On Aug 5, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Frank Roarty wrote:
BTW I must have failed to send previously or sent it to your home
address because I know I already replied to this but it doesn’t
show in my mail.
Yes. This was due to you posting on vortex with the "Reply To" set
to your personal email account. This of course is annoying and
various folks have posted requests that people not set the "Reply To"
field when posting here. When that happens anyone who responds
without making special effort will send the reply directly to you and
not to vortex. When that happens to me I usually eventually discover
this and re-post to vortex, as was my original intent.
Here are the subject posts:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Frank Roarty wrote:
Yes,
It is actually one of the paths that led me into
adopting Naudts’ relativistic solution in that everyone was
assuming the hydrogen orbital must be getting smaller because the
only other variable in the energy equation was Planck’s constant –
or not so constant from a relativistic perspective :_)
It is the opposite side of the same coin – I call it Lorentz
contraction but you can also say Plank’s constant gets smaller as
the ratio of small to large vacuum flux
Increases- I would even propose that it becomes much larger as the
ratio goes in the opposite direction approaching C or an event
horizon.
I just converted a power point to html that touches on this
http://www.byzipp.com/energy/excessHeat.htm
Fran
Naudts relativistic analysis *does* show the hydrino orbital is
smaller.
Here was your response:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Frank Roarty wrote:
Yes but “relativistically “ smaller means only to an observer in a
different reference frame –to a nearby hydrino nothing seems
changed in fact observers on the hydrino frames would take the
position that the outside world got larger. You could also say
planks constant got smaller but again it would be a relative
statement from one frame trying to assign measurement on another
both statements are right and wrong. I mentioned to Ed Storms that
if you were a tiny observer you could close your eyes and reach
into the Casimir cavity where your arm would go through the same
translations along its length and be able to grasp the atom like it
was normal size , it can almost be treated like an optical illusion
except for catalytic action (time acceleration) right up to the
point where you start performing chemistry with rigid catalysts
that confine the compounds and molecules formed from scaling and
rectify the normal acceleration into breaking the bonds to get them
out of confinement –sort of reverse membrane where the big molecule
formed inside a lattice to small for it when it scales with
changing Casimir force.
My response to that follows.
You are apparently utterly confused as to what Naudts achieved in:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0507193v2
He analyzed the possibility of a hydrino state using the relativistic
Klein-Gordon equation instead of the time-dependent Schrodinger
equation. This is probably one of the most credible existing works
on hydrinos in my opinion. It has nothing to do with the atom
looking relativistically smaller due to observer reference frame
translation, which only has meaningful effects at near light speed
relative motion. It has to do with obtaining relativistically
consistent mass and momenta for the electron wave function. It has
nothing to do with the hydrino state in Casimir cavities.
As to correcting your various concepts of relativity above, I
wouldn't presume to be capable of that given the futility of Stephen
A. Lawrence's past efforts along those lines. He is much more capable
than I in that arena.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
