BLP update

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I am not sure how relevant this is, but the speed of magnetic flux in metals is very finite.

    Yes that's true on a macroscopic scale. But to make some vivid picture. Consider a helix, a charge moves quicker along the helix line than what you would guess if you look from a distance where you only would see a current stream line along the main axis. So even if the internal structure of the particle would move at c, from the outside you would guess that these structures would move at all possible different velocities and I think that the same argument can be made about magnetic flux. What we are discussing are at the limit of what scale the space can take, femto meters for the proton and attometers for the electron.

    I prefer to cooperate when it comes to developement and I suspect that there is some payed players out there to take down any effort to share results that does not come the sanctioned folks. Really dissapointing and quite Orwellian as things that are obvious i claimed by them to be wrong. They act as if they know science to a deep level and many times show a lot of knowledge, but still, miss basic stuff. I still engage as I can easily get ChatGPT to produce length calculations that shows all steps and ask them where the deduction is wrong, and it's an intersting exercise to see how much help that will bring.


    Anyway up until know I think that @Whyttenbach is the one that help me and direct my understanding the most, his critique is worth listening to, and I do and it results in improvements. It's kind of fun, how when I wake up in the morning and realize the importance of discussions the previous day and what that means to the continuation effort to refine the work and maybe change directions somewhat. I have some more work to do know. One more thing I am poundering is if not the electric field outside the stream follows a 1/x law in stead of log(x) as we have learnt by school. I think that this has to be due to again that an infinite energy density is not possible and there is a limit. Take any true density of charges of the same kind, then the electric potential would be infinite high. In all that means that there must be small gaps and we have this situatiion when we scale up,


    * * * *


    In stead of


    -------------


    Now this fact in it's own means that if you push the stream to inifinity you will not get a log behavior but a 1/x behavior of the potential constructed from this in our lab scal


    dl1

    ---

    |

    | x

    |

    ---

    dl2


    I am now playng with the idea that the only interaction between the streams are when the dl segment is arranged like this. the 1/x potential means that any directed straight line segment that move with speed smaller than c will interact as all energy was located at it's center. which is not the case for the usual setup. The magnetic field and the electric field in the lab frame will behave very much the same in magnitude and the direction just as what we are used to that one will realize by studying the lorenz transformation of these fields. That can be proven if we study E_n,B_n as we take the limit. So the Electrical only and Magnetic only viewpoints will be similar. Now I have still not convinced my self that all this is valid. I have for example an issue that even if this setup lead to the correct hypothesis,


    * * * *


    * * * *


    Why not this


    * * * *


    * * * *


    Which would not interact at all if my reasoning was ok!


    One way to punt on this would be to construct our particles so that the only paralell tangents to the curved streams are indeed of the top kind. an helix will be of this kind and also a positive with and negative helix of the same pitch inside would also be of this kind. consentric circles would be of this kind. However building up a spherical shells with only circles would have no interaction points, in the other hande concentric spherical shells built up like this would be able to have this property for n items. It's possible to have two distinct paths on the sphere that are parallel with this setup and by combining three of those pairs on the shell we try to model the 3-quark interaction in such a way that we at all points in the tripple has the correct energy density. This is possible if we symmetrise this the setup between all possible (i,j,k) triplests that one can define. Bonus point if you realise that these points can live on different radius shells. The hard point is then to show that we do not have any parallel segments to the kind we do not want. But that's not possible as you can't have three or more paralell tangents on a sphere!! (Thanks #Whyttenbach for pointing this out).

    Quote from stefan

    an helix will be of this kind and also a positive with and negative helix of the same pitch inside would also be of this kind.

    About 6 years ago I started with the same logic as you, but after finding all the silly conceptual errors in QM/QED,4 potential I decided to forget all classic solutions as after 100 years of no success the probability to have it is 0.000000000000000000000000000x...


    Further Mills approach did deliver some new reasoning that sadly also Mills did not understand. Like the magnetic energy of the e-p bond that falls out as it is already is given by the reduced mass. So he failed to understand that magnetic energy is not just a radial effect its a cross product of 2 dimension...

