Page 1 of 1

nutrons like cows to the slaughter and thermalization

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:37 pm
by badboybilzer
In standardized science there is a concept of not knowing and never being able to measure the movement and moment of sub atomic particulii.
uncertainity principal?

not all scientist believe this. some think we can predict subatomic position spin and energy and gravitational c.

exerpt from page i read last night at 3 am
Neutron Theory:
There is also a belief that Neutrons may be the source of gravity. Electrons and Protons the source of electricity. This becomes increasingly hard to ignore with the simplistic theory offered previously offering no explination for Neutrons other then to be a neutral buffer between electron and proton. The scalar Smith coil shows an important principle.

As an Electron and Proton are combined, they form a new stable structure of vibrating opposite energies, the Neutron, which may be the actual gravity producing unit within the atom. The Neutron star lends credibility to this theory as well as the Smith coil. Now seperating the forces of electricity and gravity into different particles within the atom operating at different distance from center. The frequency of gravity now looses its vibration across a band of Electron shell frequencies and may become a single 2 D superluminal vibrational component unique to Neutrons. The explanition for the SEARL and Helsinki devices may now have to involve the Protons proximity to the Neutron, and tapping cold Protonic energy having a much greater effect on Neutron vibrations, then Electrons do. Or the interaction effecting Neutrons may be one of a [scalar canceling] nature which mimics its own structure.

[The Neutron seen as a scalar cancelling force]
exerpt at@ ... erse.htm#1

back to me speaking
scalar waves are known, lots of speculation how they funtion, time/gravity/alignment,,,,,,,,we dont know, i dont , we wont till the halide super collider starts spitting out datum from microsecond black holes (better europe than here)

but notice the first section of the exerpt belief that neutrons are source of gravity
we have gravitational cassmir effect and now \\at the u of scottland they have
at the microscopic level reversed that casmir force .

what does all that mean to thermal loading not only is it possible to electrostaticly
contain a virual or actual possier but to assist the electrostatic field with a magnetic
lense ,,,,

heres the paper i read on cassmir force ... effect.htm real short

a thermal insulating layer is possible magneticly
then common tech for 100 megawatt power plants like refractory and fluid cooling
could handle the load without berillium or any exotic tomak construction.

every thing i study says we can herd nutrons thru a gate like a constricting tunnel
maby cassmir or electrogravity in some other form could keep h1 from becoming h2
and loosing the advantage of atomic heating uponcontact of the hydrogen

i use deuteriumheavy water and nickle plates to aquire hydrogen, and i keep getting
not normal events that defiy my knowledge base,my therory that the heavy water making heavy hydrogen finds a tritium pocket or that i for a moment I express
h1 hydrogen rather than h2 it could be mearly a pressure wave from water mist
im designing a dry ice box to dehydrate any mist and filtering with a pass thru filter
but dry ice is inconvieient to get every time i do a shot, im looking at a hilsch tube
that i can charge with air to take my mass flow to - 50 degrees

taataa gotta pic the kid up from colledge (im really proud)

i have to pick the

Re: nutrons like cows to the slaughter and thermalization

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:51 pm
by Richard Hull

Interesting and not interesting at the same time. The minute I hear Searl or Bedini or any other of the new age, new energy freaks out there mentioned in context with a theory or issue, I turn off the lights and go back to what I was doing before that was vastly more important; like petting my cats.

Richard Hull

Re: nutrons like cows to the slaughter and thermalization

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:54 pm
by 001userid
In most any clockwork orange path I venture, I often come back to these two simple questions:

Does gravity bend light and why?

One can bring forth ghostly dips or problems in the "fabric" of space and time, but this often leads further out on the limb.

Re: nutrons like cows to the slaughter and thermalization

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:58 pm
by DaveC
Does gravity bend light?.... This is what general relativity and geometrodynamics are all about. Einstein favored the direct extrapolation of Newton's classical physics that nothing changes direction unless acted on by an external force. This leads to Joe's question of why does "gravity" bend a light path. If a photon with finite energy, travels at c, then it can have no mass - moving or otherwise. Therefore, since "gravity" is some sort of attractive force between objects with mass, gravity should not affect the path of a light beam. Yet it does.

This lead to the concept that if there is no "force" between a mass and light, yet light deflects, then another explanation is needed. Einstein's approach was that matter bends space-time, through which light travels in a straight path, and is therefore perceived by the observer on the space-time "4 surface" as having been deviated.

I think, the most intriguing aspect of this theoretical approach is the surprising conclusion one is lead to, by simple logical extensions of known phenomena. This is what distinguished Einstein - the ability to construct what seemed to be required to accomodate facts.

The true and full story is no doubt stranger than what we have yet heard. Although, as Richard mentions, most likely it will not include the energy and forces gibberish that floats about, today .

Bilzer Blitzer, observes the interesting point that has been noted here before, that adding an electron to a proton, doesn't make a neutron.... it makes Hydrogen. Getting from a hydrogen atom to a neutron is something quite different.

Dave Cooper

Re: nutrons like cows to the slaughter and thermalization

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:07 pm
by Richard Hull
Getting from the proton and electron to a neutron is one of the most interesting of all questions that should be answered before any further nuclear extrapolations are made!

The neutron and its role in bulk matter cannot be overstated It is what matter is all about at some core level we have yet to apprehend or fully appreciate. The difference between the hydrogen atom and the neutron is the cross over science between quantum orbit limited chemistry and nuclear assemblage. The neutron is nature's first fusion and unlike all fusions afterward it abosrbs energy (endothermic) and is heavier than its constiuent parts. As such it is naturally unstable outside the nucleus as nature would have it be a hydrogen atom.

However, where it is created, (stellar furnaces under crushing pressures and temps), it is a natural to almost instantly bind with a proton for whatever reason you care to believe in and become stable deuterium. Once bound in matter it is difficult to dislodge so long as it is in a smaller number relative to its protonic associates.

Here is where a shell or ring model of the nucleus could prove useful.

I recently had the pleasure of reading my latest copy of the Common Sense Science Journal paper (Quarterly). I found it highly interesting that the scientists/theoreticians of the staff have come up with an interesting explanation for Inertia and Centrifugal forces strictly using electrodynamic forces to expalin both via mathematically probing and solving for an electrodynamic mass equivalence for these interactions!

They interestingly note that the idea of mass itself may not be a fundamental concept outside of electrodynamics! They further note that the conservation of mass might not be valid in this case allowing for a lot of interesting results down the road.

These guys are out there and working hard at it. Unfortunately for me, personally, they are just so deep into creationism, religious dogma, etc. that I often wish to just shut them out. However, their interesting ideas and results attract me and it is their science that is viewed as I let their chaff blow to the windward side of me.

These guys are Phd's and they do place their math right up front if you have the capability to follow it. They tend to save the "religous speak" for their editorials and it is rare that they include it in their actual proofs or mathematical threads.

It is not like them to have a mathematical proof underway and have the classic cartoon step "and then a miracle happens", followed by more equations.

I follow their work because it looks to common sense explanations in science as opposed to, oddly, miracle science. I think they look at the modern miracle, non- contact, non-causal science as replacing God and their religious beliefs. Whatever all this means, I follow their work for its core effort and like the harsh drill instructor in the movie "Full Metal Jacket", decrying the stupidity of one of his marine pukes in openly defying him, I can sympathize with his remark, "He might be stupid and ignorant, but he's got guts and guts is enough."

For their part, of course, they might look at me and call forth the biblical injunction, "Forgive him, oh Lord, for he knows not what he does"

Richard Hull