Dave, I think it is tied to relativity and no matter how hi the fraction of C that hydrogen attains a local observer will always still see it as having a normal ground state while a stationary observer sees it as contracted. Inside a catalyst virtual particle pairs are suppressed by geometry so instead of increasing the number of particle pairs an object intersects with based on velocity or a gravity well the number of particle pairs an object intersects with is reduced by suppression, even below zero! Negative acceleration is possible for a stationary object inside a Casimir cavity relative to us the observers outside the cavity who wrongly consider the isotropy of open space as a zero baseline. I remain convinced that Jan Naudt’s explanation of the hydrino as relativistic hydrogen is correct and that the level of negative acceleration possible in bulk materials is woefully underestimated.. I would argue that the same differences between stationary and near C objects must be established between negatively accelerated hydrogen [suppressed] and the stationary world outside the catalyst to account for the claims of anomalous decay rates of radioactive gas. If you then consider the volume of the gas being measured and the small percentage of active geometry it would suggest equivalent negative velocities approaching C to explain the dilation. IMHO suppression is easier to achieve thru segregation and geometry because it doesn’t require external energy building instead upon the same balance between physical matter and vacuum pressure that establishes the ground state of an electron only in this case intentionally unbalanced at a larger scale thru biased geometry and suppression. The Casimir cavity is small and virtual particles are highly suppressed but outside of the cavity a zone of compressed virtual particles must also occur to balance out the concentrated zone in the cavity. We are reaching down into the chaotic foam below the plank scale where wormholes and zero point energy reign and allowing them to accumulate unevenly into small pools in the physical world in regions large enough that they don’t cancel out before reaching physical scale.. When COE excludes ZPE from being extracted it is because the underlying random motion imparted by virtual pairs growing and shrinking into and out of existence cacels below the subatomic level but what Casimir cavities or more accurately Casimir tapestries allow a caveat to this rule of COE and it is in the process of being acknowledged as either the bootstrap or possibly the entire mechanism behind anomalous heating, cooling and radioactive decay rates. What few people on here address is that that tapestry is there all the time and it is a function of the conductive metal geometry – the initial energy isn’t coming from the hydrogen but rather the random motion of gas is being exploited in a form of Maxwellian demon to accelerate the gas in a combination of spatial and equivalent negative velocities thru the metal tapestry.
Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory Thanks for the information Jeff. I was expecting his mass calculation to increase or remain the same as the speed of the orbitsphere approached light speed. Now I will have to understand why it is supposed to become less. That was not even on my radar! We need to understand what might happen had the denominator become infinite in his fractional representation. Many times a limiting value holds key information and it seems odd that the value of 1/137 should be so important. I guess that this particular fraction is tied to the speed of light which is a well defined parameter. That might be the significance that we seek, so now I plan to go onto your site and look at the equations in more detail. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory yes, it is all in there, I can find it later, but if you look at his papers, you will see it the mass of the electron does not increase as the orbits get closer to 1/137 (and as it approaches the speed of light) as it approaches that 1/137 orbit, it becomes more similar to a photon having zero mass, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:52 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Jeff, do you know whether or not Mills takes special relativity into consideration in his equations that lead to the excellent match with the fine structure constant? If he does, how does SR impact the calculation? There are interesting implications if he does not need to. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mills's theory you have 3 significant digits for 1/137.12 (i.e. 137) while Mills has 9+ significant digits that match the rest mass of the electron (i.e. 510998.896) and he does it for 5 equations that are classical and he does it in a logical fashion that a college physics student would understand, On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >From "Quaternion Physics ><http://books.google.com/books?id=f9IPh4IxteMC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=quaternion+fine+structure+constant> > ": "In examining the Hydrogen atoms Quantum speed, ½(e/q)² = 1/137.12 appears and is approximagely equal to α." Quaternions are the third normed division algebra. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:40 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: Interesting. Do the normed division algebras enter into Mills' theory? If so, I have something to contribute: There may be a mathematical identity between the 4 normed division algebras and the 4 levels of the combinatorial hierarchy. A paper by Stanford researcher Pierre Noyes describing the prediction of cosmological measurements based on the combinatorial hierarchy (which is therein defined): http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-8779.pdf The reason I am suspicious that there is a connection between the two is the parsimony with which the third level of the combinatorial hierarchy's electroweak interaction can be described by quaternions, and my intuition that the strong interaction may parsimoniously be described by complex numbers. An introduction to Noyes's bitstring physics: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9707020.pdf wherein he associates the four levels of the combinatorial hierarchy with the four scale constants for the superstrong, strong, electroweak and gravitational interactions respectively On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> wrote: I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of the atom. ============================================== For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: A magic number with no understanding by man” In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). The energy equations are: 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite number of "great circles" (as described by Mills) on the surface of a sphere having radius R. 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a sphere having radius R. 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found in physics textbooks. The energy equations are related to Mills's "Pair Production" (where a photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the electron would be impossible in my view. Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different postulates. 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not a function of principal quantum number). 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable orbits. You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: http://zhydrogen.com Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton. You can see more detail in Mills's book, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) which is streamed here: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/ -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998 -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
