Posts by stefan

    I think that sampling the population to understand what fraction have or have had the virus is the next stage. Tests that allow this seam to be ready soon and then we will have much clearer understanding on how severe hit this virus has on our wallet and life. There is a curious fact and that is that different action from the authorities have yielded pretty much the same response. This together with indication that 4 out of 5 seam not to have any symptoms may mean that a higher fraction of the population that we might think have or already have had the virus e.g. more cases has been under the radar. If this is true then less people will die, less worries and the economy can start going quite soon. As an example experts in Sweden calculate that at end of April beginning of May half of the Swedish population will have had the virus and then can start working again and start the economy. Maybe the virus is more virulent then expected but with less teeth then expected, simply that. Anyway I'm a computer lover and overweight and spend my days working and walking now (I live in a calm area where walking has no hazards regarding virus spread). The plan is to get better lung heart and bode strength as I believe that is more important than being skinny, if one encounter the virus.


    Hmm, I think that it's virtually impossible to stop the rate of new infections in an initial phase. If 95% of the people stopped spreading the virus you would still have 5% that do not care and spread it within this group can be as coupled as normal society. And assuming this you will still get a 30% rate of increase in new cases. After some time depending on this group size the spread will decrease and we can delay. That's what's I'm hoping for, that the measures taken will lead to a not too fast process and the health care can cope. I'm an optimist though and think that we will find a simple enough cure for death so that we can get it over with before june. Else most probably a very long struggle with quite some deaths is ahead or a fast really deadly scenario.

    And plugging things in a wall outlet rule out batteries. LOL.

    There is also no comparison with control in the water calorimetry..


    perhaps Booker is rewriting the report with a number of qualifications..

    due to feedback from BLP readership..


    A 300kw heater of the same size is a bit difficult to get thingie I suspect so It is not strange that there is no control.


    But why only high power short runs. Much more interesting to see the COP of what's working e.g. the 5h run.

    We have the Booker report and the performance is Mizuno like. Still can they get the same return when running it for 5h, that is unclear. Anyhow

    Interesting and probably enough to get funding flowing. ANd most of all it seams to be reproducable. If only it could be repeated by other research teams.

    Then science can be set in stone and the human bandwagon can spend time to optimse the COP.


    I think that many characterizations is of the kind "we do not know" but the number of ways it can happen via normal science is so large that you simply cannot prove the Hydrino theory, maybe there is an unknown proper argument ..... On the other hand for this experiment the early peak is very clear. It beats hydrogene because that is the king in this early game. Also I think that being faster than hydrogen means it is smaller than hydrogen so this rules out essentially modern science. The only possible alternative is an artifact. I searched the internet hand have not found any known such case. Anyway repeating the experiment say 10 times and get the same result in 2 different labs with different equipment would quickly rule out such an artifact.

    Hydrino gas has been introduced in gas chromotagraphs. This peak looks impressive and as far as I know ghost peaks are from contaminations. This result should not be there according to current science.


    I hope they get a few labs confirming this at some point.

    LeBob


    Dimensions is the wrong word, degrees of freedom is better, for example movments of a rigid body have more than three degrees of freedom

    and could be seen as living in a space with 6 dimesions mathematically speaking as you have 6 degrees of freedom. Wyttenbach theory is an

    abstract theory which uses the freedoms and symmetry of SO(4). And connects the geometry of that object to results in particle physics.

    This does not nessesary mean (but can perhaps) that space has 4 dimensions, just that you can find the SO(4) structure in the math. The

    same applies to all theories talking about dimensions. My point is that combining the 3 fields above means that essentially you have the

    same degrees of freedom as in SO(4) and could perhaps be a direct model that shows the one property needed to prove Wyttenbach's

    results is indeed included in the formulation.

    Wyttenbach

    Hmm I'm wondering about the Hamilton Jaccobi equation for three orbitals, if you write it out includeing the typicall magnetic influence you will find in QM have


    p(1,x)^2 + p(1,y)^2 + p(1,z)^2 + p(2,x)^2 + p(2,y)^2 + p(2,z)^2 + p(3,x)^2 + p(3,y)^2 + p(3,z)^2 + m^2 + U(r1)L1.Ltot + U(r2)L2.Ltot + U(r3)L3.Ltot


    All p's has 12 degrees of freedom S0(4) have 7 degrees of freedom. fixing the influences of the magnetic field via L1.Ltot, L2.Ltot, L3.Ltot, fixates three dimensions

    12-3 = 9. And also energy is a constant that will give you 12-4 = 8 degres of freedom. Finally the total angular momentum is fixed (in magnitude) and you are left

    12 - 5 = 7 degrees of freedom. Hmm Wyttenbach I believe you and me might be on the same track.


    /Stefan

    This is an interesting discussion Bohr Model, the technique with deriving the Hamilton Jaccobi equations really is interesting. It do look that spherical shells and Mills theory can popup

    from this feature of QM. To me they essentially look the same and explains why Bohr and hence also Mills which does essentially what Bohr did but with a better model that explains a

    lot more than Bohr did.

    Did some more work. Found a solution to Dirac equation (matrix equation).

    Also noted that this solution has infinite energy and norm. Another observation is that

    we can allow a non-smooth solution at a spherical surfaces because the weighting function [1] has zeros

    at spherical surfaces. Also I added an idea that confined fotons give rise to gravity. see paper2 link in the post above.

    Ok I tried to motivate further for why the multiplication of the fields yields a QM correspondance. here is a new addedum of paper2.


    Assume that we have a standing wave with source terms running at the speed of light. I will assume that

    this is the trapped photon.


    If we now ask to add a new Maxwellian field with sources free to move slower than the speed of light, with a fixed energy so that it is orthogonal

    to the photon which probably mean that it minimizing the energy given that the new field has a fixed energy. Also this means that the forces on

    this new fields source terms sum to zero.

    Sorry for posting nonsence, I did a new update of the paper on google docs.


    New finding is that If you take an sort of even distribution of a EM soup with mostly high frequence stuff or related to small length scales

    and then note that an EM field cand be used as a source term and produce an EM field that in turn produces a source term etc, if we consider this process

    and consider themagnitude of the new source terms as a constant to the old one and then add all those field together you get my [f]. With this

    I think I understand wuite well where QED is comming from. PLease read my linked google doc piece, Im starting to really get it now.

    New version added, cleanup, more straightforward deduction more details added to enable people to follow

    New version, better explanation of what I'm doing I think. Also I put it on google docs download the pdf from there

    and read it on your home computer. The reason for this is that the page in physExchange is on hold, it's a bad question

    simply.

    +

    Wyttenbach


    I did another try today in formulating a EM - QED connection, it was great fun not sure if it works though but Wyttenbachs SO(4) seam to pop up as well.


    In order to have some nice markup I placed it at PhysStackExchange


    Having a link between EM and QM will mean that we have a better argument. We can say yes QM is proper physics in some regards. But using QM for the particles

    themselves is wrong, QM works for an electrons in hydrogen because the electron is small compared to the size of an atom, because QM is an approximation. Hence don't

    use it for particle physics. I also think that your SO(4) physics is hidden in a correct formulation of particles using EM. So QM is EM but you remove details and get something

    that is close to EM sometimes but very wrong to EM sometimes. Then they make a kludge: the standard model, to try churn the properties that was lost back in again.