[Vo]:Re: Lane pushes me to find the answers

[seattle truth]

No. You got it mixed up. The speed of electrostatic information propagation
between the electrons and protons are the wave.

The photon is the surfer. ; )

Does that mean I can be Einstein, and you get to be Bohr? LOL Just kidding.

[Vo]:Re Re: Lane pushes me to find the answers

[seattle truth]

Wait, I said that wrong too... It's more complicated. The rate of change of
the electrostatic fields of the protons and electrons (because of the zero
point oscillation of the nucleons) has to match the speed of electrostatic
information propagation.

So the electrostatic wave propagation is the wave, normally it goes to fast.
It has to be slowed to the rate of the change in the electric field, which
in turn is the zero point vibration / speed of sound in the nucleous.

LOL I'm not sure which is the surfer, and which is the wave. The analogy
with the surfer isn't a direct one, because in that case the surfer is
speeding up to catch the wave. In the atom, the light is slowing down to
match the speed of mechanical waves in the nuclous. But when they match the
lost energy of the electrostatic fields can be converted to the photon. And
it needs to be 100% match or else energy isn't converted.

I'll try to think of a truer analogy...

Peace.


On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM, seattle truth wrote:

> No. You got it mixed up. The speed of electrostatic information propagation
> between the electrons and protons are the wave.
>
>
> The photon is the surfer. ; )
>
> Does that mean I can be Einstein, and you get to be Bohr? LOL Just kidding.
>

[Vo]:Re: Re Re: Lane pushes me to find the answers

[seattle truth]

The best analogy I can think of is stick-shift car with no clutch; one where
you can pop it out of gear easily, but the RPMS have to be matched perfectly
with the transmission to put it back into gear, to where an energy transfer
can take place again.

In the case of a photon emission/absorption in an atom, it would be like
upshifting a gear.. Say from 1st to 2nd. You could press in the clutch and
release the flywheel from the transmission, but you will have to let the
RPMs of the motor drop, and the RPM of the flywheel and the transmission
will have to be exactly identical to slide it into gear.

The flywheel in this analogy is the speed of light (electrostatic
information propagation), because its normal tendancy is to go faster (when
upshifting)... We have to drop the speed of light to match the speed of
sound, which in this case is the RPMS of the transmission.

When they match perfectly, you can slide the atom into gear (drop of the
electron), and a photon is emitted (which would be the power delivered to
the road by the wheels/transmission, in our analogy). And for absorption,
its the same type of thing.

Come to think of it, an atom is a helluva lot like a transmission.

I think that's more accurate.

Peace.

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:53 PM, seattle truth wrote:

> Wait, I said that wrong too... It's more complicated. The rate of change of
> the electrostatic fields of the protons and electrons (because of the zero
> point oscillation of the nucleons) has to match the speed of electrostatic
> information propagation.
>
> So the electrostatic wave propagation is the wave, normally it goes to
> fast. It has to be slowed to the rate of the change in the electric field,
> which in turn is the zero point vibration / speed of sound in the nucleous.
>
> LOL I'm not sure which is the surfer, and which is the wave. The analogy
> with the surfer isn't a direct one, because in that case the surfer is
> speeding up to catch the wave. In the atom, the light is slowing down to
> match the speed of mechanical waves in the nuclous. But when they match the
> lost energy of the electrostatic fields can be converted to the photon. And
> it needs to be 100% match or else energy isn't converted.
>
> I'll try to think of a truer analogy...
>
> Peace.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM, seattle truth wrote:
>
>> No. You got it mixed up. The speed of electrostatic information
>> propagation between the electrons and protons are the wave.
>>
>>
>> The photon is the surfer. ; )
>>
>> Does that mean I can be Einstein, and you get to be Bohr? LOL Just
>> kidding.
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Lane pushes me to find the answers

[seattle truth]

i posted a different analogy to vortex. the surfer one is simpler but not
really accurate to whats happening. in the atom. the surfer is speeding up
to catch the wave. the opposite is true with an atom. light is slowing down.

anyway i think you got the email if you're on the list.. let me know if u
didnt

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM, seattle truth wrote:

> No. You got it mixed up. The speed of electrostatic information propagation
> between the electrons and protons are the wave.
>
>
> The photon is the surfer. ; )
>
> Does that mean I can be Einstein, and you get to be Bohr? LOL Just kidding.
>

Re: [Vo]:Up to two hours of video now

[seattle truth]

2 hours LOL we're at 4, man.

All your equations multiply or divide. Good thing you don't use any
equations that add or count :P

I'm JK.

And yeah i like that surfing thing too.. It makes much more sense after I
realized I had everything backwards :D

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 7:41 AM,  wrote:

> I like the probability of transition as described as the probability of
> catching the wave.
> Once caught the speed of light in the electronic structure = the speed of
> sound in the nuclear structure.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnPfqrkhQOw
>
>
>
> Frank
>

Re: [Vo]:Lane getting invites to speek not me

[seattle truth]

LOL!!! Yeah, right. They don't want me to speak after asking about my
resume.

The dude who invited me to speak changed his mind and turned very aggressive
after he asked me about my job history. His whole demeanor changed and he
acted very skeptical. I guess if its not coming from a Professor, it's a
worthless idea. Einstein wasn't a physicist when he thought of relativity,
how ya like them apples?

He then started attacking us, not even on any theoretical basis... But he
asked repeatedly if either of us (or anyone I know) has actually built a
cold fusion cell or a Podkletnov replication. I said no, we're all broke...
He then got more aggressive, saying that this theory has "no practical
relevance to applications" if nobody has built anything yet.

I was polite the first, when he first implied that these theories are of "no
real world relevance", but when he emailed me back this morning in an even
more aggressive tone (although he was rude from the very first email), I
finally let him have it. I really don't care about their silly little
NASA-wannabe group where they LITERALLY discuss budget cuts, as if they
*actually* work for NASA, like they were at some faculty meeting in the
coffee room in Houston. haha

Here's what transpired.. It's worth a smug grin, if not a chuckle.

Subject:
You wanna be a Speaker?

 Tony to me
show details Nov 12 (1 day ago)
Dude!

