On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nice work Jeff, > > > > You have made Mills more accessible, but I’m not sure he would agree with > everything that you have done here, due to the implications. This is also > very similar to what Michaud is showing – with the huge emphasis on 511 keV > value, which permeates the entire field of LENR… kinda’ like the smile of > the Cheshire cat… and it is all tied into Hotson/Dirac and the epo field. > > > > And although you state: the “Transition State Orbitsphere” (TSO) is > created at orbit state n= alpha = 1/137.036 (i.e. FSC or fine structure > constant … where matter and energy are indistinguishable by any physical > property” according to [Mills] … yet, for some strange reason you stop > there, instead of actually identifying and analyzing that precise > mass-energy state as being relevant in itself – such as the end product of > “shrinkage”. > >>As far as I can tell, based on GUTCP, n = 1/137 (but *not* n = 1/137.035999) would be the theoretical *stable* atom end product of hydrogen shrinkage. A hydrogen atom at orbit state n = 1/137 has an angular momentum that is exactly equal to hbar (the reduced Planck constant which has units of angular momentum). All electron stable circular orbits for a hydrogen atom have hbar of angular momentum and is a requirement of GUTCP. I wouldn't focus too much on the TSO being the end point of shrinkage - it's more the birth of the electron in pair production. All the GUTCP "rules" or "postulates" produce nice clean equations that show the TSO being the birth. There is no clean neat calculation to get from say, n = 1 (or for that matter n = 1/4) to n = 1/137.035999. But there are nice neat calculations to get from n = 1 to n = 1/137 based on the same postulates and rules (at the same time there is data and experiment to back up the rules, such as conservation of angular momentum and conservation of energy). The best example of this is to look at the correspondence principle write up that I put in Section 4, page 85 of http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf (if the link changes, which it does if I update the pdf, then click on "summary" here) http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production Every fractional orbit state drop creates a photon that perfectly follows "classical" rules. Dropping to n = 1/137.035999 would release a photon that didn't fit into the correspondence principle. So it's easier to think of n = 1/137.035999 as the birth of the electron - at least in terms of nice neat calculations. If an electron does shrink to n = 1/137.035999 then it needs some messy process (with no precise formula that has, for example, part per thousand of accuracy) of releasing energy to get there .. but I assume it could happen when atoms bounce around at high velocities so that it could give up this tiny "remainder" of energy (the portion in the decimal of 1/137.035999). > > > To cut to the chase, when you multiply this fundamental value of electron > or positron mass (511 keV) by alpha (along with a relativistic correction) > the result is essentially the same as the mass-energy signature of the DDL > – which is equivalent to dark matter (and is unlike Mills’ actual > prediction). The actual value as it is showing in dozens of cosmological > papers, appears to be 3.56 keV as opposed to 3.73 keV, which difference is > the relativistic correction. Are you unaware of the cosmology papers behind > this? They can only serve to boost your case. > >>As far as I know, the 3.5 keV bump that the comologists measure is not a sharp line, and if it is real and based on hydrino shrinkage, then it is a continuum photon with a range of frequencies with a cut off of a photon having 3.5 keV. I don't focus on it because there are too many inaccuracies of measuring the cutoff frequency - it's too imprecise. > > > If this 3.56 keV value is indeed the end of the road for ground state > hydrogen redundancy, then it should be the most important value in all of > physics, since it would explain dark matter as an isomer of hydrogen – > which is most of the mass of the visible Universe, so why not most of the > mass of the invisible? … yet everyone in LENR appears to be avoiding > cosmology like the plague. I hope that is not because it goes back to Dirac > and not to Mills, but of course – the similarity could all be a > “coincidence”. > > > > Yet, since this particular value is the hottest topic in cosmology these > days, it is a mystery why observers here on vortex avoid connecting real > observation in another field with theory - to explain LENR as the energetic > creation of dark matter, and not a nuclear reaction. In the eyes of the > mainstream, if the 3.56 keV x-ray is verified in experiment, the field > could change almost overnight from “pathological” to “cutting edge”… > > > > *From:* Jeff Driscoll > > > > take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar > to what you did: > > > http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf > > this comes from the "summary" of pair production on this page > http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production > > the website is a wikia for Blacklight Power's theory, > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Lane Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor > and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to > Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that > we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had > never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did. > > Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to > my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both > our papers were released. > > YouTube video explaining the paper here: http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI > > My Paper: > http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862 > > Andre's: > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789 > > Let me know what you think if you read it. > > Lane > > > > > -- > > Jeff Driscoll > 617-290-1998 > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
