In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911
On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 10:55:14AM -0800, Jones Beene wrote: >... Jones, you write about the most interesting things! (Comments/questions interspersed below.) >in hummingbirds and all cellular life this mechanism >involves some variation of a hydrogen-permeable membrane and >a storage "matrix" for hydrogen (and perhaps its isomers). > >But in all animals, a phosphate-based protein is involved. >"ATP -->ADP + energy" is the more general route for powering >animal life, but this process begins (according to the >experts) with a free-proton crossing a one-way membrane and >cannot operated without that membrane - which may not even >be a "real" proton conductor. This factor is seldom >mentioned and the experts instead have focused solely on >what happens to that proton later in the ATP "converter". Since we've had X-ray crystallography and computerized molecular modelling for decades, wouldn't the position (and the activity with respect to protons) of every atom in the pore molecules of that membrane be known by now? BTW, here are some diagrams of the process that I found recently: http://www.esb.utexas.edu/mabrybio211/chapter09/Overview-resp1.jpg http://www.esb.utexas.edu/mabrybio211/chapter09/Cellular-resp.jpg http://www.esb.utexas.edu/mabrybio211/chapter09/Krebs-cycle.jpg http://www.esb.utexas.edu/mabrybio211/chapter09/Chemiosmosis1.jpg http://www.esb.utexas.edu/mabrybio211/chapter09/Chem-mech-produces.jpg >I doubt that the experts can even begin to understand the >whole situation, especially without trying to do an accurate >"energy balance." >There is perhaps 3-4 times more energy being expended by >hummingbirds than can possible be accounted for in their >caloric intake, IMHO. If they will hover inside a large dewar, maybe calorimetry can measure this? >We should evaluate the notion that there is >another source of energy which can be used by some animals >with higher "needs". This secondary source is also related >to the metabolism of hydrogen, but not via the >combustion-metabolism of hydrogen through ATP. I think Gurdjieff spoke of "higher hydrogens" ! >And this form >of hydrogen exploitation is definitely risky, health-wise, >so it had not been fully exploited by evolution and only >appears in organisms with intense energy requirements. I can't believe that Mills, an M.D., hasn't fed hydrinos to a few rats, and the fact that he won't admit it and tell the results has me worried about toxicity. Then there's spontaneous human combustion. When was this discussed on the list? I couldn't find the posts. BTW, I can't figure out what "electronium" is. Are there bacteria that generate hydrogen gas? If so, do they make monoatomic hydrogen first? If they have any potassium ion in them, there should be hydrinos... >But I think Mills >is mistaken in so many details of that theory that it is >hardly worth mentioning, except for the notion that hydrogen >can be induced to drop below the normal ground state, with >OU consequences. To me the important thing is whether he's correct about the details of _what_ is happening in his experiments, not his underlying explanation of _why_ it's happening (CQM). >From my perspective, however, the drop below the normal >ground state is both *temporary*, oscillatory, >energy-neutral or endo-thermic, on-going but "not-quite >reversible" which involves those instances where the hydino >is converted to "bare" before popping back to ground state. >Like some OU devices, going as far back as seventy years to >Langmuir's torch, the *bare proton* (and its prior >'redundant' but temporary and non-conservative >'ground-states') may be the key to getting "extra" energy >from Dirac's sea. The process probably does involve a >temporary hydrino, but the hydrino formation alone may even >be slightly endothermic. You can call the net result "ZPE" >if it makes it easier to grasp, but it involves a temporary >hydrino and a sequential bare proton. The hydrino is not >permanent but oscillates near the Dirac interface of our >3-space and reciprocal space, and when it does cross over as >"bare" it can bring back a characteristic quantum of energy >and re-inflate to normal. It all depends upon disruption of >the "quantum foam" of virtual positronium (which is the only >well-known and proven item in this speculation.) Yowie! What is "reciprocal space"? And how can a hydrino become a bare proton? What happens to the electron? It would take much more energy to remove it from a hydrino than from a hydrogen atom. Wouldn't it be possible to test this ZPE hypothesis by creating and then re-inflating hydrinos and seeing if there's a net energy gain? But if hydrinos are readily re-inflated by ZPE, wouldn't Mills' hydrino compounds be unstable? >but anyway - it is one heck of a lot of work that >[hummingbirds] are expending for a few milligrams of pollen >which doesn't even taste that sweet to me. And I suspect >that even their "iridescence" is indicative of the >evolutionary pathway that allowed them to tap into a hidden >source of energy, as it involves the Forster radius and UV >photons. Here's an article that defines the Forster radius: http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3626 If your hypothesis is correct, then hummingbirds should glow in the UV, right? Even if it's vacuum-UV, paint a little of the right fluorescent dye on them and they should glow in the visible. Do they fly in the dark? Everyone thought you and I were crazy. But we were seeing the truth; more than they could see. Once you open the door you can never close it. -- Gothika (2003) Mark
