Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
>>black hole. Crothers points out what mainstream says about black holes doesn't make sense: Stephen Crothers on Black Hole`s | | | | || | | | || Stephen Crothers on Black Hole`s Viva la Modern Physics, the monster keeps rolling | | | | On Monday, 5 February 2018, 19:46, Eric Walker wrote: Hi Robin, I've followed up on our question about photons having gravitational influence by reading up on some threads on PhysicsForums and posing a question of my own. The conclusion that classical beams of light bend spacetime is a straightforward for mainstream physics; namely, they do. (Do individual photons bend light? Probably, but to be determined.) How much does light bend gravity? In an answer to my question about the annihilation photons and the black hole, assuming there is no firewall, one respected member of the forum appears to agree with me that they have the same affect on gravity as the masses of the electron and positron prior to entering the black hole. We are left to wonder whether Mills in his boundless and admirable ambition has set out to revise not only quantum mechanics but general relativity as well. Eric My question about the black hole:https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electron-positron-annihilation-and-gravitation.938873/ Posts about photons, light and gravity:https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photon-gravity.349196/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/light-and-mass.122636/https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-gravity-of-photons.381246/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photons-and-gravity.494216/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-gravitons-interact-with-photons.473684/
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Hi Robin, I've followed up on our question about photons having gravitational influence by reading up on some threads on PhysicsForums and posing a question of my own. The conclusion that classical beams of light bend spacetime is a straightforward for mainstream physics; namely, they do. (Do individual photons bend light? Probably, but to be determined.) How much does light bend gravity? In an answer to my question about the annihilation photons and the black hole, assuming there is no firewall, one respected member of the forum appears to agree with me that they have the same affect on gravity as the masses of the electron and positron prior to entering the black hole. We are left to wonder whether Mills in his boundless and admirable ambition has set out to revise not only quantum mechanics but general relativity as well. Eric My question about the black hole: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electron-positron-annihilation-and-gravitation.938873/ Posts about photons, light and gravity: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photon-gravity.349196/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/light-and-mass.122636/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-gravity-of-photons.381246/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photons-and-gravity.494216/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-gravitons-interact-with-photons.473684/
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:56:35 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM, wrote: > >When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to >> be as >> many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark >> energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first >> impression. >> > >Your eyes do not see the radio, infrared or microwave backgrounds, nor the >high-energy gamma rays that are present. :) True, but the number of gamma/x rays is way fewer than the number of visible light/heat photons, and the radio waves carry far less energy. Given that most of the photons in the Universe come from stars, of which our Sun is reasonably typical, we could expect most of the photons in the Universe to have a spectrum roughly the same as that of our Sun. Another way to look at it is that if most of the photons come from stars, then the total mass/energy of all photons can't exceed the total mass loss of all stars over the life of the Universe, and since the mass loss of stars is due to fusion reactions, and is only a fraction of the total mass of stars, the total photon mass must be (much) less than the total baryonic mass of the Universe, thus insufficient to account for dark matter/energy (which must exceed baryonic matter by a large margin IIRC). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM, wrote: When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to > be as > many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark > energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first > impression. > Your eyes do not see the radio, infrared or microwave backgrounds, nor the high-energy gamma rays that are present. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:42:29 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, wrote: > >So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational >> mass, >> or that particles never enter a black hole. :) >> > >Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very >delocalized way. Would there be enough of this mass to account for the >experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for >dark matter? When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to be as many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first impression. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Horrible spelling on my part: how about "that have led astrophysicists...". On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, wrote: > > So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational >> mass, >> or that particles never enter a black hole. :) >> > > Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very > delocalized way. Would there be enough of this mass to account for the > experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for > dark matter? > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM, wrote: So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational > mass, > or that particles never enter a black hole. :) > Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very delocalized way. Would there be enough of this mass to account for the experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for dark matter? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:44:50 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > >2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the >> gravity >> well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in >> the >> process.) >> > >I did not appreciate this point. Let's go with your option (2) and assume >that matter (e.g., electrons and positrons) can cross the event horizon and >annihilate. I believe this can be adjusted to happen on a timeline that is >contemporaneous with our own by moving the electron and positron >arbitrarily closer to one another prior to crossing the event horizon. In >this scenario, I am unsure how the photons will completely redshift in our >own timeline, as this will be a gradual process which will presumably take >an infinite amount of time to complete from our perspective. No, light travels at the speed of light, so if already outside the event horizon, it escapes at the speed of light, however it gets red shifted leaving the gravity well. IOW it's not the speed that is affected, but the frequency. >During that >time they will not have fully been drained of energy (assuming this is a >thing). The draining of energy manifests as a frequency reduction. (Photon energy being h*frequency.) In escaping from very close to an event horizon, almost all frequency is lost (I think). > >Here is where I start to get stumped. I would imagine that unlike >electromagnetic radiation, gravitational influence does not follow the >(gravitationally warped) curvature of spacetime. Otherwise we'd have the >paradoxical situation of gravity bending in on itself because there is so >much mass. So I assume the resultant loss in gravitational attraction >traveling outwards at the speed of light from where the electron and >positron annihilated will escape the black hole within a period of time >that we can observe it. Because of the red shift of the photons, their mass energy is effectively retained by the black hole, thus increasing it's gravitational field by the same amount? So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational mass, or that particles never enter a black hole. :) Part of the problem may be that you don't state how the pair got close to the event horizon in the first place. That makes matter/energy/gravity accounting difficult. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:51:09 -0700: Hi, [snip] >On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, wrote: > >2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron >> "escapes" - >> don't ask me how that's supposed to happen. >> > >I think we're thinking of different scenarios. In the one I'm describing, >the electron and positron both enter the black whole at around the same >time and location and then annihilate on the other side of the horizon. In >other words, they travel together prior to annihilating. It is the >annihilation photons that escape (when the pair annihilate on the outside) >or don't escape (when the pair annihilate on the inside). > >Eric Yes, I was talking about the Hawking process, not your hypothetical. (See comment at end of previous post). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, wrote: 2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron > "escapes" - > don't ask me how that's supposed to happen. > I think we're thinking of different scenarios. In the one I'm describing, the electron and positron both enter the black whole at around the same time and location and then annihilate on the other side of the horizon. In other words, they travel together prior to annihilating. It is the annihilation photons that escape (when the pair annihilate on the outside) or don't escape (when the pair annihilate on the inside). Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:26:02 -0700: Hi, [snip] >To return to gist of the thought experiment: it seems to me that there's >something funny about a black hole consuming an electron and a positron, >gaining in the process an additional 1.022 MeV of mass-energy and thereby >exerting additional gravitational pull on its surroundings, and then losing >1.022 MeV at a later point in (our) time should the two collide (according to >one school of thought about black holes), exerting afterwards less >gravitational pull on its surroundings, when nothing has escaped the black box >of the system. >I will concede that this thought experiment will not be very interesting for >someone who believes that matter does not make it beyond the event horizon. :) Even if you assume that I'm wrong, I fail to see an energy accounting problem. 1) An electron positron pair is created temporarily from nothing just outside the event horizon. 2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron "escapes" - don't ask me how that's supposed to happen. 3) To pay back the debt to the Heisenberg Bank, the mass of the black hole is reduced, by 2 electron masses, but increases by 1 electron mass due to the swallowed electron. Net, down 1 electron mass, which ends up as the mass of the positron. Thus the mass of the black hole is reduced by the positron mass. 4) The positron annihilates an electron elsewhere converting its mass plus the mass of the annihilated electron into two gammas of 511 keV each. 5) Net mass loss - 1 electron (real electron somewhere in space) + 1 positron (mass lost by black hole). 6) Net energy gain 2 511 keV gammas. (Note that I'm trying to describe Hawking's evaporation process here.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the > gravity > well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in > the > process.) > I did not appreciate this point. Let's go with your option (2) and assume that matter (e.g., electrons and positrons) can cross the event horizon and annihilate. I believe this can be adjusted to happen on a timeline that is contemporaneous with our own by moving the electron and positron arbitrarily closer to one another prior to crossing the event horizon. In this scenario, I am unsure how the photons will completely redshift in our own timeline, as this will be a gradual process which will presumably take an infinite amount of time to complete from our perspective. During that time they will not have fully been drained of energy (assuming this is a thing). Here is where I start to get stumped. I would imagine that unlike electromagnetic radiation, gravitational influence does not follow the (gravitationally warped) curvature of spacetime. Otherwise we'd have the paradoxical situation of gravity bending in on itself because there is so much mass. So I assume the resultant loss in gravitational attraction traveling outwards at the speed of light from where the electron and positron annihilated will escape the black hole within a period of time that we can observe it. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Hi Robin, On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM, wrote: > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > > This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the > head of a > pin?". :) > My apologies for being argumentative. :) You attempted to rule out the electron-positron thought experiment on the basis of a claim about the event horizon that has the status of a conjecture. I will acknowledge that black holes are not very friendly things to reason about in the context of a thought experiment, and so it is not that insightful. > E.g. It makes no difference whether or not there is drama at the event > horizon, > we won't detect it either way. > 1) It wouldn't happen till infinitely far in our future. > I think we've established that this is one of several possibilities. :) > 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the > gravity > well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in > the > process.) > To return to gist of the thought experiment: it seems to me that there's something funny about a black hole consuming an electron and a positron, gaining in the process an additional 1.022 MeV of mass-energy and thereby exerting additional gravitational pull on its surroundings, and then losing 1.022 MeV at a later point in (our) time should the two collide (according to one school of thought about black holes), exerting afterwards less gravitational pull on its surroundings, when nothing has escaped the black box of the system. I will concede that this thought experiment will not be very interesting for someone who believes that matter does not make it beyond the event horizon. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700: Hi, [snip] This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". :) E.g. It makes no difference whether or not there is drama at the event horizon, we won't detect it either way. 1) It wouldn't happen till infinitely far in our future. 