Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[ROGER ANDERTON]

 >>black hole.
Crothers points out what mainstream says about black holes doesn't make sense:
Stephen Crothers on Black Hole`s

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Stephen Crothers on Black Hole`s
 Viva la Modern Physics, the monster keeps rolling  |   |

  |

  |

 

 

On Monday, 5 February 2018, 19:46, Eric Walker  
wrote:
 

 Hi Robin,
I've followed up on our question about photons having gravitational influence 
by reading up on some threads on PhysicsForums and posing a question of my own. 
 The conclusion that classical beams of light bend spacetime is a 
straightforward for mainstream physics; namely, they do.  (Do individual 
photons bend light?  Probably, but to be determined.)  How much does light bend 
gravity?  In an answer to my question about the annihilation photons and the 
black hole, assuming there is no firewall, one respected member of the forum 
appears to agree with me that they have the same affect on gravity as the 
masses of the electron and positron prior to entering the black hole.
We are left to wonder whether Mills in his boundless and admirable ambition has 
set out to revise not only quantum mechanics but general relativity as well.
Eric


My question about the black 
hole:https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electron-positron-annihilation-and-gravitation.938873/

Posts about photons, light and 
gravity:https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photon-gravity.349196/ 
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/light-and-mass.122636/https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-gravity-of-photons.381246/
 https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photons-and-gravity.494216/ 
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-gravitons-interact-with-photons.473684/


   

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

Hi Robin,

I've followed up on our question about photons having gravitational
influence by reading up on some threads on PhysicsForums and posing a
question of my own.  The conclusion that classical beams of light bend
spacetime is a straightforward for mainstream physics; namely, they do.
(Do individual photons bend light?  Probably, but to be determined.)  How
much does light bend gravity?  In an answer to my question about the
annihilation photons and the black hole, assuming there is no firewall, one
respected member of the forum appears to agree with me that they have the
same affect on gravity as the masses of the electron and positron prior to
entering the black hole.

We are left to wonder whether Mills in his boundless and admirable ambition
has set out to revise not only quantum mechanics but general relativity as
well.

Eric



My question about the black hole:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/electron-positron-annihilation-and-gravitation.938873/

Posts about photons, light and gravity:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photon-gravity.349196/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/light-and-mass.122636/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-gravity-of-photons.381246/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photons-and-gravity.494216/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-gravitons-interact-with-photons.473684/

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:56:35 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM,  wrote:
>
>When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to
>> be as
>> many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark
>> energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first
>> impression.
>>
>
>Your eyes do not see the radio, infrared or microwave backgrounds, nor the
>high-energy gamma rays that are present. :)

True, but the number of gamma/x rays is way fewer than the number of visible
light/heat photons, and the radio waves carry far less energy. Given that most
of the photons in the Universe come from stars, of which our Sun is reasonably
typical, we could expect most of the photons in the Universe to have a spectrum
roughly the same as that of our Sun. 

Another way to look at it is that if most of the photons come from stars, then
the total mass/energy of all photons can't exceed the total mass loss of all
stars over the life of the Universe, and since the mass loss of stars is due to
fusion reactions, and is only a fraction of the total mass of stars, the total
photon mass must be (much) less than the total baryonic mass of the Universe,
thus insufficient to account for dark matter/energy (which must exceed baryonic
matter by a large margin IIRC).
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:49 PM,  wrote:

When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to
> be as
> many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark
> energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first
> impression.
>

Your eyes do not see the radio, infrared or microwave backgrounds, nor the
high-energy gamma rays that are present. :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:42:29 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM,  wrote:
>
>So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational
>> mass,
>> or that particles never enter a black hole. :)
>>
>
>Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very
>delocalized way.  Would there be enough of this mass to account for the
>experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for
>dark matter?

When you look at the night sky, it is mostly black, so there don't seem to be as
many photons around as would be needed to account for dark matter (or dark
energy for that matter ;). Of course, I could be wrong, but that's my first
impression.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

Horrible spelling on my part:  how about "that have led astrophysicists...".

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM,  wrote:
>
> So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational
>> mass,
>> or that particles never enter a black hole. :)
>>
>
> Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very
> delocalized way.  Would there be enough of this mass to account for the
> experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for
> dark matter?
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:21 PM,  wrote:

So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational
> mass,
> or that particles never enter a black hole. :)
>

Suppose for the sake of argument that photons carry mass in a very
delocalized way.  Would there be enough of this mass to account for the
experimental observations that heave lead astrophysicists to search for
dark matter?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:44:50 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM,  wrote:
>
>2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the
>> gravity
>> well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in
>> the
>> process.)
>>
>
>I did not appreciate this point.  Let's go with your option (2) and assume
>that matter (e.g., electrons and positrons) can cross the event horizon and
>annihilate.  I believe this can be adjusted to happen on a timeline that is
>contemporaneous with our own by moving the electron and positron
>arbitrarily closer to one another prior to crossing the event horizon.  In
>this scenario, I am unsure how the photons will completely redshift in our
>own timeline, as this will be a gradual process which will presumably take
>an infinite amount of time to complete from our perspective.  

