Posts by Zephir_AWT


    Heck, you see it right here, in spades. Some people will go to extremes to deny anything new, or different, or anything they do not understand. They hate novelty! They fear it. This is common in all societies. The roots of this behavior are instinctual, and understandable.

    After all, isn't it evident even on this very forum? Every overunity claim is violently opposed here, 2LOT cannot be doubted, etc... How someone could argue after then, that mainstream scientists are better? They're even way more bigot than the people here in average. It's not conspiracy but pluralistic ignorance. But I don't believe in fear of change. It's all calculated, i.e. occupation driven: once scientists believe, that some idea - no matter how abstract or even nonsensical it may look at the first sight (string theory, multiverse) - could bring new jobs and grants for them, then suddenly all fear of change is all over and every such an idea or theory gets tirelessly hyped. They cannot fool me: what is primary here is the fear of competition.


    becase 2LoT is really just saying that the universe goes from more ordered to less ordered states,

    Why crystals form spontaneously during cooling after then? Why massive objects condense from random clouds into a spherical objects?

    It's nice to believe in laws but even better is to open an eyes and not to live in illusions.

    How Cook derives his N number is described for example here. From particle collider experiments, we know there must be a 3 fold microstructure within the proton. Gell-man used that 3-fold structure discovery to construct a model of quarks of 3 different flavors, to describe that 3-fold structure. Of course this is just a qualified guess, but these numbers are small natural integers. They're no way less qualified guess than for example number of extradimensions considered by string theorists.



    include the entropy of quantum information in the budget.

    Classical thermodynamics doesn't recognize something like "quantum information" or "quantum entropy" - just an "information".

    Apparently quantum mechanics doesn't fully play with classical law of thermodynamics. Maybe it's time to reformulate as it already did happen in the case of uncertainty principle.

    We can imagine the space-time like water surface every information always comes in two parallel ways: in form of longitudinal (underwater) waves and surface waves, which are of transversal nature. In real case, the surface waves are always of mixed character (which physicists are calling Rayleigh or Love waves, depending on whether longitudinal or transversal character of the wave prevails). Despite the weakness of underwater waves, this results in quantum uncertainty of every information, which comes to observer at water surface in two independent ways: via surface and underwater waves.


    Only pin-point observer can see all things from extrinsic (outer) perspective only. Because every real observer is of finite size and it suffers by quantum delocalization, he can observe the same effect or artifact both from inside, both from outside perspective. The mixture of both these perspectives results into intrinsic uncertainty of every reality observation. Note that quantum mechanics is strictly based on extrinsic perspective in similar way, like relativity is based on intrinsic one. But pilot wave extends every observable object and event both in time, both in space and makes its consequences a bit more classical and intrinsic.

    Special relativity has opposite problem once insintric observations become just a bit more extrinsic and scalar component dependent. Evanescent (hyperdimensional) waves in Maxwell's theory lead to superluminal effects (Gurther Nimtz and Scharnhorst effect).

    Alexander Unzicker is German physicist researching "Einstein's (?)" concept of variable speed of light In his book, “The Higgs Fake“ he states:

    It (the book) is written for the young scholar who wants to dig into the big questions of physics, rather than dealing with a blend of mythology and technology.

    Why we measure two different values for the radius of protons? Two Higgs masses? Two values of Hubble constant? Two lifetimes of neutron? How Standard model actually "calculates" things illustrates the recent discussion about proton radius discrepancy. The radius of proton is determined with dozens of QED corrections, many of them were chosen arbitrarily and their experimental errors are still quite large. This is epicycle approach on steroids - but it's tolerated or even promoted, because just this approach promises as many jobs for its proponents, as possible.


    Of course, more intelligent and way less grants/job demanding/promising approach is also possible. We don't need Standard model parasites for anything useful:

    How Cook calculates proton and neutron mass. Also muon mass (with at least 6 effective decimal places of precission). Not bad at all - so why we should pay for theorists, who cannot calculate it?

    Self consistent automatic QFT predictions of particle masses

    Derivation mass of proton from Machian principles.

    Derivation of α and particle mass by Randell Mills (via 1, 2)


    This concept could yield chips that continuously produce electrical power with an areal power density that is 3x greater than raw solar irradiation on Earth.

    The rectification of thermal fluctuations, which are present experimentally and analytically, can generate work when combined with an increase in the entropy of quantum information arising from spin transport onto the PM center due to its spin fluctuations. HOW it could do it without violation of thermodynamics? XXXXXXXX physicists (who delayed the overunity research for decades) are welcomed into discussion... The ignorance of their censorship might seem innocent at first, but it delayed progress of human civilization by at least one century, as everyone's fun comes at price of the rest.

    If you stop using derogatory language, we won't have to "censor". Now please... Shane


    Perhaps there are non QFT theories that can calculate in 2019?

    There are many of them in fact - Heim's theory, Kornowski theory or Nigel B. Cook theory (apparently the best one). The way in which they're consequentially ignored also illustrates strictly occupationally driven progress of contemporary science: all new ideas and findings are considered and accepted only when they don't threat existing grants, jobs and their social credits. Densely overcrowded scientific community doesn't make any exceptions from this rule up to level, we could speak about definition of scientific ethic.


