mules3333 | 1 Feb 20:21 2005
Picon

Re: Confirmation Bias and Evidence vs Static


The psychology experiment noted in Luther's post (message 8881) is
beautiful.  It is simple and it makes the point obvious.  This is the
kind of beauty that a physicist seeks in a model of reality.  

To me, Mill's model doesn't have it (yet!);  however, I admit that I'm
prejudiced  (albeit, not closed minded).  On the other hand, he has
done what Einstein did.  He did not try to prove all of physics was
correctly modeled by his theory (although he did enough cases to show
serious dedication and to confirm a lot).  He set out a test to find
an answer that conventional thinking could not produce.

Had Einstein, himself, obtained the data for the perihelion of
Mercury, I suspect that the results would not have been believed.  It
takes the independent observer to be convincing.  (I believe that some
people today are still not convinced of the validity of the original
data.)  Mill's needs the independent observer.  But who will it be? 
Certainly not his critics.  On the other hand, few people with the
credentials to be believed, even if they agreed with the theory and
its importance, will turn off their funding supply and try to get
support for a major effort an area that they have no history of
credibility in.

Don Hotson's reference (in message 8870) to Tiller's work points to an
even tougher example.  Here is a man with impeccable credentials and
with a wild-ass theory.  (There are some of us in the group with
nearly as good credentials that also have such thoughts "outside the
box.")  However, Tiller has pursued his theory (e.g.,
http://tillerfoundation.com/PaysonTheoryIII.pdf) and made some
discoveries that will be "threatening" to a lot of people.  It appears
(Continue reading)

ErikBaard | 2 Feb 17:23 2005
Picon

Dark Matter and "Rivers" of Hot Gas?


NOTE TO MODERATOR: EMBARGOED UNTIL 1PM EASTERN TIME.

Hi All - 

I thought this item regarding dark matter and superhot baryonic matter might be interesting for those
interested in the hydrino debate from a cosmological perspective.

Erik Baard

ASTRONOMERS FIND PART OF UNIVERSE'S MISSING MATTER 

       COLUMBUS, Ohio - Found: 7 percent of the mass of the universe. 
               Missing since: 10 billion years ago. 
> 
>          Consider one more astronomical mystery solved. Scientists have 
> located a sizeable chunk of the universe that seemed to be missing since 
> back when the stars first formed.  It's floating in super-hot rivers of 
> gas, invisible to the naked eye, surrounding galaxies like our own. 
> 
>          And a completely different kind of mystery matter -- dark matter 
> -- may have put it there. 
> 
>          The results appear in the current issue of the journal Nature. 
> 
>          To make this latest discovery, astronomers at Ohio State 
> University and their colleagues used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to 
> take the highest-quality spectrum of its type ever made. 
> 
>      Though astronomers had previously detected the rivers of gas with 
(Continue reading)

elirabett2003 | 4 Feb 03:50 2005
Picon

Need a Pointer


I remember some discussions about the plasma remaining lit in one of BLP's experiments.  Could anyone
provide me a pointer (or more than one).

Eli Rabett

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/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@... 
Mike Carrell | 4 Feb 14:31 2005
Picon

Re: Need a Pointer


Eli wrote:

I remember some discussions about the plasma remaining lit in one of BLP's
experiments.  Could anyone provide me a pointer (or more than one).

Eli Rabett
-------------------
There are several trails to follow. One is the thermal reactor which is
illustrated on the website in the 'cell' page. It is driven by a iron wire
heater whose surface temperature is above 1000 C. Catalyst crystals are
introduced on a concentric titanium screen; the surface temperature of the
reactor cell is measured at 700 C. In one phase of the experiment, power to
the heater coil [~50V] is turned off and the leads shorted to assure that no
electric field is driving the plasma, which persists until the heater cools
below some point.

The paper by Conrads is an independant replication of that reactor with
K2CO3 as the catalyst. Conrads varies the cell construction and mode of
heating to demonstrate that the hot iron and titanium sleeve are essential
elements for the plasma to appear.

In the Tech Papers section of the website there is a subtopic "Validation
Points" which leads to a 23 page pdf document. Item 42 in the documents
reads:
42.) the observation of anomalous afterglow durations of plasmas formed by
catalysts providing a net enthalpy of reaction within thermal energies of m
27.28 eV [12, 13, 47, 81],

The reference list is in the doument, which leads to various reports.
(Continue reading)

Luther Setzer | 7 Feb 14:59 2005
Picon

Philosophy versus Science


http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Rowlands/Philosophy_vs_Science.shtml

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/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@... 
mules3333 | 8 Feb 02:44 2005
Picon

Re: Dark Matter and "Rivers" of Hot Gas?


Eric,  I don't see any hydrino lines in the quasar data.  Using
figures from the original paper
(http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7025/full/nature03245_fs.html),
I did a quick and dirty (no relativistic correction) Excel analysis to
determine what hydrino levels should show up.  The x-ray data in the
paper displayed absorption peaks for both the diffuse intergalactic
(cool) medium and denser high-temperature streams.  

