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@...
--- 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)
--- 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)
--- 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)
--- 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)
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)
--- 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)
> > > Not sufficient. The famous uniformly charged-but-(Continue reading)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
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)
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@...
RSS Feed59 | |
|---|---|
72 | |
101 | |
89 | |
146 | |
118 | |
192 | |
166 | |
67 | |
37 | |
45 | |
80 | |
39 | |
123 | |
36 | |
50 | |
29 | |
90 | |
27 | |
56 | |
71 | |
84 | |
40 | |
53 | |
41 | |
48 | |
119 | |
40 | |
95 | |
278 | |
124 | |
171 | |
186 | |
309 | |
191 | |
307 | |
214 | |
395 | |
56 | |
64 | |
171 | |
35 | |
96 | |
131 | |
115 | |
91 | |
25 | |
63 | |
35 | |
64 | |
454 | |
122 | |
221 | |
188 | |
60 | |
116 | |
137 | |
20 | |
32 | |
41 | |
71 | |
130 | |
239 | |
320 | |
206 | |
162 | |
261 | |
524 | |
118 | |
120 | |
154 | |
193 | |
103 | |
32 | |
31 | |
66 | |
50 | |
92 | |
110 | |
93 | |
176 | |
209 | |
104 | |
207 | |
128 | |
102 | |
37 | |
51 | |
164 | |
521 | |
460 | |
320 | |
103 | |
177 | |
42 | |
124 | |
37 | |
76 | |
194 | |
161 | |
157 | |
33 | |
232 | |
203 | |
157 | |
45 |
