Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. Again, best in a dark room (but not required). Feel for any sensations. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: A worthwhile improvement for both images: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
*...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? * Because that is what Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton *“The polariton is a bosonic quasiparticle, and should not be confused with the polaron, a fermionic one, e.g. an electron plus attached phonon cloud.” * But your confusion is on-target. The spin of the polariton might well come from the dipole that makes it up. Electrons emit and adsorbed photons all the time and they still have ½ spin. But your confusion has inspired burgeoning confusion on my part because the article says that coupling times increases the probability of BEC formation. The article says “*While strong optical coupling in the single-quantum limit provides tremendous possibilities for quantum information processing through quantum electrodynamic effects, (4, 5) it is through the use of strong optical coupling in many particle systems that phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation in the solid-state (6, 7) and low-threshold polariton lasing and light emission (8, 9) have been discovered.”* Also *“Additional surface passivation that preserves the polaritonic nature of the excitations at small nanowire diameters (22) allows us to push the observed vacuum Rabi splitting to values of up to 200 meV in comparison to bulk values of 82 meV. These results provide new avenues to achieve very high coupling strengths (beyond bulk) potentially enabling application of exciting phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation of polaritons,”* In quantum electrodymanics (QED), coupling is another name for charge. In QED, the photon is the charge carrier. Also in this confusing statement, could they be saying that the charge of the polariton is greater than the electron? But in this paper it looks like the authors are using the term in another way related to photon coupling. I could be making bad inferences. The photon coupling decreases the mass of the polariton by a factor of 10,000. This could be the reason for the increase in BEC formation probability. Charge of the polariton cannot be 16 times more powerful in a polariton than in an electron; Can it? I am learning this stuff also; I need to increase my proficiency in QED, because the devil is in the details. Enlightenment is welcome for all those who are kind enough to grant it. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:39:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] The capture time of the photon is important to the LENR+ reaction because while the photon and electron are combined, the electron becomes a boson with spin of 1. ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates
Only one possibility then: neutron absorbtion by boron? I noticed boron is prominently mentioned as well. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:23 AM 4/17/2013, Teslaalset wrote: This is in contradiction with the performance of Rossi's 'hot cat' where he's getting 1000 degrees C. Copper melts at 1083 degrees C. The thermalization takes place elsewhere ... in particular, away from the nickel/hydrogen, where the patent says 500C.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates
Only one possibility then: neutron absorbtion by boron? I noticed boron is prominently mentioned as well. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:23 AM 4/17/2013, Teslaalset wrote: This is in contradiction with the performance of Rossi's 'hot cat' where he's getting 1000 degrees C. Copper melts at 1083 degrees C. The thermalization takes place elsewhere ... in particular, away from the nickel/hydrogen, where the patent says 500C.
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Harry, thanks for your appreciation. But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. And programs And videos, but the easiest to share is images. I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. Again, best in a dark room (but not required). Feel for any sensations. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: A worthwhile improvement for both images: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. Regards Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? Harry, thanks for your appreciation. But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. And programs And videos, but the easiest to share is images. I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.commailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.commailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. Again, best in a dark room (but not required). Feel for any sensations. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.commailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: A worthwhile improvement for both images: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.commailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
Axil, What happens to an electron that is in free space when it encounters a photon? One could easily imagine that it merely changes momentum and energy relative to our observation frame, but then you have to ask about the issue of time. So, what does a free space electron that absorbs a photon behave like as compared to a free space electron that has more energy than one at rest? Can you tell them apart by any measurement? Is there any reason to expect the now more energetic electron to radiate when it is moving at a greater, constant speed? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+ ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Because that is what Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton “The polariton is a bosonic quasiparticle, and should not be confused with the polaron, a fermionic one, e.g. an electron plus attached phonon cloud.” But your confusion is on-target. The spin of the polariton might well come from the dipole that makes it up. Electrons emit and adsorbed photons all the time and they still have ½ spin. But your confusion has inspired burgeoning confusion on my part because the article says that coupling times increases the probability of BEC formation. The article says “While strong optical coupling in the single-quantum limit provides tremendous possibilities for quantum information processing through quantum electrodynamic effects, (4, 5) it is through the use of strong optical coupling in many particle systems that phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation in the solid-state (6, 7) and low-threshold polariton lasing and light emission (8, 9) have been discovered.” Also “Additional surface passivation that preserves the polaritonic nature of the excitations at small nanowire diameters (22) allows us to push the observed vacuum Rabi splitting to values of up to 200 meV in comparison to bulk values of 82 meV. These results provide new avenues to achieve very high coupling strengths (beyond bulk) potentially enabling application of exciting phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation of polaritons,” In quantum electrodymanics (QED), coupling is another name for charge. In QED, the photon is the charge carrier. Also in this confusing statement, could they be saying that the charge of the polariton is greater than the electron? But in this paper it looks like the authors are using the term in another way related to photon coupling. I could be making bad inferences. The photon coupling decreases the mass of the polariton by a factor of 10,000. This could be the reason for the increase in BEC formation probability. Charge of the polariton cannot be 16 times more powerful in a polariton than in an electron; Can it? I am learning this stuff also; I need to increase my proficiency in QED, because the devil is in the details. Enlightenment is welcome for all those who are kind enough to grant it. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:39:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] The capture time of the photon is important to the LENR+ reaction because while the photon and electron are combined, the electron becomes a boson with spin of 1. ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates
How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower temperature than the region that completely surrounds it? Heat would travel toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium. Dave -Original Message- From: Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates Only one possibility then: neutron absorbtion by boron? I noticed boron is prominently mentioned as well. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:23 AM 4/17/2013, Teslaalset wrote: This is in contradiction with the performance of Rossi's 'hot cat' where he's getting 1000 degrees C. Copper melts at 1083 degrees C. The thermalization takes place elsewhere ... in particular, away from the nickel/hydrogen, where the patent says 500C.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_plant_explosion On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower temperature than the region that completely surrounds it? Heat would travel toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium. Dave -Original Message- From: Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates Only one possibility then: neutron absorbtion by boron? I noticed boron is prominently mentioned as well. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:23 AM 4/17/2013, Teslaalset wrote: This is in contradiction with the performance of Rossi's 'hot cat' where he's getting 1000 degrees C. Copper melts at 1083 degrees C. The thermalization takes place elsewhere ... in particular, away from the nickel/hydrogen, where the patent says 500C.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates
Excuse the off-topic post. It was a mistake. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:38 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_plant_explosion On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower temperature than the region that completely surrounds it? Heat would travel toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium. Dave -Original Message- From: Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates Only one possibility then: neutron absorbtion by boron? I noticed boron is prominently mentioned as well. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:23 AM 4/17/2013, Teslaalset wrote: This is in contradiction with the performance of Rossi's 'hot cat' where he's getting 1000 degrees C. Copper melts at 1083 degrees C. The thermalization takes place elsewhere ... in particular, away from the nickel/hydrogen, where the patent says 500C.
[Vo]:Can a Free Electron Absorb a Photon?
Does anyone know how a free electron in space can absorb a photon of moderate energy? I was thinking of the interaction between a light photon and a free electron when it occurred to me that it might be impossible for the photon to deliver all of its energy and momentum to a single particle. I chose the frame of reference as being where the electron is stationary for this thought experiment although it might be better to choose a different one. From the electron view point an incoming photon has both energy and momentum. If we assume that the photon is completely absorbed by the electron then the total energy and momentum must remain in balance. The electron was initially at rest so it had zero momentum and the energy associated with its mass. After the collision the electron would be in relative motion from our reference frame at which time it would have both momentum and extra energy. I can go through the math in detail if needed, but it is apparent that these calculations would not hold up to keep the system in balance except for perhaps one special energy photon(.511 MeV). In that case a pair of .511 MeV gammas is emitted when an electron and positron annihilate each other. Also, the two gammas are emitted in opposite directions to conserve momentum. In light of the above argument, it appears as though a free space electron can not absorb a photon in total and that it must instead interact to a lesser degree. Does that mean that these collisions virtually always result in the scattering of incoming electromagnetic radiation? Does a photon keep getting bounced around as it looses energy in a non ending series of collisions? If this is true then it would not be too big of a stretch to imagine that the cosmic background radiation might be correlated with the eventual fate of high energy photons that have been beaten to death on their way through the free charged particles of space. The other situation to examine is that since a single photon apparently can not be totally absorbed by a free electron, then the reverse should be true. A free electron should not be able to spawn a single photon. The conservation laws should get in the way of that activity and I would expect a pair of photons most likely is the consequence. It might happen that these are entangled due to their close relationship at birth. Can anyone add support to these conclusions? It is always interesting to expand ones knowledge by thought experiments. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates
You had me scratching my head there! -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates Excuse the off-topic post. It was a mistake. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:38 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_plant_explosion On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: How would the nickel/hydrogen mixture be at a lower temperature than the region that completely surrounds it? Heat would travel toward the cooler center until it was in equilibrium. Dave -Original Message- From: Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Patent updates Only one possibility then: neutron absorbtion by boron? I noticed boron is prominently mentioned as well. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 01:23 AM 4/17/2013, Teslaalset wrote: This is in contradiction with the performance of Rossi's 'hot cat' where he's getting 1000 degrees C. Copper melts at 1083 degrees C. The thermalization takes place elsewhere ... in particular, away from the nickel/hydrogen, where the patent says 500C.
