I think I want to do a full scale Excel-sheet about this paper. It does two (2) things, it tests the correctness of the results and it also shows the logical paths of how these results were produced. Excel doesn't aloud circular reasoning.
This was an issue also here;
The reason for the time dependance of LENR reactions becomes clear if you read the paper introduced here;
Have you seen Miles Mathis work - everything is light there as well.
I have seen his work. But It's over complicated, and doesn't really have predictive power as I understand it.
The ideas behind his work might be correct, but when I as an Engineer compare it to this piece linked here there is huge difference.
I've now went through these papers and done the reality checks I need, and I can confirm that this written text below summarizes very well the value of this discovery!
QuoteDisplay MoreThe theory and models herein are based either directly on Thomas precession, or are logical extensions to Thomas
precession. The theory herein is far more than a replacement for a previous theory. The theory herein describes
the basis for particle structure, the basis for mass, the physical structural basis for what were previously
considered fundamental constants, and the physical structural basis for characteristics such as quantized angular
momentum that previously could only be labeled as intrinsic.
Because a point particle approach was used for decades, it is useful in motivating study of the theory and models
described herein to briefly discuss some failings of the point particle approach. Beyer et. al. write12 "[QED] has
served as a template for all subsequent quantum field theories. A serious conceptual drawback of this
development is not only that our description of nature has become more complicated but also that a parameter was
introduced, the dimensionless fine structure constant α ≈ 137, in order to account for the observed fine structure
of hydrogen spectral lines. Since we do not know any way to calculate fundamental constants, such as α, from
first principles, the additional constant alpha reduces the predictive power of theory." In contrast with QED, the
theory presented herein gives the physical basis for α. Rather than complicating the theory herein, the equations
for α give insights that illuminate a single cohesive theory connecting the structure and dynamics of matter from
the particle scale to the galactic scale. While α reduces the predictive power of QED, for the model herein α gives
deep insights into the electrostatic force.
Beyer gives an interesting perspective into tests of QED which reveal the "proton size puzzle". For example "A
recent measurement of the 2S-2P3/2 transition frequency in muonic hydrogen is in significant contradiction to the
hydrogen data if QED calculations are assumed to be correct." Beyer describes a discrepancy between
experimental measurement of proton radius and QED prediction, detailing use of a transition frequency in muonic
hydrogen and electron proton scattering experiments. Beyer states "The discrepancy persists and QED is no
longer consistent with experimental data".
Because QED predictions deviate from experimental data, it can be said that QED, without predictive power, fails
as a theory. Further, if QED served as a template for all subsequent quantum field theories, then those subsequent
theories are likewise flawed. A case in point is QCD. In a paper titled "Puzzles in Hadronic Physics and Novel
Quantum Chromodynamics Phenomenology", Brodsky et. al. describe13 "the proton spin problem". The problem
involves the fact that "empirically, quarks carry only a small fraction of the proton’s spin." Continuing with "The
total spin carried by quarks is reduced from the naive 100% down to ≈ 25% of the total spin of the nucleon. This,
of course, raises the question of where the remaining 75% comes from." QCD does not explain, and did not
predict, the source of 75% of proton angular momentum. In contrast, the theory presented in this article explains
proton angular momentum, and also explains why electron and proton have the same angular momentum. A point
particle approach has "intrinsic" as the basis for electron ħ/2 per axis angular momentum, and is now searching
for a corrective mechanism to QCD to explain proton ħ/2 per axis angular momentum. The theory and model
presented herein gives the basis for each particle's angular momentum, and goes further to explain the
commonality of ħ/2 to both particles.
To me this paper fullfilles the requirements of being declared "right";
Following this model what could you suggest to do an antigravity device ?
How do you come to this question? That the reason for Gravity is found, doesn't mean it cease's from existing.
It's like if you change from geocentric model to Heliocentric. The huge orbital speed of earth doesn't start do you any blow jobs (pun intented) at the moment you understand that the Earth rotates around the sun.
