Re: [Vo]:Podcast of interest

[Philippe Hatt]

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for contacting me again and thank you to Bob Cook for having helped.

As I told you I think that there are a lot of convergences in our thinking .I 
appreciate your point of view seeking for new ways on basis of pertinent 
knowledges which are not challenged by the scientific community .This is a 
thorough scientific process .

I came to same conclusions as you on the functioning of the nucleon through 
different ways .I considered the neutron and the proton ,as well as the alpha 
particle .These three 
particles have interesting particularities .The neutron has a abnormal dipolar 
magnetic moment ,as well as the proton and the alpha particle .The neutron 
decays into proton with a slight loss of mass and big modification of its 
dipolar magnetic moment .The alpha particle has a loss of mass much more 
important than the proton and no dipolar magnetic moment.

For me it is a sign that there are unknown processes at the heart of these 
particles .Indeed ,there are (partial) explanations of these anomalies .I was 
not satisfied with them and found worth to look at deeper explanations 
,especially because three fundamental 
interactions are at stake :electromagnetism ,weak and strong nuclear forces.

I first looked at the alpha particle because only one interaction ,the strong 
nuclear force is at stake ,it's dipolar magnetic moment being null ,probably 
neutralized by the interactions between the four nucleons which compose the 
alpha particle.I could easily 
quantize the loss of mass of alpha particle as you can see on my website : 
www.philippehatt.com

I compared these losses to the mass of neutron and proton and deduced a 
structure of the neutron and the proton which is shown on my blog.What about 
the validity of that structure ? It is only based on coincidences ,I agree 
.Nevertheless several coincidences 
could lead to give more solidity to a theory .And there are a lot of 
correlations you could discover on my blog.

I come now to your problem :the deep orbital electron .If you look at the 
structure displayed on my blog you notice that there are three parts :the trunk 
of 1800 electron masses ,the 71 /2 electron masses and the other little masses 
.Actually ,what concerns the electrons ,we see that the structure is : 
18+1800+18in alternatively with 

18+1800+17
In other terms every second time an electron is lacking in the neutron .When 
introduced 
it stays at another place than the other electrons and disturbs the structure 
of the neutron so as to create the proton.Moreover ,trying to take its "normal" 
place has as consequence that another electron is ejected from the core which 
has always 71/2 electron masses .This sort of "yo yo "process explains why the 
electron is falling on the proton,the two opposite charges being annihilated 
.As the stability of the whole requires 
71/2 electrons + one orbiting ,another electron is taking the place of the 
former one on the orbit .So there is not one electron orbiting at high 
relativistic speed around the proton .There are many electrons ,one at each 
quantized instant ,which do not move around the proton but have a translated 
movement from proton to "orbit "and again to proton.This explains the holes in 
the "orbit "and the fact that the  "speed " of electron is not measurable at 
the same time than its position .When the electron is on its position it has no 
speed.Indeed ,a vary classical explanation .More explanation is on my blog.

We can also conclude that the proton is neutralized at each quantized instant 
and taking again the stable state of proton + electron at the following 
quantized instant .This has consequence on LENR.

Happy to discuss,

Philippe 


Envoyé de mon iPadp

> Le 25 janv. 2018 à 18:42, Andrew Meulenberg  a écrit :
> 
> Dear Philippe,
> 
> The reason that I enjoyed our extended conversation so much was that we had 
> come to much the same views, but from somewhat different directions. We still 
> have differences; but, I certainly see room for convergence (and learning in 
> the process).
> 
> Comments below.
> _ _ 
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Philippe Hatt  wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Bob,
>> 
>> Thank you for your support ,again.I would also see Andrew Meulenberg address 
>> my theory on massification /demassification.
>> I met him in Sendai ,together with Jean-Luc  Paillet .We had a very 
>> interesting evening conversation .I saw immediately that their deep orbit 
>> theory had a tremendous interest (as well as Mill's and Jacques Dufour 's 
>> ones).The problem is that the deep orbit theory is considered by the 
>> majority of physicists as being in contradiction with the quantum mechanic( 
>> problem of ground state of proton).For me ,this apparent  contradiction can 
>> be solved in the following way .The proton has not only one electron moving 
>> around it ,but one at each 

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

[Russ]

In the world aptly described where, science progresses funeral by funeral,
this was an observation about the naysayers, not the innovators. The rare
innovator and their innovations are lost funeral by funeral and there is no
tally of the numbers and importance of the losses inflicted upon this world
by the countless pissant not puissant naysayers. The baby boom generation
educational system history will show became little more than pimped
professorial puppy mills. There parents could purchase for their offspring
yet another most expensive and pretentious 'sticker' and the world became
overwhelmed with lost science puppies. The puppies with no outlet for said
training have in most cases moved on to normal lives. Sadly more than a few
have become armchair cranks, malcontents, critics - collectively trolls. The
internet has proven to be an almost perfect puddle for said failing foolish
puppies to troll, splash, and piddle in. On top of this anonymous posting,
the perfect prescription for 'anti-social media' has removed the last
semblance of humanity in science as the plentiful puppies proceed into
prognosticating grumpy old dogs fouling the pathways of science that no one
cleans up after. What separates real scientists from the puppies is time out
of the armchair at the lab bench, and NO, 'theory' is not synonymous with
experiment. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:10 AM
To: ROGER ANDERTON ; vortex-l@eskimo.com;
c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

 

Roger-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

>From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the establishment's "science
community."  The Corporate, University, Government Complex, driven by
financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  Institution.

 Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this nightmare IMHO as
Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government funding/research
grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the production of real
data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural laws or nature.

 

Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:

 

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

 

I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing the saving grace
afforded by the likes of Mills, 

Rossi and others around the world to exist and function on meager funding,
producing real controlled excess heat via LENR without understanding the
detailed science or fundamental natural laws.  The control/power hungry
"science community" will eat crow in my optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 


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

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

[Alain Sepeda]

For me the most shocking case is about Semmelweis and before him Alexander
Gordon de Aberdeen.

http://www.antimicrobe.org/h04c.files/history/Lancet%20ID-Alexander%20Gordon%20puerperal%20sepsis%20and%20modern%20theories%20of%20infection%20control%20Semmelweis%20in%20perspective.pdf

The most shocking is that the illiterate poor mothers wer totally aware of
the statistics and prefered to give birth on the street front to the
hospital not to be helped by doctors who regularly were infecting them.
The doctors were deluded sincerely since for example one doctor suicided
after exchange with Semmelweis when he understood he killed a cousin.

Motivated beliefs are not conscious computations, but looks very sincere,
yet it is a motavated self blinding.
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/REP_4_BW_nolinks_corrected%201.pdf


The worst motivation are not money (in fact money should help as real
innovations and discovery can be expected to give money and fame to the
discoverer), but laziness, ego, fear of change, ideology...It is not far
from the Innovation Dilemna...




2018-01-26 2:53 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> A follow-up posting by me:
>
> Cold fusion is not unique. There are many, many examples of previous
> claims that were rejected even though the proof was rock solid, and there
> was no reason to doubt the claims. Lasers, the MRI and h. pylori are good
> examples. I have studied much of this history, digging up old books and
> contemporaneous original sources. People don't like to talk about these
> events so you seldom see them in history textbooks.
>
> I think there are many causes. As I said, it is human nature. Another
> major contributing factor is money. M-o-n-e-y, especially research funding.
> The locus of opposition to cold fusion has been the hot fusion program
> researchers, for obvious reasons. You see this in other institutions. The
> coal industry is fighting tooth and nail against natural gas and wind
> power. The congressman from Big Coal (WV) tried to pass a law banning the
> use of wind turbines, ostensibly because they kill birds. That's ridiculous
> for many reasons, not least because coal kills orders of magnitude more
> birds than wind per megawatt-hour, not to mention 20,000 Americans per year.
>
> The extent of opposition, and the irrationality of it, is surprising. You
> have to read original sources to get a sense of it. Take early aviation.
> Before 1908, practically no one believed that airplanes are real. The
> Scientific American printed vicious, irrational, unscientific attacks
> against claims, and the Wright brothers -- very similar to their attacks
> against cold fusion. (The Sci. Am. still has it in for the Wrights,
> repeating their nonsense attacks as recently as 2003.) In 1908 the Wrights
> demonstrated in France and in Washington DC and become famous overnight.
> They were on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Hundreds of thousands
> of people saw them fly over the next several months. They were given awards
> by every country including a gold medal issued by Congress in 1909.
> Starting in 1909 there were air races with 10 or 20 pilots competing.
>
> So, you would think the controversy would end, wouldn't you? Nope. I have
> newspaper accounts and books describing events as late as 1912, where, for
> example, a person showed up with an airplane packed into railroad shipping
> containers in a Midwestern city, and advertised he would demonstrate
> flights before a paying crowd. He was arrested for fraud. The citizens
> threatened to tar and feather him because "everyone knows people can't
> fly." They sheriff told the pilot to get out of town in the dead of night.
> Apparently the citizens of that city thought the national press coverage
> was, in modern parlance, "fake news." They did not trust those big city
> newspapers.
>
> You see similar disbelief and opposition to things like self-driving cars
> today. There are many unfounded and hysterical claims about them. Someone
> in the comment section at the N. Y. Times said that a terrorist might use a
> self-driving car to drive on the sidewalk and mow down pedestrians, and it
> would not be the terrorist's fault because the robot is in charge.
> Obviously, the cars are programmed not to leave the road or run down
> anyone! Another letter claimed that thousands of self-driving cars on the
> New Jersey Turnpike might suddenly to exit to the island Service Centers.
> The letter writer seemed to think they might pile on top of one-another in
> a gigantic demolition derby, trying to occupy the same parking spaces.
> Again, obviously, a robot car that can drive in traffic would not try to
> park in a spot that was already taken. Such objections resemble one of the
> main objections made by scientists circa 1908 who did not believe airplanes
> were possible: "even if you can fly, there is no way to slow down and land
> safely." These people apparently never watched a pigeon turn up its 

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

[Brian Ahern]

I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation.

1.No radiation accompanied the He-4

2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours

3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm

4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !

5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.

6. no background calibrations were attempted leaving an open question.

7. the work was done in 1993 and never corroborated


This evidence was well intentioned, but very far from bullet proof.


A simpler explanation is that the excess energy was that described by Gerald 
Pollack in: The fourth phase of water. That avoids the need to explain the lack 
of radiation. Water can store energy absorbed by background infrared radiation.

The LENR community does not recognize that the excess power outputs are at the 
milliwatt level.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 5:48 PM
To: Vortex; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

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

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

With some example such as:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:

>

> 1.No radiation accompanied the He-4
>

Yes, that is true of all cold fusion experiments. If there were radiation,
it would not be cold fusion.



> 2. The excess energy was about 100 milliwattsWatts for several hours
>

The peak was around 500 mW.


3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>

Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
would be far above the amounts Miles measured.



> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>

As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.


5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.
>

No, it was measured repeatedly, over the course of a few years.



> 6. no background calibrations were attempted leaving an open question.
>

That is incorrect. Background calibrations were done with samples of air
and samples from flasks not subject to electrolysis. All samples were
evaluated by three different labs in blind tests (single blind).



> 7. the work was done in 1993 and never corroborated
>

Because the Navy fired Miles for publishing the results.



> This evidence was well intentioned, but very far from bullet proof.
>

I think it is more bulletproof than you realize.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>>
>
> Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
> would be far above the amounts Miles measured.
>
>
>
>> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>>
>
> As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.
>


A leak would also produce completely random results uncorrelated with the
excess energy.


See Abd's analysis of this experiment, and mine:

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf

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

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

[JonesBeene]

From: Brian Ahern
> I would like to put some perspective on the Mel Miles presentation.
1. No radiation accompanied the He-4… [snip]… A simpler explanation is that the 
excess energy was that described by Gerald Pollack in: The fourth phase of 
water. That avoids the need to explain the lack of radiation. Water can store 
energy absorbed by background infrared radiation.
Brian, the Pollack explanation might well apply to the Graneau water explosions 
and similar experiments but cannot explain the 6 months of multi-watt  gain of 
P in France or why the helium disappears when protium is used instead of 
deuterium. 

However, “deep electron levels” in one form or another  (in a composite 
theoretical version of Holmlid/Mills/Meulenberg/Lawandy etc) can elegantly 
explain almost  everything in LENR and beyond. 

Slightly off point, let me segue to a letter-to-the-editor from Ron Bourgoin 
which appears  in  IE# 135 and which expresses a thought on the deep electron 
theory which is important to explain Holmlid.

Side note: Unfortunately, Ron Bourgoin passed away recently. He was a physicist 
and expert in HTSC with several inventions in the field.

Revisiting the Segré-Chamberlain Experiment

The Segré-Chamberlain experiment in the fall of 1955 shot
antiprotons into stationary protons. The experiment produced
collision fragments that were thought at the time to
be annihilation products, but based on the article by
William L. Stubbs in IE #129, the proton consists of nine
muons, which means that what Emilio Segré and Owen
Chamberlain observed in 1955 were constituents of the proton,
not annihilation events. The experiment indicates the
inherent instability of the proton….

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

[H LV]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>>
>
> 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>>
>
> Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
> would be far above the amounts Miles measured.
>
>

What was the concentration of He-4 before the start of experiment?​



>
>
>> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>>
>
> As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.
>
>
> 5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.
>>
>
> No, it was measured repeatedly, over the course of a few years.
>
>
>
​Harry​

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

[H LV]

I mean what was the concentration of He-4 in the vessel before the start of
the experiment?

Harry

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:42 PM, H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 3. The background He-4 was ~ 5pm
>>>
>>
>> Yes. That is actually a strength. It is so low that anything like a leak
>> would be far above the amounts Miles measured.
>>
>>
>
> What was the concentration of He-4 before the start of experiment?​
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 4. The measured He-4 was only 5 ppB !
>>>
>>
>> As I said, a leak would be hundreds of times higher.
>>
>>
>> 5. The diffusion rates of He-4 through the walls was simply dismissed.
>>>
>>
>> No, it was measured repeatedly, over the course of a few years.
>>
>>
>>
> ​Harry​
>

[Vo]:France shutting down last coal and oil generators by 2021

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

https://www.hubs.com/explore/ec/F3017B1A-81EE-4533-9B8D-12641E08B65D

Only 7.5% of electricity in France comes from fossil fuel, so this is not
so difficult for them:

https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/

I expect they can install enough solar and wind to make up for it by 2021.
I am sure they could install enough natural gas generators.

In the U.S. and China, coal consumption is way down. Coal is back to level
it was in 1980, 15 quads, after peaking around 22 quads in 2009. It is
still falling rapidly. See:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33712#

You can see the exact numbers by moving the cursor on the lines on this
graph. For 2016, it shows coal at 14.2 quads, versus 10.1 quads for
renewables (including hydroelectricity, which I believe they convert with
some kind of fudge factor).

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T01.03#/?f=A=1949=2016=1-2-3-5-12

You can change the display data categories, range of dates, and type of
graph here to show all kinds of nifty stuff.

- Jed

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]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Bob
Thanks for agreeing.
I also think there is conflict between what bureaucrats want and what 
experimenters want. 

Experimenters want to do an experiment and get new results and then have the 
theory changed.

But  bureaucrats want is to keep things the same and not change things; i.e. 
they don't want the theory to change, they want the existing theory to be dogma.
see: 
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadrant | 
HighBeam Research

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
|   |  
Bureaucrats versus Science.(The Trouble with Physics)(Book review) - Quadra...
 The Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin; Penguin, 2007, $59.95. LORD KELVIN, 
in the late... | Article from Qu...  |   |

  |

  |

 
 Bureaucrats want dead science, but experimenters want living science that 
changes as new facts are discovered.
Well as for me: scientists ignore their history of how they got to where they 
are now. Einstein worked on unified field theory, so did a lot of other people 
and that history is ignored from what is taught to physics student, so they 
grow up ignorant.
Roger 



On Friday, 26 January 2018, 7:10, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
 wrote:
 

 #yiv5996356374 #yiv5996356374 -- _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5996356374 
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv5996356374 
#yiv5996356374 p.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374 
li.yiv5996356374MsoNormal, #yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv5996356374 a:link, 
#yiv5996356374 span.yiv5996356374MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5996356374 a:visited, #yiv5996356374 
span.yiv5996356374MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5996356374 
.yiv5996356374MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv5996356374 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5996356374 div.yiv5996356374WordSection1 {}#yiv5996356374 
Roger-   I agree with your timely addition regarding “science” excluding 
different thinking.  I would note that Hagelstein’s editorial cited below uses 
the term “science community” instead of your term “science” to designate the 
social entity  which excludes different thinking.     The following from 
Hagelstein’s editorial in which he discusses the fields of nuclear and 
condensed matter physics  is pertinent to this issue:   “The current view 
within the scientific community is that these fields have things right, and if 
that is not reflected in measurements in the lab, then the problem is with 
those doing the experiments. Such a view prevailed in 1989, but now nearly a 
quarter century later, the situation in cold fusion labs is much clearer. There 
is excess heat, which can be a very big effect; it is reproducible in some 
labs; there are not commensurate energetic products; there are many 
replications; and there are other anomalies as well. Condensed matter physics 
and nuclear physics together are not sufficiently robust to account for these 
anomalies. No defense of these fields is required, since if some aspect of the 
associated theories is incomplete or can be broken, we would very much like to 
break it, so that we can focus on developing new theory that is more closely 
matched to experiment.”   From my perspective Hagelstein is too soft on the 
establishment’s “science community.”  The Corporate, University, Government 
Complex, driven by financial gains , should be fingered as the problem  
Institution.Unfortunately schools of higher learning are part of this 
nightmare IMHO as Hagelstein suggests.  They at the mercy of the government 
funding/research grants scheme to control thought in many areas and the 
production of real data in the detail necessary to fully understand the natural 
laws or nature.   Hagelstein concludes his editorial with the following:   
“Excess heat in the Fleischmann- Pons experiment is a real effect. There are 
big implications for science, and for society. Without resources science in 
this area will not advance. With the continued destruction of the careers of 
those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be 
no continuity of effort.”   I think Hagelstein is wrong in avoiding recognizing 
the saving grace afforded by the likes of Mills,Rossi and others around the 
world to exist and function on meager funding, producing real controlled excess 
heat via LENR without understanding the detailed science or fundamental natural 
laws.  The control/power hungry “science community” will eat crow in my 
optimistic humble opinion (IMOHO).   Bob Cook                                   
                                     From: ROGER ANDERTON
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; c...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries   

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
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:20 AM
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

[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]:Science does sometimes reject valid discoveries

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

I mean what was the concentration of He-4 in the vessel before the start of
> the experiment?
>

Let me recommend you read the reviews and then the original sources by
Miles for that info.

- Jed