ie. The twin is not coming home, he got entropified into lots of subatomic particles, kinda like the transporter room malfunctioning on Star Trek...:)
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:50 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Francis, > > Steven Hawking just trashed his own "event horizon" theory, it is all > about ionization and quantum decay at the "surface" of the vacuum. More > like Johnny Cash and a "Ring of Fire" > > http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=9407566 > > Stewart > > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >> Harry, >> >> This is why I keep pushing the “suppressed environment” as key to the >> riddle – it isn’t the spatial acceleration of the electron or atom but >> rather the region of space time that they are migrating thru – the Casimir >> geometry forms a gravity warp where virtual particle pairs are excluded – >> meaning the region is equivalent to being at the top of a gravity well >> relative to us outside the cavity and therefore it is us outside the well >> that appear to exist in slow time just as we would see the paradox twin to >> exist approaching an event horizon.. the same sort of equivalent >> acceleration is occurring inside the lattice where Casimir geometry forms >> but it is negative which begs the question where does mass grow larger.. >> since the negatively accelerated atom is equivalent to the stationary >> observer and we outside the cavity are equivalent to the relativistic twin >> maybe the mass is added to the quantum geometry of the lattice that is >> actually causing the suppression? >> >> Fran >> >> >> >> *From:* H Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 2:16 AM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory >> >> >> >> A hydrogen atom H is an atom because the motion of the electron is bound >> to the proton. If the electron's motion were not bound by the proton, the >> electron and proton would not form an "atom" since the electron's motion >> would allow it to escape the "potential well" of the proton. >> >> In a classical mechanical system the orbital radius of a bound electron >> can be arbitrarily large as long as the kinetic energy of the electron can >> be arbitrarily small. In a quantum mechanical system if an electron has an >> arbitrarily small kinetic energy then the uncertainty in its position >> becomes arbitrarily large and that would increase the probability that the >> electron could escape the potential well of the proton by "tunneling" >> beyond it. Or is it impossible for a bound electron to free itself? >> >> >> >> harry >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >> That is right Harry. Nobody cares about how big it can be. :-) >> >> Actually, the integer orbitspheres of Mills include all integer values >> which is like the quantum theory as I understand. Practical values are >> limited by how easy it is to ionize the big atoms at an integer value that >> is far less than infinity. >> >> This subject is one that surprises me in at least one major way. Mills >> predicts the atom size as being proportional to the integer directly while >> quantum physics suggests that it varies as the square. This is a huge >> difference and I can not imagine why the correct rule has not been clearly >> established. How could an atom be 10 times larger(int =10) in one >> calculation than the next without being obvious? >> >> Perhaps this discrepancy has been shown and I am not aware. Does anyone >> know of an accurate measurement for an excited hydrogen diameter that >> supports one of these theories? >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 5:40 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory >> >> >> >> While people debate how small a hydrogen atom can be, there seems to be >> no debate about how big a hydrogen atom can be. >> >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:06 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >> I guess that is what it boils down to Eric. I would much rather have the >> series continue indefinitely as I have been discussing. i.e. >> (1/2,1/3,...1/137,1/138...1/infinity) which would blend nicely with the >> other integer portion that we all assume is real. If the total series is >> found to be valid, then there is no special consideration needed for the >> 1/137 term. >> >> But, we must abide by natural laws and most times they do not care what >> we prefer. :( >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 4:12 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory >> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:55 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> The theory is a photon like zitterbewegung model describing states that >> retain locality in phase space with circular cycles of a trapped photon >> representing the usual eigenstates. The Maxwell quanta hbar(c) becomes a >> classical angular momentum quanta in phase space with quantum number 137 >> attached. >> >> >> >> Ah, gotcha. Thank you. Hence also the electron "becoming a photon" as >> it approaches the lowest level. >> >> >> >> Now we have to decide whether we can live with a series { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, >> ..., 1/136, alpha(N) }. (Or something like that.) >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
