Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--


If the system is coherent, i.e.,a quantum system, the boundary would be linked 
instaneously.  For example, light emitted from a distant object that is bent by 
a massive object in one direction from Earth is still coordinated with its 
orginal wave front coming directly from the source and from a different 
direction.  The distance that the wave front traveled as it arrived from 
different directions may be  be different by light years.  However, it is still 
coordinated.  This is like spooky action at a distance associated with a 
quantum system extending across the Universe.   The same thing on a smaller 
scale happens in a semi conductor or a crystal when an electron enters the 
material system that makes up that semi conductor or crystal.  The whole 
coordinated system recognizes the electron, and the energy states across the 
material (macroscopic in size in some cases that are so engineered) change 
instantaneously--again spooky action at a distance associated with a 
coordinated (some called it entangled) quantum system.


IMHO the nano particles associated with successful LENR reflect a coherent 
quantum system that can change energy states across the particle during the 
correct resonant conditions created by either magnetic fields or electric 
fields or both. The entire system is coordinated--entangled--and changes from a 
greater potential energy to a greater kinetic energy or spin energy state 
associated with electron orbital motion and/or small bits of kinetic energy 
(emitted to the environment outside the material system in the form of photons 
and maybe neutrinos) occur.   The major changes of energy in the system occur 
among the electrons and happen one small Planck constant of angular 
momentum--spin energy--at a time.  This amounts to an increase of entropy for 
the entire system, whatever it entails.


Spin waves may be involved in the conditions that allow the transitions in a 
given nano particle, coupling the spin energy of the nuclei with the orbital 
spin energy of the electrons.  Spin waves for me are a new concept with no 
discussion of them in my physics classes as I remember.


What does McCulloch say about spin waves?  You probably were not trained about 
spin wave concepts either.


You now have my outlandish (but not off the cuff) opinion.


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.

However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave phenomena 
that doesn't seem to match up with his theory.  In his theory, he drops out 
wavelengths of EM background radiation that would be filtered in the frequency 
domain due to the Rindler boundary which moves closer to the object depending 
on acceleration.  However, in the time domain these waves would have to 
propagate the distances to the discontinuity and back before any cancellations 
could occur.  The boundaries in question are huge distances away.  For example, 
for a free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be 
changed to 10 light years away.  The change in inertial mass induced by an 
acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the time to the 
discontinuity.  That would mean that the object being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 
should not know of the boundary for at least 20 years.  If the object 
instantaneously experienced a change in inertial mass, it would seem to violate 
causality by this theory.

I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this understanding.  
Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole 
mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-radiation-confirmed.html

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Unified field theory achieved: Unification of gravitation and electromagnetism 
Dr C Y Lo July 2016

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Unified field theory achieved: Unification of gravitation and electromagnet...
 On the test of Newton's inverse square law and the unification of gravitation 
with electromagnetism Dr C Y L...  |   |

  |

  |

 
Dr C Y LO picks up from history of dissent with relativity from such people 
as-- 

Stephen Crothers- 

Steve Crothers: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology | EU2015

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Steve Crothers: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology | EU2015
 JOIN US for the EU2016 Conference: Elegant Simplicity//June 
17-19//https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/12/30/e...  |   |

  |

  |

 
Prof Myron Evans-
http://www.aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Myron_Evans


i.e. modern physics is f**ked





On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 21:55, ROGER ANDERTON 
 wrote:
 

 very bad idiots.
one math error "they" make is highlighted  at following link with lecturer 
still teaching it in lecture to students- 

Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
||  
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
 Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and 
showing the contradiction in the mat...  |   |

  |

  |

 
long history of dissent with relativity picked up from such sources as:  
Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity TheoriesBy Al 
Kelly
where Kelly picked up by Vigier p 259

History of unified field theory quest by Einstein - picked up by David Bohm, 
and then Prof Vigier picked up from Bohm
Problem that has delayed unified field theory is - replacement for existing 
quantum mechanics from Bohm to Vigier et al goes by names like: Stochastic 
interpretation
while relativity is full of silly mistakes.

Physics papers dealing with this are presented at Vigier Conferences. see 
Vigier 9

  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
Vigier 9
   |   |

  |

  |

 




Unification thus achieved by DR C Y LO in lecture going on internet soon











On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 21:27, Stephen A. Lawrence 
 wrote:
 

  Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's 
conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them?  What kind of 
idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway?
 
 The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no 
connection with Einstein's original algebraic work.  His GR papers still look 
quite modern, but even there all of his work has been redone, rederived, many 
times over.
 
