Re: [Vo]:New drug for COVID

[Michael Foster]

 I promised myself I wouldn't post any more off topic messages here. But really 
there is no other topic these days. So.

Remdesivir, promoted by that evil demon Fauci, is a Big Pharma dream drug. It's 
very expensive and it doesn't really work. I'm sure that this new drug Aplidin 
is 30 times more potent than Remdesivir. Almost anything would be 30 times more 
potent than Remdesivir.

Ivermectin has apparently been used successfully as a treatment for Covid1984, 
even in advanced cases. Whereas hydroxychloroquin-zinc is only useful at the 
early onset of the disease. There was a doctor whose name I don't recall 
testifying before the Senate about Ivermectin as covid treatment. The poor man 
was on the verge of tears because he and other doctors had a near 100% recovery 
rate treating covid patients with Ivermectin and the news of this was being 
ignored or suppressed. Of course the patents on Ivermectin have long ago 
expired and it's inexpensive. We can't have that if we're Big Pharma. And we 
can't have that if we're big gubmint tyrants having fun ordering people about, 
and ignoring those same orders ourselves.

The Obama administration ordered gain-of-function virus research programs to be 
terminated in 2013 because of the very dangerous risks involved. Fauci and his 
evil minions figured out various ways to circumvent this order and so continued 
the virus research at the lab in that well known city in that foreign country 
whose name I can't write here or the message doesn't get through. These 
machinations continued under a veil of secrecy in that lab where the security 
measures were, as we now know, insufficient. Of course research was continued 
because Fauci said (his own words) it was "Worth the risk."

I guess Fauci is a well placed scientist. He's really more of a politician. 
After all, how otherwise could he become the highest paid employee of the 
federal government. That's $413,000 a year. Not bad for a humble public 
servant. Four million federal government employees and he's paid more than any 
of the others including the president. Hmm

If you do some serious web searching on Fauci and gain-of-function you may come 
to the conclusion, as have I, that he is more than anyone else responsible for 
creation of this virus. The man was already a criminal for his involvement in 
the AIDS vaccine fraud. I think he belongs in prison rather than mouthing off 
his various self-contradicting statements on the national media.



 


 On Tuesday, January 26, 2021, 02:57:22 PM GMT+1, JonesBeene 
 wrote:  
 
 
 

  

A local group here at UCSF  has identified and tested what appears to  an 
especially promising candidate for COVID which is 30 times more potent than 
remdesivir, the drug that seemed to be so effective in a number of high profile 
cases last year.

  

It is an anti-cancer drug that kills the coronavirus but is not yet approved 
for this use. The new peer-reviewed research, published in the journal Science, 
highlights the drug called Aplidin, which was originally extracted from a 
marine creature called Aplidium albicans — a rare type of “sea squirt”…

  

The drug is patented and in use already for some cancers -  and it will not be 
cheaply available or widespread in the USA unless well placed scientists  like 
Fauci takes notice.
  

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Charge is a topological effect of magnetic flux. Since more than 100 
years people believe that the magnetic moments of particles/atoms are 
created by a ring current. In reality it's the other way round. Flux 
always travels at light speed. So the charge is stationary. But physics 
is symmetric (just assume the flux stays!) and the classic assumption 
delivers the same result.


Magnetic lines do rotate according basic Maxwell laws. So in classic 3D 
space you can have 2 independent rotations. (Also classically known the 
two spherical harmonics in QM solutions). Generally you can have n-1 
independent rotations in n dimensional space.


From this picture it is trivial to see that for Euklidian space the 
rotations never cover the full space in a symmetric way. The cover only 
works for spherical shells that in reality are 2D isomorphous. So in 
average always on dimension is carrying less flux than the others. Just 
draw 2 circles on two neighbor sides of a cube, then you will see that 
one edge has double the flux than the other two. As the flux 
asymmetrically rotates in all dimensions there is always one preferred 
dimension (in the local frame of the particle) with a  net flux that 
induces charge. If we say this frame rotates, then there is always in 
average a net charge generating flux!


(This is 80% of the explanation. The flux tube needed for Farradays law 
is to complex to explain it here.)


J.W.


On 26.01.2021 21:54, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


A  charge  be  the same as a  changing  B field intensity in a  space 
volume quanta.  The definition of resonance that Jurg uses is a key 
concept,  I think an absolute time dimension does not exist, but is 
apparent from magnetic flux circulation in a locale,


A better  question is how are space and magnetic flux related IMHO.

Is magnetic flux  a dimension akin to space?    And is it 
quantized?    Spin—a rotating B  flux is a potential resulting  phonmenon.


Bob Cook

---

*From: *Robin 
*Sent: *Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:02 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:14:50 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
> From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of
>the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know
>it from the unbound state.
>
>The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that
>breaks up.

This then leads to the question...what is charge?
[snip]


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:The Higgs force and LENR

[Axil Axil]

>From our recent experiments, it looks like the energy that is generated by
the LENR reaction is coming from the Higgs force.

The electron is a quantum mechanical superposition of the electron and its
antimatter partner. The electron vibrates between this two particles many
trillions of times per second which gives the electron mass. For an
explanation of this process See:

https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/06/19/helicity-chirality-mass-and-the-higgs/



When the Higgs force is turned off, the connection with its antiparticle is
removed and with it, so is the charge and mass of the electron.

The LENR reaction turns the Higgs force off then on. When the Higgs force
is turned back on, the aggregation of electrons which have had their charge
and mass removed will regain both charge and mass. This results in an
electromagnetic explosion called a BoseNova. In this video below,
aggregations of electrons on the surface of the cathode are exploding and
it is those Bosenova that is producing the sounds from an AM radio that
mark trillions of electrons regaining their charge and mass.

https://youtu.be/MBQYArxDrdg

This process of electron reforming is what propels this arrogation(aka EVO)
of trillions of electrons to expand outward at the speed of light that
produces the energy gain that is seen in LENR.

Do you understand this?

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

[Robin]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:54:31 
+:
Hi,
[snip]

A changing electric field gives rise to a changing magnetic field, and vice 
versa, but what gives rise to a constant
electric field?


>A  charge  be  the same as a  changing  B field intensity in a  space volume 
>quanta.  The definition of resonance that Jurg uses is a key concept,  I think 
>an absolute time dimension does not exist, but is apparent from magnetic flux 
>circulation in a locale,
>
>A better  question is how are space and magnetic flux related IMHO.
>
>Is magnetic flux  a dimension akin to space?And is it quantized?Spin—a 
>rotating B  flux is a potential resulting  phonmenon.
>
>Bob Cook
[snip]

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[Mason Ainsworth]

RE: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

A  charge  be  the same as a  changing  B field intensity in a  space volume 
quanta.  The definition of resonance that Jurg uses is a key concept,  I think 
an absolute time dimension does not exist, but is apparent from magnetic flux 
circulation in a locale,

A better  question is how are space and magnetic flux related IMHO.

Is magnetic flux  a dimension akin to space?And is it quantized?Spin—a 
rotating B  flux is a potential resulting  phonmenon.

Bob Cook
---

From: Robin
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:14:50 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
> From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of
>the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know
>it from the unbound state.
>
>The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that
>breaks up.

This then leads to the question...what is charge?
[snip]

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:14:50 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
> From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of 
>the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know 
>it from the unbound state.
>
>The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that 
>breaks up.

This then leads to the question...what is charge?
[snip]

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

[Jones Beene]

 FWIW - This story in today's SciNews supports a three wave structure in 
superconductivity

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-class-superconductors.html
 ... "s- wave, p-wave and d-wave channels" ...

Jones



Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:  
  
>From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of the 
>proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know it from 
>the unbound state.
 
The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that breaks 
up.
 
This picture only works for Hydrogen. In all other nuclei we have complex flux 
interactions among shell electron waves.
 
 
J.W.
 

   

[Vo]:New drug for COVID

[JonesBeene]

A local group here at UCSF  has identified and tested what appears to  an 
especially promising candidate for COVID which is 30 times more potent than 
remdesivir, the drug that seemed to be so effective in a number of high profile 
cases last year.

It is an anti-cancer drug that kills the coronavirus but is not yet approved 
for this use. The new peer-reviewed research, published in the journal Science, 
highlights the drug called Aplidin, which was originally extracted from a 
marine creature called Aplidium albicans — a rare type of “sea squirt”…

The drug is patented and in use already for some cancers -  and it will not be 
cheaply available or widespread in the USA unless well placed scientists  like 
Fauci takes notice.

Re: [Vo]:The Higgs polariton

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

From the SO(4) model it is clear that the electron is a resonance of 
the proton. In the bound (ground) state there is no electron as we know 
it from the unbound state.


The electron unfolds in three steps as it is a three wave structure that 
breaks up.


*This picture only works for Hydrogen. *In all other nuclei we have 
complex flux interactions among shell electron waves.


J.W.

On 26.01.2021 01:54, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:04:54 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]

In fact there are no real electron orbits. The bound electron is in magnetic 
resonance with the nucleus This is the only way to get the correct result for 
the ionization energy.

Here you say "The bound electron is in magnetic resonance with the nucleus"


The Hydrogen ionization energy can be calculated without Coulomb and charge 
radius by a simple magnetic resonance formula. See SO(4) physics.
The Bohr/QM formula is just the first order approximation.

So no real(singular) angular momentum change as there is no particle like 
electron just the resonant waves.

Here you say "there is no particle like electron just the resonant waves"

...so does the electron exist or doesn't it? Or only sometimes?


The waves form a symmetric orbit that from all sides looks the same. This is 
also what we see in optics - given a homogeneous grid.

J.W.

On 25.01.2021 23:31, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:59:04 +0100:
Hi Jürg,
[snip]

People always think that quanta are fix size. This is not the case.

That depends on which quantity you are talking about.


Of course are all electron orbits related by simple quantization rules
that again are acting within second order coupling.

So there are lines for certain well known isotopes e.g. the yellow of
Na. But theies lines have  a certain thickness, the same as you would
draw it with fat pencil.

True.


Photons can only go into resonance with a line if these match the orbit,
else these get ejected after a "halve turn + angle".

I think that perhaps resonance is not enough. The change in angular momentum of 
the electron also has to match that of
the photon if the photon is to be absorbed or emitted. Otherwise any atomic 
transition would be possible.
Both energy and angular momentum need to be conserved for the electron/photon 
pair.


Do also not forget that we live around 290K where all atoms (outer shell
electrons/ chemical bonds) carry excess energy!

Most of this energy is in the form of kinetic energy of the entire 
atom/molecule, which is the primary reason that the
lines undergo Doppler broadening.
IOW the line width changes with temperature.
[snip]





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06