No, light travels at the speed of light, so if already outside the event
horizon, it escapes at the speed of light, however it gets red shifted leaving
the gravity well.
IOW it's not the speed that is affected, but the frequency.

>During that
>time they will not have fully been drained of energy (assuming this is a
>thing).

The draining of energy manifests as a frequency reduction. (Photon energy being
h*frequency.)
In escaping from very close to an event horizon, almost all frequency is lost (I
think).
>
>Here is where I start to get stumped.  I would imagine that unlike
>electromagnetic radiation, gravitational influence does not follow the
>(gravitationally warped) curvature of spacetime.  Otherwise we'd have the
>paradoxical situation of gravity bending in on itself because there is so
>much mass.  So I assume the resultant loss in gravitational attraction
>traveling outwards at the speed of light from where the electron and
>positron annihilated will escape the black hole within a period of time
>that we can observe it.

Because of the red shift of the photons, their mass energy is effectively
retained by the black hole, thus increasing it's gravitational field by the same
amount?

So now, you have either proven that photons do contribute to gravitational mass,
or that particles never enter a black hole. :)

Part of the problem may be that you don't state how the pair got close to the
event horizon in the first place. That makes matter/energy/gravity accounting
difficult.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 17:51:09 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM,  wrote:
>
>2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron
>> "escapes" -
>> don't ask me how that's supposed to happen.
>>
>
>I think we're thinking of different scenarios.  In the one I'm describing,
>the electron and positron both enter the black whole at around the same
>time and location and then annihilate on the other side of the horizon.  In
>other words, they travel together prior to annihilating.  It is the
>annihilation photons that escape (when the pair annihilate on the outside)
>or don't escape (when the pair annihilate on the inside).
>
>Eric
Yes, I was talking about the Hawking process, not your hypothetical. (See
comment at end of previous post).

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM,  wrote:

2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron
> "escapes" -
> don't ask me how that's supposed to happen.
>

I think we're thinking of different scenarios.  In the one I'm describing,
the electron and positron both enter the black whole at around the same
time and location and then annihilate on the other side of the horizon.  In
other words, they travel together prior to annihilating.  It is the
annihilation photons that escape (when the pair annihilate on the outside)
or don't escape (when the pair annihilate on the inside).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:26:02 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>To return to gist of the thought experiment:  it seems to me that there's 
>something funny about a black hole consuming an electron and a positron, 
>gaining in the process an additional 1.022 MeV of mass-energy and thereby 
>exerting additional gravitational pull on its surroundings, and then losing 
>1.022 MeV at a later point in (our) time should the two collide (according to 
>one school of thought about black holes), exerting afterwards less 
>gravitational pull on its surroundings, when nothing has escaped the black box 
>of the system.
>I will concede that this thought experiment will not be very interesting for 
>someone who believes that matter does not make it beyond the event horizon. :)

Even if you assume that I'm wrong, I fail to see an energy accounting problem.

1) An electron positron pair is created temporarily from nothing just outside
the event horizon.
2) The electron passes through the event horizon while the positron "escapes" -
don't ask me how that's supposed to happen.
3) To pay back the debt to the Heisenberg Bank, the mass of the black hole is
reduced, by 2 electron masses, but increases by 1 electron mass due to the
swallowed electron. Net, down 1 electron mass, which ends up as the mass of the
positron. Thus the mass of the black hole is reduced by the positron mass.
4) The positron annihilates an electron elsewhere converting its mass plus the
mass of the annihilated electron into two gammas of 511 keV each.
5) Net mass loss - 1 electron (real electron somewhere in space) + 1 positron
(mass lost by black hole).
6) Net energy gain 2 511 keV gammas.

(Note that I'm trying to describe Hawking's evaporation process here.)

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM,  wrote:

2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the
> gravity
> well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in
> the
> process.)
>

I did not appreciate this point.  Let's go with your option (2) and assume
that matter (e.g., electrons and positrons) can cross the event horizon and
annihilate.  I believe this can be adjusted to happen on a timeline that is
contemporaneous with our own by moving the electron and positron
arbitrarily closer to one another prior to crossing the event horizon.  In
this scenario, I am unsure how the photons will completely redshift in our
own timeline, as this will be a gradual process which will presumably take
an infinite amount of time to complete from our perspective.  During that
time they will not have fully been drained of energy (assuming this is a
thing).

