Hi Robin,
I usually use projections to 3D space to compare the radius. But in
calculations you have to be aware of the diverse factors given by the
torus metric and SO(4) metric.
So the correct question is: Which radius must be used for what
calculation. Comparing is just a curiosity!
Some
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 23:22:05 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
If you are talking about a torus, then it would help if you make a distinction
between major and minor radius.
>Things are tricky:
>
>A torus diameter is 4R ! But the torus radius is only R! So its a matter
>of
Things are tricky:
A torus diameter is 4R ! But the torus radius is only R! So its a matter
of perspective.
If you look at the same distance circle radius "torus 2 radii" then the
4D radius - seen in 3D - is longer!
J.W.
On 17.09.2020 23:15, Robin wrote:
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's me
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:04:39 +0200:
Hi,
>You can look up SO(4) in Wikipedia
>
>The group measure is 2^1/2. This is the length of the unit radius of the
>Clifford torus (formed by the tangent space). To get the standard norm
>(=1) you have to divide by 2^1/2
You can look up SO(4) in Wikipedia
The group measure is 2^1/2. This is the length of the unit radius of the
Clifford torus (formed by the tangent space). To get the standard norm
(=1) you have to divide by 2^1/2!
Or more simple. The radius for the standard circle is 1, but the
Clifford torus
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:54:01 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
Your theory is already difficult enough for us uncomplicated folk to
understand. It would perhaps help if you didn't use
shorthand. IOW please be very clear and precise, and don't leave any steps out.
I realize t
Quite correct: 1/2 is missing.
The SO(4) radius is 1/2 of the measured one but gets enlarged by the metric.
So for the proton R_4D = 1/2 R_p *(2^1/2 ). This is the real radius from
the center of action/rotation!
J.W.
On 16.09.2020 22:35, Robin wrote:
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message o
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:35:46 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
>protons,
>
>
>To fully understand physics you must model all particles as EM mass -
>the exact opposite of what standard model does.
>
>A
If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
protons,
To fully understand physics you must model all particles as EM mass -
the exact opposite of what standard model does.
An electron always attaches as magnetic flux at the proper resonant
point. The error already
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:51:24 + (UTC):
Hi,
[snip]
If the electrons are shrunken, then they may well tunnel along with the
protons, making an enhanced electron capture
process possible. A possibility which you may recall I first posted here in the
thread "Miz
Think about the implications of dense hydrogen in the role of binding and
reacting with another (larger) nucleus as if were two neutrons. This is
completely new physics.
Such a discovery would open an entirely new world of overlooked nuclear
reactions which were never given much hope before. It
Well, you could be getting inferior advice. It makes little sense to worry
about IH or anyone else when a trip to Stockholm (for the big prize) is waiting
for positive results showing H*-H* absorption... No one is going to get rich
on this anyway, other than patent attorneys and Wall Street. T
We do currently not publish the spectra as there are to many patent
trolls like IH just waiting for it...
But I have tons of files with interesting details. Anybody serious that
is willing to support us either by labor or some significant financial
support will get access to our knowledge.
F
Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This in
> respect to the intermediate products we see.
Are any of these experiments published ?
Absorption of 2 neutrons when proved would be absolutely huge in importance,
since AFAIK this does n
What we see in experiments is that H*-H* reacts like two neutrons. This
in respect to the intermediate products we see.
On the other side D*-D* reacts like two protons!
J.W.
On 14.09.2020 15:12, JonesBeene wrote:
Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
… Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* is a we
Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
… Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* is a weak nuclear bond between two
protons. It can be exactly calculated by SO(4) physics and is in full agreement
with Randall Mills measurement of so called 1/4 Hydrinos
Jürg
The H*H* which you describe above would seem to be
One of the major issues interfering with the commercializing the LENR
reaction is the erosion of the structure of the reactor caused by the
active agent. Let's call that active agent the EVO, a particle unique to
the LENR reaction..
This video shows this EVO erosion caused by the exposure of a bra
The Widom Larsen model is not even a model just and idea and form the
standpoint of physics its nonsensical.
Nobody no where ever has seen neutrons in LENR...
Dense Hydrogen. aka "Hydrino", aka H*-H* (how we call it) is a weak
nuclear bond between two protons. It can be exactly calculated by S
For those who have not connected the dots (in the last few days) and have too
much time on their hands, the silly season of election year politics is now
focusing on a "secret" new weapon.
Not sure if any pundit has mentioned that over two years ago Lewis Larsen et al
was suggesting exactly th
19 matches
Mail list logo
