Posts by Karl Fischer

I've read the Landvogt paper. Abandoning unnecessary particles like bosons and gluons and projecting an electron as a loop in stead of a point-particle is a step in the right direction, but as you wrote: "not entirely complete". BSM-SG is in the same direction but miles ahead of the Landvogt paper. BSM-SG is a complete model. It's absolutely worth reading.

Electron according to BSM-SG:

Quote from Wyttenbach

I'm handicapped in reading: So I mostly read PDF's. I' don't buy printed books.
Paying for science is matter of conduct. Either You like a free world or you play the old Greek (US) democracy game, where only the wealthy were free.

Wyttenbach: The reason you are not free is your refusal to play by somebody else's rules. Don't be stubborn: BUY THE BOOK!

(Beyond the Visible Universe is available in PDF:http://spectrumradionetwork.co…DF/flypage.tpl.html?pop=0. It is not the main book but has the basics of the model explained)

What defines the electrons second order handedness when the electron is not in orbit? What triggers a spin flip?

How does an electron reach optimal confined motion? Does it resonate with the CL space like the shell-positron system does? If it does, does that mean that it can accelerate while draining energy from the CL space? That would be weird.

Which structures contain mixed rectangular lattice? (BSM-SG page 2-13)

Quote from Longview

See this pdf for far more detail: <a href="http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-28-01.PDF" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-28-01.PDF</a>

Tnx Longview, this is an interesting paper. That pi⁴.sqrt(2) seems fundamental.

I stumbled upon a paper with an interesting question:

Quote

The discovery of many new types of strange particles during recent years has drawn new attention to the fact that we really don't understand why those particles exist with the properties we observe. Why is a proton 1836 times heavier than an electron? Why is there no neutral µ meson of mass 200? Why is hc/e² equal to 137? An ultimate theory of matter should explain such things.

From: http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no044/RMF04402.pdf

Why is hc/e² equal to 137? Is it? I assume:

h = 6.6E-34 Planck's constant
c = 3.0E+08 speed of light
e = 1.6E-19 charge of electron or
e = 2.71828 mathematical constant

Neither e gives the result of 137.
If my assumptions are wrong and hc/e² is equal 137 could BSM-SG explain why?

Quote from Wyttenbach

There are two US-companies trying to comercialize Boron fusion. May be you should ask them whether they can confirm the idea of two existing quasi floating deuterons along a He4 core...

Even if they pull it of to make boron fusion work, they still might not understand what they are doing. Man used fire for thousands of years before discovering its nature. And I don't want to be rude but I don't need them to tell me what to think. I have a brain of my own.

Quote from Alan Smith

But there have been papers published in quiet corners which suggest a link between decay rates and solar activity for decades- but seldom by such credible sources as the ones mentioned in this article.

Relation does not mean causation. A change in static CL pressure might influence both the solar activity and isotope stability.

Quote from poelzi

In the case of Be 8, there is one neutron on each valence proton and it will be very symetric.
Be has a very weak binding on the top protons as the mass density is still very low - compared with the later elements, as you can see if you follow the buildup trend. The bindings get stronger over growth and build later GBcp bindings which are very strong.

The instability of Be-8 is surprising considering the similar deuteron orientation and symmetry in boron-11. Apparantly the extra triton in B-11 has a very positive effect on stability.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Hello poelzi: Contrary to R.Mills SARG is after the money. Mills theory is published for fere use, SARG is quite costly.

Just over $40 for a 3 pound book on science for a limited audience is not "going for the money". This comment only confirms the first sentence of this thread.

Quote

There is an interesting phenomena in humans, that is really strong opposition if you don't believe in the standard model of physics.

Quote from poelzi

So to answer your last question if intergalactic travel is possible: it depends on the galaxy you are going to and it is hard to say with certainty, if the suboptimal quantum effects would kill a human being for example. We are very complex but yet quite robust, but if for example a absolute necessary enzyme stops working, you are screwed. I guess, that you will be compatible with some but not all other galaxies and you should better stay out of antimatter ones

Thank you for the tip. I will keep that in mind when i'm flying around in my spaceship.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

This Fantasy-tendency is too common with LENR-believers. We have a few more examples in the forum, no names but you know who...

Embrace those with a different perspective. Big problems are seldom solved by like minded people.

Let's leave the antimatter discussion behind and get back to LENR: Beryllium-8 decays into two helium cores (double alpha) with a halflife of just 6.7E−17 seconds. What is so special about this isotope that it is so unstable? How do the two valence deuterons from Be-8 merge into a helium core? What can we learn from this decay that we can use for understanding DD fusion in LENR?

