Re: [Vo]:CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

[Nigel Dyer]

One of the key things about the decay path is the role of neutrinos.  
What tends to be ignored is that the experiment is not being conducted 
in a neutral background, but is being conduced in the background of a 
sea of solar and cosmic neutrinos.  The cosmic neutrinos that are a left 
over from the big bang are at such low energies that they will almost 
certainly play no role.  However the solar neutrinos are at a flux and 
an energy that I had recently begun to wonder whether they may 
occasionally catalyse/interact with reactions involving the weak nuclear 
force, which would result in decay probabilities that are slightly 
different from the SM predictions.  So perhaps its not that the SM is 
wrong, its just that they have to add another reaction pathway.


Nigel

On 22/04/2017 04:37, John Berry wrote:
Oh wow,everyone get excited, there is a tiny deviation in the 
production of muons over electrons even though there should be due to 
their energy but it's a bit larger than that!

And as Muons die quickly, they aren't even useful.

This piece gives the view that physics is pretty much complete and the 
most interesting thing that billions of dollars can do is find 
bulls#!+ like that!


The huge gaps in understanding are ignored, but I'm glad they are 
tracking down tiny details.


They are blind to so much!  The standard model can eat our dust!

John Berry

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote:



CERN Declares War On The Standard Model



 Article Updated: 20 Apr , 2017
by Matt Williams 


https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/


Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012

,
the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the
existence of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this
end, the Large Hardon Collider beauty experiment
 (LHCb) was
established in 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring
what happened after the Big Bang that allowed matter to survive
and create the Universe as we know it.

Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing
things. This includes discovering five new particles

,
uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter
asymmetry

,
and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring
beta decay. These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press
release
,
could be an indication of new physics that are not part of the
Standard Model.

In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the
decay of B0mesons resulted in the production of an excited kaon
and a pair of electrons or muons. Muons, for the record, are
subatomic particles that are 200 times more massive than
electrons, but whose interactions are believed to be the same as
those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is concerned).





/The LHCb collaboration team. Credit: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch
/

This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only
predicts that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be
produced with the same probability – with some constraints arising
from their differences in mass. However, in testing the decay of
B0 mesons, the team found that the decay process produced muons
with less frequency. These results were collected during Run 1 of
the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.

The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April
18th, at a CERN seminar

,
where members of the LHCb collaboration team shared their latest
findings. As they indicated during the course of the seminar,
these findings are significant in that they appear to confirm
results obtained by the LHCb team during previous decay studies.

This is certainly exciting news, as it hints at the possibility
that new physics are being observed. With the confirmation of the
Standard Model (made possible with the discovery of the Higgs
boson in 2012), investigating theories that go beyond this (i.e.
Supersymmetry

[Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

[John Berry]

I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the
extraordinary side of science for the most part.

But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a
circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated
by I think 3 people in total.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html

I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing
weight, more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive
only.  One had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.

Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US
Airforce sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't
even aware of the  "Cap warp" experiments.

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#


Does that not make a very strong case?

Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't
wet and Nuclear this group isn't interested?


John Berry

[Vo]:It's a union

[Frank Znidarsic]

Most of my equations involve intersections.  One equation, for example, may be 
a plane and the other another plane.  The solution is the place where the the 
two planes meet.  It is a line.  One variable is removed in the solution.


I had one equation #24 that had a squared variable.  I substituted another 
equation in for one of the squared terms.  The other squared term remained.  It 
worked, however, what does this mean?  I searched and could not find an 
authoritative explanation.


After 5 years, just yesterday it hit me.  It's a union.   I have done 
intersections A and unions A or B with logic but never with equations.
The union introduced a additional degree of freedom and another variable.  The 
union includes the domains of both equations.




Now I know this and edited my book to incorporate this understanding.  I know, 
who cares, however, discovery is fun.


Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:The real Enchilada

[Jones Beene]

Saturn has a moon called Enceladus, and it could be the real enchilada. 
This object is, in essence, an almost perfect refueling station for 
future missions to distant stars. It is  small, with almost no gravity 
to overcome, and has a frozen ocean covered by ice and it produces its 
own hydrogen supply by the ton.


Enceladus is composed of 90% water and it has an internal 
electro-chemical mechanism which splits the water. There is no doubt 
that nickel/iron meteorites (aka catalysts for UDH) have accumulated 
internally, as we can see the frozen impact craters. The sun-cell has 
become a moon-cell.


