Posts by poelzi

Does anyone know if there will be video recordings this year ?

Quote from angelaketty

Every atom, either here or in a distant galaxy has exactly the same complex spectral signature. Even for the simplest atom, the hydrogen, we need a complex mathematics to describe its spectrum.
regards
<a href="http://prodissertation.co.uk" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dissertation help</a>

Yes and no. The analysis of the spectral behavior is done in Chapter 6 mostly. The reason why the standard model or any model that is based on the same assumptions requires very complex math are following:

- The electron is is considered a rigid body, while its a very complex 3 body object that must be seen as a spring model according to BSM.
- The Quantum Loop has a more complex but very precise shape
- The strong interaction of the electron resonance frequency and the resonance frequency of the CL space must be taken into account
- The CL space energy storage mechanism must be taken into account
- The microcurviture (a relativistic effect) of the mass of the proton and it's special distribution must be taken into account
- The general spring type behavior between protons and neutrons is important

After those are properly modeled, the underlying principle gets quite clear. Also why a uncertainty principle is not required to explain certain features of atomic spectra.

The QM model is are falsified in this aspect: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04573

PS: To explain why the spectral behavior seems uniform across the universe was one of Stoyans major questions:

Quote

...For many years, my mind was bothered by the curiosity of Nature. Every atom, either here or in a distant galaxy has exactly the same complex spectral signature. Even for the simplest atom, the hydrogen, we need a complex mathematics to describe its spectrum. ...

http://bookstore.trafford.com/…Structures-of-Matter.aspx

It becomes also clear, why despite the fact that the fundamental building blocks of matter (prisms) differ from galaxy to galaxy, the spectral behavior will always be the same.

Quote from Karl Fischer

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

Mixed rectangular lattice only exists between the two shells surrounding the galactic nucleus in the phase of crystallization. No stable particles (proton/neutron/electron/...) contains those lattices. Chapter 12 goes into more details about this.

I tried to find out more/get in touch. So, ETL does not know of any LENR, at least the CEO I talked with does not know.
Bernhard Krieg is not longer part of ETL as far as I understood it for quite some time.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from Longview: “See this pdf for far more detail:”

Longview: That's exactly at what I'm look at: Relations of 4-dimensional space, with so called three dimensional &quot;physical artefacts&quot;.

Any fundamental description of matter needs at least 4…

From the BSM perspective you could say that every object has a 3 dimensional spacial property and if you like to really see it as a dimension you could say that it's resonance frequency is the 4th dimension. But it has nothing to do with being something orthogonal, it is more a intrinsic property. Those frequency is the basis of time as we perceive it, but it's lowest level is unfortunately way beyond our current technological point to actually measure. The Plank Frequency is most likely already the first tetrahedron or even larger and as we simply have no pure fundamental particles here, it is hard to find out.

If you want to stick with this perspective, you should also take into account that both types of fundamental particles have a different resonance frequency, therefor different time basis.

Quote from Karl Fischer

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 <i>why</i> those particles exist with the properties we…

According to BSM everything we think is a fundamental particle is HUGE, a very HUGE object. Of course you can have quite different unstable heavily mangled structures. You can create all kinds of strange stuff, everything you can imagine 3 dimensional basically, but nothing of this stuff is stable.

Towards the Integer numbers:

There are a number of integers in the BSM model and they usually have a very simple explanation.
137 has multiple occurences. In the BSM model, α is one of the most fundamental natural constants, but it is most likely implemented in the first tetrahedron that builds up a prism. Chapter 12 goes into details and has a theory of the origin of the fine matter constant. It uses some theoretical derived work from others but it's interpretation is new.
According to BSM, alpha is resonance difference between two resonances purely due the geometric buildup.

137 has a second appearance a bit higher:

Quote

If an electron possessing a first harmonic velocity
travels in a closed loop with length h c , the number
of turns NT is:
N_T = l_c /s_e = 137.03234 (3.43.d)
The value of N_T could be regarded as a con-
dition for a phase repetition for two consecutive
passes through a chosen point in the loop, keeping
in mind a confined (screw-like) motion of the electron.

Display More

l_c = Compton Wavelength
s_e = electron helical step

s_e is ultimately caused by the differences of E(CP) and E(TP) and therefor α. When you understand the underlying principle of the fine matter constant inside the prism and the high level structure of the electron, it becomes clear why this signature is visible on multiple places.

There are some other integer numbers in BSM.

Quote

.... When applying a relativistic correction (multiplying by the estimated above gamma factor for the kinetic energy of 13.6 eV) the number of the electron turns becomes 1 ⁄ α³ . The phase repetition
conditions will be satisfied if this number is integer. Substituting α by its value from CODATA 98
we get: 1 ⁄ α³ = 2573380.57.
It is interesting to mention, that the closest integer value of 2573380 is obtained by Michael
Wales, using a completely different method for analysis of the electron behavior

The number of turns of helical cord in the electron (can't kind find it now).

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...
I personally think that the current core model just somehow covers one aspect of high energy physics. With a bit of phantasy, we will probably soon get a more adequate view of the physical property of the Femtometer space!

The femtospace is where the BSM models differs quite strongly. Protons and Neutrons are very large in the BSM model compared to the standard model. I asked Eric J. Lerner how directs the Focus Fusion Group and also published some papers in which they concluded that the big bang model in sum does not fit the expected values. As those values fit to the expected values in the BSM model, i thought it may be of interest to him, but I never received an answer.

Quote from Karl Fischer

How do the two valence deuterons from Be-8 merge into a helium core?

If we look at Be in the BSM periodic table (if you have not read the book, this table will not make much sense for you):
http://www.helical-structures.org/Atlas_ANS.pdf
At Be, you see that the two valence protons are in opposite position. There seems to be a error in the picture as it looks like Be 10 from top and side view while the bottom is from Be 8.
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.

My guess (hypotheses) is, that the symmetry of the valenceprotons in Be 8 cause the top binding to fail, they slip into each other and you get 2 alpha partices. Be9 will have one neutron more on one side, which will shift it's angle slightly to the bottom as there is the center of mass. This deviation could cause the stability of Be9.
But please don't quote my about this one and would need to check with Stoyan if I got this right - I'm still a student of this theory myself and I may get things wrong which I can't prevent

Back to Be, the angle of those two protons is perfect for slipping into each other building up a He atom. When I think about it, it could easily be, that according to BSM those will not be a neutron free fusion. If the parameters are good you will get beta decay +H otherwise a neutron flux with Be 9.

Some elements alpha decay if you cause a neutron spin change, it was written in the fusion book of stoyan sarg

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

What's BSM? Bull Shit Model?

You answer to threads in which you clearly have not even read the first post to approximately get what the thread is about. Are you a troll ?

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

For once I agree completely with Wyttenbach! .

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

There are measurements and there are theories. We can make up all kinds of theories but the ultimate test is always the measurement, and whatever theory you use, if you gonna say it is the truth, it must fit always with no exceptions whatsoever. And in my opinion, it should be logically sound and understandable, classical logic preferred and free of paradoxes. At least the standard model does not fulfill any of those criteria.

Peter: I can assure you at least of one thing, from the BSM perspective it is much less magical then the standard one. No spooky action at a distance (- of course you have the effect, but it's not spooky anymore), no wired big bang where all the formulas collapse and you have already invented over 20 free parameters to make the theory at least fit in some aspects, no strange neutrino oscillations and all this magic. That we are talking currently about more exotic effects that do not touch us in day to day life is a different matter.

As I tried to explain over and over again, this difference between matter and antimatter in the BSM model is quite extrem. According to BSM, the positron you "created" was there all the time in the first place. It is part of a normal electron as we know it, but due the geometic structure and the priciple how Newtonian mass is derived, it's mass is hidden as long as it is inside the electron shell. The positron is a stable particle.

Natural antimatter as created by galaxies are something completely different.

Same goes with the antiproton made in particle accelerators. They are partially destroyed protons with a damaged shell. Due the way electric charge is derived, it becomes clear that the charge is negative and the mass similar to a proton. Yet, this is not a stable particle while the positron is.And again, this has nothing to do with a natural antiproton made by a antimatter galaxy as those are stable.

I can assure you, the BSM model is a very different perspective on matter organization. Of course, you will find all the "constants" and many relations of the standard model, a model must explain things you can measure, but the internal relationship is very different.

The paper you linked is what I meant with magnetic cage.I read some newer papers which clearly showed that those antiprotons decay in < 1sec which is the predicted lifetime of those mangled protons in the BSM model. If you bring me a paper where they bring such atoms to a rest and have them stable, this would contradict the BSM model and I will reconsider my opinion.

You seem to have insight into physics, so please, read the primary literature to understand the model. It is 600 large pages for a good reason, physics is complex at least and a different model is different. You have to understand the basic functioning of a model to really understand and test it. As far as I can say, my testing of this model in the last year or so, have not brought up anything that was contradicted by papers I have found. I had my ups and downs how much I was convinced by this model, but every time I stumbled upon something that made not instantaneously sense, some more thinking about the forces and structures involved, solved my doubts.

You should never see physics as separated models or views. Everything from the smallest particles to the largest objects must follow one and the same framework and must be unified in all aspects. Laws do not change just because you look at chemistry and not particle physics. For this framework you should really consider Einstein:

Quote

We can invent as many theories we like, and any one of them can be made to
fit the facts. But that theory is always preferred which makes the fewest number of assumptions.

- Albert Einstein

And this is the point you will understand once you have understand the BSM model, you can not make viewer assumptions as the BSM model does. And this is why I'm convinced as long as I don't find anything contradictory measurements.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from poelzi: “Please note that according to BSM, we will never be able to generate anti-matter in a particle accelerator and those particles DESY and other labs produce have a different explanation. Their lifetime will never exceed 1 second much…

I meant specific anti-protons.
If you mean positrons, which the standard model sees as some sort of anti-electron is something different in the BSM model. Positrons have nothing to do with antimatter in the BSM model. The electron is an open 3 body object in the BSM model composed of the electron shell, positron and negative helical cord. It has 2 internal resonances frequencies which you can detect in the fractual quantum hall effect - btw. the BSM model explains all of the states and their width, which your model does not. As far as I know 7/2 and 11/2 are not explained so far.

You can increase lifetime of damaged particles with a magnetic cage, this is expected under the BSM model.

According the BSM, in a antimatter galaxy, the electron is also a 3 body object and has the same geometric buildup. The difference is that the internal angles are exactly opposite. The electron shell has the one we have in the proton shell, the positron in the antimatter galaxy has the angle we have as electronshell.

If you do not mean positrons, please give me some link so I can try to analyze their findings under the BSM perspective. You always have to reanalyze papers if you change a model, ALWAYS.

Quote from Wyttenbach

R. Mills theory gives a simple answer why we will find a wave pattern in the double slit experiment. Short: The spin of an electron interacts with the slit (+- recoil). Intersting would be an experiment with polarized electrons (Spin in one direction) with a strictly up/down spin oriented slit.

Testing the Mechanical Behaviour of Light.
I found this a very interesting model of light as it is very, very similar of the the BSM model. The only difference is of course, that the waves are propagated through CL space, but the magnetic and electrical wave have the same configuration.

The case of the electron is similar but different as the electron is a 3 body system with complex internal resonances and modulation of it's surroundings.

Quote from Karl Fischer

The first one is about the cosmic lattice (CL): What happens when matter from one galaxy enters the CL from another galaxy?
fields of those CL spaces are 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?

Wow, you are fast and it is very nice to hear when other people find it as logical and consistent as I do. It is simply more likely, that our physical world works on a more detailed grade and simple principles then high abstract complicated mathematical models that partially are beyond human logic.

When we talk about matter from other galaxies we have to first distinguish between Antimatter and Matter galaxies. Lets take the simple and normal case first, that is of matter. Side-note for those not have read the book: The BSM theory says, following: an undisturbed unorganized mass of fundamental particles will always crystalize after a certain size into either matter or anti-matter. The chances for an undisturbed mass is 50:50. If particles from another galaxy seed this pure mass, the chances increase to end up in the seeds configuration. It is unclear yet how much of matter loses this configuration on a galaxy collapse and if a galaxy can change if enough foreign matter is introduced, but a galaxy tries to stay in its configuration.

So, lets talk about different cases in matter:
You can have matter made from a another galaxy or from the previous cycle of the galaxy, there is no difference as the length/diameter ratio of the prisms usually differs. Matter like this actually exists as Type II Cepheids stars. Another form are Quasars as they are pulsars from matter different then the host galaxy. They burn into neutrinos which decay into CL nodes causing a tube of CL space made from its matter. If such a tube connects two globular cluster the quasar effect ccures as light hydrogen will pass through the curled tube emitting RF signals. A large Cepheid can also create those CL bubbles if it decays with a supernova or pulsar.
Pillars_of_Creation could be CL space from couple of pulsars that left their galaxy clusters and while burning they created this CL space mixture. It looks very much like the Antanae Galaxies "dust" which is according to BSM mixed CL space - but in that case it a galaxy merger. CL space of different matter does not mix well and will cause many GSS which causes therefor many "galactic redshifts".

Anyway, what happens is, that matter in foreign CL space will function suboptimal as the energy exchange between the electrons and the foreign CL space is not perfect. So, it is very likely to assume that chemical bonds will not be perfect, certain energy transfers between electrons and the CL space will also suffer. I think you could even see a signature of that in a spectral analysis.

In the case of antimatter in a matter galaxy or vise versa things get complicated. It could be, that it is optically not possible to see that something is anti-matter an a matter galaxy. If this matter however comes in contact with matter and after a certain temperature, they start to disintegrate heavly. The antimatter will not have a proper Coulomb field in a matter galaxy and much lower input energies will be enough for the helical cord of the proton shell to break.
Please note that according to BSM, we will never be able to generate anti-matter in a particle accelerator and those particles DESY and other labs produce have a different explanation. Their lifetime will never exceed 1 second much while real antimatter is as stable as matter. Only Supermassive Black Holes can form matter in certain phases of galaxy evolution and the matter/antimatter bit is very much down at the beginning of this process. We likely have left handing on the small ones and right on the large while it opposite in the antimatter case. The matter-antimatter reaction never causes fundamental particles to disappear, only high level structures get destroyed.

As I see it currently, when a anti-matter asteroid disintegrates we will see something like this: 2009_Jupiter_impact_event. The matter disintegrates into anti-matter CL space and at the same time normal matter disintegrates into CL space of the host galaxy due the enormous amount of energy released (E=mc²). As the angles of the TP fields are not compatible, a photon will loose its boundary condition of the magnetic wave (Chapter 2), therefore it disintegrates into undirected EM waves and Zero Point energy. The CL space of this will be highly irregular and behavior in it very weird. Without some numeric simulation it is hard to say how stuff will work in there, but very bad I would say. Chemical bindings could become brittle for example.

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

I asked Stoyan about this, if my analysis of this makes but have got an answer yet.

In fact, when you read and understand the BSM-SG theory, you will find so many ideas from many different scientists spread throughout the theory. I guess many of them came up in the process of the BSM analysis, but I guess the amount of papers he said he read while doing this, had a good influence as well.

I think our largest problem we have is our own mind. We like to think complicated, we think that everything is complicated - but I think we just got nature upside down. Yes, reality is complex, no question about that. But where ever we look "how nature does things", it uses a simple process and does it just very often, parallel and with perfect interaction.

Look for example of the shape of the brain. A very complex geometric structure. Turns out, the underlying principle is simple: the outer layers of the brain grow faster then the inner ones. Start with a smooth brain shaped like the human one and if you simulate (calculated and with physical model where done), it develops like the human one does.

Same with teeth, the first one defines the size and the neighbor just gets a bit smaller. Simple principle and outcome is perfectly balanced teeth sizes.

This is what cause my trust in this model, it uses very simple principles in every aspect, just the level of detail is very different. Even a Neutrino becomes a very large structure.

I was thinking about fundamental particles this weekend a lot and tried to imagine how this unorganized bulk matter would behave here.
So strange: It should be in smaller droplets like water, with very little refractive index and cause more some sort of heat disturbance on light. Then when it gets bigger, it starts to break the boundary condition of a photon and becomes blackish. It is much more fluid then a super-fluid and incredibly dense. Everything we have is really light compared to that. And yet, if you would put it into a bucket on a planet, it would just flow trough into the planet

Unfortunately, chances that such small bulk matter blobs exist near a galaxy cluster are very small to none. As we live in a very good spiral galaxy, this part of the universe is most likely very, very old and has gone through multiple cycles building up the large rotational momentum.

Quote from Karl Fischer

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"?

Thats very nice to hear. You will need some time to really digest Chapter 2, it is quite complex

So, just looking shortly at the schematics I would say: yes. In the BSM model you have to distinguish 2 kinds of acceleration: Impulse based and Gravity based. Impulse Based work like our rockets, while the SARG-Thruster, Q-Thruster and the for me new Nissikas Thruster seem all to be Gravity Based. You can't have anti-gravity, but you have gravity pulling in all directions due the mass of the Cosmic Lattice. If you disturbe gravity distribution, you get pulled, even upwards from earth. Depending on your actuall design, gravity based thrusters have one HUGE advantage, they don't cause a change in the inertia of the accelerated mass, they basically have the Star Trek Mass Damper already build in
The advantage of the SARG Thruster compared to all other thrusters is, that you build a buble of increased speed of light and can therefor travel much faster in the end, you can also not overcome the speed of light barrier in the BSM model (not entirely true, but the required energy for it is so enourmous, finit but enourmous). But, as a derived value, some of the fundamental influences can be accessed.

Quote from Karl Fischer

Is there any support in BSM-SG for the "Searl effect generator" or is it just the hoax that everyone says it is?

I stumbled upon this also, but have not made up a final conclusion yet. If fulfills many of the theoretical requirements and Ideas coming from the theory. My current interpertation is, that it uses the ZPE-D (Dynamic Zero Point Energy) to pull some energy out of the Cosmic Lattice. Basically you remove a bit of Energy for the Vibration of the CL nodes. This Energy is then automatically refilled by Zero Point Waves, constantly sweeping through our Galaxy. Those are driven by every moving solar object, everytime a photon losses its boundary condition etc.
You have very strict energy conservation in the BSM model, ultimately, you can't destroy Energy, as you can never destroy a fundamental particle and those are the ultimate carrier all the Energy. All the Energy we are seeing, is high level Energy due the geometric configuration and organization.

Quote from Karl Fischer

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.

But in the beginning, you have only fundamental particles, not organized in any way. Due to the Supergravitational Force, they attract each other to a massive bulk, the supermassive black hole in the center of galaxies - that is basically the highest density of matter you can have. In this bulk you need 2 different particles to explain the process of crystalization and prism formation later.
The size must be a non common divider, because otherwise you don't have a frequency bitting effect. This means, they attract each-other, but at certain distance, their attraction causes repulsion due to their none harmonic frequencies in vibration. Through this frequency bitting effect, those substances become none-mixable and can build up borders. It becomes more clear in Chapter 12 where the quantization of our space comes from, why it behaves so uniformly, why all electrons are of same mass.

The process of galaxy crystallization is actually quite simple once understood, but it has different phases and in is in sum still complex.

It could be, that the small FPs are actually large FP's that got compressed due the enormous pressures inside the galactic nucleus.
But then the question arises: why are there only exactly those two kinds, and not some intermediate sizes. Those could disturb the crystallization process quite strongly.
So, this is an open hypothesis I'm investigating, but I would say, without numeric simulations those can not be answered. None of those processes.
Another question I'm investigating is Anti-Matter in Matter Galaxies, those could also be very, very, very bad, until the point that a galaxy can't recrystallize anymore, basically, killing a galaxy forever. (Not the Anti-Matter they produce in particle accelerators - the natural one is quite different).

Quote from Karl Fischer

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.

Sometimes I'm quite surprised, that this forum has to have so many people that actually understand our situation. Nearly nobody that I talk to, really grasps what dilemma we are in and that our time runs out, fast.

Yes, 3d animations are a key thing making this model more understandable, will add jobs for that. Definitely should finish the website soon - better go back to work

kind regards
Daniel

Hi Prophecy,

Very nice to hear that others find this model as clean and logical as I do.

Like every model, it takes some time in the beginning to make sense. For me my first eureka like moment was after 3 month heavily investigating the model. Some parts, especially the SPM/NPM vectors need weeks to really wrap your head around it. The behavior, is very complex, even when the structure is quite simple. Also how the prims are build and the internal structures of protons.

I'm still heavily studying the model in much detail, checking if newer research papers fit the model as expected.

I changed my opinion tho. When I made the presentation I found it very interesting and that should be investigated further, but since then, as I understand more and more about the model, especially phase of galaxy crystallization (Chapter 12), I'm fully convinced of this model, that it is actually the model our physical world is implemented in - at least, not until I find at least one non theoretical paper that contradicts this model

I have one idea I'm investigate, but have no mathematical model yet:
One thing that kind of bothers me, why the 2:3 ratio between the fundamental particles. This looks like to much design for me, so what I try to investigate is this:
Maybe there is a irreversible process of particle compression in the galactic nucleus (super massive black hole in the center of well formed galaxies), that compresses the larger FPs until enough small ones are available for the crystallization to occur properly. The compressed ones would then of course have a different resonance frequency due it's higher density.

Now, just reading the 2 small books is challenging, as they are meant as additional books to the big one. Many of the details of the model are not described in them. Stoyan said to me, that he didn't want to make the big book to large, as people are often driven away from very large books and it is already quite big.

Regarding 1:
It is not antigravity. There is no such thing as antigravity, but what you can do is, to disturb gravity propagation. And this is what the SARG thruster and the Q-Thruster (quite inefficient tho) do.
The mass of Cosmic Lattice is quite high 2.07 × 10¹² kg/m³ (BSM 12.A.6.3.2).
You basically have attraction in all direction all the time, but due the fact that it's in all directions, they cancel each other out. If you now disturb the propagation on the bottom more then on the top of your spacecraft, you get a uplift. So, it is not anti-gravity, but a anomalous reaction in gravity propagation

I tried to start replicating the SARG-Thruster but unfortunately the high voltage power supply I have is unsuited to cause the effect and I have to admit, I'm a terrible electric engineer
Also, I don't have a good workshop to my usage, only some tools in our local hackcenter.

Currently I have two HV power supplies, but both unusable for a SARG Thruster:

http://highvoltageshop.com/epa…9abc4/Products/PLASMSP_v2
http://highvoltageshop.com/epa…9abc4/Products/HVSUP_50kV

I changed my plan a bit. We founded a non profit organization in November called "Supergravity Foundation" - http://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. The new software just launched this week so there is still a lot to configure, and there is still a lot of dummy texts in there

Unfortuntely, I also think that Guy McPherson is right - which gives as a quite small time-frame to fix the mess we are in. I think ~10-15 years and maybe 40 to leave the planet. Something like this is impossible to do in free time and that's the reason I founded the Supergravity Foundation.

I try now to get things running there, get people on board and find some sponsors until crowdfunding can be run properly. If we don't get our shit together, we will end up as a extinct species like many other half intelligent species like us before. I don't think that the other intelligent being will help us - the way we are acting as a species is even for me so disgusting, that I can hardly imagine somebody wants us infesting other planets. We not even can take care of our own planet, because we are so busy with bullshitting and killing each other over resources and power.

For me, this model is the last hope for humanity, that's why I'm doing everything in my power to use it for good and driving it forward. Most people never went down the rabbit hole, I hardly find anyone who even gets in what mess we really are - very sad

So, regarding 2), I would like that very much. I'm always for cooperation and joint efforts.

kind regards
Daniel

Quote from axil

FYI to sveinol

It took scientists a full year to get the minds around this process, but Science has discovered how another part of the LENR mechanism functions: how the movement of electrons/photons inside of EMF based polariton soliton can produce a dark mode that is an effective EMF black hole. The absence of radiation is the result of the current being divided between two different components, a conventional electric dipole (this is the plasmon in the SPP) and a toroidal dipole (this is the polariton in an SPP) (associated with poloidal current configuration), which produce identical fields at a distance.

If these two configurations are out of phase then the radiation will be cancelled out, even though the electromagnetic fields are non-zero in the area close to the currents.
[...]

Display More

This is very much in alignment with the EM model in BSM-SG (Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory). You can produce this donut type of EM pressure waves with a smith coil for example, they are like a photon type of energy configuration in the sense, that they have a boundary condition that encapsulates the energy and therefore causes it not the spread in a cubic sense, like a EM wave.

As energy always must flow with the ε₀ (nodes with energy - EQ nodes) and μ₀ ( MQ nodes with lower energy ), here their boundary - those tori are only stable if those conditions are meat.
This image looks very much like the type of wave coming from a smith coil, but the filling is of course of different configuration, only the boundary condition if of same type. But another possibility but requires very precise near field modulation could be some sort of energy low with a moving MQ boundary condition. The those contained nodes could even be under the critical E_cr level, meaning superconductive properties.

If I would have a lab, I would definitely try to fire 4 smith coils in a very precise timing, angle into a center of a LENR core. If someone is interested I can give details

Quote from backyardfusion

I've just started looking into BSM-SG theory (Just ordered the book as well) and I must say it looks very interesting. But thought that we had confirmed that some/most atoms had spherical shapes? For example, in the picture seen here.

What evidence is there that confirms they have the BSM-implied shapes?

Also you spoke of a numerical simulator of BSM-SG -- What are the basic things this simulator would simulate? I've got a pretty good background in computer programming and computer science so I might be able to attempt at a non-visual simulator.

If I look at this image they don't look round
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…:Graphite_ambient_STM.jpg
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/nanophys/stm.html
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/graphene.jpg
http://web.nano.cnr.it/heun/home/stm/stm-2/
http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2616

(It also depends on the material. in graphene you see the connections a predicted by bsm-sg very well)

At least, you see the connection in some images.
I explain it this way:
How does such a machine work, you have some sort of stimulation and a sensor. But you are not putting out just the sensor data, you use some sort of interpretation.
You try to filter out data points that do not fit and try to reduce noise to get a better picture. But all the algorithms you use are ultimately based on the model you use, the knowledge you have, the way you interpret reality.
You are bound to it, you can never think outside your model, you can change it, you can adjust it, but ultimately you are bond to it.
I can't tell you how exactly the instrument is constructed, I don't know the software they used to process the data. If you think atoms are round and you try to highlight the center, you could easily filter out some of the bridges you see in some images, but not in others.

What in my opinion supports the geometric structure the most is, that it shows the angles between atoms in chemical molecules very precise, and that's the real measurement for this. If you don't get the same geometric structures that chemists have shown and not just simple molecules, complex ones like DNA, your model can't be right. Chemists just learn the angles in the study, its like a tool set, but without the concept of supergravity, you can't get to the exact behavior, that's why complex processes like protein folding can't be simulated reliably.

Chemistry and Physics are the same thing

The simulator is a toolkit and a numeric simulator on most likely prism level. I have a long IT background as well, but never did such a simulator before - it is hell to simulate I can tell you, never imagined something can be that hard, even the underlying forces are so simple...
I started but have not put anything online yet, because I choose rust as the programming language and have to learn it on the way, then I'm currently heavy in physics learning mode, inventing tons of stuff (magic for most, totally logical for me), doing plasma experiments and trying to the a fundraiser going and stupid work of course... When I get some money for the project things will get traction, this needs a real team. But I'm happy for everybody who wants to contribute

As far as I see it (From BSM-SG perspective), as long as the resonance frequencies(/mismatches) of the protons and especially the space in between is not considered, most of this barrier strength values give nothing of value for cold fusion purposes. Stop thinking that a fast approaching particle causes the same effect as more static atom in a lattice structure. You will never get a nice frequency match if you use brute force - the harder you shoot, the more resistance you get (till some limit of course).

Quote from ogfusionist

"He should have added: Unfortunately, to replicate an experiment, you need poetry and imagination."

Interesting quote, unfortunately the most important was neglected. Also needed is work... and less talk. Maybe Planks' interpretation of experiment implied work. Nowadays it's mostly talk and little doing.

Yes and no. What I meant with the addition is, that you can only describe an experiment with all the factors and influences the model provides you (I'm pretty sure thats the imagination, Plank meant), and the poetry is your description of your model.

That we talk to much and do to little. I see it more from the perspective of Tesla, you have to think and imagine your invention more and plan and after some long thinking, after you imagined all the effects in the matter you want to construct, build it. I'm now utterly convinced that everything in our reality has a 3 dimensional volume and mass on the lowest level of realization. As my mind is fully capable of imagine everything 3 dimensional, you can use your mind to construct and see the interactions first (Would be nice to have some computer tools, but I'm working on that).
BSM-SG gave me the basic tool and so far it works wonderfully. Lets see if the last inventions will turn out good, will give updates on them