I appear to be an unwelcome guest at societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com Below is my third rejected post out of 4 since I joined back in 2008 all rejected by the same moderator who no longer even feels it necessary to justify himself. I won't be wasting further effort on their forum but my opinion is they have their heads in the sand. From: not...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:not...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of john1farrell Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:33 AM To: Frank Subject: Message not approved: Hyperbolic electron
> Novell_compound, > > > > I agree with your conclusions based on Naudts relativistic > interpretation of the Black Light Process. At the most basic level Mills > > has set the stage to exploit 2 opposing forces of nature. Natures desire for > diatomic states and the difference between atomic and diatomic translation > inside a catalyst. > > Mills makes a point of the "nonradiative" translation of hydrogen to > fractional states but makes little mention of the effects of translation on > fractional diatoms. I submit that this is the easiest way for a "working > man" such as myself to understand the process. The covalent or ionic bond of > the diatom opposes the fractional translation. If the diatom is outside the > cavity it either repels or disassociates the diatom like a Pd membrane, If > it is a fractional diatom (formed from fractional atoms already inside the > catalyst) then the opposition to further catalytic action will break the > diatomic bond and the atoms will translate to a fractional value appropriate > for the immediate Casimir geometry. These fractional atoms continue to > translate between states and accelerate from our perspective until they once > again from a fractional diatom, give off a photon and repeat the cycle over > and over again until they escape the cavity. Naudts relativistic solution > also explains the spectrum shift as the normal emission is time dilated from > the inertial frame of the fractional diatom back to the inertial frame of > the observer outside the cavity. > > Regards > > Fran > > _____ > > From: societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of amack43 > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:04 AM > To: societyforclassicalphys...@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Re: Hyperbolic electron > > > > > > --- In SocietyforClassical > <mailto:SocietyforClassicalPhysics%40yahoogroups.com> > phys...@yahoogroups.com, "novel_compound" <novel_compo...@...> wrote: > snipped > > This is the strange thing about this whole saga. If you look at fringe > claims, most can be dismissed out of hand. The inventor isn't credible, has > no theory- it doesn't mean they might not have seen something new or unusual > but there's usually nothing there to basis a reasonable belief they they > might be correct. > > With blacklightpower we have the strange situation where Dr. Mills has all > the evidence, reams of it, all the theory and it amazingly fits everything > we see and everything we know about the universe and the Mills haters have > nothing. They provide no evidence and little more than tedious, slanderous > and repetitive assertions. > > Some take the view that even if Dr. Mills builds a working reactor he is > still wrong about the theory. So their own test that he must provide > saleable product to prove his case, one that of course is never applied to > their own grants and funding or public funded positions, is worthless. > > They point to the time taken to build a reactor and when I point out fusion > reactors have had less progress, with less results with more time and more > money they sneer, "But fusion is real" > > They lecture people on how a real two dimensional electron would behave when > none of them had the slightest idea before Mills that such existed and don't > believe it exists now. Yet they declare themselves "experts". Well kudos. > > I still hold that any impartial person with a fraction of common sense could > have seen classical physics was real, and obviously so based on the provided > evidence more than ten years ago. > > The technological breakthroughs are going to be amazing. I hope I'm around > to see the first fifth force spaceship power up into space on a great big > plume of nothing.
