Re: time stream vs Casimir Cavity
OK, maybe drain would be more appropriate than sucks - with the mouth
of the well drinking in chaotic vacuum flucuations from the future
and the base of the well allowing the particles to drain into the
past. this time-gravity stream appears to pass through our "time
frame" at 90 degrees to our macroscopic reality but actually we exist
in a 4D world. Time (t)is so small it is overlapped due to our scale
X,Y,Z,t ---------OK We are beating a dead horse since we are pretty
much in agreement so let me see if we can extend this bridge a little
further getting back to the real world and hydrinos, I have been
stifiled from experimenting less I blow up my basement with HHO kit +
bubbler and different metal powders in an inline filter to tst for
casimir cavities. I didn't want to store gas and was working toward
puging the lines with HHO and then close circuit the tubing / shut
down the HHO production while testing BUT... someone convinced me the
safest path is combusting the gas immediately. At first I thought
this a poor substitute but have since realized additional
opportunities. I can contain the HHO combustion and target materials
in a chimney and try to balance temps to keep gases disassociated and
test with different types of casimir geometry -cavities/catalysts,
submicron crystals with plates formed by external facets -maybe wet
sand on ocean floor and methane theory re bermuda triangle was
actually methinos? easily tested for except water pressure -
limestone of course is suspected porous metal calcium rare earth
metal-only thing I can't test for is shaped bubbles in electrolyte
forming cavities -anyway just waiting on the torch and flashback
arrestor to arrive. I am assuming that the heat will provide a mix of
disassociated atoms suitible for hydrino and hydrino like molecules
to form if exclusion fields can be provided and prevented
from "melting down" -In watching some of th white hot hydroxy melting
of marble on You tube it occurs to me that harnessing casimir
cavities may require a careful balance of materials and thermal
control or the cavities will immediately go into thermal runaway
allowing the molten form to succumb to casimir force and aggregate.
Fran
--- In cph_theory@yahoogroups.com, Jaime Pardo <technicalstop@...>
wrote:
>
> Fran,
>
> you wrote:
> "this better describes a micro-black- hole is interesting.
Basically
> you are suggesting that EVERYTHING SUCKS Space-Time and it is ALL
> RELATIVE to scale!"
>
> My response:
> I am willing to accept "Space-Time" as a possibility but so is the
idea of it only sucking in aether and that space and time are
immutable.
>
> An event Horizon sucks faster than "average" space
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fxroarty <froarty572@...>
> To: cph_theory@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:35:54 AM
> Subject: [cph_theory] Re: time stream vs Casimir Cavity
>
>
> --- In cph_theory@yahoogro ups.com, Jaime Pardo
<technicalstop@ ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am "all on board with the idea of "gravity wells"!
> >
> > I watched a program on the history channel in which they talked
> something about the LHC possibly making "micro-black holes" and
that
> they would be harmless. I believe gravity wells is better way of
> describing micro-black holes,
> Jamie,
> ALL MATTER HAS AN ASSOCIATED GRAVITY WELL but your suggestion that
> this better describes a micro-black- hole is interesting. Basically
> you are suggesting that EVERYTHING SUCKS Space-Time and it is ALL
> RELATIVE to scale! An event Horizon sucks faster than "average"
space
> and Casimir plates with their wells all pointed away from the
> exclusion area between them suck much slower than "average". AVERAGE
> is normal space
>
> but I speculate that maybe all "matter/atoms" are gravity-wells.
And
> maybe they suck in space or maybe just aether in space.
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
********* **
> Jamie, below is an email regarding a 4D brane in a 5D frame
> take a look at their URL included: It improves on the minkowski
space
> I referenced in my previous post.
> Dear Fran
> Thanks for your interest in our work.
> Ruth
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Frank Roarty wrote:
>
> > Ruth,
> >
> > Thank you for your paper
> >
http://arxiv. org/PS_cache/ arxiv/pdf/ 0902/0902. 0872v1.pdf I
didn't
> know
> > how to put it into words. I agree
> > With everything if you allow for the graviton to include the
> > temporally active fluctuations - recent papers indicate that
below
> > 1.7Thz are gravitationally active and I suggest that should be
> > extended to temporally active fluctuations are above 1.7THZ. I
was
> > uncertain about your statement regarding dynamical Casimir effect
> > creating particles - new particles or being on the temporal axis
> once
> > and done for all time? I envy your math skills and would invite
you
> to
> > consider the Casimir cavity as normal space and the bay leading
> > outside as an event horizon from the perspective of a couple gas
> > atoms. My point is that catalysts are evidence for Casimir
cavities
> > and reactions are not accelerated they simply take a long curving
> path on the temporal axis.
> >
> > Fran
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
>
> >
> > You wrote "leading back to a zero state"
> >
> > By zero state do you mean "complete uniformity" and equal
pressure
> everywhere or the opposite which I believe would a "singularity" .
>
> Jamie, I was trying to be specific regarding zero state
in "AVERAGE"
> normal space - or maybe we should call it normal "sucky space" to
> reflect your insight that everything actually sucks just to
different
> degrees :_) Since my theory leads to changes in physical constants
> and temporal anomallies inside a Casimir Cavity or Event Horizon I
> believe "zero state" as we know it doesn't exist in these states
and
> the use of the term will only mislead.
>