RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Roger-

I agree with your timely addition regarding “science” excluding different 
thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein’s editorial cited below uses the term 
“science community” instead of your term “science” to designate the social 
entity  which excludes different thinking.

The following from Hagelstein’s editorial in which he discusses the fields of 
nuclear and condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:

“The current view within the scientific community is that these fields have 
things right, and if that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then the 
problem is with those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in 1989, but 
now nearly a quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion labs is much 
clearer. There is excess heat, which can be a very big effect; it is 
reproducible in some labs; there are not commensurate energetic products; there 
are many replications; and there are other anomalies as well. Condensed matter 
physics and nuclear physics together are not sufficiently robust to account for 
these anomalies. No defense of these fields is required, since if some aspect 
of the associated theories is incomplete or can be broken, we would very much 
like to break it, so that we can focus on developing new theory that is more 
closely matched to experiment.”

>From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the establishment’s “science 
>community.”  The Corporate, University, Government Complex, driven by 
>financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  Institution.
 Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this nightmare IMHO as 
Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government funding/research 
grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the production of real data 
in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural laws or nature.

Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:

“Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are 
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in 
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of 
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be 
no continuity of effort.”

I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing the saving grace afforded 
by the likes of Mills,
Rossi and others around the world to exist and function on meager funding, 
producing real controlled excess heat via LENR without understanding the 
detailed science or fundamental natural laws.  The control/power hungry 
“science community” will eat crow in my optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).

Bob Cook
























From: ROGER ANDERTON
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; 
c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries


>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This 
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral 
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by 
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its 
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with 
>it.”


but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching 
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected


for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the 
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:




John S. Bell, "On the impossible 
pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982) notes:
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out 
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More 
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after 
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, 
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it 
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in 
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to 
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and 
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate 
theoretical choice?" 
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory



On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:

A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com wrote that 
science does not exclude different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid 
ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some example such as:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years


We have often discussed this issue here. There 

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

A follow-up posting by me:

Cold fusion is not unique. There are many, many examples of previous claims
that were rejected even though the proof was rock solid, and there was no
reason to doubt the claims. Lasers, the MRI and h. pylori are good
examples. I have studied much of this history, digging up old books and
contemporaneous original sources. People don't like to talk about these
events so you seldom see them in history textbooks.

I think there are many causes. As I said, it is human nature. Another major
contributing factor is money. M-o-n-e-y, especially research funding. The
locus of opposition to cold fusion has been the hot fusion program
researchers, for obvious reasons. You see this in other institutions. The
coal industry is fighting tooth and nail against natural gas and wind
power. The congressman from Big Coal (WV) tried to pass a law banning the
use of wind turbines, ostensibly because they kill birds. That's ridiculous
for many reasons, not least because coal kills orders of magnitude more
birds than wind per megawatt-hour, not to mention 20,000 Americans per year.

The extent of opposition, and the irrationality of it, is surprising. You
have to read original sources to get a sense of it. Take early aviation.
Before 1908, practically no one believed that airplanes are real. The
Scientific American printed vicious, irrational, unscientific attacks
against claims, and the Wright brothers -- very similar to their attacks
against cold fusion. (The Sci. Am. still has it in for the Wrights,
repeating their nonsense attacks as recently as 2003.) In 1908 the Wrights
demonstrated in France and in Washington DC and become famous overnight.
They were on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Hundreds of thousands
of people saw them fly over the next several months. They were given awards
by every country including a gold medal issued by Congress in 1909.
Starting in 1909 there were air races with 10 or 20 pilots competing.

So, you would think the controversy would end, wouldn't you? Nope. I have
newspaper accounts and books describing events as late as 1912, where, for
example, a person showed up with an airplane packed into railroad shipping
containers in a Midwestern city, and advertised he would demonstrate
flights before a paying crowd. He was arrested for fraud. The citizens
threatened to tar and feather him because "everyone knows people can't
fly." They sheriff told the pilot to get out of town in the dead of night.
Apparently the citizens of that city thought the national press coverage
was, in modern parlance, "fake news." They did not trust those big city
newspapers.