    The final SO(4) physics solution is damn simple the classic one Mills like is also exact. But today the data inside the NIST database has been spoiled by QED followers that believe their model has some value to fudge experimental data...


    I recommend to go back to mechanics and study force free coupled rotators something the US army after WWII confiscated as war prey and locked it in for military use only...


    All allowed, symmetric solutions for coupled mass leads to toroidal energy surfaces certainly not spheres as QM simply has forgotten the second spin axes.

    But if particles only would have 2 spin axes our matter would behave quite strange when you e.g. follow a curved path. So by simple logic reasoning you ultimately understand that matter must have >= 3 rotations. Hence the dimensionality of matter is at least 4D without time.


    As I wrote this already many times just the conclusion: The first allowed surface for mass is the Clifford torus. Its a stable minimal Lagrangian (with helical paths homogeneous flux). Why all the idiots doing physics for the last 100 years failed to understand that e.g. S3 or S2 are not stable minimal Lagrangians is astonishing.


    So I can only repeat myself once more. Do not waste your live time with last century's crap.

    I'll getting there slowly. But I have a hard time not using 3D as the world and in stead search for overlaying structures. That's why I consider concepts such as the interaction between line segments is only valid if they are parallel etc. I am not hailing QED but I think it can be an inspiration and I always like the challenge to understand the connection between things even if I agree that QM is oversold and not the correct tool and a big mistake that has made human take the wrong path, something that might be intentionally done, at least it looks like the US have more deep understanding than what we know for sure, as they are the most aggressive when it comes to these matters. On the other hand it can be a cultural thing. I certainly take things slowly in order to let any the shadow world have time to react. That's why I basically work with this in the open. This is why I do not care being ridiculed and attacked as that can be a good thing and do not bother about privacy. Om the other hand I'm just a nobody so ..., I don't know, but I prefer to play it safe just in case and hence move very slowly and do stuff with very long delays between. I do this mainly because we need things like cold fusion to be realistic, and the best possible view of how the worlds is working is basic prerequisite for that to happen in my view. The alternative is down scale everything and start living less on earth resources by doing less, consuming less etc. But that's not realistic as I see it. Our economical system and human mind is not built for that, that's at least my observation and that is why I do this all. Personally I would have preferred the down scaling route as I have no problem with that, but I'm a minority in the world.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    Wyttenbach


    Have you submitted your SO(4) to a peer reviewed journal? The feedback from expert reviewers will be of value to you.

    There is no help to get from them. Sorry but the world is brutal against anybody daring to question the dogma, especially in physics. They simply would refuse to be open minded and would miss the good point because of some technical matter that could be addressed later on or that it is not QM and so by definition must be rubbish. The best is to cooperate among the one with open minds, but that is also tough. Mills GUTCP is a good example how people that question the dogma is treated. There are real gems in his theory and people just say that exactly everything is rubbish and does not accept that one single bit of idea has merit, not a single bit. This tells you that people are not in opposition any more but that politics is involved.

    Quote from stefan

    Sorry but the world is brutal against anybody daring to question the dogma, especially in physics.

    Yes we are back at 1984 Orwell's truth ministry.

    See also :: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1636729166631432195 How deep state supported the suppression of real info and did help to spread fake info like an RNA immune therapy is a vaccine and would protect you from getting Covid what was 100% fake since the beginning as this is impossible from a medical point of view...


    Same for basic (particle) physics. 100 years fake models believed to be great just because after Sommerfeld only people did go to physics that had no clue of basic physics. Cheating is the oldest survival model and the worst you can use for a so called exact science.


    I studied all branches of logic or discrete math something most physicists miss.

    Just one of the oldest cheats is the so called double slit experiment where nobody grasps the real facts....

    All particles have spin up/down at the same moment its only a function of time when they hit the slit. (only a field fixes the spin to a certain extent but still not up/down) The rest is standard scattering = adsorption/re-emission, together with the Goss-Haenchen effect...


    But the tradition is to celebrate a mass on a common catechism.

