headers
Nora Baron | 2 Nov 2004 17:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: Composite Orbitsphere


Reply to J. Kassebaum, HSG #8724, Re: Composite Orbitsphere

--- In hydrino@..., John A.Kassebaum <jak <at> k...> wrote:
>
>
>On Oct 26, 2004, at 11:08 PM, John A. Kassebaum wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if the overlapping area is really at centered at 45 degrees > 
>between the X and X axis and spanning the area of the sphere between > the 
>X and Z axis (and minus X and minus Z axis), it might work out > after the 
>rotation about the Z-axis?
>
>Looking at Mills' AVI file 
><http://blacklightpower.com/video/Orbitsphere.avi> at 
><http://blacklightpower.com/OrbitsphereModeling.shtml> you will see that 
>what I described above is exactly what Mills has done. Look carefully for 
>the blue-red overlap area - you will see that it is centered 45 degrees 
>above (and below) the equatorial plane of rotation an covers the sphere 
>from the equator to the pole (on each side of the equator).  Clearly, one 
>must interpret the rotations (shown in the animation) as a sequence of 
>kernels which will be superposed to produce a single uniform charge density 
>(and current density) orbitsphere.  (One must NOT interpret the rotations 
>as a function of time.) So I now say: Hmmm .... interesting.
>
>FWIW,
>-John
>

  John K.,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
amack43 | 4 Nov 2004 23:29
Picon
Favicon

Re: Composite Orbitsphere


--- In hydrino@..., "Nora Baron" <norabaron <at> h...> wrote:
snipped
>      Clearly, Mills or his minion added this new set of rotations
> because of comments here on the HSG regarding nonuniform density,
> though there is no acknowledgement that the previous construction
> was wrong.  But the result, not surprisingly, *still* is not a
> uniform-density covering of the sphere.  Never mind that for now,
> and never mind the fact that Mills' computation of angular
> momentum, in my opinion, has been fudged to end up with the
> classically known result.  The point here is, this is an absolutely
> Byzantine model.  Many arbitrary choices were made in constructing
> it.  There is nothing 'natural' or 'physical' about it.  It gives
> new meaning to the term 'epicycles'.  Moreover, this facet of
> Mills' theory is not just some detail out on the fringes; it is
> absolutely central to his whole theory of the hydrogen atom.  In my
> view Mills is not the lineal descendant of Heaviside, Lorentz, or
> Fermi; rather, this bizarre model shows he is the lineal descendant
> of Rube Goldberg.

For those of you who don't know, or care, Rube Goldberg was all about 
creating the most complicated machine to do the simplest tasks. NB 
criticises Mills for creating a model that she feels is too 
complicated.

The trouble with this approach is that NB is presumably a fan of the 
Gilligan's Island coconut powered point particle, where the complex 
electron with many observable properties is given a structure and 
nature that is hopelessly inadequate at describing its observable 
properties.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
kleml29 | 5 Nov 2004 01:30
Picon

Re: Composite Orbitsphere


--- In hydrino@..., "amack43" <ghetto <at> c...> wrote:
> 
> 
> --- In hydrino@..., "Nora Baron" <norabaron <at> h...> wrote:
> snipped
> >      Clearly, Mills or his minion added this new set of rotations
> > because of comments here on the HSG regarding nonuniform density,
> > though there is no acknowledgement that the previous construction
> > was wrong.  But the result, not surprisingly, *still* is not a
> > uniform-density covering of the sphere.  Never mind that for now,
> > and never mind the fact that Mills' computation of angular
> > momentum, in my opinion, has been fudged to end up with the
> > classically known result.  The point here is, this is an 
absolutely
> > Byzantine model.  Many arbitrary choices were made in constructing
> > it.  There is nothing 'natural' or 'physical' about it.  It gives
> > new meaning to the term 'epicycles'.  Moreover, this facet of
> > Mills' theory is not just some detail out on the fringes; it is
> > absolutely central to his whole theory of the hydrogen atom.  In 
my
> > view Mills is not the lineal descendant of Heaviside, Lorentz, or
> > Fermi; rather, this bizarre model shows he is the lineal 
descendant
> > of Rube Goldberg.
> 
> For those of you who don't know, or care, Rube Goldberg was all 
about 
> creating the most complicated machine to do the simplest tasks. NB 
> criticises Mills for creating a model that she feels is too
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Nora Baron | 7 Nov 2004 23:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Composite Orbitsphere


Reply to A. Macken, HSG# 8728, Re: Composite Orbitsphere

--- In hydrino@..., "amack43" <ghetto <at> c...> wrote:
>
>
>--- In hydrino@..., "Nora Baron" <norabaron <at> h...> wrote:
>snipped
> >      Clearly, Mills or his minion added this new set of rotations
> > because of comments here on the HSG regarding nonuniform density,
> > though there is no acknowledgement that the previous construction
> > was wrong.  But the result, not surprisingly, *still* is not a
> > uniform-density covering of the sphere.  Never mind that for now,
> > and never mind the fact that Mills' computation of angular
> > momentum, in my opinion, has been fudged to end up with the
> > classically known result.  The point here is, this is an absolutely
> > Byzantine model.  Many arbitrary choices were made in constructing
> > it.  There is nothing 'natural' or 'physical' about it.  It gives
> > new meaning to the term 'epicycles'.  Moreover, this facet of
> > Mills' theory is not just some detail out on the fringes; it is
> > absolutely central to his whole theory of the hydrogen atom.  In my
> > view Mills is not the lineal descendant of Heaviside, Lorentz, or
> > Fermi; rather, this bizarre model shows he is the lineal descendant
> > of Rube Goldberg.
>
>For those of you who don't know, or care, Rube Goldberg was all about 
>creating the most complicated machine to do the simplest tasks. NB 
>criticises Mills for creating a model that she feels is too complicated.
>
>The trouble with this approach is that NB is presumably a fan of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
amack43 | 8 Nov 2004 13:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: Composite Orbitsphere


--- In hydrino@..., "Nora Baron" <norabaron <at> h...> wrote:
snipped to cut duplications
>      I never watched Gilligan's Island and don't get the
> reference to the coconut powered particle.

Sorry, I assumed it was part of popular culture by now. Essentially 
it was a comparison of the way the professor constructed elaborate 
devices using whatever lay around the island (ie coconuts) and the 
point particle which likewise has a simplisitic construction yet 
achieves amazing feats. 

The show applies in another way. Sometimes you have to watch and 
read a lot of crap to know quality when you see it. Try reading a 
lot of the free energy mysticism (most of it inspired by QM concepts 
by the way) on the net and compare it to Mills. He didn't deserve 
what Park did to him.

snipped 

>   I think we have differing ideas regarding the role of
> contributors to the HSG.  Perhaps you think we should be
> trying to find ways to support and encourage Mills' model.
> My goal has been to try to understand it on its own terms and
> see if it makes any sense.  I don't think it does.  Mills has
> tried to recover the predictions given by the 'old quantum
> theory' of Bohr, Sommerfeld, etc. - a visualizable
> deterministic model in which electron-points orbit the nucleus
> and release energy in discrete amounts by jumping to lower
> orbits, and somehow violating Maxwell's laws by not radiating
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Carrell | 8 Nov 2004 23:53

Re: Re: Composite Orbitsphere


Nora wrote, in reply to A. Macken:

<snip>>
>   This raises the question of what physics really is.  Lots of
> theories don't actually explain things.  The inverse-square law
> for gravity, for example.  It predicts planetary orbits.  But
> in itself, it's a description, a means of making predictions,
> not an explanation.  In general an equation is a description,
> not an explanation.

Well said. The usefulness of a theory is in predicting the outcome of the
next experiment, or what to try next. By this test, Mills has done well.

<snip>
> If the theory
> predicts this observed behavior but fails to explain it, it is
> hard to blame the theory; rather, blame the behavior!