    Electron revolving atom nuclei is attracted to nuclei by Coulomb force. For its separation from nuclei and expansion of atom one must exert an energy and the resulting state - expanded electron orbital - will thus exhibit excited quantum states and higher quantum numbers than fundamental quantum state. The expanded orbital gets increasingly spherical and round - it leads to so called Rydberg orbital resembling thin spherical shell.

    For electron trapped inside liquid helium bubble the situation is exactly the opposite. The surface tension of bubble exerts strong pressure to electron and the electron is forced resist this pressure by its bouncing, i.e. vibrations across bubble cavity. The smaller the bubble is, the higher its surface tension gets, the more its electron gets squeezed, the higher quantum states and nodes / numbers its wave function gets. And the bubble also gets increasingly round and spherical - except that it gets smaller during it. It resembles Mills hydrino model - but its fully classical quantum system described by normal wave function - and it also consumes an energy for its formation - not produces.

    Therefore it's completely normal and fully compliant with quantum wave mechanics, that electron bubbles in helium shrink with increasing quantum numbers. Both Mills both these ones, who tried to explain this dependence classically completely missed the opposite geometry of the whole system. But this case also illustrates, that when you're experti in math enough, you'll invent seemingly working math for whatever nonsense thinkable: even for physical system based on solely perverted perspective. The contemporaries of Ptolemy and his epicycle model could serve as an iconic model of confused science, Euler also had no problem with formulation of bulletproof theory of hollow Earth, and contemporary cosmologists could tell similar stories about their "expanding Universe" model. The autistic formally thinking people are particularly susceptible to inverted perspective illusion - which schizophrenics can rarely get fooled with.

    Mathematicians often exhibit autistic traits (one can even spot them by shape of their head 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6..), so that they will not only develop formal models easier - they will also more often confuse them.

    Edited for inappropriate language. Shane


    Very impressive video, and I can think of no others in LENR history that come close to matching it.

    It's far less impressive once we consider thickness of electric cables powered by it.


    For me it's sorta symptomatic, that no one attempted to simulate supercritical fluid, despite that computer simulations of normal incompressible fluids routinely exist. In supercritical fluid every local overpressure leads immediately to condensation and establishing of phase interface, at which refraction and dispersion of waves would occur. This phase interface can also serve as an environment of its own surface ripples which will interfere with these volume ones. Vortex ring generated inside of compressible supercritical fluid would form a loop resembling closed pipe , inside of which the fluid would undulate with opposite phase and charge with compare to this one outside the vortex. Nevertheless, because supercritical fluid is still fully elastic, both parts of wave would contribute to the spiral-like motion of resulting vortex. In future we could observe similar motion in fast rotating black holes.


    I understand how charge is generated. Or at least I think I do. You simply wrap a sinusoidal electromagnetic field-variation into a double loop Mobius-like formation:

    How the positively, neutral and negatively charged particle looks like. Normal 3D elastic matter cannot undulate like this, but 4D one can (the forth dimension is density gradient of vacuum). The charge is measure of helicity of vacuum foam torsion inside particle.

    Rz1OEHC.gif l10YtGR.gif    4ef7Gme.gif

    In Maxwell theory symmetrized by unitary U(1) gauge the vacuum undulates like elastic foam: if we squeeze it at some place, it will expand in perpendicular direction. On this behavior the symmetry of electric and magnetic fields is based.

    uaTdniG.gif  JKS3EfI.gif e42K1vt.jpg

    When we jump on elastic mattress, it will deform at the center and torsion deform similar to circular vortex will establish there. But real vacuum behaves more like soap foam - if we shake it, it gets more dense at the place of most intensive shear reversibly. This place will be form the central loop of vortex and vacuum will gain mass density and inertia here, so that it will resist the deform. In certain moment the vacuum will collapse and it will start to undulate in perpendicular direction like composite vortex ring pictured above, but in spiral-like fashion. In this moment sterile particle will change into a charged one.


    I just don't "get" this 4D path thing. Sorry. Maybe it's because I've lived with the Williamson / van der Mark electron for so long:

    It's important to realize that 3D elastic environment cannot mediate wave, which contains component perpendicular to wave propagation direction. Normal foam would never undulate like this, but foam in which every bubble remains filled by smaller ones can already mediate polarized waves. Here the smaller internal bubbles will mediate the perpendicular component of the large wave, thus effectively forming a nested subspace or extradimension for large wave. Even normal 3D fluid cannot form 4D spiral-like vortices - but this compressible one (supercritical fluid) can.


    If you want to create a serious minded community you have to take each other seriously.

    Serious or not, bubbles in helium require neither subquantum physics with fractional quantum states, neither fission of wave function for explanation of their shrinking after excitation. Electron wiggling inside the bubble behaves like pushed string - the smaller space it has, the faster it vibrates, the higher energy density it has. Why it should expand with increasing energy?


    We know from LENR experiments that silver has a long living (40s) magnetic gamma state (88,..93keV) that can be triggered by a strong field.

