[AR] Re: Mills Fuel Experiment
- From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 17:55:30 +0000
Dark matter? Further lols.
Hydrinos aren't supposed to lose their electrons and would be electrically
charged, and so would still interact with electromagnetic waves. Whereas
dark matter is... dark... so it can't be electrically charged.
That means it can't have a 3.48keV peak, otherwise it wouldn't be dark! 8-)
If we could actually see dark matter at 3.48 keV, that would be amazing;
but no.
Incidentally, the proponent of this, Randell Mills is a medical doctor, not
a doctor of physics.
It's a scam.
You've been had.
Sorry.
On 21 March 2015 at 17:03, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "A broad X-ray peak with a 3.48 keV cutoff was recently observed in the
> Perseus Cluster by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and by the XMMNewton
> [32-33] that has no match to any known atomic transition. The 3.48 keV
> feature assigned to dark matter of unknown identity by BulBul et al. [32]
> matches the 1/4+1/1=>1/17 transition and further confirms hydrinos as the
> identity of dark matter."
>
>
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chapter-5_3.5_keV_feature.pdf
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> A lower ground state of hydrogen that can be reached at low energy?
>>
>> Nah.
>>
>> If hydrinos existed, huge amounts of hydrogen in the universe should
>> already be hydrinos. We should be knee deep in the stuff. It should form,
>> and be very stable.
>>
>> Where the heck is all this stuff if it exists?
>>
>> Nowhere, because it's nonsense, sorry.
>>
>> On 20 March 2015 at 21:52, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Erratum: AWG -> AHW (Atomic Hydrogen Welding)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:50 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Such questions are beyond my competence, which is why my approach is
>>>> simple:
>>>>
>>>> Replace the 2 tungsten electrodes of an AWG rig with titanium and
>>>> measure the resulting temperature.
>>>>
>>>> If the factor of 7 gain reported in the cite obtains, the result should
>>>> be unambiguous.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:46 PM, David Spain <david.l.spain@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/20/2015 1:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arguing against arithmetic showing specific energy that is orders of
>>>>>> magnitude lower than nuclear by parading a litany of rhetorical if not
>>>>>> polemical "wisdom", isn't even wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James,
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your stand on the viewpoint that because Mills' theory of
>>>>> fractional Rydberg states are not square-integrable in the Dirac
>>>>> expression, they are therefore to be considered in the quantum realm as
>>>>> non-physical? That has been the traditional view at least until Jan
>>>>> Nault's
>>>>> paper:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507193.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Also don't these n < 1 states lead to non-resonant wave function
>>>>> solutions? (Isn't that just another way of stating the above?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Ian Woollard
>>
>
>
--
-Ian Woollard
Other related posts: