QUOTE (bar_room_physist+May 24 2012, 03:40 AM)
http://www.examiner.com/article/electricit...nces-validation
I so want this to work. That don't mean it does.
It's probably just another in a long series of press releases to get rubes um I mean 'investors'.
If it does work I will one of the first in line to buy one.
However. as usual they have no product to sell as of yet.
Probably because hydrinos below ground state hydrogen atoms are not real.
I so want this to work. That don't mean it does.
It's probably just another in a long series of press releases to get rubes um I mean 'investors'.
If it does work I will one of the first in line to buy one.
However. as usual they have no product to sell as of yet.
Probably because hydrinos below ground state hydrogen atoms are not real.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+May 23 2012, 10:40 PM)
http://www.examiner.com/article/electricit...nces-validation
I'm not qualified to evaluate these claims but some of you may be. I quoted a few excerpts below for easier review here.
"The cell invented to harness this clean energy source as electrical output is called a Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition (CIHT) electrochemical cell. The proprietary BlackLight Process creates a new primary source of energy by using catalysts to cause hydrogen atoms to transition to lower-energy states by allowing their electrons to fall to smaller radii around the nucleus, resulting in a release of energy that is intermediate between chemical and nuclear energies. The lower-energy, atomic hydrogen product formed by this process is called a Hydrino. The hydrogen atoms (2H) of H2O are extracted by the well-known process of electrolysis to serve as fuel to activate the cell. Then, H is converted to Hydrinos with a net release of multiple amounts of electricity than that of the activation wherein additional H2O is directly converted to Hydinos, oxygen, and electricity." [Source: http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/ ]
The next part below seemed a bit more fantastical than the part above:
"Based on a vast body of data, the Hydrino product is very likely the dark matter of the universe (left), a form of matter so stable and inert that it has defied identification over decades despite the astronomical observation that it accounts for almost all of the mass of the universe." [Source: http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/ ]
There's a lot more at the link I referenced if anyone wishes to look at it and comment.
Maxila
I'm not qualified to evaluate these claims but some of you may be. I quoted a few excerpts below for easier review here.
"The cell invented to harness this clean energy source as electrical output is called a Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition (CIHT) electrochemical cell. The proprietary BlackLight Process creates a new primary source of energy by using catalysts to cause hydrogen atoms to transition to lower-energy states by allowing their electrons to fall to smaller radii around the nucleus, resulting in a release of energy that is intermediate between chemical and nuclear energies. The lower-energy, atomic hydrogen product formed by this process is called a Hydrino. The hydrogen atoms (2H) of H2O are extracted by the well-known process of electrolysis to serve as fuel to activate the cell. Then, H is converted to Hydrinos with a net release of multiple amounts of electricity than that of the activation wherein additional H2O is directly converted to Hydinos, oxygen, and electricity." [Source: http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/ ]
The next part below seemed a bit more fantastical than the part above:
"Based on a vast body of data, the Hydrino product is very likely the dark matter of the universe (left), a form of matter so stable and inert that it has defied identification over decades despite the astronomical observation that it accounts for almost all of the mass of the universe." [Source: http://www.blacklightpower.com/business/business-summary/ ]
There's a lot more at the link I referenced if anyone wishes to look at it and comment.
Maxila
you know my big question is if this is true does this mean that the ground state of the hydrogen atom is lower than s? and if so does that mean that the Schrödinger equation is incorrect/incomplete?
*******edit
Great
apparently he has his own GUT to explain the phenomenon...even better i think he's an electric universe person using Maxwell.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/
*******edit
Great
apparently he has his own GUT to explain the phenomenon...even better i think he's an electric universe person using Maxwell.http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/
To be honst, I'm exhausted with reading stuff like this.
I read the entire Rossi paper and all of the rebutals and supporting arguments.
I also read the NASA "heavy electron" paper and presentation, which also seems viable on the surface, but may never be practical, and I'm just getting tired of all of this stuff and never knowing who to trust when it comes to future energy technology.
If you discard every claim somebody makes, you run the risk of never having the technology, particularly since any real world application realistically needs seed money to get a large enough operation going to do anything or refine the technology to commercial or industrial standards.
But if you believe every claim, or spend your time trying to prove or disprove them all, you'll pretty much do nothing else but that all day long and burn yourself out.
Who is smart enough AND unbiased enough to figure out every single flaw or truth in all of these theories?
Not the people on this site. Here everyone is so biased and prejudiced against anything not mainstream that it automatically gets reviled and discarded by most.
What if Rossi really has discovered a revolutionary reaction, but never gets the funding or the right minds to help make it practical, because everyone is so skeptical? The same could be said for that guy at NASA.
I read the entire Rossi paper and all of the rebutals and supporting arguments.
I also read the NASA "heavy electron" paper and presentation, which also seems viable on the surface, but may never be practical, and I'm just getting tired of all of this stuff and never knowing who to trust when it comes to future energy technology.
If you discard every claim somebody makes, you run the risk of never having the technology, particularly since any real world application realistically needs seed money to get a large enough operation going to do anything or refine the technology to commercial or industrial standards.
But if you believe every claim, or spend your time trying to prove or disprove them all, you'll pretty much do nothing else but that all day long and burn yourself out.
Who is smart enough AND unbiased enough to figure out every single flaw or truth in all of these theories?
Not the people on this site. Here everyone is so biased and prejudiced against anything not mainstream that it automatically gets reviled and discarded by most.
What if Rossi really has discovered a revolutionary reaction, but never gets the funding or the right minds to help make it practical, because everyone is so skeptical? The same could be said for that guy at NASA.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 25 2012, 02:54 PM)
If you discard every claim somebody makes, you run the risk of never having the technology, particularly since any real world application realistically needs seed money to get a large enough operation going to do anything or refine the technology to commercial or industrial standards.
But if you believe every claim, or spend your time trying to prove or disprove them all, you'll pretty much do nothing else but that all day long and burn yourself out.
That is why you look at the clues and make an informed decision.
Is the inventor open with their discovery? Do they have a clear mechanism of action?
If the inventor claims that they can't do this because someone might steal their idea, then that's a red flag. The patent system exists for this very reason.
If you have a world-changing invention, secrecy is the best way to kill your own idea.
But if you believe every claim, or spend your time trying to prove or disprove them all, you'll pretty much do nothing else but that all day long and burn yourself out.
That is why you look at the clues and make an informed decision.
Is the inventor open with their discovery? Do they have a clear mechanism of action?
If the inventor claims that they can't do this because someone might steal their idea, then that's a red flag. The patent system exists for this very reason.
If you have a world-changing invention, secrecy is the best way to kill your own idea.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 25 2012, 06:54 PM)
To be honst, I'm exhausted with reading stuff like this.
me too. so let me lay this on the table this is my honest opinion on the matter after reading horrendous amounts of competing theories and i honestly think i am unbiased.
I have no Problem with an electric universe and in fact the Lorentz ether theory is just as viable candidate for an explanation of the universe as GR.
I think that alot of the hoopla about GR is because it was hot on the heels on non-euclidean geometry which revolutionized our thinking about certain types of mathematics. In fact quantum vacuum theory describes space as being non-empty on extremely small scales.
Also (i'm soooo going get attacked for this but its true) the gravitational tensor in the EFE is nonsense mathematically. It does not conserve energy, Einstein invented a pseudo-tensor to satisfy the requirement of vanishing divergence. i.e. conservation of energy. It implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, however it has been proofed by Ricci and Levi-Civita in 1900 that such invariants do not exist , rendering the gravitational tensor to be incorrect from everything i understand about mathematics.
With all that said the maths of GR are far simpler than the Lorentz Ether Theory and until it is proven that we need the math to be more complicated, I personally would prefer to use curved spacetime as it just simply works.
me too. so let me lay this on the table this is my honest opinion on the matter after reading horrendous amounts of competing theories and i honestly think i am unbiased.
I have no Problem with an electric universe and in fact the Lorentz ether theory is just as viable candidate for an explanation of the universe as GR.
I think that alot of the hoopla about GR is because it was hot on the heels on non-euclidean geometry which revolutionized our thinking about certain types of mathematics. In fact quantum vacuum theory describes space as being non-empty on extremely small scales.
Also (i'm soooo going get attacked for this but its true) the gravitational tensor in the EFE is nonsense mathematically. It does not conserve energy, Einstein invented a pseudo-tensor to satisfy the requirement of vanishing divergence. i.e. conservation of energy. It implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, however it has been proofed by Ricci and Levi-Civita in 1900 that such invariants do not exist , rendering the gravitational tensor to be incorrect from everything i understand about mathematics.
With all that said the maths of GR are far simpler than the Lorentz Ether Theory and until it is proven that we need the math to be more complicated, I personally would prefer to use curved spacetime as it just simply works.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+May 26 2012, 03:21 AM)
me too. so let me lay this on the table this is my honest opinion on the matter after reading horrendous amounts of competing theories and i honestly think i am unbiased.
I have no Problem with an electric universe and in fact the Lorentz ether theory is just as viable candidate for an explanation of the universe as GR.
I think that alot of the hoopla about GR is because it was hot on the heels on non-euclidean geometry which revolutionized our thinking about certain types of mathematics. In fact quantum vacuum theory describes space as being non-empty on extremely small scales.
Also (i'm soooo going get attacked for this but its true) the gravitational tensor in the EFE is nonsense mathematically. It does not conserve energy, Einstein invented a pseudo-tensor to satisfy the requirement of vanishing divergence. i.e. conservation of energy. It implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, however it has been proofed by Ricci and Levi-Civita in 1900 that such invariants do not exist , rendering the gravitational tensor to be incorrect from everything i understand about mathematics.
With all that said the maths of GR are far simpler than the Lorentz Ether Theory and until it is proven that we need the math to be more complicated, I personally would prefer to use curved spacetime as it just simply works.
GR says the energy, momentum, and angular momentum are conserved over every segment of the objects natural path. Start on pg 1-5 with the Principle of Extremal Aging [Noether's theorem] through the derivations for energy, and momentum conservation to the derivation of the relativistic energy equation. Use the same method to derive for any curved spacetime geometry. Any metric solution to the EFE.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
Table 21 on pg F-13. Constants of the motion for energy, angular momentum for the Schwarzschild geometry are equations 18, 20. Constants of the motion for the Kerr geometry are equations 19, 21. You can proof these the same way they showed for flat spacetime.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf
The hoopla about GR: it's simple, elegant and does what it's meant to do.
I have no Problem with an electric universe and in fact the Lorentz ether theory is just as viable candidate for an explanation of the universe as GR.
I think that alot of the hoopla about GR is because it was hot on the heels on non-euclidean geometry which revolutionized our thinking about certain types of mathematics. In fact quantum vacuum theory describes space as being non-empty on extremely small scales.
Also (i'm soooo going get attacked for this but its true) the gravitational tensor in the EFE is nonsense mathematically. It does not conserve energy, Einstein invented a pseudo-tensor to satisfy the requirement of vanishing divergence. i.e. conservation of energy. It implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, however it has been proofed by Ricci and Levi-Civita in 1900 that such invariants do not exist , rendering the gravitational tensor to be incorrect from everything i understand about mathematics.
With all that said the maths of GR are far simpler than the Lorentz Ether Theory and until it is proven that we need the math to be more complicated, I personally would prefer to use curved spacetime as it just simply works.
GR says the energy, momentum, and angular momentum are conserved over every segment of the objects natural path. Start on pg 1-5 with the Principle of Extremal Aging [Noether's theorem] through the derivations for energy, and momentum conservation to the derivation of the relativistic energy equation. Use the same method to derive for any curved spacetime geometry. Any metric solution to the EFE.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter1.pdf
Table 21 on pg F-13. Constants of the motion for energy, angular momentum for the Schwarzschild geometry are equations 18, 20. Constants of the motion for the Kerr geometry are equations 19, 21. You can proof these the same way they showed for flat spacetime.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf
The hoopla about GR: it's simple, elegant and does what it's meant to do.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+May 25 2012, 10:21 PM)
me too. so let me lay this on the table this is my honest opinion on the matter after reading horrendous amounts of competing theories and i honestly think i am unbiased.
I have no Problem with an electric universe and in fact the Lorentz ether theory is just as viable candidate for an explanation of the universe as GR.
I think that alot of the hoopla about GR is because it was hot on the heels on non-euclidean geometry which revolutionized our thinking about certain types of mathematics. In fact quantum vacuum theory describes space as being non-empty on extremely small scales.
Also (i'm soooo going get attacked for this but its true) the gravitational tensor in the EFE is nonsense mathematically. It does not conserve energy, Einstein invented a pseudo-tensor to satisfy the requirement of vanishing divergence. i.e. conservation of energy. It implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, however it has been proofed by Ricci and Levi-Civita in 1900 that such invariants do not exist , rendering the gravitational tensor to be incorrect from everything i understand about mathematics.
With all that said the maths of GR are far simpler than the Lorentz Ether Theory and until it is proven that we need the math to be more complicated, I personally would prefer to use curved spacetime as it just simply works.
I think you’re right; however we should remember after a leap forward in our understanding that is of monumental significance, sometimes modification’s (improvements) to those leaps can be arduous. After Newton's equations of gravity (which were a monumental leap forward) it took a few centuries for an Einstein to come along and improve them (another monumental leap), and clues existed priori Newton’s equations may not be perfect.
When you take a step back and look at the big picture, like the issues you brought up and more, you certainly could make a case that Einstein’s monumental leap, just like Newton’s, may not be perfect, as great as it is. However I'm afraid it will likely be a long time before the next monumental leap is complete enough and significant enough to be accepted and improve upon Einstein’s contribution (if they wind up not being perfect after all), just like it was for improvements to Newton’s contribution before him.
Maxila
I have no Problem with an electric universe and in fact the Lorentz ether theory is just as viable candidate for an explanation of the universe as GR.
I think that alot of the hoopla about GR is because it was hot on the heels on non-euclidean geometry which revolutionized our thinking about certain types of mathematics. In fact quantum vacuum theory describes space as being non-empty on extremely small scales.
Also (i'm soooo going get attacked for this but its true) the gravitational tensor in the EFE is nonsense mathematically. It does not conserve energy, Einstein invented a pseudo-tensor to satisfy the requirement of vanishing divergence. i.e. conservation of energy. It implies the existence of a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, however it has been proofed by Ricci and Levi-Civita in 1900 that such invariants do not exist , rendering the gravitational tensor to be incorrect from everything i understand about mathematics.
With all that said the maths of GR are far simpler than the Lorentz Ether Theory and until it is proven that we need the math to be more complicated, I personally would prefer to use curved spacetime as it just simply works.
I think you’re right; however we should remember after a leap forward in our understanding that is of monumental significance, sometimes modification’s (improvements) to those leaps can be arduous. After Newton's equations of gravity (which were a monumental leap forward) it took a few centuries for an Einstein to come along and improve them (another monumental leap), and clues existed priori Newton’s equations may not be perfect.
When you take a step back and look at the big picture, like the issues you brought up and more, you certainly could make a case that Einstein’s monumental leap, just like Newton’s, may not be perfect, as great as it is. However I'm afraid it will likely be a long time before the next monumental leap is complete enough and significant enough to be accepted and improve upon Einstein’s contribution (if they wind up not being perfect after all), just like it was for improvements to Newton’s contribution before him.
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+May 29 2012, 05:39 PM)
I think you’re right; however we should remember after a leap forward in our understanding that is of monumental significance, sometimes modification’s (improvements) to those leaps can be arduous. After Newton's equations of gravity (which were a monumental leap forward) it took a few centuries for an Einstein to come along and improve them (another monumental leap), and clues existed priori Newton’s equations may not be perfect.
When you take a step back and look at the big picture, like the issues you brought up and more, you certainly could make a case that Einstein’s monumental leap, just like Newton’s, may not be perfect, as great as it is. However I'm afraid it will likely be a long time before the next monumental leap is complete enough and significant enough to be accepted and improve upon Einstein’s contribution (if they wind up not being perfect after all), just like it was for improvements to Newton’s contribution before him.
Maxila
Newton Law of Gravity has been falsified in it's domain of applicability. It's not Newton's fault since he didn't have all the information. Yet the theory has been falsified. GR has not been falsified in it's domain of applicability. Having a final theory of gravity for the classical domain of applicability is a good thing. What we don't have is a complete description for Quantum Gravity. It's domain of applicability is: the forces of nature are unified and r=0 [center of black holes].
When you take a step back and look at the big picture, like the issues you brought up and more, you certainly could make a case that Einstein’s monumental leap, just like Newton’s, may not be perfect, as great as it is. However I'm afraid it will likely be a long time before the next monumental leap is complete enough and significant enough to be accepted and improve upon Einstein’s contribution (if they wind up not being perfect after all), just like it was for improvements to Newton’s contribution before him.
Maxila
Newton Law of Gravity has been falsified in it's domain of applicability. It's not Newton's fault since he didn't have all the information. Yet the theory has been falsified. GR has not been falsified in it's domain of applicability. Having a final theory of gravity for the classical domain of applicability is a good thing. What we don't have is a complete description for Quantum Gravity. It's domain of applicability is: the forces of nature are unified and r=0 [center of black holes].
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.