headers
operationquest | 1 Aug 2008 04:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Sonofusion back in the news

--- In hydrino@..., "amack43" <ghetto <at> ...> wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., "operationquest" <operationquest <at> > 
> wrote:
> snipped
> > You said, "I find some of the comments of the discipinary tribunal
> > disturbing. It is quite clear this guy was in heated dispute with
> > persons who instigated these disciplinary hearings." However I read
> > those excerpts as conflict between Taleyarkan and his critics at
> > large, not between Taleyarkhan and the C-22 Committee.
> 
> Sorry, by instigating I meant those responsible for making the 
> complaints in the first place. It would be a real miscarriage of 
> justice if the Committee or any court or tribunal for that matter 
> both made and then determined the complaints! :)
>  

Ah, my reading comprehension is at fault here :)

> snipped
> 
> > > Sonofusion claims are all new. No-one's an expert in it or is 
> clear 
> > > as to what is really happening or how to generate it all the 
> time. 
> > > They raised, what, 12 allegations against this guy and what they 
> > > actually upheld was one or two based on their their 
> interpretation of 
> > > what constitutes an "author" and what constitutes "independent".
> > >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
operationquest | 1 Aug 2008 05:04
Picon
Favicon

Re: Excellent Online Lectures in Audio and Video Formats

--- In hydrino@..., "charlie" <tooweirdtolive <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Thanks very much, Luke.  This online education material from MIT was
> something I was really excied about when it first came about, but then I
> thought you needed the text books to really make it work. Is that the
> case? Do you need the text books to follow along?
> 
> Also, it would be neat if there was somekind of message board for people
> to work together when studying this stuff(for people outside of MIT).
> Do you know if there is anything like that?  Maybe we could start
another
> Yahoo group like this to go along with the MIT course work?
> 
> [Contact the owners of those sites for details.  --LS]
> 

If you took the course at MIT, the textbook would probably be
required. However the course notes usually contain everything you
need. So just go ahead and see how well you do without a textbook. 

The go-to place on the web for physics help seems to be Physics Forums:

http://www.physicsforums.com/

-oq

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

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

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Peter Wolstenholme | 1 Aug 2008 10:24
Picon
Favicon

NOT Re: Sonofusion back in the news

Surely this message has nothing to do with Sonofusion, and no
connection to Hydrinos. So we should not continue any discussion here.
  Is there some more appropriate forum? A search shows up dozens in
Yahoo, and a few of them could be appropriate: the_cure_is_here,
alternativecases, beyondthestandard,  etc. although they tend to have
very few members and are probably dormant.  I have a personal interest
as my wife died of Cancer a few weeks ago. I could support a pressure
group in favor of trials of not-patentable drugs, by various
organisations including the W.H.O.,  various well-funded charities,
national health services, etc. but the topic (a) needs much  research
to find the best forum and (b) certainly should not be here.
 Peter W.

[Yes, if someone could suggest another forum for this topic, I think we would all be grateful.  --LS]

--- In hydrino@..., "novel_compound" <novel_compound <at> ...>
wrote:
>
> antony wrote,
> 
> << The medical research on the anti-glycotic 3-BrPA cancer drug  
> should have been fast tracked. Cheap, non-patentable and with a  
> clearly understood mechanism of action that probably only needed 
> careful toxicity trials in humans to work out if it had application 
> in human tumours. Instead, in the four years since the first  
> announcement about this drug I have lost 5 friends or neighbours to  
> cancer, including one leaving a widow in her 30s. There is no sign  
> they have even started Phase 1 trials. What are they doing? >>
> 
> Thanks, I had not heard of 3-bromopyruvate. I read your link and it
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
charlie | 1 Aug 2008 15:41
Picon
Favicon

Re: Excellent Online Lectures in Audio and Video Formats

Thank you very much, OQ!  The MIT OpenCourseWare program 
concept is so exciting to me.  I hated the rigid 
structure of schools when I was growing up, but I have 
an equally burning curiosity and desire to learn about 
science. Having these learning resources open online is 
a dream come true. Hopefully MIT's online programs 
continue to expand and this spreads even more to other 
schools all over the world.

