john_e_barchak | 1 Feb 11:44 2006
Picon

Lorentz on Electrostatic Self-Interaction

Lorentz on Electrostatic Self-Interaction 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/8910

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@... 
John E Connett | 1 Feb 16:52 2006
Picon

Re: Maxwell, Heaviside, and Seeing the Light regarding self-interaction.

--- In hydrino@..., "rvirkus2000" <r-virkus <at> t...> wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., "John E Connett" <jeconnett <at> y...> wrote:
> 
> I am no longer arguing about the self interaction but still have
> general thoughts.
> 

  Rob,

     OK - see below -

> 
> 
> >
> > --- In hydrino@..., "rvirkus2000" <r-virkus <at> t...> wrote:
> > >
> > > John,
> > > 
> > > Don't get mad but I have a question for clarification.
> > > 
> > 
> >   Rob,
> > 
> >     OK.  But you may get a bill for bitten-tongue injuries.
> > 
> > > I realized after this that Mills is saying that the reason
> > > there is no self interaction from one part of the Orbitsphere to
> > > another is that the whole Orbitsphere is at the same potential.
> > > 
(Continue reading)

kleml29 | 1 Feb 18:01 2006
Picon

Re: Coulomb's Law and Maxwell Equations

--- In hydrino@..., "mystic606" <overgrip <at> h...> wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., "kleml29" <tnatd <at> e...> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can tell, Coulomb's Law is still taught as the more
> > primitive but, since Coulomb believed that electricity was a kind
> > of fluid, his logic depends on equality of charges achieved by
> > conduction. In the case of oppositely charged species, inferring
> > that the values of charges were equal, this is the conservation 
of
> > charge law as he would have understood it. This is not the form 
of
> > it that appears in Maxwell's equations and, aside from the sign
> > convention, nothing remains of Coulomb's idea of a charge 
> > conservation law. Maxwell's notions about electricity may have 
been
> > similar since his equations are said to be hydrodynamic in form.
> > Any notion that Maxwell may have had about something vibrating in
> > space seems to have also fallen away. It may be that the original
> > quaternion version had hydrodynamic horrors (vortices, 
turbulences)
> > lurking in it somewhere and we are better off with what we've 
got.
> > 
> > Bob Lowry
> >
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> Coulomb's Law is really quite simple.  It calculates a single 
(Continue reading)

mystic606 | 1 Feb 17:12 2006
Picon

Re: Maxwell, Heaviside, and Seeing the Light regarding self-interaction.

--- In hydrino@..., "peterzaterols" <peter.zimmerman <at> v...> 
wrote:
>
> +++This is something that has puzzled me for years about the model. 
> Currents flow when there is a potential difference (and there is 
none
> on the OS, Mills says) or where a persistent current continues in a
> superconductor.  But how should the points on the OS begin to flow 
in
> this non-interacting way?  Hard to see how the flow is initiated.

My guess is that the momentum of the charge-infinitesimal motion (I'm 
not particularly fond of the word "electronettes") would be maintained 
from its earlier life before the current flow was herded into its 
configuration in the OS.  Then the magic does its work to translate 
and disperse the motion into the new motion/spin of the OS as the free 
electron interacts with the receiving nucleus.

Since the OS is in a state not totally unlike a superconducting state, 
no potential differential is needed to drive the current.  It merely 
continues to be in motion because of momentum.  It seems that even if 
the OS is not a superconductor, it has the property of coherence.  I 
suppose you could interpret that to be that there are no obstructions 
in its path and that there exists a geometric uniformity in its 
distribution and trajectory.

Philip

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
(Continue reading)

rvirkus2000 | 1 Feb 22:06 2006
Picon

Re: Maxwell, Heaviside, and Seeing the Light regarding self-interaction.

--- In hydrino@..., "John E Connett" <jeconnett <at> y...> wrote:

> > In this case, the negative charged balloon would shrink around a
> > positive charge untill the self interaction tendency to repell 
> > matches the desire to shrink around the attracting charge. Correct?
> > 
> 
>   Not quite.  The self-interaction repelling
> force is half the proton's attractive force.  If the 
> points on the balloon are not moving, it will just keep
> shrinking until it somehow merges with the proton.  That 
> is essentially why Mills postulates that all the points are 
> in orbits moving at about 1% of the speed of light.

I agree that without momentum the static but plyable shell would
collapse so any static model is unworkable and a poor way of
discussing Mills' model. 

> 
>   I don't know that the electron has zero size.  It may 
> have a size which is too small to be resolved by current
> methods.  Certainly its internal structure, if it has any,
> is a mystery to me.  I don't think anyone has ever 
> succeeded at dividing the electron into smaller pieces.
> 

The "size" of the electron is considered to be no larger than
about 3x10^-15 meters. It is unknown how much smaller it may be.
Some authors confuse the wave nature of the electron by making
statements saying the "size" of the electron can be as big as you
(Continue reading)

john_e_barchak | 1 Feb 22:36 2006
Picon

What Next?