 You can pick at his 1905 paper from now 'til the cows come home, or go waste 
your time on something else, it makes no difference.  Whether there are errors 
in the derivations in that paper or not, seriously, nobody cares.
 
 (Sorry, everybody, in years past I wasted a lot of time in arguments in the 
relativity news groups.  Some people just don't understand the math of SR and 
will never believe that it works.)
 
 
 On 09/22/2016 04:15 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
  
  
 
 
 
 

   

   

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

very bad idiots.
one math error "they" make is highlighted  at following link with lecturer 
still teaching it in lecture to students- 

Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
 Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and 
showing the contradiction in the mat...  |   |

  |

  |

 
long history of dissent with relativity picked up from such sources as:  
Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity TheoriesBy Al 
Kelly
where Kelly picked up by Vigier p 259

History of unified field theory quest by Einstein - picked up by David Bohm, 
and then Prof Vigier picked up from Bohm
Problem that has delayed unified field theory is - replacement for existing 
quantum mechanics from Bohm to Vigier et al goes by names like: Stochastic 
interpretation
while relativity is full of silly mistakes.

Physics papers dealing with this are presented at Vigier Conferences. see 
Vigier 9

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Vigier 9
   |   |

  |

  |

 




Unification thus achieved by DR C Y LO in lecture going on internet soon











On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 21:27, Stephen A. Lawrence 
 wrote:
 

  Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's 
conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them?  What kind of 
idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway?
 
 The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no 
connection with Einstein's original algebraic work.  His GR papers still look 
quite modern, but even there all of his work has been redone, rederived, many 
times over.
 
 You can pick at his 1905 paper from now 'til the cows come home, or go waste 
your time on something else, it makes no difference.  Whether there are errors 
in the derivations in that paper or not, seriously, nobody cares.
 
 (Sorry, everybody, in years past I wasted a lot of time in arguments in the 
relativity news groups.  Some people just don't understand the math of SR and 
will never believe that it works.)
 
 
 On 09/22/2016 04:15 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:
  
  
 
 
 
 

   

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Do you honestly believe that modern relativity theory takes Einstein's 
conclusions from his original papers and just blindly uses them?  What 
kind of idiots do you take physicists to be, anyway?


The modern version of SR is based on tensor calculus with little or no 
connection with Einstein's original algebraic work.  His GR papers still 
look quite modern, but even there all of his work has been redone, 
rederived, many times over.


You can pick at his 1905 paper from now 'til the cows come home, or go 
waste your time on something else, it makes no difference. Whether there 
are errors in the derivations in that paper or not, seriously, /nobody 
cares/.


(Sorry, everybody, in years past I wasted a lot of time in arguments in 
the relativity news groups.  Some people just don't understand the math 
of SR and will never believe that it works.)



On 09/22/2016 04:15 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and 
>>get the right answer.

ah relativity "they" have done the math wrong
see: Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton
 Just concentrating on the maths of how Newton is connected to Einstein, and 
showing the contradiction in the mat...  |   |

  |

  |

 
 
I'm putting together unified field theory website now at: 

http://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/

THISWEBSITE IS DEVOTED TO TALKS GIVEN ON UNIFIED FIELD THEORY AND RELATED 
PHYSICSUSUALLY GIVEN AT VIGIER CONFERENCES. HISTORY IS: EINSTEIN AFTER SAYING 
"GODDOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE" WAS SIDELINED BY MAINSTREAM 
PHYSICSCOMMUNITY, BECAUSE BY THAT REMARK HE WAS DISAGREEING WITH THE DIRECTION 
THATPHYSICS WAS TAKING IN QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SCIENTISTS 
THATTOOK UP EINSTEIN'S QUEST FOR UNIFIED FIELD THEORY SUCH AS BOHM AND THEN 
LATERVIGIER; THE NAME OF THESE CONFERENCES INVESTIGATING UNIFIED FIELD THEORY 
(ANDRELATED ISSUES) BEING NAMED AFTER VIGIER, IN HIS HONOUR. I TRACE UNIFIED 
FIELDTHEORY AS GOING BACK TO BOSCOVICH. NOW DR C Y LO SAYS HE HAS DONE THE 
EXPERIMENTSAND HAS THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY. ON THE ISSUE IS EINSTEIN WRONG? 
DURINGINVESTIGATIONS ON THIS WE FIND THAT EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT SOME THINGS 
ANDRIGHT ABOUT OTHER THINGS. THE USUAL VIEW PROMOTED IS THAT EINSTEIN WAS 
RIGHTABOUT RELATIVITY AND WRONG ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS. HOWEVER, WE FIND IT 
THEOTHER WAY ROUND - EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS (I.E. THAT IT 
HAD MANY PROBLEMS) AND HAD SEVERAL THINGS WRONG IN RELATIVITY.  SOME OF THESE 
IMPORTANT TALKS ARE PRESENTEDHERE, AND THE PAPERS ARE BEING PREPARED FOR THE 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE VIGIERCONFERENCE. PRESENTED HERE IS INSIGHT INTO  - THE 
DIRECTION THAT PHYSICS SHOULD HAVETAKEN. 





On Thursday, 22 September 2016, 20:40, Stephen A. Lawrence 
 wrote:
 

  One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any 
Rindler boundary.  You're following a geodesic, and not "really" accelerating.
 
 You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating mass and 
get the right answer.  In fact, while you certainly can apply SR in an 
accelerated frame (with some care), you can't really apply it at all in 
non-flat space.  The math of SR assumes a fixed metric, which you haven't got 
in a gravitational field.   In general, while I don't think there is, I have no 
idea how you'd go about determining for sure whether there's an event horizon 
due to acceleration when free-falling in a gravitational field.
 
 On 09/22/2016 12:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
  
  I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.  
 
 However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave phenomena 
that doesn't seem to match up with his theory.  In his theory, he drops out 
wavelengths of EM background radiation that would be filtered in the frequency 
domain due to the Rindler boundary which moves closer to the object depending 
on acceleration.  However, in the time domain these waves would have to 
propagate the distances to the discontinuity and back before any cancellations 
could occur.  The boundaries in question are huge distances away.  For example, 
for a free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be 
changed to 10 light years away.  The change in inertial mass induced by an 
acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the time to the 
discontinuity.  That would mean that the object being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 
should not know of the boundary for at least 20 years.  If the object 
instantaneously experienced a change in inertial mass, it would seem to violate 
causality by this theory.
 
  I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this understanding. 
 Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?
  
 On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
 
  http://physicsfromtheedge. blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh- 
radiation-confirmed.html
   
  
  
 
 

   

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

One trivial point -- if you're in free fall I don't think there is any 
Rindler boundary.  You're following a geodesic, and not "really" 
accelerating.


You can't just apply SR in the curved spacetime around a gravitating 
mass and get the right answer.  In fact, while you certainly /can/ apply 
SR in an accelerated frame (with some care), you can't really apply it 
at all in non-flat space.  The math of SR assumes a fixed metric, which 
you haven't got in a gravitational field.   In general, while I don't 
_think_ there is, I have no idea how you'd go about determining for sure 
whether there's an event horizon due to acceleration when free-falling 
in a gravitational field.


On 09/22/2016 12:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.

However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave 
phenomena that doesn't seem to match up with his theory. In his 
theory, he drops out wavelengths of EM background radiation that would 
be filtered in the frequency domain due to the Rindler boundary which 
moves closer to the object depending on acceleration.  However, in the 
time domain these waves would have to propagate the distances to the 
discontinuity and back before any cancellations could occur. The 
boundaries in question are huge distances away.  For example, for a 
free fall acceleration on the Earth (9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be 
changed to 10 light years away.  The change in inertial mass induced 
by an acceleration will not know of the discontinuity until twice the 
time to the discontinuity.  That would mean that the object being 
accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 should not know of the boundary for at least 
20 years.  If the object instantaneously experienced a change in 
inertial mass, it would seem to violate causality by this theory.


I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this 
understanding.  Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?


On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole > wrote:



http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-radiation-confirmed.html

Re: [Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Bob Higgins]

I have read Dr. McCulloch's book and find his theory interesting.

However, my training in RF gives me a different perspective on wave
phenomena that doesn't seem to match up with his theory.  In his theory, he
drops out wavelengths of EM background radiation that would be filtered in
the frequency domain due to the Rindler boundary which moves closer to the
object depending on acceleration.  However, in the time domain these waves
would have to propagate the distances to the discontinuity and back before
any cancellations could occur.  The boundaries in question are huge
distances away.  For example, for a free fall acceleration on the Earth
(9.8m/s^2), the boundary would be changed to 10 light years away.  The
change in inertial mass induced by an acceleration will not know of the
discontinuity until twice the time to the discontinuity.  That would mean
that the object being accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 should not know of the
boundary for at least 20 years.  If the object instantaneously experienced
a change in inertial mass, it would seem to violate causality by this
theory.

I have written to Dr. McCulloch to ask him how I get past this
understanding.  Do any of you have an opinion on this issue?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-
> radiation-confirmed.html
>

[Vo]:Unruh radiation, plasmons, and possible implications for LENR?

[Jack Cole]

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/09/unruh-radiation-confirmed.html