You see similar disbelief and opposition to things like self-driving cars
today. There are many unfounded and hysterical claims about them. Someone
in the comment section at the N. Y. Times said that a terrorist might use a
self-driving car to drive on the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians, and it
would not be the terrorist's fault because the robot is in charge.
Obviously, the cars are programmed not to leave the road or run down
anyone! Another letter claimed that thousands of self-driving cars on the
New Jersey Turnpike might suddenly to exit to the island Service Centers.
The letter writer seemed to think they might pile on top of one-another in
a gigantic demolition derby, trying to occupy the same parking spaces.
Again, obviously, a robot car that can drive in traffic would not try to
park in a spot that was already taken. Such objections resemble one of the
main objections made by scientists circa 1908 who did not believe airplanes
were possible: "even if you can fly, there is no way to slow down and land
safely." These people apparently never watched a pigeon turn up its wings
to a steep angle of attack, spread its tail, stall, and land. That is
exactly how an airplane lands, and you can be sure the Wright brothers knew
that before they glided the first time.

Here is a famous quote about how it is impossible to land an airplane:

"And, granting complete success, imagine the proud possessor of the
aeroplane darting through the air at a speed of several hundred feet per
second! It is the speed alone that sustains him. Once he slackens his
speed, down he begins to fall. He may, indeed, increase the inclination of
his aeroplane. Then he increases the resistance necessary to move it. Once
he stops he falls a dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without
destroying his delicate machinery?"

Source: Newcomb, Simon. *Outlook for the Flying Machine. The Independent*,
October 22, 1903.

http://www.foresight.org/news/negativeComments.html

You can see that Prof. Newcomb is describing how to land an airplane, yet
he does not even realize he is! If he were here, now, I would say:
"Professor, you just answered your own question. All you need to do is
glide to within a few feet above the ground and then do what you just
described. You fall a dead mass the last few feet, and then roll to a
stop." Most of the objections to c

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

Jed,  I have never stated nor thought that everything Rossi has said or done 
should be accepted without question.  So you are making that up.

I think there is significant evidence that some of his E-Cats worked & 
suggested several times it would be better to wait and see than dismiss 
everything with the certainty that you do.

Why do you think he is building a factory?  As I reported elsewhere there is 
evidence that he is doing so.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: Vortex 
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries



Adrian Ashfield  wrote:


Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.



You imply that I must accept all new claims without question. That would be as 
irrational as rejecting all of them out of hand.


You imply that I am not capable of evaluating claims. If I can read McKubre and 
conclude that he is right, I can read the Penon report and conclude that Rossi 
is wrong.


The suggestion that a person who uses ordinary judgment and evaluates claim is 
somehow "ironic" is a new definition of irony.


Actually, I cannot imagine how a technically competent person could read the 
Penon report and not conclude that Rossi was wrong. Axil Axil and other Rossi 
supporters have finessed this problem by refusing to read the report. Robert 
Park used the same technique to reject all cold fusion results -- he refused to 
look at them. That's ironic!



- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Robin,

I guess I do not understand how many far away objects would get information 
about the conversion that takes place.  If the mass equivalent remains the same 
and its center also is conserved then what is different?  Of course the photons 
would interact differently than the two particles but that effect would be 
localized I think.

Does Mills suspect that the gravitational mass is different between photons and 
electrons of the same energy?

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to  Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but 
>should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other 
>than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event 
>and other particles.
>
>Dave  

If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the conversion
of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe.
IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Esa Ruoho]

Speaking of Mills - have you guys seen this Cold Fusion Now -produced
documentary "Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems Melvin Miles The
Correlation of Excess Heat and Helium" - the link is at
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KM82RW7_II4

Also, maybe you'd find this Edmund Storms documentary (also by Cold Fusion
Now! / Ruby Carat) interesting, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4BPtwzsgiw

p.s. the next podcast episodes will be about Jean Paul Biberian and Alan
Smith. How do I know this? I edit them together:)


On 25 January 2018 at 21:20,  wrote:

> In reply to  Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but
> should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened
> other than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the
> event and other particles.
> >
> >Dave
>
> If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the
> conversion
> of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe.
> IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>


-- 
http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho //
http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
+358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage
esaru...@gmail.com //
http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com //
http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:17:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but 
>should we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other 
>than by the interactions between the two objects before and after the event 
>and other particles.
>
>Dave  

If I understand Mills correctly, then he says that it precisely the conversion
of mass into energy that causes the expansion of the universe.
IOW, yes the rest of the universe does know.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

Adrian Ashfield  wrote:

Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of
> everything that Rossi has done.


