In reply to  Bill Miller -- Owner's message of Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:13:31 -0000:
Hi,
[snip]
This is the origin of the value maximum value of 137, IOW it's a causal link.
>
>
>--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, mixent@... wrote:
>>
>> The inverse of the fine structure constant is 137.036. The largest whole
number
>> less than this is 137.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>>
>Is this a coincidence or is there a link?
>
>All The Best,
>
>Bill Miller
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Hi.  Ben from London posting here.

Some commentary on Gut-CP Chapter 11:

Regarding Page 400, equation 11.61:

It looks as if Randy takes the expression for the average force in equation
11.57, which is

F(r1) + F(r2) = k  1/a2  2+e2 / (1-e2)2  1/a  1/sqareroot(…) i-eta

To obtain the first expression in equation 11.61 he flips over the factor
involving the eccentricity, e, and also he changes the a2 into b2. Then he flips
the factor involving the eccentricity over again in the second expression in
Eqn. 11.61.

Any further explanation please on what is going on mathematically?

-Ben

On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Ben wrote:

> Hi.  Ben from London posting here.
>
> Some commentary on Gut-CP Chapter 11:
>
> Regarding Page 400, equation 11.61:
>
> It looks as if Randy takes the expression for the average force in
> equation 11.57, which is
>
> F(r1) + F(r2) = k  1/a2  2+e2 / (1-e2)2  1/a  1/sqareroot(…) i-eta
>
> To obtain the first expression in equation 11.61 he flips over the
> factor involving the eccentricity, e,

sorry typo


> and also he changes the a2 into b2.

due to the condition of Eq. (11.60)

> Then he flips the factor involving the eccentricity over again in
> the second expression in Eqn. 11.61.

1st instance was a typo

>
> Any further explanation please on what is going on mathematically?
>
> -Ben
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thanks for the quick reply to my post, Randy.  I still don't really understand
what's going on on page 400, though.

Eqn. 11.58 says:

r1,r2  --->   r(t) i-eta    , with r1,r2, and i-eta being vectors
                               and r(t) being a scalar.

Elsewhere r(t) is referred to as the "Distance Parameter".  Is r(t) supposed to
be the magnitude of the distance from the origin to a point on the ellipse, the
origin being located mid-way between the foci?  Surely the denominator in 11.61
should still contain a2a rather than ab2?  Is t the time variable in r(t) here,
like it is in Eqn 11.83?

-Ben




--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randell Mills <RMills@...>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>
> > Hi.  Ben from London posting here.
> >
> > Some commentary on Gut-CP Chapter 11:
> >
> > Regarding Page 400, equation 11.61:
> >
> > It looks as if Randy takes the expression for the average force in
> > equation 11.57, which is
> >
> > F(r1) + F(r2) = k  1/a2  2+e2 / (1-e2)2  1/a  1/sqareroot(…) i-eta
> >
> > To obtain the first expression in equation 11.61 he flips over the
> > factor involving the eccentricity, e,
>
> sorry typo
>
>
> > and also he changes the a2 into b2.
>
> due to the condition of Eq. (11.60)
>
> > Then he flips the factor involving the eccentricity over again in
> > the second expression in Eqn. 11.61.
>
> 1st instance was a typo
>
> >
> > Any further explanation please on what is going on mathematically?
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks for the quick reply to my post, Randy.  I still don't really understand
what's going on on page 400, though.

Eqn. 11.58 says:

r1,r2  --->   r(t) i-eta    , with r1,r2, and i-eta being vectors
                               and r(t) being a scalar.

Elsewhere r(t) is referred to as the "Distance Parameter".  Is r(t) supposed to
be the magnitude of the distance from the origin to a point on the ellipse, the
origin being located mid-way between the foci?


Yes

  Surely the denominator in 11.61 should still contain a2a rather than ab2?

This is a matching condition for current on a great circle in the yz plane as
shown in Figure 11.2 where r(t) equals b.

   Is t the time variable in r(t) here, like it is in Eqn 11.83?

Yes


-Ben



----- Original Message -----
From: Ben [mailto:comet_a9@...]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 04:15 PM
To: SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com
<SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Re: Ellipsoidal charge supercurrent
pattern - mathematical description

Thanks for the quick reply to my post, Randy.  I still don't really understand
what's going on on page 400, though.

Eqn. 11.58 says:

r1,r2  --->   r(t) i-eta    , with r1,r2, and i-eta being vectors
                               and r(t) being a scalar.

Elsewhere r(t) is referred to as the "Distance Parameter".  Is r(t) supposed to
be the magnitude of the distance from the origin to a point on the ellipse, the
origin being located mid-way between the foci?  Surely the denominator in 11.61
should still contain a2a rather than ab2?  Is t the time variable in r(t) here,
like it is in Eqn 11.83?

-Ben




--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randell Mills <RMills@...>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>
> > Hi.  Ben from London posting here.
> >
> > Some commentary on Gut-CP Chapter 11:
> >
> > Regarding Page 400, equation 11.61:
> >
> > It looks as if Randy takes the expression for the average force in
> > equation 11.57, which is
> >
> > F(r1) + F(r2) = k  1/a2  2+e2 / (1-e2)2  1/a  1/sqareroot(…) i-eta
> >
> > To obtain the first expression in equation 11.61 he flips over the
> > factor involving the eccentricity, e,
>
> sorry typo
>
>
> > and also he changes the a2 into b2.
>
> due to the condition of Eq. (11.60)
>
> > Then he flips the factor involving the eccentricity over again in
> > the second expression in Eqn. 11.61.
>
> 1st instance was a typo
>
> >
> > Any further explanation please on what is going on mathematically?
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Question regarding the Orbitspere for one-electron atoms.  Chapter 1 of Gut-CP
describes the Ground State Orbitsphere, also referred to as Y 00 (theta,phi). 
On page 61 there is a description of Excited States.  An Excited State charge
density function is described as a product of a Spherical Harmonic function of
theta and phi with the factor expi (phi + omega*time).

But how can these more complicated Charge Density functions be made out of
Circulating Great Circles?  If on a single Great Circle the charge density is
not constant going all the way around the Great Circle, but depends on the
position, e.g. a sin(theta) dependence, then surely what will happen when the
charge on all the Great Circles starts motion is that the charge density will
periodically bulge and diminish in a manner much more complex than the functions
on Page 61 describe.  How might one modify the model to fix this problem?

On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Ben wrote:

> Question regarding the Orbitspere for one-electron atoms.  Chapter
> 1 of Gut-CP describes the Ground State Orbitsphere, also referred
> to as Y 00 (theta,phi).  On page 61 there is a description of
> Excited States.  An Excited State charge density function is
> described as a product of a Spherical Harmonic function of theta
> and phi with the factor expi (phi + omega*time).
>
> But how can these more complicated Charge Density functions be made
> out of Circulating Great Circles?  If on a single Great Circle the
> charge density is not constant going all the way around the Great
> Circle, but depends on the position, e.g. a sin(theta) dependence,
> then surely what will happen when the charge on all the Great
> Circles starts motion is that the charge density will periodically
> bulge and diminish in a manner much more complex than the functions
> on Page 61 describe.  How might one modify the model to fix this
> problem?
>
>
>



The modulation of the constant spin function corresponds to a charge
density wave that spins around the z-axis.  A photon is in phase with
the wave and propagates it.  Chp. 2 gives both.



>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The modulation of the constant spin function corresponds to a charge  density wave that spins around the z-axis. 

That's a nicely animated spinning basketball.  Also, I have the printout from Chapter 2 in front of me, and I see that on Page 132, below Equation 2.44, Randy says,

"J corresponds to a spherical harmonic travelling charge-density wave of quantum number m that moves on the surface of the orbitsphere, spins about the z-axis with angular frequency omega_n, and modulates the constant orbitsphere at frequency m*omega_n."

