• Anyone that has exchanged comments with Cashmemorz should be aware he is a staunch and partial advocate of Mills GUT theory, and he refuses to see phenomena from any other perspective. Only time will tell if he is right or not.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Another preprint that (if correct) lends credibility to BLP claims of small hydrogen orbitals, and, perhaps to dense Rydberg hydrogen claims --


    Comment on ”Possibility of small electron states”

    Abstract:

    It is shown that the interpretation of the electron wave function as a classical field is untenable

    because the so called energy-density defined in [1] takes on negative values in some regions. The

    claim that the velocity of the electron never exceeds the speed of light is also invalid. The velocity,

    as defined by the author, becomes even infinite at some points.


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.07726.pdf


    Excerpt: The general proof that there is no finite lower limit on the mean square radius <r**2> starts from the observation that every normalizable solution of the Dirac equation must have some scale parameter l that controls the size of the wave packet in space.

  • There are no deep electron orbits. This is a silly extrapolation of long time refuted (Dirac) models that are not withstanding basic mathematical logic. All mass is EM mass and a bound electron is EM-flux. Rotating flux can have any speed >>c in reference to the classic 3D,t space as experiments do show.

  • There are no deep electron orbits. This is a silly extrapolation of long time refuted (Dirac) models that are not withstanding basic mathematical logic. All mass is EM mass and a bound electron is EM-flux. Rotating flux can have any speed >>c in reference to the classic 3D,t space as experiments do show.

    Then was it your interpretations of Leif Holmlid results with your SO(4) theory?

  • Then was it your interpretations of Leif Holmlid results with your SO(4) theory?

    For me the case is closed. The SO(4) proton 3D/4D orbit bond exactly reproduces Mills measurements. Mills measurements are the only reliable ones as he produces pure H*-H*. In Holmlid's case there are always surface clusters of H*n where n = 7,19,31,..Spin orbit's couple long range so what he sees is a combination of orbits at work. This also explains that his values of radius 2.3pm and energy 630eV are way off.

    Also the Dihydrino model for radius etc. is way off but only few %. Only the coupling works as this is based on energy.


    What is needed are better experiments to understand how we must map SO(4) --> 3D,t. Also in Holmlid's case he e.g. should verify that he works on an e.g. well defined n=7 cluster, then we could refine the cluster coupling.

  • For me the case is closed. The SO(4) proton 3D/4D orbit bond exactly reproduces Mills measurements. Mills measurements are the only reliable ones as he produces pure H*-H*. In Holmlid's case there are always surface clusters of H*n where n = 7,19,31,..Spin orbit's couple long range so what he sees is a combination of orbits at work. This also explains that his values of radius 2.3pm and energy 630eV are way off.

    Also the Dihydrino model for radius etc. is way off but only few %. Only the coupling works as this is based on energy.


    What is needed are better experiments to understand how we must map SO(4) --> 3D,t. Also in Holmlid's case he e.g. should verify that he works on an e.g. well defined n=7 cluster, then we could refine the cluster coupling.

    So if I understand right, the 2.3pm is a false interpretation by Holmlid of his results. By 'surface cluster', do you mean coplanar in 3D,t ?


    Too much shortcuts in you answer to grasp what you try to explain.

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми


    Yes, you were not taught this at school ... But this does not mean that during a thunderstorm the alpha particle does not "fly" into the carbon nucleus and transforms it into oxygen, and thus O3 is formed from CO2 ...

  • There are no deep electron orbits. This is a silly extrapolation of long time refuted (Dirac) models that are not withstanding basic mathematical logic. All mass is EM mass and a bound electron is EM-flux. Rotating flux can have any speed >>c in reference to the classic 3D,t space as experiments do show.

    But there is a limit based on the speed of light right? Electrons have mass (EM or otherwise) so unless they are capable of warping spacetime, (according to the laws of physics we know) Mills' conjector of the H* or any electron orbiting a nucleus having a minimal size is correct. Even if they are, the max speed is sub-light through standard spacetime.

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    But there is a limit based on the speed of light right? Electrons have mass (EM or otherwise) so unless they are capable of warping spacetime, (according to the laws of physics we know) Mills' conjector of the H* or any electron orbiting a nucleus having a minimal size is correct. Even if they are, the max speed is sub-light through standard spacetime.

