It is amazing how the LENR effects are so quickly dismissed, especially considering the overwhelming amount of supporting data. I suspect that the reasons for ignoring it are not altogether evident. In any case it will have its opportunity to shine in the very near future.
My understanding regarding the speed of light is that it is constant relative to any observer. This makes perfect sense when I consider Maxwell's equations as applied to me as an arbitrary observer. The electric and magnetic fields associated with the moving energy wave are not allowed to have different time domain relationships depending upon the motion of the external source. Some people speculate that the local gravitational and other fields act as a form of ether, but this has not been shown to be accurate. The motion of the source of the original electromagnetic wave does have the benefit of the additional speed in a matter of speaking. He sees the stationary frame distances as shorter in the direction of his emitted signal and it thus take less time to travel. The muon life extension tests support this observation. An observer ridding upon the muon would see its lifetime as normal (6.4 uSec) but the distance it covers along a stationary frame would be far in excess of what is expected if it were moving at a speed of 99.94% of light during its typical life span. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about these experiments. It would be interesting if the value of c (light speed) were slowly changing over time. If true, that would certainly foul up the understanding of relative motion of things as time progresses. There may be ways to detect this phenomenon by observing the red shift of objects that are rotating and of very large physical size such as far away galaxies. I do not know. The model that I played with would actually allow for the expansion of the universe. As gravitational energy is released into the condensing matter due to inward motion, another large region surrounding it would see greater pull away. Someone with much superior math capability than I might be able to determine that a system as I am describing would form bubble like structures or filaments between active condensation zones as the semi-uniform mass distributions were pushed away by the reduced gravitational energy. There are many very interesting possibilities to consider. I can imagine that minor rotation vortexes within the initial mass distribution would interact in such a way as to create mirror rotational images which would allow for the conservation of angular momentum of the total structure. It is easy to get lost in endless speculation when it is not supported by a rock solid model. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Jun 3, 2012 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: All of this behavior is due to the effects of attraction caused by the nonlinear inverse square law. The material outside of the galaxies thus appears to be repelled ever faster and stronger as the distance increases. I have long wondered if this effect is the root for the expansion of the universe. Instead of being some form of negative energy, maybe it is just the reduction in the gravitational energy present within the original mass distribution. I have also wondered about the theorized increasing rate of expansion of the universe. I have no reason to question it, in particular, although I do find the dark matter and dark energy explanation an amazing and miraculous one. I don't see how physicists can allow such an explanation and simultaneously have such difficulty with the possibility of LENR, whatever the mechanism. I have wondered, however, whether there might not be an assumption that could be leading us astray with regard to the expansion of the universe. One question is how much the purported increase in its rate relies upon the speed of light being a constant. If the speed of light changed over time, this might provide a different basis for the red shift observations. I'm not sure what other problems a changing speed of light would cause, or whether it would even be detectable. The speed of light is so woven into the fabric of our measurements that it seems possible that you would have no way of knowing that it was changing over time, and the red shift data would be due to something else. Eric