Are you on Facebook? How did you get into this zndarsic cult? ;)


Are you Lane Davis?


What is your job experience?


We have NSS meetings every month at the Seattle museum of flight. The next
one is Sunday. Susan is doing a bunch of mars rover videos.
-


After sending a nice email in response telling him I would consider going to
speak there (disregarding the fact that he called it the "Znidarsic cult",
which to me is insulting to start with), he responded:

--

 Tony to me
show details 2:00 PM (22 hours ago)
http://www.nsschapters.org/wa/seattle/

Are there any links that talk about the forcing frequencies? For cold fusion
and gravitomagnetism?

Has any practical breakthrough been made with znidarsic way of looking at
shit?

The shit you were talking about with the extension of the strong nuke force
sounded alot like the lazar shit with element 115 do you think he's real?

Does anyone you know of have any device that actually has a practical use?
--

I responded:

The forcing frequencies are different depending on the domain. The product
of the domain times the frequency = 1,094,000

The practical breakthroughs that have been made with Frank's new laws of
physics (which dont rewrite the laws, just add to them) are cold fusion and
podkletnov's experiment.

No other paradigm in physics explains them without breaking the current laws
of physics, and none have the quantum math to back it up like Z's.
Unfortunately nobody has been helping him at this point and he hasn't had
the funding / lab to attempt to reproduce Podkletnov's experiment, or to
manufacture palladium in the right dimensions (50nm).

Watch AlienScientists new video on the matter, it gives more details on the
CF aspect, and 50nm was found to be the domain NOT by Znidarsic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i29oXQHh-U4

That element 115 stuff is full of crap in my opinion. A bose eintstein
condensate is what is required, not special elements.

Anyway if you want me to come down on Sunday, I could maybe put a speech
together in time. Just let me know the details and how long you want me to
present for. And will there be a projector for powerpoint and a podium for
notes?

--Lane

-

Then then responded this morning:


Lane,

So no one you know has built an antigravity device or a cold fusion battery
based on Znidarsic's breakthrough?

Of what practical benefit is it then?


---

Haha, at this point, I was tired of being nice. This guy has been rude to me
repeatedly, and after REQUESTING me to be a speaker at his little ego-stroke
event, after he didn't like my resume, turned aggressive and closed minded.
I wouldn't care if he was was a dick, but don't ask me to speak at an event,
THEN be a dick. That's just distasteful and disrespectful.

I responded:

---

uh?? are you dense or something??

look at the math.

tell me the math is lying. how could it be producing the most important
aspects of quantum physics with simple algebra that can fit on your thumb,
and WITHOUT planck's constant. Do you even know anything about physics, or
do you just pretend to?

we don't have money to build anything. Alienscientist was the first person
other than me to really listen to what the hell Frank is even saying.

And I'm the first person to even come close to understanding the theory
aspect of it.

That's like saying:

"OH! You haven't built a rocket ship in your garage? What practical benefit
is it then?"

LOL... you're funny dude

And let me know 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:speed of light = transmission speed of the crystals phonon vibration

[seattle truth]

Peace Fran,

Purely through the monocle of Occam's razor, which seems more likely?

A) That zero-point energy is bleeding through from some other dimension /
universe  wherein either conservation of energy laws don't apply, or to keep
our atoms spinning, we are literally stealing all of the energy from their
dimension / universe... And when it runs out all of our atoms will start
following Newtonian physics laws again...

Or...

B) That atoms retain a zero-point energy because the valve to let them
release energy (photons) is turned off (by impedance mismatching).



Like I said in the video series. It's 2010. Its time we get past relying on
"magic" (i.e. energy coming in from another dimension) to explain how an
atom works. Magical explanations seem rather antiquated to me.

Peace.

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> Frank,
>
> Your view of ZPE seems too narrow, If you accept  HUP you
> are also talking about Zero Point Energy  – gas does not freeze at 0 Kelvin
> –it remains liquid as a result of some energy source, hence the name zero
> point energy. I happen to favor the Puthoff model where the energy is
> imparted from an EXTERNAL  ether  but I can live with your model of energy
> being INTERNALLY  imbedded in the matter itself –it really becomes just a
> matter of semantics in my model because energy is imparted from a
> NONPHYSICAL  dimensions intersecting with our spatial plane in the same
> Pythagorean relationship modeled in the Gamma formula. This non physical
> dimension becomes a tower of Babel for theorists when discussing
> displacement or time – I see numerous connections between different theories
> presented on this forum but too often people become myopic or feel offended
> by ideas they perceive as competing.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Fran
>
>
>
> *From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:53 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:speed of light = transmission speed of the
> crystals phonon vibration
>
>
>
> I don't do anything with the Casimar force and zero point energy.
> According to that model the atoms radiate energy and this energy is
> replenished by in inflow of zero point energy.  I say that the energy is in
> matter and is stuck there through the action of an elastic discontinuity..
> It only flows out during transtion.   I  don't invoke the Casimir principle
> to slow light during the process of quantum transition.  I say that the
> permeability of the medium increases the strength of the gravitomagnetic
> field.  A slower velocity is required to conserve momentum as the strength
> of the gravitomagnteic field increases.  This effect and the fact that
> wavefunction collapses at superlumeinal velocities (neg grav
> potential=positive energy) are my arguments for an increased strength of the
> gravitomangetic field during transtion.  The matching of velcoticies
> mechancial and electrical are also arguemtns that the strength of the
> magnetic component of the forces equalsizes. I produced the probability of
> transition from this arguement.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't understand your twin paradox thing.  What I say is the phase angle
> between the potential (electric etc.) and kinetic (magnetic) competents
> produces the effect that we know as Special Relativity.  Linked below.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf
>
>
>
> I do my own thing quite different from the rest of the world and noone
> understands me either.  I seemed to have developed a cult following as of
> late and even I know not what they are doing.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: francis 
> To: fznidar...@aol.com
> Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sat, Nov 13, 2010 6:58 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:speed of light = transmission speed of the crystals phonon
> vibration
>
> Frank,
>
>I see some common ground between a relativistic
> interpretation of Casimir effect and your suggesting that the  speed of
> light inside a  lattice can slow down to the transmission speed of the
> phonon vibration. I think that Naudts’ proposal for relativistic hydrogen
> may well be the surfer in your analogy where suppression of longer
> wavelengths forced time smaller to make the fluctuations fit within their
> confinement. We only see that the longer wavelengths seem to have been
> replaced with shorter ones but if time changed (Hotsons basic time quantum)
> to make the fluctuations appear shorter then everything inside the
> suppression area is equally translated. This would be equivalent
> deceleration – still a huge dv relative to us but it is we outside the
> lattice rushing away at the normal speed of light and coming back only
> minutes later (from our perspective) to find the hydrogen or other reactants
> at the slower speed of light having aged like the stationary twin in the
> twin paradox –  It seems counter-intuitive that hydrogen and deuterium are
>