    Why is two non parallel infinitesemal line segments not interacting. It's because in this case at least one of the segments is not in the orthogonal direction of the other. Hence we will end up with i one segments reference frame the other segment is simply too far away. But you may argue that hey the E field scale like \gamma E_y would that be important. So what you do is to consider the integral of E_y dx elements and that scale exactly so that it is invariant when we move in the E direction, finally if the line segments is exactly in the same spot, we will add/subtract the densities but do not have any interaction. The reason is the the electric field outside the stream will have w 1/y law and hence the interaction will be with regards to the centras (if the other is in the orthogonal direction of the stream and move with speed less than C.


    This especially means that two non concentric loops in 2D will have a very small interaction set (just a few points) but the concentric one have the maximum number of interaction points and hence for the case of attraction (+/-) we would get minimal energy if they are concentric and in the same plane. The same would be true for spherical distribution. Now one of the arguments when we use standard EM theory against Mills theory are that "of cause it is rubbish as we know that there will not be any reason for the internal proton to stay in the center and it will gladly take the off center route and hit into the charged surface. Now mills does all his analysis with loop matching and simply punt on this objection. I suspect that you with the suggested model I take here be able to motivate why Mill's math is not so bad after all. But it depends in a completely different approach.


    A theoretically good thing with those Mills objects are that they interact with the Coulomb interaction just as we expect (1/r) so form distance they will not look different as there will be exactly one loop on each that interacts with each other and as all the densities are at the limit.

    Quote from stefan

    I suspect that you with the suggested model I take here be able to motivate why Mill's math is not so bad after all.

    I mentioned it some years ago already. Mills current loops suffer from the same error as QM. He obviously didn't get it too. Current loops can never cross as charge is repulsive. So you cannot superimpose loops on an unstable surface like a sphere Mills & QM do. The only surface that can carry two loops in a homogeneous manner is a torus.


    Of course the 3 D torus is not stable in respect to EM interactions but the first two criteria (stable/homogeneous flux) are fulfilled. So if you use the torus for Mills loops i looks quite OK.


    As I said. Almost all physicists never studied any logic. None know the basics laws of mechanics and postulate a 3 rotation anti symmetric stress energy tensor. Just wet dreams...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    I mentioned it some years ago already. Mills current loops suffer from the same error as QM. He obviously didn't get it too. Current loops can never cross as charge is repulsive. So you cannot superimpose loops on an unstable surface like a sphere Mills & QM do. The only surface that can carry two loops in a homogeneous manner is a torus.


    Of course the 3 D torus is not stable in respect to EM interactions but the first two criteria (stable/homogeneous flux) are fulfilled. So if you use the torus for Mills loops i looks quite OK.


    As I said. Almost all physicists never studied any logic. None know the basics laws of mechanics and postulate a 3 rotation anti symmetric stress energy tensor. Just wet dreams...

    Yea that is a concern that intersecting charges needs to be explained. And this is true for e.g. a continuum path. But the continuum path of charge is not possible as it would create very high energy density and if we in stead consider the stream of the form,

    * * * * * * * * * * ---->


    and draw a random orthogonal stream through it will, with a probability that goes to 1, just pass through a gap at an infinite distance from any charge of the other stream if we look at it's rest frame (in the limit all crossings are orthogonal). The problematc case is the parallel one e.g. where the frames are aligned,


    * * * * * ----->

    * * * * * ----->


    Why aligned? I cannot motivate that but notes that this alignment will create some interesting logic and I punt and just assumes that's the case.


    Now I do a limiting argument where I let the spacing go to zero but at the same time move closer to the speed of light and reduce mass and scale charge. This produces this un-intuitive object that Mills probably need to Assume in order to have a more satisfying teoretical ground. It's both crazy of Mills to ignore the critique and for the critique not to spend time to actually dig up these kinds of logical conclusions that is needed in order to put his theory in firm ground.

    Edited once, last by stefan ().

    Classically parallel EM flux is not attractive. Parallel charge flux is only attractive due to magnetic interaction that drags the electrons...


    But what we see on nuclear level is totally different. Parallel EM flux of same size starts a new rotation. It looks like something generates a topological charge the bends the flux.


    You should study the SO(4) model as it is so far the only consistent model for particles. All classic ideas are nice math, but totally unphysical like the famous QM orbits/probability surfaces.


    Simple things like "why should a charge occur at a certain point" when it is also at all other points at the same time...Why is QM charge not repulsive...

