Bob, IMHO the inertial frame is not generated by the electron or the nucleus but rather the “umbrella” of surrounding geometry that effects the space-time that this gas atom happens to be randomly migrating thru..hence it is a transitory state that locally the gas atom is unaware of.. according to Mills these atoms can even become ionized/ self catalyzing WRT each other pushing themselves to even more relativistic/fractional states… MY point/posit is that unlike relativistic states we accept at the macro scale that require an object to pass thru virtual particles at near C velocities I am convinced the same differential can be obtained in the opposite direction by inhibiting virtual particles from passing thru physical objects [hydrogen atoms] residing inside Casimir cavities – and that random motion of gas, which remains a constant in any frame, forces these atoms to migrate between frames as a function of the nearest Casimir geometry surrounding them at any given moment – the value of that force is based on the inverse cube of distance between the surrounding boundaries so the smaller it gets the faster the faster and more dramitically Casimir force changes[DCE]. The really confusing issue then becomes that which we consider stationary [our macro perspective] must become the dilated reference frame that seems to “stop” from the perspective of the confined hydrogen which encounters fewer VP/time than we do in the same proportions that we encounter fewer VP/time than the Paradox Twin who approaches C. IMHO inhibiting VP via geometry provides negative equivalent acceleration while a gravity well produces positive equivalent acceleration. In both cases a stationary object feels acceleration without the requirement of motion and can be viewed as modifications to the intersection rate between our physical plane and virtual particle passing thru that plane. Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 1:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP picks up another 11 M from investors Eric-- What is the frame of reference that the electron is relativistic in? Does such a hypothesis consider that the rotation of the pertinent frame of reference is nill. What would be the effect of a spinning frame circulating in the same direction as the electron’s circulation? Would the relativistic appearance of the electron in question change? Would an external rotating magnetic (or electric) field change the relativistic appearance of the electron to the nucleus which it is influenced by? It may be that electrons around free nuclei act much differently than those around nuclei in a lattice from the standpoint of relative motion to the nuclei’s reference frame. As you can tell from my questions and comments I have a hard time understanding how an electron can become in effect heavier in an atom because of its circulation around a point with no evidence about the stability of the point itself. Bob Sent from Windows Mail From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: However, this deep [f/H] orbital is only a few Fermi in distance from the nucleus. The electron is relativistic and heavy when it gets there. It's interesting to note that the nuclear radius is not all that special with regard to the orbits of electrons and muons. In the case of Pb, the 1s orbit of a muon is inside the nuclear radius. Eric
