There have been many books about the various forms, properties, and
effects of plasma. The tendency is to observe the spectacular and
define each as a separate and unique phenomena. The cause and effect
relationship is lost in the identification of each as separate forms
of plasma. The basic properties of plasma are modified by any
electrons made to flow through the plasma. The result is that plasma
can display spectacular properties not in any way related to the
plasma itself but to the effect on the plasma of external forces. The
plasma in an atomic explosion is the result of the extreme energy and
electron disruption. The plasma in the atmosphere of the sun is the
result of the temperature. However, the bombardment of electrons
passing through the plasma produces enormous temperatures, blurring
the cause and effect. A lightning bolt or a high voltage discharge
through air creates the heat to form the plasma but the continued rush
of electrons through the plasma creates the very high temperature (
millions of degrees). The plasma employed in the cutting of heavy
steel plate creates enormous heat when a strong stream of electrons is
pushed through the plasma. The enormous heat in the atmosphere of the
sun is created by the stream of electrons flowing from the core of the
sun and through the plasma of  atmosphere of the sun.
	 Most of the plasmas that we observe are the result of spectacular
events and we tend to associate these events with the development of
plasma. However, it was shown in experiments with the "Crookes" tube
that a plasma develops in a vacuum with no increase in temperature.
That is the experiment that defines a plasma. At reduced external
pressure the electron wanders away from the nucleus. The principal was
exploited by adding small amounts of inert gas to get the "neon" signs
that we see everywhere.
	 It seems however, that no one thought to re-examine the concept of
the atom that had been developed before that discovery and which was
clearly no longer valid.
	 The development of the plasma indicates two, separate, equal and
opposite forces as the basis of the atom. (attraction in the nucleus,
repulsion in the electron).

Cheers
Bob

--- In NuclearStructure@yahoogroups.com, "realscnc" <realscnc@m...> wrote:
>
> Protons are never seen to attract one another ..

___________________________
___________________________


On the contrary, Protons attract each other, just as often
as they repel!  Half the time they are attractive.

Just as gravity is repulsive half the time.

One needs to become an observer of nature, not a repeater
of the government school, media, indoctrination.

Protons do not come together in nuclei, into nucleon groups
through repulsion!  But through attraction.  See:

   http://freespeech.org/rapture/creation

Read up on the Ampere longitudinal 'force' -- for one
perspective.  Read up on plasma physics, plasma
filaments, cosmic electrodynamics -- as another way of
gaining insight into 'nature'.

[Not western consumer dogma.]



Millennium

To Jim Whitescarver
Thank you for your posting #346 July 19, 2003 About gravity, energy &
forces

The "theories" of light, magnetism, electron flow are not really
theories but "parables" Light is explained as a wave where convenient,
as a particle where convenient or as a photon where required. That is
not science that is technology. Magnets are described as a whole lot
of tiny magnets that form the complete magnet. That is not science
that is fairy tales. Semiconductor physics is described as electrons
falling into holes ?

I am aware that the electron is very elusive and I am not convinced
that the electron or positron are real particles but may only be
forces. However experiments have shown that the electron has mass
(about one / two thousandth of the mass of the proton).

I have used the equations and they are very effective. I will explain
why by a quote from my posting to "Medium".
They work well and are dependable.

To be fair you must realize how most of them were devised. The answers
from a large number of experiments were assembled and the
mathematicians devised the formulas and constants to accommodate the
results. Then the theory was expressed to reflect what was
interpreted. That is how we got for E M, first waves, then particles,
then photons. That is hardly the best of theoretical science. It seems
that theory is based on some interpretation of mathematical
calculations and perceived constants. It doesn't answer the `Why'
which could provide a better understanding of the processes"

There is an alternative scientific theory that accounts for all these
behaviors and much  more.  Does not require parables, fairy tales or
silly falling in holes, Has one theory that explains all the features
of light and all other E M . Accurately explains all the features of
electron flow including conductivity, resistance, and solid state
electronics. Logically and accurately explains magnetism. Explains the
details of radiation. Explains the development of the source of
radiation. That is already far more than our current theories explain
and if any contradiction with experimental results develops I would
like to hear of it.

Protons are never seen to attract one another. Very true but they are
found to associate in large numbers of protons in heavier atomic
materials. We can separate them into smaller groups by bombarding with
high speed neutrons but only the internal conditions of a star can
force them together. The important fact is that they are together and
they don't come apart very easily. We must deal with that. Neutrons
are neutral and they can quite easily pop out of nuclei. They are a
filler and there is no indication that they bond with protons. The
stability of nuclei indicates that there is a strong attraction
between protons. The reason that they are not seen to come together is
that except in the interior of a star the electrons that orbit offset
the attraction of the protons and preclude the protons coming
together. The removal of electrons is the key. Would you like to apply
that to the prospect of cold fusion?? Where there are only one or two
electrons to be concerned about.
You point out that I use basically the same terminology but attribute
different properties to electrons and positrons . That is the basic
difference. The properties attributed are what resolve all of the
anomalies of our current theories and clarify the issues.

	 The points are covered extensively in : http://www.mnsi.net/~realscnc

The technology and the formulas remain the same but the explanations
are more mature.
Cheers
Bob

..
..

there is no constancy to the speed of light,
nor limitation, either locally or cosmically.

whatever system of reference you use, superluminal
particle beams from AGN are still superluminal.

[nature is not constrained to our numbers or
formalisms ...]

those shockwaves of supernovae which are superluminal,
are superluminal no matter where you observe
them from.

the spin and twist velocities of the proton are
superluminal -- in all protons, and in all reference
frames.

we don't have an interest in institutional physics,
in disinfo or cointel or 'big brother programming'
on this list.

we do not accept discussions of western nonsense.

mindlessness has plenty of (other, elsewhere)
opportunities to regurgitate itself ...



millennium

moderator







..







.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

The biggest difference between the 19th and 21st century
is that the first proclaimed that the only motion was in the planets
with the rest being static and immutable. We now
proclaim there is no section of the cosmos that is
not in motion or there is no inertial frame of reference
nor is there a fixed center to the cosmos.
The motions we proclaim are the rotation of the
earth (not the sun going up and conming down).the earths
rotation around the sun in a spiral not a closed loop
like an oval: the suns rotation around the galaxy another
helix; the galaxies movement towards the great attractor
Our cluster of galaxies motion and like a Russian doll
seems occur over and over.
The constantcy of the speed of light is a local phenomana
where we have know and measure the fact that red light
travels faster that blue light. Like looking out an airplane
window our senses lie to us since it appears that the ground
below is moving where in fact it is the airplane that has the
real motion.
Joe

..
..

re: you pointed out nonsense of "charge and spin"
as "separate properties ..."


__________________________
__________________________


indeed, there ARE no separate properties.  and spin,
twist, torsion, propagation, contraction, undulation,
expansion, attraction, migration, repulsion, etc ARE what
experience, nature, aether, aenertia IS.

ubiquitous creation IS flux.


this is how you differentiate natural philosophers (live,
conscious, true scientists) from the institutional clone
physicists (braindead, disconnected, consumer nothings).

a clone regurgitates.

a natural philosopher, creates.


obviously this list, NuclearStructure, is for the
alive and respectful; those of global focus, and
connection to the divine ...

physics, aka nature ...





millennium





..







.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

...
...


the electron is 'stable', being matter,
yet very flexible, many topologies, and
easily broken.

it is the proton which is the stable
particle.


evidence to the structure of the electron
and proton are found in millions of documents
from the physics journals and textbooks.

the several hundred best references will
be found in the articles below, which
you can follow up to find thousands of
less focused articles.

  http://freespeech.org/rapture/electron
  http://freespeech.org/rapture/proton
  http://freespeech.org/rapture/proof
  http://freespeech.org/rapture/FTL
  http://freespeech.org/rapture/scarlet
  http://freespeech.org/rapture/creation


this discussion group, on NuclearStructure,
is strictly for the purpose of understanding,
refining, and extending the model of nuclear
structure from "The Undiscovered Physics" --
and the pre-requisite electron, proton, neutron
models which make up the nucleon groups.

there are no quarks in nature; no more
than a transitory collision on the freeway
produces assembly-line Fords or Hondas ...


for Mother Nature,




millennium twain

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AenertialAether/
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/SuperLuminal13





..







.



__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

--- In NuclearStructure@yahoogroups.com, AmaNoGawa <unamity@y...>
wrote:
> like=charges sometimes repel, sometimes attract,
> most of the time come into harmonic propagation
> and spin relationships -- stable --neither attracting nor repelling.

I think what is being said here is that ultimately forces balance
themselves so as to achieve a minimum energy density configuration.
This then may look like what is stated above. Don't forget that the
spin property of matter is always acting at the same time as the
charge property. In isolation like charges always repel, but we
seldom have this condition.


> but you would have to first have knowledge
> of what charge IS, and the dynamic STRUCTURE
> of charge -- before it can be discussed ..
>

Don't forget to include spin as well. It seems charge and spin are
seperate properties but intimately coupled.

> see the CHARGE illustration, electron is POSITIVE
> inside, at the PHOTOS page at:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NuclearStructure/
> we are here to connect with divine NATURE!
> millennium

I do not see any evidence that electrons are positive inside.
Electrons are the most stable of all matter, probably three
dimensional quarks. No evidence of positive innards at all!!

Marts L.

..
..


like=charges sometimes repel, sometimes attract,
most of the time come into harmonic propagation
and spin relationships -- stable --

neither attracting nor repelling.

but you would have to first have knowledge
of what charge IS, and the dynamic STRUCTURE
of charge -- before it can be discussed ..

see the CHARGE illustration, electron is POSITIVE
inside, at the PHOTOS page at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NuclearStructure/

we are here to connect with divine NATURE!



millennium






..





.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

Hi Bob and Jim,

Like charges do repel each other.  This is an established fact.  But what
you are referring to is a second type of charge.  There is the electrostatic
charge, denoted as the elementary charge, and then there is the
electromagnetic charge, which is also the strong nuclear force.  I have
mathematically proved that there are two distinct types of charges.  In
fact, out of this observation I have developed a completely revamped version
of Quantum Physics.  The theory is so successful that it has already
produced a simple, mathematically correct Unified Field Theory.

You can read a simple explanation of the mathematics of the two charges at:
http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm

I'm sure you will find this explanation to your satisfaction.

Dave

Jim Whitescarver

	 Thank you so much for taking the effort to enumerate the items that
conflict with certain well accepted opinion.
	 The concept of "like charges ( or like anything else )" repel each
other was well established out of ancient Greece and ancient Egypt. It
was the result of observations of some simple experiments that have
little relevance in a scientific context. There are now much more
sophisticated experiments that show that the concept is simply not
true. I wonder how many BILLIONS of people have believed without
significant proof or even evidence and without investigating the
matter themselves. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE and I can go into some of the
evidence as we go along. Neither do protons repel each other. They are
attracted with very strong force because of there proximity in the
nucleus. There appears to be an anomaly that is easily explained. As
long as the protons are separated by sufficient space or can be
separated by sufficient space for an electron to pass between, the
protons will not be attracted to each other and may split into
separate atoms.
	 Electrons are not swept away by repulsion. They can be swept away by
friction - raindrops  dropping through the air, a brush through hair
or by radiation that strikes certain surfaces. The fact is they are
not too securely attached. The ions or free electrons are what is
formed when they are swept away.
	 The high energy `solar wind' is associated with the violent ELECTRO
magnetic storms that strike our upper atmosphere. They take from four
to six hours to reach the earth from the sun indicating that they are
fast moving PARTICLES. Their effect on our upper atmosphere indicates
that they are ELECTRONS and if they were any other type of particle
(which they are not) they would be extremely dangerous for our
satellites.
	 So it seems that the solar wind is ELECTRONS ONLY , that they
permanently leave the sun and that we underestimate the amount of
debris falling in.
	 I do not accept the conversion of mass to energy. Neither mass nor
energy are adequately defined in science and the concept of a fusion
reaction being cause rather than effect of the output of energy is
extremely doubtful.

Fountains of Fire Illuminate Solar Mystery


It has been known for many years that the outer reaches of the sun's
corona is much hotter - 300 times hotter than the sun's visible surface.

The "Fountains of Fire" or solar flares are a dramatic illustration of
many features and properties of "Energy". It seems strange that
contemporary scientists would have such a poor understanding of the
concept of energy when some of the answers are so obvious.

Where does this heat come from ?

More important, just what is this heat? When we know what heat is we
might start to understand where it originates and just what those
readings mean. In spite of the conventional wisdom that the sun's
energy output is generated in an internal nuclear fusion reaction we
will see that most of the energy output is in the atmosphere of the
sun. That is why the sun does not explode like a giant nuclear bomb.

The sun is continuously accumulating material. As it does the enormous
and increasing internal pressure forces large quantities of electrons
from their orbits in the deep interior. The electrons move toward the
surface, depending on the resistance of the material of the sun, in
the normal manner with little energy emission. However, when they
reach the surface they encounter less inhibition from surrounding
matter and the repulsion of the electrons becomes paramount. Each
electron is being pushed by those behind so that there is a rapid
acceleration of the electrons. The accelerating electrons carry
significant amounts of atmospheric gasses along for a time. At about
300,000 miles the less dense atmosphere allows the atmospheric gasses
to fall back and the electrons to continue on to raise havoc with
targets and electronic equipment millions of miles away.

So what is this energy? - heat? Is it a commodity that must come from
somewhere? No!! The temperature and heat that we sense is the
acceleration and velocity of the electrons moving in extremely
eccentric elliptical orbits around atomic nuclei through the
atmosphere of the sun. It originates in the inherent property of
repulsion possessed by each electron and their close proximity to each
other as they emerge from the interior of the sun. The repulsion of
the electrons in the fountain stream accelerates the electrons to a
very high velocity and extremely eccentric highly elliptical orbits.

In summary, heat/energy is not a commodity, it is a movement of
electrons that can be generated by the electrons themselves and it is
highly unlikely to be interchangeable with "mass" or inertia.

A very similar phenomena can be demonstrated by a very high voltage
current passing through a good conductor. The tremendous power moving
through the conductor has a very limited effect over a very short
distance. But if the electrons leave the conductor to move through the
less dense atmosphere the electronic effect can be felt miles away.

Are we beginning to perceive the impact of the electrons ability to
project through space its repulsion and thereby its movement?.
	 My opinions are supported by the data and very CONSISTENT application
of all basic classical rules of science. By contrast contemporary
science is more exceptions and inconsistencies than of rules. I know
you are aware that even Einstein knew that the correct answers would
be simple rather than complex.
	 It is fair to give credit to all early scientists for the enormous
work they have done and on which we can base our more appropriate
theories. However it is time to realize that many hypothesis suggested
by Einstein and others were probably tongue in cheek to see how the
scientific community would respond. I am sure he was embarrassed at
some of the things the scientific community accepted without question.
Cheers
Bob

Gravity - Source & Explanation

	 It is said that Einstein spent the last forty year of his life
searching for an explanation of "Gravity" and a unification of forces.
We know now that if he had lived another forty years he would not have
discovered the answer because of the methods he was using. His
approach of looking at the big picture by observing and measuring the
forces as he found them in the sun, planets and apples was equivalent
to the cave man looking for the identification of the components of a
rock by crushing it to a fine powder. Only when chemists started to
apply specific chemicals to segregate the components into identifiable
specific ingredients did we begin to perceive the true components of
matter.
	 Why have physicists ignored or distorted the basic forces so obvious
in the components of the atom. There are too many obvious indications
of repulsion by and of electrons to even try to list them. There is
something called by scientists"Binding"of the components of the
nucleus. Is this binding twine, wire, duct tape or elastic?. It is
essentially a misinterpretation of the facts. The components of the
nucleus are as close as they can get if not touching. If distance is
indeed a determinant of the strength of a force the proximity of the
protons should result in maximum effect. In addition it is well known
that if sufficient force is applied to separate the protons by even
the equivalent of the radius of the orbit of the electrons the atom
permanently splits into different elements, again indicating that
distance is a factor and that the repulsion of the electron is an
equivalent force. There is absolutely no justification for not
acknowledging that the electron is a force of repulsion and the proton
is a force of attraction that are EQUAL AND OPPOSITE. The proton
itself is a composite that is closely related to the neutron which is
made up of some thousand attractions - positrons and an equal number
of repulsions - electrons for a neutral item that neither attracts nor
repulses. The proton is the equivalent of the neutron with one
electron missing - a net attraction of one unit. I don't believe that
any of the above can be legitimately disputed.. However that is only
the beginning. The consistent application without exception of
classical rules of motion, distance, and forces is necessary to
realize the implications.
	 I must refer to the current suggestion that Gravity is a `push' or
repulsion force. How can we justify an enormous push force from a
distant - light years away - unknown source rather than the attraction
from a very formidable known source at close proximity?
	 Since the proton is normally accompanied by the electron there is no
net external attraction displayed. However, the electron can be
displaced, which leaves a net attraction of the nucleus which is
essentially the beginning of gravity and the loss of mass associated
with the departure of the electron. ( not the conversion of mass to
energy )
	 Although the application of forces of one kind or the other can cause
the displacement of electrons the proximity of atoms in a significant
mass will encourage electrons to rise to the surface where they may be
swept away leaving a net attraction or gravity.
	 The above result is an unstable level of gravity. However when we are
dealing with significantly larger mass we see a permanent displacement
of electrons due to internal pressures which results in a gradual
irreversible increase in gravity. Gravity is the result of the
displacement and departure of electrons and is the measure of the
number of electrons that have departed. Gravity related to mass???
Energy the result of the conversion of mass to energy??? The loss of
mass is directly related to the departure of electrons - approximately
one / 5000 of the mass of atoms from which electrons have departed.
	 Finally scientists have confirmed that the major climatic changes on
our earth are the result of increased or decreased radiation from our
sun (and surroundings). There is a vague reference to the movement of
the solar system through space as a source of the changing level of
radiation.
	 The fact is that there are vast amounts of space debris, gasses and
dust. The fact is that this space debris is not evenly distributed in
space. The fact is that our sun is not a dying burnt out star. It is a
living, growing, mass that is continually augmented by this space
debris at constantly changing rates. The escaping electrons represent
the energy emitted and the remaining protons represent the constantly
increasing gravity.
	 I find it hard to believe that though physicists know that there is
significant space debris available and that any debris that crashes
into the sun will create enormous energy that is known to be variable
in accordance with debris availability that they should cling to the
creationist theory that the sun was born and is dying. It probably
started as a chunk of space debris ( rock) smaller than our moon and
just as frigid. A few billion years can make a big difference.
	 It turns out that two very basic tenets of science are B.S. :
1. That the mass of the sun was "born" and is being burnt out -
accompanied by the suggested cooling, expansion and collapse.
2. That the energy output of the sun is from the conversion of mass to
energy.

Cheers
Bob 	 realscnc@...

Hi Guys,

It is time to do a Lavoisier and attack the accepted atomic theory,
because it, like phlogiston, does not stand up to scientific
scrutiny, and despite the propaganda of scientific zealots pushing
idle constructs like quantum theory to force the delinquent belief
into science and make them work, they do so without means and
mechanism, accepting scientific mysteries, contradictions, exceptions-
to-the-rule, speculation and notions as fact.

However, a light shines at the end of the tunnel...
There is one site that is attempting to kick start the sciences.
To bring the sciences into one with Nature

Please check out
http://www.froggy.com.au/aether

Site prompts lead to the authors other sites for more background
info. and greater attacks.

Einstein really stuffed it up!
So did Lorentz, and many others including Maxwell, because they based
theory on Benjamin Franklin's notions and Newton's errors. Both
based their beliefs on the Ancient Greek philosophies....

Hello. did the Ancient Greeks have the equipment to prove the case?
NO!
So why treat people who made mistakes as better than anyone else?

Did researchers like Rutherford possess a scanning tunnelling
electron microscope? NO! So how could the conclusions reached be
proven when that device shows matter as capable of transferring
massive alpha particles through metal foils without using fatuous and
un-natural principles that challenge electrical theory and orbital
motion?

Did radar exist in Einstein's day? Only at the end of it, 40 years
after Einstein lampooned it with his fatuous theory.
What about Doppler Radar... NO!!!!How can one accept the
contradiction between his theory expressing the time dilation effect
and REAL observations involving matter's response reactions?

SCIENCE NEEDS TO MAKE CORRECTIONS NOW...because
95% of scientific theory is a load of hogwash.

Check out the facts!

Raub

Wow, is right.  Thanks for the link.

Dave

> http://www.anth.org.uk/NCT/path.htm

..


.



http://www.anth.org.uk/NCT/path.htm




.








..

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

thanks David,

you are correct, re: electron is ring and not-ring!

the "Undiscovered Physics" is quite clear.

the electron takes on MANY many geometries,
as do the Lissajous figures; not only a ring.

http://www.keypress.com/sketchpad/java_gsp/lissa.html
http://www.math.com/students/wonders/lissajous/lissajous.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LissajousCurve.html

and though we simplify the ILLUSTRATION of it as
a Lissajous figure -- clearly the electron EM field
vortex is neither linear, nor two dimensional,
nor even three-dimensional (in the static sense).

my predecessors, who did not know or care what charge
is, nor mass, nor energy -- created ring and similar
models of the electrons.  but they never looked at
the phenomena, in electrical engineering, in plasma
physics, or human experience -- they simply looked to
fit differing favorite nonsensical mathematical formalisms
that used zeros, points, infinities ... non-sequitars ...

the Wesley/Bergman electron model for example!
[and these, our friends, are amongst the VERY best people
in the field ... at least the PUBLIC physic sector.]

as soon as I get this Mathematica program up and
running -- and can do some gee-whiz illustrations of
the proton (showing the meaning and origin of the
fine-structure constant, 1/137) -- then we can take
the next logical step in illustration, and show the whole
field domain, at ALL radii in the vortex electron and proton.

warm regards,



millennium

http://www.freespeech.org/rapture/electron
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AfterGravity/lst

http://www.freespeech.org/rapture/proton
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/NuclearStructure/lst
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AenertialAether/lst

http://www.freespeech.org/rapture/proof
http://www.freespeech.org/rapture/creation
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Shekinahguild/lst

...





..



__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

Hi Millennium,

The electron cannot have a fixed radius if it is a ring.  A ring electron
must be able to fit a hydrogen atom as well as a uranium atom.

I contend that the length dimensions of angular momentum in h refer to the
surface area of the electron scanned by the mass.  I agree that it produces
a ring, but the ring is capable of changing radius by shrinking or expanding
the small radius of the toroid (ring) as needed.  The key is that the
electron has a fixed surface area, not a fixed radius.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: millennium [mailto:unamity@...]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:55 PM
> To: Dr Phillip Kanarev
> Cc: NPA_Dissidents@egroups.com; greenglow@yahoogroups.com;
> AenertialAether@yahoogroups.com; QuantumCavorite@yahoogroups.com;
> usa-tesla@yahoogroups.com; Femtotechnology@yahoogroups.com;
> NuclearStructure@yahoogroups.com; jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com;
> TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com;
> gravitationalAnomalies@yahoogroups.com; Cold_Fusion@...;
> COLD_FUSION_GROUP@yahoogroups.com; COLD_FUSION_FORUM@yahoogroups.com;
> fusor-construction@yahoogroups.com; sono-fusion@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NuclearStructure] revised page 39 of Hydrogen Atom ...
>
>
> hi Phillip!
>
> I corrected two typos.  Here is corrected page
> from "A New Study In Scarlet".  [Attached.]
>
> I have also corrected the page on the website:
>
>  http://free.freespeech.org/rapture/scarlet/REDp39.html
>
> Would you like to start your model of the proton now?
>
> You never had time to make a fundamental model of the
> proton.  It will be interesting to see how close your
> model comes to mine!
>
> I know you don't like to get the old institutional
> physicists, the 'old boys', upset!  But you were brave
> enough to tell a LOT of the truth, about the structure
> of the electron, and the spectra of the hydrogen atom.
>
> And look at Milo Wolff -- nearly 90 -- and willing
> to tell more truth than nearly anyone!
>
> http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/book/06.html
>
> It seems the world is ready for a little more truth
> now.  Our world family is growing.  And we are one
> 'commonwealth' across the Atlantic ...
>
> Best wishes colleague,
>
>
>
> Millennium
>
> http://free.freespeech.org/rapture/scarlet/REDp39.html
>
>
> now in our 58th day of global fasting
> for world peace ...
>
> http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/worldfast
>
> ...
>
> satyagraha -- fasting protest ...
>
> Gandhi named this concept of action: "satyagraha"
> (combining the Hindu words for "truth"
> and "holding firmly.")
>
>
>
>
>
> ..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> __________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
> http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> NuclearStructure-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

hi Phillip!

I corrected two typos.  Here is corrected page
from "A New Study In Scarlet".  [Attached.]

I have also corrected the page on the website:

  http://free.freespeech.org/rapture/scarlet/REDp39.html

Would you like to start your model of the proton now?

You never had time to make a fundamental model of the
proton.  It will be interesting to see how close your
model comes to mine!

I know you don't like to get the old institutional
physicists, the 'old boys', upset!  But you were brave
enough to tell a LOT of the truth, about the structure
of the electron, and the spectra of the hydrogen atom.

And look at Milo Wolff -- nearly 90 -- and willing
to tell more truth than nearly anyone!

http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/book/06.html

It seems the world is ready for a little more truth
now.  Our world family is growing.  And we are one
'commonwealth' across the Atlantic ...

Best wishes colleague,



Millennium

http://free.freespeech.org/rapture/scarlet/REDp39.html


now in our 58th day of global fasting
for world peace ...

http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/worldfast

...

satyagraha -- fasting protest ...

Gandhi named this concept of action: "satyagraha"
(combining the Hindu words for "truth"
and "holding firmly.")





..







.

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Bob,

It's great to see posts like yours.  We're working to the same ends.

I have so much to share on this list I really don't know where to begin.  I
suppose I could introduce my web site at www.tshankha.com.  I could also say
that I have been developing a completely revamped system of physics,
complete with bona fide mathematics, for describing the Aether and the
physical Universe.

I agree with you that the concept of waves with subatomic particles is
meaningless.  I have found that at the subatomic level, there is no physical
existence.  Everything exists in a primal state that I call primary angular
momentum.  When we start seeing electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons as
primary angular momentum, then everything starts making perfect sense.

In fact, in my system of physics there is no wave-particle duality issues.
This is because there are no waves and no particles, just primary angular
momentum.  But for the sake of communicating with physicists, I still refer
to the electron, proton, neutron and photon as particles.  It's just that
they are particles of primary angular momentum.

Waves and particles are concepts physicists use to describe the subatomic
realm.  But the subatomic realm apparently has a different way of describing
itself through mathematics.

Take a look at my page on angular momentum
http://www.tshankha.com/angular_momentum.htm

I discuss the actions of absorption, emission, and pair production of
photons in terms of angular momentum and completely bypass the need for
describing light as a wave.

Dave

Waves

	 I would like to follow the logic of the many theories that abound in
the scientific community. However, the inconsistent analysis of
"Waves" drives me bonkers - "Waves are the source of everything",
"this is a frequency universe" Just what is a wave???? It is nothing
more than a movement of a something, otherwise it is a nothing. It
must have a cause - a movement of a something causes a rhythmic
movement of a something else. A wave exists only if it involves a
movement of a something.
	 Yes the phi-waves are there all the time. They are the result of the
circular orbit of the electrons around the nuclei. As long as they
remain circular they are essentially meaningless as you suggested. It
is only when the orbit is distorted by an exterior force that it has
the opportunity to communicate that distortion of orbit by "Radiation"
to other orbiting electrons. We must step back and realize that there
is energy only when it is communicated. This analysis of energy by
`kinetic or potential' although useful for engineering purposes is
meaningless for science. Although we are aware of the potential for
the radiation of energy in a bomb of uranium or plutonium for
engineering purposes should we for scientific purposes treat it as
potential energy? No! The same argument would apply for a mixture of
sulfur, carbon and nitrate in gun powder, or carbon and oxygen in a
heater.


	 The commoditization of energy was one of many serious errors of
science. The potential for the radiation of energy is not inherent in
the materials. A plutonium bomb only works if the quantity and shape
are properly manipulated, the ingredients of gun powder are only
explosive if properly mixed in the correct proportions. The same
analysis applies to the potential energy of position relative to
gravity. For scientific purposes it is meaningless to impart to a
material or to its surroundings on any other pretext a potential
energy of acceleration due to gravity. Any energy output will be
related to the surrounding gravity forces at any particular time. A
variable and undefined quantity.
	 The above analysis is not meant to denigrate the analysis of specific
circumstance for engineering purposes which obviously are very useful.
However, I think it would serve both engineering and science to
eliminate the mysticism surrounding energy.
Cheers
Bob

have always wondered how the undefined force from an undefined source
could be given credit for causing inertia, moving planets, producing
waves which can push pull or do nothing, or result in an undefined
radiation.
	 It seems that `Charles F. Brush: "Kinetic theory of Gravitation"
March 23,1911 as linked to:
http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush~1.htm    might be the source of
the opinions.
	 I find it strange that the two most important properties of sub
atomic particles that have been discovered and defined by youths of
all ages from six to eighty should be treated with such condescension,
  scorn, disdain, dismissed and replaced with such speculative nonsense
by Charles F. Brush and his colleagues.
	 I would rather not tear the remains of Mr. Brush to pieces argument
by argument but I would  prefer that someone explain why the
discoveries of a six year old that has performed a valid experiment
with a comb and his hairy dog and analyzed the results of the
experiment to define the only two forces of the universe - attraction
and repulsion should not be given the same respect as an adult
dreamer's fantasy.
	 Why is it that normally intelligent adults will ignore the
observation, identification and analysis of the smallest and most
basic manifestation and attempt to solve the problem by studying a
monstrous star far beyond reach.
Sincerely
Bob

..

no quarks or gluons ...

quarks, in ALL experiments, are made FROM protons,
not vice versa ... transient trash ...

and quarks are not real entities, no more so than
a pile of debris, when a hundred-car-pileup is 'created'
on the motorway ...

quarks are transient 'dust' ... for the 'dustbin' of
history -- created for a 20th century consumer world which
was addicted to 'fast' garbage and faster nonsense.

superluminal proton -- 1/8th the electron radius!!

faster than 'garbage' ...

faster than coIntel ..




millennium

[if anyone wants to forward this to the hydrino group,
I know there are members there who would love to follow
this up ...]


http://freespeech.org/rapture/proton
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/NuclearStructure/lst
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AenertialAether/lst

____________________________________
____________________________________

References for Chapter 2, Proton & Neutron


1) Thomas G.Barnes, "New Proton and Neutron Models," Creation Research
Society Quarterly, Volume 17, June 1980, pages 42-47

2) Michio Nishioka and Ruggero Maria Santilli, "Use of Hadronic
Mechanics for a Characterization of the Shape of the Proton," Physics
Essays, V5N2, 1992, pages 44-46

3) Milo Wolff, "Fundamental Laws, Microphysics, and Cosmology," Physics
Essays, V6N2, 1993, pages 181-203

4) Milo Wolff, "Exploring the Physics of the Unknown Universe,"
Technotran Press, 1600 Nelson, Manhattan Beach CA 90266, 1990

5) David L.Bergman, "Spinning Charged Ring Model of Elementary
Particles," Galilean Electrodynamics, V2N2, March/April 1991

6) Vernon Brown, "The Photonic Theory of Everything," Photon Theory
Update, June 1994; Photonics, Box 1351, Cabot AR 72723

7) Michael C.Birse, "Soliton Models for Nuclear Physics," page 15,
Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, V25, 1990

8) R.H.Davis, "Proton," Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd ed, Van Nostrand,
1974

9) A.Enders and G.Nimtz, "On Superluminal Barrier Traversal," J.Phys.I
France 2, pages 1693-1698, Sept 1992; "Photonic-Tunneling Experiments,"
Physical Review B, V47N15, pages 9605-9609, 15 April 1993; "Zero-Time
Tunneling of Evanescent Mode Packets," J.Phys.I France 3, pages
1089-1092, May 1993; "Evanescent-Mode Propagation and Quantum
Tunneling," Physical Review E, V48N1, pages 632-634, July 1993; and
H.Spieker, "Photonic Tunneling Times," J.Phys.I France 4, p 565-570,
April 1994

10) Harold Aspden, "A Theory of Proton Creation," Physics Essays V1N2,
pages 72-76, 1988

11) Arthur Stanley Eddington, "Fundamental Theory," Cambridge
University Press, 1949

12) James Carter, "The Other Theory of Physics," Universal Expansion
Press, 29500 Green River Gorge Road, Franklin WA 98022, 1994

13) "Review of Particle Properties," Physical Review D (Particles and
Fields), V45N11, 1 June 1992

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Additional (Chronological) Bibliography Related to Nucleon Structure


J.Robert Oppenheimer, "On the Theory of Electrons and Protons,"
Physical Review, V35, pages 562-, 1930

I.I.Rabi, J.M.B.Kellogg, and J.R.Zacharias, "The Magnetic Moment of the
Proton," Physical Review, V46, pages 157-163, 1934

J.Chadwick and M.Goldhaber, "The Nuclear Photoelectric Effect,"
[Journal?], Vol CLI.--A., 1 Oct 1935

J.M.B.Kellogg, I.I.Rabi, and J.R.Zacharias, "The Gyromagnetic
Properties of the Hydrogens," Physical Review, V50, pages 472-481, 1
Sept 1936

I.Estermann, O.C.Simpson, and O.Stern, "The Magnetic Moment of the
Proton," Physical Review, V52, pages 535-545, 15 Sept 1937

H.Snell and L.C.Miller, "On the Radioactive Decay of the Neutron,"
Physical Review, V74, pages 1271-1272 (abstract), 1948

J.A.Hipple, H.Sommer, and H.A.Thomas, "A Precise Method for Determining
the Faraday by Magnetic Resonance," Physical Review, Vol 76, pages
1877-1878, letter, (either 15 Nov, or 15 Dec), 1949

J.M.Robson, "Radioactive Decay of the Neutron," Physical Review, V78,
pages 311-312, 1950

D.Norman Craig and James I.Hoffman, "A New Method for Determining the
Value of the Faraday," Physical Review, V78, pages?, letter, 1950

H.A.Thomas, R.L.Driscoll, and J.A.Hipple, "Measurement of the Proton
Moment in Absolute Units," Physical Review, V78N6, pages 787-790, 15
June 1950

C.D.Jeffries, "A Direct Determination of the Magnetic Moment of the
Proton in Units of the Nuclear Magneton," Physical Review, V81N6, pages
1040-1055, 15 March 1951
J.M.Robson, "The Radioactive Decay of the Neutron," Physical Review,
V83N2, pages 349-358, 15 July 1951

J.H.Gardner, "Measurement of the Magnetic Moment of the Proton in Bohr
Magnetons," Physical Review, V83N5, pages 996-1004, 1 Sept 1951

S.H.Koenig, A.G.Prodell, and P.Kusch, "The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of
the Electron," Physical Review, V88N2, pages 191-199, 15 Oct 1952

John M.Blatt and Victor F.Weisskopf, "Theoretical Nuclear Physics,"
John Wiley, 1952

Robert E.Marshak, "Meson Physics," Dover, 1952

O.H.Blackwood, T.H.Osgood, A.E.Ruark, "An Outline of Atomic Physics,"
3rd edition, John Wiley, 1953

Robert Beringer and Mark A.Heald, "Electron Spin Moment in Atomic
Hydrogen," Physical Review, V95N6, pages 1474-1481, 15 Sept 1954

Robley D.Evans, "The Atomic Nucleus," McGraw-Hill, 1955

Peter Franken and Sidney Liebes, "Magnetic Moment of the Proton in Bohr
Magnetons," Physical Review, pages 1197-1198, letter, 1956 or 1957

F.J.Ernst, R.G.Sachs, and K.C.Wali, "Electromagnetic Form Factors of
the Nucleon," Physical Review, V119N3, pages 1105-1114, 1 Aug 1960

Sydney D.Drell and F.Zachariasen, "Electromagnetic Structure of
Nucleons," Oxford University Press, 1961

H.D.Bush, "Atomic and Nuclear Physics: Theoretical Principles,"
Prentice-Hall, 1962 Robert Hofstadter, "Structure of Nuclei and
Nucleons," Science, 136, pages 1013-1022, 1962, (10 December 1961 Nobel
Address)

Robert Hofstadter, "Electron Scattering and Nuclear and Nucleon
Structure," W.A.Benjamin, 1963, [Contains full reprints of 83 papers
published between 1928 and 1962]

Henry A.Boorse and Lloyd Motz, eds, "The World of the Atom," V1&2,
Basic Books, 1966 [Contains reprints, or portions thereof, of 95 papers
published between 1600 and 1965]

Harald A.Enge, "Introduction to Nuclear Physics," Addison-Wesley, 1966

I.E.McCarthy, "Introduction to Nuclear Theory," John Wiley, 1968

P.T.Matthews, "The Nuclear Apple: Recent Discoveries in Fundamental
Physics," St.Martin's Press, 1971

Herbert Jehle, "Flux Quantization and Fractional Charges of Quarks,"
Physical Review D, V11N8, pages 2147-2177, 15 April 1975

G.Badurek, H.Rauch, A.Zeilinger, W.Bauspiess, and U.Bonse, "Phase-Shift
and Spin-Rotation in Neutron Interferometry," Physical Review D, V14N5,
pages 1177-1181, 1 September 1976

Alan D.Krisch, "The Spin of the Electron," Scientific American, May
1979

Herbert Jehle, "Topological Characterization of Leptons, Quarks and
Hadrons," Physics Letters, V104B N3, pages 207-211, 27 August 1981

G.Badurek, H.Rauch, and D.Tuppinger, "Neutron Interferometric
Double-Resonance Experiment," Physical Review A, V34N4, pages
2600-2608, October 1986

W.Weise, "Chiral Dynamics of Nuclear Constituents: Non-linear Meson
Theory and Nucleon Structure," Progress of Theoretical Physics
Supplement, N91, pages 99-135, 1987

Robert Hofstadter, "Electron Scattering and Nucleon and Nuclear
Structure," Australian Physicist, V24N10, pages 236-241, November 1987

M.M.Islam, "Nucleon Structure: From High Energy Elastic Scattering and
Nonlinear Sigma-Model," Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Elastic and Diffractive Scattering: Elastic and
Diffractive Scattering 2; pages 251-261; Gif Sur Yvette, France;
Editions Frontieres, 1988

"Nuclear and Particle Physics Source Book," McGraw-Hill, 1988

A.Ouraou, "An Analysis of Higher-Twist Contributions in the Proton
Structure Functions," Nuclear Physics B, Proceedings Supplements, Vol
78, pages 146-152, May 1989

Reinhold Gerharz, "A Relationship Between Magnetic Moment and Particle
Radius," Physics Essays V2N3, pages 234-236, 1989

A.Hosaka, H.Toki, and W.Weise, "Chiral Bag with Vector Mesons," Nuclear
Physics A, Vol A506, No.3-4, pages 501-531, 15-22 January 1990

Harry J.Lipkin, "The Shell Model Approach -- Key to Hadron Structure?"
Nuclear Physics A, Vol A507, No.1, pages 205-218, 29 January 1990

Chr.V.Christov, E.Ruiz Arriola, and K.Goeke, "Properties of the Nucleon
in the Nuclear Medium within a Chiral Quark-Meson Theory," Nuclear
Physics A510, pages 689-712, 1990

R.G.Roberts, "The Structure of the Proton," Cambridge University Press,
1990
Harry J.Lipkin, "Ga/Gv, Magnetic Moments and the Spin of the Proton,"
Physics Letters B, V251N4, pages 613-617, 29 November 1990

Daniel H.Deutsch, "Electromechanical Models of the Electron, Proton,
Neutron and Neutrino," Physics Essays V4N1, pages 3-12, 1991

I.A.Savin et al, "Influence of the Nuclear Medium on the Structure of
Bound Nucleons," Soviet Journal of Particles and Nuclei, V22N5, pages
489-519, Sept/Oct 1991

Antoine Hautot, and AndrĪ Hautot, "The Quantization of Material
Elementary Particles and Application to the Neutron and Proton,"
Physics Essays, V5N1, pages 90-96, 1992

Jan C.A.Boeyens, "The Geometry of Quantum Events," Speculations in
Science and Technology, V##N#, pages 192-210, 1992?

Erasmo Recami and Vilson T.Zanchin, "A Geometric Approach to Elementary
Particles and 'Strong Gravity'," Preprint, circa 1992

D.Choudbury, P.J.O'Donnell, and U.Sarkar, "Magnetic Moments and the
Proton Structure Function," Zeitschrift fur Physik C (Particles and
Fields), V54N2, pages 307-309, 1992

M.M.Islam, (Physics Dept, Connecticut University), "Nonperturbative
Structure of the Nucleon from High Energy and Low Energy," Nuclear
Physics B, Proceedings Supplements, V25B, pages 104-109, March 1992

M.Wakamatsu, "Chiral quark soliton model and flavor-asymmetric qq sea
in the nucleon," Physical Review D (Particles and Fields), V46N9, pages
3762-3777, 1 November 1992

Authors?, "Electric and Magnetic Form Factors of the Proton," Physical
Review Letters 68, pages 3841-3844, 1992

Egon Marx, "The SWEEP Model of Elementary Particles. I. Leptons and
Pions," Speculations in Science and Technology, V16N1, pages 2-16, 1993


V.R.Zoller, "Proton Spin and Baryon Octet Axial Couplings," Zeitschrift
fur Physik C (Particles and Fields), V60N1, pages 141-152, 1993

"Baryon Summary Table," page 11-25, "Lepton & Quark Summary Table,"
page 11-3, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 1993-1994

A.P.Balachandran, "Topology in Physics -- A Perspective," Foundations
of Physics, V24N4, pages 455-466, 1994








..








.

__________________________________________________
It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at
http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm

Hi,
Or the hydrogen atom's alter ego, the neutron..
MJ

>ANY discussion of the hydrogen atom here, or the hydrino ...
>
>no discussion of the electromagnetic, electrodynamic,
>wave/field structure of 'hydrogen' -- nor of its components,
>the electron and the proton.
>

...

ELECTRON
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/lst

PROTON
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/NuclearStructure/lst
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/AenertialAether/lst

NUCLEON GROUPS
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Shekinahguild/lst
(click on Millennium folder ...)



We are NOW ready to proceed BEYOND carbon, in our modelling
of the pico- and femto-scale EM vortex fields of the
nucleon groups!

No need to wait on permission, or funding, from big brother
cointel institution -- the truth is ready to be shared with all who
who know the meaning of peace in their own lives -- and who
wish a GLOBAL future economy of sustainability and growth.

Now, who is willing to tackle the Nitrogen nucleus?  Oxygen?

Flourine, Neon, Na, Mg, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn?

Just teasing!  Let's just start with N and O!

[Or revisions to H, He, Li, Be, B and C.]

Vision, focus, is simply a matter of being happy
with who we are.  A willingness to be honest,
and to share!

To work together, now ...



millennium twain

http://freespeech.org/rapture/creation


now in our 47th day of global fasting
for world peace ...

http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/worldfast

...

satyagraha -- fasting protest ...

Gandhi named this concept of action: "satyagraha"
(combining the Hindu words for "truth"
and "holding firmly.")

..








.

__________________________________________________
It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at
http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm

...


friends, colleagues!


am glad to have found the HYDRINO group, and
to have listened in on the discussions for a week or so ...

and good to see a rare voice speaking for true nature
here, for physics.  and for people everywhere, without
a 'formalists' indoctrination ('education') who would like
to know what 'meaning' there MIGHT be behind all the
shouting, posturing and money seeking.

what discussions of nature, natural philosophy, physics!

let me know if I have missed anything ... yet I did look
also at the database ... and still have not heard or seen
ANY discussion of the hydrogen atom here, or the hydrino ...

no discussion of the electromagnetic, electrodynamic,
wave/field structure of 'hydrogen' -- nor of its components,
the electron and the proton.

[and I notice NO posts in the PHOTOS section at all?]

how old is the group?

shall I post the paper on the Structure of the Hydrogen
Atom to the links, or photos section?

it (70-plus pages) can currently be read at:

   http://freespeech.org/rapture/scarlet

and I am sure all the members of HYDRINO will understand
the allusion/reference of 'SCARLET', as it applies to hydrogen
and spectra!

and the 'literati' here will recall the original publication
of "A Study In Scarlet" by Arthur Conan Doyle!

subsequent to the publication of "A New Study In Scarlet",
building on the earlier continuum EM field models of the
electron, proton and neutron, I finally published the
Structure of the Nucleus -- hydrogen thru carbon -- at:

   http://freespeech.org/rapture/creation

looking forward to the time when this group broadens its
focus an order of magnitude, to focus on hydrogen and
the hydrino -- so that any formalism discussed can actually
represent the physical experience we are supposedly
reporting and engineering ...

we are the ones we have been waiting for!



millennium twain

father of the US/International Space Station,
Who's Who in the Frontiers of Science & Technology,
publisher of the "Undiscovered Physics",
founder of FireShips International,
http://fireships.com




now in our 46th day of global fasting
for world peace ...

http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/worldfast

...

satyagraha -- fasting protest ...

Gandhi named this concept of action: "satyagraha"
(combining the Hindu words for "truth"
and "holding firmly.")



..







.





__________________________________________________
It's Samaritans' Week. Help Samaritans help others.
Call 08709 000032 to give or donate online now at
http://www.samaritans.org/support/donations.shtm

Kia Ora, KD!

Kia Orana!  Thank you!!

thank you for the paradigm focus, on 'project Rainbow'.

that is exactly the disInfo/coIntel we have thrown
out!  the whole purpose of the Copenhagen gathering,
and the launch of Quantum Mechanics and the whole of
20th century covert physics -- was to STOP us from
looking at the pico-scale and femto-scale waveforms
of the electron, proton, neutron -- and thence
the nucleon groups!

to stop the WORLD from looking at the pico-and-femto-
wave STRUCTURE OF THE NUCLEUS -- and the aether!

fortunately, dissident physicists and engineers
don't 'program' very well -- and natural philosphers
don't 'program' at all!!



millennium

http://unamity.com/YoniStar




...




..




__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

...

re: communication properties of hydrogen


it will be interesting to monitor your process ...
you will have to create a webpage and post
illustrations of and explanations of your work.

have you read up on "proton conductors"?

nerves, filaments, and I imagine DNA, act as
waveguides or tunnels not only for signals;
but for electrons, protons and ions.

nuclear fusion in the Sun takes place in
plasma filaments, not as a bowl of compressed
hot soup.

nuclear fusion also takes place in the human
body ... in relatively modest amounts ...



millennium




...




..

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

...

thanks Edmund!

it sounds like you read my chapter on the hydrogen atom,

   http://freespeech.org/rapture/scarlet

'scarlet' being a reference to the prominent
red spectral line of hydrogen, and the title
of the chapter being "A New Study in Scarlet"
in reference to the first Sherlock Holmes story
by Arthur Conan Doyle.

enjoy, if you haven't read it yet!



millennium

as this NuclearStructure list is planned to
only discuss Nuclear Structure, maybe we will
have to created another discussion group soon
to focus on the atomic and molecular scale one day!




...



..

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Hi, Millennium Twain.
I have only just found you and your works in the past days.
I will be following this group with much interest, my intrest are in
the use of hydrogen for the Natural Immune System in the form of H+
protons. I make my own for the experiment of rejuvination of the the
cell structure. Thus slowing the aging process.

Have had some interesting results so far.

Have had great dificulty in getting anyone in the Medical field to
monitor my personal experiment.

I believe the micro clusters of cell water, cell salts,that
communicates with the chromosomes to all regions of the cell and
Every step along the entire reproduction of every aspect of the cell
is relying on the communication properties of hydrogen and its
function of maintaining the level of cell water for the reproduction
of the genetic information stored within the chromosomes.

If one can maitain the original template within the chromosomes.

I thank you for starting this group and hope that it is able to
attract some interesting topics in the future.

Many thanks Edmund.

Hi, Millennium Twain.
I have only just found you and your works in the past days.
I will be following this group with much interest, my intrest are in
the use of hydrogen for the Natural Immune System in the form of H+
protons. I make my own for the experiment of rejuvination of the the
cell structure. Thus slowing the aging process.

Have had some interesting results so far.

Have had great dificulty in getting anyone in the Medical field to
monitor my personal experiment.

I believe the micro clusters of cell water, cell salts,that
communicates with the chromosomes to all regions of the cell and
Every step along the entire reproduction of every aspect of the cell
is relying on the communication properties of hydrogen and its
function of maintaining the level of cell water for the reproduction
of the genetic information stored within the chromosomes.

If one can maitain the original template within the chromosomes.

I thank you for starting this group and hope that it is able to
attract some interesting topics in the future.

Many thanks Edmund.