    On all these questions, I wrote an article for you -

    Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Sergey Belov dated May 18, 2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/qbnJ/b8aYd7uFA


    Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Sergey Belov from May 18, 2021 - https://drive.google.com/file/…Dam_jYEn/view?usp=sharing

  • Electrons have mass (EM or otherwise) so unless they are capable of warping spacetime, (according to the laws of physics we know) Mills' conjector of the H* or any electron orbiting a nucleus having a minimal size is correct.

    The space time structure of nuclear bonds is totally different from 3D,t space. What Mills uses is only an equivalence relation for energies but he is neglecting charge conservation.

    So his Hydrino -model simply is nonsense.

  • The space time structure of nuclear bonds is totally different from 3D,t space. What Mills uses is only an equivalence relation for energies but he is neglecting charge conservation.

    So his Hydrino -model simply is nonsense.

    Hydrinos and to an extent all valid dense H or H* postulations are about EM or at greatest core influence electroweak forces. Modelling of the electron, resonant and ionization energy is at the core of his theory and collective picoscale forces for this site's general topic. Nuclear binding forces could be four-dimensional or not... and it wouldn't prove or disprove Mills' semi-classical model of the atom. Your models which I find intriguing, (to be honest I don't fully comprehend, mostly because it may not be necessary to understand the energy that comes from low power reactions) if anything is increased detail, but not a disproof of the general claims of the theory.

  • if anything is increased detail, but not a disproof of the general claims of the theory.

    There are hydrino energy like resonances as EM mass always goes into resonance with equal (harmonic) masses with equal topology. This does not prove Mills models. It only shows why some values he got from his model gave him a good approximation.


    It's a typical case of wrong model right experiment with good results!

  • The space time structure of nuclear bonds is totally different from 3D,t space. What Mills uses is only an equivalence relation for energies but he is neglecting charge conservation.

    So his Hydrino -model simply is nonsense.

    Wyttenbach , your widespread use of the expression “nonsense” grants a sure way to loose the attention of those that are arguing with you. You may be right, but if you want to be convincing you need to learn to keep the conversation flowing by using expressions like “that approach is self limiting” or “that model lacks the necessary elements to describe the nature of matter at hand more accurately and thus it will not allow for precise predictions”. Perhaps you do not desire to keep the discussion flowing, tho. I have seen you debate in ResearchGate and at times it seems some parties are trying to organize to disagree with you permanently.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • There are hydrino energy like resonances as EM mass always goes into resonance with equal (harmonic) masses with equal topology. This does not prove Mills models. It only shows why some values he got from his model gave him a good approximation.


    It's a typical case of wrong model right experiment with good results!

    I will agree with previous statements by yourself and RobertBryant (quoting multiple sources) that these atoms are only stable energy wells when the end result is an H* pare, quartet or any manner of a stable strong deep EM bond. His and your models are based on the most standard predictable classical physics laws there are before quantum uncertainty became fashionable.

  • your widespread use of the expression “nonsense”

    Sorry nonsense is always nonsense. Charge conservation is basic physics and Mills violates it. Please read his book and try to argue why this "violation of charge conservation" is a good idea.

    I have seen you debate in ResearchGate

    Researchgate is for science promotion. Only very few people joining a discussion have some elevated level and understand basic logic. I urge you to think about charge conservation and the basic 2D:1D (dual space) action principle of fundamental math.

    This is already what most miss even if they once learned it for a test, but never did go to the last detail of the proofs. I did it during bachelor times.

  • Sorry nonsense is always nonsense. Charge conservation is basic physics and Mills violates it. Please read his book and try to argue why this "violation of charge conservation" is a good idea.

    Researchgate is for science promotion. Only very few people joining a discussion have some elevated level and understand basic logic. I urge you to think about charge conservation and the basic 2D:1D (dual space) action principle of fundamental math.

    This is already what most miss even if they once learned it for a test, but never did go to the last detail of the proofs. I did it during bachelor times.

    I need a basic lesson in charge conservation, using as little jargon as possible.

  • The sum of charge is constant. Always when you separate an electron from a proton you get a "+" and a "-" so the sum must be "0".

    Mills assumes a locked in photon generates charge. This only happens inside nuclei where charge conservation does not hold. But Mills uses it for electron orbit relations.