You imply that I must accept all new claims without question. That would be
as irrational as rejecting all of them out of hand.

You imply that I am not capable of evaluating claims. If I can read McKubre
and conclude that he is right, I can read the Penon report and conclude
that Rossi is wrong.

The suggestion that a person who uses ordinary judgment and evaluates claim
is somehow "ironic" is a new definition of irony.

Actually, I cannot imagine how a technically competent person could read
the Penon report and *not* conclude that Rossi was wrong. Axil Axil and
other Rossi supporters have finessed this problem by refusing to read the
report. Robert Park used the same technique to reject all cold fusion
results -- he refused to look at them. That's ironic!

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Philippe,

If you choose a frame of reference that is stationary to the center of mass of 
the two particles, which is at rest relative to them,  then there can be very 
little motion associated with the two.  When the conversion to energy takes 
place two photons are released exactly in opposite directions keeping the 
effective center of mass in the same place.

Is there reason to believe that photons do not have actual mass and hence 
gravitational attraction?  If they do have mass then nothing has changed in the 
universe other than a conversion of mass into energy.  All gravitational 
effects remain the same.  Does that not make sense?

I realize that mass and energy are two different forms of existence, but should 
we expect the remainder of the universe to know this has happened other than by 
the interactions between the two objects before and after the event and other 
particles.

Dave  

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Philippe Hatt
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Dave,
This is absolutely true and not challenged at all.
My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass into energy 
.Mathematically mass and energy are related through Einstein's equation 
.Nevertheless
mass is physically different from energy .Also the speed of the  two created 
photons is different from that of the initial electron and positron.The problem 
is how can two masses be converted into energy and lose their mass ,especially 
as this two masses are positive .So, I guess there is a process creating mass 
and an opposite process annihilating mass .These two processes should enter in 
resonance to annihilate the two masses and convert them into energy.

Philippe 


Envoyé de mon iPadp

Le 25 janv. 2018 à 17:04, Dave Roberson  a écrit :
Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine 
and two photons emerge?  The total mass-energy is the same.
 
Dave
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Philippe Hatt
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM
To: Jürg Wyttenbach
Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; 
mules...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
 
Dear Jürg,
 
Thank you for your answer.
 
On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative 
mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a 
hole of mass .This is what happens 
between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at 
the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are 
submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron 
comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better 
illustrate the phenomenon  let us consider the process of massification 
/demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive 
mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through 
annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two 
masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the 
process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite 
process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in 
deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti 
(positive)mass.
 
On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with 
the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy 
is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the 
subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough 
to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the 
document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR.
 
See you soon in Paris,
 
Philippe
 
 
Envoyé de mon iPadp

Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach  a écrit :
Dear Philippe

Thanks for Your information. 

>From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic 
>moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected 
>value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a 
>proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe 
>do exist.

The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting 
with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of 
the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is 
(equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails 
overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this 
(exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of 
the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon 
proton-radius measurements are equivalent to proton/electron measurements...)

But the most import

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Philippe Hatt]

Dave,

This is absolutely true and not challenged at all.
My point is not that one ,it is about physical modification of mass into energy 
.Mathematically mass and energy are related through Einstein's equation 
.Nevertheless
mass is physically different from energy .Also the speed of the  two created 
photons is different from that of the initial electron and positron.The problem 
is how can two masses be converted into energy and lose their mass ,especially 
as this two masses are positive .So, I guess there is a process creating mass 
and an opposite process annihilating mass .These two processes should enter in 
resonance to annihilate the two masses and convert them into energy.

Philippe 


Envoyé de mon iPadp

> Le 25 janv. 2018 à 17:04, Dave Roberson  a écrit :
> 
> Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron 
> combine and two photons emerge?  The total mass-energy is the same.
>  
> Dave
>  
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>  
> From: Philippe Hatt
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM
> To: Jürg Wyttenbach
> Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; 
> mules...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
>  
> Dear Jürg,
>  
> Thank you for your answer.
>  
> On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative 
> mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence 
> a hole of mass .This is what happens 
> between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving 
> at the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because 
> they are submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of 
> the positron comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To 
> better illustrate the phenomenon  let us consider the process of 
> massification /demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a 
> positive mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant 
> through annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So 
> the two masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass 
> as the process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the 
> opposite process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified 
> comes in deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is 
> an anti (positive)mass.
>  
> On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built 
> with the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding 
> energy is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was 
> the subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are 
> enough to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in 
> the document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR.
>  
> See you soon in Paris,
>  
> Philippe
>  
>  
> Envoyé de mon iPadp
> 
> Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach  a écrit :
> 
> Dear Philippe
> 
> Thanks for Your information. 
> 
> From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic 
> moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected 
> value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a 
> proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe 
> do exist.
> 
> The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always 
> interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in 
> proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the 
> E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This 
> indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing 
> the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only 
> have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some 
> physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent 
> to proton/electron measurements...)
> 
> But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the 
> mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus 
> topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a 
> better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view the 
> use of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a 
> 4D-->3D torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math 
> rules.
> 
> Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy 
> finally is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building 
> rule. Whether it is straight forward or not has to be shown.
> 
> I personally do not like the term anti-mass. In the 4(6)D model of the 
> nucleus, we can show that all nuclear interaction (gamma levels) are exactly 
> defined by the energy - holes (quasi negative energy) left behind during the 
> building 

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Is it not true that the mass is conserved when an electron and positron combine 
and two photons emerge?  The total mass-energy is the same.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Philippe Hatt
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:09 AM
To: Jürg Wyttenbach
Cc: bobcook39...@hotmail.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; na...@gwu.edu; Nigel Dyer; 
mules...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Dear Jürg,

Thank you for your answer.

On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative 
mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a 
hole of mass .This is what happens 
between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at 
the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are 
submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron 
comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better 
illustrate the phenomenon  let us consider the process of massification 
/demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive 
mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through 
annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two 
masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the 
process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite 
process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in 
deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti 
(positive)mass.

On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with 
the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy 
is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the 
subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough 
to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the 
document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR.

See you soon in Paris,

Philippe


Envoyé de mon iPadp

Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach  a écrit :
Dear Philippe

Thanks for Your information. 

>From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic 
>moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected 
>value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a 
>proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe 
>do exist.

The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always interacting 
with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in proton case) of 
the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the E-field, what is 
(equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This indicates why QM fails 
overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing the small factors. But this 
(exact) result is on thin ice, because we only have mediocre measurements of 
the proton charge radius. (Even worse some physicists still believe that muon 
proton-radius measurements are equivalent to proton/electron measurements...)

But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the 
mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus 
topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a 
better understanding of deep orbits. From a mathematical point of view the use 
of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a 4D-->3D 
torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math rules.

Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy finally 
is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building rule. 
Whether it is straight forward or not has to be shown.

I personally do not like the term anti-mass. In the 4(6)D model of the nucleus, 
we can show that all nuclear interaction (gamma levels) are exactly defined by 
the energy - holes (quasi negative energy) left behind during the building of 
the nucleus. These holes are connected to the existing mass/magnetic flux and 
must be (re-) filled to become active.
If you can define negative mass as being flux from "real" mass to holes, then 
all is fine. Negative mass would imply negative energy, what even for a 
positron (antimatter) does not hold.

An other difficulty is to directly compare the electron/proton mass with the 
magnetic moment. The nuclear magneton is defined as eh'/2mp  (Units J/T) what 
needs a field to make the masses compatible. If you make a quotient like 1.913 
/ 2.793 then this formal "problem" factors out. 

What I would like to remind everybody: To explain LENR we, at the end, need a 
formula which allows to calculate the stimulation fields needed, what includes 
their strength, topology, and most likely their frequency. (The same holds for 
the LENR energy releasing phase...) With knowing the exact energies, we can 
only derive some base frequencies! "Nothing" is said

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Adrian Ashfield]

So far so good, said the man after jumping off the top of a skyscraper.

Why do you suppose Rossi is building a factory?

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Jan 25, 2018 7:25 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries



Dismissal is to kind a word. Rossi should ave been prosecuted.


 How did that October demo go?


I think my 31st Rossi prediction held.


I am 31 - 0 since 2009.

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Brian Ahern]

Dismissal is to kind a word. Rossi should ave been prosecuted.


 How did that October demo go?


I think my 31st Rossi prediction held.


I am 31 - 0 since 2009.



From: Adrian Ashfield 
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 6:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

Jed,  I find your comment rather ironic considering your dismissal of 
everything that Rossi has done.

Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This 
>is what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral 
>by funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by 
>convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its 
>opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with 
>it.”
but the "new generation" is taught dogma; textbooks are locked into teaching 
things that are wrong but refuse to be corrected
for instance: certain things should be mentioned but are not mentioned to the 
"new generation" allowing them to live in ignorance:


John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982) 
notes: 
"But why then had Born not told me of this 'pilot wave'? If only to point out 
what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More 
extraordinarily, why did people go on producing 'impossibility' proofs, after 
1952, and as recently as 1978? When even Pauli, Rosenfeld, and Heisenberg, 
could produce no more devastating criticism of Bohm's version than to brand it 
as 'metaphysical' and 'ideological'? Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in 
text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to 
the prevailing complacency? To show that vagueness, subjectivity, and 
indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate 
theoretical choice?" 
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
 

On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 22:49, Jed Rothwell  
wrote:
 

 A trusting soul over at lenr-forum.com wrote that science does not exclude 
different thinking, meaning it does not reject valid ideas:

Seriously, look over those accomplishments and tell me science excludes 
different thinking.

With some example such as:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/12-most-important-science-trends-30-years


We have often discussed this issue here. There is no need to reiterate the 
whole issue but let me quote my response. If you have not read Hagelstein's 
essay linked to below, you should.

There are countless examples of "science" excluding different thinking. This is 
what prompted Max Planck to write that progress in science occurs "funeral by 
funeral." He explained: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing 
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents 
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

I have mentioned famous examples of rejection. They include things like the 
airplane, the laser and the MRI.

I put the word science in quotes above because it is not science that excludes 
so much as individual scientists who do. They do this because rejecting novelty 
is human nature, and scientists are ordinary people with such foibles despite 
their training. See Peter Hagelstein's essay here, in the section, "Science as 
an imperfect human endeavor:"

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf

Many scientists not very good at science, just as many programmers write 
spaghetti code, and many surgeons kill their patients. A surprising number of 
scientists reject the scientific method, such as the late John Huizenga, who 
boldly asserted that when an experiments conflicts with theory, the experiment 
must be wrong, even when he could not point to any reason.

One of the absurd claims made with regard to this notion is that science never 
makes mistakes; that in the end it always gets the right answer and it never 
rejects a true finding, so no valuable discovery is ever lost. Since many 
claims have been lost and then rediscovered decades later this is obviously 
incorrect. More to the point, this claim is not falsifiable. If a true 
discovery is lost to history we would not know about it. Because it is lost. 
The logic of this resembles the old joke about the teacher who says, "everyone 
who is absent today please raise your hand."

In other technical disciplines such as programming, people forget important 
techniques all the time. The notion that science does not make mistakes is 
pernicious. It is dangerous. Imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue 
if people went around thinking: "doctors never make mistakes" or "bank computer 
programmers never make mistakes" or "airplane mechanics never make mistakes."
- Jed


   

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Philippe Hatt]

Dear Jürg,

Thank you for your answer.

On antimass :I fully agree with what you say .For me antimass is not negative 
mass ,but positive mass leaving our space time and creating as a consequence a 
hole of mass .This is what happens 
between electron and positron when collapsing to yield two photons evolving at 
the edge of our space time .The two positive masses annihilate because they are 
submitted to a process "up and down".The demassification phase of the positron 
comes in deduction of the massification phase of the electron.To better 
illustrate the phenomenon  let us consider the process of massification 
/demassification .A particle entering our space time acquires a positive 
mass.This particle is leaving our space time after a Planck instant through 
annihilation or demassification ,creating a hole of positive mass .So the two 
masses together are counted as zero .There is never a negative mass as the 
process needs first a creation of mass (massification ) in order the opposite 
process (demassification ) can take place .The mass demassified comes in 
deduction of the positive mass while never being negative.So, it is an anti 
(positive)mass.

On LENR ,as previously said the binding energy of alpha particle is built with 
the binding energies of Deuterium,Tritium ,He3 and NN. This NN binding energy 
is equal to the mass of a neutron mass minus 1800x 0.511 MeV .It was the 
subject of my previous mail to you.These four binding energy values are enough 
to explain the binding energy of every nucleus.It will be explained in the 
document I am preparing on binding energy and LENR.

See you soon in Paris,

Philippe


Envoyé de mon iPadp

> Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach  a écrit :
> 
> Dear Philippe
> 
> Thanks for Your information. 
> 
> From my side there are some very interesting findings regarding the magnetic 
> moments of the proton & 7 Lithium. The perturbation/deviation from expected 
> value is given 1) by math rules and 2) by a virtual proton/electron or a 
> proton + electron/neutron fluctuation! Thus such fluctuations as you describe 
> do exist.
> 
> The outcome for the proton clearly shows that the charge is always 
> interacting with other (distant) charges. The magnitude (one factor in in 
> proton case) of the interaction is given by the relativistic rest mass of the 
> E-field, what is (equal to) the electron mass divided by 2 phi. This 
> indicates why QM fails overall, when applied to a nucleus, without knowing 
> the small factors. But this (exact) result is on thin ice, because we only 
> have mediocre measurements of the proton charge radius. (Even worse some 
> physicists still believe that muon proton-radius measurements are equivalent 
> to proton/electron measurements...)
> 
> But the most important, what is independent of the measurements, is the 
> mathematical proof, that all charge radii must be based on a (4D-) torus 
> topology. I recently told Jean-Luc that he should use a torus topology for a 
> better understanding of deep orbits.   From a mathematical point of view 
> the use of a sphere is less straight forward. But, at least for the proton a 
> 4D-->3D torus projection seems to be OK as long as you keep the 4(6)D math 
> rules.
> 
> Your work is true complementary and more basic than what we do. Energy 
> finally is always a scalar and based on quanta, ergo there must be a building 
> rule. Whether it is straight forward or not has to be shown.
> 
> I personally do not like the term anti-mass. In the 4(6)D model of the 
> nucleus, we can show that all nuclear interaction (gamma levels) are exactly 
> defined by the energy - holes (quasi negative energy) left behind during the 
> building of the nucleus. These holes are connected to the existing 
> mass/magnetic flux and must be (re-) filled to become active.
> If you can define negative mass as being flux from "real" mass to holes, then 
> all is fine. Negative mass would imply negative energy, what even for a 
> positron (antimatter) does not hold.
> 
> An other difficulty is to directly compare the electron/proton mass with the 
> magnetic moment. The nuclear magneton is defined as eh'/2mp  (Units J/T) what 
> needs a field to make the masses compatible. If you make a quotient like 
> 1.913 / 2.793 then this formal "problem" factors out. 
> 
> What I would like to remind everybody: To explain LENR we, at the end, need a 
> formula which allows to calculate the stimulation fields needed, what 
> includes their strength, topology, and most likely their frequency. (The same 
> holds for the LENR energy releasing phase...) With knowing the exact 
> energies, we can only derive some base frequencies! "Nothing" is said about 
> the other factors.
> 
> Thus more work is needed!
> 
> Jürg
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 24.01.18 um 11:51 schrieb Philippe Hatt:
>> 
>> Dear Bob,
>> 
>> Thank you for your support ,again.I would also see Andrew Meulenberg address 
>> my theory on massification /demassification.
>> I met hi