[Vo]:Fermi-Lab discovers NEW PARTICLE, another flavor of Neutrino, possible insight into dark energy.

[seattle truth]

This is big news But because it slaps the current models in the face,
all the scientists involved will probably lose their grants and get
blacklisted. ; ) I wouldn't be surprised.

By the way, it seems that this new neutrino is immune from the weak nuclear
force. Only gravity effects it, or something like that. Read for yourself.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/fermilab-experiment-hints-existence-new-elementary-particle

"Physicists
working with a Fermilab neutrino experiment may have found a new elementary
particle
whose
behavior breaks the known laws of physics. If correct, their results poke
holes in the accepted Standard Model of particles and forces, and raise some
interesting questions for the Large Hadron Collider and Tevatron
experiments. The new particle could even explain the existence of dark
matter."

[Vo]:Starting website based on Z's theories

[seattle truth]

Just so you guys know, I purchased the domain http://quantumtransition.com the
other day and a kind soul in the UK is designing the site and donating
hosting. It will be up soon.

Also I am basically doing a rewrite of Znidarsic's newest papers more along
the lines of "quantum transition for dummies" wherein it can be understood
by a laymen from the first read through.

All of the papers (Znidarsics originals, AlienScientists new paper, and my
paper) will be hosted on the website... I hope that this will give people
the "Goldilocks" level of academic stimulation that they need (mines for
beginners, Z's for intermediate, AlienScientist for calculus).

But the MOST IMPORTANT part of the website will be the dedicated forum with
many subsections.

My goal is that this forum will turn into a never-ending Copenhagen
convention wherein like minds can work together to both learn the
math/theory (and get help when needed), but also to take the math to a new
level and solve new quantum mechanical equations in terms of Vt.

And of course, the webpage will have the entire video series embedded in one
place.

Also I've been contacted by a CGI developer, he wants to help make some
computer generated illustrations of the quantum transition. Not sure how
that will work out (English isn't his first language) but either way this
website will give people the opportunity to learn, discuss, and debate
Znidarsic's theories.

Re: [Vo]:Re: part 19 is up

[seattle truth]

yep... now we can move on to the math though.

i wanted to clear up a few things on that (like what fermi energy means),
how it relates to fermi spacing, etc

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:58 AM,  wrote:

> Your really beat this to death.  You covered it from many angles.  I hope
> it catches on big time.
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVC1z7OtIKo>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: seattle truth 
> To: fznidar...@aol.com
> Sent: Fri, Nov 19, 2010 2:06 pm
> Subject: Re: part 19 is up
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVC1z7OtIKo
>
>  oops
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:44 AM,  wrote:
>
>> You did not send me a link.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: seattle truth 
>> To: fznidar...@aol.com
>> Sent: Thu, Nov 18, 2010 10:59 pm
>> Subject: part 19 is up
>>
>> whew i sped it up the pace to get through this stuff...
>>
>>  next video is the math again :D... finally LOL
>>
>
>

[Vo]:Supercooled PHOTONIC Bose-Einstein condensate made for first time in history!

[seattle truth]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101124143407.htm

Scientists produced a B.E.C. made of photons. Supercooled photons. Crazy
stuff.

I'm not sure the implications of this yet.

Any ideas?

Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected

[seattle truth]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Review:_Anti-Gravity_/_Cold_Fusion_Explained_In_Detail:_A_New_Era_in_Physics

There's
the video series I'm working on, although it is extremely long (almost 5
hours) and explained in terms for the laymen.. The math starts at part 12,
and 13 and 14 explain the equations used in 12. The math resumes at part 20,
but its important to use the fermi spacing of the nucleons, not their radii.
This will be explained in 21.

There are links to Frank's paper (although it might be a different version)
at the bottom. If you dont understand what is being done with the math I
suggest checking out the video series.

I am currently working on a re-worded / rearranged version of Frank's paper
that is written in easier to comprehend terms, but it will take another week
or so to finish.

Peace.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:

> Frank, I've just picked up that you have a theory on Cold Fusion. I
> haven't been following this list very closely, so I'm slow I suppose.
> But:
>
> 1) Have you published your ideas anywhere? Perhaps on the internet? Is
> there a way for me to learn more of your theory?
>
> 2) Do your ideas explain any of Mill's work and his theory on Classical
> Quantum Mechanics?
>
> Craig (Houston)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Black Light announcement is a sleeper

[seattle truth]

Would you be kind enough to provide me with some links regarding the
competing theories to explain this phenomena? Or even a basic break down (or
your personal opinion)?

I checked blacklight's website and it was basically useless (although with
pretty animations). Thanks.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:54 AM, francis  wrote:

> Like a poorly advertised movie that goes on to great success I think the
> latest Black Light confirmations are poisoning the critics, It was a double
> barrel approach that still falls short of proving one theory over another
> but does confirm that over unity is occurring and provides  multiple off the
> shelf formulas with high repeatability. The 2nd barrel was the correlation
> of light spectrum between astrophysics and the odd spectrum black light
> associated with this anomaly – Again the evidence doesn’t necessarily prove
> the Mill’s theory over others  but does prove that some type of translation
> is occurring be it Mill’s hydrino, Jan Naudt’s relativistic hydrogen or some
> of the other exotic forms of hydrogen proposed by researchers such as
> inverse Rydberg, condensed hydrogen, etc, etc…. Personally I think the
> astrophysics results represent high spatial  velocity hydrogen at the macro
> scale while the Black Light plasma from experiment represent a  nano scale
> equivalent velocity.
>
>
>
> Multiple teams of Rowan faculty and students performed the replications
> using old and new recipes with off the shelf materials. The heat output was
> up to 6.5 times greater than the maximum heat available from combustion or
> other chemical reactions of the material. I think the real significance of
> these tests may be that they now force widespread replications of the
> process that the critics can’t possibly cover up – the results will trump
> both sides and only the facts will remain. Something is clearly going on
> here and, right or wrong regarding theory, everyone has to admire Dr Mils
> for forcing the mainstream to acknowledge results that indicate over unity.
>
> Regards
>
> Fran
>

Re: [Vo]:Geoscientist disputes N. Y. Times article about energy

[seattle truth]

Hey, cut us a break. It burns a lot of oil shipping all that crap from China
: P JK

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> See:
>
>
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/fossil-fuel-factual-fallacies-new-york-times-called-out-by-renowned-geoscientist
>
> QUOTE:
>
> "Net 2009 U.S. imports of 11.5 million barrels per day exceeded China’s
> TOTAL OIL CONSUMPTION of 8.6 million barrels per day by 33 percent.
> Americans, with a population of 310 million, consumed 18.7 million barrels
> per day in 2009 compared to China, a country with 1.32 billion people, which
> consumed a mere 8.6 million barrels per day. This works out to 22 barrels of
> oil consumption per American in 2009 compared to 2.4 barrels per person in
> China. . . ."
>
> I doubt you will read this in the N. Y. Times.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State

[seattle truth]

One error I noticed.

Fmax is not the force calculated between proton and electron at ground
state. 29.05N is the force at the coulombic barrier, even with
proton/electron.

Food for thought, last night I was messing with the numbers and realized:

q^2/(8pi e0 Fmax Rc) = classical electron radius

You can switch this equation around (because classical electron radius =
2Rc), and then solve for Fmax, producing 29.05 (and the same equation you
mentioned, just factored differently).

Fmax = q^2/(16pi e0 Rc^2)

Also you can solve for e0 yielding:

e0 = q^2/(16pi Fmax Rc^2)


But the really cool thing I was able to do tonight was formulate Planck's
constant from Frank's orbital radii equations... And the answer it gave me
was the same Planck's constant as in the brackets of the probability of
transition equation.

I had it typed up in latex so you can copy pasta the latex code if you want
to see what I did.
I'll also explain it in part 23 of my series. In part 22 I explain how to
calculate the orbital radii of both standard hydrogen and muonic hydrogen
with frank's equations. And I rapped the whole thing.

Anywhere here's the latex code.

Start with standard equation for orbital levels:

a_{o}=\frac{h}{2\pi m_{-e}c\alpha}

And we know that:

\alpha=\frac{2v_{t}}{c}

So:

a_{o}=\frac{h}{2\pi m_{-e}c\left(\frac{2v_{t}}{c}\right)}

The c's cancel leaving:

a_{o}=\frac{h}{2\pi m_{-e}2v_{t}}

Solve for h yielding:

h=4\pi m_{-e}v_{t}a_{0}

And it's been proven that:

\frac{F_{max}r_{c}^{2}}{v_{t}^{2}m_{-e}}=a_{0}

So we can say:

h=4\pi m_{-e}v_{t}\left(\frac{F_{max}r_{c}^{2}}{v_{t}^{2}m_{-e}}\right)

Reducing yields:

h=\frac{4\pi F_{max}r_{c}^{2}}{v_{t}}

Like I said, this is the same version of Planck's constant as formulated by
Frank in the probability of transition equations. I just came to it from a
different way (by cheating LOL).

Peace.


On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:

> Frank, I find your idea interesting. I've worked through your basic
> equations and have included them simply because I spent so much time on
> them, I figured I should do something with them. :)
>
> In the palladium lattice, when the molecules are stimulated such that
> they are vibrating near the transitional frequency, I understand from
> your theory that the coulombic barrier opens up. Do you have a way to
> calculate the size of the coulombic barrier at this point?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> ---
>
> The theory postulates that for energy to travel from space into matter,
> an impedance match must occur. Frank calculates the speed of transition
> to be equal to 1,094,000 meters / second, which is, essentially, the
> speed of sound within the nucleus of an atom. Once he calculates this
> number, he notices a lot of little interesting things. For instance:
> this speed can be translated into a vibrational frequency in the
> nucleus, and all electron orbitals are at integer multiples
> of a wavelength calculated from the frequency and the speed.
>
> To calculate the speed of transition, (Vt)
>
> 1) Newton's Law
> F=ma
>
> Now, what we're going to do is use classical equations to solve for the
> speed of sound in the nucleus, from the vibrational frequency in the
> nucleus.
>
> 2) Coulomb's Law
> Calculate the maximum force between 2 protons. This is also the force
> between the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom at the ground state.
> Maximum force occurs at the Coulombic Barrier and can be calculated from
> Coulomb's law.
>
> Fmax = Q^2 / (4 * pi * e0) * (2Rc)^2)
> Q = charge of a proton = 1.602176487*10^-19 Coulombs
> e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854187817*10^-12
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity)
> Rc = the radius of the Coulombic barrier. This is also known as the
> classical radius of a proton.
>
> Fmax = Q^2 / ( 4 * pi * e0 (2*1.409 x 10-15 )^2 ) = 29.053 Newtons
> Fmax = 29.053 Newtons
>
> 3) The equation for simple harmonic motion as applied to a simple
> vibrating nucleus.
> f = (1/(2 * pi))  * sqrt (k/m)
> f = frequency
> m = mass = average mass of nucleons
> k = spring constant = Fmax / Rn, where Rn = displacement, from Hooke's
> Law.
> Rn = 1.36 * 10^-15 = radius of a proton
>
> 4) Frequency (f) can be turned into a speed by multiplying both sides of
> the equation by the distance covered during a vibration. This is 2 *
> displacement.
> Vt = (1/(2*pi)) * sqrt (k/m) * 2Rn
> k = Fmax / Rn
> Vt = (1/(2*pi)) * sqrt ((Fmax / Rn) / m) * 2Rn
> m = mass of proton = 1.67*10^-27 kg
> Rn = radius of a proton = 1.36*10^-15 meters
> Vt = (1/(2*pi)) * sqrt((29.053 / (2*1.36e-15)) / 1.67e-27) *
> (2*1.36e-15) = 1,094,817.78
>
> Vt = 1,094,817 m/s
>
> This is the speed of transition, and the number Frank wants to call
> Znidarsic's Constant. It represents the speed of sound in a nucleus.
>
> Since we're talking about a vibrational speed, we can go back to a
> frequency and a wavelength.
> 5) Vt = f*w
> f = frequency
> w = wavelength
>
> w = Vt / f
> This is the wavelengt

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State

[seattle truth]

I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense.

The nucleus obviously DOES offer resistance. In fact it's impossible to
offer no resistance, seeing as light slows down in presence of other forces
(like inside an atom, even when it is not absorbed, ala prisms).

But your criticism that speaking of the speed of transition as a speed
is ridiculous is unfounded. Obviously the transition must be going SOME
speed, and it can't be the speed of light (because even light doesnt travel
the speed of light in an atom, thats why its called "speed of light in a
vaccuum", not simply the speed of light throughout everything), so it must
be slower. How much slower is the only question, and we know its a constant,
or else the photo-electric effect would not be consistent (and even with
different materials). Frank's photo electric equation proves that the energy
of the photon is coming from the collapsed transitional wavelength (and in
turn the voltage), not from some magical correspondence paradox.

And you may be technically right that gravity is not an energy (but a
potential), but in reality the term energy is irrelevant, the more
appropriate phrase would be that "gravity is information". Useable
information can only travel at a finite speed (maximum being the speed of
light in vacuo). Things with no useable information can travel
superluminously (like expanding universes, quantum entanglement, etc). But
it seems like you are picking straw man to gnaw at. In reality you know that
the speed of transition must be finite, must be slower than C, and must be
constant, just from a logical analysis.

Peace.


On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Craig Haynie
>
> > Conceptually, gravity traveling in a superconductor is essentially the
> same thing as light traveling in the nucleus: it's just energy traveling
> without resistance through matter.
>
> This does not follow, Craig. And this whole line of bogosity about defining
> quantum transitions as a speed is getting almost to the point of lunacy.
>
> 1) What makes you think a nucleus offers no resistance?
> 2) What makes you think that gravity is energy? Gravity is a force, and a
> force is NOT energy. A force can have potential energy and be converted into
> energy, but is not energy.
>
> > If Frank is right, then these gravity waves are traveling at 1094000 m/s.
>
> This has little to do with anyone's quantum theory. This is the approximate
> escape velocity of our sun.
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:now we have more

[seattle truth]

If you allow me to butt-in (because it was my "discovery"), Frank was
talking about how his equation for the orbital radii in terms of Fmax
(29.05N), Coulombic radius, and speed of transition also gives the orbital
radii of muonic hydrogen.

But to give the proper answer you have to use the reduced mass of the muon.
Actually if you want a more accurate result, you should use the reduced
electron mass also (but it only gives a .1% difference).

Here's the muonic hydrogen equation in latex formatting:

r_{x}=n^{2}\left[\frac{F_{max}r_{c}^{2}}{v_{t}^{2}\mu_{-\mu}}\right]

The terms in brackets = the ground state radius = 285 femtometers.

Also last night I was able to solve for Planck's constant using that same
equation... I posted about that earlier today.

Peace.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Frank,
>
> Thanks for your commentary. ... of course I have more questions.
>
> I don't consider myself a card carrying hydrino believer. Maybe the
> little buggers exist... maybe not. I dunno. Meanwhile, there is
> confirmed consensus that muons DO exist - particularly muoniums -
> where a positive muon particle temporarily mimics the behavior of a
> hydrogen atom nucleus while a normal electron orbits at a
> significantly closer distance than what is normally observed in the
> accepted ground state. As such I can see how certain interactions
> claimed to be happening close to the QM atomic scale could become a
> little muddled, perhaps even "misinterpreted", based on perceptual
> filters most of us tend to encase ourselves within while using
> favorite pet theories to explain our perceptions of TOE.
>
> I'm far more interested in trying to discern how accurate, how
> reliable BLP's claimed heat measurements might be. How reliable is the
> collected evidence that has been coming out of Rowan University's
> research labs, allegedly performing due diligence on Dr. Mill's
> controversial BLP process. One would think that these university
> researchers know what they are doing. One would think that the
> reputation of Rowan University's research facilities is very much at
> stake here.
>
> Adding more BLP sauce to the goose, the new kid on the block is the
> CIHT chemistry, a mysterious catalyst compound allegedly capable of
> performing direct electrical conversion when it's allowed to catalyze
> under appropriate conditions.
>
> But then, we are all human, and to be human is to occasionally error.
>
> I obviously don't expect you to know the answer to these conundrums.
> However, regarding your comments:
>
> > The in between half orbital states exist as point of
> > electromagnetic and gravitomangeitc continuity.
> > The continity is on the order of one.
> >
> > Unless we take these areas of continuity as shrunken,
> > we have no shrunken atoms.
>
> Are you possibly referring to muonium interaction? Is your theories
> compatible with their observed behavior?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State

[seattle truth]

Producing Planck's constant in a multitude of ways using basic algebra,
explaining why the energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency from
a classical framework, producing the photo electric effect without Planck,
producing the orbital radii of hydrogen and muonic hydrogen without Planck,
producing the probability of transition / intensity of spectral emission
without Planck... And calculating the Compton frequency / wavelength of the
electron, giving new insight into the fine structure constant. These are the
basic aspects of quantum mechanics, and we are doing it without Planck's
constant (which is hitherto unheard of). That's not enough beef for you?

I'm guessing you must be vegetarian.

Feynman would have have been intrigued, at the least. And the fact stands
that the world of physics academia is ruled by M-theorists who have produced
far less predictions, and with far less evidence, and far more complicated
math, shedding far less insight on the cold-case quantum mysteries that have
been forgotten and shelved since the primary instigators of quantum
mechanics died off without adequate answers.

J.B.S. Haldane on the "four stages of acceptance", Journal of Genetics, vol.
58 (1963):

1) This is worthless nonsense;
2) This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view;
3) This is true, but quite unimportant;
4) I always said so.


Peace.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>   *From:* seattle truth
>
>
>
> Ø  I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense… But your
> criticism that speaking of the speed of transition as a speed is ridiculous
> is unfounded.
>
>
>
> Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of
> transition applicable to all of quantum mechanics, and more specifically
> that the Znidarsik value does not hold up under close scrutiny, especially
> not to LENR, and offers zero predictive value that I can see.
>
>
>
> Can you step out on a limb and make any prediction based on it?
>
>
>
> BTW – I do admire what you have put together in terms of fine videos which
> can explain clearly many aspects of physics to a broad audience, most of
> which is based on a litany of the Great Men of science. Good work there, but
> when it comes to tying all that back to Frank’s hypothesis, “where’s the
> beef?”
>
>
>
> Sorry, but I must admit that I do not see anything of value in
> megahertz-meter, and would normally be content to remain silent on that
> issue, except that at some point – “silence” implies consent, and tends to
> reflect poorly on all of us who post here – some of whom may not see it as
> much more than fluff. And it is not that I haven’t tried, over the years.
>
>
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State

[seattle truth]

Are you slow or something?

What part of "WITHOUT USING PLANCK'S CONSTANT" don't you understand?

This is something that the world of science says is impossible. They say
that Planck's constant is an elementary constant. Frank has shown that its
not at all, its an aggregate constant. Now that it's proven that it is
indeed possible, you laugh at it and say "but what's the point?

I mean, it's not like mathematics is the language spoken by the universe or
anything, right?

/sarcasm

And it seems as if your logic would dictate that every single physicist
currently working is also retarded for studying m/string-theory.

Instead of using our brain and coming to new realizations its better to
stick our head in the sand and act like we have all the answers already, I
guess... That plan of action worked pretty well for the 5-10,000 years of
civilization before Newton, didn't it?

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Dear Dr. Z,
>
>
>
> ROTFL. With this list you are surely the Rodney Dangerfield of physics. No
> doubt about it. BTW how did all those Nobel prizes get bestowed on others,
> who somehow got the credit for your fantastic advances?
>
>
>
> 1.  the radii of the orbits of the atoms
>
> 2.  the intensity of spectral emission
>
> 3.  the Fermi distribution of electrons
>
> 4.  a possible unification with quantum physics and special relativity
>
> 5.  the frequency and the energy of a photon
>
>
>
> I am absolutely blown away by this list of your accomplishments, which have
> somehow been attributed to others. You should sue those pretenders and
> reclaim your multiple honors … cough, cough.
>
>
>
> You sure this is not an audition for the Comedy Channel?
>
>
>
> If not, all I can say is that your arrogance is only exceeded by an
> unbelievable lack of touch with reality.  And in order to not take up any
> more of the valuable time of one of the World’s greatest minds, I am going
> to bow out of this discussion.
>
>
>
> Oh by the way - don’t quit your day job.
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* fznidar...@aol.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of
> transition applicable to all of quantum mechanics, and more specifically
> that the Znidarsik value does not hold up under close scrutiny, especially
> not to LENR, and offers zero predictive value that I can see.
>
>
>
> Can you step out on a limb and make any prediction based on it?
>
>
>
>
>
> snip  lets try to see what came out of it.
>
>
>
> 1. the radii of the orbits of the atoms
>
> 2.  the intensity of spectral emission
>
> 3.  the Fermi distribution of electrons
>
> 4.  a possible unification with quantum physics and special relativity
>
> 5.  the frequency and the energy of a photon
>
> 6  the velocity of sound in the nucleus.
>
> 7 and the list goes on.
>
> 8  the lentr result predicts and increase in the strength of the spin orbit
> force.  How do get past the
>
> coulombic barrier at low energy?
>
>
>
> If that is not enough I calculated the radius of the universe in 1989 in my
> book ELementary Antigravity.
>
> that was before the space telescope and the radius was then given as
> between 8 and 20 billion light years.
>
> I got 13.6 billion light years and that  was published and it was proven to
> be correct
>
>
>
> Johns lift you head out of the sand, some of this may be wrong but not all
> of it.
>
>  Frank Znidarsic
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 11:12 am
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
>
> *From:* seattle truth
>
>
>
> Ø  I agree that the statement you listed makes no sense… But your criticism
> that speaking of the speed of transition as a speed is ridiculous
> is unfounded.
>
>
>
> Let’s be specific – what I am saying is that there is no universal speed of
> transition applicable to all of quantum mechanics, and more specifically
> that the Znidarsik value does not hold up under close scrutiny, especially
> not to LENR, and offers zero predictive value that I can see.
>
>
>
> Can you step out on a limb and make any prediction based on it?
>
>
>
> BTW – I do admire what you have put together in terms of fine videos which
> can explain clearly many aspects of physics to a broad audience, most of
> which is based on a litany of the Great Men of science. Good work there, but
> when it comes to tying all that back to Frank’s hypothesis, “where’s the
> beef?”
>
>
>
> Sorry, but I must admit that I do not see anything of value in
> megahertz-meter, and would normally be content to remain silent on that
> issue, except that at some point – “silence” implies consent, and tends to
> reflect poorly on all of us who post here – some of whom may not see it as
> much more than fluff. And it is not that I haven’t tried, over the years.
>
>
>
> Jones
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State

[seattle truth]

Maybe you should try doing something original, then you too can include a
"me" or "my" next to it.

And how is saying that he will no longer reply to someone who is
overbearingly and openly rude a "snide and smart ass thing to say"? It's
barring far more holds than I would have.

But I'm done with this convo too, just because i'm the outlander here and
don't belong. But on the other hand I got my homie's back, bottom line, and
I prefer haters to being fake. Truthfully I was under the impression th at
science was a male dominated sport, but with the rhetoric today, I'm not so
sure anymore.

Check out QuantumTransition.com for future updates for those who are
interested.

Peace.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

> Frank
> Jones has been a great assistance to many of us on this list and he
> has a keen ability to glean a concept from even the worst word salad. He has
> sent me numerous citations that were spot on what I was looking for...
> sometimes before I even knew what I was looking for. I have only been on
> this list for a couple of years but you are the first person I have seen him
> say an unkind word to .. perhaps you should back pedal a little - at least
> far enough for everyone to lick their wounds and then proceed in a more
> constructive direction.
> Love
> Fran
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:45 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:30 PM,   wrote:
>
> > I will no longer
> > respond to Mr. Jones, be gone.
>
> What a snide and smart ass remark!  Mr. Beene's residency on this list
> precedes yours by far and his contributions are stellar compared to
> your unitary candela.
>
> Try posting something that does not include the words 'me' and 'my'.
> Also, try understanding the current state of the science of physics
> before you think you can tear it down.
>
> I, for one, am sick of your egotistical nonsense.
>
> There, be gone.  :-)
>
> T
>
> (Sorry, Bill)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Quantum Transitional State

[seattle truth]

Dear Mr. Jonesy,

First, let me inform you of sad reality of life: Just because something
doesn't make sense to *you* yet, does not mean it doesn't make sense
altogether. More than likely, it simply means that it doesn't make sense to
*you*. And when one hits a brick wall in terms of their understanding, there
are two approaches that can be taken:

A) The Holy Roman approach: Lynch anyone who disagrees with your limited
understanding.






On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
> > However I fail to see why Frank chose to equate his constant with the
> speed of sound in the nucleus.
>
> OK, let me try to explain it historically.
>
> I think I have found the answer (smoking gun) in the Archives. There is an
> old exchange with Keith about the capacitance of the proton - where FZ is
> cornered on the fact that the value he is using for the proton radius is
> too
> high, by a large margin. This was from 2006 - follow the whole thread.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg16464.html
>
> At that time, he was merely floating his ideas to a smaller audience
> (Vortex), who were already known, far and wide, to be open-minded because
> we
> entertained the notion that LENR was real.
>
> Perfect target audience for a fringe theory - right. And he was said to be
> a
> good hands-on experimenter who was close to finding "something" valid in
> the
> lab.
>
> OTOH he was trying to make what he perceived to be a useful constant work
> out mathematically, and if he could, then it would look to unsuspecting
> viewers like he could use this "discovery" (the bogus megahertz-meter
> value)
> to derive Planck via another path, and for many other marvelous uses. It
> was
> a house-of-cards.
>
> Catch-22. It don't work ! And on close inspection, megahertz-meter is NOT
> even a particularly good fit to the underlying data, like he claimed.
> Notice
> it fails by three orders of magnitude with the Arata experiment.
>
> This problem on the theoretical end is basically due to the expected size
> of
> the proton radius, and the small amount of uncertainty at that time that it
> could be different (few percent either way). Never mind that he was nowhere
> close, the immediate problem for the great theorist becomes: "how do I get
> around this slight problem and make the radius appear much larger, since
> there is some uncertainty anyway."
>
> He should have moved-on to something else - or at least come up with the
> perfect experiment to validate the underlying value (.03 C). We can only
> hope that he tried and got close.
>
> Instead of abandoning a sinking ship - he digs deeper into finding the
> quick
> fix. At that time he was trying to plug-in what he was calling a "maximum"
> radius, which is the first fiction ... and to bolster that - this is
> (apparently) where the whole thing about nuclear "sound" comes in... and
> then compression waves, etc and/or strings. It all required moving to a
> high
> Z nucleus, where the proton could appear to be larger - but which is
> exactly
> what you do NOT want to do, for a general quantum theory that helps in
> furthering LENR.
>
> What a disgrace ! You have a known value that doesn't work with your pet
> hypothesis, so you go out there and invent a way to make the proton radius
> seem to be two thirds larger than it is.
>
> I hope that his video guy - Lane - is not complicit in this. He actually
> seems more tuned-in to reality than his mentor. On most occasions at least.
>
> Very sad waste of intellectual talent to see science degenerate into
> becoming a tool of well-educated, but possibly not well-meaning,
> mental-hijackers. The best way for Frank can redeem himself now is to stay
> off YouTube and return to the Lab and find the rock-solid experiment that
> blows his critics (me) out of the water.
>
> You have the skills to do that Frank, and you are smarter than I am and
> most
> of us here are, but you are not smarter than all of us.
>
> Do NOT be seduced by a bunch of good-looking videos into thinking you have
> found it. You have been caught on this one. Go out and make a real
> discovery.
>
> Jones
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Expanded proton halo peer review

[seattle truth]

Well, all I know is that those dudes at CERN aren't crackpots. This
physicist works at CERN, physics department of Boston University, Institute
of Theoretical Physics in Spain. He has a resume longer than my noodle,
that's all I can say.

I also know that the smaller proton radius found in muonic hydrogen
experiments threatened QED. His theories reconcile QED and the measurements
of muonic hydrogen.

This paper was also published in *Physics Letters
B*
Volume 693, Issue
5,
18 October 2010, Pages 555-558

But I'm l33t so I found it online for free:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3861v3.pdf

I might be nothing and nobody in terms of science understanding, but when
dudes from CERN talk I listen. The key point is the differentiation between
the root mean square (charge radius) and the halo. The halo is real, the
charge radius is simply a mathematical formulation, kind of like the Bohr
radius.

Peace.

[Vo]:Many of th

[seattle truth]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:25 PM, David Jonsson  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I was calculating and found a strange thing. It seems like a rotating
> molecule is less effected by gravity compared to a non rotating molecule.
>
> Imagine a diatomic molecule at the equator of a rotating planet. The
> molecules has its axis of rotation parallel to the planets axis. It seems to
> me that the centrifugal force on the molecule is different when the molecule
> rotates and when it is not rotating.
>
> Speed of surface of the rotating planet = v
> Radius of planet = r
> Speed of the atoms in the rotating molecule = u
> Mass of molecule = m ,(m/2 for each atom)
>
> In the non rotating case the centrifugal force on the gas molecule becomes:
> f = m v^2 / r
>
> If the molecule rotates the centrifugal force is different on the two atoms
> it consists of. Lets take the case when the molecule is vertical like this
>
>   O   < rotation of upper atom
>I
>   O   > rotation of lower atom
>
>< rotation of planet
> --Planet surface---
>
> The centrifugal force on the upper atom becomes
> fu = m / 2 * (v+u)^2 / r
> and on the lower
> fl = m / 2 * (v-u)^2 / r
>
> adding the forces together to find the net effect gives
> f = fu + fl = m / 2 * (v+u)^2 / r + m / 2 * (v-u)^2 / r =
> = m / 2r * ((v+u)^2+(v-u)^2) =
> = m / 2r * (v^2+2uv+u^2+v^2-2uv+u^2) =
> = m / r * (v^2+u^2)
>
> The effect is of course smaller at other positions of the molecule and the
> mean value over an entire revolution would be somewhat lower but still
> higher than the case when the molecule is not rotating.
>
> It seems that the centrifugal force on the molecule is higher when it
> rotates. Since the centrifugal force is opposed to gravity it means that the
> rotating molecule would be less affected by gravity than the rotating one.
> Can this really be the case? It has to apply to all rotating matter and not
> only molecules as for example a rotating planet around a star.
>
> Have I done something wrong?
>
> David
>
> David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
>
>

[Vo]:Fine Structure Constant Mysteries Unraveled (paper)

[seattle truth]

Greetings, everyone. Over the past week I made some mathematical discoveries
that allowed me to unravel some of the mysteries regarding the fine
structure constant, and how it arises when comparing three intrinsic lengths
(the ground state Bohr radius, the Compton wavelength of the electron, and
the classical electron radius). These equations take Znidarsic's work to
another level. The key was finding a new way to express the mass of the
electron in terms of fundamental constants. I found it by fluke. Anyway, I
am able to share these ideas now because my paper was accepted by General
Science Journal (not a lofty achievement, I know... I was just trying to get
published before sharing). I am not posting this to try to pander for people
on this email list to read it. That is not my aim.. I just know that some
people in this list have already expressed interest in this subject, that's
why I am sharing.

The fine structure constant's application to these three fundamental lengths
has been a mystery for most of the past 100 years. It is a mystery no
longer.

The pertinent section starts at page 27.

http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf

Also in my conclusion I give a causative explanation for why the electron
cannot radiate energy past the ground state... but this will make no sense
without reading the full paper. I would have made it less than 40 pages if
at all possible, sorry about that... I felt I needed to explain things
thoroughly or else it would make no sense.

Peace.

Re: [Vo]:OT, sort of] BLP investor in the news

[seattle truth]

If you come throwing money at them, do you really think they will turn it
down? C'mon, man.

It seems to be their scheme; just like every other overunity company of the
past thousand years. They get a lot of investors to fork over money, then
say they are having problems, and need more money. Then more problems, and
need more money. This is how it works. Oldest trick in the book.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:14 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A recent google alert I have keyed to "Blacklight Power" brought me
> the following link:
>
> From:
>
> http://www.bisnow.com/res.php?p=370
>
> Excerpt:
>
> Chip Akridge, a developer best known for his Chinatown developments
> and passion for the National Mall, is investing in a small New Jersey
> technology company in hopes that its much-debated method of producing
> hydrogen-based power could one day light and heat his local buildings
> at a fraction of traditional electricity’s cost.
>
>
> Mr. Akridge appears to be in the Real Estate business. He manages his
> own on-line Real Estate Weekly Newsletter:
>
>
> http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2010/12/10/akridge-bets-on-early-potentially.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3x4df5j
>
>
> I thought BLP was a privately owned enterprise. How can Mr. Akridge
> invest in BLP? By private invitation?
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT, sort of] BLP investor in the news

[seattle truth]

I didn't say "money problems"... I meant problems with producing overunity.

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:20 PM, seattle truth 
> wrote:
> > If you come throwing money at them, do you really think they will turn it
> > down? C'mon, man.
> > It seems to be their scheme; just like every other overunity company of
> the
> > past thousand years. They get a lot of investors to fork over money, then
> > say they are having problems, and need more money. Then more problems,
> and
> > need more money. This is how it works. Oldest trick in the book
>
> BLP does not have money problems.  Their big investors are public
> utilities, et. al., to the tune of $60M.
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th Dimension!

[seattle truth]

YES!! MAGICAL FREE ENERGY FROM THE FOURTH DIMENSION!!!

Great solution. So if you were stealing energy from the fourth dimension,
does that mean that soon that dimension will run out of energy? Or is the
fourth dimension magical and has no laws of conservation?

Furthermore, he says :"*The importance of the hydrogenic groundstate is
fundamental to the physics of the quantum and is embodied in the
relationship between the displacement measurements of the Classical Electron
Radius {Re=ke2/mec2 =αhc/2πmec2}, the Electronic Compton Radius {Rc=h/2πme
c=Re/α} and the above derived First Bohr Radius {RB1=Re/α2=h2εo/πmee2}; all
as functions of the interaction probability between matter and light in the
DIMENSIONLESS Electromagnetic Finestructure Constant {Alpha=α=2πke2/hc=e2/2ε
ohc}."*
*
*
*
*
I solved all of this in my new paper,
http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf starting
on page 27, where it shows that the fine structure constant is an aggregate
and this trio of lengths can be directly divided through basic algebra..
There is no ground state radius below .529e-15, because there is no
transitional subset for it to transfer to.

Peace.



2010/12/17 Jed Rothwell 

>  Roarty, Francis X wrote:
>
>  from  Hydrinos, Supermembranes and the 'Free Energy' of the 4th
> Dimension!
> http://tonyb.freeyellow.com/id112.html
>
> [SNIP]
> The critique of Eric Krieg is well justified and on the mark.
>
>
> Where is this critique?
>
> - Jed
>
>