is based on relativistic math suggesting something similar to an  
event horizon should be expected. The argument becomes whether a  
Casimir cavity can create "equivalence"  where inside the cavity  
becomes a protected harbor that views outside the cavity just as we  
view an event horizon.


Best Regards
Fran
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the  
opposite direction from event horizon


You would not say the red light is up-converted as it is passed  
through the filter?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/




On Aug 7, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
  I feel like I am falling into a trap here but a blue filter  
restricts all wavelengths but blue.

Best Regards
Fran

If white light shines through a blue glass window how would you
describe the process and result?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/



BTW below is the reference re
Recent work by Christian Beck at the University of London and  
Michael Mackey at McGill University may have resolved the 120 order  
of magnitude problem. In that case dark energy is nothing other  
than zero-point energy. Measurability of vacuum fluctuations and  
dark energy and Electromagnetic dark energy they propose that a  
phase transition occurs so that zero-point photons below a  
frequency of about 1.7 THz are gravitationally active whereas above  
that they are not.

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank Roarty]

On Saturday, August 08, 2009 Horace Heffner wrote
[Snip]

The snip you provide seems irrelevant to the issue at hand.   The space
between conductive plates having certain wavelengths excluded therein is
analogous to the space beyond the glass on the side opposed to the light
source also having certain wavelengths excluded from it.  A lower frequency
portion of a spectrum  is excluded in both cases. The analogy holds
especially well with regards to the most relevant fact that in neither case
is any frequency or energy "up-converted".  Some frequencies from a broad
spectrum are merely excluded in both cases.  No frequencies are changed.
Energy is only excluded, not transformed.  The term "up-converted" then
merely creates confusion.  It draws an unnecessary cloak of complexity, or
possibly just confusion, over something readily taught and understood in 8th
grade science class. 

 

Horace, [Reply] 

The propagation of visible light radiation is attenuated in
a filter but is transformed in a Casimir cavity. 



 

The Casimir effect is not a force that interacts with the zero point field.
It is a result of the action of the zero point field on matter, its
isotropic nature, and its cubic energy distribution.  It is also notable
that the Casimir force does not require conductive surfaces to manifest, but
that is a side issue, irrelevant in this case and certainly not an issue
that breaks the analogy at hand.  If you have any credible reference that
says zero point field frequency or energy is actually up-converted by or
within Casimir cavities then will you please provide it?

 

[Reply] The Wikipedia *does define conducting metals* placed within a few
micrometers and there is a link to vacuum expectation value
  which may put
things in terms You are more  familiar with like Fermion fields.  

>From Wikipedia: In physics  , the
Casimir effect and the Casimir-Polder force are physical forces
  arising from a quantized
field  . The typical
example is of two uncharged 
metallic plates in a vacuum  , placed a
few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field
 . In a classical
  description, the
lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the
plates, and no force would be measured between them.[1]
  When this field
is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics
 , it is seen that the
plates do affect the virtual photons
  which constitute the field,
and generate a net force[2]
 -either an
attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two
plates. This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect
purely due to second quantization
 .[3]
 [4]
  However, the
treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations has led to some
controversy.[5]  
Overview
The Casimir effect can be understood by the idea that the presence of
conducting metals and dielectrics 
alters the vacuum expectation value
  of the energy of
the second quantized electromagnetic field.[9]
  Since the value
of this energy depends on the shapes and positions of the conductors and
dielectrics, the Casimir effect makes itself manifest as a force between
such objects.

 

A bit outside the scope of all this is the fact the zero point field may not
exist at all.  The Casimir force could just be the result of van der Walls
forces, which are not thought by everyone to be a result of the zero point
field.  It is merely a hypothesis. 

 

[Reply] NOW we are talking! I had numerous
exchanges with Thomas Prevenslik who champions this sentiment when I first
started my quest back in October 08, I became aware of the controversy
surrounding the existence of Casimir force and vacuum fluctuations into what
I simplified as "push" vs "pull" camps.  I was originally in the push camp
associated with the Casimir model but Thomas convinced me that the
electrostatic "pull" could be induced by  up-conversion of IR to VUV in
obedience with conservation of energy. As for up-conversion se

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

I had to change to plain text because my ISP rejected sending this  
message in rich text, probably due to banned links.



On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:51 AM, Frank Roarty wrote:



On Saturday, August 08, 2009 Horace Heffner wrote
[Snip]
The snip you provide seems irrelevant to the issue at hand.   The  
space between conductive plates having certain wavelengths excluded  
therein is analogous to the space beyond the glass on the side  
opposed to the light source also having certain wavelengths  
excluded from it.  A lower frequency portion of a spectrum  is  
excluded in both cases. The analogy holds especially well with  
regards to the most relevant fact that in neither case is any  
frequency or energy "up-converted".  Some frequencies from a broad  
spectrum are merely excluded in both cases.  No frequencies are  
changed.   Energy is only excluded, not transformed.  The term "up- 
converted" then merely creates confusion.  It draws an unnecessary  
cloak of complexity, or possibly just confusion, over something  
readily taught and understood in 8th grade science class.


