Jones,
I think Frank's approach is valuable but I do not agree that by itself it would
tell you the frequency range where these cavities couple to photons to become
resonant, or more active due to quantum coupling, based on megahertz-meter -
Nor do I necessarily accept that his value for
I am less concerned about the perceived wrongness of the FZ geometry The
oversized radius that Jones points out may be based on a difference in
semantics since FZ refuses to consider a 4d model. These conflicting
perceptions will occur if the environment is actually relativistic. Again it
Fran,
Think about the implications of this hypothesis, in the context of your own
work a little more deeply. This is not semantics. If the specific
theoretical value of the constant is correct then WOW ! you of all people
should benefit the most from that knowledge, since it is spot-on to
On 12/02/2010 10:58 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
If gravity propagated at the speed of light, the earth would not orbit
the true position of the sun but where it was 930/1.86 = 500 seconds
ago. And if the sun winked out of existence, the earth would wait
8-1/3 minutes before flinging off on a
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
If you want a less garbled and far more intense answer, here's a paper
by Steve Carlip which may explain it all (if I understood it I could be
more definite about whether it really does):
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
However I fail to see why Frank chose to equate his constant with the
speed of sound in the nucleus.
OK, let me try to explain it historically.
I think I have found the answer (smoking gun) in the Archives. There is an
old exchange with
Dear Mr. Jonesy,
First, let me inform you of sad reality of life: Just because something
doesn't make sense to *you* yet, does not mean it doesn't make sense
altogether. More than likely, it simply means that it doesn't make sense to
*you*. And when one hits a brick wall in terms of their
To Seattle Truth and Frank Zindarsic,
I've enjoyed Seattle Truth's recent video series, partially for their
originality, rebelliousness, and the fact that they attempt to convey to the
common man and woman certain mathematical principles pertaining to
mysterious ways of quantum physics - and
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Sat, 4 Dec 2010 17:16:23 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
I realize that Seattle Truth, and perhaps Frank Zindarsic as well, are not
asking for the collective wisdom coming from this group, what I have often
called the Vort Collective. Nevertheless, since Seattle Truth
Here's another way to use Vt in a prediction. Because it looks as though
Vt can be used to derive Planck's Constant, then use Planck's Constant
to calculate a very accurate Vt. I don't know how accurate these other
variables have been measured, but presumably, they are far past the 4
significant
-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie
by back-calculating Vt, we can then use it to predict the effective radii of
protons in the nucleus, which is the variable that seems to be the least
certain.
Craig, as you no doubt have noticed in this exercise, the proton radius has
been a
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 09:23 -0800, Jones Beene wrote:
OK, let's backtrack. Apparently we are not on the same page yet.
In the spirit of KISS and simplicity, the internationally-accepted value of
the proton's charge radius is 0.8768 fm. Is there a valid reason to use
anything else?
If Vt
However, it looks to me as if they are calculating the value of 1.36e-15
as the effective proton radius, using Planck's Constant.
http://tinyurl.com/345cnr9
If anyone wants to help me read it, scroll down to Microscopic analysis
of nucleus-nucleus elastic scattering at intermediate
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/345cnr9
If anyone wants to help me read it, scroll down to Microscopic analysis
of nucleus-nucleus elastic scattering at intermediate energies, and
open the PDF. Search for 1.36.
The article is
The article is almost 9 euros. Can't you just share your copy?
I'll send you my copy in my next email, but I don't know how to send it
to the list. Otherwise, you can scroll down to it on this link, and open
the PDF on the right side of the Google Scholar page. It's article
number 4 on the
-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie
Jones Beene brings up a good point. Why would a compressional wave,
calculated to work between nucleons in a nucleus, work in a single
proton hydrogen atom?
It will not, and on this forum our main concern is energetic hydrogen
reactions, and the
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:32:16 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Well, here is a direct quote from recent post a few months back (in which he
claims that there is a fundamental speed of sound in the nucleus, no
kidding):
These ideas are large. I should get a Noble prize,
Frank, I find your idea interesting. I've worked through your basic
equations and have included them simply because I spent so much time on
them, I figured I should do something with them. :)
In the palladium lattice, when the molecules are stimulated such that
they are vibrating near the
One error I noticed.
Fmax is not the force calculated between proton and electron at ground
state. 29.05N is the force at the coulombic barrier, even with
proton/electron.