As I write, the whole Copenhagen mess is unraveling.  Major players 
are abandoning it.  Weinberg, Hooft, Hawking, Fuchs, and many other 
major players are saying that there has to be something better.  
Given the inbreeding that has taken place over the last 75 years, it 
is not going to be easy to turn this mess around.  The big question 
is, "What next?"  String theory and Higgs' particles have less 
experimental validity than the Copenhagen mess.  For many 
physicists, going back to the Lorentz, Einstein, Schroedinger train 
of thought will not be easy - but where else is there to go?  Dr. 
Mills has proven an astounding understanding of the electron.  "You 
know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron." | 
Albert Einstein [1]

[1] This quotation was recollected and explained by Valentine 
Bargmann. In H.Woolf (ed.), Some Strangeness in Proportion, a 
Centennial symposium to celebrate the achievements of Albert 
Einstein. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1980).

All the best
John B.

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)

John E Connett | 2 Feb 15:08 2006
Picon

Re: Maxwell, Heaviside, and Seeing the Light regarding self-interaction.

--- In hydrino@..., "rvirkus2000" <r-virkus <at> ...> wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., "John E Connett" <jeconnett <at> y...> wrote:
> 
> > > In this case, the negative charged balloon would shrink around a
> > > positive charge untill the self interaction tendency to repell 
> > > matches the desire to shrink around the attracting charge. Correct?
> > > 
> > 
> >   Not quite.  The self-interaction repelling
> > force is half the proton's attractive force.  If the 
> > points on the balloon are not moving, it will just keep
> > shrinking until it somehow merges with the proton.  That 
> > is essentially why Mills postulates that all the points are 
> > in orbits moving at about 1% of the speed of light.
> 
> I agree that without momentum the static but plyable shell would
> collapse so any static model is unworkable and a poor way of
> discussing Mills' model. 
> 

  Sure.  Too bad that is exactly what Mills does in Equation
(1.210).

> 
> 
> > 
> >   I don't know that the electron has zero size.  It may 
> > have a size which is too small to be resolved by current
> > methods.  Certainly its internal structure, if it has any,
(Continue reading)

shanewilsonmail | 2 Feb 17:37 2006
Picon

Re: Maxwell, Heaviside, and Seeing the Light regarding self-interaction.

> > >   Not sufficient.  The famous uniformly charged-but-very-
> > > stretchy balloon would also have this property.
> > In this case, the negative charged balloon would shrink around a
> > positive charge untill the self interaction tendency to repell 
> > matches the desire to shrink around the attracting charge. Correct?
> > 
>   Not quite.  The self-interaction repelling
> force is half the proton's attractive force.  If the 
> points on the balloon are not moving, it will just keep
> shrinking until it somehow merges with the proton.  That 
> is essentially why Mills postulates that all the points are 
> in orbits moving at about 1% of the speed of light.

I think that you guys may be on to something. It may be possible to
construct at least a semi-classical model of electron orbits around a
nucleus in which a combination of electron self-interaction and
electron momentum prevents collision with the nucleus. Quantization
may arise because only certain electron momentums can meet the
balancing requirements for electron/proton charge interaction, and
electron self-interaction. The math may be a bit complicated so I
can't assist. I have trouble with addition and subtraction. But why
bother with a simple but incomplete semi-classical model when SQM
including QED has been so successful in explaining observed
experimental data? Because a simple model may be able to make useful
predictions without resorting to extremely complicated algorithms
requiring accurate knowledge of large numbers of parameters and
massive computing power. 

I am reminded of Crystal Field Theory in inorganic chemistry. Using
CFT, it is ridiculously simple to make useful predictions about the
(Continue reading)

Willie Wong | 2 Feb 17:04 2006
Picon

Re: What Next?

You know, you've been going on and on about the Copenhagen
interpretation as if there's no hope at all for SQM. Are you not aware
of the myriad other interpretations of quantum mechanics? 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

When I was studying the subject, there has been a growing student
following of Everett Many World, and now, as a mathematician, I prefer
to not worry about it and adopt a stance much like Fuch's formal
correspondence. 

The Copenhagen Interpretation is not, contrary to what you think,
quantum mechanics. It is a way of connecting the mechanical steps of
calculation in QM with physical phenomenon. There are plenty of
physicists subscribing to SQM yet loathing the Copenhagen
interpretation. 

You posted some time ago about how you felt the need to discredit SQM
to fend off us attackers of Millsian theory; criticizing the
Copenhagen Interpretation is not the way to go. You are attacking a
*philosophy* of science rather than the science itself. These whole
long thread of posts about the Copenhagen interpretation, in my
opinion, has rather little to do with either the validity of CQM or
the validity of SQM, and thus is very off-topic. 

Best, 

W

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:36:39PM -0000, john_e_barchak wrote:
(Continue reading)

Ron Howard | 2 Feb 19:14 2006

What's next

John, you seem to see a conspiracy behind every tree. There are so many pieces of electron and quantum
mechanics which are unknown and scientist and textbooks readily admit the unknowable. However, QM, QED
and CQM all work and work well in their appropriate uses.

Research continues into the unknown, but I don't see anyone throwing the baby out with the bath water.

BLP is claiming a new practical energy application so, without unpaid and unsolicited confirmation or the
working demo, it is reasonable to inspect this application in light of quantum theory that is known to in
fact work in practical application and experiment.

The scientists in this group have thrown BLP a super size bone by stating perhaps the theory is not being well
communicated or critical up front assumptions/hypotheses have not been clearly defined.

Best Regards, Ron H

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@... 

Gmane