--- In hydrino@..., 
"operationquest" <operationquest <at> ...> wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., 
"charlie" <tooweirdtolive <at> > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks very much, Luke.  This online education 
material from MIT was
> > something I was really excied about when it first 
came about, but then I
> > thought you needed the text books to really make it 
work. Is that the
> > case? Do you need the text books to follow along?
> >
> > Also, it would be neat if there was somekind of 
message board for people
> > to work together when studying this stuff(for 
people outside of MIT).
> > Do you know if there is anything like that?  Maybe 
we could start
> another
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ukdistributors | 1 Aug 2008 14:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: Math error in Grand Unified Theory book

Hi, 
I have not got so involved in the mathematics as the three 
commentators here.
The post does raise my interest though in saying a sphere is not a 
torus. According to 

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

"In geometry, a torus (pl. tori) is a surface of revolution 
generated by revolving a circle in three dimensional space about an 
axis coplanar with the circle, which does not touch the circle."

So according to THIS definition it is. Now this seems a bit academic 
to me. What I think is more important is whether you can use a 
sphere like any other torus to represent a space fabric and my 
answer is yes (and by the same argument a sphere pulled inside out).
The sphere may be a special torus in this regard.

I also noticed that as for a sphere radiating.. If you remember the 
old static charge spheres experiments at school - a sphere is good 
at holding a charge. What it would need is a source or point for the 
charge to be attracted to? However having said that the sphere could 
be radiating heat, say, into the surrounding space. So perhaps you 
are just signalling another option?

I have had a look at the next 10 or so slides in the first 
presentation. What I seem to be seeing is that Dr Mills may have a 
problem by taking a 180 degree and not 360 degree rotation. I can 
see why he would do this; however think Complex QM can help to 
strengthen this particular feature of his theory. I will try and get
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Lynn Kurtz | 1 Aug 2008 18:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Math error in Grand Unified Theory book

ukdistributors wrote:
> Hi, 
> I have not got so involved in the mathematics as the three 
> commentators here.
> The post does raise my interest though in saying a sphere is not a 
> torus. According to 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus
> 
> "In geometry, a torus (pl. tori) is a surface of revolution 
> generated by revolving a circle in three dimensional space about an 
> axis coplanar with the circle, which does not touch the circle."
> 
> So according to THIS definition it is....

No, it isn't. A torus doesn't look like a sphere, nor can it be deformed 
into a sphere. A sphere is simply connected and a torus isn't.

--Lynn

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

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
ukdistributors | 2 Aug 2008 15:50
Picon
Favicon

Connectedness of Torii > Lynn

Hello Lynn,
Thanks for your quite proper reply. I know I am stretching the 
definition a bit here.
I see this as, perhaps, not immediately important for Dr Mills work 
on the Orbitsphere but to its extended application.
I would like to make it perfectly clear that the torus Dr Mills uses 
does indeed map onto a sphere. As far as I can remember this is what 
I have learnt but without seeing a proof I admit. So I am prepared 
to take a step back and reconsider my position.
Although I did get my hands on some 3D software for modelling these 
situations they tend to use parametic forms that makes them harder 
to use for this purpose.
Now you mention the need for simply connectedness in a torus. Others 
may care to have a look at:

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

We are getting into deep water here?
The definition I plcked from the above site says that:

" Connectedness in topology
Main article: Connected space
A topological space is said to be connected if it cannot be 
contained in two disjoint nonempty open sets. A set is open if it 
contains no point lying on its boundary; thus, in an informal, 
intuitive sense, the fact that a space can be partitioned into 
disjoint open sets suggests that the boundary between the two sets 
is not part of the space, and thus splits it into two separate 
pieces."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
john_e_barchak | 2 Aug 2008 14:20
Picon
Favicon

Relativistic treatment of the orbitsphere

There have been complaints that Mills does not go into a relativistic 
treatment of his electron. This work has already been done by Max 
Laue (1911a) and was enshrined in the first textbook on relativity 
published later that year (Laue, 1911b).

MICHEL JANSSEN AND MATTHEW MECKLENBURG
FROM CLASSICAL TO RELATIVISTIC MECHANICS: ELECTROMAGNETIC MODELS OF 
THE ELECTRON

"As appropriate for reveries, neither Lorentz's nor Abraham's dream 
about the nature and structure of the electron lasted long. They 
started to fade a few years after Einstein's formulation of special 
relativity, even though the visions that inspired them lingered on 
for quite a while. Lorentz went to his grave in 1928 clinging to the 
notion of an ether hidden from view by the Lorentz-invariant laws 
governing the phenomena. Abraham's electromagnetic vision was pursued 
well into the 1920s by kindred spirits such as Gustav Mie (1912a, 
1912b, 1913). By then mainstream physics had long moved on. The two 
dreams, however, did not evaporate without a trace.

They played a decisive role in the development of relativistic 
mechanics.2 It is no coincidence therefore that relativistic 
(continuum) mechanics will be central to our analysis in this paper. 
The development of the new mechanics effectively began with the non-
Newtonian transformation laws for force and mass introduced by 
Lorentz (1895, 1899). It continued with the introduction of 
electromagnetic momentum and electromagnetic mass by Abraham
(1902a, 1902b, 1903, 1904a, 1905, 1909) in the wake of the 
proclamation of the electromagnetic view of nature by Willy Wien 
(1900). Einstein (1907b), Max Planck (1906a, 1908), Hermann Minkowski
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 46 comments |
headers
j_liberian | 2 Aug 2008 16:31

Re: Math error in Grand Unified Theory book

--- In hydrino@..., Lynn Kurtz <kurtz <at> ...> wrote:
>
> ukdistributors wrote:
> > Hi, 
> > I have not got so involved in the mathematics as the three 
> > commentators here.
> > The post does raise my interest though in saying a sphere is not a 
> > torus. According to 
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus
> > 
> > "In geometry, a torus (pl. tori) is a surface of revolution 
> > generated by revolving a circle in three dimensional space about an 
> > axis coplanar with the circle, which does not touch the circle."
> > 
> > So according to THIS definition it is....
> 
> No, it isn't. A torus doesn't look like a sphere, nor can it be
deformed 
> into a sphere. A sphere is simply connected and a torus isn't.
> 
> --Lynn
>
Lynn is right about the difference between a torus and a sphere.  (I'm
a little confused about the definition of "simply connected" so I
cannot comment on that.)  An essential part of the definition of the
torus is that the axis that one rotates the circle about does not
touch the circle; to generate a sphere, one must rotate the circle
about an axis that passes through the center of the circle and touches
it at two points.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
John A. Kassebaum | 2 Aug 2008 04:00

Re: Math error in Grand Unified Theory book

I think I am entering a discussion late, so I may not have the total  
context here. Here goes 2 cents anyway - I hope I won't make to much  
of a fool of myself.

I think both points of view may be true after a fashion; but to a  
topologist, a sphere and a torus are distinct. Even if you make a  
degenerate torus with a major axis of zero radius - mapping a  
spherical locus with a radius equal to the minor axis radius from the  
torus - there will still not be a one-to-one mapping from the surface  
of a sphere to the degenerate torus. That is, at least two distinct  
locations on a torus (even a degenerate one) will map to each location  
on a simple sphere.

BUT, the locus of points for a degenerate torus does occupies the same  
locus of points as a simple sphere (with a radius equal to the minor  
axis radius of the degenerate torus). So, in some sense, the  
degenerate torus IS spherical.

The real question is: does it matter? For some problems it certainly  
does ...

I guess I should go back and read the thread now and see what I'm  
talking about.

2 cents,
-John

On Aug 1, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Lynn Kurtz wrote:

> ukdistributors wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane