headers
Mike Carrell | 2 Apr 2008 21:28
Favicon

BLP website

There is new material on energy generation. 

Mike Carrell

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

------------------------------------

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@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:hydrino-digest@... 
    mailto:hydrino-fullfeatured@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
john_e_barchak | 1 Apr 2008 20:16
Picon
Favicon

Gravity Probe B Status Update

Gravity Probe B Status Update
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

------------------------------------

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@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:hydrino-digest@... 
    mailto:hydrino-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    hydrino-unsubscribe@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
john_e_barchak | 3 Apr 2008 14:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: An early glimpse of CQM

Take a look at some real physics - not nonsense: 
Enrico Fermi and CQM
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/12395

------------------------------------

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@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:hydrino-digest@... 
    mailto:hydrino-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bob Bell | 5 Apr 2008 20:22
Picon

Re: An early glimpse of CQM

I have a few questions I hope someone can discuss for my edification.

How does a single indivisible unit of charge self-interact?  Does it make
sense to divide an indivisible unit into separate charge regions?

In a point-particle QM model of an atom, do the individual electrons
experience interaction amongst themselves?  Does this make a QM model of
point particles flawed somehow?  Why don't the electrons spiral into the
nucleus eventually if they are point-particles?  Does QM even try to
describe what an electron is?  If not, why not and does that create
opportunities or issues?

Best Regards,
Bob

------------------------------------

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@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Mark Underwood | 3 Apr 2008 16:34
Picon
Favicon

Re: An early glimpse of CQM

--- In hydrino@..., Peter Zimmerman <peter.zimmerman <at> ...> wrote:
>
> This is really not true.  QM deals neither with a charge cloud nor a 
> probability cloud, but rather with a probability distribution for the 
> "location" of a particle if you seek to determine the location. 
> 
> If you think of a probability cloud you probably envision a fuzzy blob 
> of a -- what?  A probability current? -- floating around the nucleus or 
> wherever else a bound election is found.  But that's not what QM is 
> saying.  QM says that there is a distribution of the likelihood of your 
> finding the electron here!  or there! or out in left field!  It's not 
> really much different from saying that the probability of final grades 
> on the exam in a large course usually follow a bell-shaped (eg gaussian, 
> or skewed gaussian) distribution.  There's no movement of students or 
> exam scores, just a distribution that says P(x) = n where n is the 
> probability and x a possible score on the exam.
> 
> What's so hard about that?  I can always try to measure the position of 
> the electron, but of course it will always react to the probe I use.
> 
> -pz

From what I have read, this way of disturbing a system with a probe -resulting in an 
unpredictable outcome - was the original way that the idea of quantum indeterminacy was 
popularized. This intuitive description would satisfy a realist. In other words, there is a 
real electron with a real position and momentum in space. It becomes probabilistic only in 
conjunction with a measurement attempt. 

But apparently the Copenhagen interpretation is that the electron *actually doesn't* have a 
real (say) position and momentum in space. It is only a probability function.  Thus, the real
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
John E Connett | 3 Apr 2008 17:00
Picon
Favicon

Re: An early glimpse of CQM

> Re: An early glimpse of CQM [J. Barchak, HSG #13069]

> On the contrary, it states "If we regard the electron as a cloud of
> negative charge." QM deals with a probability cloud, not a charge
> cloud. It was Schroedinger who talked about a charge cloud, but the
> QM group would not buy it.

  Here is what Feynman says related to this topic - (Lectures on 
Physics, Vol 2, Chap 5, p. 3):

 "It was once suggested that the positive charge of an atom 
  could be distributed uniformly in a sphere, and the negative 
  charges, the electrons, could be at rest in the positive 
  charge, as shown in Figure 5-3 [which indicates a sphere of uniform
  positive charge with a negative charge in a small region at the 
  center].  This was the first atomic model, proposed by 
  Thompson.  But Rutherford concluded from the experiment of 
  Geiger and Marsden that the positive charges were very much 
  concentrated, in what he called the nucleus. Thompson's static 
  model had to be abandoned.  Rutherford and Bohr then suggested
  that the equilibrium might be dynamic, with the electrons 
  revolving in orbits, as shown in Figure 5-4.  The electrons
  would be accelerating (because of the circular motion) and 
  would, therefore, be radiating energy.  They would lose the 
  kinetic energy required to stay in orbit, and would spiral in 
  toward the nucleus.  Again unstable!