Food for thought, last night I was messing with the numbers and realized:
q^2/(8pi e0 Fmax Rc) = classical electron radius
Hello again Frank,
Check out this reference:
It is generally assumed that in free space the velocity of a
high-frequency gravitational wave (HFGW) is the same as that of light
and so the free space wavelength of an HFGW at 3GHz will be ~10cm. Li
and Torr have previously published calculations
Conceptually, gravity traveling in a superconductor is essentially the
same thing as light traveling in the nucleus: it's just energy traveling
without resistance through matter. If Frank is right, then these gravity
waves are traveling at 1094000 m/s. I bet if we looked hard enough,
we'll find
If gravity propagated at the speed of light, the earth would not orbit
the true position of the sun but where it was 930/1.86 = 500 seconds
ago. And if the sun winked out of existence, the earth would wait
8-1/3 minutes before flinging off on a tangent.
Does science support these suppositions?
Terry sez:
If gravity propagated at the speed of light, the earth would not orbit
the true position of the sun but where it was 930/1.86 = 500 seconds
ago. And if the sun winked out of existence, the earth would wait
8-1/3 minutes before flinging off on a tangent.
Does science support
Hello Frank!
This is becoming more exciting.
I'm reposting this because it didn't seem to come through the first
time.
Check out this reference:
It is generally assumed that in free space the velocity of a
high-frequency gravitational wave (HFGW) is the same as that of light
and so the free
-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie
Conceptually, gravity traveling in a superconductor is essentially the
same thing as light traveling in the nucleus: it's just energy traveling
without resistance through matter.
This does not follow, Craig. And this whole line of bogosity about
I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense.
The nucleus obviously DOES offer resistance. In fact it's impossible to
offer no resistance, seeing as light slows down in presence of other forces
(like inside an atom, even when it is not absorbed, ala prisms).
But your criticism that
From: seattle truth
* I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense. But your criticism
that speaking of the speed of transition as a speed is ridiculous is
unfounded.
Let's be specific - what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of
transition applicable to all of
of this may be wrong but not all of
it.
Frank Znidarsic
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 11:12 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
From: seattle truth
Ø I agree that the statement you
Thank you for pointing out that gravity is not energy. I get caught up
thinking about waves as energy, and get sloppy. I am not a scientist.
But the idea intrigues me that there is a speed in the nucleus at which
waves might travel. And if there is no energy involved, or no energy
lost when
Producing Planck's constant in a multitude of ways using basic algebra,
explaining why the energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency from
a classical framework, producing the photo electric effect without Planck,
producing the orbital radii of hydrogen and muonic hydrogen without Planck,
time of one of the World’s greatest minds, I am going to bow
out of this discussion.
Oh by the way - don’t quit your day job.
Jones
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal
]:Quantum Transitional State
hank you for pointing out that gravity is not energy. I get caught up
hinking about waves as energy, and get sloppy. I am not a scientist.
But the idea intrigues me that there is a speed in the nucleus at which
aves might travel. And if there is no energy involved
@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 7:04 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Dear Dr. Z,
ROTFL. With this list you aresurely the Rodney Dangerfield of physics. No doubt
about it. BTW how did allthose Nobel prizes get bestowed on others, who somehow
got the credit for yourfantastic
Jones sez:
Dear Dr. Z, ...
[snip]
Just a personal observation...
I do not feel qualified to pass judgment, either yea or nay, on Dr.
Z's work. I only hope that Frank is permitted a fair shake at the
dinner table. It would appear that Seattle Truth (aka: Lane?) may be
helping Frank finally get
with reality. And in order to not take up any
more of the valuable time of one of the World’s greatest minds, I am going
to bow out of this discussion.
Oh by the way - don’t quit your day job.
Jones
*From:* fznidar...@aol.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
Let’s
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
And it is not that I haven’t tried, over the years.
Same here, JB.
T
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
Personally, I have perceived little or no arrogance on Frank's part, other
than what others have tended to personally project...
Well, here is a direct quote from recent post a few months back (in which he
claims that there is a
From Jones
...
My apologies if this does not constitute arrogance, as it may only have been
said out of frustration. After all, it must be very frustrating to speak to
physicists
about a speed of sound in the nucleus and wonder why you are getting a cold
shoulder ...
On this point I can
...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
From Jones
...
My apologies if this does not constitute arrogance, as it may only have been
said out of frustration. After all, it must be very frustrating to speak to
hysicists
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:30 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
I will no longer
respond to Mr. Jones, be gone.
What a snide and smart ass remark! Mr. Beene's residency on this list
precedes yours by far and his contributions are stellar compared to
your unitary candela.
Try posting something
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
I suspect it is nevertheless tempting for most skeptics to focus on the
original meaning of the word and glibly conclude that his use of the word (to
describe dynamic states of an atom's nucleus) must mean Dr. Z is nothing more
-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:30 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
I will no longer
respond to Mr. Jones, be gone.
What a snide
42 matches
Mail list logo