How can this spinning ball of charge be made out of a superposition of Great Circles?  It does not seem to make sense to me geometrically.  Consider the following picture: 

Lets say initially we start out with an Orbitsphere of constant charge density centred on the origin, radius = 1.  The Orbitsphere is made up of a sum of Great Circles of moving charge.  Then, at time lowercase t=0, we take those Great Circles in planes nearly parallel to the z-axis, and we throw some Charge Surplus on them, near the point (x=0,y=0,z=1).  The time for a piece of charge to orbit a Great Circle is T.  At time T/4, the Charge Surplus is on or near the xy-plane, the "Equator" of the Orbitsphere.   At time T/2 the Charge Surplus has reached the point (0,0,-1) the "South Pole".  Then at time T*3/4 it is back again at the Equator, and at time T it is back near (0,0,1), where the Charge Surplus started.

If instead we put the Charge Surplus near (-1,0,0) on those Great Circles nearly parallel to the XY plane, then it will move in a manner similar to spinning around the z-axis.

So it looks like the picture of a spinning ball of charge is quite difficult geometrically to make from a sum of Great Circles.  It would be easy to make it from a sum of circles of varying radius, all parallel to the XY plane, like "Parallels of Latitude" but then the circles of charge are not centred on the nucleus.  Or is it the field of the "trapped photon" which is supposed to drag the charge in such motions?

Dr. Mills, your theory presents electrons in atoms as spheres that enclose a
nucleus rather than points or electron clouds or probability waves. I was
wondering if a neutron can pass through the electron orbitspheres of an atom and
be captured by the nucleus without destroying those orbitsphere? ie the
orbitsphere(s) of the atom deforms to permit the neutral particle through and
reforms behind, like a detergent covered pingpong ball pushed through a soap
bubble. I thought that this must necessarily occur for neutron capture by an
atom to be possible but when I used the search function to go through your book
for a chapter on this I couldn't find it.

If the above is correct could a small hydrino also pass through orbitspheres to
get close enough to be captured by a nucleus and effect transmutation in some
atoms?

antony

Like an excited state, a hydrino atom comprises an electron, photon,
and proton.  Rather than decrease the central field, the hydrino's
photon increases the field superimposed with that of the proton to
cause to the electron to be tighter bound.  But, it is still an
electron.  The electron's field from the origin of the hydrino atom
can be treated independently of the proton's.  So, The e-e repulsions
would still arise for a hydrino passing through the shells of higher
Z atoms.


On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:48 PM, amack43 wrote:

> Dr. Mills, your theory presents electrons in atoms as spheres that
> enclose a nucleus rather than points or electron clouds or
> probability waves. I was wondering if a neutron can pass through
> the electron orbitspheres of an atom and be captured by the nucleus
> without destroying those orbitsphere? ie the orbitsphere(s) of the
> atom deforms to permit the neutral particle through and reforms
> behind, like a detergent covered pingpong ball pushed through a
> soap bubble. I thought that this must necessarily occur for neutron
> capture by an atom to be possible but when I used the search
> function to go through your book for a chapter on this I couldn't
> find it.
>
> If the above is correct could a small hydrino also pass through
> orbitspheres to get close enough to be captured by a nucleus and
> effect transmutation in some atoms?
>
> antony
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

In reply to  Randell Mills's message of Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:50:57 -0500:
Dear Dr. Mills,
[snip]
>Like an excited state, a hydrino atom comprises an electron, photon,
>and proton.  Rather than decrease the central field, the hydrino's
>photon increases the field superimposed with that of the proton to
>cause to the electron to be tighter bound.  But, it is still an
>electron.  The electron's field from the origin of the hydrino atom
>can be treated independently of the proton's.  So, The e-e repulsions
>would still arise for a hydrino passing through the shells of higher
>Z atoms.

