Re: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Jonathan


You say: "So it really is amazing how big of a shambles it all is!"

Yes, its a shambles.

Part of the problem was pointed out by an early critic of relativity ->

G. BURNISTON BROWN Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical 
Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp.71—77

https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_279.pdf

who says - quote - > "Einstein never wrote a definitive account of his 
theory"


which means --> what Einstein did - was present a series of papers where 
he kept changing his mind.






-- Original Message --
From: "Jonathan Berry" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; evg...@groups.io; aethericscien...@groups.io
Sent: Friday, 10 Nov, 23 At 02:20
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

A few updates...


First because the Michelson Morley claim seemed plausible but not 
totally conclusive, I wasn't doing the math myself and math isn't my 
thing so I farmed that out to AI's that kept on having different ideas 
so to be sure I had to really drill down and figure out the best most 
pure way to do so.



I realized the easiest way was not to deal with a moving medium at all! 
But instead to change the velocity of the wave in the medium and 
recalculate!
See, if a medium is in motion relative to us, then the motion of the 
wave is either increased or decreased relative to our frame, so there is 
no need to deal with the complicating effect of moving mediums as we get 
the same number of waves in a given space is the waves have the same 
speed regardless of how that is achieved.



So say you have a wave that moves at 1000 meters a second and you have a 
10khz signal, in 10 meters distance you have 100 waves (it takes 0.01 
second for a wave to traverse the distance and in that time there are 99 
buddies behind him),
So what happens if we increase the wave velocity to 1.5 times?  Well 
then it would take 15 meters to fit 100 waves and as such we have in 
just 10 meters 2/3rds of those 100 waves, or 66.666 waves.



And if the waves moved at half the speed, how many waves would fit in 
the 10 meter space?  Well, double!



So if we had the medium being stationary and in a 10 meter space we 
would have 200 waves, consisting of 100 waves in each direction, yes 
superimposed.



But by having waves go 1.5 times faster in one direction but only half 
as far in the other direction, this is meant to simulate the medium 
moving at half the speed of the waves we get 66.66 + 200 = 266.66 waves.



So it turns out the Michelson Moley experiment DOES potentially tell us 
something about Ether drift.



It doesn't tell us there isn't an Ether, and it doesn't confirm Lorentz 
transformations though Lorentz transformation might explain why we might 
be moving through and Ether and not detect it.



But another possibility is that there is an Ether and we aren't moving 
through it but entraining it.



On the whole I am happy to accept that Lorentz transformations might, as 
an absolute thing in line with Lorentz Ether Theory, exist.



And I have now heard LET be termed Lorentzian Relativity, and it is 
that, but it is a form of Relativity with an Ether, with a prefered 
frame.  Of course Einstein believed in an Ether in 1920 and compared it 
to matter.



What is most interesting however, that based on a reply from Roger 
Anderson who saw my post, I ended up finding a few interesting notes and 
here they are...



According to Sabine Hossenfelder  YouTube Physicist and fellow INTJ, 
Time dilation DOESN'T OCCUR from steady state motion!  That is another 
change to Special relativity   -  muons shouldn't survive longer either 
at speed if she were correct.



This is interesting as relativistic time dilation seems to have been the 
core component of SR in the 1905 paper, and AFAIK it was in the even 
earlier Lorentz formulations even though time dilation isn't used to 
explain null interferometer results.



Also if there is no time dilation, well sure you don't get twin Paradox 
issues which is good, but there become some other serious issues, think 
of a photon of light bouncing between parallel plates being used as a 
clock:

__

   o
__


If you move at a significant velocity (what this means in terms of SR is 
debatable) to the right then the light is taking a zigzag course, and as 
such if it isn't to be superluminal it must be ticking slower though not 
to our perception moving with the light clock but to the fame that sees 
it as a zig-zag. If all frames are to seem equal. So time dilation can't 
be thrown out as Sabine tries.  With an Ether frame this light clock 
makes perfect sense with SR you have time dilation that being relative 
to nothing becomes paradoxical in ways described, and the rest frame can 
be learnt be removed of temporal Doppler effects.



I guess what this means is that there are different types of time 
dilation we need to distinguish.  There is gravitational time dila

Re: [Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[CB Sites]

It's always interesting to question what is considered our standard point
of view even when it works so well.  Special Relativity is common sense in
my opinion and is why I would never give it up.   However, what always
bugged me was time and using it as a 4th dimension.  One of the concepts of
space-time that is the stuff of SCI-FI, is you could warp space-time in
such a way that the fabric of Space-Time could fold allowing for
fast-than-light travel (FLT).  The warping of space-time does require
extreme bending but in places like black holes, the event horizon provides
a great conceptual model of zero time.  It's what gives rise to concepts
like the Holographic Universe.

I recall on a thought experiment (exploring common sense) I was looking at
the concept of fractional dimensions. Like the Mandlebrot, but the question
I asked myself was, what would a fractional dimension look like if we
experienced one?   There has been a movie of the flat world (a 2D universe)
experiencing its interaction with a 3D world.  You know the circle forming
when viewing a 3d sphere interesting a plane.   So my thought experiment
was what if one and only one of the dimensions was fractional?   Normally
we think of dimensions as X,Y,Z and t, which act like a 4D index into space
(X,Y,Z) and time (t).  If you pick a space dimension like X, we can
envision it as a horizontal position in space.  What would it look like if
X was fractional?   Common sense would say that it would have a
boundary that is no longer an integer but could be limited to only a
direction forward (note forward is a reference to time).  However, from the
Flatworld POV, such a clipping of a dimension would be a dimension that can
only progress forward.

What if time was in reality a fraction dimension incapable of time
reversal?  Time as a fraction dimension could not move backward.  From our
perspective, time is an arrow, a ray, but what if that is what the 4th
dimension is?  A fractional dimension.   When you look at special
relativity from that perspective, things make a little more sense
conceptually.  It really makes the Holographic Universe concept seem even
more profound.

[Vo]:Re: Polished: Re: Special Relativity (SR) .vs Aether

[Jonathan Berry]

A few updates...

First because the Michelson Morley claim seemed plausible but not totally
conclusive, I wasn't doing the math myself and math isn't my thing so I
farmed that out to AI's that kept on having different ideas so to be sure I
had to really drill down and figure out the best most pure way to do so.

I realized the easiest way was not to deal with a moving medium at all!
But instead to change the velocity of the wave in the medium and
recalculate!
See, if a medium is in motion relative to us, then the motion of the wave
is either increased or decreased relative to our frame, so there is no need
to deal with the complicating effect of moving mediums as we get the same
number of waves in a given space is the waves have the same speed
regardless of how that is achieved.

So say you have a wave that moves at 1000 meters a second and you have a
10khz signal, in 10 meters distance you have 100 waves (it takes 0.01
second for a wave to traverse the distance and in that time there are 99
buddies behind him),
So what happens if we increase the wave velocity to 1.5 times?  Well then
it would take 15 meters to fit 100 waves and as such we have in just 10
meters 2/3rds of those 100 waves, or 66.666 waves.

And if the waves moved at half the speed, how many waves would fit in the
10 meter space?  Well, double!

So if we had the medium being stationary and in a 10 meter space we would
have 200 waves, consisting of 100 waves in each direction, yes superimposed.

But by having waves go 1.5 times faster in one direction but only half as
far in the other direction, this is meant to simulate the medium moving at
half the speed of the waves we get 66.66 + 200 = 266.66 waves.

So it turns out the Michelson Moley experiment DOES potentially tell us
something about Ether drift.

It doesn't tell us there isn't an Ether, and it doesn't confirm Lorentz
transformations though Lorentz transformation might explain why we might be
moving through and Ether and not detect it.

But another possibility is that there is an Ether and we aren't moving
through it but entraining it.

On the whole I am happy to accept that Lorentz transformations might, as an
absolute thing in line with Lorentz Ether Theory, exist.

And I have now heard LET be termed Lorentzian Relativity, and it is that,
but it is a form of Relativity with an Ether, with a prefered frame.  Of
course Einstein believed in an Ether in 1920 and compared it to matter.

What is most interesting however, that based on a reply from Roger Anderson
who saw my post, I ended up finding a few interesting notes and here they
are...

According to Sabine Hossenfelder  YouTube Physicist and fellow INTJ, Time
dilation DOESN'T OCCUR from steady state motion!  That is another change to
Special relativity   -  muons shouldn't survive longer either at speed if
she were correct.

This is interesting as relativistic time dilation seems to have been the
core component of SR in the 1905 paper, and AFAIK it was in the even
earlier Lorentz formulations even though time dilation isn't used to
explain null interferometer results.

Also if there is no time dilation, well sure you don't get twin Paradox
issues which is good, but there become some other serious issues, think of
a photon of light bouncing between parallel plates being used as a clock:
__

   o
__

If you move at a significant velocity (what this means in terms of SR is
debatable) to the right then the light is taking a zigzag course, and as
such if it isn't to be superluminal it must be ticking slower though not to
our perception moving with the light clock but to the fame that sees it as
a zig-zag. If all frames are to seem equal. So time dilation can't be
thrown out as Sabine tries.  With an Ether frame this light clock makes
perfect sense with SR you have time dilation that being relative to nothing
becomes paradoxical in ways described, and the rest frame can be learnt be
removed of temporal Doppler effects.

I guess what this means is that there are different types of time dilation
we need to distinguish.  There is gravitational time dilation, and
equivalent acceleration time dilation (G-force time dilation, one
experiment reportedly disproved), illusory Doppler shift time dilation
(which can be removed by calculation) and the TRUE time dilation, which has
been hidden by SR all this time because it is relative to motion through an
Ether!  This is absolute motion based time dilation and with it the light
clock stops being so impossible and paradoxical.

And according to various Youtubers and even the LLM's, Relativistic mass
was thrown out as a part of Relativity in 2008!?  This was a shock to me!
Also it wasn't in Einstein's original theory either.
It is interesting how I have heard it as the reason Photons can't have any
rest mass, because it would turn infinite at C, and same with the utter
impossibility of FTL travel.
Originally it wasn't e=mc2, it was e0=mc2.  This means that only rest mass
is considered!  The most 

[Vo]:Re: Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Vibrator !]

The ARV story is chaff; misdirection to fill the void with something
semi-plausible, at least to some degree of consistency, yet whilst only
providing bumsteer.  The UFO equivalent of red mercury.  Visitors' craft
are obviously surrounded by some kind of glowing orb phenomenon, commonly
assumed to be plasma; superficially, consistent with application of a high
electric field density, sufficient to exceed the breakdown density of the
surrounding air molecules.  Thus, so the logic goes, generating warp fields
must have something to do with powerful electric fields.

Of course we're being asked to walk the plank there however - so far as the
standard field equations are concerned, the electric field density required
to cause such significant yet highly-localised spacetime deformations as
we're seeing could only be contained by a miniature black hole; it's
circular logic.

But even the plasma ball hypothesis doesn't hold up to basic logic - we
predominantly see orange / white hues - the former might imply helium, but
that's only a trace element in air, and besides, we'd then need to invoke a
conserved supply of different gases to ionise for every other colour of the
spectrum these things can rapidly cycle through.  Air's 70% nitrogen, which
fluoresces violet from the combined preponderance of red and
blue-wavelength electron shell transitions - the familiar colour or
electrical arcing.

Even worse for the plasma theory are the results of diffraction
spectroscopy, revealing a continuous spectrum consistent with sun or
starlight, or the CMBR, as opposed to the discrete line spectra of specific
fluorescing elements.   See the Hessdalen example for instance.

Then of course there's the fact that these orbs persist underwater, or out
in space.  So for starters, UAP glow is not ionised gases!  Some ionisation
is occurring, but as an effect of the light, rather than its cause; this is
due to the +UV components of these broad-spectrum emissions, forming
ionising radiation that for instance breaks up O2 which then preferentially
de-excites by forming O3 rather than by releasing a photon, and thus
responsible for the 'pungent' or 'chlorine' odour of ozone often reported
in the vicinity of sightings.  This likewise accounts for the many
instances of skin, eye and hair damage, shorting of exposed electrical
equipments, plant and soil damage (O3 blocking leaf stromata, inhibiting
respiration and in turn causing lasting carbon-depletion of the underlying
soil microbiome).

The most consistent explanation for this light production that can be
formulated from what is currently known is that it is Casimir radiation
from the interface of curved and flat spacetimes - akin to Unruh radiation,
but in this case the thermal bath effect is produced by relative
compression of the Planck length, blue-shifting of the enclosed volume of
virtual photonsphere along with shrinking of its coordinate space, as
opposed to observer acceleration.   In essence it's the familiar heat-pump
principle, wherein the 'heat' is the EM four-potential and the 'gas',
spacetime.  Squeezing spacetime makes it glow, like.  It adds relativistic
momentum and energy to virtual photons, causing the vacuum to begin
expressing real photons of all wavelengths, per Casimir.

This is why UAP glow is continuous-spectrum, and persists in space and
underwater:  it is stimulated emission of radiation from vacuum caused by
the second law of thermodynamics trying to equilibrate between the enclosed
value of raised false-vacuum, and ambient;  the two disparate values of
vacuum potential in close proximity immediately around the craft.  It is
thus environmental energy flowing almost incidentally around the craft like
a kind of vacuum-wake, rather than energy being dissipated by or lost to
the craft themselves (which for their part likely operate at or above the
Carnot efficiency limit, as long implicated by Mr Robert Lazar esq).  It is
biased towards the longer-wavelength, redder end of the spectrum (thus
warm-white) by the conservation of energy, bluer photons requiring more
energy so being less common.  AKA a Planck distribution.  This is why UAP
can be captured using cheap IR monoculars from Amazon, since even when not
emitting at visible wavelengths, they're almost-inevitably still producing
an IR signature (i've filmed dozens myself this last year).

But just as electric field density alone cannot explain such extreme
spacetime manipulations - it's all very well attributing spontaneous EM
radiation to them, if we still can't explain how they're produced - more to
the point, we cannot explain UAP warpfields within the confines of the
standard field equations and mass-energy density alone.  We need some kind
of conceptual leap or bridgehead that can be reconciled with much stronger
spacetime deformations at much shorter ranges, and at much more modest (and
practical!) mass-energy densities..

This too has been provided by Lazar:  the strong nuclear force reduces to
an 

[Vo]:Re: Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Jonathan Berry]

As I was eating some soup (on day 5 of the fasting mimicking diet) I
wondered why I didn't try putting a pyramid in a box?!

I took a Pyramid I made from A4 Paper where I printed a Template for a
Pyramid of my own design, this design uses an effect I discovered and then
found another researcher independently discovered!

Both of us make the exact same claim, you take a Pyramid, cut it into 4
parts and the further apart you pull the sides (within reason) the stronger
the energy (dramatically so)

So this pyramid that one lady I sent the design to said "it fills the room
with energy".

I put in a cardboard box, not even square and guess what, I couldn't feel
the energy from it, hmmm.

Luckily because it is in 4 segments pulled apart (each being one wall of a
4 sided pyramid, not touching the other walls) there is a lot of space in
the middle.

So I put some rock salt within the Pyramid in the box and closed it up,
waited a few moments and took the Pyramid out, poured the rock salt on to
the bench.

Then I took more rock salt and repeated the process without putting it in
the box.

Then I compared the energy I could feel radiation off of each one, and the
difference is huge.

I also checked out the structure of Copper Titanium Oxide (CCTO)  which has
value of about 1.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138589472030317X

And it is has the same essential structure.

If anyone wants to spend some time making the paper pyramid, has a printer,
paper, sellotape and some scissors and 20-30 mins to do what amount to a
childs exercise I'll send you 2 templates for 2 designs, they are also
great stacked.



On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 14:18, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> BTW, just curious about things with a high dielectric constant as these
> have been correlated with both Free Energy (a researcher with a coil around
> a Barium Titanate coil inputting a special frequency got a blue glow and
> free energy out, yes, Barium again pops up).
>
> But also I recall reading about highly dielectric sands and powders being
> found to have some reduced rate of fall in a vacuum or did they demonstrate
> a degree of antigravity, I forget.  Perhaps both.
>
> Maybe it was even a connection to T.T Brown's work, but at any rate the
> interesting thing is that Barium Titanate which has a dielectric constant
> of 1200!  Just so happens to be microscopically form a double terminated
> pyramid trapped inside a cube.
>
> Now I have a REALLY REALLY high degree of surface level conviction/hunch
> that this high dielectric constant is actually in part an aetheric
> property!  That it has made denser aetheric energy within itself.
>
> That those structures if made macroscopically and nested would create some
> degree of increase in the dielectric constant of the whole even if made of
> materials that have a value nearer 1, Though perhaps the other features
> might be needed such as the atomic numbers, I have found that certain
> numbers manifest a lot of aetheric energy when surrounded by a number of
> "edged" that relate to that number in some way.
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 12:45, Jonathan Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> I have presented this to some degree here years ago but time for another
>> crack at it.
>> When I was in bed this morning I thought of this list, actually in that
>> state I was able to think, I believe of a few extra cases that currently I
>> can't put my finger on, they would belong in the middle of the list.
>>
>> Anyway if we were to ask if there is the possibility of some type of
>> phenomena in space that might be induced to move, there is a LOT of "stuff"
>> in space that conventional science recognizes.
>> From frame dragging, Dirac space, Virtual particles/Quantum field theory,
>> relic neutrino flux, Dark matter/Energy and much more:
>> https://vimeo.com/22956103
>> Indeed the Lamb shift is a separation of virtual particles by an electric
>> field that causes the orbital of the Hydrogen atom to split into two very
>> close levels.
>>
>> The first is the ARV (Alien Reproduction Vehicle) known as the fluxliner
>> and a very compelling case is made for it in this humorous and effective
>> video:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFYnVXbLoY
>>
>> There you will see that MANY people claimed to see this same hovering
>> saucer at an Air-Show for top brass only.
>>
>> The startling thing about the design is that the craft had an array of 48
>> high voltage capacitors that looks like a maximized version of the next
>> one, this very own lists "Capwarp"!
>>  http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>>
>> There we see a number of people managed to successfully replicate this
>> thing, and I recall a number of additional people on this list claiming
>> some success that wasn't recorded there.
>>
>> So, given the Lamb shift and other information letting us know there is
>> something to be affected (including by an electric field) and the multiple
>> witnesses to the ARV and multiple claimants we could come to 

[Vo]:Re: Antigravity with a ring of capacitors

[Jonathan Berry]

BTW, just curious about things with a high dielectric constant as these
have been correlated with both Free Energy (a researcher with a coil around
a Barium Titanate coil inputting a special frequency got a blue glow and
free energy out, yes, Barium again pops up).

But also I recall reading about highly dielectric sands and powders being
found to have some reduced rate of fall in a vacuum or did they demonstrate
a degree of antigravity, I forget.  Perhaps both.

Maybe it was even a connection to T.T Brown's work, but at any rate the
interesting thing is that Barium Titanate which has a dielectric constant
of 1200!  Just so happens to be microscopically form a double terminated
pyramid trapped inside a cube.

Now I have a REALLY REALLY high degree of surface level conviction/hunch
that this high dielectric constant is actually in part an aetheric
property!  That it has made denser aetheric energy within itself.

That those structures if made macroscopically and nested would create some
degree of increase in the dielectric constant of the whole even if made of
materials that have a value nearer 1, Though perhaps the other features
might be needed such as the atomic numbers, I have found that certain
numbers manifest a lot of aetheric energy when surrounded by a number of
"edged" that relate to that number in some way.

Jonathan

On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 12:45, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> I have presented this to some degree here years ago but time for another
> crack at it.
> When I was in bed this morning I thought of this list, actually in that
> state I was able to think, I believe of a few extra cases that currently I
> can't put my finger on, they would belong in the middle of the list.
>
> Anyway if we were to ask if there is the possibility of some type of
> phenomena in space that might be induced to move, there is a LOT of "stuff"
> in space that conventional science recognizes.
> From frame dragging, Dirac space, Virtual particles/Quantum field theory,
> relic neutrino flux, Dark matter/Energy and much more:
> https://vimeo.com/22956103
> Indeed the Lamb shift is a separation of virtual particles by an electric
> field that causes the orbital of the Hydrogen atom to split into two very
> close levels.
>
> The first is the ARV (Alien Reproduction Vehicle) known as the fluxliner
> and a very compelling case is made for it in this humorous and effective
> video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUFYnVXbLoY
>
> There you will see that MANY people claimed to see this same hovering
> saucer at an Air-Show for top brass only.
>
> The startling thing about the design is that the craft had an array of 48
> high voltage capacitors that looks like a maximized version of the next
> one, this very own lists "Capwarp"!
>  http://amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>
> There we see a number of people managed to successfully replicate this
> thing, and I recall a number of additional people on this list claiming
> some success that wasn't recorded there.
>
> So, given the Lamb shift and other information letting us know there is
> something to be affected (including by an electric field) and the multiple
> witnesses to the ARV and multiple claimants we could come to the conclusion
> that there is a VERY HIGH probability that a circular array of HV
> capacitors can create levitation.
>
> We also of course have the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, now some of his
> capacitor arrays were indeed very similar to this, though his thrusts were
> stronger he had large numbers of layers submerged in oil and both a weight
> loss and thrust was noticed, this is in addition to the more showy but
> arguably potentially more ion wind based examples he later worked on.
>
> But there is a book, I think it might be the Yellow cover of "Antigravity
> and the World Grid" where it mentions a rumor that T.T Brown was rumored to
> have got far higher levels of Antigravity from a circular array of
> capacitors.
>
> But we aren't done yet!
>
> In an "Infolio" I got from Rex Research it mentioned a high school kid who
> made a large circular capacitor with a Polystyrene dielectric, it lost
> weight no when charged no matter which polarity was up, this aligns with
> T-T Brown claiming that there was both an antigravity AND a propulsive
> component to his work.
>
> Then one day I found a comment on Youtube, it was about a University
> student (Doyle a few years on?) who got levitation from a glass dielectric
> based circular capacitor!
>
> When I relayed this to (RIP) Marc McCandlish he told me about another man
> who made a very very large circular capacitor and he used a black
> dielectric similar to what is used for shoes, and energized it with a Tesla
> coil, if his claims are genuine he made a craft he flew in!
>
> Ok so we have some other interesting evidence to consider.
> There is a claim of another science fair experiment at a school, whis one
> involved 2 circular plates of Aluminium with a time varying (IIRC) HV field
> applied, a ball 

[Vo]:Re: The message chain with an happy ending

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

It's part of the blog, computers tab, I see guile scheme as an art and have
a few suggestions of great improvements for it. But you have to demand
those features if you like it. And if you do not see we have some serious
issues in the world, just ignore it as much as you like. Enjoy your
sleep...

On Sun, 2 Jul 2023, 10:24 Maxime Devos  wrote:

> I don't see the relation with Guile.  What's guile-de...@gnu.org doing
> in the To:?
>
> Best regards,
> Maxime Devos
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​​Experiment Casts ​​Doubt on the Leading Theory of the Nucleus

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The strong force is not a constant. It is proportional to the parallel 
EM flux. The increase from proton --> 4-He is a complex quaternion 
Logarithmic factor. It can be exactly given by the SO(4) physics model.


The standard model simply is garbage invented by people that miss the 
understanding of some basic physics laws like :


*Flux must be homogeneous and stable!*  That does (mathematically - 
easily provable) not work with the SM solution space of S3 or just 
SU(2)/SO(3).



J.W.

On 13.06.2023 03:26, H L V wrote:


A New Experiment Casts Doubt on the Leading Theory of the Nucleus

By measuring inflated helium nuclei, physicists have challenged our 
best understanding of the force that binds protons and neutrons.


https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-experiment-casts-doubt-on-the-leading-theory-of-the-nucleus-20230612

Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Alien Calculus’ Could Save Particle Physics From Infinities | Quanta Magazine--tunneling and other entangled system phenonma--

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The following link  
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/12-3-second-law-of-thermodyn 
describes the under appreciated 2nd law of of thermodynamics.  Regarding 
entropy changes in the universe .


T I reflects  the basis for my comments regarding my explanation of the 
transitions that happen during LENR in an entangled QM closed system


I have also considered that LENR displays an  incase of entropy when a transfer 
of heat (phonic energy of the entangled system) is released by r
Common heat transfer mechanisms.

The definition of disorder is and does not get well establish in the linked 
discussion.  However, the system parameters  that relate to  changes of entropy 
are  described as examples of system disorder.


BOB cOOK
-

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 12:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Alien Calculus’ Could Save Particle Physics From 
Infinities | Quanta Magazine--tunneling and other entangled system phenonma--


Jurg apply points out that tunneling is a common event  that happens within 
entangled quantum mechanical systems of energy.

IMHO such systems can be described by an equation (Hamiltonian) that equates 
potential and kinetic energy of the entangled system (PE =KE).   The sum of the 
2 energies is the mass of the system, (m) times c times c (Einstein's 
prediction.)  If the entangled system moves through spsce relative to an 
observer it appears to have additional KE  = mvv/2.

Regarding a a stable entangled QM system, the only type of KE possible is spin 
KE .Kinetic energy (KE) which entails linear momentum (mv) is unstable.

LENR  in a stable entangled system an be  entropy driven  to swapspin KE 
between the nucleons and atomic electrons.  Phonic  spin energy (atomic 
electronic heat or enthalpy) ) increases at the same instant that  nuclear spin 
KE decreases.  Energy and angular momentum are  conserved, but the Hamiltonian 
changes win no change in the mass of the entangled system.

Such a reaction might be called an ENTROPY  DRIVEN  SPIN TRANSION  (EDST).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics


Of course exact conditions must happen in the entangled system.  Since 
temperature and magnetic field strength are such conditions, engineering a EDST 
control mechanism should be easy.  MRI medical machines do this  rutinely to 
cause nuclear spin KE transitions between stable and qusi- stable entangled 
systems.


Bob Cook





From: Jürg Wyttenbach<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Alien Calculus’ Could Save Particle Physics From 
Infinities | Quanta Magazine


Tunnelling is a fancy effect that occurs when you neglect the magnetic 
interaction.

Obviously and even worse Dirac and similar equations neglect the main acting 
part of particle physics - EM resonance. So they will go on for ever publishing 
fringe/fancy ideas (“Resurgence is very fancy,”)about stuff they don't fully 
understand.

E.g. Quantum entanglement is nothing else as the magnetic coupling of two 
particles, what means two particles share a common (EM flux-) rotation. This 
also easily explains why the state (rotation axes) changes on one side if you 
change it on the other.



So be aware that almost everything you read about the standard model is 
outdated and just represents the childhood of particle physics.

It's not wrong but just the children way to do physics.

J.W.




On 11.04.2023 18:25, Terry Blanton wrote:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/

“Resurgence is very fancy,” Bender said. But, to put it as simply as possible, 
it lets practitioners dig into the distant terms of an asymptotic series 
(calculated using Feynman diagrams, for instance) and uncover the missing 
pieces necessary to specify a unique function (one that describes tunneling, 
say). In short, it reveals a bridge linking physical events described by 
perturbation theory with those described by the nonperturbative terms. “It’s a 
very complicated relationship,” Bender said, before politely declining to 
attempt to explain it.

--

Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22

8910 Affoltern am Albis



+41 44 760 14 18

+41 79 246 36 06

RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Alien Calculus’ Could Save Particle Physics From Infinities | Quanta Magazine--tunneling and other entangled system phenonma--

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jurg apply points out that tunneling is a common event  that happens within 
entangled quantum mechanical systems of energy.

IMHO such systems can be described by an equation (Hamiltonian) that equates 
potential and kinetic energy of the entangled system (PE =KE).   The sum of the 
2 energies is the mass of the system, (m) times c times c (Einstein's 
prediction.)  If the entangled system moves through spsce relative to an 
observer it appears to have additional KE  = mvv/2.

Regarding a a stable entangled QM system, the only type of KE possible is spin 
KE .Kinetic energy (KE) which entails linear momentum (mv) is unstable.

LENR  in a stable entangled system an be  entropy driven  to swapspin KE 
between the nucleons and atomic electrons.  Phonic  spin energy (atomic 
electronic heat or enthalpy) ) increases at the same instant that  nuclear spin 
KE decreases.  Energy and angular momentum are  conserved, but the Hamiltonian 
changes win no change in the mass of the entangled system.

Such a reaction might be called an ENTROPY  DRIVEN  SPIN TRANSION  (EDST).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics


Of course exact conditions must happen in the entangled system.  Since 
temperature and magnetic field strength are such conditions, engineering a EDST 
control mechanism should be easy.  MRI medical machines do this  rutinely to 
cause nuclear spin KE transitions between stable and qusi- stable entangled 
systems.


Bob Cook





From: Jürg Wyttenbach<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Alien Calculus’ Could Save Particle Physics From 
Infinities | Quanta Magazine


Tunnelling is a fancy effect that occurs when you neglect the magnetic 
interaction.

Obviously and even worse Dirac and similar equations neglect the main acting 
part of particle physics - EM resonance. So they will go on for ever publishing 
fringe/fancy ideas (“Resurgence is very fancy,”)about stuff they don't fully 
understand.

E.g. Quantum entanglement is nothing else as the magnetic coupling of two 
particles, what means two particles share a common (EM flux-) rotation. This 
also easily explains why the state (rotation axes) changes on one side if you 
change it on the other.



So be aware that almost everything you read about the standard model is 
outdated and just represents the childhood of particle physics.

It's not wrong but just the children way to do physics.

J.W.




On 11.04.2023 18:25, Terry Blanton wrote:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/

“Resurgence is very fancy,” Bender said. But, to put it as simply as possible, 
it lets practitioners dig into the distant terms of an asymptotic series 
(calculated using Feynman diagrams, for instance) and uncover the missing 
pieces necessary to specify a unique function (one that describes tunneling, 
say). In short, it reveals a bridge linking physical events described by 
perturbation theory with those described by the nonperturbative terms. “It’s a 
very complicated relationship,” Bender said, before politely declining to 
attempt to explain it.

--

Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22

8910 Affoltern am Albis



+41 44 760 14 18

+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Alien Calculus’ Could Save Particle Physics From Infinities | Quanta Magazine

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Tunnelling is a fancy effect that occurs when you neglect the magnetic 
interaction.


Obviously and even worse Dirac and similar equations neglect the main 
acting part of particle physics - EM resonance. So they will go on for 
ever publishing fringe/fancy ideas (“Resurgence is very fancy,”)about 
stuff they don't fully understand.


E.g. Quantum entanglement is nothing else as the magnetic coupling of 
two particles, what means two particles share a common (EM flux-) 
rotation. This also easily explains why the state (rotation axes) 
changes on one side if you change it on the other.



So be aware that almost everything you read about the standard model is 
outdated and just represents the childhood of particle physics.


It's not wrong but just the children way to do physics.

J.W.



On 11.04.2023 18:25, Terry Blanton wrote:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/

“Resurgence is very fancy,” Bender said. But, to put it as simply as 
possible, it lets practitioners dig into the distant terms of an 
asymptotic series (calculated using Feynman diagrams, for instance) 
and uncover the missing pieces necessary to specify a unique function 
(one that describes tunneling, say). In short, it reveals a bridge 
linking physical events described by perturbation theory with those 
described by the nonperturbative terms. “It’s a very complicated 
relationship,” Bender said, before politely declining to attempt to 
explain it.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Developers Are Connecting Multiple AI Agents to Make More ‘Autonomous’ AI

[Terry Blanton]

Wrong, but interesting, URL

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvdme/developers-are-connecting-multiple-ai-agents-to-make-more-autonomous-ai

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 11:03 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article274029875.html
>

[Vo]:RE AI

[Ron Wormus]

An interesting take on AI for $1 at Amazon:

"Smart Until It's Dumb: Why artificial intelligence keeps making
epic mistakes (and why, the AI bubble is about to burst)"

Author: Emmanuel Maggiori, PhD, is a 10-year AI industry insider, 
specialized in machine learning and scientific computing. He helps 
companies build complex software. He has developed AI for a wide

variety of applications, from extracting objects from satellite images
to packaging holiday deals for millions of travelers every day.

It's a quick read and a nice lucid analysis of the AI industry.
Ron

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​The Big Bang and the JWST

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Physics has no clue of the photon. So you are free to speculate in any 
direction.


Currently we use the envelope function to describe a traveling photon. 
Of course this function contradicts basic Maxwell equations as E/B are 
never symmetric.



Solar photon emission produces a pressure that lets the space boil like 
a soup pot and causes expansion of space. (As Mills said some 30 years 
ago.) (A photon impact causes mechanical recoil!)


So any distant star is - in average - accelerating in relation to earth 
hence photons are red shifted. This so called hubble expansion can be 
exactly calculated from the photon pressure as Mills did 30 years ago.


So expansion has nothing to do with a  big bang!


J.W.



On 25.08.2022 18:20, H LV wrote:
The original tired light hypothesis was rejected as an explanation of 
the hubble red shift relation because it predicted more distant 
galaxies would appear fuzzier then we observe. The predicted the 
fuzziness was a consequence of scattering causing the red shift. 
However, perhaps a new version of the tired light hypothesis involving 
some new concepts could explain the hubble red shift relation.


eg. what if light is instrinsically prone to loose energy with 
distance and the energy it gives up becomes something else like dark 
mater or dark energy?

Harry

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:54 AM H LV  wrote:

Eric Lerner argues the "unexpected" data from the JWST is expected
in an non-expanding universe. Of course if the universe is not
expanding he also says explaining the hubble redshift relation
would require some new physics.

Harry

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:32 PM Jones Beene 
wrote:

As Lerner admits, the CMB is the main thing which is holding
the big bang theory together.

Yet the 'experts' really can't explain exactly how CMB
radiation, which is moving away from us at light-speed from a
single point in time, manages to somehow magically be
reflected back so as to be observed by us as a rather strong
signal.

Maybe CMB should not be observable in 3 space at all.

IOW - it can be argued that the cosmic background is itself
poorly understood and not the best feature with which to base
important derivative theories on (like the big bang)...


H LV  wrote:


Eric Lerner comments on the first data from the JWST:

The Big Bang didn't happen
What do the James Webb images really show?
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215


Eric Lerner's claims are deflated in this article:

https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/

Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​The Big Bang and the JWST

[H LV]

The original tired light hypothesis was rejected as an explanation of the
hubble red shift relation because it predicted more distant galaxies would
appear fuzzier then we observe. The predicted the fuzziness was a
consequence of scattering causing the red shift. However, perhaps a new
version of the tired light hypothesis involving some new concepts could
explain the hubble red shift relation.

eg. what if light is instrinsically prone to loose energy with distance and
the energy it gives up becomes something else like dark mater or dark
energy?
Harry

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 11:54 AM H LV  wrote:

> Eric Lerner argues the "unexpected" data from the JWST is expected in an
> non-expanding universe. Of course if the universe is not expanding he also
> says explaining the hubble redshift relation would require some new physics.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:32 PM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> As Lerner admits, the CMB is the main thing which is holding the big bang
>> theory together.
>>
>> Yet the 'experts' really can't explain exactly how CMB radiation, which
>> is moving away from us at light-speed from a single point in time, manages
>> to somehow magically be reflected back so as to be observed by us as a
>> rather strong signal.
>>
>> Maybe CMB should not be observable in 3 space at all.
>>
>> IOW - it can be argued that the cosmic background is itself poorly
>> understood and not the best feature with which to base important derivative
>> theories on (like the big bang)...
>>
>>
>> H LV  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Eric Lerner comments on the first data from the JWST:
>>
>> The Big Bang didn't happen
>> What do the James Webb images really show?
>> https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
>>
>>
>> Eric Lerner's claims are deflated in this article:
>>
>> https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​The Big Bang and the JWST

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Cosmology is the gossip kitchen table for sidelined physicists

Enjoy the nice pictures of galaxies but do not believe any version 
II,III etc. of bibles genesis like big bang.


Most fake facts about black holes have been debunked as nonsense simply 
because real physics cannot work with singularities.


Same for GR waves LIGO...

We have more serious problems to solve!

J.W.



On 25.08.2022 17:53, H LV wrote:
Eric Lerner argues the "unexpected" data from the JWST is expected in 
an non-expanding universe. Of course if the universe is not expanding 
he also says explaining the hubble redshift relation would require 
some new physics.


Harry

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:32 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

As Lerner admits, the CMB is the main thing which is holding the
big bang theory together.

Yet the 'experts' really can't explain exactly how CMB radiation,
which is moving away from us at light-speed from a single point in
time, manages to somehow magically be reflected back so as to be
observed by us as a rather strong signal.

Maybe CMB should not be observable in 3 space at all.

IOW - it can be argued that the cosmic background is itself poorly
understood and not the best feature with which to base important
derivative theories on (like the big bang)...


H LV  wrote:


Eric Lerner comments on the first data from the JWST:

The Big Bang didn't happen
What do the James Webb images really show?
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215


Eric Lerner's claims are deflated in this article:

https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/

Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​The Big Bang and the JWST

[H LV]

Eric Lerner argues the "unexpected" data from the JWST is expected in an
non-expanding universe. Of course if the universe is not expanding he also
says explaining the hubble redshift relation would require some new physics.

Harry

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:32 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> As Lerner admits, the CMB is the main thing which is holding the big bang
> theory together.
>
> Yet the 'experts' really can't explain exactly how CMB radiation, which is
> moving away from us at light-speed from a single point in time, manages to
> somehow magically be reflected back so as to be observed by us as a rather
> strong signal.
>
> Maybe CMB should not be observable in 3 space at all.
>
> IOW - it can be argued that the cosmic background is itself poorly
> understood and not the best feature with which to base important derivative
> theories on (like the big bang)...
>
>
> H LV  wrote:
>
>
> Eric Lerner comments on the first data from the JWST:
>
> The Big Bang didn't happen
> What do the James Webb images really show?
> https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
>
>
> Eric Lerner's claims are deflated in this article:
>
> https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/
>
> Harry
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

You state "In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton."
Since I believe that the proton is composed of relativistic leptons and
leptons of EM fields (expressed as photons?), you have presented something
that will take me time to examine. I hope to do so - eventually.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:22 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew
>
>
> Just one thing:
>
> I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral.
> If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear
> Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our
> incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the
> interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as
> a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far
> apart.
>
>
> In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact we
> can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and also
> the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. The later
> is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a solution. If I
> add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the precision is as
> good as the measurement (12 digits  done in Maple).
>
> All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the electron
> gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint production.
> As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two different EM
> flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the charge. I know it
> will take time to reset your brain to "nucleus internal view" as it is the
> exact opposite we know from external EM theory.
>
> So not charge-charge defines the force  - EM bound by charge is the force.
> And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal Lagrangian
> surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be.
>
> It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least a
> year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had to
> find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about it.
> There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of basic
> physics.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
>> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
>> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
>> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>>
>> Jurg,
>>
>> Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
>> rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
>>
>> Comments below
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew,
>>>
>>> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
>>> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>>>
>> Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand
>> it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the
>> point.
>>
>> For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
>> than EM mass from radiation fields.
>>
> I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.
>
>> The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that you can
>> convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static
>> fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you
>> cannot connect the 2 different forms of mass inside one equation.
>>
> A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.
>
>> The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not
>> help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV
>> photon is a very rare exception 0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used
>> is pretty unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
>>
> I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation
> to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.
>
>> Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
>> proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
>> (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
>>
> These rotations are from your model(s).  They may or may not be
> consistent with other models or reality.
>
>>
>> From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a
>> bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus,
>> Dirac pertains.
>>
>> This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only use
>> halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as said the
>> bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what is not
>> compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.
>>
> Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of
> 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Andrew


Just one thing:

I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is 
neutral. If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with 
the nuclear Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would 
be one of our incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking 
at the interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a 
proton as a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not 
be that far apart.



In SOP we show that the electron is a resonance of the proton. In fact 
we can derive the electron mass directly from the proton structure and 
also the electron g-factor can be derived from the proton mass metric. 
The later is very astonishing as it delivers a polygon of order 3 as a 
solution. If I add the Mills-Metric (2:2) for proper space time then the 
precision is as good as the measurement (12 digits  done in Maple).


All nuclear flux is mutually bound by topological charge. As the 
electron gets added to the proton the flux "binding charge" is a joint 
production. As you may note, there cannot be opposite charge among two 
different EM flux topology as the EM mass binds (Lorenz force) not the 
charge. I know it will take time to resent your brain to "nucleus 
internal view" as it is the exact opposite we know from external EM theory.


So not charge-charge defines the force  - EM bound by charge is the 
force. And never forget. A solution only works on a stable minimal 
Lagrangian surface what a (2,3) sphere never can be.


It's all about thinking about the proper situation. It took me at least 
a year to understand it or even 3 years from the beginning - but I had 
to find everything. You can take the solution and start to reason about 
it. There is no doubt that the core of SOP will define the next level of 
basic physics.


J.W.


On 29.04.2022 05:38, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:




On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

Andrew,

I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear
that most of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level
physics based on wrong understanding of basic physics rules.

On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Jurg,

Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons
behind rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.

Comments below

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach
 wrote:

Andrew,

I could give you a very long list. First problem: _The Dirac
equation itself is only working for fields and never for mass. _

Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I
understand it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician,
could address the point.


For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different
topology than EM mass from radiation fields.

I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.

The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that
you can convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation
describes static fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for
radiation fields. So you cannot connect the 2 different forms of
mass inside one equation.

A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.

The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does
not help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same
mass. The 511keV photon is a very rare exception 0.01%. So all
Dirac/QED formalism used is pretty unphysical where physical means
as seen in experiments.

I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation 
radiation to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.


Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron)
or 5 proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on
the location (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.

These rotations are from your model(s). They may or may not be 
consistent with other models or reality.




From my view, it doesn't make sense.I consider the electron to be
a bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass.
Thus, Dirac pertains.


This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can
only use halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge
potential. But as said the bound electron makes 3 - not uniform
rotations = 3 waves what is not compatible with the solution for
the Dirac equation.

Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of 
directional fields. When appropriately bound and twisted, the photon 
field can be uniquely inwardly and outwardly directed. The 
inward-directed field is concentrated and becomes your "dense EM 
mass." An outward-directed field has reduced field density outside the 
bound photon and is a "stable" field, but would still correspond to 
your "EM mass from radiation fields". The lepton charge is determined 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:15 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that most
> of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics based on
> wrong understanding of basic physics rules.
> On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Jurg,
>
> Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
> rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.
>
> Comments below
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
>> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>>
> Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it.
> Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point.
>
> For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology
> than EM mass from radiation fields.
>
I agree with the words. We'll see about the specifics.

> The Dirac equation has been formulated based on the believe that you can
> convert e+/- into energy aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static
> fields only and EM mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you
> cannot connect the 2 different forms of mass inside one equation.
>
A good thought; but, I believe, still to be determined.

> The other problem is that also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not
> help as e+/- almost never decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV
> photon is a very rare exception 0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used
> is pretty unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.
>
I've seen too many spectra with 511 keV peaks from annihilation radiation
to believe your statement unless you are talking 511.00 keV.

> Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5
> proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location
> (field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.
>
These rotations are from your model(s).  They may or may not be consistent
with other models or reality.

>
> From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a
> bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus,
> Dirac pertains.
>
> This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only use
> halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as said the
> bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what is not
> compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.
>
Charge is a directional *E*-field. Photons are also composed of directional
fields. When appropriately bound and twisted, the photon field can be
uniquely inwardly and outwardly directed. The inward-directed field is
concentrated and becomes your "dense EM mass." An outward-directed field
has reduced field density outside the bound photon and is a "stable" field,
but would still correspond to your "EM mass from radiation fields". The
lepton charge is determined by whether the *E*-field is directed in or out.
Charge conservation and the means of forming it depends on equal splitting
of the photon fields into lepton pairs with net zero charge.

This is close to my model of the photon/lepton picture:
(PDF) A new linear theory of light and matter - ResearchGate

Note that the two leptons are both a torus.

> The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a
>> mathematician with no clue of physics.
>>
>> The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
>> equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
>> conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So
>> the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are
>> other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
>> finishing a paper about this.
>>
> I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting
> with incompatible assumptions for our models.
>
> Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound
> fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields
> (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such,
> they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply
> expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.)
>
>
> A bound "standing wave" is EM mass. It's not even a wave as the mass orbit
> is following the Clifford torus (CT) and only the projection into real
> space makes you claim its a wave. But I use the term wave too because
> people are used to it.
>
A standing wave can be linear. I think that a torus form may be a specific
EM type that is "self-bound". Both have mass; but, the linear has
alternating mass (+ & -, both gravitating, but going thru zero). The EM
Torus has a fixed mass (+ or -).

> The emitted photon is not a 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[H LV]

Jones,
I looked quickly at the patent by Haisch and Moddel but could not find
anything about cooling. However, the authors of this paper,
ttps://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5893
experimentally investigated the claims of Haisch and Moddel in section
2.3.2. They tried to find alternative explanations for the observed
emissions. They ruled out cooling caused by the Joule-Thompson effect as a
possible explanation.

Harry


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 5:12 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Harry - perhaps you should have a look at the work and patents of Haisch
> and Moddel on the Lamb shift mechanism using hydrogen or helium in Casimir
> cavities.
>
> The dynamical Casimir effect can be either positive or negative and Lamb
> shift photons would be cold. IIRC there was a measured cooling effect in
> some tests - not heating - which is what they wanted.
>
> H LV wrote:
>
> Now if energy levels below the ground state exist for a hydrogen atom then
> it may be possible to stimulate the electron-proton pair into this
> hypo-state, by exposing them to radiation which corresponds to the energy
> of the photon the pair is expected to release.
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Photons are the universal = most basic form of energy. With photons you 
can transport energy over any distance. So here the equivalence relation 
E = mc^2 is obvious. Same for the Pointing power vector for a radiation 
field.


But if you write E = mc^2 and e.g. m is 4-He then the equation simply is 
wrong. E must be of photon type at the end. There is no way to evaluate 
the equation physically, what means you cannot transfer 4-He into 
photons. (This is claimed for solutions of the Dirac equation)But for 
this purpose you first must add the fusions energy you did gain from 4 
(p+e) --> 4-He. Even then you face the same problem one more time as 
there is no way to transform a proton into photons. For this you need to 
add an other 50 MeV/proton.


This makes clear that E = mc^2 is not an equation rather than an 
equivalence relation. But in the Dirac equation you mix an equivalence 
relation with an equation what is physical nonsense!


J.W.


On 25.04.2022 23:12, H LV wrote:
I think I have posted this before, but Einstein was also able to 
derive E=mc^2 without recourse to his theory of special relativity.Max 
Born presented this alternate derivation in his book Einstein's Theory 
of Relativity. Here is the proof:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QmOS5X3GR95t1rjr-SJQGVHun2_vykE5jDOVYc18La8/edit?usp=sharing

Harry

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:23 PM Robin 
 wrote:


In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022
16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major
nuclear powers, and explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)

>Andrew,
>
>
>I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
>itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The
inclusion of
>the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician
with no
>clue of physics.
>
>The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
>equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
>conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static
fields.
>So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense.
There
>are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails.
I'm just
>finishing a paper about this.
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:17:01 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .
>
>
>J.W.
That was assumed anyway. I.e. the change in mass is where the energy comes 
from. Are you saying that E=mc^2 is not the
total energy of the object, where m is the relativistic mass?

If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[H LV]

I think I have posted this before, but Einstein was also able to derive E=mc^2
without recourse to his theory of special relativity. Max Born presented
this alternate derivation in his book Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Here
is the proof:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QmOS5X3GR95t1rjr-SJQGVHun2_vykE5jDOVYc18La8/edit?usp=sharing

Harry

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:23 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
> Hi Jürg,
>
> If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear
> powers, and explain to them why their bombs don't
> work. ;)
>
> >Andrew,
> >
> >
> >I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
> >itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of
> >the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no
> >clue of physics.
> >
> >The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
> >equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
> >conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields.
> >So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There
> >are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
> >finishing a paper about this.
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[H LV]

I was thinking about LASERS (Light amplification by Stimulated Emission of
Radiation) and it occurred to me that the notion of cooling radiation is
already present in quantum theory, but it is disguised as "stimulated
emission" in order to respect the mid 19th century doctrine that cooling
radiation is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Now if energy levels below the ground state exist for a hydrogen atom then
it may be possible to stimulate the electron-proton pair into this
hypo-state, by exposing them to radiation which corresponds to the energy
of the photon the pair is expected to release.


Harry

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:23 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ?
>

> Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as the
> metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably)
> diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story.
>
> Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also is
> catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his Rydberg
> values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few possibilities
> are opened up in the search for how that feat can be accomplished.
>
> An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as helium
> is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.
>
>
>
> HLV wrote:
>
> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>
> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
> version would provide anomalous heat.
>
> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>
> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>
> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>
> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Classic misunderstanding ... the bomb energy comes from E=dmc^2 .


J.W.

On 25.04.2022 21:23, Robin wrote:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and 
explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)


Andrew,


I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation
itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of
the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no
clue of physics.

The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields.
So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There
are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
finishing a paper about this.

If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Andrew,

I started to dig deeper the last few months and it became clear that 
most of the classic physics approaches are Kindergarten level physics 
based on wrong understanding of basic physics rules.


On 25.04.2022 17:53, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Jurg,

Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons 
behind rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.


Comments below

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

Andrew,

I could give you a very long list. First problem: _The Dirac
equation itself is only working for fields and never for mass. _

Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand 
it. Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the 
point.


For me all mass is EM mass. But dense EM mass has a different topology 
than EM mass from radiation fields. The Dirac equation has been 
formulated based on the believe that you can convert e+/- into energy 
aka waves. But the Dirac equation describes static fields only and EM 
mass is equivalent only for radiation fields. So you cannot connect the 
2 different forms of mass inside one equation. The other problem is that 
also the symmetric Bra-Ket operator does not help as e+/- almost never 
decay into 2 photons of the same mass. The 511keV photon is a very rare 
exception 0.01%. So all Dirac/QED formalism used is pretty 
unphysical where physical means as seen in experiments.


Radiation fields do 2 rotations, where as mass does 3 (electron) or 5 
proton. So any equation with one side E other mc depends on the location 
(field, radiation field, dense mass e/p) used.




From my view, it doesn't make sense.I consider the electron to be a 
bound photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus, 
Dirac pertains.


This makes sense. But if the electrons is a bound photon you can only 
use halve of the coulomb gauge as there is no charge potential. But as 
said the bound electron makes 3 - not uniform rotations = 3 waves what 
is not compatible with the solution for the Dirac equation.




The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by
a mathematician with no clue of physics.

The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this
(Poincaré) conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not
for static fields. So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation
are plain nonsense. There are other more severe reasons why the
Einstein equation fails. I'm just finishing a paper about this.

I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be 
starting with incompatible assumptions for our models.


Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are 
bound fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound 
fields (solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, 
as such, they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have 
trouble simply expressing the difference between emission and 
radiation of field energy.)



A bound "standing wave" is EM mass. It's not even a wave as the mass 
orbit is following the Clifford torus (CT) and only the projection into 
real space makes you claim its a wave. But I use the term wave too 
because people are used to it.


The emitted photon is not a radiation field. It's a particle.

A radiation field (produced by a sender) is a flux of EM mass as unbound 
waves. Such a wave couples with magnetic resonance = a local wave of 
same or harmonic weight.



The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation
that should define the limit of such an orbit.

The Dirac equation does not address the nucleus beyond a point charge. 
We have been exploring the effects of the different potentials from, 
and interactions with, the nucleus. These are important; but, so far, 
we have not found anything to change more than the energies of the 
deep orbit. I, at least, am finding some insight and, I hope, some 
physical understanding of the situation.



The deep orbit models miss the explanation how "mass" is bound by the 
central force. As said. There is no Coulomb force below the Bohr radius 
for the bound state! Further there are no point charges. Charge is a 
topological effect of nested EM flux. Are you aware that even the 
magnetic moment of the proton does not generate a static field? And 
classically one must show a ring current for its production - what 
contradicts a point charge.


The magnetic moment vector is following the internal topological charge. 
So it points never into the same direction, what caused an external 
field to change at each point in space - what also contradicts the Dirac 
equation assumption for a static vector potential.



Further a bound electron is neutral and behaves as EM mass =
waves. So beyond the Bohr radius you cannot use the Coulomb
formula as an orbit equivalent.

I assume that you 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ?small hydrogen

[Robin]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:25:49 +0200:
Hi Jürg,

If E=mc^2 is wrong, then perhaps you should write the major nuclear powers, and 
explain to them why their bombs don't
work. ;)

>Andrew,
>
>
>I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation 
>itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of 
>the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no 
>clue of physics.
>
>The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré 
>equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré) 
>conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. 
>So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There 
>are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just 
>finishing a paper about this.
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

Thank you for the comments. It helps us to understand the reasons behind
rejection of the concept of deep-orbit electrons.

Comments below

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I could give you a very long list. First problem: *The Dirac equation
> itself is only working for fields and never for mass. *
>
Do you have a source for this comment? I'm not sure that I understand it.
Perhaps Jean-Luc, as an applied mathematician, could address the point.

>From my view, it doesn't make sense. I consider the electron to be a bound
photon (and a fermion), so it is both field and has mass. Thus, Dirac
pertains.

> The inclusion of the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a
> mathematician with no clue of physics.
>
> The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré
> equation dm= E/c2. But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré)
> conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. So
> the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There are
> other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just
> finishing a paper about this.
>
I would be interested in your paper even tho I believe we may be starting
with incompatible assumptions for our models.

Do you consider standing waves to be radiation or static fields? Are bound
fields necessarily "static"? I consider photons to be self-bound fields
(solitons) that are propagating at the speed of light. However, as such,
they are emitted radiation, not radiating fields. (I have trouble simply
expressing the difference between emission and radiation of field energy.)

> The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation that
> should define the limit of such an orbit.
>
The Dirac equation does not address the nucleus beyond a point charge. We
have been exploring the effects of the different potentials from, and
interactions with, the nucleus. These are important; but, so far, we have
not found anything to change more than the energies of the deep orbit. I,
at least, am finding some insight and, I hope, some physical understanding
of the situation.

> Further a bound electron is neutral and behaves as EM mass = waves. So
> beyond the Bohr radius you cannot use the Coulomb formula as an orbit
> equivalent.
>
I assume that you mean the atom (including the bound electron) is neutral.
If you mean that the bound electron (in its interaction with the nuclear
Coulomb field) is uncharged EM field only, then this would be one of our
incompatible assumptions. However, I am certainly looking at the
interaction of its spin component and the electron orbit about a proton as
a possible source of such fusion in the neutron. So we may not be that far
apart.

Feynman expressed the Coulomb potential as valid up to the nuclear region.
In his elementary lectures on the H atom, he did not directly mention the
relativistic aspects of it.

> Real physics is not defined by mathematical fantasies. Look at SOP (SO(4)
> physics). There is show the simple (all 10 digits exact) solution for the
> e-p basic orbit energy. I also show the nature and exact energy of the
> H*-H* p-p bond. All this is based on magnetic mass resonance energies.
>
I am too old and too slow in my mathematics to go thru your SOP model.
Nevertheless, I *am* interested in magnetic and resonance effects. However,
since I agree with the statement that "magnetic fields are just
relativistic effects of electrodynamics", I am not sure that I would find a
major difference from the path I am pursuing.

> Initially I too liked the idea of deep orbits, but then I did understand
> that charge/Coulomb is just a secondary effect of magnetic mass and a basic
> solution can never be based on it.
>
I am appreciative of your ability to do the math and of finding important
connections. I don't presently understand your statement about not basing a
solution on the magnetic "mass". I assume that, if I had the time and
capability of properly understanding your model I would see your reasoning.

Andrew
_ _ _

> J.W.
>
>
> On 25.04.2022 16:02, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:
>
> Jurg,
>
> I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
> deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
> results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
> effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.
>
> Andrew
> _ _ _
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from
>> of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods by
>> Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H*
>> bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from multiple
>> bonds.
>>
>> The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just
>> mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not
>> mathematics e.g. the Dirac 

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Andrew,


I could give you a very long list. First problem: The Dirac equation 
itself is only working for fields and never for mass. The inclusion of 
the relativistic mass simply is an error made by a mathematician with no 
clue of physics.


The Einstein equation (E=mc^2) has been guessed  from the Poincaré 
equation dm= E/c^2 . But Einstein did misunderstand this (Poincaré) 
conclusion as it only works for radiation fields not for static fields. 
So the Einstein and later the Dirac equation are plain nonsense. There 
are other more severe reasons why the Einstein equation fails. I'm just 
finishing a paper about this.



The other problem with deep orbits is the missing force equation that 
should define the limit of such an orbit. Further a bound electron is 
neutral and behaves as EM mass = waves. So beyond the Bohr radius you 
cannot use the Coulomb formula as an orbit equivalent.


Real physics is not defined by mathematical fantasies. Look at SOP 
(SO(4) physics). There is show the simple (all 10 digits exact) solution 
for the e-p basic orbit energy. I also show the nature and exact energy 
of the H*-H* p-p bond. All this is based on magnetic mass resonance 
energies.



Initially I too liked the idea of deep orbits, but then I did understand 
that charge/Coulomb is just a secondary effect of magnetic mass and a 
basic solution can never be based on it.


J.W.


On 25.04.2022 16:02, Andrew Meulenberg wrote:

Jurg,

I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by 
the deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous 
orbit" results, I don't think that we would have looked for the 
relativistic effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) 
possible.


Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only
existing from of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured
by multiple methods by Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also
Holmlid tried to measure the H*H* bond energy but he did work with
clusters of H* that suffer from multiple bonds.

The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just
mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not
mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the
other way round physics defines the math that must fit.


So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper
or Holmlid.


(R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ;
BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)

J.W.


On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:


On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the
"alpharino" ?

Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so
long as the metal is nonporous. The first step in densification
is (probably) diffusion... but that problem may not be the
end-of-story.

Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is
also is catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and
his Rydberg values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage
then a few possibilities are opened up in the search for how that
feat can be accomplished.

An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as
helium is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.



HLV wrote:

A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist

Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624


Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that
there are a few other atoms besides hydrogen which may
'densify' : Presumably  the dense version would provide
anomalous heat.

Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized
“small-/Z/atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would
create atoms, where one electron is trapped on a small
radius, effectively shielding one proton charge of  the
nucleus,.."

Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the
possibility for extracting anomalous heat from Helium?

There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H -
due to inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and
over ...

Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??



I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation
could play a role in forming such atoms.
Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term
depressed atom. This would compliment the term excited atom for
atoms above the ground state.

Harry


-- 
Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Jurg,

I would be interested in what physical laws you think are violated by the
deep-orbit electrons. Without the Dirac equation's "anomalous orbit"
results, I don't think that we would have looked for the relativistic
effects that make the deep orbits (and nuclear forces?) possible.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from
> of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods by
> Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the H*H*
> bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from multiple
> bonds.
>
> The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just
> mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not
> mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the other
> way round physics defines the math that must fit.
>
>
> So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper or
> Holmlid.
>
>
> (R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ;
> BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
> On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ?
>
> Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as the
> metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably)
> diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story.
>
> Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also is
> catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his Rydberg
> values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few possibilities
> are opened up in the search for how that feat can be accomplished.
>
> An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as helium
> is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.
>
>
>
> HLV wrote:
>
> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>
> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
> version would provide anomalous heat.
>
> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>
> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>
> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>
> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]: ​small hydrogen

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

I just want to remind some folks here that H*-H*, the only existing from 
of dense hydrogen (besides D*-D*) has been measured by multiple methods 
by Randal Mills, now some 3 years ago. Also Holmlid tried to measure the 
H*H* bond energy but he did work with clusters of H* that suffer from 
multiple bonds.


The deep orbit models from Vavra, Meulenberg or others are just 
mathematical fantasies, that violate basic physical laws. It's not 
mathematics e.g. the Dirac equation that defines physics - its the other 
way round physics defines the math that must fit.



So if you are interested in real physics check out R.Mills paper or Holmlid.


(R.MILLS, Brilliant Light Power Shareholder_Meeting_040319 ; 
BRLP_Analytical_Presentation_060419.pdf, R.Mills, p.108)


J.W.


On 23.04.2022 21:22, Jones Beene wrote:


On the possibility of "dense helium" - shall we call it the "alpharino" ?

Helium, unlike hydrogen, will not diffuse through metals - so long as 
the metal is nonporous. The first step in densification is (probably) 
diffusion... but that problem may not be the end-of-story.


Raney nickel for instance is porous enough to pass helium and is also 
is catalytic - as in the hydrino world of Randell Mills and his 
Rydberg values. If Va'vra is right about helium shrinkage then a few 
possibilities are opened up in the search for how that feat can be 
accomplished.


An interesting experiment would simply look for anomalous heat as 
helium is pumped through a Raney nickel membrane.




HLV wrote:

A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist

Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624


Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are
a few other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' :
Presumably  the dense version would provide anomalous heat.

Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized
“small-/Z/atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create
atoms, where one electron is trapped on a small radius,
effectively shielding one proton charge of  the nucleus,.."

Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
extracting anomalous heat from Helium?

There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due
to inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...

Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??



I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could 
play a role in forming such atoms.
Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed 
atom. This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the 
ground state.


Harry


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​small hydrogen

[Jeff Driscoll]

If  the  2.8328 fermi mentioned in the paper is multiplied by the inverse
of alpha, the fine structure constant (alpha =1/137.035999),  then you
get the radius of  Randell Mills' TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624

  the radius of  Randall Mills' TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere)  is the
bohr radius ( r = 0.52946 Angstroms) multiplied by the fine structure
constant, alpha or:

TSO radius = (0.52946 Angstroms) *  (1/137.035999) = .00386298 angstroms =
386.298 fermi

and  386.298/2.8328 = 136.366 which is close to the inverse of alpha (error
of 1 part in 204)

Randell Mills created GUTCP (the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics)
and the TSO radius (also known as the particle production radius) is
prominent throughout.  This TSO radius has interesting properties where
five energies using this radius exactly equate to the rest mass of the
electron 510998.896 eV.  To get the higher accuracy, the bohr radius
without the reduced mass correction is used (a correction of 1 part in
1836) because at particle production, the positron (the anti-electron)
orbits around the electron with each having the TSO radius. In other words,
each has the same mass and therefore they orbit each other at the same
radius around a common centerpoint.
I describe those 5 energies starting on page 14 of a pdf that I created 7
years ago:

http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BLP-e-4-25-2016.pdf
The particle production energies that all equal the electron rest mass of
510998.896 eV are:

   1.

   Photon energy equation - based equation found in college physics textbook
   2.

   Resonant energy (LC circuit equivalent) - based on equation found in
   college physics textbook
   3.

   Electric potential energy equation - based on equation found in college
   physics textbook
   4.

   Magnetic energy equation - this one is derived in GUTCP and is
   complicated but the result is a simple equation with integer exponents and
   standard physical constants (i.e. permeability of free space, plancks
   constant etc.).
   5.

   Mass/Space time metric energy. This is *not* an energy and the
   derivation is in GUTCP and is complicated, but the result is a simple
   equation with integer exponents and standard physical constants (i.e.
   Gravitation constant, plancks constant etc.).

The equations in the paper from sciencedirect that give 2.8328 fermi are
similar to Mills's GUTCP equations which I try to summarize starting on
page 86 of my pdf linked above.

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:07 PM H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> HLV wrote:
>>
>> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>>
>> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>>
>>
>> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
>> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
>> version would provide anomalous heat.
>>
>> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
>> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
>> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
>> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>>
>> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
>> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>>
>> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
>> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>>
>> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>>
>
>
> I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could
> play a role in forming such atoms.
> Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
> This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
> state.
>
> Harry
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:​small hydrogen

[H LV]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> HLV wrote:
>
> A simple argument that small hydrogen may exist
>
> Physics Letters B Volume 794, 10 July 2019, Pages 130-134
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269319303624
>
>
> Thanks for posting this. One curious observation is that there are a few
> other atoms besides hydrogen which may 'densify' : Presumably  the dense
> version would provide anomalous heat.
>
> Quote "Our calculation also shows that other fully ionized “small-*Z*
> atoms” can form small-radius atoms... This would create atoms, where one
> electron is trapped on a small radius, effectively shielding one proton
> charge of  the nucleus,.."
>
> Comment/question: Doesn't this finding open up the possibility for
> extracting anomalous heat from Helium?
>
> There could be secondary advantages to using Helium over H - due to
> inertness leading to ability to reuse the gas over and over ...
>
> Is there any indication of a catalyst for forming dense helium ??
>


I don't know, but I have begun to wonder if frigorific radiation could play
a role in forming such atoms.
Also, for atoms below the ground state, I propose the term depressed atom.
This would compliment the term excited atom for atoms above the ground
state.

Harry

[Vo]:Re: More UFO spottted

[Frank Znidarsic]

https://nypost.com/2021/04/12/us-navy-ships-capture-video-of-pyramid-shaped-ufos-overhead/



Frank

Re: [Vo]:Re: Unexplained Magnetic Phenomenon EXPLAINED

[Terry Blanton]

Same man. Hamdi Ucar from Turkey.

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:15 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Robin and Terry—
>
>
>
> Thanks for this interesting thread.
>
>
>
> Is the author of the referenced item the same Ucar that has addressed
> magnetic items in the past on Vortex=l?
>
>
>
> I agree with  Robin\s comment  regarding  magnet propulsion.i
>
>
>
>
>
> Ucar’s paper seems to be a primer for a prototype machine
>
>
>
> The list of references is revealing of other interested parties.
>
>
>
> The abstract of the paper says a lot about the physics associated with
> magnetic dipoles  and magnetism in general .
>
>
>
> The paper does not address   the physical model that explains   a
> magnetic field.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
>
> *From: *Robin 
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:17 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: Unexplained Magnetic Phenomenon EXPLAINED
>
>
>
> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 9 Mar 2021 16:43:23 -0500:
> Hi,
>
> It just occurred to me that this sounds like it may the mechanism behind
> the John Searle flying saucer, since that also
> depends on rotating magnets? (See e.g. https://manmade-ufos.com/john-searl
> ).
>
>
> >Hamdi's article has been published:
> >
> >https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/3/442
> [snip]
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Unexplained Magnetic Phenomenon EXPLAINED

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Robin and Terry—

Thanks for this interesting thread.

Is the author of the referenced item the same Ucar that has addressed magnetic 
items in the past on Vortex=l?

I agree with  Robin\s comment  regarding  magnet propulsion.i


Ucar’s paper seems to be a primer for a prototype machine

The list of references is revealing of other interested parties.

The abstract of the paper says a lot about the physics associated with magnetic 
dipoles  and magnetism in general .

The paper does not address   the physical model that explains   a  magnetic 
field.

Bob Cook


___

From: Robin<mailto:mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Unexplained Magnetic Phenomenon EXPLAINED

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 9 Mar 2021 16:43:23 -0500:
Hi,

It just occurred to me that this sounds like it may the mechanism behind the 
John Searle flying saucer, since that also
depends on rotating magnets? (See e.g. https://manmade-ufos.com/john-searl).


>Hamdi's article has been published:
>
>https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/3/442
[snip]

Re: [Vo]:Re: Unexplained Magnetic Phenomenon EXPLAINED

[Robin]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 9 Mar 2021 16:43:23 -0500:
Hi,

It just occurred to me that this sounds like it may the mechanism behind the 
John Searle flying saucer, since that also
depends on rotating magnets? (See e.g. https://manmade-ufos.com/john-searl).


>Hamdi's article has been published:
>
>https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/3/442
[snip]

[Vo]:Re: Unexplained Magnetic Phenomenon EXPLAINED

[Terry Blanton]

Hamdi's article has been published:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/3/442

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:52 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Five years ago, a Hamdi Ucar showed Vortex a magnetic phenomenon he
> stumbled across. It was something similar to Levitron except that it
> involved the ability of a spinning magnetic to trap another magnetic
> and suspend it in the spinning magnet's field regardless of the
> polarity of the stationary magnetic. A search showed that no one
> appears to have ever reported nor explained this phenomenon.
>
> Since then, he has written a paper explaining the phenomenon and is
> attempting to get it published. Here is a preprint of the paper
> (caution: it is massive):
>
> https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202009.0001/v1
>
> If the pictures are not enough to interest you, here are numerous
> videos of his demonstration of the phenomenon:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k16o8tomnvd0i4g/AABZtpUcSwpH7Ae6DRmSjJQta
>
> If anyone does have any comments or questions, I will be happy to
> forward them to Hamdi or put you in touch with him after I get his
> permission.
>

[Vo]:Re: Fresh MIlk Album

[Frank Znidarsic]

Coming along.  I now use synthetic reads and they don't squeak so much.I need a 
gear driven guitar type apparatus to hold the viola and violin in tune.  
Sprinkling rosin powder on the pegs does not do it for me.Perhaps I will design 
one.
First song:  Do you really want to tell me that you really care  ya ya ya or do 
you really want to show me that your not exactly there.
Second song:  I got vaccinated.  It was a bit belated.  I thought I was going 
to die and I realy did cry.
Third song:  Hot fusion is just around the corner and you will see it always 
will be.
Forth Song:  1  .   0  9  4 megaherts- meters is the constant upon which the 
world teeters.







-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2021 4:31 pm
Subject: Fresh MIlk Album

Just working on it now.  Should be out by summer

https://angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/FreshMlk.mp4

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: Physics Today does not allow references to peer-reviewed cold fusion literature

[Jed Rothwell]

There is no getting through to people like the editors at Physics Today. I
expect that even if everyone here were to write to them, they would reject
every message.

They think of themselves as fair, objective and open minded. Perhaps they
are open minded about some subjects, but not cold fusion. I regard this
above all as a failure of imagination, described by Giorgio de Santillana
in the book "The Origins of Scientific Thought:"

The failure of imagination explains, among other things, why men became so
reactionary-minded, even when they thought they were entertaining the most
lofty and liberal ideals. Something like that was to occur again in the
American South. When Aristotle, the great master of ethics, said that
slavery is a fact of nature, and that we shall need slaves so long as the
shuttle will not run in the loom by itself, he had registered one of those
great mental blocks which foretell the end of a cycle. And this leads us to
what is obviously crucial, the lack of an applied science.

Pure science is always a hazardous and unfinished affair, stretching out
its structures in perilous balance over the unknown. It does not suit men’s
whims or comfort their fears. In order to be accepted by a tough-minded
society, it must produce unquestionable and stunning results, as happened
with Newton’s laws. Otherwise, it will be told to lay off and not disturb
people’s minds unnecessarily.

As Martin Fleischmann said: "People don't want progress; it makes them
uncomfortable. They don't want it, and they shan't have it." "People" in
this case, include the editors at Physics Today, even though they
themselves would vociferously deny that.

[Vo]:Re: Are you guys aware of the work of Bob Greenyer in the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project?

[Jonathan Berry]

More:
http://www.quantumheat.org/
http://remoteview.substack.com/

They have quite a lot of compelling content of Cold Fusion and Engineering
the Vacuum (EVO's, Exotic Vacuum Objects, Ken Shoulders etc).

Really pulled it all together.



On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 at 23:52, Jonathan Berry 
wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEy09JW5XAd95JmknU1JOeQ
>
> Many great videos!
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: merry Christmas

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> The ingredients are listed here. I think they are liquid at room
> temperature, not powder:
>

The lipid nanoparticles are similar to butter, according to one expert. I
think butter is considered a solid at room temperature. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0C5tFHze8=emb_logo

Re: [Vo]:Re: merry Christmas

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:


> It is not clear if this category (~3 percent) is anything more than a
> passing phenomenon
>

Other sources say the problems went away in one day or less. There have
been no reports of longer-term problems.

Other vaccines have stronger, more common effects, yet they are safe.




> After all, the injection is stored at  *extremely low temperature* and
> the human body is not accustomed to being injected with super cold fluid.
>

It is room temperature when injected.

A nurse I talked to described other low temperature injections. She said
most are in powder form, and are mixed with an all-purpose injectable
liquid. (She mentioned the name of the liquid but I forgot it.) I think the
COVID vaccines are frozen liquid. After the Pfizer one is warmed to an
ordinary refrigerator temperature it keeps for 5 days:

https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/covid_19_vaccine_u_s_distribution_fact_sheet#:~:text=After%20storage%20for%20up%20to,or%20stored%20under%20frozen%20conditions
.

The ingredients are listed here. I think they are liquid at room
temperature, not powder:

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-ingredient-list

Re: [Vo]:Re: merry Christmas

[Jed Rothwell]

Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Look at CDC presentation slide 6** column explained below:
>
>
> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf
>
> 3% were no longer able to work afterwards...
>
Only for one day. Such reactions are common with many other vaccines. The
last several vaccines I got, for influenza, shingles, hepatitis A and B,
left me with very sore arms, unable to work for a day. Hepatitis in
particular is painful for several days. Both shingles shots gave me a fever
for 24 hours, of 101 deg F.

>

RE: [Vo]:Re: merry Christmas

[JonesBeene]

Jürg

“no longer able to work” could be misleading - since it implies a long term 
problem. 

It is not clear if this category (~3 percent) is anything more than a passing 
phenomenon – except for the few cases with extreme allergic reaction,  of 
course. Recipients should be screened for history of allergies.

The slides do no indicate if the negative effect of the injection was anything 
more than temporary – could be hours days or who knows?

After all, the injection is stored at  extremely low temperature and the human 
body is not accustomed to being injected with super cold fluid.

BTW – does anyone know how cold the  vaccine is at the moment of injection? 
Presumably it is warmed up a bit.

More information is needed.


From: Jürg Wyttenbach

Not so happy Christmas for some...
Pfizer vaccine seems to be high risk!
Look at CDC presentation slide 6** column explained below: 
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf
3% were no longer able to work afterwards...
Effectively  Pfizer cheated the world by not doing any reasonable risk follow 
on the test group. (Get your copy of the Pfizer report! and read!)
J.W.
On 22.12.2020 03:02, Frank Znidarsic wrote:
opps wrong URL correct below 

https://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/ViolinXmass.mp4

-- 
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: merry Christmas

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Not so happy Christmas for some...

Pfizer vaccine seems to be high risk!

Look at CDC presentation slide 6** column explained below:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2020-12/slides-12-19/05-COVID-CLARK.pdf

3% were no longer able to work afterwards...

Effectively  Pfizer cheated the world by not doing any reasonable risk 
follow on the test group. (Get your copy of the Pfizer report! and read!)


J.W.

On 22.12.2020 03:02, Frank Znidarsic wrote:

opps wrong URL correct below

https://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/ViolinXmass.mp4



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: merry Christmas

[Frank Znidarsic]

opps wrong URL correct below
https://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/ViolinXmass.mp4

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:All of modern physics wrong – built on misunderstanding of relativity

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

If you like to follow a serious talk/discussion about general relativity 
I do recommend



::: 
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_non-locality_of_the_gravitational_energy_a_serious_problem_for_General_Relativity



Needs some deep math knowledge


And of course GR is incomplete as the connection to EM theory is not 
possible only by misusing the 4 potential that is not GR conform in the 
wrong way what is also done in QED an other model that fails for mass.



J.W.



On 21.11.2020 19:37, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:


All of modern physics wrong – built on misunderstanding of relativity

I gave my talk on Einstein’s relativity at two online conferences, it 
caused controversy. Einstein’s relativity has been misunderstood – 
Special relativity is not a relativity theory; Galilean relativity is 
nothing to do with what Galileo was talking about; Einstein’s 
relativity was written by his wife and Einstein himself could not have 
properly understood it. The theory has been mistranslated from German; 
misunderstood; misrepresented; misnamed from the very beginning!


My talk at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6231=yWPi5WC_IV0=emb_logo 



First online conference->

ANPA (Alternative Natural Philosophy Association) set up more than 40 
years ago to look at alternatives to mainstream beliefs, further talks at:


http://anpa.onl/media/anpa-41-web-conference/ 



Second online conference talks at->

http://www.world-lecture-series.org/level-xii-epr-teleconference-2020 



Latestonline talks (now have more time to do them because on covid 
lockdown):


How relativists (believers in Einstein relativity) lie by the sin of 
omission


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVIceUFXCE=youtu.be 



Factoids of Relativity

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





--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: Out of 1920

[Frank Znidarsic]

Here is the show.
https://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/guest/frank-znidarsic/


I am not doing shows and lectures anymore.  I sort of gave up.
Frank Z

[Vo]:Re: Out of 1920

[Frank Znidarsic]

Thank you Terry.  I was on the Dark Side of the Moon a few years ago.  The show 
went well.

An anatomy of an ancient headphone linked below.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/Inside.mov

Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Re: check out my product review

[Frank Znidarsic]

 That is a pretty good price but modules have fallen in popularity.  In fact, 
music keyboards in general have fallen off. 

Thanks Terry.  I know everything is going to a computer or phone now.  
Camcorder, GPS, cammera are now all on a phone.
Now its hit musical keyboards.  You just purchase a cheep MIDI controller and 
plug it into you computer.  Purchase some music software and off you go.  I did 
not want to do this.

I tried my hand a musical apps also.  I managed to get them published.  Sales 
are not going well and I and not modivated to compete with free apps.Even the 
COVID lockdown could not get me going on apps again.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Frank+Znidarsic+PE=en_US


Frank

[Vo]:Re: check out my product review

[Frank Znidarsic]

When I was in elementary school in the late 1950 there was this girl Elaine who 
played a Hammond organ.  It was an impressive thing with two key boards, tone 
peddles, and two sound volume peddles.  It had mechanical sound clog wheels and 
made a wising sound as it was turned on.  A friend of mine has a version of the 
Hammond called the B3.  It is a coveted musical evince.  At this time of COVID 
and nowhere to go I pulled the trigger at Amazon again and bought this B3 
emulator.  I am going to hate paying the next bill. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KL95CZI/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s01?ie=UTF8=1


I asked my friend with the B3 to review it.  He said that its the B3 alright 
but he could tell it was artificial.  He stated that no one has successfully 
emulated the B3.  His is broke and, of course, he asked me to fix it.  I dont 
want to because I will probably break it more.
Frank

[Vo]:Re: check out my product review

[Frank Znidarsic]

A bit of history with the product review.  The Wurtlizer is the oldest device  
CIRCA 1970.  It is electromechanical and has reeds that vibrate.  Coils pick up 
the vibrations and send them to an amplifier.  I added a Stomp Box to extends 
the range of sounds.  There were also more expensive devices that used strings 
at to produce sounds  at that time.
The GEM organ is a little newer circa 1980.  It has analog operational 
amplifiers that generate the sounds.  I have the schematic and was able to the 
collect peddles to the drum section of this circuitry.
The Yamaha circa 1990 is a digital device the artificially produces sounds 
called PCM sounds.  Some are pretty good but you can tell they are artificial.
The CASIO PREMA has some sounds produced from digital snippets.  These snippets 
are recorded from the real instrument.
I got the ROLAND supernatural sound module.  It has thousands of snippet 
produced sounds.  My bad playing does not even the merit the use of such a 
device.  I can actually play the sounds from the cathedral of Notre Dame.
Frank


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2020 1:00 am
Subject: check out my product review

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B004APCKV8/ref=acr_dp_hist_5?ie=UTF8=five_star=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Robin]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:04:34 + (UTC):
Hi Jones,
[snip]
> Is the correct Rydberg value 27.2 instead of 22.7 ?
>...or was that a typo ?

Not a typo, just a "senior moment" on my part. (Same numbers, wrong order.) It 
should of course be 27.2 and Erbium is
not a match. 
>
>
>
>Robin wrote:  
>
>>The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills’ 
>>catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills 
>>has repeatedly shown).
>
>The 3rd ionization energy of Er is 22.739 eV. Close enough to 22.7 that 
>thermal kinetic energy can make up the
>difference.
>  

Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Jones Beene]

 Is the correct Rydberg value 27.2 instead of 22.7 ?
...or was that a typo ?



Robin wrote:  

>The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills’ 
>catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills 
>has repeatedly shown).

The 3rd ionization energy of Er is 22.739 eV. Close enough to 22.7 that thermal 
kinetic energy can make up the
difference.
  

Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Robin]

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:49:32 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills’ 
>catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills 
>has repeatedly shown).

The 3rd ionization energy of Er is 22.739 eV. Close enough to 22.7 that thermal 
kinetic energy can make up the
difference.

RE: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion

[JonesBeene]

From: CB Sites

Any ideas as to why they chose Erbium for the host metal?  


I wondered about this too. 

The elements is rare, costly and does not appear in the list of Mills’ 
catalysts (but almost any element can be contorted to be catalytic,, as Mills 
has repeatedly shown).

The one commercial use that appears on a google search for  erbium is that it 
is used in control rods in nuclear reactors.

This means that it has a high cross-section for neutrons - which several 
cheaper elements have… but in this case it could be a cross-section for a 
specific resonance/velocity which no other (cheaper) metal has. 

Perhaps the ability to absorb neutrons of a particular velocity or type – and 
the reason it is used in control rods despite being extremely costly - relates 
to “virtual neutrons” as well?

Or… the cynic might say …  maybe it relates to not wanting replication attempts 
… for whatever reason.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:39 PM CB Sites  wrote:

> Any ideas as to why they chose Erbium for the host metal?
>

I can think of one reason:

 Palladium 2,197.00 USD per Troy Ounce
Platinum962.50 USD per Troy Ounce

Erbium $650 per kilogram!

Re: [Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion

[CB Sites]

Any ideas as to why they chose Erbium for the host metal?  Seems like a
pretty straight forward idea.  I do wonder how quickly the host metal gets
consumed.


On Sun, Aug 16, 2020, 11:06 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Direct link to quote:
>
> https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>> "NASA Detects Lattice Confinement Fusion
>>
>> A team of NASA researchers seeking a new energy source for deep-space
>> exploration missions, recently revealed a method for triggering nuclear
>> fusion in the space between the atoms of a metal solid."
>>
>> https://e-catworld.com/2020/08/15/nasa-lattice-confinement-fusion/
>>
>> What a brilliant idea!  I wonder why no one else thought of it?
>>
>> ;)
>>
>

[Vo]:Re: Lattice Confinement Fusion

[Terry Blanton]

Direct link to quote:

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/space/science/lattice-confinement-fusion/

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 11:04 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

> "NASA Detects Lattice Confinement Fusion
>
> A team of NASA researchers seeking a new energy source for deep-space
> exploration missions, recently revealed a method for triggering nuclear
> fusion in the space between the atoms of a metal solid."
>
> https://e-catworld.com/2020/08/15/nasa-lattice-confinement-fusion/
>
> What a brilliant idea!  I wonder why no one else thought of it?
>
> ;)
>

[Vo]:Re: Jed's predictions

[Frank Znidarsic]

Here it is.
https://csnews.com/three-square-market-sets-out-create-chain-100-self-pay-convenience-stores


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wed, Jul 1, 2020 11:50 am
Subject: Jed's predictions

I believe that Jed missed the mark with his optimistic predictions about cold 
fusion.  Even this group does not discuss it very much and more.
Jed predictions about automation are; however, coming true.  I just went to the 
store "3 Self Pay".  There was no attendant.  You just pick up the merchandise 
and check your self out.  This is the first store of this type that I have 
seen.  I wonder about theft of product and how they hope to prevent it.

Frank

Re: [Vo]:Re: Jed's predictions

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Self pay is up and running here in Switzerland since years.

If you like to do free work without getting any payback then you are 
welcome!


Looks like the USA has lost contact with the rest of the world. 
Especially after Trump today  bought all Remsdesivir - a crappy untested 
medicament that only is sold for making profit.


May be this country deserves a president that steals (for his friends) 2 
billions tax payers money to buy a crap drug for the treatment of CoV-19 
pharma victims! (I'm happy that the crap went off market!!)


https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/usa-kaufen-remdesivir-vorraete-leer-324940007518

J.W.

On 01.07.2020 17:52, Frank Znidarsic wrote:

Here it is.

https://csnews.com/three-square-market-sets-out-create-chain-100-self-pay-convenience-stores


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wed, Jul 1, 2020 11:50 am
Subject: Jed's predictions

I believe that Jed missed the mark with his optimistic predictions 
about cold fusion.  Even this group does not discuss it very much and 
more.


Jed predictions about automation are; however, coming true.  I just 
went to the store "3 Self Pay".  There was no attendant.  You just 
pick up the merchandise and check your self out.  This is the first 
store of this type that I have seen.  I wonder about theft of product 
and how they hope to prevent it.



Frank



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

On 28.06.2020 01:50, Che wrote:
Is it your claim that mass is a function of the inertia of spinning 
energy -- here, in some toroidal form..?


Yes exactly that is what SO(4) physics shows with the highest possible 
precision.



I was referring to the mathematical analysis of bulk matter rather than 
any sort of underlying particle theory of matter.


If matter is composed of point particles separated by some distance, 
then each point particle could have a finite mass connected to it.


Harry

Such an approach is similar to statistical thermodynamics where we 
define some class rules to get some useful information. For engineering 
all methods are allowed/should be used! But keep in mind there as there 
is no ideal gas there is also no ideal point mass - and always we do 
have mixtures.


J.W.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[H LV]

Engineers and applied physicists never stopped using the concept of an
infinitesimal so they should be happy to know that it isn't bad mathematics
after all.

Harry



On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator.
> Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass
> mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
>
> Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable
> functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any
> physics understanding.
>
> The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It
> is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order
> tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
>
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
> concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
> imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
> and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
> moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
> formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
> system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
> numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
> calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
> physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
> which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
> in the 19th century.
>
> An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
> sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε
>  ...etc.
> The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
> are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε
> ...etc.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>>
>> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
>> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>>
>> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
>> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
>> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
>> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
>> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
>> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
>> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
>> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>>
>>
>> J.W.
>> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>>
>>
>>
>> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>>
>>
>>
>> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is
>> probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions
>> and isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>>
>> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
>> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
>> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
>> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
>> momentum.
>>
>>
>>
>> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances
>> between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the
>> CONJECTURE  noted above IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> A better reference would be nice.
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> --
>> Jürg Wyttenbach
>> Bifangstr. 22
>> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>>
>> +41 44 760 14 18
>> +41 79 246 36 06
>>
>> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[H LV]

I was referring to the mathematical analysis of bulk matter rather than any
sort of underlying particle theory of matter.

If matter is composed of point particles separated by some distance, then
each point particle could have a finite mass connected to it.

Harry


On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 7:00 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> point-particle theory is Boscovich's theory and educators don't teach it
> any more to physics students; only a few physicists know about it because
> now an obscure subject
>
> On Saturday, 27 June 2020, 23:18:35 BST, Jürg Wyttenbach <
> ju...@datamart.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator.
> Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass
> mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
>
> Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable
> functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any
> physics understanding.
>
> The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It
> is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order
> tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
>
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
> concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
> imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
> and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
> moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
> formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
> system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
> numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
> calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
> physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
> which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
> in the 19th century.
>
> An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
> sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε
>  ...etc.
> The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
> are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε
> ...etc.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>
> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>
> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>
>
>
> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>
>
>
> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is probably
> is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions and
> isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>
> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
> momentum.
>
>
>
> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances between
> randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the CONJECTURE
> noted above IMHO.
>
>
>
> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
> *
>
>
>
> A better reference would be nice.
>
> .
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[Che]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator.
> Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass
> mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
>
> Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable
> functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any
> physics understanding.
>
> The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It
> is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order
> tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
>
>
> J.W.
>
Is it your claim that mass is a function of the inertia of spinning energy
-- here, in some toroidal form..?

-- grok.





>
> On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
> concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
> imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
> and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
> moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
> formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
> system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
> numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
> calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
> physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
> which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
> in the 19th century.
>
> An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
> sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε
>  ...etc.
> The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
> are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε
> ...etc.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>>
>> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
>> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>>
>> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
>> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
>> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
>> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
>> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
>> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
>> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
>> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>>
>>
>> J.W.
>> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>>
>>
>>
>> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>>
>>
>>
>> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is
>> probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions
>> and isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>>
>> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
>> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
>> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
>> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
>> momentum.
>>
>>
>>
>> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances
>> between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the
>> CONJECTURE  noted above IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> A better reference would be nice.
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> --
>> Jürg Wyttenbach
>> Bifangstr. 22
>> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>>
>> +41 44 760 14 18
>> +41 79 246 36 06
>>
>> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 point-particle theory is Boscovich's theory and educators don't teach it any 
more to physics students; only a few physicists know about it because now an 
obscure subject

On Saturday, 27 June 2020, 23:18:35 BST, Jürg Wyttenbach 
 wrote:  
 
  
Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator. 
Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass 
mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
 
Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable functions..) 
is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any physics understanding.
 
The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It is 
thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order tori! Of 
course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
 

 
 
J.W. 
 
 

 
 On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
  
 
  I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the concept 
of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would imply 
infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass and zero 
charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by moving from the 
real number system to the hyperreal number system first formulated by Abraham 
Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number system extends the real 
number system by including  infinitely small numbers and infinitely large 
numbers and gives a logical foundation for the calculus of infinitesimals known 
as "non-standard analysis". Today  most physicists and students still learn 
calculus  using "standard analysis" which is based on the notion of limits and 
was developed by mathematicians in the 19th century.
 
  An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different 
sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε ...etc. The 
reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there are also 
different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε  ...etc.
 
 Harry 
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
  
  
The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
 
SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is generated and 
mediated between hadronic masses. 
 
 
Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point 
particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic 
moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply is a 
form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge does move 
without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most idiotic is the 
assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would oscillate. We can 
go on with this as you only need college level understanding to find out that 
the foundation of SM is children logic.
 

 
 
J.W.
 
 On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
  
  
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
 
 
 
some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
 
 
 
Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is probably is 
associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions and isotopic 
transitions.  It  may also  change gravity 
 
Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole attraction 
is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems from the 
CONJECTURE that gravity results from an random collection of nuclear magnetic 
dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular momentum.  
 
 
 
The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances between 
randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the CONJECTURE  noted 
above IMHO.  
 
 
 
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
 
 
 
A better reference would be nice.
 
.
 
 
 
Bob Cook
  
 -- 
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06  
   -- 
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06   

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator. 
Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass 
mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.


Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable 
functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any 
physics understanding.


The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It 
is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order 
tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...



J.W.


On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the 
concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that 
would imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively 
zero mass and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved 
mathematically by moving from the real number system to the hyperreal 
number system first formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. 
The hyperreal number system extends the real number system by 
including  infinitely small numbers and infinitely large numbers and 
gives a logical foundation for the calculus of infinitesimals known as 
"non-standard analysis". Today  most physicists and students still 
learn calculus using "standard analysis" which is based on the notion 
of limits and was developed by mathematicians in the 19th century.


An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in 
different sizes. For example if ε   is an infinitesimal then ε < 2 ε < 
3ε ...etc.
The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so 
there are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε > 1/2ε > 
1/3ε ...etc.


Harry

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach > wrote:


The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...

SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
generated and mediated between hadronic masses.

Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating
with point particles that do not behave as points because these
points have a magnetic moment. No more cheating with massless
charge as such an assumption simply is a form of infantile
dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge does move
without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment
then would oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need
college level understanding to find out that the foundation of SM
is children logic.


J.W.

On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
 wrote:



https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/

some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….

Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is
probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear
 conditions and isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity

Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic
dipole attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This
question   stems from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an
*_random_* collection of nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the
respective 0  (zero) net angular momentum.

The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large
distances between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles
 supports the CONJECTURE  noted above IMHO.

_http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf_

__

A better reference would be nice.

.

Bob Cook

-- 
Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[H LV]

I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
in the 19th century.

An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε ...etc.
The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε  ...etc.

Harry

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>
> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>
> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>
>
>
> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>
>
>
> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is probably
> is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions and
> isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>
> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
> momentum.
>
>
>
> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances between
> randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the CONJECTURE
> noted above IMHO.
>
>
>
> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
> *
>
>
>
> A better reference would be nice.
>
> .
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

[Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...

SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is 
generated and mediated between hadronic masses.


Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with 
point particles that do not behave as points because these points have a 
magnetic moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an 
assumption simply is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given 
why a massless charge does move without inertia and no force is need for 
a circular orbit. Most idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the 
magnetic moment then would oscillate. We can go on with this as you only 
need college level understanding to find out that the foundation of SM 
is children logic.



J.W.

On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:


https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/

some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….

Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is 
probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear 
 conditions and isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity


Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole 
attraction is modified—either increases or reduced? *This question  
 stems from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *_random_* 
collection of nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) 
net angular momentum.


The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances 
between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the 
CONJECTURE  noted above IMHO.


_http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf_

__

A better reference would be nice.

.

Bob Cook


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: [teslafy] Comparisons of time distortion by frequency drift on neon discharges

[Harvey Norris]

To end this lengthy discourse with a second reply; I shall shorten this 
considerably, although many investigations have now been done to formulate a 
more comprehensive solution for certain effects being noted in the loosely 
coupled resonant transfer of amperage above the resistive ratio. Brian Alan 
Whatcott replied "I expect you have in mind the air-core transformer, where the 
controlling relation is NOT resistance of a coil (unless both coils have the 
same resistance per unit length.) Rather, what controls the relationship 
between two coils in respect of their ac VOLTAGE is the number of turns each 
coil contains, and their ratio.After my own analysis where here I am looking at 
effects between  somewhat identical coils I concluded that my original synopsis 
is correct when the internal capacities of the coils are factored in as  
reductions of oscillations are considered.Harvey D Norris's answer to If the 
resistance between air core sending and receiving coils is one to seven should 
their maximum output amperage ratio also be 1/7th? - Quora

| 
| 
|  | 
Harvey D Norris's answer to If the resistance between air core sending a...


 |

 |

 |

In the former case the differences between actual amperage that developes 
compared to the prediction made by resistive ratios of components was assumed 
to be due to time dilation of secondary @ calculations of dq/dt, where dt was 
reduced to .48 whose reciprocal is 2.08. This means that the resultant amperage 
was 2.08 times greater then the resistive ratio prediction. By applying the 
exponential relation instead as a governing factor for the  (6.8/1) reduction 
after the new exact no.s of 6.8/1 were applied the advance from the resistive 
prediction, given a 18% reduction  between I(ideal) and I (real) cases for this 
coil, that ratio was calculated out to 2.13. What this means then is that those 
amperage results are explainable without having to presume a time distortion 
effect. However in retrospect the energy ratio difference between sending and 
receiving states of 1.89 may also enter the picture. Enough for now... HDN


Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ 

On Friday, May 8, 2020, 7:03:53 PM EDT, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com 
[teslafy]  wrote:  
 
     

 Twin Versions of RealityBeing somewhat ahead of the "common joe" in making 
these observations, I should first say that this is not my first rodeo. And 
comparisons to the former version of reality to the present one now present 
itself. Now if two measurements of reality differ in results, we may 
automatically assume that one is correct over the other, and furthermore the 
incorrect observation of reality should have some explanations for it's 
deduction. In this regard then a former study and conclusions for the 
phenomenon are shown and discussed in the first rodeo; the relationships 
between a 12 lb. 23 gauge coil and a 75 lb. one. 

Forward & Reverse Operations of 60hz Resonant Transformations.
Forward & Reverse Operations of 60hz Resonant Transformations.

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Forward & Reverse Operations of 60hz Resonant Transformations.

Fwd operation is from a 12 lb 23 gauge primary @ 126 ohms to a ~75 lb 23 gauge 
secondary @860 ohms. Amperage and...
 |

 |

 |

"In the reverse operation a reciprocal loss in moving the energy from a small 
capacity to a larger one can be shown. " Examinations of ratios shown by 
extractions of this video shows that this presupposition is false. A reciprocal 
ratio is replaced by a time distortion ratio as shown by forward and reverse 
operations for comparisons of ratios .
Now in the new situation compared to the former, a resistive ratio @ 6.8 /1 one 
was formed between the coils, and because currents developed on the larger 
secondary  whereby  twice that developed then should by that resistive ratio a 
deduction was made;"It can be speculated that a 50% time dilation occurs for 
the resonant transformation case shown here. The amperage meter actually 
records the rate of coulombs of charge crossing the cross sectional area per 
TIME PERIOD. which is noted as dq/dt. If dt is compressed to half of its source 
sending value, dq/dt will be doubled. This is noted as a doubling from the amp 
value that would be applied if the resistive ratio of 6.8/1 were applied to the 
reduction. Essentially here we have an increase of the L ratio with a 
corresponding decrease of the I squared ratio. This decrease however is itself 
countered by an amperage increase due to the time dilation which can be proved 
by the opposite analogy of actions that should take place if the process were 
reversed"
Later then the relation of resistance to the outcome of the currents seems to 
be made irrevalent.If the resistance between air core sending and receiving 
coils is one to seven should their maximum output amperage ratio also be 1/7th? 
- Quora

| 
| 
|  | 
If the resistance between air core 

[Vo]:Re: [teslafy] Comparisons of time distortion by frequency drift on neon discharges

[Harvey Norris]

 Twin Versions of RealityBeing somewhat ahead of the "common joe" in making 
these observations, I should first say that this is not my first rodeo. And 
comparisons to the former version of reality to the present one now present 
itself. Now if two measurements of reality differ in results, we may 
automatically assume that one is correct over the other, and furthermore the 
incorrect observation of reality should have some explanations for it's 
deduction. In this regard then a former study and conclusions for the 
phenomenon are shown and discussed in the first rodeo; the relationships 
between a 12 lb. 23 gauge coil and a 75 lb. one. 

Forward & Reverse Operations of 60hz Resonant Transformations.
Forward & Reverse Operations of 60hz Resonant Transformations.

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Forward & Reverse Operations of 60hz Resonant Transformations.

Fwd operation is from a 12 lb 23 gauge primary @ 126 ohms to a ~75 lb 23 gauge 
secondary @860 ohms. Amperage and...
 |

 |

 |

"In the reverse operation a reciprocal loss in moving the energy from a small 
capacity to a larger one can be shown. " Examinations of ratios shown by 
extractions of this video shows that this presupposition is false. A reciprocal 
ratio is replaced by a time distortion ratio as shown by forward and reverse 
operations for comparisons of ratios .
Now in the new situation compared to the former, a resistive ratio @ 6.8 /1 one 
was formed between the coils, and because currents developed on the larger 
secondary  whereby  twice that developed then should by that resistive ratio a 
deduction was made;"It can be speculated that a 50% time dilation occurs for 
the resonant transformation case shown here. The amperage meter actually 
records the rate of coulombs of charge crossing the cross sectional area per 
TIME PERIOD. which is noted as dq/dt. If dt is compressed to half of its source 
sending value, dq/dt will be doubled. This is noted as a doubling from the amp 
value that would be applied if the resistive ratio of 6.8/1 were applied to the 
reduction. Essentially here we have an increase of the L ratio with a 
corresponding decrease of the I squared ratio. This decrease however is itself 
countered by an amperage increase due to the time dilation which can be proved 
by the opposite analogy of actions that should take place if the process were 
reversed"
Later then the relation of resistance to the outcome of the currents seems to 
be made irrevalent.If the resistance between air core sending and receiving 
coils is one to seven should their maximum output amperage ratio also be 1/7th? 
- Quora

| 
| 
|  | 
If the resistance between air core sending and receiving coils is one to...


 |

 |

 |

My thinking on the matter (since VI~=I^2R at resonance) is that the 1/7th ratio 
should apply to the I squared quantity, not the linear I one involved in 
inversely proportional relationship where VI(in)= VI(out). To find the maximum 
induced amperage for a one amp input, since R is increased by seven; then to 
counter I squared should be reduced by seven. I(max) then will have to be the 
square root of that I squared seven fold reduction. Starting from 1 A as the 
input; sq rt[1/7] =.378. compared to 1/7= .143. Thus I(max) could be .378/.143= 
2.64 times greater then what would by had by the linear transformation 
assumption. Apparently I made errant assumptions based on a linear case, when 
in actuality it appears to be an exponential one.Further comment;
Several complications ensue here, but it would appear that a symmetrical 
relationship exists whereby the ratio of I^2R power loss between primary and 
secondary is matched by the ratio of increase of amperage from the loaded state 
to the unloaded. thus a 66% power ratio difference would be matched by a 66% 
increase in amperage in going from the loaded to unloaded state. Thus given the 
primary amperage under load: and also knowing the ratio of relative resistances 
between the two; this cannot determine what amount of secondary amperage that 
will occur until the open load primary amperage is known; which in turn 
determines the efficiency of delivery. In this case example then the delivery 
of .378 amps from a 1 amp input would only occur at maximum energy transfer, 
and this would also mean that the open circuit primary would then read twice 
it’s loaded state of 1 A.  

This hoi poloi takes awhile to digest, and in any case the next objection was 
also disproven; that the increase of oscillation on receiving station vs 
sending one governed the relativistic effect taking place, where this was also 
disproven and shown in some flicker jpeg's
28 volt input capt

| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
28 volt input capt

Here at a 28 volt 60 hz AC input 117.5 ma input into a 126 ohm primary occurs 
after passing energy into the 860...
 |

 |

 |

 SSo in any case the old explanations dont pan out.In the new cases of 
interacting two large 75 lb. induction coils when the 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Vibrator !]

Making no assumptions as to the existence or nature of time and space, we
can reduce their defining properties to more fundamental propositions:

 • there are information processors (us)

 • thus there is, implicitly, 'information', the actual substance and
format of which is determined by our form of processing

For example 1 and 0 are the 'stuff' of information relative to a digital
IC, and the dimensions of their potential relations are also 'binary', in
that that they're sequential, and / or parallel.

So for instance, going a little deeper into that analogy, the basic
building blocks of digital processing - logic gates, and their associated
truth tables - are mapped to the finite (and thus, again, 'implicit') range
of first-order permutations of basic spatiotemporal relations; ie. "if A=1
when B=1 then C=1" gives us an 'And' logical operation..

..Likewise, if one's on when the other's off, we get 'Or' or perhaps 'Nor',
and so on and so forth.

You get the point; The spatiotemporal dichotomy is inherent to the nature
of 'information' itself.  An inevitable prerequisite for 'processing'.

Whether we consider serial or 'parallel' processing.

Yet it is not 'time and space' that are intrinsically invoked here, but
something even more fundamental:  simultaneity and sequentiality.  A logic
gate's truth table refers to an instant of time - it's essentially timeless
- describing conditions between coextant states, such that, say, C=1 only
when A=1 within a threshold period determined by an onboard clock.

Similarly, processing information necessitates some form of basic 'memory'
in which values can be stored, retrieved and incremented.

IOW, processing depends upon two informational dimensions - one field in
which all the information is coextant, and another in which it is not.

That is to say, processing - and information itself - is intrinsically
serial and parallel.  Written or spoken, a given word is the same
information with different spatiotemporal distributions, but each has a
foot in both domains.

So a spatiotemporal dichotomy is inherent, and built into the nature and
very existence of both 'information', and 'processors' (with no particular
regard to the animate).

Yet we also know from relativity that there's actually no such thing as
true 'simultaneity' - rather, what we may reduce to 'temporal integration
windows' (TIW's) are improvised or coalesced on the fly; in the case of a
typical IC, by a quartz timing crystal, but likewise in our own physiology,
TIW's are built into every level of processing, from primary receptors all
the way up to cortex; every 'now' composed of a myriad flux of smaller
'nows' with progressively shorter TIW's.

'Attention span' is the executive-level TIW, and at the base levels are,
for instance, the shortest intervals we can detect between stimuli - such
as the threshold between a click-train and a 'buzzing sound', or visual
flicker detection;  where a series of distinct events merge into one
continuous event.

Our own data-timing clocks use relative, rather than constant time.

The key timing relation that binds all the information we process together
is factor-of-two symmetry, in both time and space.

This is why we experience 'octave equivalence' between frequencies in that
particular relationship in the spatial domain, and likewise, 'rhythm
entrainment' in the temporal domain.

By definition, 'C2' and 'C4', say, are not 'the same note', they're not
'double or half' one another's frequency, and their ineffably-paradoxical
sensation of equivalence actually pertains to the bandwidth of their
frequency interval being the simplest-possible relationship, resolving to
the shortest-possible (ie. most energy efficient) TIW, resolving every
cycle of the fundamental (the lower freq).

Whereas, the next most consonant interval, the 'fifth' resolves every other
cycle (a factor of three relationship), thus a slightly larger TIW and
slightly more work.  The harmonic series follows the integer number line of
relative factors of a given fundamental.  Thus what we regard as 'harmonic
consonance' is actually just this same weird 'equivalence' we perceive in
octaves; there's only degrees of 'inequivalence' / difference, where
progressively longer frequency resolutions requires longer TIW's and more
energy, sounding more and more 'dissonant' (but really, just 'less
equivalent').

You see that this anomalous perceptual parity forms a kind of 'zero' for
whatever form of processing we're using for metadata - that is, equivalence
/ difference is a kind of analogue 'bit', in that it can have a zero or
variable value, such that we regard C1 and C4 as somehow 'the same' note;
 but where 'pitch class' is a higher-order manifestation of this phenomenon
(and likewise rhythm entrainment in the temporal domain), these
information-binding principles are more fundamental that the modality of
audition itself, since it is non-auditory, abstract information that we, as
processors, ascribe to the 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:12:28 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Our live is covered/maintained by faint fluctuations on top of highly 
>stable matter that does not feel time at all.

I think supernovas would imply otherwise. I think what you are trying to say is 
that nuclear matter is very stable in
time, but that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist, it just means that it's 
very stable and undergoes few changes.
Well most of it anyway. Radioisotopes are an exception.

>
>Of course these small fluctations are highly dependent on time but this 
>does not imply that time exist for the universe! It's just us that want 
>to believe that there is time for everything. Our live temperature range

BTW "time for everything" usually means "plenty of time in which to do 
everything", whereas I suspect you mean that we
think that everything experiences time, and you contend that nuclear matter 
does not.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that, and I think the Americium 
in the smoke detector on your ceiling does
too. ;)

>is given by about 0.14eV. This shows how important we are for the universe.

:)

>
>If you go to higher dimensions e.g. 8 then you can reintroduce a global 
>time and *global causality* but not for the small part of the world we 
>live in - the 0.14eV range that clearly shows stochastic behavior.

I think better wording might be "small part of the thermal spectrum"?

While I agree with you that is where most of the action is, I don't agree that 
action defines time.
Even if it did, time would still exist at all levels, since none are without 
action.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Our live is covered/maintained by faint fluctuations on top of highly 
stable matter that does not feel time at all.


Of course these small fluctations are highly dependent on time but this 
does not imply that time exist for the universe! It's just us that want 
to believe that there is time for everything. Our live temperature range 
is given by about 0.14eV. This shows how important we are for the universe.


If you go to higher dimensions e.g. 8 then you can reintroduce a global 
time and *global causality* but not for the small part of the world we 
live in - the 0.14eV range that clearly shows stochastic behavior.



J.W.


Am 14.04.20 um 04:53 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:18:59 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]

Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.

But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit
slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both?
This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.

...or neither. Maybe Einstein is correct, and time actually flows at different 
speeds at different altitudes. ;)


Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a
long time before we could mathematically prove it.

The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only
small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that
there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton
mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to
accelerate it to very high speed ...

This is not clear. What do you mean by "Only this tiny fraction believes"? 
(Only sentient beings can believe, not eV's.)
BTW the limit can't be 0.15 eV, or chemical reactions that result in a change 
of multiple eV would also not be time
sensitive, whereas they clearly are. (Consider the application of chemical 
catalysts.)
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Tue, 14 Apr 2020 01:18:59 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.
>
>But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit 
>slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both? 
>This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.

...or neither. Maybe Einstein is correct, and time actually flows at different 
speeds at different altitudes. ;)

>
>Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a 
>long time before we could mathematically prove it.
>
>The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only 
>small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that 
>there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton 
>mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to 
>accelerate it to very high speed ...

This is not clear. What do you mean by "Only this tiny fraction believes"? 
(Only sentient beings can believe, not eV's.)
BTW the limit can't be 0.15 eV, or chemical reactions that result in a change 
of multiple eV would also not be time
sensitive, whereas they clearly are. (Consider the application of chemical 
catalysts.)
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Te best atomic clocks are sensitive to 10cm difference in altitude.

But there is one open point: Is only the Rb/Cs crystal oscillating a bit 
slower/faster or is the electronics measuring slower/faster - or both? 
This, may be, could be tested by changing the crystal only.


Of course Leibniz is correct and interesting to see that he knew this a 
long time before we could mathematically prove it.


The basic elements of nature are 99.% stable/static and only 
small oscillations form our world. Only this tiny fraction believes that 
there must be time because live is below 0.15eV compared to one proton 
mass of 938MeV... The proton feels no time except you start to 
accelerate it to very high speed ...


Of course I do feel time too...

J.W.

Am 13.04.20 um 21:32 schrieb H LV:

Bob,

Time increments maybe arbitrary but I don't hold the belief that the 
passage of time is just an illusion between each increment or event. 
This is a perennial metaphysical question which I don't want to get 
into. For example Leibniz did not think time flowed.  He said time was 
an ordering of events. Newton thought differently.


What do you mean Cs resonant vibrations?
Cs atomic clocks are affected by gravity because their "tick" rate has 
been observed to be slower at sea level than at higher altitudes which 
is a prediction of GR.

Harry


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:


Harry—

If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between
the earth and the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields
 and result in a different illusion of the passage of time
relative to other measurements of arbitrary time increments—like
the rotation of the earth due to its angular momentum being pretty
constant or its orbit around the sun also being relatively constant.

This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the
SO(4) model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The
measurement of Cs atoms resonant vibrations should also change
relative to the pendulum resonance, since blocking the earth’s
magnetic field from the Cs would be avoided in the validation
test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms should be immune to
gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per current
 understanding of physics.)

If validity of SO(4) were _not_ established, it would  also be
 significant to understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.

Bob Cook



*From: *H LV <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
    *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote:



Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our
measurement of it is based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a
gravitational field, then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't
*necessarily* imply that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the
difference. IOW our temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the
actual passage of time changing.

I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can
change the period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the
swing arm. However, we don't say time slows down just because it
got warmer. In the 18th century pendulums were designed so as not
to be affected

by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on
a clock, we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth
keeps the same time as a clock in deep space by systematically
adding time to the measured time on Earth.

Harry



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[H LV]

Bob,

Time increments maybe arbitrary but I don't hold the belief that the
passage of time is just an illusion between each increment or event. This
is a perennial metaphysical question which I don't want to get into. For
example Leibniz did not think time flowed.  He said time was an ordering of
events. Newton thought differently.

What do you mean Cs resonant vibrations?
Cs atomic clocks are affected by gravity because their "tick" rate has been
observed to be slower at sea level than at higher altitudes which is a
prediction of GR.
Harry


On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:27 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

> Harry—
>
>
>
> If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between the earth
> and the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields  and result in a
> different illusion of the passage of time relative to other measurements of
> arbitrary time increments—like the rotation of the earth due to its angular
> momentum being pretty constant or its orbit around the sun also being
> relatively constant.
>
>
>
> This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the SO(4)
> model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The measurement of
> Cs atoms resonant vibrations should also change relative to the pendulum
> resonance, since blocking the earth’s magnetic field from the Cs would be
> avoided in the validation test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms
> should be immune to gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per
> current  understanding of physics.)
>
>
>
> If validity of SO(4) were *not* established, it would  also be
>  significant to understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> ----
>
> *From: *H LV 
> *Sent: *Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM  wrote:
>
>
>
> Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of
> it is based on processes which may vary in
> speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational
> field, then the processes upon which our clocks
> are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply
> that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
> It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our
> temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
> some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage
> of time changing.
>
>
>
> I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the
> period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However,
> we don't say time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th
> century pendulums were designed so as not to be affected
>
> by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock,
> we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as
> a clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on
> Earth.
>
>
>
> Harry
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--IMPLICATIONS FOR SO(4) PHYSICS--

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Harry—

If SO(4) physics is valid, the gravitational attraction between the earth and 
the pendulum may be blocked by appropriate shields  and result in a different 
illusion of the passage of time relative to other measurements of arbitrary 
time increments—like the rotation of the earth due to its angular momentum 
being pretty constant or its orbit around the sun also being relatively 
constant.

This in fact may be a good “down-to-earth test to validate the SO(4) 
model—i.e., blocking the effect of the earth’s gravity.  The measurement of Cs 
atoms resonant vibrations should also change relative to the pendulum 
resonance, since blocking the earth’s magnetic field from the Cs would be 
avoided in the validation test.  (I think my assumption that Cs atoms should be 
immune to gravity field variations is a valid conclusion per current  
understanding of physics.)

If validity of SO(4) were not established, it would  also be  significant to 
understanding the nature of space and E-M fields.

Bob Cook


From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2020 6:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--



On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> 
wrote:


Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of it is 
based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational field, 
then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply that 
time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our 
temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage of 
time changing.

I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the period 
of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However, we don't say 
time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th century pendulums were 
designed so as not to be affected
by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock, we 
can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as a 
clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on Earth.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[H LV]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:14 PM  wrote:

>
>
> Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of
> it is based on processes which may vary in
> speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational
> field, then the processes upon which our clocks
> are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply
> that time itself is flowing faster or slower.
> It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our
> temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
> some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage
> of time changing.
>
>
I agree.  For example an increase in ambient temperature can change the
period of pendulum clock by increasing the length the swing arm. However,
we don't say time slows down just because it got warmer. In the 18th
century pendulums were designed so as not to be affected
by temperature. Although we can't block the affects of gravity on a clock,
we can make sure a clock at the surface of the Earth keeps the same time as
a clock in deep space by systematically adding time to the measured time on
Earth.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2020 10:59:14 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Your logic is one way correct.
>
>If you take the path length L given by c covered by one second, then 
>this is just one out of infinite many possible gauges.
>A frequency is just the breakdown of L in units of wavelength. This is 
>also what today is used to define time!! 

No, it's what is used to define the unit of time measurement, not time itself.

>- just the other way round as 
>you know the frequency e.g. of Rubidium and simple count a number of n 
>waves. But you are free to choose a different n' that leads to a 
>different timescale!
>
>Light speed is also based on the definition of 1 meter !! Thus we should 
>not mix up the general notion of time as a progress in the event chain 
>with simply counting regular events (wave maxima) that define a common 
>accepted length.

IOW we should not mix up the existence of time as dimension, with its 
measurement.

>
>Now its easy to understand that time is a virtual concept based on 
>simple counting regular events. 

The words "regular" and "events" already imply the existence of a time 
dimension, and a passage through that dimension.
Even the concept of counting (as opposed to the concept of number), implies the 
existence of time, since the act of
counting separates the things being counted along the time dimension.
(Things are "counted" one after the other. "After" is temporal.)
Without time, one would just have to "know" how many objects there were, 
without counting them.
 
>Here you also see where the digital 
>nature of real physics starts as waves are nowhere (just in average) a 
>continuum contrary to the mathematical use of time.

Mathematics doesn't define existence. It just describes it in terms of 
measurement.

>
>If you have a more deep understanding of physics especially if you 
>understand what already R.Mills did find almost 30 years ago then you 
>know that there is no global time as time changes due to a change in 
>(total bound mass)/(total photon mass)= space-time expands or said in 
>SO(4) physics terms. Time depends on the relation of 2 rotation mass to 
>the mass that does more than 2 rotations = the change of average density 
>of space.

I think you need to distinguish between the rate of passage through time, and 
the concept of time itself as a dimension.
Even the former may not change. It's possible, and common, for the speed of 
processes to change, without the passage of
time changing. Processes can run faster or slower depending on the forces 
acting, and the energy available locally.


>
>Thus all energy mass equations (& relations) in SO(4) physics are based 
>on the path length given by c/s and are finally independent of time.

What is "s" in c/s? If s=second, then how is this independent of time, and 
furthermore, wouldn't a path length be given
by c*s?

There is no "physics" that can do away with time. It's a fundamental part of 
existence, so what are you really trying to
achieve?
Note that our perception of the flow of time and even our measurement of it is 
based on processes which may vary in
speed. IOW if the fabric of space time changes, e.g. in a gravitational field, 
then the processes upon which our clocks
are based may speed up or slow down, but this doesn't *necessarily* imply that 
time itself is flowing faster or slower.
It may be, but we have no object means of telling the difference. IOW our 
temporal "yardstick" may change in length in
some situations. A clock can run fast or slow without the actual passage of 
time changing. If our perceptions also run
fast or slow along with the clock, then we have no way of knowing that it's 
running fast or slow.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[H LV]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> You verb it right "suggests" !!
>
> This kind of "communication" is outside the domain of standard
> communication theory
>
> Its also far outside GER with the real existing communication at >>c . (
> Measured here in Switzerland! long time ago..)
>
> But this communication does not affect an exchange of energy over
> distance. It's a change in symmetry that is allocated in the phase space
> that already classically allows a (phase-) speed >> c.
>
> The crucial question is why can we build a system that allows instant
> communication over quasi an infinite distance?
>
> The answer still is beyond any existing model.
>
> J.W.
>
>
As I see it non-locality is a manifestation of global time, so global time
makes it possible.
Of course 20th century relativity has taught us that global time is a
quaint and obsolete notion so the reintroduction of it must supposedly have
no merit.

Harry






> Am 11.04.20 um 15:08 schrieb H LV:
>
> Quantum non-locality (without faster than light messages) suggests a
> global time does exist. This kind of "communication" is outside the domain
> of standard communication theory.
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

You verb it right "suggests" !!

This kind of "communication" is outside the domain of standard 
communication theory


Its also far outside GER with the real existing communication at >>c . ( 
Measured here in Switzerland! long time ago..)


But this communication does not affect an exchange of energy over 
distance. It's a change in symmetry that is allocated in the phase space 
that already classically allows a (phase-) speed >> c.


The crucial question is why can we build a system that allows instant 
communication over quasi an infinite distance?


The answer still is beyond any existing model.

J.W.

Am 11.04.20 um 15:08 schrieb H LV:
Quantum non-locality (without faster than light messages) suggests a 
global time does exist. This kind of "communication" is outside the 
domain of standard communication theory.



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[H LV]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Good to know some more physicists start to think about time. One of them
> cited I did know personally.
>
> The real problem is the missing education in computation theory. I did
> spend 2 net years working on the theme, which the article tries to
> illuminate. I developed a new computer architecture that can deal with such
> problems and delivers fail safe proven results on wide area parallel
> machines.
>
> A wide area parallel machine is exactly what physics is about. Each
> particle is a "program" that communicates with an other programs over a
> given finite set of messages. Physics defines these messages as equations
> what defines a set of of possible tokens = interactions - nothing else.
>
> Now if you know the basic laws of communication theory then it is obvious
> = given that there is no global time. We only do have a partial order over
> communications. We can refine the order digit by digits until we meet the
> border-line of information stability in measurement.
>
>
Quantum non-locality (without faster than light messages) suggests a global
time does exist. This kind of "communication" is outside the domain of
standard communication theory.

Harry




> The article is full of nonsense and classical bullshit knowledge like two
> Uranium-239 are equal but one decays earlier. SM knows nothing about
> particle structure except some basic Lego like partitions. All unstable
> nuclei contain a time like structure with a slightly different excess
> energy. Further who tells these guys all these nuclei did start at the same
> timestamp?
>
> Also neither QM nor general relativity are fundamental models. This is a
> religious claim. QM just describes a small subset of the reality and
> general relativity fails for all *space filled with matter* as it cannot
> handle matter... As all other simplistic SM models GER just works for point
> masses in empty space. Any perturbation of "space-time" by mass producing
> an other space time cannot be handled without simplistic approximations.
>
> If a point source emits two photons at an angle of 180 degrees then any
> measurement will show that the gap between the two increases with 2*c the
> speed of light. Thus we can easily measure relative speed > c. If these two
> photons enter a spherical orbit then they will return to the place of
> origin. This is the situation in SO(4) in much smaller space dimensions.
> According GER the photons should never interact again. Thus this just shows
> that the notion of an universal time in curved space is mathematical
> nonsense. Time is just the measurement interval or the frequency what ever
> you like more.
>
> Most current physicists do have the wrong education to tackle the real
> basic problems of physics. Even worse theses physicists day for day repeat
> religious claims about models that luckily for us work well under some
> restricted conditions.
>
> Current physics especially nuclear & particle physics is still on day one
> in playground of Kindergarden. These folks soon will have their mental
> corona event, when the have to notice that the perturbation of a proton at
> 10 TeV (CERN) is absolutely irrelevant for understanding today's real
> problems like aneutronic fusion in Holmlids case or LENR as we measure it -
> just to name two big ones.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 10.04.20 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
>
>
>
> The following link contains two or 3 differing concepts of time.
>
>
>
> *https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/
> *
>
>
>
> The SO(4) physics model of nucleons is a model including a temporal time
> scale associated with a magnetic rotating flux at a specific frequency.
> This “temporal time” reflects space parameters and the observed phenomena
> of  EM photon propagation in space controlled by those parameters ,
> magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.
>
>
>
> A good model for space and its “intrinsic” parameters is warranted IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Your logic is one way correct.

If you take the path length L given by c covered by one second, then 
this is just one out of infinite many possible gauges.
A frequency is just the breakdown of L in units of wavelength. This is 
also what today is used to define time!! - just the other way round as 
you know the frequency e.g. of Rubidium and simple count a number of n 
waves. But you are free to choose a different n' that leads to a 
different timescale!


Light speed is also based on the definition of 1 meter !! Thus we should 
not mix up the general notion of time as a progress in the event chain 
with simply counting regular events (wave maxima) that define a common 
accepted length.


Now its easy to understand that time is a virtual concept based on 
simple counting regular events. Here you also see where the digital 
nature of real physics starts as waves are nowhere (just in average) a 
continuum contrary to the mathematical use of time.


If you have a more deep understanding of physics especially if you 
understand what already R.Mills did find almost 30 years ago then you 
know that there is no global time as time changes due to a change in 
(total bound mass)/(total photon mass)= space-time expands or said in 
SO(4) physics terms. Time depends on the relation of 2 rotation mass to 
the mass that does more than 2 rotations = the change of average density 
of space.


Thus all energy mass equations (& relations) in SO(4) physics are based 
on the path length given by c/s and are finally independent of time.


J.W.






Am 11.04.20 um 09:21 schrieb mix...@bigpond.com:

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2020 00:26:55 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
[snip]

Time is just the measurement interval or the
frequency what ever you like more.

How can you speak of interval or frequency without time? Once time itself 
exists, you can have an interval of time. You
are just talking about a clock. Clocks don't define the existence of time, they 
just measure it.
Just as a ruler measures distance. It doesn't create a spatial dimension.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success




--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Frank Grimer]

I like it. Makes sense to me. 

On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 23:27, Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Good to know some more physicists start to think about time. One of them
> cited I did know personally.
>
> The real problem is the missing education in computation theory. I did
> spend 2 net years working on the theme, which the article tries to
> illuminate. I developed a new computer architecture that can deal with such
> problems and delivers fail safe proven results on wide area parallel
> machines.
>
> A wide area parallel machine is exactly what physics is about. Each
> particle is a "program" that communicates with an other programs over a
> given finite set of messages. Physics defines these messages as equations
> what defines a set of of possible tokens = interactions - nothing else.
>
> Now if you know the basic laws of communication theory then it is obvious
> = given that there is no global time. We only do have a partial order over
> communications. We can refine the order digit by digits until we meet the
> border-line of information stability in measurement.
>
> The article is full of nonsense and classical bullshit knowledge like two
> Uranium-239 are equal but one decays earlier. SM knows nothing about
> particle structure except some basic Lego like partitions. All unstable
> nuclei contain a time like structure with a slightly different excess
> energy. Further who tells these guys all these nuclei did start at the same
> timestamp?
>
> Also neither QM nor general relativity are fundamental models. This is a
> religious claim. QM just describes a small subset of the reality and
> general relativity fails for all *space filled with matter* as it cannot
> handle matter... As all other simplistic SM models GER just works for point
> masses in empty space. Any perturbation of "space-time" by mass producing
> an other space time cannot be handled without simplistic approximations.
>
> If a point source emits two photons at an angle of 180 degrees then any
> measurement will show that the gap between the two increases with 2*c the
> speed of light. Thus we can easily measure relative speed > c. If these two
> photons enter a spherical orbit then they will return to the place of
> origin. This is the situation in SO(4) in much smaller space dimensions.
> According GER the photons should never interact again. Thus this just shows
> that the notion of an universal time in curved space is mathematical
> nonsense. Time is just the measurement interval or the frequency what ever
> you like more.
>
> Most current physicists do have the wrong education to tackle the real
> basic problems of physics. Even worse theses physicists day for day repeat
> religious claims about models that luckily for us work well under some
> restricted conditions.
>
> Current physics especially nuclear & particle physics is still on day one
> in playground of Kindergarden. These folks soon will have their mental
> corona event, when the have to notice that the perturbation of a proton at
> 10 TeV (CERN) is absolutely irrelevant for understanding today's real
> problems like aneutronic fusion in Holmlids case or LENR as we measure it -
> just to name two big ones.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 10.04.20 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
>
>
>
> The following link contains two or 3 differing concepts of time.
>
>
>
> *https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/
> *
>
>
>
> The SO(4) physics model of nucleons is a model including a temporal time
> scale associated with a magnetic rotating flux at a specific frequency.
> This “temporal time” reflects space parameters and the observed phenomena
> of  EM photon propagation in space controlled by those parameters ,
> magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.
>
>
>
> A good model for space and its “intrinsic” parameters is warranted IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[mixent]

In reply to  Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 11 Apr 2020 00:26:55 +0200:
Hi Jürg,
[snip]
>Time is just the measurement interval or the 
>frequency what ever you like more. 

How can you speak of interval or frequency without time? Once time itself 
exists, you can have an interval of time. You
are just talking about a clock. Clocks don't define the existence of time, they 
just measure it.
Just as a ruler measures distance. It doesn't create a spatial dimension.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Re: CONCEPTS OF TIME--

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Good to know some more physicists start to think about time. One of them 
cited I did know personally.


The real problem is the missing education in computation theory. I did 
spend 2 net years working on the theme, which the article tries to 
illuminate. I developed a new computer architecture that can deal with 
such problems and delivers fail safe proven results on wide area 
parallel machines.


A wide area parallel machine is exactly what physics is about. Each 
particle is a "program" that communicates with an other programs over a 
given finite set of messages. Physics defines these messages as 
equations what defines a set of of possible tokens = interactions - 
nothing else.


Now if you know the basic laws of communication theory then it is 
obvious = given that there is no global time. We only do have a partial 
order over communications. We can refine the order digit by digits until 
we meet the border-line of information stability in measurement.


The article is full of nonsense and classical bullshit knowledge like 
two Uranium-239 are equal but one decays earlier. SM knows nothing about 
particle structure except some basic Lego like partitions. All unstable 
nuclei contain a time like structure with a slightly different excess 
energy. Further who tells these guys all these nuclei did start at the 
same timestamp?


Also neither QM nor general relativity are fundamental models. This is a 
religious claim. QM just describes a small subset of the reality and 
general relativity fails for all *space filled with matter* as it cannot 
handle matter... As all other simplistic SM models GER just works for 
point masses in empty space. Any perturbation of "space-time" by mass 
producing an other space time cannot be handled without simplistic 
approximations.


If a point source emits two photons at an angle of 180 degrees then any 
measurement will show that the gap between the two increases with 2*c 
the speed of light. Thus we can easily measure relative speed > c. If 
these two photons enter a spherical orbit then they will return to the 
place of origin. This is the situation in SO(4) in much smaller space 
dimensions. According GER the photons should never interact again. Thus 
this just shows that the notion of an universal time in curved space is 
mathematical nonsense. Time is just the measurement interval or the 
frequency what ever you like more.


Most current physicists do have the wrong education to tackle the real 
basic problems of physics. Even worse theses physicists day for day 
repeat religious claims about models that luckily for us work well under 
some restricted conditions.


Current physics especially nuclear & particle physics is still on day 
one in playground of Kindergarden. These folks soon will have their 
mental corona event, when the have to notice that the perturbation of a 
proton at 10 TeV (CERN) is absolutely irrelevant for understanding 
today's real problems like aneutronic fusion in Holmlids case or LENR as 
we measure it - just to name two big ones.


J.W.


Am 10.04.20 um 22:42 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


The following link contains two or 3 differing concepts of time.

_https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-time-really-flow-new-clues-come-from-a-century-old-approach-to-math-20200407/_

The SO(4) physics model of nucleons is a model including a temporal 
time scale associated with a magnetic rotating flux at a specific 
frequency.  This “temporal time” reflects space parameters and the 
observed phenomena of  EM photon propagation in space controlled by 
those parameters , magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.


A good model for space and its “intrinsic” parameters is warranted IMHO.

Bob Cook



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

[Vo]:Re: Masks

[Frank Znidarsic]

I cant believe that they are willing to do this at $2 a mask.  Just like the 
girls who grew long hair for gun sites in WW2 todays women want to help but 
dont know how.


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 25, 2020 12:46 pm
Subject: Masks

I have started to work with some local ladies to make masks.  They are inspired 
by the ones on MASH.  They consist of 5 layers of cotton in a square that ties 
to around your face.  No claim of efficacy is made.  They are washable.
I will have some prototypes to show soon.  No money is being made and they are 
doing this at home and at cost.  I am dong this at a lose as I am trying to 
start some others up soon.
Frank Z

[Vo]:Re: some good news

[Frank Znidarsic]

here is the review.  In this field any news is good news.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/063_FT389.pdf

-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Mar 7, 2020 11:32 am
Subject: some good news

Your book on Energy, Cold Fusion and Antigravity had a short review in Fortean 
Times 389, February 2020.

[Vo]:Re: A good model makes accurate predictions

[Frank Znidarsic]

Here is what happened last year.  A coal truck hit a large power pole.  The 
high voltage line fell onto the low voltage system.   200 meters blew off of 
many houses.  The houses had to be reinspected before the power was returned.
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/meter.jpg

That the reason for the gas heater.


Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Re: A good model makes accurate predictions

[Frank Znidarsic]

I put the heater on the wall in the basement near the stair well.  It stinks 
while heating.


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Mar 4, 2020 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: A good model makes accurate predictions

Thanks Robin


It burns natural gas.  I have never lost gas.  The gas company has there own 
back up power for delivery.  I was worried about CO with a ventless heater.  
The newer models have low oxygen sensors to prevent CO emissions.
I bought the Dinaglow becuse it can be scaled back.  That way I can limit the 
CO to the minimum.  I did not need it at all this winter.  Last winter a truck 
hit a pole HV went into the low voltage system and we were without power for 
many hours.  I used my oven to supply some heat.  I guess that I have to much 
time on my hands since retirement.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Dyna-Glo-30-000-BTU-Natural-Gas-Infrared-Vent-Free-Wall-Heater/46796376?wmlspartner=wlpa=0=227035538282==g=c=96706241448=aud-430887228898:pla-134478545328=1024976==9006215==pla=8175035=online=46796376=sem=Cj0KCQiAwP3yBRCkARIsAABGiPrwBxqbg8gfbcQDBMAS2vIvwQpCIFoYaCgIboLmch7QiWpMvd40V_4aAiCpEALw_wcB


Frank Znidarsic

[Vo]:Re: A good model makes accurate predictions

[Frank Znidarsic]

Thanks Robin


It burns natural gas.  I have never lost gas.  The gas company has there own 
back up power for delivery.  I was worried about CO with a ventless heater.  
The newer models have low oxygen sensors to prevent CO emissions.
I bought the Dinaglow becuse it can be scaled back.  That way I can limit the 
CO to the minimum.  I did not need it at all this winter.  Last winter a truck 
hit a pole HV went into the low voltage system and we were without power for 
many hours.  I used my oven to supply some heat.  I guess that I have to much 
time on my hands since retirement.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Dyna-Glo-30-000-BTU-Natural-Gas-Infrared-Vent-Free-Wall-Heater/46796376?wmlspartner=wlpa=0=227035538282==g=c=96706241448=aud-430887228898:pla-134478545328=1024976==9006215==pla=8175035=online=46796376=sem=Cj0KCQiAwP3yBRCkARIsAABGiPrwBxqbg8gfbcQDBMAS2vIvwQpCIFoYaCgIboLmch7QiWpMvd40V_4aAiCpEALw_wcB


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Re: A good model makes accurate predictions

[mixent]

In reply to  Frank Znidarsic's message of Sun, 1 Mar 2020 17:25:15 + (UTC):
Hi Frank,
[snip]
>I put in a ventless heater that does not require electric power. 

What does it burn?
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Re: A good model makes accurate predictions

[Frank Znidarsic]

Thanks for that again Robin van Spaandonk.  Unfortunately nothing ever came out 
of it. 


I am getting ready.  I put in all LED light bulbs.  I have a self designed TV 
antenna that picks up 28 channels in the valley.  I am tapping in to a higher 
spring to supply back up and flush water.  Maybe it could also supply emergency 
refrigration/cooling.  I put in a ventless heater that does not require 
electric power.  I not sure what is going to happen next (other than being 
taxed to the extreme) but I will as ready as I can be.

Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Re: Give It Up for Randell

[mixent]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 9 Feb 2020 11:59:17 -0500:
Hi,

The COP however still leaves a little to be desired. I don't think they can use 
this for electricity generation just
yet. As an efficient heat source, yes.

>On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:54 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>> ...one more time!
>>
>>
>https://revolution-green.com/blp-4-24x-gain-yielding-295-71-kw-net-excess-power-validated-unc-phd-randy-booker/
>
>
>The poorly focused images remind me of UFO piccys!
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Re: Give It Up for Randell

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 11:54 AM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> ...one more time!
>
>
https://revolution-green.com/blp-4-24x-gain-yielding-295-71-kw-net-excess-power-validated-unc-phd-randy-booker/


The poorly focused images remind me of UFO piccys!

[Vo]:Re: got published but not for cold fusion or gravity research

[Frank Znidarsic]

I know that I have been off topic a bit.  But rest assured I am working on 
things.  Nothing happed as of yet, that's why I don't say anything about this 
effort.
Two years ago I played a Christmas song on my piano for you.  Last year a 
played a Christmas song on my 100 year old restored Radiola III and 15.  This 
year I presented a nice Christmas story from the local paper.  Things on the 
earth at this time are very good for us all.  I am gald we are working to make 
them better.  Sucess is getting closer.
merry chirstmas
Frank Znidarsic


-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Dec 14, 2019 10:38 am
Subject: got published but not for cold fusion or gravity research

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/temp/Tribune_Dec_13__2019.jpg

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Galileo’s craven refusal to support Copernican astronomy

[Jed Rothwell]

bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:


> The essay you provide highlights the effect of the “hard wired” instinct
> to be part of the HERD of people making up a society of economically driven
> humans and a FEELING it is good to be the most aggressive pecker in the
> flock, the top dog, the biggest ram or whatever.  The HERD  instinct is
>  probably more influential . . .
>

Well, you are mixing up some terms used in biology. The top dog is the
dominant member of a pack, not a herd. Humans, chimpanzees and other
primates are mainly pack animals, not herd animals. They are not lone
hunters. Human and chimpanzee behavior is mainly that of pack-hunter
predators, not herd animals, although our teeth and guts are better suited
to herbivores. We are omnivores, similar to North American bears.

(Human consumption of meat is a recent development. It probably came
sometime after the discovery of fire, because raw meat often makes us sick,
whereas chimpanzees eat it all the time. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human-ebook/dp/B0097D71MQ)

The reference I made to guppies is from research I participated in as an
undergraduate, observing guppy behavior when they were exposed to a new
area of the tank after an underwater door was opened. They explored the new
area.