In the upper range of data presented (e.g., 26 – 35 Angstrom), only 11
hydrino transitions exist from the n = 1/6 (25.3A), 1/7, …, 1/18
levels to nearby levels (delta level = 1 – 5).  There are only 5 lines
in the 2 higher-energy regions plotted in the paper (28 – 30 A and 33
– 35A).  Of these 5 lines, 2 (at 33.8A) fall on a known and intense
highly-ionized carbon line (at 33.73A) that does not appear to be
broadened.  Two out of the remaining 3 hydrino lines in these regions
fall at the same wavelength (28.5A).  This is in a region where no
other known peaks would interfere.  The nearest identified peak
(un-redshifted N at 28.77A) is clearly identified with an absorption
peak height of 2s and in a region with a line resolution of FWHM = ~
0.06A (and 5-6 data points per peak).  The 3rd line (at 29.4A) is
slightly closer to a redshifted N line (at 29.55A).  Nevertheless,
even if it were barely present (at 1s), it would be observed in the data.

The high-temperature (~1,000,000K) gas stream observed, would ionize
most of the hydrinos down to the n = ~ 1/6 level.  The lines from the
highly-ionized baryons in these streams (which are far away) are
red-shifted by 0.5 to 1A in the regions reported.  Again, no hydrino
lines are observed if the appropriate redshift is included.

(Continue reading)

Luther Setzer | 9 Feb 18:11 2005
Picon

New Hydrino Site


Folks,

Please check the newly revised Hydrino Study Group site at

http://www.hydrino.org

courtesy of our new webmaster John Bonam!

Luke Setzer

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/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@... 
Tstolper | 10 Feb 05:08 2005
Picon

Re New Hydrino Site


John,

Congratulations to John Bonam on the excellent new look of the hydrino.org 
website.

Bonam's grasp of CQM seems to be less perfect than his grasp of website 
design, though.   It only took a minute to spot a serious mistake in his 
understanding of the former.   

The Note on the home page of hydrino.org began as follows:

"This entire theory makes one central but tenuous assumption that the free 
electron is an extended, internally fluidized, two-dimensional "disk" particle 
with a radius comparable to that of a hydrogen atom."

Not so.   The radius of Mills' free electron varies inversely with its 
velocity.   Mills' free electron rapidly becomes much smaller than a hydrogen atom, 
and at rather modest energies by the standards of modern physics, his free 
electron becomes so small that it would be hard to distinguish from a point 
electron.

John Kassebaum is the resident expert on CQM for the Hydrino Study Group here 
at Yahoo, and those summarizing Mills' theory at hydrino.org would do well to 
check their formulations with Kassebaum, if he'll agree to do that.   I don't 
know if he would have time to check them in any detail, but he would spot an 
error like the one above even faster than I did.

I also wouldn't call Mills' model of the free electron an assumption, but I 
don't want to pursue that somewhat philosophical argument any further, since 
(Continue reading)

john_e_barchak | 12 Feb 18:42 2005
Picon

Why Not Truth?


The Sept 04 issue of Scientific American is a special issue 
titled "Beyond Einstein".  One of the articles is "Was Einstein 
Right?" by George Musser  which deals with that question in relation 
to quantum mechanics.  The following is from that article:
"Estranged from the quantum mainstream, Einstein spent his final 
decades in quixotic pursuit of a unified theory of physics.  String 
theorists and others who later took up that pursuit vowed not to walk 
down the same road.  Their assumption has been that when the general 
theory of relativity (which describes gravity) meets quantum 
mechanics (which handles everything else), it is relativity that must 
give way. Einstein's masterpiece, though not strictly "wrong," will 
ultimately be exposed as mere approximation.

Collapsing Theories
In recent years, though, as physicists have redoubled their efforts 
to grok quantum theory, a growing number have come to admire 
Einstein's position.  "This guy saw more deeply and more quickly into 
the central issues of quantum mechanics than many give him credit
for," says Christopher Fuchs of Bell Labs.  Some even agree with 
Einstein that the quantum must eventually yield to a more fundamental 
theory. "We shouldn't just assume quantum mechanics is going to make 
it through unaltered, says Raphael Bousso of the University of 
California at Berkeley."

Christopher Fuchs goes on to explain why he thinks that Einstein "saw 
more deeply and more quickly into the central issues of quantum 
mechanics than many give him credit for":
"Instead of presuming to reconstruct the theory from scratch, why not 
take it apart and find out what makes it tick. That is the approach 
(Continue reading)

novel_compound | 15 Feb 23:28 2005
Picon

Is John talking about a different ASTRID?


john_e_barchak wrote,

<< Hans Dehmelt (Nobel Prize 1989) performed breathtaking
experiments wherein Astrid, the ion, an electron, and a positron were
brought to rest and observed for more than a year. Astrid was
actually observable with the naked eye. >>

It should be no surprise that ASTRID was visible to the naked eye.  
It appears to be on the order of 50 cubic meters in size.  Here's a 
picture of it:

http://www.isa.au.dk/astrid/astrid.html

Am I missing something here?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/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@... 
(Continue reading)


Gmane