Here is where I start to get stumped.  I would imagine that unlike
electromagnetic radiation, gravitational influence does not follow the
(gravitationally warped) curvature of spacetime.  Otherwise we'd have the
paradoxical situation of gravity bending in on itself because there is so
much mass.  So I assume the resultant loss in gravitational attraction
traveling outwards at the speed of light from where the electron and
positron annihilated will escape the black hole within a period of time
that we can observe it.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

Hi Robin,

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:12 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the
> head of a
> pin?". :)
>

My apologies for being argumentative. :)  You attempted to rule out the
electron-positron thought experiment on the basis of a claim about the
event horizon that has the status of a conjecture.  I will acknowledge that
black holes are not very friendly things to reason about in the context of
a thought experiment, and so it is not that insightful.


> E.g. It makes no difference whether or not there is drama at the event
> horizon,
> we won't detect it either way.
> 1) It wouldn't happen till infinitely far in our future.
>

I think we've established that this is one of several possibilities. :)


> 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the
> gravity
> well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in
> the
> process.)
>

To return to gist of the thought experiment:  it seems to me that there's
something funny about a black hole consuming an electron and a positron,
gaining in the process an additional 1.022 MeV of mass-energy and thereby
exerting additional gravitational pull on its surroundings, and then losing
1.022 MeV at a later point in (our) time should the two collide (according
to one school of thought about black holes), exerting afterwards less
gravitational pull on its surroundings, when nothing has escaped the black
box of the system.

I will concede that this thought experiment will not be very interesting
for someone who believes that matter does not make it beyond the event
horizon. :)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the head of a
pin?". :)
E.g. It makes no difference whether or not there is drama at the event horizon,
we won't detect it either way. 
1) It wouldn't happen till infinitely far in our future.
2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the gravity
well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in the
process.)


>On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM,  wrote:
>
>It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon
>> from
>> our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe
>> comes to
>> an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.)
>> (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing
>> in a
>> black hole.)
>>
>
>You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there
>are other possibilities [1]:
>
>The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself
>> arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be
>> emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information
>> about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In
>> 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic
>> assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent.
>
>
>Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted
>> the assumption of "no-drama"—meaning that nothing unusual should happen
>> when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that
>> the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would
>> indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a
>> "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather
>> surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon
>> of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold
>> and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon.
>
>
>The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be
>drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in
>contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over
>the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting
>happens.  I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event
>horizon.  But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything
>approaching it, it might need to lie *beyond* event horizon in order not to
>have observable effects:
>
>"If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by
>> it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says
>> Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University.
>
>
>So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and
>positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely
>suggestive but not conclusive.
>
>Eric
>
>
>[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 00:11:24 -0500:
Hi,
>Not true. Learn how Hawking's radiation works.
[snip]
Indeed, a direct consequence would be that Hawking radiation doesn't exist, and
consequently black holes do not radiate.

Note BTW that if it did exist, then some small black holes should be intense
sources of gamma radiation with a cutoff energy off 511 keV, while there is no
visible source. The source of the gammas would be positrons produced by the
black hole annihilating with electrons in normal space outside the black hole.
There is an equal chance that either half of a pair created near the event
horizon would be emitted, so half of the particles would be positrons.
The cutoff energy is a consequence of the gamma being red shifted as it escapes
the black hole gravity well. The maximum energy is produced when the positron
gets far away from  the black hole, before it annihilates.
The overall signature is a halo of gammas with ever less energy toward the
center.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest----black holes

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Eric and Robin---

Everything gets squeezed to the other side through a worm hole, the same way 
some energy leaks from the other side (the vacuum) to reality in the known 
universe—its simple as that.

The black hole is like a strong rubber balloon that deflates as more energy 
enters inside its membrane.  The positive curvature of space increases around 
the concentration of energy.  And at a critical point of curvature releases 
some of  the energy to anti- di Sitter space (the other side) with its negative 
curvature.

The  black hole poles are a little tricky since they produce an intense 
magnetic field depending upon the angular momentum that was accumulated inside 
their event horizon before the collapse happened.  IMHO the magnetic polar 
field couples to the “other side” and allows the transport of spin energy back 
and forth eith related angular momentum.

As Robin suggests, our existing reality sees the historic accumulation of mass 
(energy) and the extreme curvature of normal di Sitter space.

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 8:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, 
<mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>> wrote:

It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon from
our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe comes to
an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.)
(Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing in a
black hole.)

You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there are 
other possibilities [1]:

The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself 
arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be emitted 
from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information about the 
matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In 2012, a group of 
physicists studying this paradox found that three basic assumptions involved in 
this paradox cannot all be consistent.

Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted the 
assumption of "no-drama"—meaning that nothing unusual should happen when an 
object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that the most 
conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would indeed be 
"drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a "firewall" that would 
destroy an infalling object. This seems rather surprising, because the 
curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon of a sufficiently large 
black hole, where general relativity should hold and one would expect nothing 
special when crossing the horizon.

The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be 
drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in contradistinction 
to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over the point of no return, 
but otherwise nothing particularly interesting happens.  I.e., it is not 
certain that there is drama at the event horizon.  But even if there is a 
firewall that destroys everything approaching it, it might need to lie beyond 
event horizon in order not to have observable effects:

"If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by it, 
but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says Misao 
Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University.

So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and positron 
annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely suggestive but 
not conclusive.

Eric


[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM,  wrote:

It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon
> from
> our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe
> comes to
> an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.)
> (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing
> in a
> black hole.)
>

You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there
are other possibilities [1]:

The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself
> arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be
> emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information
> about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In
> 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic
> assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent.


Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted
> the assumption of "no-drama"—meaning that nothing unusual should happen
> when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that
> the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would
> indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a
> "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather
> surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon
> of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold
> and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon.


The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be
drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in
contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over
the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting
happens.  I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event
horizon.  But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything
approaching it, it might need to lie *beyond* event horizon in order not to
have observable effects:

"If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by
> it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says
> Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University.


So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and
positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely
suggestive but not conclusive.

Eric


[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Axil Axil]

Not true. Learn how Hawking's radiation works.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:02 AM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:41 -0700:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to
> >things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to
> >talk about its contents.
> >
> It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon
> from
> our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe
> comes to
> an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.)
> (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing
> in a
> black hole.)
> This also means that the growth in mass of a black hole must come from
> matter/energy accumulating in a tight orbit (just) outside the event
> horizon.
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:46:41 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to
>things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to
>talk about its contents.
>
It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon from
our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe comes to
an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.)
(Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing in a
black hole.)
This also means that the growth in mass of a black hole must come from
matter/energy accumulating in a tight orbit (just) outside the event horizon.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:10 PM,  wrote:

Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would never get
> to see
> what happens.
> Or, from the particles point of view, the rest of the universe has come to
> an
> end before they get together.
>

That was a question for me:  for us the electron-positron pair appear to be
frozen in time for us because light is bending back in on the black hole.
Does that mean that whatever happens inside the event horizon is never
contemporaneous with us?  My sense was that this is not the case, and that
it's just a trick of the light not escaping.

If we take the other option, then nothing in our timeline ever happens to
things that have crossed over the event horizon, and it is meaningless to
talk about its contents.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 1 Feb 2018 16:39:58 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time 
>as being normal.  Only outside viewers see time slow down.
>
>Dave
Indeed, but it still means that from our point of view we would never get to see
what happens.
Or, from the particles point of view, the rest of the universe has come to an
end before they get together.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

I believe that the theory is that those falling into the black hole see time as 
being normal.  Only outside viewers see time slow down.

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mix...@bigpond.com
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:19:50 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no
>return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not
>escape the black hole.  In this understanding, time slows down
>asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running
>(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon.
>
>To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the
>electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate.
>(Unless I'm mistaken.)

If time comes to standstill for them as they approach the event horizon, then
they never reach a point where they annihilate *inside* the black hole.
(Outside wouldn't be a problem).
>
>Eric
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:19:50 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no
>return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not
>escape the black hole.  In this understanding, time slows down
>asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running
>(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon.
>
>To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the
>electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate.
>(Unless I'm mistaken.)

If time comes to standstill for them as they approach the event horizon, then
they never reach a point where they annihilate *inside* the black hole.
(Outside wouldn't be a problem).
>
>Eric
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:45 PM,  wrote:

Another problem with this scenario is that time slows as the event horizon
> is
> approached, so nothing ever actually makes it into a black hole, at least
> nothing that wasn't there already when it formed. (Assuming that time
> actually
> stands still at the event horizon).
>

I was of the understanding that the event horizon is merely the point of no
return for light, where it begins to curve on a trajectory that does not
escape the black hole.  In this understanding, time slows down
asymptotically as objects approach the singularity, but it is still running
(albeit more slowly) at the event horizon.

To outside observers, time might seem to come to a standstill for the
electron and positron, but they would still have time to annihilate.
(Unless I'm mistaken.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:00:53 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Now let the electron and positron stray over the event
>horizon at time t=0 and annihilate at time t=1.  At t=0, the black hole now
>has M + 1.022 MeV mass.  At t=1, the black hole is back to its previous
>mass of M, even though an electron and positron have been added to it, and
>even though the annihilation photons have not escaped.
>
>One of the things that is bothering me about the second scenario is that
>there probably is no baryonic matter in the black hole to begin with, so it
>feels arbitrary to distinguish between the captured annihilation photons
>and whatever else is there.  (What if it's all photons?)
>
>Eric

Another problem with this scenario is that time slows as the event horizon is
approached, so nothing ever actually makes it into a black hole, at least
nothing that wasn't there already when it formed. (Assuming that time actually
stands still at the event horizon).

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:

This would be true if gravity was actually a force. If OTOH it is merely a
> distortion of spacetime, then as far as the photon is concerned it is just
> going
> "straight ahead". IOW it just follows the shape of the space it is
> traversing.
>

Another thought experiment for anyone bothered by the assumption of a loss
of gravitational attraction in the conversion of matter/antimatter into
photons:

You have an electron-positron pair that annihilate in two different
scenarios, creating 511 keV annihilation photons.  In the first scenario,
they are attracted towards a black hole and annihilate outside of the event
horizon.  The boundary that includes the black hole and the pair of
escaping photons now has less mass and hence less gravitational pull (by
assumption).  Now let the electron and positron stray over the event
horizon at time t=0 and annihilate at time t=1.  At t=0, the black hole now
has M + 1.022 MeV mass.  At t=1, the black hole is back to its previous
mass of M, even though an electron and positron have been added to it, and
even though the annihilation photons have not escaped.

One of the things that is bothering me about the second scenario is that
there probably is no baryonic matter in the black hole to begin with, so it
feels arbitrary to distinguish between the captured annihilation photons
and whatever else is there.  (What if it's all photons?)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 13:26:56 -0700:
Hi Eric,
[snip]
>On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM,  wrote:
>
>.. go right ahead. :)
>>
>
>It will take a while.  :)  But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat
>analogy with a more apt one.  One description of gravitational attraction
>is that of a mutual attraction between two bodies with mass.  It is similar
>in that regard to magnetism or Coulomb attraction. Place a magnet on a
>table and a piece of ferromagnetic metal near to it, and they will both
>slide towards one another if their masses are on the same order. (If the
>masses are not on the same order, this will still happen but just not be
>readily perceived.)
>
>The situation of a photon being attracted to a massive object without the
>massive object being attracted (pulled) in the direction of the photon is
>like that of a magnet that pulls on a ferromagnetic object without the
>object pulling the magnet towards it as well.  The magnet would stay in
>place on the table, undisturbed, while only the ferromagnetic object slides
>towards the magnet.
>
>Eric

This would be true if gravity was actually a force. If OTOH it is merely a
distortion of spacetime, then as far as the photon is concerned it is just going
"straight ahead". IOW it just follows the shape of the space it is traversing.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:08 PM,  wrote:

.. go right ahead. :)
>

It will take a while.  :)  But in the meantime I'll replace the rowboat
analogy with a more apt one.  One description of gravitational attraction
is that of a mutual attraction between two bodies with mass.  It is similar
in that regard to magnetism or Coulomb attraction. Place a magnet on a
table and a piece of ferromagnetic metal near to it, and they will both
slide towards one another if their masses are on the same order. (If the
masses are not on the same order, this will still happen but just not be
readily perceived.)

The situation of a photon being attracted to a massive object without the
massive object being attracted (pulled) in the direction of the photon is
like that of a magnet that pulls on a ferromagnetic object without the
object pulling the magnet towards it as well.  The magnet would stay in
place on the table, undisturbed, while only the ferromagnetic object slides
towards the magnet.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 12:39:48 -0700:
Hi Eric,
[snip]
>On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM,  wrote:
>
>...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space.
>>
>
>The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets in the way
>of understanding in this instance.  It is equivalent to the gravitational
>influence of two or more bodies on one another.  Having a massive body be
>able to tug on a photon, while the photon does not tug on the massive body
>in the opposite direction, reminds me vaguely of a description of a rowboat
>with oars, where the rower is somehow able to use the oars to push the boat
>forward, while the water is not pushed in the opposite direction.
>
>I suspect that if one ponders the suggestion of light not having
>"gravitational mass" long enough, it should be possible to come up with an
>experiment that will demonstrate a violation of conservation of momentum.

.. go right ahead. :)

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM,  wrote:

...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space.
>

The curvature of spacetime is perhaps an abstraction that gets in the way
of understanding in this instance.  It is equivalent to the gravitational
influence of two or more bodies on one another.  Having a massive body be
able to tug on a photon, while the photon does not tug on the massive body
in the opposite direction, reminds me vaguely of a description of a rowboat
with oars, where the rower is somehow able to use the oars to push the boat
forward, while the water is not pushed in the opposite direction.

I suspect that if one ponders the suggestion of light not having
"gravitational mass" long enough, it should be possible to come up with an
experiment that will demonstrate a violation of conservation of momentum.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:26:56 -0700:
Hi,
>On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM,  wrote:
>
>Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the
>> universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass.
>
>
>Note that this sets up the weird situation of photons being influenced by
>gravity (e.g., gravitational lensing, the Schwarzschild radius of a black
>hole), but not having a reciprocal influence in return.

...which would make sense if light simply followed the curvature of space.

>
>Eric
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 3:58 PM,  wrote:

Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the
> universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass.


Note that this sets up the weird situation of photons being influenced by
gravity (e.g., gravitational lensing, the Schwarzschild radius of a black
hole), but not having a reciprocal influence in return.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:26:18
+:
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin—
>
>This is the first time I have heard that Mills (or anyone else) thinks mass 
>changed  into energy causes the Universe’s expansion.   In General Relativity 
>it would be like changing the space from a positive curvature to a negative 
>curvature (I think) at all points—that would explain the observed increase of 
>the rate of expansion.

Predicted by Mills. (BTW I think it's actually just a reduction in the positive
curvature. Quote:"Cosmology
Below: The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the
universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. The
acceleration of the expansion of the presently observed universe was predicted
by Mills in 1995 and has since been confirmed experimentally. Mills predicts
that the universe expands and contracts over thousand-billion year cycles.")
- see http://brilliantlightpower.com/cosmology/
[snip]
>ROBIN, do you have a Mill’s reference to this claim?  

See the gravity chapter of his book, online at
http://brilliantlightpower.com/book/
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Robin—

This is the first time I have heard that Mills (or anyone else) thinks mass 
changed  into energy causes the Universe’s expansion.   In General Relativity 
it would be like changing the space from a positive curvature to a negative 
curvature (I think) at all points—that would explain the observed increase of 
the rate of expansion.  The following  WIKIPEDIA item  addresses this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space

ROBIN, do you have a Mill’s reference to this claim?  It may be of interest to 
the massification and demassification ideas  Hatt, Meulenberg and others hav  
theorized.

I consider that Hatt’s interest in the reasons for differences in magnetic 
moments of the neutron, proton and alpha particles is well founded.  The answer 
 may be related to the space/time/…)maybe spin)  fabric of the Universe with 
these independent parameters, which are sensed by the entire fabric like it is 
a  coherent QM system.

The following link  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-de_Sitter_space  
suggests an increase of negative curvature of anti-de Sitter space.

The 1977 report of anomolus magnetic moment of suerpositronium;
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.16.161
by A. O. Barut and Kraus may add additional understand to the magnetic moments 
of non-primary particles.

Barut has written more since the 1977 paper.  From his book, WHAT ARE THE TRUE 
BUILDING BLOCKS OF MATTER  he writes the following:

“As What is new, however, is the recognition that magnetic forces between the 
stable particles, when treated non-perturbatively, become very strong at short 
distances (short ranged), provide a deep enough well to give rise to high mass 
narrow resonances, have saturation property and give rise, by magnetic pairing, 
to the compensation of the large magnetic moment of the electron. In the 
construction of atoms and molecules we make use only of the electric (Coulomb) 
part of the electromagnetic forces and treat magnetic forces as small 
perturbations. There is, however, another regime of energies and distances in 
which magnetic forces play the dominant role and the electric forces are small 
perturbations. We shall show this duality with explicit calculations. It would 
have been strange if Nature provided magnetic forces just to be tiny 
corrections to the building principle of atoms and molecules (which could exist 
without them) and not to play an equally important role in the structure of 
matter. Clearly, a model of this type also automatically provides a dynamical 
theory of nuclear forces.”
 I recall, Hatt’s predictions of magnetic moments for protons, neutrons and  
muons are available to many significant figures—way beyond the range of current 
data—and thus provide good prediction for theory confirmation.  He may be able 
to address the superpositroniun  issue as well.

Bob Cook

From: mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

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

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

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

In reply to  Dave Roberson's message of Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:20:29 -0500:
Hi David,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>I guess I do not understand how many far away objects would get information 
>about the conversion that takes place.  

...through a lessening of the gravitational field of the Universe? (probably
spreading out at light speed?)

>If the mass equivalent remains the same and its center also is conserved then 
>what is different?  

As I understand it, gravity is caused by curvature of space associated with
particles. Once the particles are converted to photons, they no longer curve
space in the same way, hence gravity changes. Note:- I may have misunderstood
Mills on this, so please refer to the relevant chapter of his book for a better
understanding.