Horace, [Reply]
The propagation of visible light radiation is  
attenuated in a filter but is transformed in a Casimir cavity.


.
Repeatedly restating your premise is not rational discussion.   ZPF  
wavelengths are merely excluded from a Casimir cavity.  Again, if you  
have any credible reference the ZPF is "up-converted" by a Casimir  
cavity then please provide it.

.








The Casimir effect is not a force that interacts with the zero  
point field.  It is a result of the action of the zero point field  
on matter, its isotropic nature, and its cubic energy  
distribution.  It is also notable that the Casimir force does not  
require conductive surfaces to manifest, but that is a side issue,  
irrelevant in this case and certainly not an issue that breaks the  
analogy at hand.  If you have any credible reference that says zero  
point field frequency or energy is actually up-converted by or  
within Casimir cavities then will you please provide it?


[Reply] The Wikipedia *does define conducting metals* placed within  
a few micrometers and there is a link to vacuum expectation value  
which may put things in terms You are more  familiar with like  
Fermion fields.


.
Do you know what "does not require" means?   Yes, we all know  
conducting metals work.  My point above is they are not required to  
obtain the Casimir effect.

.

From Wikipedia: In physics, the Casimir effect and the Casimir- 
Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field.  
The typical example



.
Note the phrase "typical example".  This has no relevance with  
regards to "does not require".

.

is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few  
micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a  
classical description, the lack of an external field also means  
that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be  
measured between them.[1] When this field is instead studied using  
quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the  
virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force 
[2]—either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific  
arrangement of the two plates. This force has been measured, and is  
a striking example of an effect purely due to second quantization. 
[3][4] However, the treatment of boundary conditions in these  
calculations has led to some controversy.[5]

Overview
The Casimir effect can be understood by the idea that the presence  
of conducting metals and dielectrics alters the vacuum expectation  
value of the energy of the second quantized electromagnetic field. 
[9] Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and  
positions of the conductors and dielectrics, the Casimir effect  
makes itself manifest as a force between such objects.



.
Uh ...  dielectrics are not metals.   Have you read the above?   
It is talking about conductors and dielectrics, and even dielectrics  
with dielectrics, all of which can produce Casimir forces between  
each other. This was my point.  Was your intent to substantiate my  
point?

.




A bit outside the scope of all this is the fact the zero point  
field may not exist at all.  The Casimir force could just be the  
result of van der Walls forces, which are not thought by everyone  
to be a result of the zero point field.  It is merely a hypothesis.


[Reply] NOW we are talking!


.
Now we are ducking the issue.   I don't intend to engage in a  
discussion of irrelevant theories based on photon flux and not  
virtual photon flux, i.e not based on the zero point field.

.


I had numerous exchanges with Thomas Prevenslik who champions this  
sentiment when I first started my quest back in October 08, I  
became aware of the controversy surrounding the existence of  
Casimir force and vacuum fluctuations into what I simplifie

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

I just wrote: "In the case of the ZPF the particles are virtual  
electrons."


It should have read: "In the case of the ZPF the particles are  
virtual photons."


My fingers have their own sub-processor.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

Horace,

  I hope you don't mind if I delay full reply but you hit home on a
something I am anxious to respond to below so am stealing a little time from
my domestic duty.

 

 

[SNIP]

 

.Fran

Repeatedly restating your premise is not rational discussion.   ZPF  

wavelengths are merely excluded from a Casimir cavity.  Again, if you  

have any credible reference the ZPF is "up-converted" by a Casimir  

cavity then please provide it.

 

 

Horace, [Reply]

 The premise IS my theory that a Casimir cavity stretches space-time
into a "Hill" as opposed to a "Well" based on the following.

1.  Naudts   and Bourgoin
  math that hydrino can exist in a cavity only has a relativistic solution.
So spatially the orbital can collapse below Bohr radius because the
"displacement" has been partially converted to temporal units.

2.  Prevenslik 
work replicating Casimir effect through "up-conversion" indicates nature has
method to convert IR >> VUV via conservation of energy. I posit this method
is relativistic based on 1 above and therefore all frequencies (entire
spectrum including virtual photons) only "appear" up-converted from our
perspective.

3.  Christian Beck papers, Measureability
  of vacuum fluctuations and dark
energy and [3] Electromagnetic   dark
energy relating virtual photons below 1.7Thz more gravitationally active
than those above. I posit the ratio of virtual particles above and below
1.7Thz CHANGES approaching event horizon to reflect Beck's theory the larger
virtual photons are more gravitationally active.

4.  I postulate therefore the "up-conversion" in a Casimir cavity is
relativistic, perceived outside the cavity as full spectrum, but the change
in ratio of virtual photon frequencies is in the opposite direction creating
a gravity "Hill" or lack of gravitationally active virtual photons as
opposed to a gravity "Well".

 

Best Regards

Fran

 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 9, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Frank wrote:


 The premise IS my theory that a Casimir cavity stretches space- 
time into a “Hill” as opposed to a “Well” based on the following.
1.  Naudts and Bourgoin math that hydrino can exist in a cavity  
only has a relativistic solution. So spatially the orbital can  
collapse below Bohr radius because the “displacement” has been  
partially converted to temporal units.


Unless I missed something, neither the article by Naudts nor by  
Bougoin has made any statements with regards to cavities.  They are  
discussing the possibility of stable sub-ground state hydrogen based  
on relativistically consistent orbitals.  This kind of analysis is  
used with regards to inner orbitals of heavy atoms.  It has nothing  
to do with cavities.  The orbitals computed are consistent outside of  
cavities.  No cavities involved. The computation does not involve  
motion of the atom with regards to the observer. It has only to do  
with the change in mass of the electron, m = gamma*m0, due to  
relativistic (high energy) circular motion of orbitals.  Saying "that  
hydrino can exist in a cavity only has a relativistic solution."  is  
like saying "that lead (Pb) can exist in a cavity only has a  
relativistic solution."  The cavity is irrelevant to the cited  
references.


When you link unrelated concepts, like Puthoff's zero point field  
Casimir effect hypothesis with Prevenslik's photon based Casimir  
effect hypothesis, or relativistic orbitals with cavity effects, or  
cavities with huge gravitational effects, then that requires  
extensive explanation, preferably with quantitative analysis, to  
convince anyone.  Requiring one miracle makes for a troublesome  
theory. A theory requiring three or four miracles requires extensive  
quantified justification, to say the least.  Without, it just looks  
like a word salad.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

OK,

Horace,

I know I need some help which is why, as Jones pointed out I
brought it here. It sounds like you now follow my "miracle" path- Right or
wrong you caused me to at least organize all the dots I am trying to connect
into a format that can be followed. You rightly point out the need for
explaining several miracles which I probably can not do without some big
name help but if I organize the path well enough I may be able to entice
Prevenslik, Bourgoin or Naudts to take a closer look at it from the
perspective of their present contributions.

 

[snip]

Unless I missed something, neither the article by Naudts nor by  

Bougoin has made any statements with regards to cavities.  They are  

discussing the possibility of stable sub-ground state hydrogen based  

on relativistically consistent orbitals.



[Reply] 

You are correct; I missed a step, I associated the hydrino with the cavity
based on Mills' claims of producing the hydrino inside Rayney Nickel
catalyst which meet Casimir geometry. Although BLP is claimed to have exotic
hydrides formed from hydrinos

In their labs, AFAIK no one has ever produced a hydrino outside of a cavity.
My premise is that the hydrino is relativistic hydrogen and therefore can
only be perceived from another time frame such as a deep gravity well or as
I propose to coin a term, inside a Casimir "gravity hill". Mills was able to
"deliver" hydrinos to Rowan Univercity only as hydrogen in situ within the
pores of Rayney nickel and the translation would only occur to atoms after
disassociation.

 

 

[snip]

the computation does not involve motion of the atom with regards to the
observer. It has only to do with the change in mass of the electron, m =
gamma*m0, due to relativistic (high energy) circular motion of orbitals.
Saying "that hydrino can exist in a cavity only has a relativistic
solution."  Is like saying "that lead (Pb) can exist in a cavity only has a
relativistic solution."  The cavity is irrelevant to the cited  

references.

 

[Reply] 

Pb is not a fractional state element like the hydrino but ok your point is I
haven't proved that a Casimir cavity changes the relativistic solution for
ground state of anything.  Below I appended the premise to include Mills
part in the story and remove any assignment of "cavity" property to Naudts
or Bourgoin.

 

 

  Casimir cavities stretch space-time into a "gravity Hill" as opposed to a
" gravity Well" based on the following.

 

1.  Mills' claim hydrino formed inside skeletal catalyst Rayney nickel has
up to 137 fractional quantum states.

2.  Naudts   and Bourgoin
  math that these fractional states can exist as a relativistic solution

 

3.   I propose the orbital can collapse spatially below Bohr radius because
the "displacement" to the nucleus has been partially converted to temporal
units. The fractional quantum radius only exists from our 3D perspective
outside the cavity observing the hydrino inside.

 

4.  Prevenslik 
work replicating Casimir effect through "up-conversion" indicates nature has
method to convert IR >> VUV via conservation of energy. I posit this method
is relativistic based on 2 -3  above and therefore all frequencies (entire
spectrum including virtual photons) only "appear" up-converted from our
perspective.



5.  Christian Beck papers, Measureability of vacuum
  fluctuations and dark energy and
[3] Electromagnetic   dark energy
relating virtual photons below 1.7Thz more gravitationally active than those
above. I posit the ratio of virtual particles above and below 1.7Thz CHANGES
approaching event horizon to reflect Beck's theory the larger virtual
photons are more gravitationally active.



6.I postulate therefore the "up-conversion" in a Casimir cavity is
relativistic, perceived outside the cavity as full spectrum, but the change
in ratio of virtual photon frequencies is in the opposite direction creating
a gravity "Hill" or lack of gravitationally active virtual photons as
opposed to a gravity "Well". 

 

Best Regards

Fran

 

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horace,

  I added the following paragraph to my theory after discovering a
paper describing a Casimir cavity created equivalence.

 

The theory that Casimir cavities represent an abrupt equivalence
boundary is not new, In 2002 a paper "Vacuum fluctuation force on a
rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational field
<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091> "  by Italian researchers Enrico
Calloni, Luciano Di Fiore, Giampiero Esposito, Leopoldo Milano, Luigi
Rosa discusses the possibility of verifying the equivalence principle
for the zero-point energy of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the
force, produced by vacuum fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity
in a weak gravitational field. The resulting force has opposite
direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration, Their proposal
indicates equivalent acceleration outside the cavity relative to inside
the cavity. This differential between inside and outside the cavity
creates the relativistic perception of frequency up conversion. From the
perspective of the Beck - Mackey work, the ratio of fast to slow virtual
photons appears to increase and has fewer gravitationally active virtual
photons. One could also simply consider this duty factor -if time inside
the cavity executes at multiple seconds per second from our perspective
then the earths gravity at 9.8m/s^2 is divided down by the same factor.

 

Regards

Fran

 

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:28 AM
To: Vortex-L
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

I just wrote: "In the case of the ZPF the particles are virtual  

electrons."

 

It should have read: "In the case of the ZPF the particles are  

virtual photons."

 

My fingers have their own sub-processor.

 

Best regards,

 

Horace Heffner

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Horace,
QED supporters don't like when I refer to vacuum fluctuations
which are also known as virtual particles but yet they do use virtual
photons in their theories. I went to Wikipedia to see if there is any
defined frequency spectrum for virtual particles but they indicated that
if the particle last long enough to actually be detected it is no longer
virtual! What is consensus here? Is it just the infinite sea of vacuum
fluctuations they object to and they are ok with virtual particles
between matter, messengers or epo kind of thing.
Regards 
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 2:28 AM
To: Vortex-L
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

I just wrote: "In the case of the ZPF the particles are virtual  
electrons."

It should have read: "In the case of the ZPF the particles are  
virtual photons."

My fingers have their own sub-processor.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
QED supporters


What QED supporters?



don't like


I don't think it is a matter of taste or value judgement. It's about  
precision in communication.



when I refer to vacuum fluctuations
which are also known as virtual particles but yet they do use virtual
photons in their theories.


The Casimir force is about virtual photons according to all I've  
read. It has nothing to do with particle pair creation, which by  
comparison is extremely rare.




I went to Wikipedia to see if there is any
defined frequency spectrum for virtual particles but they indicated  
that

if the particle


This is a good example of the problem with imprecise communication.  
When you say particle people think in terms of electrons, protons,  
quarks, etc. These things do have wavelengths, but the concept of a  
zero point field spectrum for them is uncommon to say the least.  
Virtual photons, OTOH, have both a particle and wave characteristics  
just like hadrons, leptons, etc, but their ubiquitous and dense  
nature, as well as their very wave-like nature, lends itself to  
discussion of the energy spectrum of the zero point field.   
Technically, virtual photons can be called "vacuum fluctuations".   
However, I think they are actually more the *cause* of vacuum pair  
production, as they provide the virtual pair creation energy. In any  
case, the zero point field (ZPF) consists of a huge isotropic energy  
flow of virtual photons having a cubic energy distribution.  I think  
it is appropriate to call the ZPF a field because it consists of the  
messenger particles (now an appropriate use of "particle" due to the  
implied Feynman diagram concepts) which comprise the electromagnetic  
field, at least the near field.




last long enough to actually be detected it is no longer
virtual!


Again, that is a reference to particle pair production. Virtual  
particle pairs are limited to their Heisenberg lifetime.  To survive  
longer they must be given enough energy to create their mass.





What is consensus here? Is it just the infinite sea of vacuum
fluctuations they object to



No. However the Casimir force is limited to virtual photon effects,  
or in other models, van der Waals force effects.  It is not due to  
vacuum fluctuations in general, at least I've never seen anyone  
attribute the effect to that.




and they are ok with virtual particles
between matter, messengers or epo kind of thing.
Regards
Fran


One problem here is that vocabulary can mean different things  
depending on the context. Sometimes when you use a word you have to  
define the context in which it is used. For example, within some  
contexts (GR) gravity is a result of space-time curvature, so there  
is no gravity messenger particle, while within some theories, virtual  
photon pressure accounts for gravity, and others gravity is a true  
force, with its own messenger - the graviton. You have to be very  
clear about the context in which you speak when you say something  
affects "gravity", or vice versa.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
  I added the following paragraph to my theory after  
discovering a paper describing a Casimir cavity created equivalence.


An interesting concept, but, as they imply, a force on such a small  
order requires heroic efforts just to detect.  This is not a force  
that can have anything to do with energy levels on the order of  
ionization potentials, or even have any commonly detectable influence  
on the Casimir force itself, or on the spectrum of any radiation from  
the cavity.





The theory that Casimir cavities represent an abrupt equivalence  
boundary is not new, In 2002 a paper "Vacuum fluctuation force on a  
rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational field"  by Italian  
researchers Enrico Calloni, Luciano Di Fiore, Giampiero Esposito,  
Leopoldo Milano, Luigi Rosa discusses the possibility of verifying  
the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum  
electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum  
fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak  
gravitational field. The resulting force has opposite direction  
with respect to the gravitational acceleration, Their proposal  
indicates equivalent acceleration outside the cavity relative to  
inside the cavity. This differential between inside and outside the  
cavity creates the relativistic perception of frequency up  
conversion. From the perspective of the Beck - Mackey work, the  
ratio of fast to slow virtual photons appears to increase and has  
fewer gravitationally active virtual photons. One could also simply  
consider this duty factor -if time inside the cavity executes at  
multiple seconds per second from our perspective then the earths  
gravity at 9.8m/s^2 is divided down by the same factor.


Regards
Fran



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

Horace,
Great Reply!
Thank You 
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon


On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:

> Horace,
>   QED supporters

What QED supporters?


> don't like

I don't think it is a matter of taste or value judgement. It's about  
precision in communication.

> when I refer to vacuum fluctuations
> which are also known as virtual particles but yet they do use virtual
> photons in their theories.

The Casimir force is about virtual photons according to all I've  
read. It has nothing to do with particle pair creation, which by  
comparison is extremely rare.


> I went to Wikipedia to see if there is any
> defined frequency spectrum for virtual particles but they indicated  
> that
> if the particle

This is a good example of the problem with imprecise communication.  
When you say particle people think in terms of electrons, protons,  
quarks, etc. These things do have wavelengths, but the concept of a  
zero point field spectrum for them is uncommon to say the least.  
Virtual photons, OTOH, have both a particle and wave characteristics  
just like hadrons, leptons, etc, but their ubiquitous and dense  
nature, as well as their very wave-like nature, lends itself to  
discussion of the energy spectrum of the zero point field.   
Technically, virtual photons can be called "vacuum fluctuations".   
However, I think they are actually more the *cause* of vacuum pair  
production, as they provide the virtual pair creation energy. In any  
case, the zero point field (ZPF) consists of a huge isotropic energy  
flow of virtual photons having a cubic energy distribution.  I think  
it is appropriate to call the ZPF a field because it consists of the  
messenger particles (now an appropriate use of "particle" due to the  
implied Feynman diagram concepts) which comprise the electromagnetic  
field, at least the near field.


> last long enough to actually be detected it is no longer
> virtual!

Again, that is a reference to particle pair production. Virtual  
particle pairs are limited to their Heisenberg lifetime.  To survive  
longer they must be given enough energy to create their mass.



> What is consensus here? Is it just the infinite sea of vacuum
> fluctuations they object to


No. However the Casimir force is limited to virtual photon effects,  
or in other models, van der Waals force effects.  It is not due to  
vacuum fluctuations in general, at least I've never seen anyone  
attribute the effect to that.


> and they are ok with virtual particles
> between matter, messengers or epo kind of thing.
> Regards
> Fran

One problem here is that vocabulary can mean different things  
depending on the context. Sometimes when you use a word you have to  
define the context in which it is used. For example, within some  
contexts (GR) gravity is a result of space-time curvature, so there  
is no gravity messenger particle, while within some theories, virtual  
photon pressure accounts for gravity, and others gravity is a true  
force, with its own messenger - the graviton. You have to be very  
clear about the context in which you speak when you say something  
affects "gravity", or vice versa.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Jones Beene]

This is not exactly in the context of this thread, but I stumbled across a
25 year old paper by one of our favorite visionaries - Robert Forward (well
named) and it could be updated, based on new research:

 

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v30/i4/p1700_1

 

"A pair of conducting plates at close distances experience an attractive
Casimir force that is due to the electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations of
the vacuum. A "vacuum-fluctuation battery" can be constructed by using the
Casimir force to do work on a stack of charged conducting plates. By
applying a charge of the same polarity to each conducting plate, a repulsive
electrostatic force will be produced that opposes the Casimir force. If the
applied electrostatic force is adjusted to be always slightly less than the
Casimir force, the plates will move toward each other and the Casimir force
will add energy to the electric field between the plates. The battery can be
recharged by making the electrical forces slightly stronger than the Casimir
force to reexpand the foliated conductor."

 

Ostensibly this kind of cap-batt would work at very high frequency -
terahertz and up . but course, for there to be a net gain, the recharging
cycle (if it is not deducted from the "added energy" itself) must be lower
in expenditure than the extraction cycle. yet this experiment is something
that probably could be accomplished today with MEMS techniques, at least in
silicon valley and elsewhere. It would be almost meaningless to opine how it
would turn out without actually doing it.

 

Jones

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

Horace,

I agree and can't believe they didn't pursue it further. They
basically built a tiny time machine - a very local little  source of
equivalent acceleration  with an abrupt boundary and didn't consider what
would happen if a reactant such as a gas atom were diffused through it.
Equivalence is accumulative in the Twin paradox and should be here also. It
could explain the fractional quantum states as relativistic -Lorentz
contraction while from the hydrogen's perspective nothing has changed..
Everybody is right? The Bohr radius is both fractional state and not
fractional  state depending on your perspective.

Best Regards

Fran

 

  _  

From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

 

On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:





Horace,

I added the following paragraph to my theory after discovering a paper
describing a Casimir cavity created equivalence.

 

An interesting concept, but, as they imply, a force on such a small order
requires heroic efforts just to detect. This is not a force that can have
anything to do with energy levels on the order of ionization potentials, or
even have any commonly detectable influence on the Casimir force itself, or
on the spectrum of any radiation from the cavity. 

 





The theory that Casimir cavities represent an abrupt equivalence boundary is
not new, In 2002 a paper "Vacuum fluctuation force on a
<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091>  rigid Casimir cavity in a
gravitational field" by Italian researchers Enrico Calloni, Luciano Di
Fiore, Giampiero Esposito, Leopoldo Milano, Luigi Rosa discusses the
possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy
of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum
fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational
field. The resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the
gravitational acceleration, Their proposal indicates equivalent acceleration
outside the cavity relative to inside the cavity. This differential between
inside and outside the cavity creates the relativistic perception of
frequency up conversion. From the perspective of the Beck - Mackey work, the
ratio of fast to slow virtual photons appears to increase and has fewer
gravitationally active virtual photons. One could also simply consider this
duty factor -if time inside the cavity executes at multiple seconds per
second from our perspective then the earths gravity at 9.8m/s^2 is divided
down by the same factor.

Regards

Fran

 

 

Best regards,

 

Horace Heffner

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

 





 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 18, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

This is not exactly in the context of this thread, but I stumbled  
across a 25 year old paper by one of our favorite visionaries –  
Robert Forward (well named) and it could be updated, based on new  
research:


http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v30/i4/p1700_1

“A pair of conducting plates at close distances experience an  
attractive Casimir force that is due to the electromagnetic zero- 
point fluctuations of the vacuum. A "vacuum-fluctuation battery"  
can be constructed by using the Casimir force to do work on a stack  
of charged conducting plates. By applying a charge of the same  
polarity to each conducting plate, a repulsive electrostatic force  
will be produced that opposes the Casimir force. If the applied  
electrostatic force is adjusted to be always slightly less than the  
Casimir force, the plates will move toward each other and the  
Casimir force will add energy to the electric field between the  
plates. The battery can be recharged by making the electrical  
forces slightly stronger than the Casimir force to reexpand the  
foliated conductor.”


Ostensibly this kind of cap-batt would work at very high frequency  
– terahertz and up … but course, for there to be a net gain, the  
recharging cycle (if it is not deducted from the “added energy”  
itself) must be lower in expenditure than the extraction cycle… yet  
this experiment is something that probably could be accomplished  
today with MEMS techniques, at least in silicon valley and  
elsewhere. It would be almost meaningless to opine how it would  
turn out without actually doing it.


Jones



I notice the title and contents don't seem to match.  I wonder if  
Forward proposed a free energy scheme and the referees made him  
remove it.


This might be modeled using finite element analysis before proceeding  
to experiments. I noted earlier that Mostepanenenko and Sokolov  
provide that the van der Waals retarding interaction U(r) at distance  
r between two individual atoms with electric and magnetic  
polarizabilites a1E, a2E, a1M, and a2M, is:


   U(r) = C/r^7

where:

   C = (-23/Pi) ( (a1E a2E)(a1M a2M) + a1M a2M) + (7/(4 PI)) ((a1E  
a2M) + (a2E a1M))


There are also corrections that have to be made to the above for  
surface roughness, temperature, metal conductivity, and surface  
charge. Even with all that, these are not precision modeling tools.
Without COP of more than 20% by simulation there is probably not much  
to stand on for getting funding for free energy research along those  
lines.


A voltage corrected force for two plate Casimir force is given in  
formula (5) of


http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/research/seminars/Casimir/PRL-Mohideen98.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/mg4hcs

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Frank wrote:


Horace,
I agree and can’t believe they didn’t pursue it further.


This demonstrates the problem with attempting to doing physics  
without any kind of quantitative concepts.  If you limit yourself to  
non-quantitative concepts then you have no feel for what you are  
talking about.  Do you have any idea how inconsequential a force of  
10^-17 N between plates is?




They basically built a tiny time machine –


They didn't build anything.  They made some quantitative predictions.  
I assume you are still talking about Di Fiore et al.


a very local little  source of equivalent acceleration  with an  
abrupt boundary and didn’t consider what would happen if a reactant  
such as a gas atom were diffused through it.


The force they propose is so little as to be almost immeasurable and  
utterly inconsequential to the existence of hydrinos.


Equivalence is accumulative in the Twin paradox and should be here  
also. It could explain the fractional quantum states as relativistic


If hydrinos exist, which is still uncertain, they involve  
relativistic orbitals, *not* the kind of translational relativistic  
effects you imply. The internal orbitals of ordinary atoms are  
relativistic, and they are not in Casimir cavities.  Would you speak  
in the same terms about them?  I think you should direct questions on  
this to Stephan A. Lawrence. He seems to be much more capable to  
handle them.



–Lorentz contraction while from the hydrogen’s perspective nothing  
has changed….


What Lorentz contraction?


Everybody is right? The Bohr radius is both fractional state and  
not fractional  state depending on your perspective.


No.  The existence or not of hydrinos  has nothing to do with  
perspective.   Further, their existence or not does not depend on  
being in Casimir cavities.




Best Regards
Fran

From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the  
opposite direction from event horizon



On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:


Horace,
I added the following paragraph to my theory after discovering a  
paper describing a Casimir cavity created equivalence.


An interesting concept, but, as they imply, a force on such a small  
order requires heroic efforts just to detect. This is not a force  
that can have anything to do with energy levels on the order of  
ionization potentials, or even have any commonly detectable  
influence on the Casimir force itself, or on the spectrum of any  
radiation from the cavity.




The theory that Casimir cavities represent an abrupt equivalence  
boundary is not new, In 2002 a paper "Vacuum fluctuation force on a  
rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational field" by Italian  
researchers Enrico Calloni, Luciano Di Fiore, Giampiero Esposito,  
Leopoldo Milano, Luigi Rosa discusses the possibility of verifying  
the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum  
electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum  
fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak  
gravitational field. The resulting force has opposite direction  
with respect to the gravitational acceleration, Their proposal  
indicates equivalent acceleration outside the cavity relative to  
inside the cavity. This differential between inside and outside the  
cavity creates the relativistic perception of frequency up  
conversion. From the perspective of the Beck - Mackey work, the  
ratio of fast to slow virtual photons appears to increase and has  
fewer gravitationally active virtual photons. One could also simply  
consider this duty factor -if time inside the cavity executes at  
multiple seconds per second from our perspective then the earths  
gravity at 9.8m/s^2 is divided down by the same factor.

Regards
Fran


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank]

Horace,

I do realize that the force is inconsequential but please
consider two things, first it results in equivalence which is a constant
acceleration and just like an ion drive can eventually produce huge
velocities, second the hydrogen's spatial motion relative to an observer
outside the cavity is almost stationary suggesting that practically all
accumulated velocity is on the time axis.

 

My concept is that Bourgoins variables  XYZt  are correctly
solving for fractional quantum states but "t"  inside the cavity is
experiencing equivalence and slowly accelerating away from the 1 second per
second rate an observer outside the cavity experiences. The fractional
states are more than just a 3D illusion; the hydrogen atom is traveling away
from us on the time axis. I am trying to say put Lorentz contraction in
terms of volume and absolute dt of the cavity inside vs outside as it will
contract in either direction. 

Best Regards

Fran

 

  _  

From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

 

On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Frank wrote:





Horace,

I agree and can't believe they didn't pursue it further. 

 

This demonstrates the problem with attempting to doing physics without any
kind of quantitative concepts.  If you limit yourself to non-quantitative
concepts then you have no feel for what you are talking about.  Do you have
any idea how inconsequential a force of 10^-17 N between plates is?

 





They basically built a tiny time machine - 

 

They didn't build anything.  They made some quantitative predictions. I
assume you are still talking about Di Fiore et al.

 



a very local little  source of equivalent acceleration  with an abrupt
boundary and didn't consider what would happen if a reactant such as a gas
atom were diffused through it. 

 

The force they propose is so little as to be almost immeasurable and utterly
inconsequential to the existence of hydrinos. 





Equivalence is accumulative in the Twin paradox and should be here also. It
could explain the fractional quantum states as relativistic

 

If hydrinos exist, which is still uncertain, they involve relativistic
orbitals, *not* the kind of translational relativistic effects you imply.
The internal orbitals of ordinary atoms are relativistic, and they are not
in Casimir cavities.  Would you speak in the same terms about them?  I think
you should direct questions on this to Stephan A. Lawrence. He seems to be
much more capable to handle them. 

 





-Lorentz contraction while from the hydrogen's perspective nothing has
changed.. 

 

What Lorentz contraction?

 





Everybody is right? The Bohr radius is both fractional state and not
fractional  state depending on your perspective.

 

No.  The existence or not of hydrinos  has nothing to do with perspective.
Further, their existence or not does not depend on being in Casimir
cavities. 

 





Best Regards

Fran

 

  _  

From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon

 

 

On Aug 18, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:






Horace,

I added the following paragraph to my theory after discovering a paper
describing a Casimir cavity created equivalence.

 

An interesting concept, but, as they imply, a force on such a small order
requires heroic efforts just to detect. This is not a force that can have
anything to do with energy levels on the order of ionization potentials, or
even have any commonly detectable influence on the Casimir force itself, or
on the spectrum of any radiation from the cavity.

 






The theory that Casimir cavities represent an abrupt equivalence boundary is
not new, In 2002 a paper "Vacuum fluctuation force on a
<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091>  rigid Casimir cavity in a
gravitational field" by Italian researchers Enrico Calloni, Luciano Di
Fiore, Giampiero Esposito, Leopoldo Milano, Luigi Rosa discusses the
possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy
of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum
fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational
field. The resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the
gravitational acceleration, Their proposal indicates equivalent acceleration
outside the cavity relative to inside the cavity. This differential between
inside and outside the cavity creates the relativistic perception of
frequency up conversion. From the perspective of the Beck - Mackey work, the
ratio of fast to slow virtual photons appears to increase and has fewer
gravitationally active virtual 

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Michel Jullian]

Haven't had time to read all this interesting thread, just a couple
things I noticed:

Frank:  how can you keep talking about the Lorentz contraction if the
Lorentz transform doesn't make sense to you?

Stephen: your expression of the Lorentz transform misses the dot
product and the (vertical) t x y z  vector doesn't it?

Horace: it's Turing not Touring

Michel

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Roarty, Francis X]

Michael,
That was a very early thread and I do understand the basic premise of a 
4D array, distance as an absolute on the time axis and how two spatially  
adjacent stationary objects can be accelerating away from each other temporally 
if an equivalence boundary is established -normally this requires astronomical 
distances and a gravity well but I am saying certain types of conductive 
bonding when configured in plate geometry can concentrate a depletion zone that 
sees outside the zone as equivalent acceleration just like we see an event 
horizon. Although the force levels they mention, 10^-17N, seems inconsequential 
it results in a constant acceleration just like an ion drive which can 
eventually produce huge velocities, It also allows for the force to increase 
exponentially as fractional quantum states contract the atom to down to 
permeate increasingly smaller geometry, In fact most current investigations of 
hydrino, LENR and Casimir - Lamb shift effects all confirm the need for 
monatomic hydrogen to produce excess heat. 

Regards
Fran

-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian [mailto:michelj...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite 
direction from event horizon

Haven't had time to read all this interesting thread, just a couple
things I noticed:

Frank:  how can you keep talking about the Lorentz contraction if the
Lorentz transform doesn't make sense to you?

Stephen: your expression of the Lorentz transform misses the dot
product and the (vertical) t x y z  vector doesn't it?

Horace: it's Turing not Touring

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 19, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:


Haven't had time to read all this interesting thread,


Yes.  You are apparently 8 days behind.


just a couple
things I noticed:

Frank:  how can you keep talking about the Lorentz contraction if the
Lorentz transform doesn't make sense to you?

Stephen: your expression of the Lorentz transform misses the dot
product and the (vertical) t x y z  vector doesn't it?

Horace: it's Turing not Touring

Michel



On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:44 AM, Harbach Jak wrote:



None-the-less I give great weight and credence to your rather  
excellent articulation of the matter.


Thanks.  I might have more credibility if I could spell Turing.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Michel Jullian]

Had looked unsuccesssfully for "Turing" in this thread but hadn't read
that other thread, as Harbach Jak doesn't pass the Turing test with me
;)

Michel

2009/8/19 Horace Heffner :
>
> On Aug 19, 2009, at 4:30 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> Haven't had time to read all this interesting thread,
>
> Yes.  You are apparently 8 days behind.
>
>> just a couple
>> things I noticed:
>>
>> Frank:  how can you keep talking about the Lorentz contraction if the
>> Lorentz transform doesn't make sense to you?
>>
>> Stephen: your expression of the Lorentz transform misses the dot
>> product and the (vertical) t x y z  vector doesn't it?
>>
>> Horace: it's Turing not Touring
>>
>> Michel
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2009, at 2:44 AM, Harbach Jak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> None-the-less I give great weight and credence to your rather excellent
>>> articulation of the matter.
>>
>> Thanks.  I might have more credibility if I could spell Turing.
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Horace Heffner]

I do not want private email in regards to this topic.  As noted on my  
web site, and periodically here, "Please be advised that the content  
of any correspondence to me, Horace Heffner, is placed into public  
domain unless otherwise specified by prior written agreement. I can  
be contacted at: hheff...@mtaonline.net. However, by sending  
unsolicited information to this address, the sender agrees to place  
it in public domian and to make it available for immediate posting to  
public news forums."


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite direction from event horizon

[Frank Roarty]

Horace,

I Thank you for all your help and won't contact you further
regarding this material. 

Best Regards

Fran