    And finally what is charge in reality. Latest here all classic models fail.


    So as I said. Don't waste your live time with Kindergarten Physics.

    Quote from Bruce__H

    The feedback from expert reviewers will be of value to you.

    Did you ever ask a cow about abstract painting?


    Most "experts" just know the old garbage and classify material based on garbage.


    Only somebody with deep basic knowledge and able/willing to restart thinking will able to contribute.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Did you ever ask a cow about abstract painting?


    Most "experts" just know the old garbage and classify material based on garbage.


    Only somebody with deep basic knowledge and able/willing to restart thinking will able to contribute.

    Especially true when NIST measurments are infected with corrections instead of maintaining two tables a corrected and uncorrected. That is so fishy and strange practice that I do not know what to say. It's like the horocyles was claimed to be the correct model and all measurements was corrected to follow that model and now all "the earth is the center" maffia would be able to dismiss Kepler whatever he did as their model had more digits correct than what's possible to get with the measurements.

    Quote from stefan

    Especially true when NIST measurments are infected with corrections instead of maintaining two tables a corrected and uncorrected.

    Thanks to the old Nist 2000 values of the to low alpha particle mass I got the decisive hint for the exact SO(4) gravitation constant formula. 4/9 of the spin paired orbit do not gravitate. (The electron share).


    Now the 4/9 are gone due to QED fake from Argon-36... This is alchemy not physics.

    We shouid discuss this in the standard model church thread...

    Quote from Shane D.

    So could "energetic materials" convince the US military this October at BrLP's open house, to partner up? Mills claims he can produce 10X's more energy than TNT. If he can prove that, he may have a deal. We shall see. I think he needs this, as nothing else is panning out...so far. Will the military bring their bomb calorimetry experts along, or only the top brass to feel Mills out?

    Forget about 10x, it is much more if it plays out well.

    So the work I have done is based on two observations. 1. Mills formulas are remarkable exact for being a curve fit and @Wyttenbachs work here indicate that there is a much more simplified structure behind the measurement we do. If one read the discussions of Mills GUTCP we see that there is a lot of rightful critiques e.g. that the models are tough to motivate using our common application of electrodynamics. So I searched for an object that can simplify the analysis and show some light on this structure. My main motivation was that mass was a consequence of some kind of addition to normal electrodynamics and the best bet was to add a limit to the equations as this many times in my experience simplifies a lot. The problem was to find a law that is Lorenz invariant. This led to the study of charge streams that move at the speed of light. And motivated the rules that I know try to apply and see what that brings. The rule are that in the lab frame, there magnetic and electric fields are the same in magnitude but not in direction and that all interactions can be transferred to parallel infinitesimal vectors directed in the same way and orthogonal to each other. So the question is what benefit's this may bring apart from the satisfying concept how it explains naturally the formation of particles and mass.


    So I started the work on how best to analyze the ground state energy Hydrogen and Helium and indicate how we could deduce those energy levels and also use these results to fix the values of different constants in the model.


    Here is the new paper Free particle, Hydrogen and Helium


    I also blogged about the approach and a few comments in my blog: Blog about the paper

    Quote from stefan

    and Helium

    Mills has no solution for the Helium except a numerical interpolation for the spin pairing. The spin pairing force is 1FC the electroweak flux compression (force) constant.

    The first three ground states of Hydrogen are 3,2,1 wave bonds and cannot be given with a potential only.

    The more tricky stuff is the electron quantization (classically dielectric repulsion) you should used for higher states...

    Ok the next effort was to really do the hard work of analyzing the model with a stable helical system and work out the nitti gritty details. Assuming charge limits and the simplified electromagnetic model of a charge stream that move at the speed of light it is possible to motivate why +e and -e pairs with the same magnitude and that everything may be explainable by the constants e,c1,c2 wich consist of a base limit and a maximum limit of charge if we assume that one of the charges actually is a hole. This explains Bohr's angular momentum quantization. c1 and c2 can be estimated with the help of m_e and hbar.


    The paper is lovely and you have a link here Also consider getting an overview by reading the blog post: blog

    Edited once, last by stefan ().

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.