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the gravity well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in the process.) >On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, wrote: > >It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon >> from >> our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe >> comes to >> an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) >> (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing >> in a >> black hole.) >> > >You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there >are other possibilities [1]: > >The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself >> arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be >> emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information >> about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In >> 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic >> assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent. > > >Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted >> the assumption of "no-drama"meaning that nothing unusual should happen >> when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that >> the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would >> indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a >> "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather >> surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon >> of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold >> and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon. > > >The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be >drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in >contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over >the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting >happens. I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event >horizon. But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything >approaching it, it might need to lie *beyond* event horizon in order not to >have observable effects: > >"If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by >> it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says >> Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University. > > >So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and >positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely >suggestive but not conclusive. > >Eric > > >[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:11:24 -0500: Hi, >Not true. Learn how Hawking's radiation works. [snip] Indeed, a direct consequence would be that Hawking radiation doesn't exist, and consequently black holes do not radiate. Note BTW that if it did exist, then some small black holes should be intense sources of gamma radiation with a cutoff energy off 511 keV, while there is no visible source. The source of the gammas would be positrons produced by the black hole annihilating with electrons in normal space outside the black hole. There is an equal chance that either half of a pair created near the event horizon would be emitted, so half of the particles would be positrons. The cutoff energy is a consequence of the gamma being red shifted as it escapes the black hole gravity well. The maximum energy is produced when the positron gets far away from the black hole, before it annihilates. The overall signature is a halo of gammas with ever less energy toward the center. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest----black holes
Eric and Robin--- Everything gets squeezed to the other side through a worm hole, the same way some energy leaks from the other side (the vacuum) to reality in the known universe—its simple as that. The black hole is like a strong rubber balloon that deflates as more energy enters inside its membrane. The positive curvature of space increases around the concentration of energy. And at a critical point of curvature releases some of the energy to anti- di Sitter space (the other side) with its negative curvature. The black hole poles are a little tricky since they produce an intense magnetic field depending upon the angular momentum that was accumulated inside their event horizon before the collapse happened. IMHO the magnetic polar field couples to the “other side” and allows the transport of spin energy back and forth eith related angular momentum. As Robin suggests, our existing reality sees the historic accumulation of mass (energy) and the extreme curvature of normal di Sitter space. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 8:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote: It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon from our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe comes to an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing in a black hole.) You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there are other possibilities [1]: The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent. Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted the assumption of "no-drama"—meaning that nothing unusual should happen when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon. The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting happens. I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event horizon. But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything approaching it, it might need to lie beyond event horizon in order not to have observable effects: "If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University. So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely suggestive but not conclusive. Eric [1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, wrote: It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon > from > our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe > comes to > an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) > (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing > in a > black hole.) > You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there are other possibilities [1]: The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself > arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be > emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information > about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In > 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic > assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent. Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted > the assumption of "no-drama"—meaning that nothing unusual should happen > when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that > the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would > indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a > "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather > surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon > of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold > and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon. The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting happens. I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event horizon. But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything approaching it, it might need to lie *beyond* event horizon in order not to have observable effects: "If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by > it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says > Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University. So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely suggestive but not conclusive. Eric [1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Not true. Learn how Hawking's radiation works. On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:02 AM, wrote: > In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:41 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > >If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to > >things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to > >talk about its contents. > > > It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon > from > our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe > comes to > an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) > (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing > in a > black hole.) > This also means that the growth in mass of a black hole must come from > matter/energy accumulating in a tight orbit (just) outside the event > horizon. > Regards, > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > local asymmetry = temporary success > >
