Posts by GRMattson

Quote from Cydonia

Well, i don't know all refined details from his technology, however he defends the concept of condensed ( smaller) atoms.

Especially hydrogen which is the brick for all the other heavier atoms.

Now to me , i believe strongly that atoms could not have the same size depending of their location in the universe.

it could exist some areas with atoms at a certain std of size and other areas at different sizes.

It sticks well with recent James Webbs discoveries or the controversed concept of black matter , black energy.. etc

These postulate implications are huge regarding current astrophysics postulates.

Even @axil's wikipedia didn't thought that yet.

Display More

Radioactive decay could also depend on location in the universe. The 14 billion year half life of thorium is ridiculous on the face of it and could be a function of local conditions. In fact there is a theory for alpha decay that involves tunneling of the alpha particles out of the atom. Well, something as simple as a spark could have increased the decay rate of thorium in Joseph Papp's Noble Gas Engine providing the necessary source of energy.

Schrodinger's original solution to his wave equation had nothing to do with predicting probability of where the whatever it referred to was. That was gamed in later because they didn't know what to do with the wave functions. They so wanted a wave description of matter that they lost proper perspective. They also forgot to include charge and mass. As a mathematical solution to wave problems separation of variables was useful however.

When I enrolled at MIT I enrolled in the Physics Curriculum. This worked fine until I went to the lecture hall one day and the lecturer started talking about Schrodinger's Wave Equation and a particle in a box. I was gone. Bunch of bull shit.

By the way, wouldn't the strong force interfere with the likelihood of those deuterium nuclei fusing?

Quote from Alan Smith

Photon Mass? Photons have no mass, only momentum.

The first definition of energy I encountered was: Energy is the ability to do work. You can get a handle on that by doing a simple experiment: Compress a spring, lock it in place, connect something up to it such as a clockwork mechanism, a pump, or a system of ropes and pulleys. Then release the spring and you can watch it return the energy (work) you transferred to it and do useful work.

As far as the photonic mass I believe Cherepanov gives it the units kilogram per second (Kg/sec). So do a dimensional analysis. Energy has units of kilogram meter squared per second squared (kgxMxM/secxsec). We need some way to characterize the photonic mass. Let's call it (€p). So replace kg/sec by (€p). We then get:

E ~ (€p)xMxM/sec

Now M/sec is velocity, V. So energy goes as

(€p)xMxV.

Unfortunately, this has an extra metric M. We could move the M inside the brackets in which case the €p disappears leaving kgxV, or momentum, the normal way of characterising the photon's energy. Obviously, the M needs to stay out of the brackets. This leaves a term of MxV. Who knows what that is? We might envision that as area increasing over time. But what does that mean? In defining this photonic mass or ethereal mass Cherepanov has done only half the job.

There is also the problem of 'underhead'. When a barrel of oil is refined there is a component left called bunker oil that contains heavy elements and sulfur. In the past it was burned for generating electricity. The last use I heard about was powering those tanker ships that haul the crude oil. A little irony there. I suppose you could pump it into expired oil wells to get rid of it.

Also. particles accelerated by a sudden release of an extreme gravity could provide the energy, such as the case in the combining of two neutron stars .

If all but one gas station in Houghton closed the one that remained would be at Walmart. I would still drive ten miles for gas . The problem would be waiting in line,

Wyttenbach

Don't you realize that gravity satisfies a form of Gauss's Law? If you apply it to a city sized neutron star having several suns worth of mass, you find a very large force holding it together. Don't you ever do the math?

Quote from Wyttenbach

These people obviously have no clue of nuclear physics. Why do they use gravity to explain a nuclear reaction?????

G is 10E40 weaker than the electro strong force why should it matter at all? Same with neuron stars what also is fake science. A nucleus usually contains no neutrons or just a few loosely coupled ones in high Z-isotope cases. Charge on nuclear level looks totally different.

fact is: Pressure leads to order what favors CF reactions. See proton 29 experiments.