It took some time but I finished the main book. While reading through the book it appeared to me that the theory is actually just a small set of simple rules that describes the sometimes complex behavior of matter. It not only sheds light on existing unexplained observations but opens doors to fantastic new possibilities.

I will reread the book because the amount of information and formulas is overwhelming and some parts are still a bit fuzzy. But the more I learn about the theory the more questions keep popping up. The first one is about the cosmic lattice (CL): What happens when matter from one galaxy enters the CL from another galaxy? Does the chemical behavior of the matter change in the new CL? If so, does that mean that intergalactic travel is impossible because you would die in the new CL?

I finally got started on reading the main book after several months of delay. So far (still in chapter 2) everything seems logic but questions keep popping up in my head.

Does BSM-SG explain the working principle of the "Nassikas thruster"?
http://etheric.com/nassikas-th…aft-ion-propulsion-system

Is there any support in BSM-SG for the "Searl effect generator" or is it just the hoax that everyone says it is?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/D…rl_Effect_Generator_(SEG)

Quote from poelzi

One thing that kind of bothers me, why the 2:3 ratio between the fundamental particles.

Maybe it's not the FP's that have a 2:3 ratio. You can build tetrahedrons with different number of the same size FP's to get the 2:3 ratio: 4 FP's and 10 FP's.

Quote from poelzi

We founded a non profit organization in November called "Supergravity Foundation" - supergravity.org to further investigate the model and develop open source products coming out of it. Sorry that the website is not yet filled as I would like it to be.

Suggestion: Add a 3d animator to the jobs section on your website. You will need video to educate people.

About investigating the model and developing open source products: If I can be of any help, count me in. I see the necessity of developing a better understanding of nature. Currently humanity is in free fall and we don't have much time before we hit rock bottom. I don't want to sit around and just let that happen.

Quote from poelzi

When you look an nickel and palladium in the BSM-SG atlas, you see the symmetrical upper 8 arms. This is where the magic happens and the Closed Proximity Bindings of the Palladium seems even more effective then the Electron Bindings of the Nickel. Those 4 arms have some degree of freedom, in this case only in the horizontal direction.

Comparing neon to nickel and palladium: Nickel (Z=28) is a neon (Z=10) structure on top of an argon (Z=18) structure. Palladium (Z=46) is a neon (Z=10) structure on top of two argon (Z=18) structures.

Ne: Z = 10
Ni: Z = 10 + 18
Pd: Z = 10 + 18 + 18

Neon has the symmetrical upper 8 arms where "the magic happens" and is accessible from both sides because it has no argon structure attached to it. Wouldn't neon also be susceptible to hydrogen fusion?

Quote from poelzi

In my book the sodium model looks right, or do you mean the 2. neutron on top ? This can be stable, only a single proton is not capable of holding 2 neutrons due the low mass.

I double checked: the sodium structure in the book (edition 18 feb 2013) differs from the one in the "Atlas of Atomic Nuclear Structures" (1107.0031v1.pdf) I found on the internet. Book is wrong, Atlas from internet is right. (The book contains a lot of spelling errors as well, very annoying)

I tried to explain to some colleagues that the Bohr model is based on wrong assumptions and that there is a new model that fits the experimental data better. It was futile: "everyone in the world agrees on the Bohr model being the only correct model so don't be a smartass". The Bohr model seems hard coded in people's minds. It will take time to convince people, especially scientists. (It would make a great "the big bang theory" tv-series episode where Dr. Sheldon Cooper hears about BSM-SG.)

I'm going to order the main BSM-SG book for more detailed information. A good read during summer vacation.

Quote from poelzi

After some more weeks digging into the theory, to be honest, I was so flashed that I could barely think about anything else and even now I'm thinking a lot about physics - I had like an epiphany event. It is like a curtan fell of, and everything started to make sense, I mean real sense. There is no randomness in nature.

Thank you poelzi, for bringing this fascinating theory to my attention. I have read the cold fusion book and the BSM-SG model connects multiple pieces of the physics puzzle. It's easy to accept a new model when the old model needs eleven dimension to explain something. I haven't found any errors but i'm a chemist so physics is not in my "jurisdiction".

What I don't understand is why nickel, palladium and chromium can bond to an extra proton or deuteron but neon or sulfur can not. Neon and sulfur have the same accessible helium core structure. Is it really necessary for the large nucleus to be a solid?

Does BSM-SG explain the mass distribution of fragments from uranium and plutonium fission? (the double Gaussian graph)

Is it me or is the sodium model in appendix A, page II-3 incorrect: one deuteron too much.

KF