[VO]:Re: A short rant

[RC Macaulay]

> Harry Veeder wrote, >  > >Though Huygens rejected Newton's theory of universal > gravitation because it required action-at-a-distance, his own mechanistic > account failed to explain satisfactorily how subtle vortical-matter > transferred centripetal conatus to ordinary matter." >  Richard wrote, >  > A further explanation is required to address the purpose and action of > the " reverse vortex" present in a vortex. One of physics puzzling > questions. Thomas wrote, Have you read any Russell? His model has vortexes, centripetal, center seaking and centitifugal that expand.   Howdy Thomas,   Technically, the reverse vortex is not fully covered by Russell. Consider the granddaddy of all earthly observable vortex.. the gulf of Mexico style hurricane. The sustained eyewall  may exceed 60 miles diameter. A counterforce must exist.The low pressure formed in the eye cannot reconcile with the surrounding forces produced. The assumption that an unmeasurable "electro-magnetic event" takes place above, below or globally opposite the eye has been offered. That thought would in turn produce congecture that a spinning top must have a corresponding unseen energy balance opposite. hmmm!! Such conjecture, not taken to extreme ( tongue in cheek), may in turn offer some insight into why LENR is so extremely difficult to reproduce. We may be looking for the resultant in the wrong place.   Richard   Richard