If you can determine the orbits of two orbiting bodies you can determine their masses. Applying this to orbiting neutron stars and taking into account their small size gives a horrendous density. The theory says that the stuff of which they are made are neutrons jammed together. If you have a better way to characterize the contents of a neutron star, let's see it.

Drgenek

It's not what you think that matters. It's what people who have studied the process of two neutron stars becoming one (or a black hole) matters. While gravity is a weak force, on the surface of a neutron star it is extremely strong, stronger than in your supernova. That strong gravity restrains forces trying to drive the neutron star apart. Since gravitational fields add as vectors, as the two neutron stars spiral in their surfaces are disrupted releasing stellar amounts of material (neutrons mostly) into space. By some process that released material produces all elements (in my view) including uranium and thorium. You need to include that process.

What about the combining of two neutron stars producing heavy elements? It's easy to see the overlapping gravitational fields causing a release of material, but what confines that material, or does it get confined?

?

Wyttenbach claims to have a theory that creates a charge (density?) from a magnetic field. The magnetic field has zero divergence, but the charge creates electric fields that have non zero divergence, a miraculous result.

Maxwell's Equations have failed to provide a solution for the structure of the photon. If Wyttenbach came find such a solution using his theory, his Nobel Prize can be assured.

But did the axis shift or the crust shift 13,000 years ago? I have long being skeptical that Iceland has been over the mid-Atlantic ridge for more than those 13,000 years.

I don't know about others, but I don't expect anything to come out of this. You've already indicated that it's too complex.

I think Wyttenbach should find a good mathematician to review his work. He doesn't seem to understand that Maxwell's Equations don't involve point charges. All the functions there are well behaved. I view his rotation in 6D as being curl like, and as such question wether one can go directly from a magnetic field to charge. Since his 6D theory must be consistent with Maxwell's Equations when projected to 4D it must have a divergence type operator. He doesn't seem to understand that the divergence giving zero is just as important as non zero. The current density J from Maxwell's Equations has a zero divergence. What that means is if you place that current on a round ball it must form a closed loop. A current leaving the ball and going to infinity doesn't happen. Those current loops Wyttenbach uses to develop his theory, from a physical stand point, also must have zero divergence. So the divergence function is really in his theory from the beginning.

Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin

What you do not understand does not need to be declared non-existent!

It's too bad Richard Fynman didn't adapt that point of veiw on on that fateful day in November of 1968. Had he done so an explosion would not have occurred and an engineer would not have died, and history would be different.

No ground fault interrupter?

Quote from Frogfall

Thanks, but this appears to be a kind of radial piston air-motor, that is meant to (somehow) produce its own differential air pressure to run.

This has nothing to do with Tesla. Are you sure this is the patent they are quoting nkodama ?

It was filed in 1997, so even if it had been granted it would have expired by now. However, it looks just like an old-fashioned mechanical "perpetual motion machine", so surely should have been rejected by the Japanese patent office.

Display More

A company by the name of Liquid Piston has a three lobed rotary engine that I find intriguing. Supposedly, they have a contract with the DOD to use it in drones. Nothing mysterious there, though.

This is why I used the term analagous. In a similar manner, you can't take a 3D equation like the Biot Savart Equation, which is only approximate in my opinion, and project it into 6D with any assurance of being correct.

I have no issues with your use of 72 degrees or the rotations or even topology. I am disappointed that you do not have a 6D equivalent of the divergence operator. In any case when you project your 6D theory into 4D you must get Maxwell's Equations. Those equations tell us that an electromagnetic wave carries no charge, as the divergence of a curl is always zero.

@Shane

Who should be nice about what? Too many words to read through. Data costs too much.

Wyttenbach

Your 6D treatment must be consistent with what happens in 3D I would characterize your 6D rotation as a vector operator analagous to the curl. From Maxwell's Equations we get that the curl of The flux density yields a time varying electric field. But the divergence of this field must always be zero. Hence, no charge. I conclude your 6D rotation of flux to charge must be in error.