Bob,Andrew,
30 years ago Mills detected why the cosmos must expand. During photon
like decay the space matter occupies increases as the packaging will
become less dense (in average fewer rotations - this Mills did not
find/understand ...). Basically space time increases if photons are
produced!
Mills also calculated the expansion speed based on total mass and energy
dissipated by the universe. And yes the figure was pretty close to the
real one...
This was the main reason physicists hate Mills as this was the first
indication that GER and SM are a total fail.
As said there is and was never dark mass in the universe except you call
e.g. H* dark mass as it mostly radiates in the non visible ("dark"..)
region (what is not true for
Rydberg clusters..) ...
What we definitely know is that some cosmologists missed their advanced
mechanics class and did/still do not understand why rotations at the
border of a spiral galaxy must be faster then based on primitive
potential model due to coupled rotations.
For me all these discussions have only one primitive and old target:
Make something interesting an generate money. If it worked in the CERN
case - inventing "fake" particles instead of reporting resonances - why
should it not work for others too.
J.W.
Am 06.02.20 um 19:37 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
Andrew—
1. Regarding a statement in comment #2: . “Since mass interaction is
always attractive, a non-zero average mass might be measured, even
if it oscillates equally along the time axis from matter to
antimatter,” I note the following.
Cosmologists consider that dark energy is causing the expansion of the
Universe in opposition of mass and associated its attraction. This
suggests a negative mass is equivalent to negative energy. But dark
energy is considered positive energy as I understand theory of GR used
by the cosmologists.
In your model is anti-matter like the cosmologist’s dark energy with a
repulsive force to real matter? Oscillation along the time axis seems
to be a key concept that distinguishes matter and antimatter. Is this
consistent with SM or GR?
Regarding your comment #4, can I infer that nuclear angular momentum
is quantized for the same reason that electrons energies in nuclei are
quantized in their orbits.
Jurg may be able to shed light on this inference.
Bob Cook
*From: *Andrew Meulenberg <mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 5, 2020 11:58 AM
*To: *VORTEX <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>; Andrew Meulenberg
<mailto:mules...@gmail.com>
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride
BOB,
Your 3 questions below can all be answered in the context of a
"nuclear electron".
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:38 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Is a free neutrino a magnetic resonance or magnetic flux rotation?
And why do neutrinos seem to emanate from nuclear/nucleon reactions?
And why is the parameter “angular momentum” only observed in
discrete quanta or as a discrete differential values on an
otherwise continuous scale of space and time?
2. I propose that the neutrino is to beta decay as a photon is to
atomic-electron orbit decay. However,
3. the neutrino is EM plus mass (EMM?) oscillation from a bound
relativistic electron. And, just as a photon does not have a fixed
electric or magnetic field, I do not believe that neutrino mass is
a fixed quantity. Since mass interaction is always attractive, a
non-zero average mass might be measured, even if it oscillates
equally along the time axis from matter to antimatter.
4. Angular momentum is discreet for the same reason that electron
orbits are quantized. Integration along a closed path in a
conservative system has delta E = 0 (from one path to the next).
The path closure depends on all degrees of freedom. The direction
of a body's ang mom axis, which precesses, as a result of its
motion (a relativistic effect that gives the deBroglie relation)
and from its binding potential (providing a torque), must be
cyclic (just as the body's position and momentum must be cyclic
for a stable path) if path closure is to be achieved.
Item 3 is the classical basis for QM. Items 1 & 2 are not yet
considered for the neutrino in nuclear and QM physics.
Andrew
_ _ _
(Maybe space and time are also discrete quanta on an otherwise
continuous scale of a classical geometric math abstraction from
Newton on.)
Axil’s familiarity with SM may be able to answer these simple
questions.
IMHO Jurg’s SO(4) physics model with no universal time scale—only
discrete differential frequencies associated with magnet flux
rotation in distinct discrete volumes---may help explain the
angular momentum quanta deduced from experimental observations.
As Russ George has noted, Jurg’s different nuclear magnetic
resonance calculations stemming from the SO(4) Physics model of
specific nuclear isotopes has borne fruit in designing good LENR
fuel systems, subject to magnetic manipulations in a reactor.
Bob Cook
*From: a*Js ones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:16 AM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Superconducting Metal Hydride
Jürg
This is very interesting assuming one can use this information to
engineer proton disintegration with minimal input energy.
To that end, it would seem necessary to know the resonance
wavelengths in question (or frequency of the 1/7th and 1/9th
waves). From that information, one could presumably try to
maximally disrupt that resonance, possibly with a beat wave.
Would this be the basic 53 MeV resonance you mention or is there a
lower value which works?
In the standard model, the scattering cross-section of the proton
is around 1.5 fm (or 11 MeV) IIRC so there is a big gap there with
available lasers.
Presumably Holmlid is doing this kind of disintegration with a
laser. Holmlid may have stumbled onto an effective wavelength
which is not optimum. Who knows? Perhaps his laser somehow
stimulates a much shorter wavelength.
Jones
----------------
Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> The allowed torus resonances are 7 and 9 waves. The proton base
state has 9 waves.... The Holmlid proton split seen from the
proton is: One out of 9 proton waves starts the an orthognal 1/7
resonances what leaves behind a (2x2)x(2x2) wave structure without
the biding glue of the 3D/4D waves. This wave pack (4x4) is
repulsive as seen in 8-Be. The basic energy 53MeV for the split is
delivered from the resonant 8H* --> 2 4-He (or 8-Be) conversion.
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06