Shit!
Yeah, ok. That is actually a good question and should be answered;
1. It would imply that the mass is just a pseudo thing and is depending from our rotational velocity around our galaxy; Vg= −221677.92498 m/s.
This accurate value is calculated in this paper. (EQ 26)
It explains exact values how from this velocity can be calculated ie. following things;
2. Electron / Proton mass-ratio (EQ 36)
3. Fine Structure constant "Alpha" (EQ 32)
4. Gravitational constant "G" (In another paper)
..... for example....
So you only need this velocity and speed of light, and you can have everything in physics we know.
Here is the Abstract;
QuoteEinstein's theory of special relativity was incomplete as originally formulated since it did not include the rotational effect described twenty years later by Thomas, now referred to as Thomas precession. Though Thomas precession has been accepted for decades, its relationship to particle structure is a recent discovery, first described in an article titled "Electromagnetic effects and structure of particles due to special relativity". Thomas precession acts as a velocity dependent counter-rotation, so that at a rotation velocity of 3 / 2 c , precession is equal to rotation, resulting in an inertial frame of reference. During the last year and a half significant progress was made in determining further details of the role of Thomas precession in particle structure, fundamental constants, and the galactic rotation velocity. In this article, these discoveries are described and proofs are provided, with results matching experimentally determined values to between eight and thirteen significant digits. Among the discoveries described and proven herein are 1) the observed galactic rotation velocity and elementary particle spin interact due to Thomas precession, 2) the basis for Planck's constant and quantized energy levels is Thomas precession, 3) the fine structure constant is a function of galactic rotation velocity and the maximum value of rotation velocity minus precession velocity. Also discovered and proven is that, due to the inertial frame of reference resulting from Thomas precession, distance and time, with units meters and seconds, within three dimensional space are sufficient to describe the structure of particles and their interactions. Einstein showed that energy is dependent on frame of reference with his equation E =γ mc2, and he formulated E = mc2 as rest energy. Proven herein is that particle mass and rest energy are functions of rotational velocity due to Thomas precession. These far reaching discoveries are all interrelated, and based in Thomas precession. The theory, models, and equations give results that match experimental data to very high precision.
Dear Sirs,
Check this out. This is a breaktrough! Even bigger than Einstein's idea.
"Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space"
from Preston Guynn
https://www.researchgate.net/p…cture_of_Matter_and_Space
This means that everything is light! And that I was on right path with my own crappy papers, ie;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…d_from_The_Speed_of_Light
Best Regards,
Jouni Jokela
I've had some usable answer here;
https://physics.stackexchange.…1/heat-capacity-of-plasma
But I am still processing it. -It might take a while, as I don't have time for this right now.
The process by which the proton decays in LENR.
Some esoteric process is causing the proton to decay in LENR. This process is the root source for the production of energy and sub atomic particles in LENR.
Whatever is causing the proton to decay into strange matter is a new unrecognized if not unknown process in physics.
Thanks about this. I agree. And this Riemann equation is a bulls eye too! Thank you for this hint. It really helps me forward with this;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…ything_-THE_MATH_07102016
it also makes more than clear that the anti materie is just bullshit.
Proton decays to light, and there is nothing strange between, Just muons and other observable stuff.
- There is NO neutrinos!
- There is NO mass!
If you just forget the MeV "mass-energy" countings it all becomes easy and clear and verifiable in the lab.
As Nothing is missing. It's just never was there.
Alan Smith No, the Dimensionless heat capacity doesnt. Yes, the one with dimensionful does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…mensionless_heat_capacity
And I am talking about the dimensionless one.
snotty No. It didn't help. -I read it already before asking here. I've asked this also here;
https://physics.stackexchange.…1/heat-capacity-of-plasma
and here;
http://www.thunderbolts.info/f…b8361405792334bcd06190957
And this source given in later;
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ppd/s…pdfs/NRL_FORMULARY_16.pdf
Didn't help me either.
But thanks. I've used to this (no answers to my questions) since I was just a kid.
Hey,
Does anyone have a good source for information on the Heat Capacities of plasma?
I have Something like this in mind;
https://physics.stackexchange.…-ideal-gas-a-constan?rq=1
Another keyword being "degrees of freedom", like;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…it_law#Application_limits
If some of you people don't have any argument to say, why not just stay on Facebook and just place those thumbs to various places.
Heres the first Draft of my paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…d_from_The_Speed_of_Light
To avoid unpleasent conversation caused by some one-liner spammers, I invite those who actually have something to say, to come to this site
http://www.thunderbolts.info/f…viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16592
for a dialogue.
Dear Human Beings,
I found it quite Hilarious, to see how my own picture, I created about two years ago, Is replied to me, as some kind of an counter argument to my own comment.
As an attachmend is my intern PDF-copy of this picture with Finnish titles, dated 26.6.2015, 20:52:35.
(pls. look the Metadata of this PDF.)
-This is really priceless-
-gone
-gone-
@fabrice DAVID
Nice post with well thought arguments. I give short&quick reply;
n+Li7
According to present theory it should have decreased it with -2.5 MeV. It sould also be noted that it was expected, that the Li7+ n Makes Be-8 which further makes 2x He.
This energy was actually calculated to the original Yield expectation, it was only thought to be delayed, as Li-8 -> Be-8 halflife is 0.84 seconds, and thus not add on too much on peak power.
Saltatory, Molecule weight.
This is true.
Yet, there is no reason why the Noctilucent clouds should produce these ice chrystals first at the hight of ~80 km. (Temperature limit already at Tropopause, ~65-70 km below)
And there is also now reason, why they would not be homogenous distributed, but form a cloud. Only this Saltatory priniciple in mind, there should be all components present in same scales as this H2O is. And there actually even is ie Sodium (Na) Metal about 400 ppm. And though this Sodium can be explained with shooting stars with first view, if you broaden the observations in other planets, youll find that ie. 29 % of Mercury's atmosphere is sodium. There is also a lot of other Metals.
What comes to the Molecular weights; Ok,
so H2O has 18,
N2 has 28
O2 has 32
Ar has 40
There is no trace that the Argon amount would be reduced at hights, though the weight difference between Ar <-> N2 is 40/28= 1.43 and and H2O <-> N2 is 28/18 = 1.55
Yet there is a clear analogy with the Fact that absolute amount of H peaks at ~84 km, but disappears quickly with factor 0.00003 when the height is 73 km.
Otherwice said, there is 38500 times more free Hydrogen in 84 km height, than in 73 km Height. If the H2O noctilucent clouds in height 76-85 km, is coming from the Earth. Why is this Hydrogen then reduced so quickly?
@Wyttenbach
Yes. Bringing Ice from poles to "equator" (generally raising the see level) reduces the rotation speed. And so does the Added CO2 and all the hydropower lakes.
All fine and comprehensive. The Problem is that form 1973 to 1998 the LOD was getting shorter, and thus the rotation speed was increaced.
The drag is here and the planet rotation is slowing down - this is another known fact. No need to raise the LeSage theory, fusion the less.
You can be mental case without problem - but you shouldn't get illogical with your alleged IQ...
ancient.png
You just blow your second change Zephir_AWT. This is the last message I will ever write to you. There surely is enough mediocre minds around, if I ever happen to miss such a dialogue.
For those who are open minded and able, this LOD acceleration might be of interest.
http://physics.stackexchange.c…ths-kinetic-energy-change
QuoteAnother example can be made through long term changes. The slowest rotation speed ever was measured 18.3.1973; 86400.0041340 seconds, the fastest so far was measured at 5.7.2005; 86399.9989263 seconds. This difference means that 25.6 x1021 J of Kinetic energy was stored for 32 years.
And I am aware that "Storing kinetic energy" is oxymoron. But this is what you get, if you calculate this. The rotation speed was Accelerated, and this increase of kinetic energy must come from some other source. There must be an Input. And IF there is an Input, then there can also be OUTPUT. >->> Drag becomes aloud. So, it's not the end of the Theory.
But how much is this "25.6 x1021 J"? In 2013, total world energy consumption was or 3.89 × 1020 joules, And as for 40 years, it was only 1/2 of that, it's actually close the amount what Mankind has used energy in last 200 Years.
It's 5.2077 ms, 226 Year on the most aggresive curve (2.3 ms/cy) in the previous post, or 372 years in the mildest 1.4 ms/cy -rate.
So.. how it can be calculated?
This is just Mathematic. You can calculate it with your head, excel, whatever, if you do it correctly, you get the results.
But I can't give knowledge or understanding, I can only share information.
You don't seem to understand the problem.
Yes, "solar wind" (or what ever particle's in space) Sweeps. Ok. We both Agree with that. What does this mean. I have calculate it (with Excel or what ever, "how" you calculate, depends on your own education.)
It means that there is DRAG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
But this is NOT aloud, because it would bring the planets down from rotating!
See this video, correct point from ~7:30 min->, you need to look the next 5 minutes, bunchline is at 9:50-10:45
QuoteAnd so as the earth is moving in this direction, is running into the particles rather, and running away from theones that are chasing it from behind, so that more particles hit it from the front than from the back. And therewould be a force also sideways whenever there was any motion. This sideways force would slow the earth up inorbit, and it certainly would not have lasted the at least 4 billion years that it has been going around the sun. So that's the end of that theory.
So the Drag is there, AND the planets keep rotating. This is the contradiction, and here I have the answer. With the existence of this drag it can be shown, that also the ENERGY PROBLEM must be there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ory_of_gravitation#Energy
AFTER you accept that this ENERGY PROBLEM exists, you can start to seek the answer.
And the Fusion is the answer.
This helium hole was not Fusion related. The location is wrong compared to Temperature-dip.
And when I compared it to south pole, it became clear, that this was NOT caused by the max-orbital speed of Earth at Perihelion and the Sun activity maximum. (Data was from 05.January 2002)
See first attached picture.
But the Hole is real. Only it's reason is different. This is actually another prove that the ONLY comprehensive thery for Gravity is actually correct.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le-Sage-Gravitation
As I have already shown in this paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…vity_Theory_of_Everything
(The end of the paper is already out of date.)
For those who are interested, I'v written about this topic also in here;
http://physics.stackexchange.c…and-o-divided-as-measured
But back to Fusion. In the "Southpole" picture there is clearly some anomaly in 122-123 km height in Temperature and in all other molecules than Helium.
Another very interesting aspect is, that the amount of Free Nitrogen (N) atoms are slightly increasing in about 90-95 km height (derivate > 1)
If the Southpole absolute values are compared to Northpole we get following data; (It's not quite "pole", Lat 68 But "Northern hemisphere" is just annoying long to write)
See Second attached picture.
There seems to be too many things happening parallel in these Polar regions, that it might be too difficult to dig out any causalities to just a certain aspect.
@Gennadiy Tarassenko
Thanks. Now that you show me the first ones, i learned to seek these my self too. The black spot -balls are clearly recognizable in the satellite picture, and if oyu change to map and then to terrain you get this kind of view;
https://www.google.ru/maps/@44…9948,11.34z/data=!5m1!1e4
This helps to search similar places, and so I actually even found this; "Balls Valley"
https://www.google.ru/maps/@44…26m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4
Just few km south-east from there is an interesting valley Full of these dots. So many, that I have doubts if these are bushes. This place might not been even explored yet.
https://www.google.ru/maps/@44…30m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4