    How it explains exploding of silver pellet? Even if I would consider without checking, that you're right, the "magnetic" isomer of silver must be somehow formed first, which would consume just this energy, which can be triggered later.

    Let’s move on to our second model experiment that demonstrates the failure of quantum mechanics with even more fireworks.

    Heat up some pure silver until it is molten, and let a droplet fall into some distilled water at room temperature. Pluck out the hardened pellet and shake it off. Next, place it between the copper electrodes of a 75kW spot welder. Flip a switch that delivers a very short burst of power. In this experiment, over 12 milliseconds the current should delivers 15 volts with a peak amperage of 25kA. The total power delivered to the pellet should be just enough to melt the silver. ..There is nothing in the pellet to react. Just silver, and trapped water molecules that are impregnated in the solidified pellet.

    What happens? The pellet explodes.

    Specifically, it explosively releases a supersonic expanding shock wave, and an extremely bright burst of extreme ultraviolet light. What the experiment finds is an extraordinary amount of very high energy light, and a significant power gain, measured both optically and through calorimetry. In one study, a pellet with a volume of 10 microliters produced an excess power of 400kW for a fraction of a second.

    This experiments is a bit more intriguing and worth of re-examination. But one should keep on mind, that electric power delivered to conductor is proportional to its resistance. A poor conductor would exhibit higher voltage drop and the largest voltage drop would be undoubtedly at the surface of both contact areas, where also most of heat will be generated. Potentially way more heat than across silver ball itself.

    cpsq2BZiQ4eZPYcpQaEME2m9Bl7v0SC-qoETwb2muN0.jpgThe Quantum Bubble: Do two key experiments invalidate quantum mechanics?  The nature of free electrons in superfuid helium a test of quantum mechanics and a basis to review its foundations and make a comparison to classical theory.

    An electron injected into liquid helium forces open a small cavity that is free of helium atoms. This object is referred to as an electron bubble, and has been studied experimentally and theoretically for many years. At first sight, it would appear that because helium atoms have such a simple electronic structure and are so chemically inert, it should be very easy to understand the properties of these electron bubbles. However, it turns out that while for some properties theory and experiment are in excellent quantitative agreement, there are other experiments for which there is currently no understanding at all.

    In this experiment, you can measure the drag that the electron bubbles experience as they move through the fluid in order to measure their size, and it is a good match for the quantum prediction. However, from 1969 to 1972, scientists found at least sixteen additional charged species moving through the superfluid at a rate faster than what quantum mechanics predicted for an electron bubble. These species formed only when we would expect electron bubbles to form.

    Physicists scratched their heads, and decided that most likely, they were an excited state of an electron bubble. Theoreticians explored this option, but unfortunately, excited state bubbles were predicted by quantum theory to be invariably larger (???) than the ground state bubble. So these species should have a higher surface area and be moving more slowly through the fluid.

    Grasping for another option, Humphrey Maris suggested that under certain conditions, an excited state electron bubble with a double-teardrop shape and a small waist could perhaps be made to split into two pieces, each of which could migrate separately through the fluid. He called these electrinos. Some theoreticians rationalize it by arguing that the two halves of the electron are still conjoined, even while physically separate, in a quantum entangled state. but physicists have been unable to split electrons by smashing them together at phenomenally high energies.

    Unlike the quantum model, when electron bubble absorbs light to form an excited state, it shrinks. Mills explains it by assumption, that the electron within bubble goes into subquantum state, which form at a series of radii that are 1/2, 1/3, 1/4… etc, the radius of the ground state bubble. Unfortunately for Randell Mills the explanation of this conundrum is very simple: the shrunked state is actually normally excited state, i.e. energetically richer state, because electron inside of bubble is subject of higher surface tension: the pressure inside small bubbles gets higher than inside of larger ones. Cavity inside helium would simply behave in opposite way, than density blob around atom because its density gradient is opposite. If someone could get confused with something like this, it just shows that quantum theorists are really poor experts in Victorian era physics. But it also shows, why and how Randel Mills actually describes quantum mechanics from its abstract dual perspective.


    Well, no. The field tensor Fuv or its GA equivalent waves

    After then the photons should mediate matter not just an energy. During black hole mergers about half of their mass is radiated in form of gravitational waves.


    So a gravitational wave is a transient inhomogeneity of space. Not space curving or waving.

    Isn't waving actually the same thing like transient inhomogeneity ?


    I feel like new math like SO(4) can solve some of the long standing problems of the SM

    Why it should solve it? Why not SO(2)xSU(0) for example? This is solely arbitrary assumption - not to say, that each metric will add great wiggling parameter space to already overparametrized Standard Model.
    Which is epicycle based approach in essence: the progress in theory arises when we decrease number of parameters for regression, not increasing.

    mass and energy are equivalent as far as the equations of GR go

    This is just isn't right - the mass induces gravitational lensing in GR, whereas energy not (which is not physically correct).

    Unluckily gravitation has been identified as being an EM force (based on 5 rotations)

    Apples are apples, oranges are oranges - despite both contain some corns...