But Dear David, If you don't cover every possible contingency, how can you be sure that your main posit is correct. You could have missed something important. Hand waving just won't due.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:01 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil, you might be expecting too much too quickly. It could well take > many years to fill in the cracks assuming that Mills is correct. Quantum > mechanics did not reach maturity overnight. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:56 am > Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement > > In general, Mills is weak in the explanation of optical theory and > nanoparticle theory. I looked for his explanation for evanescent wave > formation and the whispering gallery wave, also Fano resonance. He does not > cover soliton or plasmoid formation. My guess is that these well-known > Items do not fit into his framework. Shock waves are not covered there > either. There is nothing on nano-particles micro particles or dust. > > Many of these concepts that I am interested in are not mentioned. He is > not well balanced and all inclusive for a theory of everything. If he has > blind spots, things can slip through and misinterpretations made. > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If you remember, Milley discovered superconductivity in small cavities. >> He says that protons were in these cavities but who can tell really. >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I see what you mean Axil. Unless the nano cavity is a super conductor >>> it should loose energy to resistive walls like a normal cavity resonator. >>> In time, the total energy trapped in a normal cavity must decay to zero. >>> Of course, a very high Q cavity could maintain much of the original photon >>> energy for a long time. >>> >>> Is there evidence that the nano cavities that you describe are super >>> conductive? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 12:34 am >>> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement >>> >>> Mills may be mistaking nanoparticles for hydrinos. Nanoparticles can >>> be excited by a single photon. That incoming excitation energy is relaxed >>> by a broadband spectrum of many photons as the free electrons orbiting >>> the surface of the nanoparticles reemit the energy of excitation. >>> >>> Broadband emission spectrum is a telltale sign of the presence of >>> nanoparticles when the material is excited by a monochromatic photon >>> source.. >>> >>> Reference, >>> >>> >>> http://www2.hu-berlin.de/chemie/agrad/paper/2007/10.1088-0957-4484-18-35-355702.pdf >>> These clusters exhibit an efficient white multiphoton-induced >>> luminescence during NIR Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser excitation. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:54 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Eric, the broadband emission of photons does seem a little problematic. >>>> I have come to expect the energy levels of atoms to be so well defined >>>> that accurate clocks are built using the transitions. Are you sure that >>>> you accurately understand the source of that radiation? It would seem >>>> more reasonable for the energy to be transferred as a well defined chunk >>>> that is accepted by the catalyst. The activity of the catalyst as a result >>>> of the transfer could be the source for the wide band radiation. >>>> >>>> This is just my way to justify the emissions. Mills may likely have >>>> a different opinion of the events. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Thu, Jan 23, 2014 10:06 pm >>>> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Unless I'm mistaken, the reason for non-radiation is that there is a >>>>> lower limit >>>>> to radiation as a phenomenon. >>>> >>>> >>>> According to the presentation at zhydrogen [1], when the electron >>>> "spirals down" to a more redundant level, there is a broadband emission of >>>> photons. Presumably at least some photons are not trapped in this >>>> scenario. Assuming I haven't misunderstood an important point, is that >>>> claim incompatible with what you're saying here? >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-presentation.pdf >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