[Vo]:New Microbatteries the Most Powerful Yet
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130416151929.htm Though they be but little, they are fierce. The most powerful batteries on the planet are only a few millimeters in size, yet they pack such a punch that a driver could use a cellphone powered by these batteries to jump-start a dead car battery -- and then recharge the phone in the blink of an eye.
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
*“What happens to an electron that is in free space when it encounters a photon?”* From QED, this type of ordinary electron has a probability of absorbing the photon and then reemitting it. This happens all the time when plane old electrons orbit the nucleus when an electron jumps between orbital shells of an atom. These ordinary electrons do gain and lose energy in quanta. But the formation of polaritons is a different animal. The nanoantenna forces the light photon and electron together using resonance for a very long time (10 to 20 picoseconds). This marriage between an electron an infrared photon gives the photon of light some mass and most importantly for LENR electric charge. In this mating, the Photon cools the electron down by a huge factor by reducing its energy. Based on the wavelength of the photon, an infrared photon can cool and electron down by a factor of 100,000 or more. The polariton comes out of the marriage with the electron with a temperature of 2 meV or 2 mille-electron volts. This is very cold. That puts the temperature of the polariton very close to absolute zero (Temperature 1 Kelven). At this very low temperature, Bose-Einstein condensation happens at the drop of a hat. After the electron marriage, because the polariton has inherited spin of 1 from the photon, there is no limit to how many polaritons can be packed together in a small volume because the Pauli Exclusion Principle is no longer relevant. If you wanted to build the ideal charged particle to concentrate charge for coulomb screening, and to thermalize nuclear radiation that result, you could not build a better particle than a polariton. On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, What happens to an electron that is in free space when it encounters a photon? One could easily imagine that it merely changes momentum and energy relative to our observation frame, but then you have to ask about the issue of time. So, what does a free space electron that absorbs a photon behave like as compared to a free space electron that has more energy than one at rest? Can you tell them apart by any measurement? Is there any reason to expect the now more energetic electron to radiate when it is moving at a greater, constant speed? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+ *...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? * Because that is what Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton *“The polariton is a bosonic quasiparticle, and should not be confused with the polaron, a fermionic one, e.g. an electron plus attached phonon cloud.” * But your confusion is on-target. The spin of the polariton might well come from the dipole that makes it up. Electrons emit and adsorbed photons all the time and they still have ½ spin. But your confusion has inspired burgeoning confusion on my part because the article says that coupling times increases the probability of BEC formation. The article says “*While strong optical coupling in the single-quantum limit provides tremendous possibilities for quantum information processing through quantum electrodynamic effects, (4, 5) it is through the use of strong optical coupling in many particle systems that phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation in the solid-state (6, 7) and low-threshold polariton lasing and light emission (8, 9) have been discovered.”* Also *“Additional surface passivation that preserves the polaritonic nature of the excitations at small nanowire diameters (22) allows us to push the observed vacuum Rabi splitting to values of up to 200 meV in comparison to bulk values of 82 meV. These results provide new avenues to achieve very high coupling strengths (beyond bulk) potentially enabling application of exciting phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation of polaritons,”* In quantum electrodymanics (QED), coupling is another name for charge. In QED, the photon is the charge carrier. Also in this confusing statement, could they be saying that the charge of the polariton is greater than the electron? But in this paper it looks like the authors are using the term in another way related to photon coupling. I could be making bad inferences. The photon coupling decreases the mass of the polariton by a factor of 10,000. This could be the reason for the increase in BEC formation probability. Charge of the polariton cannot be 16 times more powerful in a polariton than in an electron; Can it? I am learning this stuff also; I need to increase my proficiency in QED, because the devil is in the details. Enlightenment is welcome for all those who are kind enough to grant it. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's
Re: [Vo]:Can a Free Electron Absorb a Photon?
In Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) everything is calculated through probability. That is the square of the amplitude of the reaction. If the photon is resonant with the electron, the probability that the photon will be absorbed is high. If it is not resonant, the probability of coupling is low but not impossible. If the photon is not absorbed by one electron, it will encounter many more until it is absorbed. From QED, this type of ordinary electron has a probability of absorbing the photon and then reemitting it. This happens all the time when plain old electrons orbit the nucleus when an electron jumps between orbital shells of an atom. The electron will jump up to the next energy level when it finds a photon with the proper quanta. This is how things are colored. Grass absorbs red light and blue light but reflects green light. These ordinary electrons do gain and lose energy in quanta. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone know how a free electron in space can absorb a photon of moderate energy? I was thinking of the interaction between a light photon and a free electron when it occurred to me that it might be impossible for the photon to deliver all of its energy and momentum to a single particle. I chose the frame of reference as being where the electron is stationary for this thought experiment although it might be better to choose a different one. From the electron view point an incoming photon has both energy and momentum. If we assume that the photon is completely absorbed by the electron then the total energy and momentum must remain in balance. The electron was initially at rest so it had zero momentum and the energy associated with its mass. After the collision the electron would be in relative motion from our reference frame at which time it would have both momentum and extra energy. I can go through the math in detail if needed, but it is apparent that these calculations would not hold up to keep the system in balance except for perhaps one special energy photon(.511 MeV). In that case a pair of .511 MeV gammas is emitted when an electron and positron annihilate each other. Also, the two gammas are emitted in opposite directions to conserve momentum. In light of the above argument, it appears as though a free space electron can not absorb a photon in total and that it must instead interact to a lesser degree. Does that mean that these collisions virtually always result in the scattering of incoming electromagnetic radiation? Does a photon keep getting bounced around as it looses energy in a non ending series of collisions? If this is true then it would not be too big of a stretch to imagine that the cosmic background radiation might be correlated with the eventual fate of high energy photons that have been beaten to death on their way through the free charged particles of space. The other situation to examine is that since a single photon apparently can not be totally absorbed by a free electron, then the reverse should be true. A free electron should not be able to spawn a single photon. The conservation laws should get in the way of that activity and I would expect a pair of photons most likely is the consequence. It might happen that these are entangled due to their close relationship at birth. Can anyone add support to these conclusions? It is always interesting to expand ones knowledge by thought experiments. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
how about this? http://singularityhub.com/2013/03/11/brains-of-two-rats-linked-half-way-across-the-world/ On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:04 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Harry, thanks for your appreciation. But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. And programs And videos, but the easiest to share is images. I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. Again, best in a dark room (but not required). Feel for any sensations. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: A worthwhile improvement for both images: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
*Charge of the polariton cannot be 16 times more powerful in a polariton than in an electron; Can it?* Under the rules of QED, charge cannot be created or destroyed. So it is impossible. Cheers:Axil On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? * Because that is what Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton *“The polariton is a bosonic quasiparticle, and should not be confused with the polaron, a fermionic one, e.g. an electron plus attached phonon cloud.” * But your confusion is on-target. The spin of the polariton might well come from the dipole that makes it up. Electrons emit and adsorbed photons all the time and they still have ½ spin. But your confusion has inspired burgeoning confusion on my part because the article says that coupling times increases the probability of BEC formation. The article says “*While strong optical coupling in the single-quantum limit provides tremendous possibilities for quantum information processing through quantum electrodynamic effects, (4, 5) it is through the use of strong optical coupling in many particle systems that phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation in the solid-state (6, 7) and low-threshold polariton lasing and light emission (8, 9) have been discovered.”* Also *“Additional surface passivation that preserves the polaritonic nature of the excitations at small nanowire diameters (22) allows us to push the observed vacuum Rabi splitting to values of up to 200 meV in comparison to bulk values of 82 meV. These results provide new avenues to achieve very high coupling strengths (beyond bulk) potentially enabling application of exciting phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation of polaritons,”* In quantum electrodymanics (QED), coupling is another name for charge. In QED, the photon is the charge carrier. Also in this confusing statement, could they be saying that the charge of the polariton is greater than the electron? But in this paper it looks like the authors are using the term in another way related to photon coupling. I could be making bad inferences. The photon coupling decreases the mass of the polariton by a factor of 10,000. This could be the reason for the increase in BEC formation probability. Charge of the polariton cannot be 16 times more powerful in a polariton than in an electron; Can it? I am learning this stuff also; I need to increase my proficiency in QED, because the devil is in the details. Enlightenment is welcome for all those who are kind enough to grant it. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:39:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] The capture time of the photon is important to the LENR+ reaction because while the photon and electron are combined, the electron becomes a boson with spin of 1. ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:36% of children near Fukushima have abnormal thyroid growths
This is a much higher percent than children living near Chernobyl. See: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-stunning-36-percent-of-fukushima-children-have-abnormal-growths-from-radiation-exposure-2012-7 http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.com/ This has not been reported in the Japanese mass media, to my knowledge. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:36% of children near Fukushima have abnormal thyroid growths
it seems really fast, after 1 year. the dose was light, and in Tchernobyl where the kids did drink contaminated food, it tooks much time, and a rate quite low compared to the population. need independent checking... and not by NGO who get benefit from hoax. since now, fear and evacuation have killed more than radiation , in tchernobyl and fukushima. This is the problem to solve, a if that rumor is a manipulation, adding fear to the panic is... killing people. today alcohol abuse and depression are the worst risk there. http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/fear-of-radiation-has-killed-761-and.html http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/ http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/13/why-this-matters/ (and many others)... note that some place are much more contaminated, and people are healthy there, even foreigners... Hormesis is proven since long, and like LENR is ignored. (see papersfrom maurice tubiana)... no surprise, it match all what we know from cancer genesis, from the 3 treshold that LLNT deny... some rediscover that well known fact: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/ with LENR we are lucky because the error of the usual position can be proven with w working reactor (no less, evidence are ignored, as thomas kuhn explain well). but there is nothing like a plane, or a reactor, to dispel fear as unjustified... If I convince the population that tasmanian daemon, are dangerous in south of paris, and say them to avoid parks, and to buy sound tasmanian daemon repelent, I would be a billionaire, and ther would be no way to say I'm a liar. I'm I pretend that LENR is fake, Rossi, or Defkalion, or Billiouin can dispell me. 2013/4/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com This is a much higher percent than children living near Chernobyl. See: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-stunning-36-percent-of-fukushima-children-have-abnormal-growths-from-radiation-exposure-2012-7 http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.com/ This has not been reported in the Japanese mass media, to my knowledge. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
This is not made to effect the eye or brain. It works with eyes closed. As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be felt. Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?*** * ** ** Harry, thanks for your appreciation. ** ** But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. ** ** And programs ** ** And videos, but the easiest to share is images. ** ** I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. ** ** It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. ** ** So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. ** ** I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. ** ** ** ** John ** ** On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry ** ** On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png ** ** All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. ** ** Again, best in a dark room (but not required). ** ** Feel for any sensations. ** ** ** ** On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: A worthwhile improvement for both images: ** ** http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png ** ** http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png ** ** ** ** On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:14:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] *...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? * Because that is what Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton *The polariton is a bosonic quasiparticle, and should not be confused with the polaron, a fermionic one, e.g. an electron plus attached phonon cloud. This is an electron + phonons (not a photon). Perhaps the polariton may then later also couple with a photon, though you need to note that there are things called optical phonons, which are phonons at optical frequencies. Optical phonons may be responsible for some of the optical references. In short you need to read this stuff very carefully. * [snip] The capture time of the photon is important to the LENR+ reaction because while the photon and electron are combined, the electron becomes a boson with spin of 1. ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
In reply to David Roberson's message of Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:51:07 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Axil, What happens to an electron that is in free space when it encounters a photon? One could easily imagine that it merely changes momentum and energy relative to our observation frame, but then you have to ask about the issue of time. So, what does a free space electron that absorbs a photon That's easy. A free space electron can't (permanently) absorb a photon. It can however have Compton effect encounter with the photon. I.e. the photon loses some of its energy to the electron (and changes in frequency as a result), and also exchanges some momentum with the electron. behave like as compared to a free space electron that has more energy than one at rest? Can you tell them apart by any measurement? Is there any reason to expect the now more energetic electron to radiate when it is moving at a greater, constant speed? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 3:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+ ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Because that is what Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton The polariton is a bosonic quasiparticle, and should not be confused with the polaron, a fermionic one, e.g. an electron plus attached phonon cloud. But your confusion is on-target. The spin of the polariton might well come from the dipole that makes it up. Electrons emit and adsorbed photons all the time and they still have ½ spin. But your confusion has inspired burgeoning confusion on my part because the article says that coupling times increases the probability of BEC formation. The article says While strong optical coupling in the single-quantum limit provides tremendous possibilities for quantum information processing through quantum electrodynamic effects, (4, 5) it is through the use of strong optical coupling in many particle systems that phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation in the solid-state (6, 7) and low-threshold polariton lasing and light emission (8, 9) have been discovered. Also Additional surface passivation that preserves the polaritonic nature of the excitations at small nanowire diameters (22) allows us to push the observed vacuum Rabi splitting to values of up to 200 meV in comparison to bulk values of 82 meV. These results provide new avenues to achieve very high coupling strengths (beyond bulk) potentially enabling application of exciting phenomena such as Bose-Einstein condensation of polaritons, In quantum electrodymanics (QED), coupling is another name for charge. In QED, the photon is the charge carrier. Also in this confusing statement, could they be saying that the charge of the polariton is greater than the electron? But in this paper it looks like the authors are using the term in another way related to photon coupling. I could be making bad inferences. The photon coupling decreases the mass of the polariton by a factor of 10,000. This could be the reason for the increase in BEC formation probability. Charge of the polariton cannot be 16 times more powerful in a polariton than in an electron; Can it? I am learning this stuff also; I need to increase my proficiency in QED, because the devil is in the details. Enlightenment is welcome for all those who are kind enough to grant it. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:39:24 -0400: Hi, [snip] The capture time of the photon is important to the LENR+ reaction because while the photon and electron are combined, the electron becomes a boson with spin of 1. ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:02:56 -0400: Hi, [snip] *What happens to an electron that is in free space when it encounters a photon?* From QED, this type of ordinary electron has a probability of absorbing the photon and then reemitting it. This happens all the time when plane old electrons orbit the nucleus when an electron jumps between orbital shells of an atom. This is not a free electron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very faintly at first feel something in my hand. It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel it, but always a majority). I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the EM from the speakers that effects the aether). And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the aether just fine, but have many many advantages. So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works fine. So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? Really by definition it must. Well, it does. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: This is not made to effect the eye or brain. It works with eyes closed. As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be felt. Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?** ** ** ** Harry, thanks for your appreciation. ** ** But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. ** ** And programs ** ** And videos, but the easiest to share is images. ** ** I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. ** ** It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. ** ** So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. ** ** I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. ** ** ** ** John ** ** On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry ** ** On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png ** ** All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. ** ** Again, best in a dark room (but not required). ** ** Feel for any sensations. **
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very faintly at first feel something in my hand. It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel it, but always a majority). I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the EM from the speakers that effects the aether). And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the aether just fine, but have many many advantages. So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works fine. So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? Really by definition it must. Well, it does. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: This is not made to effect the eye or brain. It works with eyes closed. As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be felt. Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?* *** ** ** Harry, thanks for your appreciation. ** ** But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. ** ** And programs ** ** And videos, but the easiest to share is images. ** ** I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. ** ** It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. ** ** So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. ** ** I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. ** ** ** ** John ** ** On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry ** ** On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the images. Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with positive results before I posted this to Vortex. So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault. How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you got from it? For me the intensity of the energy is far far beyond anything that my imagination alone can conjure up. But I accept that may not be the case for most. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very faintly at first feel something in my hand. It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel it, but always a majority). I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the EM from the speakers that effects the aether). And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the aether just fine, but have many many advantages. So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works fine. So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? Really by definition it must. Well, it does. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: This is not made to effect the eye or brain. It works with eyes closed. As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be felt. Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? ** ** Harry, thanks for your appreciation. ** ** But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. ** ** And programs ** ** And videos, but the easiest to share is images. ** ** I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. ** ** It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. ** ** So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. ** ** I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. ** ** ** ** John ** ** On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. ...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Running a control experiment is debunking? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the images. Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with positive results before I posted this to Vortex. So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault. How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you got from it? For me the intensity of the energy is far far beyond anything that my imagination alone can conjure up. But I accept that may not be the case for most. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very faintly at first feel something in my hand. It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel it, but always a majority). I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the EM from the speakers that effects the aether). And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the aether just fine, but have many many advantages. So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works fine. So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? Really by definition it must. Well, it does. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: This is not made to effect the eye or brain. It works with eyes closed. As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be felt. Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? ** ** Harry, thanks for your appreciation. ** ** But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. ** ** And programs ** ** And videos, but the easiest to share is images. ** ** I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. ** ** It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. ** ** So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. ** ** I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water.*** * ** ** ** ** John ** ** On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into
Re: [Vo]:QED and LENR+
Let’s go over this Nanoplasmonic process in a little more detail. The formation of the polariton is a multi-part process which involves both phonons and photons as follows: First, the Exciton is formed as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciton The electrons on the surface of the metal particles move freely and are driven to vibrate by the phonons of the lattice. These electrons are periodically displaced from the ions of the lattice. This displacement causes electrons and ions to be accumulated on the surfaces at opposite ends of the particles. Because these particles attract each other there is a restoring force. This restoring force results in the formation of an electron oscillator whose quantum is called a surface plasmon and whose frequency is determined by the restoring force. This frequency reflects the effective mass of the electron. The frequency of the surface plasmon not only depends on the metals composition of the particle but also on its size and shape, on the dielectric material that surrounds the particle, and finally on the shape of the particle be it either elongated or spherical because of the varied distance between the two opposite ends. The surface plasmon is a localized oscillation of collective electron densities. The key innovation of the Ni/H reactor is that the reactor produces infrared photons through the actions of field emitters formed on the surface of the nanostructures which cover the surface of the micro-particles or by using photo active chemicals. No laser irradiation is required. This could well be why a chemical based thermal photonic or florescent additive must be added to convert phonons and/or electrons to photons. In this type of reactor, we know that there are lots of infrared photons around because the gamma rays from the LENR nuclear reactions are thermalized into the infrared. In a Ni/H reactor that uses spark discharge, the laser is replaced with a spark. Infrared photons can be produced by converting spark X-ray photons to infrared photons. Finally, the nanoantenna uses Fano resonance to combine the Exciton with the infrared photon to produce a polariton. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:16 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:14:19 -0400: Hi, [snip] *...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? * Because that is what Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton *“The polariton is a bosonic quasiparticle, and should not be confused with the polaron, a fermionic one, e.g. an electron plus attached phonon cloud.” This is an electron + phonons (not a photon). Perhaps the polariton may then later also couple with a photon, though you need to note that there are things called optical phonons, which are phonons at optical frequencies. Optical phonons may be responsible for some of the optical references. In short you need to read this stuff very carefully. * [snip] The capture time of the photon is important to the LENR+ reaction because while the photon and electron are combined, the electron becomes a boson with spin of 1. ...if an electron has spin 1/2 and a photon spin 1, then how does the combination end up with spin 1? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact that I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an acceptable control experiment. If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they felt anything. I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying the egos of a bunch of skeptics that they had the strength of numbers on their side. So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Running a control experiment is debunking? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the images. Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with positive results before I posted this to Vortex. So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault. How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you got from it? For me the intensity of the energy is far far beyond anything that my imagination alone can conjure up. But I accept that may not be the case for most. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very faintly at first feel something in my hand. It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel it, but always a majority). I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the EM from the speakers that effects the aether). And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the aether just fine, but have many many advantages. So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works fine. So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? Really by definition it must. Well, it does. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: This is not made to effect the eye or brain. It works with eyes closed. As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be felt. Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory.*** * Regards Fran ** ** ** ** *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? ** ** Harry, thanks for your appreciation. ** ** But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. ** ** And programs ** ** And videos, but the easiest to share is
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
First off, thank you for at least considering this. Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect. There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests. You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of the mind on the results. You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind. There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released. Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts being things. Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double! So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind). Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you to feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can experience but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional detail, your beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a degree. That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make for a possibility of some confusing results. I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real. But I know you can't take it on faith. You could just humor me. Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of it. Of course you could ignore it as being too far out. But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us from recognizing a part of reality. My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various other distractions. My interest does lie in creating physical effects. Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of interest. I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be effected by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would have to be given. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact that I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an acceptable control experiment. If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they felt anything. I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying the egos of a bunch of skeptics that they had the strength of numbers on their side. So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Running a control experiment is debunking? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the images. Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with positive results before I posted this to Vortex. So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault. How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you got from it? For me the intensity of the energy is far far beyond anything that my imagination alone can conjure up. But I accept that may not be the case for most. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.comwrote: What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very faintly at first feel something in my hand. It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was
