There are many misconception in classic standard model physics that
includes Mills.
See a preliminary version of "basics of physics" ::
https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/21523-basics-of-physics36-pdf/
The problem in Mills argumentation is the notion of charge at light
speed. Charge is always bound to mass and thus never can move at light
speed.
But as the universe is in perfect symmetry and we indeed know that EM
flux flows at light speed we can get the same picture with a charge
completely at rest! From the restframe of charge everything around it
moves at light speed. An external observer cannot tell the difference.
A charged sphere is not a stable surface as charge must repel and the
sphere must blow up. This only doesn't happen because charge is bound to
"mass" or as said in "reality" is a virtual effect of EM flux.
J.W.
On 02.08.2022 21:27, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
As a background you will need to understand the not surprising helical
model and that space can't allow high enough magnetic and electrical
fields.
Here is my take on it (it's not a new idea i suppose),
http://itampe.com/on-modeling-the-electron-loop-and-the-origin-of-mass.html
Now on top of that I will argue,
One of the most common critique against GUTCP's orbit sphere are that
it can't be stable because the electrons in the shell will explode if
you put electrons in a sphere although the perfect sphere would be
stable, any small deviance from it will make it go boom. So I have
taken the freedom to assume that the sphere is in a sense is solid and
resistant to deformations due to non exactness of Maxwell's equations
for high enough field levels. E.g. space is not perfect. Now the helix
model shows that you can have a very small tube with a fm thinness
(the order of proton radius modules some numbers like pi 2 etc). In
all a helical model means essentially a solenoid ring and and the
current will be at the speed of light. If we now move the helix as a
solid in counter of the helical movement we will have created a net
velocity 0 (e.g. at rest) but in the frame of reference where the
solid helix is moving there will be a helical speed very very close to
c. This means a very high B field and the self interaction with the
moving charges will create a attractive force that counteracts the
electrical self repulsion. There will be a balance and if we assume
that the system is stuck at the level where the B field is maximal we
reach a conclusion that at that level the radius in the lab frame is
in the order fm. I postulate that the e,h,me parameters is defined
through the maximal limit of the E field and the B field. Now let's
start to add the tubes together if we do not reach the maximum filed
values Al would work if we extend the nice thing is that if we add the
rings together we would get the same B field in each pointy in the
sphere except in a extremely small region at the north and south pole,
the we will get a constant moment but h/2 this time. Think of the
final system as two very close spherical shells where the current
inside them keep the planes together in order to minimize energy. Also
these forces makes the spherical shells e.g. the orbit sphere will be
very resistant to explode like we described and people usually assume
when complaining about GUTCP. I tried to deduce this force balance in
a previous post about the helical motion previously here and link to a
blog post by me (yes it is a blog post, just because it is a lot of
math in there you must have it in a pre print server and as scientist
hate models that try to find an alternative to QM one can't publish it
an get peer review so why not just put it as a blog post - it is in
the end just an opinion stupid!). Anyhow it now all fit's together.
Another heretic consequence of this model is that we cant move to
close to the speed of light and hence not all Galilean is the same
indicating that there is a rest frame. Look it like this, as we can't
practically move to those speed, we can't detect it so that there is a
zero reference frame or not will practically be a philosophical
question, but noticing it tend to make space more understandable and
much less mysterious. Else combining these tubes will make Mills
theory philosophically and mathematically sound, practically speaking
it will not change GUTCP much regarding hydrinos and atom physics.
When it comes to particle physics however I bet these models will be
important and some numeric indication suggest that. Anyhow look how
nice this model also explains Pauli's principle. If you put two
electrons with the same spin on top of each other you see that you
double the B field and the system is impossible at any radius. But if
you have a spin up and a spin down you will still get attraction
forces that held it together but the B field cancels, and is not
limiting anymore but probably there is more to say to study this point
- just an indication why the spin up and spin down can live together.
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
