Time slows down inside a cavity where negative vacuum energy builds up. As a counterbalance to the negative vacuum energy inside the cavity, positive vacuum energy builds up outside the cavity. Therefore, outside the cavity where the vacuum energy is positive is where time accelerates.
In a catalyst, a SPP vortex forms where the vacuum energy is reduced. The chemical reaction does not need to happen inside the vortex. The chemical reaction happens just outside the vortex where the vacuum energy is positively amplified. Time outside the vortex moves faster than normal in a equalized vacuum were positive and negative vacuum energies are equal. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Bob, I think here again is where the Jan Naudt’s paper on relativistic > hydrogen applies to the hydrinos and Rydberg atoms the same. You asked “? > How do you ascribe mass density to something only one atomic layer thick? “ > IMHO the hydrogen atom morphs with changes in ether density provided by > the nano geometry environment in exactly the same way a hydrogen atom > ejected from the sun at high fractions of C appears to change from our > perspective but without the needed velocity, like the near C hydrogen > ejected from the corona you have relativistic change in mass but it might > actually be a decrease in mass since containment lowers vacuum density > below the value for a stationary open space observer. The point being > gravitational square law changes in vacuum density are trumped by > London/Casimir forces at nano scale and you can have ratios of vacuum > density between Casimir cavities and *earth bound paradox twin/observer* > on the same order as the ratio between *earth bound paradox > twin/observer *and the near C twin. I believe Lorentzian contraction > should appear the same from either perspective but the mass change in this > case would seem to mean the mass of the quantum geometry that is depleting > the ether density should increase from the perspective of the modified > hydrogen traveling thru the depleted region. From our oerspective [like the > near C twin] we see the modified hydrogen as Lorentzian contracted, time > dilated such that radioactive forms of hydrogen appear to decay faster but > from local observation actually “put in the normal time” spending thousands > of years in these Casimir cavities while only a few seconds pass for us > sitting in the lab outside the reactor. Everytime I go out on this limb I > get less afraid as I see other pieces of the puzzle slowly embracing the > temporal aspects of this anomaly. > > Fran > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:10 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]: How many atoms to make condensed matter? > > > > Jones, your description below about metallic hydrogen stimulates me to > wonder about atoms, molecules, particles, and condensed matter. Obviously > a single atom of H is not metallic hydrogen. A single molecule of hydrogen > is more "dense" than the H/D(1) species of Rydberg matter. I don't think > anyone would categorize an ordinary H2 molecule as metallic or condensed > matter. The X(1) species of Rydberg matter is shown to exist in particular > for H/D and the alkali metals having commonly 7 or more atoms. Are these > Rydberg clusters better described as large molecules? A small particle of > metal? Generalized condensed matter? How do you ascribe mass density to > something only one atomic layer thick? It is interesting to consider. > > > > The Rydberg matter "snowflakes" called X(1), where X is usually an alkali > metal, are called Rydberg because the electron orbitals are highly excited > Rydberg states in high order flattened (nearly planar) orbitals. The > nuclear separation of H(1) is bigger than that for the H2 molecule. > Existence for X(1) Rydberg matter particles (clusters, molecules) is well > reproduced, modeled, measured, and is utilized by many based on the well > described characteristics of the snowflakes obtained, in a large part, from > rotational spectroscopy. > > > > The existence of Holmlid's ultra-dense form is not reproduced, and what > form it might take is completely speculative. The evidence for it appears > to be solely from the accelerated species found in supposed Coulomb > Explosion (CE). Why is this species not be examined by conventional > rotational spectroscopy, as has been used to verify the existence of the > X(1) Rydberg matter? I would think that the comprising atoms could NOT be > in a DDL state, because if they were, they would not be susceptible to > photonic ionization (DDL states are supposed to have too little angular > momentum to form a photon), which Holmlid claims causes CE and is his basis > for the existence of the D(-1) / D(0) state of matter in the first place. > Since the D(-1)=D(0) matter is supposedly susceptible to photo-ionization > and CE, it seems like it should also be detectable in a rotational spectrum. > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Fran - The only way Holmlid’s claims make sense is that the dense hydrogen > he describes is a more stable phase of hydrogen than metallic hydrogen. > This means it is a phase or isomer which does not require extreme > containment. > > > > For instance, we know that alloys with alkali metals will lower the > pressure requirements for metallic hydrogen by 400%. In the case of the > Holmlid phase, which I still call DDL until it is shown to be different, > the species could be stable without any pressure or with slight containment. > >
