On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is exciting! It has to be something about extraterrestrial life, given
the lineup of people making presentations. Whatever it is, I expect the Drake
equation values will increase.
doh. Broken embargo: Since Mars has Methane, and since methane
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
Geeze. Not even ET!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/02/nasa_alien_press/
In fact NASA's findings are a little closer to home. The space
boffins have found a bacterium living in an arsenic lake near
California's Yosemite National Park.
The finding is important because the bacterium uses
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
Terry sez:
Geeze. Not even ET!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/02/nasa_alien_press/
In fact NASA's findings are a little closer to home. The space
boffins have found a bacterium living in an arsenic lake near
California's Yosemite National Park.
The finding is important because
When life gives you lemons . well, you know the rest . even if you can't
spell panglossianism most of the time, but indeed who can? Can-dide?
It's all about applying the phase shift to the negative. not the 180 shift
but the 90.
We were talking about 'negative temperature' on Vo before 2004,
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
This is the best piece of work that I have ever seen. Lane put my equation to
music and did a job way beyond my expectations. He then went on to extend the
model to muon hydrogen. I am getting requests from all over the world because
of this. Gary Robertson of the International Space and
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?
From Frank
This is the best piece of work that I have ever seen. Lane put my equation
to music and did a job way beyond my expectations. He then went on to
extend the model to muon hydrogen. I am getting requests from all over the
world because of this. Gary Robertson of the
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
Yes that is exactly with I am saying
-Original Message-
From: Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com
To: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 3:42 am
Subject: Speed of Gravity in Superconductor
Hello Frank!
I've been trying to get this message through Vortex, but it
We have the energy levels of the muonic atom coming from the model as per lane
and his reduced mass.
We have the speed of light in a superconductor. I heard this at the Space and
Propulsion forum but had no reference.
We have, unfortunately for the true believers, no shrunken atoms.
The
-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
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your commentary. ... of course I have more questions.
I don't consider myself a card carrying hydrino believer. Maybe the
little buggers exist... maybe not. I dunno. Meanwhile, there is
confirmed consensus that muons DO exist - particularly muoniums -
where a positive muon
Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of
transition applicable to all of quantum mechanics, and more specifically that
the Znidarsik value does not hold up under close scrutiny, especially not to
LENR, and offers zero predictive value that I can see.
If you allow me to butt-in (because it was my discovery), Frank was
talking about how his equation for the orbital radii in terms of Fmax
(29.05N), Coulombic radius, and speed of transition also gives the orbital
radii of muonic hydrogen.
But to give the proper answer you have to use the reduced
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,
Dear Dr. Z,
ROTFL. With this list you are surely the Rodney Dangerfield of physics. No
doubt about it. BTW how did all those Nobel prizes get bestowed on others, who
somehow got the credit for your fantastic advances?
1. the radii of the orbits of the atoms
2. the intensity of
Thanks all. I believe that we are getting close but are not quite there yet.
Gravity waves contain energy with its poynting vector reversed thus it conveys
negative energy. The movement of mass couples with a gravitational wave. It
is no surprise the that gravity as it propagates may be
I was referring to the first post in the thread
Integral from -r0 to +r0 of (r0^2-r^2)/(R0-r)^2 dr
It was the result of approximation and full precision gives 1/r^2 as in
ordinary gravity.
But of course any non point mass will have tidal effects so the center of
mass issue remains. Are there any
Oh by the way - don’t quityour day job.
Jones
Jones has writtern
We know of one way this strong proximate electric field can be accomplished
efficiently - in fact nature is obliging us part of the way, as we speak, with
a static high gradient (capacitive field) in acid rain.
The CO2
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
Hi
The higher rotation of outer layers of planets continues to occupy me. They
are very common on Earth, Venus, Saturn and Jupiter. Even the Sun has it an
even other stars. I have begun to think of an explanation where pressure and
viscosity changes due to rotational speed in the upper
Are you slow or something?
What part of WITHOUT USING PLANCK'S CONSTANT don't you understand?
This is something that the world of science says is impossible. They say
that Planck's constant is an elementary constant. Frank has shown that its
not at all, its an aggregate constant. Now that it'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
Yeah, okay, people have known about the Mono Lake bacteria for a while
now. But the latest paper in Science reports progress in understanding
the bacteria, and culturing it in the lab. It is an important
development. It is worthy of a NASA press conference. I think it does
enhance the
-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
Thanks, sound is usually associated with the vibration of heavy nucleons and
light with the vibration of less massive electrons. I have changed my wording
a little as to not offend those with a closed mind and now say the speed of a
mechanical wave in the nucleus. A mechanical wave is sound
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't surprise me, but I'll bet that a life form evolving in the
presence of arsenic that uses it from the get-go would not have this
tendency.
It goes down well with elderberry wine.
T
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
Frank
Jones has been a great assistance to many of us on this list and he
has a keen ability to glean a concept from even the worst word salad. He has
sent me numerous citations that were spot on what I was looking for...
sometimes before I even knew what I was looking for. I have
39 matches
Mail list logo