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:41 -0700: Hi, [snip] >If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to >things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to >talk about its contents. > It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon from our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe comes to an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing in a black hole.) This also means that the growth in mass of a black hole must come from matter/energy accumulating in a tight orbit (just) outside the event horizon. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM, wrote: Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would never get > to see > what happens. > Or, from the particles point of view, the rest of the universe has come to > an > end before they get together. > That was a question for me: for us the electron-positron pair appear to be frozen in time for us because light is bending back in on the black hole. Does that mean that whatever happens inside the event horizon is never contemporaneous with us? My sense was that this is not the case, and that it's just a trick of the light not escaping. If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to talk about its contents. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:39:58 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time >as being normal. Only outside viewers see time slow down. > >Dave Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would never get to see what happens. Or, from the particles point of view, the rest of the universe has come to an end before they get together. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time as being normal. Only outside viewers see time slow down. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:19:50 -0700: Hi, [snip] >I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no >return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not >escape the black hole. In this understanding, time slows down >asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running >(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon. > >To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the >electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate. >(Unless I'm mistaken.) If time comes to standstill for them as they approach the event horizon, then they never reach a point where they annihilate *inside* the black hole. (Outside wouldn't be a problem). > >Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:19:50 -0700: Hi, [snip] >I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no >return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not >escape the black hole. In this understanding, time slows down >asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running >(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon. > >To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the >electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate. >(Unless I'm mistaken.) If time comes to standstill for them as they approach the event horizon, then they never reach a point where they annihilate *inside* the black hole. (Outside wouldn't be a problem). > >Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:45 PM, wrote: Another problem with this scenario is that time slows as the event horizon > is > approached, so nothing ever actually makes it into a black hole, at least > nothing that wasn't there already when it formed. (Assuming that time > actually > stands still at the event horizon). > I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not escape the black hole. In this understanding, time slows down asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running (albeit more slowly) at the event horizon. To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate. (Unless I'm mistaken.) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:00:53 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Now let the electron and positron stray over the event >horizon at time t=0 and annihilate at time t=1. At t=0, the black hole now >has M + 1.022 MeV mass. At t=1, the black hole is back to its previous >mass of M, even though an electron and positron have been added to it, and >even though the annihilation photons have not escaped. > >One of the things that is bothering me about the second scenario is that >there probably is no baryonic matter in the black hole to begin with, so it >feels arbitrary to distinguish between the captured annihilation photons >and whatever else is there. (What if it's all photons?) > >Eric Another problem with this scenario is that time slows as the event horizon is approached, so nothing ever actually makes it into a black hole, at least nothing that wasn't there already when it formed. (Assuming that time actually stands still at the event horizon). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, wrote: This would be true if gravity was actually a force. If OTOH it is merely a > distortion of spacetime, then as far as the photon is concerned it is just > going > "straight ahead". IOW it just follows the shape of the space it is > traversing. > Another thought experiment for anyone bothered by the assumption of a loss of gravitational attraction in the conversion of matter/antimatter into photons: You have an electron-positron pair that annihilate in two different scenarios, creating 511 keV annihilation photons. In the first scenario, they are attracted towards a black hole and annihilate outside of the event horizon. The boundary that includes the black hole and the pair of escaping photons now has less mass and hence less gravitational pull (by assumption). Now let the electron and positron stray over the event horizon at time t=0 and annihilate at time t=1. At t=0, the black hole now has M + 1.022 MeV mass. At t=1, the black hole is back to its previous mass of M, even though an electron and positron have been added to it, and even though the annihilation photons have not escaped. One of the things that is bothering me about the second scenario is that there probably is no baryonic matter in the black hole to begin with, so it feels arbitrary to distinguish between the captured annihilation photons and whatever else is there. (What if it's all photons?) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:26:56 -0700: Hi Eric, [snip] >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM, wrote: > >.. go right ahead. :) >> > >It will take a while. :) But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat >analogy with a more apt one. One description of gravitational attraction >is that of a mutual attraction between two bodies with mass. It is similar >in that regard to magnetism or Coulomb attraction. Place a magnet on a >table and a piece of ferromagnetic metal near to it, and they will both >slide towards one another if their masses are on the same order. (If the >masses are not on the same order, this will still happen but just not be >readily perceived.) > >The situation of a photon being attracted to a massive object without the >massive object being attracted (pulled) in the direction of the photon is >like that of a magnet that pulls on a ferromagnetic object without the >object pulling the magnet towards it as well. The magnet would stay in >place on the table, undisturbed, while only the ferromagnetic object slides >towards the magnet. > >Eric This would be true if gravity was actually a force. If OTOH it is merely a distortion of spacetime, then as far as the photon is concerned it is just going "straight ahead". IOW it just follows the shape of the space it is traversing. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM, wrote: .. go right ahead. :) > It will take a while. :) But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat analogy with a more apt one. One description of gravitational attraction is that of a mutual attraction between two bodies with mass. It is similar in that regard to magnetism or Coulomb attraction. Place a magnet on a table and a piece of ferromagnetic metal near to it, and they will both slide towards one another if their masses are on the same order. (If the masses are not on the same order, this will still happen but just not be readily perceived.) The situation of a photon being attracted to a massive object without the massive object being attracted (pulled) in the direction of the photon is like that of a magnet that pulls on a ferromagnetic object without the object pulling the magnet towards it as well. The magnet would stay in place on the table, undisturbed, while only the ferromagnetic object slides towards the magnet. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 12:39:48 -0700: Hi Eric, [snip] >On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM, wrote: > >...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space. >> > >The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets in the way >of understanding in this instance. It is equivalent to the gravitational >influence of two or more bodies on one another. Having a massive body be >able to tug on a photon, while the photon does not tug on the massive body >in the opposite direction, reminds me vaguely of a description of a rowboat >with oars, where the rower is somehow able to use the oars to push the boat >forward, while the water is not pushed in the opposite direction. > >I suspect that if one ponders the suggestion of light not having >"gravitational mass" long enough, it should be possible to come up with an >experiment that will demonstrate a violation of conservation of momentum. .. go right ahead. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM, wrote: ...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space. > The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets in the way of understanding in this instance. It is equivalent to the gravitational influence of two or more bodies on one another. Having a massive body be able to tug on a photon, while the photon does not tug on the massive body in the opposite direction, reminds me vaguely of a description of a rowboat with oars, where the rower is somehow able to use the oars to push the boat forward, while the water is not pushed in the opposite direction. I suspect that if one ponders the suggestion of light not having "gravitational mass" long enough, it should be possible to come up with an experiment that will demonstrate a violation of conservation of momentum. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:26:56 -0700: Hi, >On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM, wrote: > >Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the >> universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. > > >Note that this sets up the weird situation of photons being influenced by >gravity (e.g., gravitational lensing, the Schwarzschild radius of a black >hole), but not having a reciprocal influence in return. ...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space. > >Eric Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM, wrote: Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the > universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. Note that this sets up the weird situation of photons being influenced by gravity (e.g., gravitational lensing, the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole), but not having a reciprocal influence in return. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:26:18 +: Hi, [snip] >Robin > >This is the first time I have heard that Mills (or anyone else) thinks mass >changed into energy causes the Universes expansion. In General Relativity >it would be like changing the space from a positive curvature to a negative >curvature (I think) at all pointsthat would explain the observed increase of >the rate of expansion. Predicted by Mills. (BTW I think it's actually just a reduction in the positive curvature. Quote:"Cosmology Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. The acceleration of the expansion of the presently observed universe was predicted by Mills in 1995 and has since been confirmed experimentally. Mills predicts that the universe expands and contracts over thousand-billion year cycles.") - see http://brilliantlightpower.com/cosmology/ [snip] >ROBIN, do you have a Mills reference to this claim? See the gravity chapter of his book, online at http://brilliantlightpower.com/book/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Robin— This is the first time I have heard that Mills (or anyone else) thinks mass changed into energy causes the Universe’s expansion. In General Relativity it would be like changing the space from a positive curvature to a negative curvature (I think) at all points—that would explain the observed increase of the rate of expansion. The following WIKIPEDIA item addresses this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space ROBIN, do you have a Mill’s reference to this claim? It may be of interest to the massification and demassification ideas Hatt, Meulenberg and others hav theorized. I consider that Hatt’s interest in the reasons for differences in magnetic moments of the neutron, proton and alpha particles is well founded. The answer may be related to the space/time/…)maybe spin) fabric of the Universe with these independent parameters, which are sensed by the entire fabric like it is a coherent QM system. The following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space suggests an increase of negative curvature of anti-de Sitter space. The 1977 report of anomolus magnetic moment of suerpositronium; https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.16.161 by A. O. Barut and Kraus may add additional understand to the magnetic moments of non-primary particles. Barut has written more since the 1977 paper. From his book, WHAT ARE THE TRUE BUILDING BLOCKS OF MATTER he writes the following: “As What is new, however, is the recognition that magnetic forces between the stable particles, when treated non-perturbatively, become very strong at short distances (short ranged), provide a deep enough well to give rise to high mass narrow resonances, have saturation property and give rise, by magnetic pairing, to the compensation of the large magnetic moment of the electron. In the construction of atoms and molecules we make use only of the electric (Coulomb) part of the electromagnetic forces and treat magnetic forces as small perturbations. There is, however, another regime of energies and distances in which magnetic forces play the dominant role and the electric forces are small perturbations. We shall show this duality with explicit calculations. It would have been strange if Nature provided magnetic forces just to be tiny corrections to the building principle of atoms and molecules (which could exist without them) and not to play an equally important role in the structure of matter. Clearly, a model of this type also automatically provides a dynamical theory of nuclear forces.” I recall, Hatt’s predictions of magnetic moments for protons, neutrons and muons are available to many significant figures—way beyond the range of current data—and thus provide good prediction for theory confirmation. He may be able to address the superpositroniun issue as well. Bob Cook From: mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but >should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other >than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event >and other particles. > >Dave If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the conversion of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe. IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:20:29 -0500: Hi David, [snip] >Robin, > >I guess I do not understand how many far away objects would get information >about the conversion that takes place. ...through a lessening of the gravitational field of the Universe? (probably spreading out at light speed?) >If the mass equivalent remains the same and its center also is conserved then >what is different? As I understand it, gravity is caused by curvature of space associated with particles. Once the particles are converted to photons, they no longer curve space in the same way, hence gravity changes. Note:- I may have misunderstood Mills on this, so please refer to the relevant chapter of his book for a better understanding. >Of course the photons would interact differently than the two particles but >that effect would be localized I think. > >Does Mills suspect that the gravitational mass is different between photons >and electrons of the same energy? Yes, AFAIK. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
nks for identifying Ruby’s interview with Muelenberg. >>> >>> >>> >>> His latest papers in Jed’s library of LENR papers are very excellent IMHO >>> regarding LENR theory. There is still some hand waving and some new terms >>> that make them hard for me to follow. >>> >>> >>> >>> Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy >>> in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals >>> (lattices of atoms). >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to see Meulenberg address Philippe Hatt’s theory of >>> massification with it’s predictions of proton and neutron mass, charge and >>> magnetic moments. >>> >>> >>> >>> Philippe may have something to say about the following paper by Barut and >>> Kraus from 1975, referenced by one of Meulenberg’s papers ; J. Condensed >>> Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) 230–235 >>> >>> >>> >>> A.O.BarutandJ.Kraus,Resonancesine+–e–systemduetoanomalousmagneticmomentinteractions,Phys.Lett.B59(2) >>> (1975) 27. >>> >>> >>> >>> The following paper is also relevant IMHO: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045 >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob Cook >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Esa Ruoho >>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ (and on iTunes >>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 ) >>> >>> >>> >>> e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC >>> will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area >>> of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges >>> ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean >>> energy technology. >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/ >>> >>> >>> >>> e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI >>> International, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there >>> continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in >>> LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is >>> currently consulting with international research groups. >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/ >>> >>> >>> >>> e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR >>> theoretician. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy >>> Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an >>> independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper >>> Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab). >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once some guy in Finland finishes >>> editing them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3 >>> >>> >>> >>> Ruby interviews Andrew Meulenberg. >>> >>> >>> >>> I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any other, >>> whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else - and AM >>> seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – perhaps based >>> in India. Let’s hope it is real. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // >>> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // >>> >>> +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage >>> esaru...@gmail.com // >>> >>> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // >>> http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial // >>> >
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Robin, I guess I do not understand how many far away objects would get information about the conversion that takes place. If the mass equivalent remains the same and its center also is conserved then what is different? Of course the photons would interact differently than the two particles but that effect would be localized I think. Does Mills suspect that the gravitational mass is different between photons and electrons of the same energy? Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mix...@bigpond.com Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but >should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other >than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event >and other particles. > >Dave If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the conversion of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe. IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Speaking of Mills - have you guys seen this Cold Fusion Now -produced documentary "Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems Melvin Miles The Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium" - the link is at https://youtube.com/watch?v=KM82RW7_II4 Also, maybe you'd find this Edmund Storms documentary (also by Cold Fusion Now! / Ruby Carat) interesting, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4BPtwzsgiw p.s. the next podcast episodes will be about Jean Paul Biberian and Alan Smith. How do I know this? I edit them together:) On 25 January 2018 at 21:20, wrote: > In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but > should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened > other than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the > event and other particles. > > > >Dave > > If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the > conversion > of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe. > IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know. > > Regards, > > > Robin van Spaandonk > > local asymmetry = temporary success > > -- http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage esaru...@gmail.com // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
In reply to Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but >should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other >than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event >and other particles. > >Dave If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the conversion of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe. IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Philippe, If you choose a frame of reference that is stationary to the center of mass of the two particles, which is at rest relative to them, then there can be very little motion associated with the two. When the conversion to energy takes place two photons are released exactly in opposite directions keeping the effective center of mass in the same place. Is there reason to believe that photons do not have actual mass and hence gravitational attraction? If they do have mass then nothing has changed in the universe other than a conversion of mass into energy. All gravitational effects remain the same. Does that not make sense? I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event and other particles. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Philippe Hatt Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dave, This is absolutely true and not challenged at all. My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass into energy .Mathematically mass and energy are related through Einstein's equation .Nevertheless mass is physically different from energy .Also the speed of the two created photons is different from that of the initial electron and positron.The problem is how can two masses be converted into energy and lose their mass ,especially as this two masses are positive .So, I guess there is a process creating mass and an opposite process annihilating mass .These two processes should enter in resonance to annihilate the two masses and convert them into energy. Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp Le 25 janv. 2018 à 17:04, Dave Roberson a écrit : Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine and two photons emerge? The total mass-energy is the same. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Philippe Hatt Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM To: Jürg Wyttenbach Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; mules...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dear Jürg, Thank you for your answer. On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a hole of mass .This is what happens between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better illustrate the phenomenon let us consider the process of massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti (positive)mass. On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR. See you soon in Paris, Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach a écrit : Dear Philippe Thanks for Your information. >From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic >moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected >value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a >proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe >do exist. The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent to proton/elect
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Dave, This is absolutely true and not challenged at all. My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass into energy .Mathematically mass and energy are related through Einstein's equation .Nevertheless mass is physically different from energy .Also the speed of the two created photons is different from that of the initial electron and positron.The problem is how can two masses be converted into energy and lose their mass ,especially as this two masses are positive .So, I guess there is a process creating mass and an opposite process annihilating mass .These two processes should enter in resonance to annihilate the two masses and convert them into energy. Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp > Le 25 janv. 2018 à 17:04, Dave Roberson a écrit : > > Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron > combine and two photons emerge? The total mass-energy is the same. > > Dave > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: Philippe Hatt > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM > To: Jürg Wyttenbach > Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; > mules...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest > > Dear Jürg, > > Thank you for your answer. > > On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative > mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence > a hole of mass .This is what happens > between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving > at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because > they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of > the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To > better illustrate the phenomenon let us consider the process of > massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a > positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant > through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So > the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass > as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the > opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified > comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is > an anti (positive)mass. > > On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built > with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding > energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was > the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are > enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in > the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR. > > See you soon in Paris, > > Philippe > > > Envoyé de mon iPadp > > Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach a écrit : > > Dear Philippe > > Thanks for Your information. > > From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic > moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected > value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a > proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe > do exist. > > The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always > interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in > proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the > E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This > indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing > the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only > have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some > physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent > to proton/electron measurements...) > > But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the > mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus > topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a > better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view the > use of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a > 4D-->3D torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math > rules. > > Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy > finally is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building > rule. Whether it is straight forwa
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine and two photons emerge? The total mass-energy is the same. Dave Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Philippe Hatt Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM To: Jürg Wyttenbach Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; mules...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Dear Jürg, Thank you for your answer. On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a hole of mass .This is what happens between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better illustrate the phenomenon let us consider the process of massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti (positive)mass. On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR. See you soon in Paris, Philippe Envoyé de mon iPadp Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach a écrit : Dear Philippe Thanks for Your information. >From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic >moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected >value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a >proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe >do exist. The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent to proton/electron measurements...) But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view the use of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a 4D-->3D torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math rules. Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy finally is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building rule. Whether it is straight forward or not has to be shown. I personally do not like the term anti-mass. In the 4(6)D model of the nucleus, we can show that all nuclear interaction (gamma levels) are exactly defined by the energy - holes (quasi negative energy) left behind during the building of the nucleus. These holes are connected to the existing mass/magnetic flux and must be (re-) filled to become active. If you can define negative mass as being flux from "real" mass to holes, then all is fine. Negative mass would imply negative energy, what even for a positron (antimatter) does not hold. An other difficulty is to directly compare the electron/proton mass with the magnetic moment. The nuclear magneton is defined as eh'/2mp (Units J/T) what needs a field to make the masses compatible. If you make a quotient like 1.913 / 2.793 then this formal "problem" factors out. What I would like to remind everybody: To explain LENR we, at the end, need a formula which allows to calculate the stimulation fields needed, what includes their strength, topology, and most likely their frequency. (The same holds for the LENR energy releasing phase...) With knowing the exact energies
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
sification >> of neutrons AND protons .It will be ready for the conference in June at Fort >> Collins . >> >> Thank you for your attention , >> >> See you hoping lay soon, >> >> Philippe >> >> >> Envoyé de mon iPadp >> >> Le 22 janv. 2018 à 21:36, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" >> a écrit : >> >>> Jones— >>> >>> I echo Esa Ruoho’s thanks for identifying Ruby’s interview with Muelenberg. >>> >>> His latest papers in Jed’s library of LENR papers are very excellent IMHO >>> regarding LENR theory. There is still some hand waving and some new terms >>> that make them hard for me to follow. >>> >>> Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy >>> in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals >>> (lattices of atoms). >>> >>> I would like to see Meulenberg address Philippe Hatt’s theory of >>> massification with it’s predictions of proton and neutron mass, charge and >>> magnetic moments. >>> >>> Philippe may have something to say about the following paper by Barut and >>> Kraus from 1975, referenced by one of Meulenberg’s papers ; J. Condensed >>> Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) 230–235 >>> >>> A.O.BarutandJ.Kraus,Resonancesine+–e–systemduetoanomalousmagneticmomentinteractions,Phys.Lett.B59(2) >>> (1975) 27. >>> >>> The following paper is also relevant IMHO: >>> >>> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045 >>> >>> Bob Cook >>> >>> From: Esa Ruoho >>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest >>> >>> Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this. >>> >>> There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ (and on iTunes >>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 ) >>> >>> e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC >>> will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area >>> of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges >>> ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean >>> energy technology. >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/ >>> >>> e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI >>> International, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there >>> continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in >>> LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is >>> currently consulting with international research groups. >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/ >>> >>> e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR >>> theoretician. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy >>> Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an >>> independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper >>> Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab). >>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/ >>> >>> >>> There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once some guy in Finland finishes >>> editing them. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3 >>> >>> Ruby interviews Andrew Meulenberg. >>> >>> I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any other, >>> whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else - and AM >>> seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – perhaps based >>> in India. Let’s hope it is real. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // >>> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // >>> +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage >>> esaru...@gmail.com // >>> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // >>> http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial // > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr.22 > 8910 Affoltern a.A. > 044 760 14 18 > 079 246 36 06
RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Jones— I echo Esa Ruoho’s thanks for identifying Ruby’s interview with Muelenberg. His latest papers in Jed’s library of LENR papers are very excellent IMHO regarding LENR theory. There is still some hand waving and some new terms that make them hard for me to follow. Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals (lattices of atoms). I would like to see Meulenberg address Philippe Hatt’s theory of massification with it’s predictions of proton and neutron mass, charge and magnetic moments. Philippe may have something to say about the following paper by Barut and Kraus from 1975, referenced by one of Meulenberg’s papers ; J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) 230–235 A.O.BarutandJ.Kraus,Resonancesine+–e–systemduetoanomalousmagneticmomentinteractions,Phys.Lett.B59(2) (1975) 27. The following paper is also relevant IMHO: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045 Bob Cook From: Esa Ruoho<mailto:esaru...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this. There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ (and on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 ) e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean energy technology. http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/ e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI International, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is currently consulting with international research groups. http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/ e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR theoretician. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab). http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/ There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once some guy in Finland finishes editing them. On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3 Ruby interviews Andrew Meulenberg. I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any other, whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else - and AM seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – perhaps based in India. Let’s hope it is real. -- http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage esaru...@gmail.com<mailto:esaru...@gmail.com> // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this. There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/ (and on iTunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 ) *e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC* will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean energy technology. http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/ *e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI International*, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is currently consulting with international research groups. http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/ *e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR theoretician*. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab). http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/ There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once *some guy* in Finland finishes editing them. On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene wrote: > > > > > http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew- > Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3 > > > > Ruby interviews Andrew Meulenberg. > > > > I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any > other, whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else - > and AM seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – > perhaps based in India. Let’s hope it is real. > > > -- http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // http://lackluster.bandcamp.com // +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage esaru...@gmail.com // http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //