Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
I added a new name for this paper a new link I have different names on this one, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GChNtVtTgvQzF4jSu1tSjCx5ub9lu4RD/view?usp=share_link On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Also the potential is not correct... > > If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! > because 2/3 are repulsive... > > You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and > what e.g. potential means. > > The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the > strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical > for mass... > > So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... > > J.W. > On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build > it up as an addition of such paths. > > On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > >> Stefan >> >> There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a >> sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) >> >> >> J.W. >> >> On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: >> > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the >> > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects >> > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and >> > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. >> > >> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk >> > >> > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not >> > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. >> >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >> -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
You may have a point but I updated the paper and I hope that it does not have this property now. The last update was at 20:34 CET On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Also the potential is not correct... > > If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! > because 2/3 are repulsive... > > You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and > what e.g. potential means. > > The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the > strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical > for mass... > > So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... > > J.W. > On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build > it up as an addition of such paths. > > On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > >> Stefan >> >> There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a >> sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) >> >> >> J.W. >> >> On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: >> > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the >> > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects >> > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and >> > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. >> > >> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk >> > >> > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not >> > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. >> >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >> -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
Also the potential is not correct... If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! because 2/3 are repulsive... You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and what e.g. potential means. The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p magnetic moment field (the strongest of all) is missing. Also the 3 rotation solution is unphysical for mass... So going on with old garbage just produces a new flavor of old garbage... J.W. On 06.05.2023 20:21, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build it up as an addition of such paths. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk > > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06 -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build it up as an addition of such paths. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Stefan > > There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a > sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) > > > J.W. > > On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > > I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the > > connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects > > experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and > > end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk > > > > I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not > > a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm
Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind. -- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06
[Vo]:TruthGPT
The man who help start OpenAI but exited due to fear of AI plans his new AI. https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-says-he-wants-to-start-truthgpt-to-rival-openai-and-google-014938539.html
[Vo]:LENR-CANR.org Chatbot is slower but better
The vendor changed the control parameters for the Chatbot ( https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=2988). When you ask a question, it now takes longer to respond. I think it often takes about 30 seconds. It is worth the delay, because it is improved in various ways. It does a deeper search. I think the answers are more accurate. It remembers context better, from one query to another. You do not have to keep repeating the subject, or the name of the paper. It does a better job finding a URL (where that is available), or quoting a section of the paper verbatim. A verbatim quote is handy because you can use it in a Google search to locate the paper it comes from. Here is an example, for the Index Bot (the one on top). BOT: Hello! What can I do for you today? ME: Has E. Storms written a paper about how to construct a calorimeter? BOT: Yes, E. Storms has written a paper titled "How to Make A Cheap and Effective Seebeck Calorimeter" which describes how to construct a Seebeck calorimeter that is effective in measuring heat generation over a wide range of power with high sensitivity and stability. The paper also provides a successful example of constructing such a device, although it requires considerable investment of time. The paper was presented at the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion in 2003 and can be found on the LENR-CANR.org website. ME: What is the URL of this paper? [With the previous settings, the Bot would have asked, "what paper?" It lost track.] BOT: The URL for the paper "How to Make A Cheap and Effective Seebeck Calorimeter" by E. Storms is http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtomakea.pdf. ME: What does the abstract say? Quote it verbatim. BOT: "The Seebeck calorimeter is very effective in measuring heat generation over a wide range of power and with high sensitivity and stability. Such a device can be constructed cheaply and easily, although with considerable investment of time. A successful example is described." Note: If you don't say "quote it verbatim" a Chatbot is apt to summarize the abstract instead. I have replaced some of the files with new versions in text format, derived from the Amazon AWS Textract OCR program. They work better than the previous version. I will replace all of the files in the coming days. If you want to test the new files and the new, slower but better performance, ask any question from any issue of the JCMNS. JCMNS issues are here: https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1495
[Vo]:Link between em and qm
I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the connection between EM and QM now take this link and explain Aspects experiment... How come we can define a normal 2000 century model and end up with no determinism and whatnot strangities. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G9U_Iee4jsppn0Rcp4A5BBrGDRkR5tC/view?usp=drivesdk I will blog in easier to understand format later. But really it's not a difficult stude, which is a good thing in my mind.
Re: [Vo]:A though experiment and discussion that should be important in my view
The point is that as you shrink it energy density will increase and I simply assume there is a limit for how much density space can take. I alsa suggest that this limit is consistent with lorentz transformations as it would not make sense if this depends on which frame the observer has. This also meen a finite size of the structure and hence not a point and not spherical. That's why you need to overlay multiple copies of it and symmetrize. You could see these arguments as a foundation for Mills GUTCP. Here is my blog where you can read more about the idea http://itampe.com/a-comment-on-special-relativity.html On Sat, 6 May 2023, 02:10 Robin wrote: > In reply to Stefan Israelsson Tampe's message of Mon, 1 May 2023 17:52:27 > +0200: > Hi Stefan, > > Though I find it difficult to visualize, I think that if you allow the > major radius of a toroid to shrink to zero, you > end up with a sphere. > Cloud storage:- > > Unsafe, Slow, Expensive > > ...pick any three. > >
