RE: [Vo]:Rossi's imaginary company folds

[JonesBeene]

From: Jed Rothwell

Rossi's imaginary company, J.M. Products, has folded its imaginary tent and 
vanished in the night:

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170=domp-p1456117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75=JM%20Chemical%20products=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170

I have heard that Rossi is planning to go to Sweden to swindle his next group 
of marks.

-

Ha! What an artiste. Bravo! This opera is going to be way beyond 3 acts, 
however and the fat lady is nowhere to be seen. 

Almost certainly, there was no legitimate business going on with JM, ever, and 
giving it a fake name that conjured up the history of cold fusion was genius. 
It is amazing these showmen were not held accountable for something - 
especially Rossi’s “lawyer” who facilitated much of the scam and should be held 
to a higher standard. 

We can only hope, in the spirit of Nordic karma, that the so-called scientists 
who oversaw Lugano put their own savings into the next iteration, which is now 
so well-practiced that it may never die. 

Who knows? Maybe we will even get to see the “prequel” in a few years?… Mother 
of Petrodragon? Mills may have been first with the recurring soap opera but AR 
is a quick study and has perfected the genre.

BTW – what is the “Ad Maiora” rumor all about? Supposedly an importer of 
Italian food products which, unlike JM actually did real business. One can 
imagine that you need a real shop if your intent is to channel millions out of 
the US without paying taxes. Or else… maybe Olive Garden just  didn’t cut it 
for the taste of a true Diva. And whatever happened to the IH complaint that 
Rossi did not pay taxes on the big payment he received? 

They should let unleash Dewey and let him tell all, now that the drama is 
subsiding… 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's imaginary company folds

[Adrian Ashfield]

AxilAxil,
Thanks for that.  Not enough people know about it.
It is even worse for reasons that you didn't mention.  These VC/private equity 
firms tend to sell off bits of an existing company to pay off the debt and then 
milk what remains until it dies.  There is a classic example written up in the 
book "Glass House."  This describes how Anchor Hocking was taken overt and 
driven into bankruptcy.  Even worse it destroyed the once charming city of 
Lancaster Ohio.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Aug 31, 2017 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's imaginary company folds



https://hbr.org/2013/05/six-myths-about-venture-capitalists




Myth 4: VCs Generate Spectacular Returns
Last year my colleagues at the Kauffman Foundation and I published a widely 
read report, “We Have Met the Enemy…and He Is Us,” about the venture capital 
industry and its returns. We found that the overall performance of the industry 
is poor. VC funds haven’t significantly outperformed the public markets since 
the late 1990s, and since 1997 less cash has been returned to VC investors than 
they have invested. A tiny group of top-performing firms do generate great 
“venture rates of return”: at least twice the capital invested, net of fees. We 
don’t know definitively which firms are in that group, because performance data 
are not generally available and are not consistently reported. The average 
fund, however, breaks even or loses money.
We analyzed the Kauffman Foundation’s experience investing in nearly 100 VC 
funds over 20 years. We found that only 20 of our funds outperformed the 
markets by the 3% to 5% annually that we expect to compensate us for the fees 
and illiquidity we incur by investing in private rather than public equity. 
Even worse, 62 of our 100 funds failed to beat the returns available from a 
small-cap public index.
Venture capital investments are generally perceived as high-risk and 
high-reward. The data in our report reveal that although investors in VC take 
on high fees, illiquidity, and risk, they rarely reap the reward of high 
returns. Entrepreneurs who are distressed when VCs decline to fund their 
ventures need only review the performance data to see that VCs as a group have 
no Midas touch for investing. 
Like IH, investors may commit to high risk and likely financial loss motivated 
by other factors than the profit motive, They may want to fund a project that 
will advance the state of the human condition. Such funding is more like a 
charitable donation. Such charitable funding is not associated with the concept 
of fraud. 





On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Rossi's imaginary company, J.M. Products, has folded its imaginary tent and 
vanished in the night:


http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170=domp-p1456117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75=JM%20Chemical%20products=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170



I have heard that Rossi is planning to go to Sweden to swindle his next group 
of marks.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's imaginary company folds

[Axil Axil]

https://hbr.org/2013/05/six-myths-about-venture-capitalists

Myth 4: VCs Generate Spectacular Returns

Last year my colleagues at the Kauffman Foundation and I published a widely
read report, “We Have Met the Enemy…and He Is Us,” about the venture
capital industry and its returns. We found that the overall performance of
the industry is poor. VC funds haven’t significantly outperformed the
public markets since the late 1990s, and since 1997 less cash has been
returned to VC investors than they have invested. A tiny group of
top-performing firms do generate great “venture rates of return”: at least
twice the capital invested, net of fees. We don’t know definitively which
firms are in that group, because performance data are not generally
available and are not consistently reported. The average fund, however,
breaks even or loses money.

We analyzed the Kauffman Foundation’s experience investing in nearly 100 VC
funds over 20 years. We found that only 20 of our funds outperformed the
markets by the 3% to 5% annually that we expect to compensate us for the
fees and illiquidity we incur by investing in private rather than public
equity. Even worse, 62 of our 100 funds failed to beat the returns
available from a small-cap public index.

Venture capital investments are generally perceived as high-risk and
high-reward. The data in our report reveal that although investors in VC
take on high fees, illiquidity, and risk, they rarely reap the reward of
high returns. Entrepreneurs who are distressed when VCs decline to fund
their ventures need only review the performance data to see that VCs as a
group have no Midas touch for investing.

Like IH, investors may commit to high risk and likely financial loss
motivated by other factors than the profit motive, They may want to fund a
project that will advance the state of the human condition. Such funding is
more like a charitable donation. Such charitable funding is not associated
with the concept of fraud.



On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Rossi's imaginary company, J.M. Products, has folded its imaginary tent
> and vanished in the night:
>
> http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?
> inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=
> JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170=domp-p1456117-f1b317f1-
> 99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75=JM%20Chemical%
> 20products=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170
>
> I have heard that Rossi is planning to go to Sweden to swindle his next
> group of marks.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi's imaginary company folds

[Jed Rothwell]

Rossi's imaginary company, J.M. Products, has folded its imaginary tent and
vanished in the night:

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName=Initial=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170=domp-p1456117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75=JM%20Chemical%20products=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS%20P14561170

I have heard that Rossi is planning to go to Sweden to swindle his next
group of marks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why pairs?

[Axil Axil]

Monogamy of entanglement

'''Monogamy ''' is one of the most fundamental properties of entanglement
and can, in its extremal form, be expressed as follows: *If two qubits A
and B are maximally quantumly correlated they cannot be correlated at all
with a third qubit C.* In general, there is a trade-off between the amount
of entanglement between qubits A and B and the same qubit A and qubit C.
This is mathematically expressed by the *Coffman-Kundu-Wootters (CKW)
monogamy inequality*


*In other words, to create entanglement during particle creation as a
unbreakable rule of the way the universe works, two particles are required.*

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In a universe where all points must be connected, a pair is a topological
> requirement. In a system where all endpoints must be connected then every
> connection must have at least two endpoints.
>
> At the beginning of the big bang, Computational complexity was at its
> minimum and quantum entanglement was at its maximum. The entire universe
> was completely entangled, it was a bose condensate. This was the time when
> all the forces were combined in a grand unification to operated as a single
> force. As the universe expanded and cooled, entanglement decreased and
> Computational complexity increased. The four fundamental forces began to
> diverge and the running coupling constants of those fundamental forces also
> began to diverge.
>
>
>
>
> When spacetime returns to the entangled state that the universe was
> initially in, the fundamental forces return to the way that they were at
> the beginning of the big bang and the single global fundamental force is
> reestablished.
>
>
> In this restored state of spacetime simplicity, the LENR reaction is
> manifest.
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:38 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
>> That doesn’t answer my question… it’s just regurgitating the
>> particle/antiparticle jargon.
>>
>> -mark
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:41 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Why pairs?
>>
>>
>>
>> The latest theory is that entanglement keeps spacetime together.
>> Entanglement is fundamental.  All other aspects of spacetime come from
>> entanglement. In order for entanglement to exist, two things must be
>> entangled. When a particle is created, it must be paired with an
>> antiparticle so that a connection between them is formed...entanglement
>> must be created.  All particle pairs must be connected by a wormhole. The
>> wormhole is the mechanism that keeps spacetime together.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can manipulate the forces of nature, weak, strong, EMF, gravity by
>> using entanglement, since those "fundamental" forces come from(aka emerge)
>> entanglement and all the properties of spacetime emerge from entanglement.
>>
>>
>>
>> This idea has just come to Leonard Susskind and is explained here:
>>
>>
>> Dear Qubitzers, GR=QM
>>
>> Leonard Susskind
>> 
>>
>> *(Submitted on 10 Aug 2017)*
>>
>>
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03040
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, here is how wormholes work
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:12 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Vorts,
>>
>>
>>
>> Perusing some physics news, and thought you’d b interested in this:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/841935/Why-is-there-a-
>> universe-quarks-quantum-physics-big-bang-nothing-god
>>
>>
>>
>> Some excerpts:
>>
>> The new findings seem to break the classical physics law of the
>> Conservation of Energy – that energy can neither be created nor destroyed –
>> showing that new energy can appear within a closed system from nowhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> These Quantum physicists first theorised, then proved, that particles
>> simply pop into existence, usually in pairs, from absolutely nowhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nobel prize winner Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of
>> Technology, who specialises is quantum chromodynamics, the theory that
>> describes how quarks behave deep within atomic nuclei, has found that the
>> universe simply doesn’t like a state of nothingness.
>>
>>
>>
>> -mark iverson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from proton-proton fusion

[Axil Axil]

Correction:

Rossi now believes that proton decay powers the Sun

should read

Holmlid believes that proton decay powers the Sun



On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/
> journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007
>
> In his latest article, Holmlid rejects fusion as too weak to power the
> energy output that he is seeing in his experiments.
>
> Holmlid states:
>
> "The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly
> laser-induced nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the
> laser-induced transfer of the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material
> H(0) from excitation state *s* = 2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to *s* = 1
> (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2
> ].
> The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested
> that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
> formed and observed [16
> 
> ,17
> ]
> are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
> the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
> correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
> Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
> 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
> larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
> pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
> is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
> leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
> much longer lifetime."
>
> Holmlid is now saying that proton decay is where all the energy and mesons
> are derived from.
>
> Holmlid states:
>
> The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be
> due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the
> collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found
> with this assumption [21
> 
> –23
> ]
> is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest
> energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and
> protons with 14.7 MeV [57
> ].
> The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step,
> which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our
> laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14
> ].
> Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments.
> Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities.
> Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the
> laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4
> 
> , 6
> 
>  and 7
> 
>  etc,
> where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that
> the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than
> ordinary fusion. It is clear that such laser-induced nuclear processes
> exist in p(0) as well as in D(0). The low laser intensity used here, of the
> order of 3×10^12 W cm-2 makes it impossible to directly accelerate the
> particles (especially the neutral ones) to high energies. For example, in
> Refs. [58
> 
> ,59
> ]
> more than 10^19 W cm-2 was used to accelerate heavy ions to > 1 MeV u-1 
> energies,
> thus close to 10^7 higher intensity than used here.
>
> In contradiction to the PP fusion theory of the Sun's nuclear reaction,
> proton decay is the true source of the Sun's energy.
>
> Rossi now beleives that proton decay powers the Sun
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JA024498/abstract
>
> Abstract
>
> Ultradense hydrogen H(0) is a very dense hydrogen cluster phase with H-H
> distances in the picometer range. It has been studied experimentally in
> several publications from our group. A theoretical model exists which
> agrees well with laser-pulse-induced 

Re: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from proton-proton fusion

[Axil Axil]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007

In his latest article, Holmlid rejects fusion as too weak to power the
energy output that he is seeing in his experiments.

Holmlid states:

"The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly laser-induced
nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the laser-induced transfer of
the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material H(0) from excitation state *s* =
2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to *s* = 1 (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2
].
The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that
this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
formed and observed [16

,17
]
are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
much longer lifetime."

Holmlid is now saying that proton decay is where all the energy and mesons
are derived from.

Holmlid states:

The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due
to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the
collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found
with this assumption [21

–23
]
is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest
energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and
protons with 14.7 MeV [57
].
The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, which
is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced
D+D fusion study in D(0) [14
].
Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments.
Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities.
Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the
laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4

, 6

 and 7

etc,
where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that
the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than
ordinary fusion. It is clear that such laser-induced nuclear processes
exist in p(0) as well as in D(0). The low laser intensity used here, of the
order of 3×10^12 W cm-2 makes it impossible to directly accelerate the
particles (especially the neutral ones) to high energies. For example, in
Refs. [58

,59
]
more than 10^19 W cm-2 was used to accelerate heavy ions to > 1 MeV
u-1 energies,
thus close to 10^7 higher intensity than used here.

In contradiction to the PP fusion theory of the Sun's nuclear reaction,
proton decay is the true source of the Sun's energy.

Rossi now beleives that proton decay powers the Sun

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JA024498/abstract

Abstract

Ultradense hydrogen H(0) is a very dense hydrogen cluster phase with H-H
distances in the picometer range. It has been studied experimentally in
several publications from our group. A theoretical model exists which
agrees well with laser-pulse-induced time-of-flight spectra and with
rotational spectroscopy emission spectra. Coulomb explosions in H(0) in
spin state *s* = 1 generate protons with kinetic energies larger than the
retaining gravitational energy at the photosphere of the Sun. The required
proton kinetic energy above 2 keV has been directly observed in published
experiments. Such protons may be ejected from the 

Re: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from proton-proton fusion

[Nigel Dyer]

In fact I have unilaterally removed the offending gamma from the 
Wikipedia page. I dont expect it to return.  The only gamma rays that it 
continues correctly to mention are those associated with the 
annihilation of the positron with an electron.


The Mark Davidson paper is very good.  I will have to get my son to go 
over the variable mass hypothesis as it is very much in his territory.   
Indeed he has some ideas and a paper that he is working on that may be 
very relevant.  The roundup of nuclear anomalies is very good.  I was 
reassured that there were no surprises in the list.


I agree that proton-proton fusion would appear to be low probability.  
However there are still some situations, all of which are included in 
the list where I think it would be premature to rule this out at this 
stage.  I spent some time looking at thunder storm related anomalies, 
which are a lot more complex and 'poorly understood' than the one 
paragraph in the paper would suggest and still think that proton-proton 
fusion might be part of the story.


Bringing the two together, given that the Davidson paper also includes 
radioactive decay variation (ie weak force effects) in the list of 
anomalies, then perhaps he should have included neutrinos and their mass 
in his thinking.  This could then be of relevance if there does turn out 
to be some proton-proton fusion scenarios,  which is why I came to be 
looking at the Wikipedia page in the first place


Nigel

On 31/08/2017 15:22, JonesBeene wrote:


Proton-proton fusion is of such low probability that it is almost a 
waste of time to think that it has relevance in the real world, 
despite the mainstream view. We see gamma radiation in stars with or 
without fusion (even Jupiter and the gas giants have lots of gamma 
emission) but this usually derives from positron/electron events, not 
fusion. A related phenomenon used to be called Wheeler’s “quantum 
foam” but the term has gone out of favor. (Wiki has an entry). A real 
proton/proton fusion event would be akin to winning every prize in the 
lottery on every draw for a year in a row… and has no applicability to 
LENR because of rarity.


There has to be a better crossover explanation - but proton fusion in 
so engrained that it will be difficult to weed out. Even Ed Storms has 
fallen for it.


As an alternative to proton-proton fusion, there is a fully reversible 
diproton reaction with asymmetry. The diproton reaction is the most 
common reaction in the universe but it always reverses quickly. It is 
assumed to be net neutral in energy, mainly because of the assumption 
that proton mass is quantized - but that assumption is probably wrong 
- and each reaction event could have small gain contributory to 
stellar CNO fusion which is real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle


Bottom line, if the proton has variable mass, then the reversible 
diproton reaction alone can power a star or it can be contributory . A 
population of protons which is not quantized can capture and convert 
mass to energy in several ways including the complete annihilation 
event of Holmlid. This has relevance to LENR and at one time here, I 
was promoting an alternative hypothesis for Ni-H gain called RPF – or 
Reversible Proton Fusion... but, alas - there is nothing new under the 
sun, as they say and someone had already thought of it.


In the “small world” category, or maybe it is in the meme category – a 
theorist who lives not far away, came up with the same suggestion 
earlier. “Variable mass theories in relativistic quantum mechanics as 
an explanation for anomalous low energy nuclear phenomena” by Mark 
Davidson. Worth a read.


//

/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/615/1/012016/pdf 
/


//

*From: *Nigel Dyer 

In the text of the wikipedia page about proton proton fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

It says that in the first stage, when two protons fuse, a gamma ray

proton is produced.  However this is not shown in the diagram, or in

anyone elses diagram, or in anyone else's text.   Is the wikipedia page

incorrect.   If no gamma ray photon is produced then where does the

excess energy (0.42MeV) from this first stage go?

Nigel

Re: [Vo]:Why pairs?

[Axil Axil]

In a universe where all points must be connected, a pair is a topological
requirement. In a system where all endpoints must be connected then every
connection must have at least two endpoints.

At the beginning of the big bang, Computational complexity was at its
minimum and quantum entanglement was at its maximum. The entire universe
was completely entangled, it was a bose condensate. This was the time when
all the forces were combined in a grand unification to operated as a single
force. As the universe expanded and cooled, entanglement decreased and
Computational complexity increased. The four fundamental forces began to
diverge and the running coupling constants of those fundamental forces also
began to diverge.




When spacetime returns to the entangled state that the universe was
initially in, the fundamental forces return to the way that they were at
the beginning of the big bang and the single global fundamental force is
reestablished.


In this restored state of spacetime simplicity, the LENR reaction is
manifest.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:38 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
wrote:

> That doesn’t answer my question… it’s just regurgitating the
> particle/antiparticle jargon.
>
> -mark
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:41 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Why pairs?
>
>
>
> The latest theory is that entanglement keeps spacetime together.
> Entanglement is fundamental.  All other aspects of spacetime come from
> entanglement. In order for entanglement to exist, two things must be
> entangled. When a particle is created, it must be paired with an
> antiparticle so that a connection between them is formed...entanglement
> must be created.  All particle pairs must be connected by a wormhole. The
> wormhole is the mechanism that keeps spacetime together.
>
>
>
> We can manipulate the forces of nature, weak, strong, EMF, gravity by
> using entanglement, since those "fundamental" forces come from(aka emerge)
> entanglement and all the properties of spacetime emerge from entanglement.
>
>
>
> This idea has just come to Leonard Susskind and is explained here:
>
>
> Dear Qubitzers, GR=QM
>
> Leonard Susskind
> 
>
> *(Submitted on 10 Aug 2017)*
>
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03040
>
>
>
> Also, here is how wormholes work
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:12 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint 
> wrote:
>
> Vorts,
>
>
>
> Perusing some physics news, and thought you’d b interested in this:
>
>
>
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/841935/Why-is-there-a-
> universe-quarks-quantum-physics-big-bang-nothing-god
>
>
>
> Some excerpts:
>
> The new findings seem to break the classical physics law of the
> Conservation of Energy – that energy can neither be created nor destroyed –
> showing that new energy can appear within a closed system from nowhere.
>
>
>
> These Quantum physicists first theorised, then proved, that particles
> simply pop into existence, usually in pairs, from absolutely nowhere.
>
>
>
> Nobel prize winner Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology, who specialises is quantum chromodynamics, the theory that
> describes how quarks behave deep within atomic nuclei, has found that the
> universe simply doesn’t like a state of nothingness.
>
>
>
> -mark iverson
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Gamma radiation from proton-proton fusion

[JonesBeene]

Proton-proton fusion is of such low probability that it is almost a waste of 
time to think that it has relevance in the real world, despite the mainstream 
view. We see gamma radiation in stars with or without fusion (even Jupiter and 
the gas giants have lots of gamma emission) but this usually derives from 
positron/electron events, not fusion. A related phenomenon used to be called 
Wheeler’s “quantum foam” but the term has gone out of favor. (Wiki has an 
entry). A real proton/proton fusion event would be akin to winning every prize 
in the lottery on every draw for a year in a row… and has no applicability to 
LENR because of rarity. 

There has to be a better crossover explanation - but proton fusion in so 
engrained that it will be difficult to weed out. Even Ed Storms has fallen for 
it.

As an alternative to proton-proton fusion, there is a fully reversible diproton 
reaction with asymmetry. The diproton reaction is the most common reaction in 
the universe but it always reverses quickly. It is assumed to be net neutral in 
energy, mainly because of the assumption that proton mass is quantized - but 
that assumption is probably wrong - and each reaction event could have small 
gain contributory to stellar CNO fusion which is real: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

Bottom line, if the proton has variable mass, then the reversible diproton 
reaction alone can power a star or it can be contributory . A population of 
protons which is not quantized can capture and convert mass to energy in 
several ways including the complete annihilation event of Holmlid. This has 
relevance to LENR and at one time here, I was promoting an alternative 
hypothesis for Ni-H gain called RPF – or Reversible Proton Fusion... but, alas 
- there is nothing new under the sun, as they say and someone had already 
thought of it.

In the “small world” category, or maybe it is in the meme category – a theorist 
who lives not far away, came up with the same suggestion earlier. “Variable 
mass theories in relativistic quantum mechanics as an explanation for anomalous 
low energy nuclear phenomena” by Mark Davidson. Worth a read.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/615/1/012016/pdf
 


From: Nigel Dyer

In the text of the wikipedia page about proton proton fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction

It says that in the first stage, when two protons fuse, a gamma ray 
proton is produced.  However this is not shown in the diagram, or in 
anyone elses diagram, or in anyone else's text.   Is the wikipedia page 
incorrect.   If no gamma ray photon is produced then where does the 
excess energy (0.42MeV) from this first stage go?

Nigel

RE: [Vo]:Why pairs?

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

That doesn’t answer my question… it’s just regurgitating the 
particle/antiparticle jargon.

-mark

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:41 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why pairs?

 

The latest theory is that entanglement keeps spacetime together. Entanglement 
is fundamental.  All other aspects of spacetime come from entanglement. In 
order for entanglement to exist, two things must be entangled. When a particle 
is created, it must be paired with an antiparticle so that a connection between 
them is formed...entanglement must be created.  All particle pairs must be 
connected by a wormhole. The wormhole is the mechanism that keeps spacetime 
together. 

 

We can manipulate the forces of nature, weak, strong, EMF, gravity by using 
entanglement, since those "fundamental" forces come from(aka emerge) 
entanglement and all the properties of spacetime emerge from entanglement.

 

This idea has just come to Leonard Susskind and is explained here: 

 


Dear Qubitzers, GR=QM


Leonard Susskind  

(Submitted on 10 Aug 2017)

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03040

 

Also, here is how wormholes work

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8

 

 

 

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 3:12 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:

Vorts,

 

Perusing some physics news, and thought you’d b interested in this:

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/841935/Why-is-there-a-universe-quarks-quantum-physics-big-bang-nothing-god

 

Some excerpts:

The new findings seem to break the classical physics law of the Conservation of 
Energy – that energy can neither be created nor destroyed – showing that new 
energy can appear within a closed system from nowhere.

 

These Quantum physicists first theorised, then proved, that particles simply 
pop into existence, usually in pairs, from absolutely nowhere.

 

Nobel prize winner Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
who specialises is quantum chromodynamics, the theory that describes how quarks 
behave deep within atomic nuclei, has found that the universe simply doesn’t 
like a state of nothingness.

 

-mark iverson