At some future date, this hydrogen supply feature would allow H2 to be 
collected by robotic Zambonis... . The exact mechanism of water 
splitting is important to identify - but it sounds a lot like a 
connection to LENR/hydrino/UDH etc and that is something NASA would 
never mention.


Water vapor and hydrogen escape into space from the south pole of 
Enceladus through cracks in the ice. In 2015, the Cassini spacecraft 
flew directly through the snow plume of escaping gas and sampled its 
chemical composition (see the article in NextBigFuture). The plume 
indeed contains molecular hydrogen, a sign that the water in Enceladus’ 
ocean is being split by some process never before seen on this scale 
(and which would involve LENR/hydrino/UDH etc - in the present hypothesis).


Since the gas escapes from a polar region, there is a good chance that 
charged ions are involved along with a magnetic field. In fact, the moon 
is part of an electrical circuit with Saturn, as NASA has suggested. It 
looks like a DC circuit with South being the "cathode".


If we accept that Randell Mills is creating excess energy by passing 
large electrical current through water vapor, then there is a good case 
to be made for a similar mechanism at work near Saturn... which would be 
of great use in conquering deep space - by future earthlings. Who knows, 
maybe aliens are already doing it.


The conclusion is that Enceladus is an ideal filling station. Here is 
the NASA article which also shows the UV light emission of the 
electrical circuit - which is more proof for a Mills/hydrino connection.


https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2069.html

Re: [Vo]:Google translation of an electrochemistry paper

[ROGER ANDERTON]

world's go mad re: what's happening in US politics

anyway see my unified field theory website:
http://unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/

I got the unified field theory it was published in 1758 and others have worked 
along similar lines; a tradition of physics that's different to mainstream
also my  latest paper: "they" misunderstood Einstein's relativity it got 
mistranslated from the original German of 1905 when translated into 
Englishhttp://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6892


 

On Friday, 21 April 2017, 19:19, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
 

 Translations from and to English are good. Not so much to other languages.In 
any case, I also cheat :-)

One thing I miss it is that they should provide an OCR, so that I could read 
letters in photographs, graphs and comics (korean, japanese, chinese, french or 
whatever). It would also boost people skills in any language, since you'd have 
the object in context.
2017-04-21 13:04 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

A researcher asked me to translate two papers from Japanese into English:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/ article/jsms1963/49/11/49_11_ 1242/_article
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/ article/jsms1963/50/9/50_9_ 999/_article


The first one is:

(J. Soc. Mat. Sci., Japan), Vol.49, No. 11, pp. 1242-1248, Nov. 2000
Deformation and Aging of Pd by Hydrogen Absorption-Desorption Cycles
— Deformation of Pd at a Hydrogen Absorption-Desorption Cycle —

Young-guan JUNG, Hideki SUEHIRO and Yuzuru SAKAI


I use Google translate to do this. (https://translate.google.com/ ) It feels 
like cheating, but is sure makes things easier. However, you cannot simply dump 
an Acrobat document into Google translate. That does not work well. I thought I 
would list some of the steps you should to take to make Google translate work, 
and show an example of how the text comes out.
Google translate makes mistakes, as shown below, but in the last few months it 
has improved a great deal thanks to the newest neural network AI techniques. 
See:

https://blog.google/products/ translate/found-translation- 
more-accurate-fluent- sentences-google-translate/


Here is the worst mistake in the first paragraph:

. . . the occurrence of microcracks and its progress process, many problems, 
durability of the hydrogen storage material It is an obstacle to improve sex."

The last part should be:

. . . These problems are obstacles to improving the durability of the hydrogen 
storage material."

Nothing to do with sex! Perhaps people often ask Google translate to translate 
documents about sex, so the AI thinks everything is about sex.

(Oddly enough, that mistake goes away when you submit the sentence fragment on 
its own, outside of the paragraph.)


Anyway, to translate an Acrobat document from Japanese into English, take the 
following steps:
1. Convert the text to Microsoft Word, using a program such as Power PDF. This 
is essential, mainly because it preserves most paragraphs. Submitting the 
Acrobat document as is, or copying the text will produce many errors. Every 
line in a paragraph will break, which will produce nonsensical translations.
2. Fix paragraphs broken by figures and the pages.
3. Eliminate multiple columns, figures, and all of the formatting you can.
4. Submit the text to Google translate.
5. Compare the resulting text to the Japanese original. It is very handy to use 
a voice reading program such as TextAloud (http://nextup.com/) to read the text 
in Japanese as you look through the English text, and vice versa.
6. Correct and adjust the text.
Google translate will often select words that are correct and understandable, 
but they may not be what is normally used in this context. For example, it 
translated Japanese term "suiso kyuuzou" as "hydrogen occlusion." I think 
electrochemists usually say "absorption." Both terms are listed in a dictionary:
水素吸蔵    
   - hydrogen absorption
   - hydrogen input
   - hydrogen occlusion


Okay. Here is the Google version of the entire first paragraph with no changes:

Regarding the behavior of hydrogen in the metallic structure, many studies 1) - 
3) have been done mainly concerning the hydrogen embrittlement problem. Solid 
dissolved hydrogen is trapped in dislocations, voids and the like in a steel 
material structure such as carbon steel and stainless steel, and is thought to 
be a factor that promotes destruction, and researches on elucidation of the 
material embrittlement mechanism by hydrogen are being conducted. On the other 
hand, recently, from the viewpoint of global environmental problems, 
development of a hydrogen storage material as a clean hydrogen energy carrier 
is actively underway, that is, some metals including rare earth metals easily 
form hydride It has the ability to absorb and release about 1000 times as much 
hydrogen as its own volume. As already seen in nickel-metal hydride batteries 
5), etc., this product has been commercialized 

RE: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

;You noted:

“We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.

There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.”
I think the PO would normally inform an applicant of why their patent is 
rejected including the existence of conflicting patents. .
 I would guess it was because of the unofficial PO handling of cold fusion 
patents, such handling intended to discourage further invention in the cold 
fusion arena, consistent with the infamous action the government took regarding 
P
Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:13 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow
overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"

The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March 23,
1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about the
competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another more
specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over a
competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in, going
all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal lattice
experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as coauthor) in
the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.

On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the
following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA, and
it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored today,
even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually mentions
"dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was not
commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium. It is
now in the public domain.

"Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a matrix"
US 4986887

https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887

That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the Patent
Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.

There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence of
a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did not
agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could have
based his IP on "stealing the P work" since it normally takes months
to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to USPTO by
mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.

We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.

There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.

[Vo]:LENR EARTH DAY EDITION OF EGO OUT

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-22-2017-lenr-earth-day-edition.html


peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Dr Who and LENR

[Nigel Dyer]

In tonights episode of Dr Who the spaceship they came across had a 
'Fleischmann cold-fusion' drive, complete with calorimeter

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

[David Roberson]

John, I found the documentary most interesting.  Thanks for including the link.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 6:36 am
Subject: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish



I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the extraordinary 
side of science for the most part.


But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a 
circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated by I 
think 3 people in total.
http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html


I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing weight, 
more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive only.  One 
had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.


Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US Airforce 
sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't even aware of 
the  "Cap warp" experiments.


http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#



Does that not make a very strong case?


Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't wet 
and Nuclear this group isn't interested?





John Berry

Re: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish

[John Berry]

Thanks David,
Do you also think it is interesting that it coincides with the Cap warp
which several replicated and a few other similar claims...

I can actually take the correlation further, but right there, does that not
show that anti-gravity is very likely possible with a circular capacitor?

There is a lot of evidence that circular things and circular arrays of
things can do things that are extraordinary and unexpected by a single
element.

This is not out of reach, it can be explained.


John Berry

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 1:10 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> John, I found the documentary most interesting.  Thanks for including the
> link.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Berry 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 6:36 am
> Subject: [Vo]:Cap Warp - McCandlish
>
> I think this group has lost all the open minded interest in the
> extraordinary side of science for the most part.
>
> But there was something that occured on this list a long time ago,where a
> circle of HV Capacitors developed a Thrust, it was apparentltly replicated
> by I think 3 people in total.
> http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>
> I also have heard of 2 independant acconts of similar capacitors losing
> weight, more that T.T Brown's work and not in the direction of the positive
> only.  One had a glass dielectric and yet achieved full weight loss.
>
> Anyway, there is a Documentary that makes a rather good case for a US
> Airforce sauser craft based on precisely this technology, and they aren't
> even aware of the  "Cap warp" experiments.
>
> http://www.theeventchronicle.com/editors-pick/zero-point-
> the-story-of-mark-mccandlish-and-the-the-fluxliner-ssp/#
> 
>
> Does that not make a very strong case?
>
> Anyone here that cares?  Or if the breaches to conventional physics aren't
> wet and Nuclear this group isn't interested?
>
>
> John Berry
>