[snip] It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of
velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz
contraction, because that arises between reference frames, [end snip]
Mauro,
I think radial acceleration of H1 inside a cavity is relativistic
creating reference frames without the need for spatial displacement
approaching C. I suggest however the acceleration is invisible from within
the frame where the orbital wavelength and velocity remain Bohr and C. I am
proposing that the spatial confinement and equivalent acceleration caused by
a relativistic "up conversion" of vacuum flux means the confined monatomic
hydrogen has a huge relativistic radial acceleration from our perspective. I
am not talking linear acceleration where the Pythagorean concept of spatial
axis at 90 degrees to temporal requires acceleration while at high fractions
of C to start diverging on the time axis. I believe the Casimir cavity
allows for a huge discount in the normal speeds required for relativistic
effects. The spatial confinement combined with the equivalence boundary
suggests the 10E-14 newtons of acceleration calculated by DiFiore et all is
a vector wholly on the time axis -no trig portions of the spatial axis, the
force was ignored as inconsequential but I suggest the confinement allows
heat energy to contribute to the vector and without a relief valve of
combustion could lead to a thermal runaway where H1 and H2 states oscillate
by virtue of a Pd like opposition to diatomic formation but here in the
cavity a high velocity version of this property that immediately tears apart
H2 restoring monatomic energy levels.
The outside and inside of the cavity are spatially stationary to each other,
the gravitational isotropy is broken by the plates meaning the fast moving
field outside is slowed inside making the flux twist from our perspective
appearing faster because we no longer see a direct view of a waveform but
instead view it from a turned profile which appears to get smaller going
away and faster as the cycles continue to contract into the distance. This
is a difference in relative motion where g outside is faster than g' inside
which means the spatial coordinates are basically unchanged and the H1 is
predominantly accelerating on the time axis, it might appear to contract as
the flux twist further and further but it would stay centered on its
original spatial coordinates and if a ruler could be extended to the
seemingly evacuated space from which it contracted the ruler itself would
also contract to prove all the original spatial coordinates are still
occupied and the contraction is the effect of curved space-time on the light
emanating from the object. Curiously I don't think it matters if we are
accelerating or decelerating -if you picture vacuum flux as a waveform on a
scope as a direct perspective (our inertial frame) and then "twist" it on
its' center in either direction it will turn its' profile to us and appear
smaller and faster for up-conversion or down conversion.
Regards
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:megalith levitation
It will be much better (and clear) to talk about (radial) changes of
velocity (accelerations). There's no need also to talk about Lorentz
contraction, because that arises between reference frames, and is a
consequence(if I understand it correctly), of our suppositions regarding
the nature of light, and of light's velocity.
Regarding light: we have no right to talk about the velocity of light,
because velocity is a classical mechanical concept, that is applied to
discrete material entities. And light is not a material entity. Material
entities are characterized by their discreteness, i.e. when a material
object is moving, it leaves no part of it behind. It moves completely,
leaving the space behind it completely vacant. But light leaves a trace
behind, so we cannot apply simple mechanical formulas to light.
Regarding the velocity of light, we can only talk about the velocity of
the front propagation of light. And we would not be saying anything
regarding the true nature of light with that. That is, the underlying
phenomena is almost completely overlooked when we do that.
