How long does it take to open a closed mind? On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:27 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Significant change to our understanding of physics is likely to occur > Axil, the question is when? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 2:08 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid > > When Holmlid.s experiments on LENR get out, there is some months of maybe > a year, its implications are going to blow the tops of of many close minded > heads. I detect some panic setting in here even among the vorts. I will > watch you with great anticipation and see how you will cope with the new > reality. > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:56 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Perhaps it is as simple as what you suggest CB, but does that explain >> every case? Can we be confident that there are no future particles to be >> discovered that behave in a different manner although they have similar >> spins? If not, then why call it something fancy like the Pauli exclusion >> principle instead of just spin states? I suspect a more complex >> underlying cause exists. Do you suppose I am becoming too skeptical? >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: CB Sites <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 12:48 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid >> >> Dave, Doesn't the Pauli exclusion principle come about from the quantum >> mechanical magnetic moment of the particle's spin state. That would seem >> to be a physical attribute of the particle and not something that can >> easily be wiped away. >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM, CB Sites <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Eric. There are a lot of interesting ideas presented in that >>> slide show, many of the ideas I've seen commented on here. In one of his >>> last slides he mentions theoretical solutions, one being multibody fusion >>> hinting at a Chubb's style n-body fusion. Conceptually I've always found >>> the S & T Chubb line of theory for cold fusion to be elegant and plausible. >>> There is no reason why N-body solid state quantum mechanics can't apply to >>> hydrogen in metal like it does to electrons in a metal. Quantum band states >>> of H on Ni have been demonstrated (as a surface effect). *Sorry I don't >>> recall the 1980's paper* I think it was in Science. >>> >>> Anyway, as new experimental developments have come about, the solid >>> state concepts applied to protium/metal make their theories less >>> applicable. The Rydberg atomic fusion process would seem interesting if not >>> so far fetched. Maybe if I understood the quantum mechanics of how a >>> Rydberg atom formed in a metal lattice at temps above room temperature. And >>> then how to prove it. I think I need to understand the theory a little >>> more. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I found that to be a very interesting slide show. Is there an >>>>> audio/video track of the lecture to go with it? >>>> >>>> >>>> That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now >>>> a retired physics professor from Georgia State University. There is no >>>> accompanying audio or video that I am aware of. It's inspired by the old >>>> HyperCard program. I have found it a very useful site. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