Or pretend that the behavior did not exist and the reports are due to error
or misunderstanding.
<snip>
>
> >And if the hydrino exists then it is the model that must be adopted by
the
> >mainstream.
> >
>
>   You mean, I think, that Mills' experimental results imply
> that the hydrino must exist.  Have you replicated those
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
r mj | 9 Nov 2004 06:22
Picon
Favicon

Statistical QM and Probability Theory


I thought people would find this interesting. I wonder
if helium-6 with its larger mass and slightly
different orbit would work in a BLP type of reaction? 
Any predictions?

		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@... 
 Subscribe:    hydrino-subscribe@... 
 Unsubscribe:  hydrino-unsubscribe@... 
 List owner:   hydrino-owner@...
 Complaints:   hydrino-unsubscribe@...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Nora Baron | 9 Nov 2004 02:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: Composite Orbitsphere


Reply to A. Macken, HSG #8318, Re: Composite Orbitsphere

--- In hydrino@..., "amack43" <ghetto <at> c...> wrote:
>
>
>--- In hydrino@..., "Nora Baron" <norabaron <at> h...> wrote:
>snipped to cut duplications
> >      I never watched Gilligan's Island and don't get the
> > reference to the coconut powered particle.
>
>Sorry, I assumed it was part of popular culture by now. Essentially it was 
>a comparison of the way the professor constructed elaborate devices using 
>whatever lay around the island (ie coconuts) and the point particle which 
>likewise has a simplisitic construction yet achieves amazing feats.
>
>The show applies in another way. Sometimes you have to watch and read a lot 
>of crap to know quality when you see it. Try reading a lot of the free 
>energy mysticism (most of it inspired by QM concepts by the way) on the net 
>and compare it to Mills. He didn't deserve what Park did to him.
>

Antony,

  Thanks for a thoughtful response.

  I agree regarding 'free energy mysticism'.  Any time someone
sees an unexpected blip on a thermometer or a voltmeter, they
start claiming they have tapped into "zero-point energy" or
some such - usually with no deep understanding of the theory
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
john_e_barchak | 9 Nov 2004 15:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: Composite Orbitsphere


--- In hydrino@..., "Nora Baron" <norabaron <at> h...> wrote:

> Reply to A. Macken, HSG #8318, Re: Composite Orbitsphere
> 
> 
>   It may not be a point.  It may have a finite size that is
> below our current powers of resolution.  As for its
> properties: charge, mass, and spin, and sometimes it acts like
> a wave and sometimes like a particle.  Standard quantum theory
> seems to account for all of this without making many
> assumptions.  Why is that not satisfactory?
> 

Hi Nora
It is not satisfactory because SQM is fatally flawed.  Contained 
within the EPR debate is the heart of the difference between SQM and 
CQM.  For me, the important issue is the difference in scientific 
philosophy between SQM and CQM.   I see Mills' work as a starting 
point, not an end point, so it is not a big deal for me if the 
orbitsphere is not finished or complete.  But it would be a big deal 
for me if you could show that Einstein was wrong about his "elements 
of reality".

I am in total agreement with Einstein who said "I am, in fact, firmly 
convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary 
quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this 
[theory] operates with an incomplete description of physical systems."
EPR's "elements of reality" and SQM's Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
(HUP) are the crux of the EPR debate. For the so called quantum
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
mfchiros | 9 Nov 2004 17:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: Re: Composite Orbitsphere


I think in the end it is going to come down to the replications of these 
experiments.  With so much mocking from the establishment, these little guys seem 
to continue to generate substantial experiments getting published in major 
journals like Journal of Applied Physics.

More and more people will attempt to replicate these experiments, and if they 
check out, something will have to be done to investigate all this.

The current debate about the theory side of things is a bit premature, 
because the theory is just developing.  It doesn't have to be completely accurate at 
this point.  Perhaps there is a way to look at it that they haven't figured 
out yet.

These experiments are key, and they keep coming on...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/UIYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@... 
 Subscribe:    hydrino-subscribe@... 
 Unsubscribe:  hydrino-unsubscribe@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane