I don't necessarily agree with everything Dirac believes, but he was primarily a physicist by nature who was also very good at mathematics as well.
It is also true that mathematical prowess has become the most important virtue of a physicist which I don't think is good for the science. Harry On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:25 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> wrote: > Do not try to search inside the old framework. Dirac was a mathematician > with no clue of physics. He never understood EM theory and the later > linking with GR made it even worse. > > There are no deep orbits as physics always requires forces that are base > on a proper source (Maxwell! not QM/QED) term not on mathematical fantasy! > > Or simply: Potentials are 1st order approximations only! Same with flat > orbits/free fall. > > > J.W. > On 24.11.2020 19:09, H LV wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:52 AM JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Has anyone here seen the vials of supposed hydrinos that Mills used to >> show at conferences? Were they ever tested independently? He seems to have >> given up that gimmick (perhaps at the advice of his lawyer)…One wonders >> what materials would bind to dense hydrogen or even if the material could >> be contained at all. >> >> >> >> If H* is dense and chemically inert (except with other H*) then a natural >> source on earth would be unlikely to have been found in the past. Any >> atoms of it which were created would essentially sink since no natural >> elements should be capable to contain the H* for long, given its >> compactness and density. Unless the species turns up in biology then it >> seems that there is essentially no normal place for it to accumulate. Its >> density insures that it should preferentially move towards the center of >> earth with no means of stopping it except for weak diamagnetism -- Assuming >> that it is diamagnetic like hydrogen >> >> >> > > A. Meulenberg is a proponent of H* as a pathway to producing excess heat > through cold fusion . Therefore in addition to showing they can exist, he > also has to ensure that they have the requisite properties which facilitate > cold fusion . An interesting criticism arose in recent years is that if > they do exist as a legitimate solution to the dirac equation then they will > have a negative energy. If this is true it would undermine their usefulness > as a pathway to CF. In the paper_Research Article Advance on Electron Deep > Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom _ (J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) he > and Paillet argue with some algebra that the sign of the energy solution > should be positive rather than negative. I don`t know if their argument is > sound or not, but they do point out that the negative solution is normally > regarded as physically meaningless. Since my appreciation of H* does not > depend on their usefulness in explaining CF, I am willing to accept that a > negative energy solution is the correct solution, so the next issue is to > work out the implications. A similar situation arose 90 years ago when > Dirac was faced with a negative kinetic energy solution to his equation. He > could have dismissed it as unphysical, but instead he interpreted the > solution in such a way that led him to propose the existence of a new > particle...the positron. > > Harry > > > > >> According to Mills, the solar corona is a vast factory for making dense >> hydrogen. In all of these Vortex posts, the various theories of dense >> hydrogen have been intentionally conflated and the name ‘hydrino’ is seldom >> used - since most of the theorists now seem to agree that the single >> densest state is the only one which fits into theory seamlessly and not the >> stepwise progression of Mills with its 137 steps is counter-productive. >> >> >> >> At any rate, if millions of tons per day of the stuff are being made in >> the solar corona and then finding it way to earth via the “solar wind” and >> collecting in the oceans of earth then it might be possible to work >> backwards to find a natural biological repository and then look there.. >> >> >> >> The best candidate I can think of would involve the lifeforms around >> the deep ocean vents. Maybe the mussel shells found there are high density >> and self-heating 😊 >> >> >> >> >> >> · If hydrinos are just more stable versions of isolated hydrogen >> atoms they should have been discovered in hydrogen gas using old technology >> many decades ago. But this is just a strawman argument against their >> existence. >> >> Harry >> >> What old technology, exactly, would have discovered them? That is an >> intriguing path to follow >> >> BTW it could be a “fundable” inquiry involving a deeper look at old >> data.. should anyone here be looking for a new project. >> >> H* would have almost the same mass as hydrogen - but would be so much >> denser that it probably cannot react chemically in the same way, so they >> are relatively inert. >> >> For instance, there is unlikely to be found in nature a form of water >> where one of the protons is replaced with dense hydrogen as this could >> present a charge imbalance. >> >> It would be worth the effort to find the most likely place dense hydrogen >> should be found in nature (assuming it is real) >> >> My guess is that it would be in biological lifeforms which use it for >> survival, somehow. >> >> Jones >> >> >> >> Look for abnormally high energetic emissions from a hot hydrogen gas. >> That would be evidence of hydrogen relaxing below the ground state. The >> probability of the formation of hydrinos in an ideal gas would be very >> low.. However, I think the probability might increase as the gas got >> cooler. This would be in contrast with the probability of fusion >> increasing as the temperature of the gas increased. >> >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> It might be better to look for unusual absorption lines in a cold gas of >> hydrogen. This would indicate the hydrino atom was there but changed back >> into an ordinary hydrogen atom by absorbing energy. >> >> >> >> Jürg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