I notice that you say "passing through the shells of higher Z atoms". Is this an
implicit statement that you believe such passage possible, and if so do you
consider that it would be possible at thermal energies, taking into
consideration the huge momentum of a Hydrino compared to that of an electron in
the shell of another atom?
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Thanks for that. I had recently read of claims that were disturbing close to
that of BLP involving use of nickel and hydrogen and undisclosed catalysts to
produce a large amount of energy. It has been claimed to involve fusion.
Although the details are extremely sketchy it was suggested by this group that
small amounts of nickel had become copper.

Since it is extremely unlikely that the same reactants resulting in excess power
would have two different physical processes, it would seem to me that this
process, if true, must also be hydrino based. While in one sense a verification
of the hydrino process by an independent third party is to be welcomed, it seems
to me that there is an onus on the inventors to demonstrate that their process
was arrived at independently and not simply by reverse engineering BLP's
demonstrated raney nickel reactor as tested and widely publicised by Rowan
University some time ago.

The claims of nickel transmuting into copper are interesting but could be based
on an artefact or impurity. If I find out more I will keep you posted.

antony



--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randell Mills <RMills@...>
wrote:
>
> Like an excited state, a hydrino atom comprises an electron, photon,
> and proton.  Rather than decrease the central field, the hydrino's
> photon increases the field superimposed with that of the proton to
> cause to the electron to be tighter bound.  But, it is still an
> electron.  The electron's field from the origin of the hydrino atom
> can be treated independently of the proton's.  So, The e-e repulsions
> would still arise for a hydrino passing through the shells of higher
> Z atoms.

On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:33 PM, mixent@... wrote:

> In reply to  Randell Mills's message of Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:50:57
> -0500:
> Dear Dr. Mills,
> [snip]
>> Like an excited state, a hydrino atom comprises an electron, photon,
>> and proton.  Rather than decrease the central field, the hydrino's
>> photon increases the field superimposed with that of the proton to
>> cause to the electron to be tighter bound.  But, it is still an
>> electron.  The electron's field from the origin of the hydrino atom
>> can be treated independently of the proton's.  So, The e-e repulsions
>> would still arise for a hydrino passing through the shells of higher
>> Z atoms.
>
> I notice that you say "passing through the shells of higher Z
> atoms". Is this an
> implicit statement that you believe such passage possible, and if
> so do you
> consider that it would be possible at thermal energies, taking into
> consideration the huge momentum of a Hydrino compared to that of an
> electron in
> the shell of another atom?


no


> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The original interpretation of Rutherfords experiment with gold leaf and alpha
particles was that matter was composed of a positively charged nucleus
surrounded by electrons (and empty space) and that positively charge alpha
particles would occasionally hit a nucleus demonstrated by the resultant
scattering. This disproved the plum pudding model of the atom, Rutherford
proposed (or reproposed) a planetary model and QM later came up with its fuzzy
electron clouds and wavefunctions that apparently don't affect the scattering.

CP and Millsian appear to provide a different model. Metals appear to be held
together by 2D planar electrons that appear to resemble free electrons which are
positioned between metal ions in the lattice.

If I was to correctly reinterpret Rutherford scattering by CP is it correct to
say that the alpha particles were scattered by the gold ions within the lattice
(ie not the nucleus)? That is, whereas a a single gold atom resembles a sphere
being composed of superimposed electron orbitspheres, the bulk properties of a
metal lattice cause some of the gold atom's outer electrons orbitspheres to
become planar electrons which bind the gold atom to other gold ions within the
lattice?

On Mar 9, 2011, at 1:04 AM, amack43 wrote:

> The original interpretation of Rutherfords experiment with gold
> leaf and alpha particles was that matter was composed of a
> positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons (and empty
> space) and that positively charge alpha particles would
> occasionally hit a nucleus demonstrated by the resultant
> scattering. This disproved the plum pudding model of the atom,
> Rutherford proposed (or reproposed) a planetary model and QM later
> came up with its fuzzy electron clouds and wavefunctions that
> apparently don't affect the scattering.
>
> CP and Millsian appear to provide a different model. Metals appear
> to be held together by 2D planar electrons that appear to resemble
> free electrons which are positioned between metal ions in the lattice.
>
> If I was to correctly reinterpret Rutherford scattering by CP is it
> correct to say that the alpha particles were scattered by the gold
> ions within the lattice (ie not the nucleus)?


The high-energy alpha particles are scattered mostly by the nucleus
that provides a high Z inverse r^2 repulsive field.


> That is, whereas a a single gold atom resembles a sphere being
> composed of superimposed electron orbitspheres, the bulk properties
> of a metal lattice cause some of the gold atom's outer electrons
> orbitspheres to become planar electrons which bind the gold atom to
> other gold ions within the lattice?

In any case, the metal has to be neutral.  The alpha particles hit
electrons as well and cause a lot of ionization.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Just a thought- if molecules can be used as a catalyst for hydrinos, can the
ionization of electrons that bind the ions in a metallic lattice ever provide a
net enthalpy of m x 27.2eV so as to effect hydrino transitions?

Presumably if such a thing were possible a closer match could be induced by
altering the temperature of the metal. I also note that hydrogen embrittlement
of metals has many theories but the cause is not yet finally settled. Perhaps a
study of embrittled metals might reveal the formation of hydrino hydrides?



--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randell Mills <RMills@...>
wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 1:04 AM, amack43 wrote:
>
> > The original interpretation of Rutherfords experiment with gold
> > leaf and alpha particles was that matter was composed of a
> > positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons (and empty
> > space) and that positively charge alpha particles would
> > occasionally hit a nucleus demonstrated by the resultant
> > scattering. This disproved the plum pudding model of the atom,
> > Rutherford proposed (or reproposed) a planetary model and QM later
> > came up with its fuzzy electron clouds and wavefunctions that
> > apparently don't affect the scattering.
> >
> > CP and Millsian appear to provide a different model. Metals appear
> > to be held together by 2D planar electrons that appear to resemble
> > free electrons which are positioned between metal ions in the lattice.
> >
> > If I was to correctly reinterpret Rutherford scattering by CP is it
> > correct to say that the alpha particles were scattered by the gold
> > ions within the lattice (ie not the nucleus)?
>
>
> The high-energy alpha particles are scattered mostly by the nucleus
> that provides a high Z inverse r^2 repulsive field.
>
>
> > That is, whereas a a single gold atom resembles a sphere being
> > composed of superimposed electron orbitspheres, the bulk properties
> > of a metal lattice cause some of the gold atom's outer electrons
> > orbitspheres to become planar electrons which bind the gold atom to
> > other gold ions within the lattice?
>
> In any case, the metal has to be neutral.  The alpha particles hit
> electrons as well and cause a lot of ionization.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:40 AM, amack43 wrote:

> Just a thought- if molecules can be used as a catalyst for
> hydrinos, can the ionization of electrons that bind the ions in a
> metallic lattice ever provide a net enthalpy of m x 27.2eV so as to
> effect hydrino transitions?

It is possible.


>
> Presumably if such a thing were possible a closer match could be
> induced by altering the temperature of the metal. I also note that
> hydrogen embrittlement of metals has many theories but the cause is
> not yet finally settled. Perhaps a study of embrittled metals might
> reveal the formation of hydrino hydrides?
>
>


Should be able to confirm by methods such as XPS, electron beam
excitation emission spectroscopy, and isolation of the corresponding
hydrino gas, then identified by NMR.


>
> --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randell Mills
> <RMills@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 1:04 AM, amack43 wrote:
>>
>>> The original interpretation of Rutherfords experiment with gold
>>> leaf and alpha particles was that matter was composed of a
>>> positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons (and empty
>>> space) and that positively charge alpha particles would
>>> occasionally hit a nucleus demonstrated by the resultant
>>> scattering. This disproved the plum pudding model of the atom,
>>> Rutherford proposed (or reproposed) a planetary model and QM later
>>> came up with its fuzzy electron clouds and wavefunctions that
>>> apparently don't affect the scattering.
>>>
>>> CP and Millsian appear to provide a different model. Metals appear
>>> to be held together by 2D planar electrons that appear to resemble
>>> free electrons which are positioned between metal ions in the
>>> lattice.
>>>
>>> If I was to correctly reinterpret Rutherford scattering by CP is it
>>> correct to say that the alpha particles were scattered by the gold
>>> ions within the lattice (ie not the nucleus)?
>>
>>
>> The high-energy alpha particles are scattered mostly by the nucleus
>> that provides a high Z inverse r^2 repulsive field.
>>
>>
>>> That is, whereas a a single gold atom resembles a sphere being
>>> composed of superimposed electron orbitspheres, the bulk properties
>>> of a metal lattice cause some of the gold atom's outer electrons
>>> orbitspheres to become planar electrons which bind the gold atom to
>>> other gold ions within the lattice?
>>
>> In any case, the metal has to be neutral.  The alpha particles hit
>> electrons as well and cause a lot of ionization.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Very nice to see this dialogue, for what it is worth.  On a slightly different
note about the behavior of electrons maybe related, I have assumed until now
that a hyperbolic shaped electron, or the antigravity-creating electron, is
specifically alligned so that the opposite side of its 'inner basin' is the side
that 'faces the nucleus' when it is in that configuration, or that there are two
distinct sides to an electron.  Is that correct, or could one side be the inner
basin of the hyperbolic shape as much as the other?  But, if my assumption is
so, is there something here in this conversation about metallic electron
lattices that somehow displaces the electrons in a 'right-side-up' or
'up-side-down' position next to each other that occupy the intervening positions
in the planar lattices, and is this significant with the property of
superconductivity, this dynamic of positioning if it even occurs at all?

--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randell Mills <RMills@...>
wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:40 AM, amack43 wrote:
>
> > Just a thought- if molecules can be used as a catalyst for
> > hydrinos, can the ionization of electrons that bind the ions in a
> > metallic lattice ever provide a net enthalpy of m x 27.2eV so as to
> > effect hydrino transitions?
>
> It is possible.
>
>
> >
> > Presumably if such a thing were possible a closer match could be
> > induced by altering the temperature of the metal. I also note that
> > hydrogen embrittlement of metals has many theories but the cause is
> > not yet finally settled. Perhaps a study of embrittled metals might
> > reveal the formation of hydrino hydrides?
> >
> >
>
>
> Should be able to confirm by methods such as XPS, electron beam
> excitation emission spectroscopy, and isolation of the corresponding
> hydrino gas, then identified by NMR.
>
>
> >
> > --- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, Randell Mills
> > <RMills@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 9, 2011, at 1:04 AM, amack43 wrote:
> >>
> >>> The original interpretation of Rutherfords experiment with gold
> >>> leaf and alpha particles was that matter was composed of a
> >>> positively charged nucleus surrounded by electrons (and empty
> >>> space) and that positively charge alpha particles would
> >>> occasionally hit a nucleus demonstrated by the resultant
> >>> scattering. This disproved the plum pudding model of the atom,
> >>> Rutherford proposed (or reproposed) a planetary model and QM later
> >>> came up with its fuzzy electron clouds and wavefunctions that
> >>> apparently don't affect the scattering.
> >>>
> >>> CP and Millsian appear to provide a different model. Metals appear
> >>> to be held together by 2D planar electrons that appear to resemble
> >>> free electrons which are positioned between metal ions in the
> >>> lattice.
> >>>
> >>> If I was to correctly reinterpret Rutherford scattering by CP is it
> >>> correct to say that the alpha particles were scattered by the gold
> >>> ions within the lattice (ie not the nucleus)?
> >>
> >>
> >> The high-energy alpha particles are scattered mostly by the nucleus
> >> that provides a high Z inverse r^2 repulsive field.
> >>
> >>
> >>> That is, whereas a a single gold atom resembles a sphere being
> >>> composed of superimposed electron orbitspheres, the bulk properties
> >>> of a metal lattice cause some of the gold atom's outer electrons
> >>> orbitspheres to become planar electrons which bind the gold atom to
> >>> other gold ions within the lattice?
> >>
> >> In any case, the metal has to be neutral.  The alpha particles hit
> >> electrons as well and cause a lot of ionization.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

The nucleus has positively charged protons and neutral neutrons.  Given that the
negatively charged electron charge density in the orbitspheres of the GUT model
is rotating with time,  are there corresponding surface charge  changes created
in the nucleus?  Is so, ions and isotopes might have slightly different nuclear
properties.  Also the method of image charges is universally valid regardless of
scale and is widely used MOS devices.

Thanks

Mark V. Iverson

The field of a spherical shell is 0 for r less than that of the shell.

----- Original Message -----
From: opticalphysicist06 [mailto:markviverson@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 05:58 PM
To: SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com
<SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Do  nuclear  image charges change from the
rotating electron charge density?

The nucleus has positively charged protons and neutral neutrons.  Given that the
negatively charged electron charge density in the orbitspheres of the GUT model
is rotating with time,  are there corresponding surface charge  changes created
in the nucleus?  Is so, ions and isotopes might have slightly different nuclear
properties.  Also the method of image charges is universally valid regardless of
scale and is widely used MOS devices.

Thanks

Mark V. Iverson



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

In reply to  Randy Mills's message of Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:49:40 +0000:
Hi,

While true of a static field, that isn't so for a dynamic field. IOW magnetic
effects should still register, shouldn't they?

>The field of a spherical shell is 0 for r less than that of the shell.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: opticalphysicist06 [mailto:markviverson@...]
>Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 05:58 PM
>To: SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com
<SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Do  nuclear  image charges change from
the rotating electron charge density?
>
>The nucleus has positively charged protons and neutral neutrons.  Given that
the negatively charged electron charge density in the orbitspheres of the GUT
model is rotating with time,  are there corresponding surface charge  changes
created in the nucleus?  Is so, ions and isotopes might have slightly different
nuclear properties.  Also the method of image charges is universally valid
regardless of scale and is widely used MOS devices.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mark V. Iverson
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Yes

The H hyperfine structure is about 10E-24 J for example as given in Cup 2 with
others.

----- Original Message -----
From: mixent@... [mailto:mixent@...]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:19 PM
To: SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com
<SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Do  nuclear  image charges change from
the rotating electron charge density?

In reply to  Randy Mills's message of Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:49:40 +0000:
Hi,

While true of a static field, that isn't so for a dynamic field. IOW magnetic
effects should still register, shouldn't they?

>The field of a spherical shell is 0 for r less than that of the shell.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: opticalphysicist06 [mailto:markviverson@...]
>Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 05:58 PM
>To: SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com
<SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Do  nuclear  image charges change from
the rotating electron charge density?
>
>The nucleus has positively charged protons and neutral neutrons.  Given that
the negatively charged electron charge density in the orbitspheres of the GUT
model is rotating with time,  are there corresponding surface charge  changes
created in the nucleus?  Is so, ions and isotopes might have slightly different
nuclear properties.  Also the method of image charges is universally valid
regardless of scale and is widely used MOS devices.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mark V. Iverson
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Textbooks show the nucleus with static neutral neutron balls and static
positively charged proton balls.   Having dynamically induced image charges
moving across the nucleus is a different concept.  Yes, hyperfine spectra show
the influence of the nucleus on the electronic spectra; however, isn't there an
electric field across the nucleus created between the electron in the orbitshere
and where it is not?

What is the induced magnetism discussed by the second blogger?  Yes, I know the
rotating electron creates a magnetic field that interacts with the nuclear
magnetic field.

Mark

On Mar 29, 2011, at 11:47 PM, opticalphysicist06 wrote:

> Textbooks show the nucleus with static neutral neutron balls and
> static positively charged proton balls.   Having dynamically
> induced image charges moving across the nucleus is a different
> concept.  Yes, hyperfine spectra show the influence of the nucleus
> on the electronic spectra; however, isn't there an electric field
> across the nucleus created between the electron in the orbitshere
> and where it is not?

No


>
> What is the induced magnetism discussed by the second blogger?
> Yes, I know the rotating electron creates a magnetic field that
> interacts with the nuclear magnetic field.

There is no induced magnetism of the electron on the nucleus, just
the magnetic field of the remote electron at the nucleus.

>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

In reply to  Randell Mills's message of Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:46:53 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>There is no induced magnetism of the electron on the nucleus, just
>the magnetic field of the remote electron at the nucleus.
>
Since the electron currents in the orbitsphere are constantly changing
(direction), then the magnetic fields must also be constantly changing, hence
the magnetic field experienced by the nucleus must also be constantly changing,
and hence inducing a changing electrical field at the nucleus?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

On Mar 30, 2011, at 4:34 PM, mixent@... wrote:

> In reply to  Randell Mills's message of Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:46:53
> -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> There is no induced magnetism of the electron on the nucleus, just
>> the magnetic field of the remote electron at the nucleus.
>>
> Since the electron currents in the orbitsphere are constantly changing
> (direction), then the magnetic fields must also be constantly
> changing, hence
> the magnetic field experienced by the nucleus must also be
> constantly changing,
> and hence inducing a changing electrical field at the nucleus?

the current is constant and the magnetic field is constant in time


>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

This is what I wish I could be more informed or certain about, this distinct or
non-random behavior of a very particular geometric attribute or relationship of
the electron, but I think I am beginning to get the picture, somewhat,
none-the-less.  The former query of mine is put a little differently here.  Why
is it that a free electron travels in space with essentially, a perfect
relationship of one side of it to the other creating the vector of its velocity
path absolutely perpendicular to the plane of its shape, and alligned with its
center?  Doesn't that indicate a clear physical difference between the 'front'
and the 'back' of an electron, the inside and the outside, or the hyperbola and
the sphere?  And, isn't this a significant point to apply as an essential
behavioral calibraton, taken initially geometrically, but forming the algebraic
possibilities out of that, depending on the environment?  Thus, very specific
physical attributes are exhibited in different configurations, all with this 0
to 1 relationship, with no effect inside the electron in orbit and 100% outside
the electron, at least magnetically?  Gravity is something more to be discussed
in this context, but Bertrand Russell stated that all algebraic problems are
subject to geometry, so isn't it good that the electron has very specific
geometric and polarized 'notation,' as I am supposing it does?

Summarizing what I am as convinced I can be RM is on track for, there has to be
a 0 to 1 relationship between the front and the back of the free electron to
send its motion in a very definitive direction.  The hyperbolic analogy is just
more eccentric a notion for this physical fact, and gravity something in
addition.  This relationship, still, is likely what is maintained in Mills'
discussion revealing, among other likely similar properties, that all the
magnetic forces are external to an electron in orbit about a nucleus, incapable
of interfering with a 'perfectly' non-magnetic property within the sphere and
ideally uniform in this way, and all of it statistically supportable.  Only
outside electrons, outside the one in orbit about the nucleus, can have an
effect on the nucleus.


--- In SocietyforClassicalPhysics@yahoogroups.com, mixent@... wrote:
>
> In reply to  Randell Mills's message of Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:46:53 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >There is no induced magnetism of the electron on the nucleus, just
> >the magnetic field of the remote electron at the nucleus.
> >
> Since the electron currents in the orbitsphere are constantly changing
> (direction), then the magnetic fields must also be constantly changing, hence
> the magnetic field experienced by the nucleus must also be constantly
changing,
> and hence inducing a changing electrical field at the nucleus?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>