>Of course the photons would interact differently than the two particles but 
>that effect would be localized I think.
>
>Does Mills suspect that the gravitational mass is different between photons 
>and electrons of the same energy?

Yes, AFAIK.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Philippe Hatt]

a Ruoho’s thanks for identifying Ruby’s interview with Muelenberg. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> His latest papers in Jed’s library of LENR papers are very excellent IMHO 
>>> regarding LENR theory.  There is still some hand waving and some new terms 
>>> that make them hard for me to follow. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy 
>>> in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals 
>>> (lattices of atoms).
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I would like to see Meulenberg address Philippe Hatt’s theory of 
>>> massification with it’s predictions of proton and neutron mass, charge and 
>>> magnetic moments.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Philippe may have something to say about the following paper by Barut and 
>>> Kraus from 1975, referenced by one of Meulenberg’s papers ; J. Condensed 
>>> Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) 230–235
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> A.O.BarutandJ.Kraus,Resonancesine+–e–systemduetoanomalousmagneticmomentinteractions,Phys.Lett.B59(2)
>>>  (1975) 27.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The following paper is also relevant IMHO:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Bob Cook
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Esa Ruoho
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/  (and on iTunes 
>>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 )
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC 
>>> will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area 
>>> of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges 
>>> ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean 
>>> energy technology. 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI 
>>> International, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there 
>>> continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in 
>>> LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is 
>>> currently consulting with international research groups. 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR 
>>> theoretician. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy 
>>> Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an 
>>> independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper 
>>> Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab). 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once some guy in Finland finishes 
>>> editing them.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ruby interviews Andrew  Meulenberg.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any other, 
>>> whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else -  and AM 
>>> seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – perhaps based 
>>> in India. Let’s hope it is real.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
>>> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
>>> 
>>> +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage 
>>> esaru...@gmail.com //
>>> 
>>> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // 
>>> http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
>>> 
> 

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Robin,

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

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

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

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

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

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Esa Ruoho]

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

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

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


On 25 January 2018 at 21:20,  wrote:

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


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

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[mixent]

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

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

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

Philippe,

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

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

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

Dave  

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

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

Philippe 


Envoyé de mon iPadp

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

Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> a écrit :
Dear Philippe

Thanks for Your information. 

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

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

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Philippe Hatt]

Dave,

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

Philippe 


Envoyé de mon iPadp

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

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Dave Roberson]

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

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

Dear Jürg,

Thank you for your answer.

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

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

See you soon in Paris,

Philippe


Envoyé de mon iPadp

Le 24 janv. 2018 à 16:18, Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch> a écrit :
Dear Philippe

Thanks for Your information. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I would like to remind everybody: To explain LENR we, at the end, need a 
formula which allows to calculate the stimulation fields needed, what includes 
their strength, topology, and most likely their frequency. (The same holds for 
the LENR energy releasing phase...) With

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Philippe Hatt]

emassification 
>> of neutrons AND protons .It will be ready for the conference in June at Fort 
>> Collins .
>> 
>> Thank you for your attention ,
>> 
>> See you hoping lay soon,
>> 
>> Philippe 
>> 
>> 
>> Envoyé de mon iPadp
>> 
>> Le 22 janv. 2018 à 21:36, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
>> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>> 
>>> Jones—
>>>  
>>> I echo Esa Ruoho’s thanks for identifying Ruby’s interview with Muelenberg. 
>>>  
>>> His latest papers in Jed’s library of LENR papers are very excellent IMHO 
>>> regarding LENR theory.  There is still some hand waving and some new terms 
>>> that make them hard for me to follow. 
>>>  
>>> Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy 
>>> in nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals 
>>> (lattices of atoms).
>>>  
>>> I would like to see Meulenberg address Philippe Hatt’s theory of 
>>> massification with it’s predictions of proton and neutron mass, charge and 
>>> magnetic moments.
>>>  
>>> Philippe may have something to say about the following paper by Barut and 
>>> Kraus from 1975, referenced by one of Meulenberg’s papers ; J. Condensed 
>>> Matter Nucl. Sci. 24 (2017) 230–235
>>>  
>>> A.O.BarutandJ.Kraus,Resonancesine+–e–systemduetoanomalousmagneticmomentinteractions,Phys.Lett.B59(2)
>>>  (1975) 27.
>>>  
>>> The following paper is also relevant IMHO:
>>>  
>>> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045
>>>  
>>> Bob Cook
>>>  
>>> From: Esa Ruoho
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM
>>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest
>>>  
>>> Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this.
>>>  
>>> There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/  (and on iTunes 
>>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 )
>>>  
>>> e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC 
>>> will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area 
>>> of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges 
>>> ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean 
>>> energy technology. 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/
>>>  
>>> e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI 
>>> International, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there 
>>> continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in 
>>> LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is 
>>> currently consulting with international research groups. 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/
>>>  
>>> e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR 
>>> theoretician. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy 
>>> Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an 
>>> independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper 
>>> Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab). 
>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/
>>>  
>>>  
>>> There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once some guy in Finland finishes 
>>> editing them.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>> http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3
>>>  
>>> Ruby interviews Andrew  Meulenberg.
>>>  
>>> I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any other, 
>>> whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else -  and AM 
>>> seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – perhaps based 
>>> in India. Let’s hope it is real.
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> --
>>> http://linkedin.com/in/esaruoho // http://twitter.com/esaruoho // 
>>> http://lackluster.bandcamp.com //
>>> +358403703659 // http://lackluster.org // skype:esajuhaniruoho // iMessage 
>>> esaru...@gmail.com //
>>> http://esaruoho.tumblr.com // http://deposit4se.tumblr.com // 
>>> http://facebook.com/LacklusterOfficial //
> 
> -- 
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06

RE: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

I echo Esa Ruoho’s thanks for identifying Ruby’s interview with Muelenberg.

His latest papers in Jed’s library of LENR papers are very excellent IMHO 
regarding LENR theory.  There is still some hand waving and some new terms that 
make them hard for me to follow.

Meulenberg starts to look at spin energy and mechanisms linking this energy in 
nucleons to the orbital spin energy of atoms, molecules and crystals (lattices 
of atoms).

I would like to see Meulenberg address Philippe Hatt’s theory of massification 
with it’s predictions of proton and neutron mass, charge and magnetic moments.

Philippe may have something to say about the following paper by Barut and Kraus 
from 1975, referenced by one of Meulenberg’s papers ; J. Condensed Matter Nucl. 
Sci. 24 (2017) 230–235

A.O.BarutandJ.Kraus,Resonancesine+–e–systemduetoanomalousmagneticmomentinteractions,Phys.Lett.B59(2)
 (1975) 27.

The following paper is also relevant IMHO:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/063045

Bob Cook

From: Esa Ruoho<mailto:esaru...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this.

There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at 
http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/  (and on iTunes 
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 )

e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC will 
be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area of 
condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges ahead and 
yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean energy technology. 
http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/

e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI 
International, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there continues 
an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in LENR/cold fusion. He 
semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is currently consulting with 
international research groups. 
http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/

e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR theoretician. 
He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy Nuclear Physics and 
spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an independent consultant. He was 
also a Principle Scientist at Draper Laboratories (previously MIT 
Instrumentation Lab). 
http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/


There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once some guy in Finland finishes 
editing them.



On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene 
<jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:


http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3

Ruby interviews Andrew  Meulenberg.

I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any other, 
whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else -  and AM 
seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works – perhaps based in 
India. Let’s hope it is real.




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

Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Esa Ruoho]

Hi Jones and thanks for posting about this.

There are three episodes of the Cold Fusion Now! Podcast available at
http://coldfusionnow.org/cfnpodcast/  (and on iTunes
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cold-fusion-now/id1330114781 )

*e001 Dr. David J. Nagel of George Washington University in Washington, DC*
will be talking about The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, an area
of condensed matter nuclear science that has major scientific challenges
ahead and yet holds a very real promise of a practical new ultra-clean
energy technology.
http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-david-j-nagel/

*e002 Dr. Michael McKubre, former Director of Energy Research at SRI
International*, previously Stanford Research Institute – where there
continues an almost-thirty-years program of experimental research in
LENR/cold fusion. He semi-retired to New Zealand in March 2016 and is
currently consulting with international research groups.
http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-dr-michael-mckubre/

*e003 Dr. Andrew Meulenberg is an experimental physicist and LENR
theoretician*. He earned a PhD from Vanderbilt University in low-energy
Nuclear Physics and spent 37 years in the aerospace industry as an
independent consultant. He was also a Principle Scientist at Draper
Laboratories (previously MIT Instrumentation Lab).
http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-fusion-now-podcast-with-andrew-meulenberg/


There's a fourth, fifth and sixth one, once *some guy* in Finland finishes
editing them.



On 21 January 2018 at 03:49, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> http://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-Andrew-
> Meulenberg-Cold-Fusion-Now-003.mp3
>
>
>
> Ruby interviews Andrew  Meulenberg.
>
>
>
> I like the deep electron theory and its variations far more than any
> other, whether it comes from Holmlid, Mills, Meulenberg, or someone else -
>  and AM seems to hint at a successful project which is in the works –
> perhaps based in India. Let’s hope it is real.
>
>
>



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