 |
There are currently, 199 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Implications
Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 @ 13:46:14 UTC by vlad
|
|
In the hydrino yahoo group John B writes:
From the Review by Dr. Phillips: "The implications of this new physics are unprecedented. Philosophically, we will move from a physical world which is at best stochastic, perhaps "uncertain," at the core, to a world of simple, immutable physical laws. Engineers will be challenged with the goal of tapping a new and apparently inexhaustible source of energy.
Indeed, the new model makes it clear that potentially water can be "burned" to produce enormous energy (i.e. thousands of electron volts per hydrogen atoms) and a byproduct of inert hydrinos ("small hydrogen"), which Mills postulates are the missing dark matter of the universe.
Given the success of the theory, which uses only classical physics, in producing simple closed formed solutions to observations that resisted decades of computational effort to match them using the standard paradigm, the success of initial experimental tests of the model, as well as the revolutionary scientific and social implications of this theory, it is clear that the scientific community has an obligation to calmly and dispassionately test it."
The pdf paper is here: Jonathan Phillips
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 2
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Implications (Score: 1)
by mojo on Sunday, April 10, 2005 @ 13:40:19 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | It seems to me that hydrinos just result from potential well configurations (spacial and energy) that exist within the now conceived lowest energy level. This lowest energy level has energy and strucure such that normally electrons cannot pass to lower levels.
mojo |
|
|
Re: Einstein in Love (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, April 10, 2005 @ 21:40:02 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Message: hydrino yahoo group
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:47:35 -0000
From: "john_e_barchak"
Subject: Re: Einstein in Love
Hi Pete
Here is the next installment ==>
In addition to Lorentz, Abraham, Fermi, and many others, A. Einstein was aware that spherically symmetric EM structures are stable, and do not radiate, as was pointed out in HSG #8696. Einstein's problem was that he did not know which spherically symmetric EM structures made sense as an electron. Given the massive evidence for the orbitsphere in multielectron atoms and ions, it would have been obvious to Einstein that the orbitsphere was a perfect fit for his unification work. The probability that all of the multielectron formulas work by accident could be used as the definition of "probability zero" for all practical purposes.
A. Einstein's "Do Gravitational Fields Play an Essential Part in the Structure of the Elementary Particles of Matter?"
http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Einstein/Einstein1919.pdf
was published in German in 1919. In it he states:
"4. Concluding Remarks
The above reflexions show the possibility of a theoretical construction of matter out of gravitational field and electromagnetic field alone, without the introduction of hypothetical supplementary terms on the lines of Mie's theory. This possibility appears particularly promising in that it frees us from the necessity of introducing a special constant lambda for the solution of the cosmological problem. On the other hand, there is a peculiar difficulty.
For, if we specialize (1) for the spherically symmetrical static case we obtain one equation too few for defining the g_(mu)(nu) and phi_(mu)(nu), with the result that *any spherically symmetrical distribution* of electricity appears capable of remaining in equilibrium. Thus, the problem of the constitution of the elementary quanta cannot yet be solved on the immediate basis of the given field equations."
Einstein, back in 1919, would have fully realized the import of Mills accomplishments with CQM. Mills has provided Einstein's missing equation and thus tied together all of physics. As Einstein said:
"This possibility appears particularly promising in that it frees us from the necessity of introducing a special constant lambda for the solution of the cosmological problem."
All the best
John B. |
|
|
HANS DEHMELT - Provocateur (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, April 10, 2005 @ 21:42:21 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Message: hydrino yahoo group
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:20:33 -0000
From: "john_e_barchak"
Subject: HANS DEHMELT - Provocateur
Let's look at EXPERIMENTS WITH AN ISOLATED SUBATOMIC PARTICLE AT REST
Nobel Lecture, December 8, 1989
by HANS G. DEHMELT
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1989/dehmelt-lecture.pdf
Hans Dehmelt's Nobel Lecture "EXPERIMENTS WITH AN ISOLATED SUBATOMIC
PARTICLE AT REST" was provocative starting with the title. Given
Heisenberg uncertainty, doing *anything* with "AN ISOLATED
SUBATOMIC PARTICLE AT REST" should be quite difficult since said
SUBATOMIC PARTICLE could be anywhere in the universe.
As if that wasn't enough, Dehmelt continued:
'Today everybody "knows" the electron is an indivisible atomon, a
Dirac point particle with radius R = 0 and g = 2.00.... But is
it?' - Cover page
and
"Thus, the electron may have size and structure!" - p. 590
The experimenters have never been a group that swallows much dogma.