  "The stability of the atoms is now explained in terms of 
  quantum mechanics.  The electrostatic forces pull the electron 
  as close to the nucleus as possible, but the electron is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
novel_compound | 3 Apr 2008 19:38
Picon
Favicon

...and SQM does not suffer from the same problem how?

JC wrote, 

<< With a point-electron, the problem of Coulombic self-interaction is 
moot.  With a cloud-electron, or any model with spatial extent, it is 
not.  Thus the QM electron at least avoids the self-interaction 
problem.  Mills' sphere- or disk-electron does not. >>

If self-interaction poses a problem for Mills' disk model of the free 
electron, do you also feel it poses a problem for SQM's model of the 
proton (a charged particle with spatial extent)?

------------------------------------

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@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
John E Connett | 3 Apr 2008 18:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: An early glimpse of CQM

--- In hydrino@..., "Dave Fafarman" <davef <at> ...> wrote:
>
> PeterW wrote:
> > Just a light-hearted comment in preparation for April 1st.
> 
> What does Apr. 1 have to do with this?  Sounded like a 
> serious comment to me.  Was it a spoof?
> 

  I didn't think it was.

> JimNLori wrote:
> > On the contrary, it appears Parker is trying to describe 
> > in layman's terms the statistical treatment of an electron 
> > associated with an atomic nucleus per quantum mechanics.
> 
> That's a strange reading of Parker's remarks.  I don't see 
> where that comes from at all.
> 
> JohnC wrote:
> > Did Parker also contemplate a free electron which
> > is a flat disc, whose density is not a solution of
> > the Mills wave equation? 
> 
> If the density is zero, it could well be outside the range 
> of applicability of the Mills wave equation.  How does this 
> differ from a question like "what is the diameter of a 
> circle formed by intersecting a plane with a sphere?" when 
> the plane is more than R distant from the center of the 
> sphere?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Peter Wolstenholme | 3 Apr 2008 17:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: An early glimpse of CQM

Dave Fafarman <davef@...> wrote:                             PeterW wrote:
 > Just a light-hearted comment in preparation for April 1st.

 What does Apr. 1 have to do with this?  Sounded like a 
 serious comment to me.  Was it a spoof?

Peter W.  replies:
   No, not a spoof, but not meant to be investigated quite so seriously...
                In fact the discussion I provoked shows up the way in which some people do not really study the postings, and
comment on aspects which were not present.  Amusing, if you like, but a little sad as well.  I hope that this
particular discussion will soon end.
               It is a pity people won't discuss more interesting matters, such as the flying saucer design outlined in
Mill's book.  At least, that is what it looks like to me! 

   Peter W.

       
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

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

------------------------------------

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 |
headers
novel_compound | 4 Apr 2008 22:05
Picon
Favicon

Gluon confusion

In message 12802, operationquest told us that quarks account for 1/3 
of a nucleon's angular momentum, and gluons account for some but not 
all of the remaining angular momentum.

Now, most sources tell me that gluons are massless.  If so, how can 
they have angular momentum?  Is it exactly analagous to how a photon 
has linear momentum despite being massless?

To further complicate matters, I found references to "massive 
gluons," and the "effective mass of a massless gluon," and "the mass 
of gluons at large distances" (see below).

On http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/animations.shtml , Mills 
describes gluons as "heavy photons," implying that they have mass.  
Are there any CQM gurus who can elaborate? 

Thanks

_________

The following is copied from 
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-173098.html .  Is 
it real physics that's far beyond my undergrad-level studies, or the 
rantings of a pseudophysicist?

You say gluons are massless. But what do you mean really ? If you 
mean that they do not have a mass term in the lagrangian, this is 
very true and very naive at the same time ! For instance in the 
electroweak sector, vector mesons are massless as well at first in 
the lagrangian. There however we are very lucky because we can do
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane