Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[Brian Ahern]

This is an absurd request in light of Heisenberg and the 10*36 difference in 
potentials. I think this topic may have had its origin on April  1.




From: H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 1:18 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

Thanks for finding out.
harry

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:16 PM, JonesBeene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>



A beam of electrons should bend downward in earths gravity. Has that ever been 
measured?









Experiments to determine the Force of Gravity on Single Electrons and Positrons

  *   FRED C. 
WITTEBORN<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2F220436a0%23auth-1=02%7C01%7C%7Cc99eb9f4c1434d24b2e908d56d8e1699%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636535379379146119=T%2FO7wWgNRUN9cEOGeTwhKtmcPCsUj%2BCIrL2xyQqQOM0%3D=0>
  *& WILLIAM M. 
FAIRBANK<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2F220436a0%23auth-2=02%7C01%7C%7Cc99eb9f4c1434d24b2e908d56d8e1699%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636535379379146119=fuSLMC6dgdeQSF3hcuurcfPzV3jIzEQ%2FbyWo0BLiAxQ%3D=0>

  *   Nature volume 220, pages 436–440 (02 November 1968)





My comment.

Behind a paywall -  but the consensus seems to be this: the experiment 
partially but not fully supports the generally held  view that gravity affects 
the electron or positron.



Mills would say it is a poor experiment and  not proof.

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[H LV]

Thanks for finding out.
harry

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:16 PM, JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *H LV 
>
>
>
> A beam of electrons should bend downward in earths gravity. Has that ever
> been measured?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Experiments to determine the Force of Gravity on Single Electrons and
> Positrons
>
>- FRED C. WITTEBORN 
>-  & WILLIAM M. FAIRBANK
>
>
>
>- *Nature* *volume **220*, pages 436–440 (02 November 1968)
>
>
>
>
>
> My comment.
>
> Behind a paywall -  but the consensus seems to be this: the experiment
> partially but not fully supports the generally held  view that gravity
> affects the electron or positron.
>
>
>
> Mills would say it is a poor experiment and  not proof.
>

RE: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[JonesBeene]

From: H LV

A beam of electrons should bend downward in earths gravity. Has that ever been 
measured?




Experiments to determine the Force of Gravity on Single Electrons and Positrons
• FRED C. WITTEBORN
•  & WILLIAM M. FAIRBANK
• Nature volume 220, pages 436–440 (02 November 1968)


My comment.
Behind a paywall -  but the consensus seems to be this: the experiment 
partially but not fully supports the generally held  view that gravity affects 
the electron or positron.

Mills would say it is a poor experiment and  not proof.

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[H LV]

A beam of electrons should bend downward in earths gravity. Has that ever
been measured?
On Jan 30, 2018 11:56 AM, "Brian Ahern" <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

> The forces are different by 10*36, so comparisons are impossible to
> measure.
>
>
> --
> *From:* John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:54 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons
>
> From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not
> gravitational mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally
> attracted to ordinary matter. "
>
> Really?  Can that really add up?
>
> Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.
>
>
> John Berry
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in
> Mills hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later
> category.
>
>
>
> As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice
> man for this)
>
>
>
> Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an
> antigravitational force
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fpatents%2FWO1995032021A1=02%7C01%7C%7Caad74bcab3c84067bd5d08d567bf0a75%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636528992563255477=CVajWd%2FfT3TNJimv4xUvPE9IvIomeZDXpygX5w1Pe6s%3D=0>
>
>
>
> The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and
> the Pentagon ignoredthemt?
>
>
>
> And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not
> even get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the
> reverse gyrotron?
>
>
>
> Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other
> credit and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately
> rationalize them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is
> that he is a creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply
> cannot put good ideas into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or
> more) at the problem. He is great fund-raiser but after all these years
> there is not a satisfactory independent replication, nor a real sample of
> hydrinos to test.
>
>
>
> The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If
> so, he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation
> of why it failed.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar
> work into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim
> to have been the first …
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com
>
> For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:
>
>
>
> http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summar
> y-of-randell-millss-unified-theory
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brettholverstott.com%2Fannoucements%2F2017%2F8%2F5%2Fsummary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory=02%7C01%7C%7Caad74bcab3c84067bd5d08d567bf0a75%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636528992563255477=dBvPTomnEssGfRwgi080V2hRCp3eoSDmhFxIdwkK9Lw%3D=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[Brian Ahern]

The forces are different by 10*36, so comparisons are impossible to measure.



From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

>From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not gravitational 
>mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to 
>ordinary matter. "

Really?  Can that really add up?

Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.


John Berry

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:

Bob,



There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in Mills 
hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later category.



As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice man 
for this)



Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational 
force<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fpatents%2FWO1995032021A1=02%7C01%7C%7Caad74bcab3c84067bd5d08d567bf0a75%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636528992563255477=CVajWd%2FfT3TNJimv4xUvPE9IvIomeZDXpygX5w1Pe6s%3D=0>



The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and the 
Pentagon ignoredthemt?



And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not even 
get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the reverse 
gyrotron?



Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other credit 
and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately rationalize 
them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is that he is a 
creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply cannot put good ideas 
into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or more) at the problem. He is 
great fund-raiser but after all these years there is not a satisfactory 
independent replication, nor a real sample of hydrinos to test.



The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If so, 
he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation of why 
it failed.



Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar work 
into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim to have 
been the first …









From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>


For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:



http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brettholverstott.com%2Fannoucements%2F2017%2F8%2F5%2Fsummary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory=02%7C01%7C%7Caad74bcab3c84067bd5d08d567bf0a75%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636528992563255477=dBvPTomnEssGfRwgi080V2hRCp3eoSDmhFxIdwkK9Lw%3D=0>

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[John Berry]

>From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not gravitational
mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally attracted to
ordinary matter. "

Really?  Can that really add up?

Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.


John Berry

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in
> Mills hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later
> category.
>
>
>
> As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice
> man for this)
>
>
>
> Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an
> antigravitational force 
>
>
>
> The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and
> the Pentagon ignoredthemt?
>
>
>
> And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not
> even get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the
> reverse gyrotron?
>
>
>
> Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other
> credit and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately
> rationalize them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is
> that he is a creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply
> cannot put good ideas into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or
> more) at the problem. He is great fund-raiser but after all these years
> there is not a satisfactory independent replication, nor a real sample of
> hydrinos to test.
>
>
>
> The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If
> so, he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation
> of why it failed.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar
> work into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim
> to have been the first …
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com
>
> For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:
>
>
>
> http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/
> summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—
Regarding Higgs, Mills is not the only prediction of the Higgs boson.  I 
believe Philippe Hatt has very accurately predicted its mass etc.

Regarding NASA and DOD ignoring a good thing,  I think it involves the 
lucrative sale of solid fuel rockets produced by Thiocol and Hercules and other 
established rocket industries.  The same sort of ignoring I recall happened in 
the late 1970’s early 1980’s when cryogenic processing of solid rocket 
propellants was developed.  However it  promised to upset the solid rocket 
business, based on large capital investments in the facilities  for hot batch 
mixing and pouring the rocket propellant into casings housing the solid 
propellant and was rejected.

Challenger, a manned spacecraft of the mid 80’s, blew up on takeoff as a seal 
between two segmented casings of the solid fuel rocket failed.  This happened 
despite the fact that cryogenic processing had demonstrated safe cold mixing of 
ingredients—plasticizer, oxidant and fuel—with excellent chemical ratios 
producing up to 60% more energy per pound of solid propellant, WITHOUT THE NEED 
FOR CASING SEALS since a continuous pour of any desired volume was a key 
feature of the processing.

The established rocket manufactures did not own the patents and the 
establishment saw fit to pay NO attention to the safety and improved 
performance of the new technology.
Bob Cook



From: ROGER ANDERTON<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:08 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

NASA has funded antigravity resarch, but what is missing is any announcement of 
big success.

Anyway, unified field theory research gets mostly ignored; started with 
Boscovich (1758), how gravity is a residual of electricity from Boscovich 
theory explained at:

Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special 
electrical nature - Ioan Has<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWBj1Ed4Mt4>



[https://s.yimg.com/vv/api/res/1.2/MrkResMlcDJo2TkD06UFcA--~A/YXBwaWQ9bWFpbDtmaT1maWxsO2g9MjAwO3c9NDAw/https:/i.ytimg.com/vi/AWBj1Ed4Mt4/maxresdefault.jpg.cf.jpg]


[- Description: 
https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/12/overlay-tile.png]


[https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/23/logos/youtube.png]

Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special ele...
Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special 
electrical nature with Coulomb law corre...









On Monday, 29 January 2018, 14:53, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Bob,

There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in Mills 
hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later category.

As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice man 
for this)

Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational 
force<https://www.google.com/patents/WO1995032021A1>

The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and the 
Pentagon ignoredthemt?

And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not even 
get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the reverse 
gyrotron?

Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other credit 
and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately rationalize 
them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is that he is a 
creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply cannot put good ideas 
into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or more) at the problem. He is 
great fund-raiser but after all these years there is not a satisfactory 
independent replication, nor a real sample of hydrinos to test.

The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If so, 
he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation of why 
it failed.

Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar work 
into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim to have 
been the first …




From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:

http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory

Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[ROGER ANDERTON]

NASA has funded antigravity resarch, but what is missing is any announcement of 
big success.
Anyway, unified field theory research gets mostly ignored; started with 
Boscovich (1758), how gravity is a residual of electricity from Boscovich 
theory explained at:
Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special 
electrical nature - Ioan Has

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special ele...
 Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special 
electrical nature with Coulomb law corre...  |   |

  |

  |

 




 

On Monday, 29 January 2018, 14:53, JonesBeene  wrote:
 

 #yiv7766546716 #yiv7766546716 -- _filtered #yiv7766546716 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7766546716 
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7766546716 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv7766546716 
#yiv7766546716 p.yiv7766546716MsoNormal, #yiv7766546716 
li.yiv7766546716MsoNormal, #yiv7766546716 div.yiv7766546716MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv7766546716 a:link, 
#yiv7766546716 span.yiv7766546716MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7766546716 a:visited, #yiv7766546716 
span.yiv7766546716MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7766546716 
.yiv7766546716MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv7766546716 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7766546716 div.yiv7766546716WordSection1 {}#yiv7766546716 Bob, 
 There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in 
Mills hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later 
category.  As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the 
spice man for this)  Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing 
an antigravitational force  The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim 
works why has NASA and the Pentagon ignoredthemt?   And while we are at it: Why 
did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not even get to Phase two on that 
one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the reverse gyrotron?  Plus, in spite 
of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other credit and ignores 
emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately rationalize them into 
his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is that he is a creative genius 
on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply cannot put good ideas into practice, 
despite throwing $150 million (or more) at the problem. He is great fund-raiser 
but after all these years there is not a satisfactory independent replication, 
nor a real sample of hydrinos to test.  The sun-cell will most likely be yet 
another failure in this long list. If so, he will move on to the next round of 
funding without a real explanation of why it failed.  Hopefully, in a few years 
other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar work into practice. All Mills can 
do then is to say “told you so” and claim to have been the first …        From: 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com

For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:  
http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory
              

   

RE: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[JonesBeene]

Bob,

There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in Mills 
hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later category.

As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice man 
for this)

Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational 
force

The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and the 
Pentagon ignoredthemt? 

And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not even 
get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the reverse 
gyrotron?

Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other credit 
and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately rationalize 
them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is that he is a 
creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply cannot put good ideas 
into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or more) at the problem. He is 
great fund-raiser but after all these years there is not a satisfactory 
independent replication, nor a real sample of hydrinos to test.

The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If so, 
he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation of why 
it failed.

Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar work 
into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim to have 
been the first …




From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com

For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:

http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory

RE: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:

http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory

Superconductivity of planar molecules (with electrons in a 2-D system ) are 
discussed in item 12 of the summary.

Bob Cook

mass” which aside from semantics,  is interesting for a number of practical 
reasons in batteries and capacitors.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04233

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-electrons-liquid-graphene-physics.html
Side note: the first article was written by the Russians who won the Nobel 
Prize in physics in 2010 for the discovery of graphene

These Dirac electrons have a linear dispersion, as if they have zero mass, and 
very high mobility. Of course they must possess mass of a kind, but act like 
photons and follow the same equation as massless particles that travel at C, so 
you would expect some of  the same qualitative behavior as photons. But they 
are not moving fully at the speed of light, and they are not really massless 
(despite some bad reporting). However, they can turn graphene into a 
superconductor… and much more.

The understanding and use of Dirac electrons may be the hottest research topic 
in physics in 2018 especially if a high temperature superconductive version of 
graphene is found which exploits Dirac electron.

This is a prediction… and another is that the Dirac electron will be shown to 
provide the negative charge in UDH – ultra dense hydrogen. (using a hybrid deep 
electron theory which borrows from Holmlid, Lawandy, Mills, Meulenberg, etc).

Jones

[Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons

[JonesBeene]

Speaking of loss of “gravitational mass” the electrons in graphene are called 
massless. 

One of the most controversial and defining properties is indeed an “apparent 
loss of mass” which aside from semantics,  is interesting for a number of 
practical reasons in batteries and capacitors.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04233
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-electrons-liquid-graphene-physics.html
Side note: the first article was written by the Russians who won the Nobel 
Prize in physics in 2010 for the discovery of graphene

These Dirac electrons have a linear dispersion, as if they have zero mass, and 
very high mobility. Of course they must possess mass of a kind, but act like 
photons and follow the same equation as massless particles that travel at C, so 
you would expect some of  the same qualitative behavior as photons. But they 
are not moving fully at the speed of light, and they are not really massless 
(despite some bad reporting). However, they can turn graphene into a 
superconductor… and much more.

The understanding and use of Dirac electrons may be the hottest research topic 
in physics in 2018 especially if a high temperature superconductive version of 
graphene is found which exploits Dirac electron. 

This is a prediction… and another is that the Dirac electron will be shown to 
provide the negative charge in UDH – ultra dense hydrogen. (using a hybrid deep 
electron theory which borrows from Holmlid, Lawandy, Mills, Meulenberg, etc).

Jones