All the best
John B.
|
|
|
What might have been (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 @ 21:09:47 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Message: HSG
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:29:39 -0000
From: "john_e_barchak"
Subject: What might have been
In 1919, A. Einstein was aware that spherically symmetric EM structures are stable, and do not radiate. Einstein's problem was that he did not know which spherically symmetric EM structures made sense as an electron. Given the massive evidence for the orbitsphere in multielectron atoms and ions, it would have been obvious to Einstein that the orbitsphere was a perfect fit for his unification work. The probability that all of the multielectron formulas work by accident could be used as the definition of "probability zero" for all practical purposes. History might have been far different if Einstein had CQM in 1919. As we shall see in the following NOVA clip, the plague of SQM started in the 1920s. If Einstein had CQM in 1919, the great plague might not have occurred.
NOVA -- The Elegant Universe: Einstein's Dream
PBS Airdates: October 28 and November 4, 2003
Hour 1: Einstein's Dream
Hour 2: String's The Thing
Hour 3: Welcome to the 11th Dimension http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3012_elegant.html
.
.
BRIAN GREENE: But as Einstein began trying to unite gravity and electromagnetism he would find that the difference in strength between these two forces would outweigh their similarities.
Let me show you what I mean. We tend to think that gravity is a powerful force. After all, it's the force that, right now, is anchoring me to this ledge. But compared to electromagnetism, it's actually terribly feeble. In fact, there's a simple little test to show this. Imagine that I was to leap from this rather tall building. Actually, let's not just imagine it. Let's do it. You'll see what I mean.
Now, of course, I really should have been flattened. But the important question is: what kept me from crashing through the sidewalk and hurtling right down to the center of the earth? Well, strange as it sounds, the answer is electromagnetism.
Everything we can see, from you and me to the sidewalk, is made of tiny bits of matter called atoms. And the outer shell of every atom contains a negative electrical charge. So when my atoms collide with the atoms in the cement these electrical charges repel each other with such strength that just a little piece of sidewalk can resist the entire Earth's gravity and stop me from falling. In fact the electromagnetic force is billions and billions of times stronger than gravity.
NIMA ARKANI-HAMED (Harvard University): That seems a little strange, because gravity keeps our feet to the ground, it keeps the earth going around the sun. But, in actual fact, it manages to do that only because it acts on huge enormous conglomerates of matter, you know-you, me, the earth, the sun-but really at the level of individual atoms, gravity is a really incredibly feeble tiny force.
BRIAN GREENE: It would be an uphill battle for Einstein to unify these two forces of wildly different strengths. And to make matters worse, barely had he begun before sweeping changes in the world of physics would leave him behind.
STEVEN WEINBERG: Einstein had achieved so much in the years up to about 1920, that he naturally expected that he could go on by playing the same theoretical games and go on achieving great things. And he couldn't. Nature revealed itself in other ways in the 1920s and 1930s, and the particular tricks and tools that Einstein had at his disposal had been so fabulously successful, just weren't applicable anymore.
BRIAN GREENE: You see, in the 1920s a group of young scientists stole the spotlight from Einstein when they came up with an outlandish new way of thinking about physics.
Their vision of the universe was so strange, it makes science fiction look tame, and it turned Einstein's quest for unification on its head. Led by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, these scientists were uncovering an entirely new realm of the universe.
Atoms, long thought to be the smallest constituents of nature, were found to consist of even smaller particles: the now-familiar nucleus of protons and neutrons orbited by electrons. And the theories of Einstein and Maxwell were useless at explaining the bizarre way these tiny bits of matter interact with each other inside the atom.
PETER GALISON: There was a tremendous mystery about how to account for all this, how to account for what was happening to the nucleus as the atom began to be pried apart in different ways. And the old theories were totally inadequate to the task of explaining them. Gravity was irrelevant. It was far too weak. And electricity and magnetism was not sufficient.
BRIAN GREENE: Without a theory to explain this strange new world, these scientists were lost in an unfamiliar atomic territory looking for any recognizable landmarks.
John B.: It seems that Einstein may have been closest to his dream in 1919 when he looked at spherically symmetric EM structures. Oh my - the irony!
"They ended up derailing conceptual physics for the next 70 years." - Carver Mead |
|
|
|
|
