Re: [Vo]:Ah hah.... dark matter internal to common matter

[Bob Cook]

Photons also acquire mass when they combine to create a positron and an 
electron--the opposite of annihilation.


Hatt's massification processes is describe in his theory as involving enough 
electrons and positrons to form protons and neutrons--around 1800 for neutrons 
and one less electron for protons.  This massification process may require high 
energy gamma rays--energy equivalent to something greater than the the mass of 
a proton or neutron.   It would be interesting to look for a paucity of photons 
in a star generation spectrum equivalent to one half the mass of a proton or 
something a little less to account for energy loss of the  photons as they 
leave a massive structure.Hatt's theory also accounts for the mass of muons 
by the same basic massification process.  Thus there should also be a paucity   
of high energy photons corresponding to their mass.  Such an observation would 
reveal the stability of matter with respect to antimatter in star formation.  I 
believe Hatt's theory accounts for this favored massification process.


Do the photons captured by the Rydberg matter also become massive anti 
matter--positrons or other anti-leptons?


Bob Cook





From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 1:31 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ah hah dark matter internal to common matter

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/335/4/L94.full

Magnetic field in the intracluster medium: Rydberg matter with almost free 
electrons

Metalized hydrides can be a candidate for Dark matter. The important 
contributor to mass is photons captured in a superconductor. These photons 
aquire mass.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:

Bob and Russ--


Have you ever seen a number for the effective energy associated with one quanta 
of angular momentum?  Are those "fairy particles" merely spin quanta of energy 
only separated from their off spring photons, brother gravitons and kissing 
cousins magnitons and electons?


It seems to me that the poor quarks and their associates, gluons, are just 
"fairy fairies" IMHO with other fairies all the way down as some think.


Phillipe Hatt's theory about the the sexuality of leptons--electrons and 
positrons at least--gives a better prediction of the nature of protons and 
neutrons and other "heavy particles" than the "quark fairy tale" and does not 
involve "fairies".   The issue of sexuality of course is still a mystery  yet 
to become apparent as we grow older. (: -)


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins >
Sent: Saturday, Octobr 1, 2016 9:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ah hah dark matter internal to common matter

They are proposing MOND as a new/old solution.  The trouble is that MOND has 
adjustable parameters and does not explain why this occurs, only provides a 
means to fit an equation to the modification of Newtonian mechanics.  Michael 
McCulloch wrote a book about his MiHsC theory that derives from first 
hypothesis how inertial mass (Mi) can differ from gravitational mass.  The 
prediction seems to fit pretty well with the data without adjustable parameters 
- a very nice plus.  But, after reading his book (Physics from the Edge), I 
decided that what he proposed violated causality.  I wrote to him about it, and 
he agreed that it did violate causality but he was working on an explanation 
for that.  Perhaps his equations are right, but for the wrong reason.

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Russ George 
> wrote:
A new series of observations on the behavior of 153 galaxies defies the usual 
dark matter suspect being some mystery rogue fairy particle scampering about 
the universe in numbers many times that of common matter yet unobservable, what 
a common human mythological fantasy transformed into “science dogma.”

https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-findings-muddy-understanding-dark-matter?source=realclearscience.com

More plausible it seems is that internal to common matter, inside that 
marvelous and mysterious bag of quarks that is everything, there are some bits 
that have eluded our mundane/egotistical observational methods which the 
collective faithful have steadfastly proclaimed as near perfect. Believe us 
they say, we are the learned majority not merely lemmings,  this is the way it 
is, and by the way if you would like to buy a nice bridge I can get you one at 
a deep discount or perhaps you’d rather a super-conducting super collider which 
comes with my pension plan.

There are so many forbidden mysteries are served so well by the notion that we 
haven’t invented every theory and tool that is possible to invent.

Re: [Vo]:Ah hah.... dark matter internal to common matter

[Axil Axil]

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/335/4/L94.full

Magnetic field in the intracluster medium: Rydberg matter with almost free
electrons

Metalized hydrides can be a candidate for Dark matter. The important
contributor to mass is photons captured in a superconductor. These photons
aquire mass.

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Bob and Russ--
>
>
> Have you ever seen a number for the effective energy associated with one
> quanta of angular momentum?  Are those "fairy particles" merely spin quanta
> of energy only separated from their off spring photons, brother gravitons
> and kissing cousins magnitons and electons?
>
>
> It seems to me that the poor quarks and their associates, gluons, are just
> "fairy fairies" IMHO with other fairies all the way down as some think.
>
>
> Phillipe Hatt's theory about the the sexuality of leptons--electrons and
> positrons at least--gives a better prediction of the nature of protons and
> neutrons and other "heavy particles" than the "quark fairy tale" and does
> not involve "fairies".   The issue of sexuality of course is still a
> mystery  yet to become apparent as we grow older. (: -)
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> --
> *From:* Bob Higgins 
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 1, 2016 9:26 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ah hah dark matter internal to common matter
>
> They are proposing MOND as a new/old solution.  The trouble is that MOND
> has adjustable parameters and does not explain why this occurs, only
> provides a means to fit an equation to the modification of Newtonian
> mechanics.  Michael McCulloch wrote a book about his MiHsC theory that
> derives from first hypothesis how inertial mass (Mi) can differ from
> gravitational mass.  The prediction seems to fit pretty well with the data
> without adjustable parameters - a very nice plus.  But, after reading his
> book (Physics from the Edge), I decided that what he proposed violated
> causality.  I wrote to him about it, and he agreed that it did violate
> causality but he was working on an explanation for that.  Perhaps his
> equations are right, but for the wrong reason.
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Russ George  wrote:
>
>> A new series of observations on the behavior of 153 galaxies defies the
>> usual dark matter suspect being some mystery rogue fairy particle
>> scampering about the universe in numbers many times that of common matter
>> yet unobservable, what a common human mythological fantasy transformed into
>> “science dogma.”
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-findings-muddy-unders
>> tanding-dark-matter?source=realclearscience.com
>>
>>
>>
>> More plausible it seems is that internal to common matter, inside that
>> marvelous and mysterious bag of quarks that is everything, there are some
>> bits that have eluded our mundane/egotistical observational methods which
>> the collective faithful have steadfastly proclaimed as near perfect.
>> Believe us they say, we are the learned majority not merely lemmings,  this
>> is the way it is, and by the way if you would like to buy a nice bridge I
>> can get you one at a deep discount or perhaps you’d rather a
>> super-conducting super collider which comes with my pension plan.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are so many forbidden mysteries are served so well by the notion
>> that we haven’t invented every theory and tool that is possible to invent.
>>
>
>

[Vo]:LENR INFO ICCF20 SENDAI STARTED

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-03-2016-lenr-info-iccf20-sendai.html



see J-P Biberuians; report about the first day (Google Translate for
non-francophonrs)

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Miles calorimetry comparison at ICCF17 (Korea) ...

[Alain Sepeda]

Hi all,

I've lost the slides and paper of Melvin Miles about calorimetry comparison
between Fleischmann, Lonchampt, caltech and MIT, presented at ICCF18 in
Korea.

is there a public place to find it ? I could not find it on LENR-CANR...
and the ICCF17 site is down.

RE: [Vo]:Interesting patent 8487484 "torque multiplier"

[Chris Zell]

For some time, I have hoped that someone would analyze the Linevich device that 
claims to amplify torque by mechanically rectifying centrifugal force.  Prof. 
Kanarev supports the notion that it works.

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Interesting patent 8487484 "torque multiplier"


"Permanent magnet drive apparatus and operational method" is a granted patent 
to Miller and Colson, assigned to Torque Multipliers, LLC. Priority date 
2012-03-15.

Recently, several videos have appeared on YouTube, including an ongoing 
replication attempt. Typically, any lever... or lug wrench is a "torque 
multiplier" and there is no insinuation of net gain in power, at least not from 
the name alone. Here, there appears to be net gain if you believe the claim. 
The net gain could be at the expense of permanent magnetization, which is being 
constantly depleted... or... it could be imaginary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2JTwbIpf6o=1

... the inventor is "hands-on" shall we say, far from an arm-chair theorist, 
and let's be clear: this video does not prove anything. It may not even suggest 
anything, so we have to trust Sonny Miller, at least until he hires Billy Bob 
to do the hard sell . I love it when an inventor presents a potentially 
billion dollar device in a sweaty T-shirt. Nice contrast To Randy Mills 
spotless lab coat and nothing after $100 million down the tubes.

Anyway, Sonny's magmo may raise once again the question of whether there is 
usable energy stored in strong magnets... and also, the interrelationship 
between torque and power.

After 120 years of automobiles, there should be no mystery in that category 
(converting torque to power and vice versa) but there often seems to be a 
mystery in practice, especially when there is magnetic resonance in the 
Schumann range, which is ~470 RPM.

After all, we live in a gigantic waveguide... which is one way of looking at 
this kind of resonance.

[Vo]:Interesting patent 8487484 "torque multiplier"

[Jones Beene]

"Permanent magnet drive apparatus and operational method" is a granted
patent to Miller and Colson, assigned to Torque Multipliers, LLC. Priority
date 2012-03-15. 

Recently, several videos have appeared on YouTube, including an ongoing
replication attempt. Typically, any lever. or lug wrench is a "torque
multiplier" and there is no insinuation of net gain in power, at least not
from the name alone. Here, there appears to be net gain if you believe the
claim. The net gain could be at the expense of permanent magnetization,
which is being constantly depleted. or. it could be imaginary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2JTwbIpf6o=1

. the inventor is "hands-on" shall we say, far from an arm-chair theorist,
and let's be clear: this video does not prove anything. It may not even
suggest anything, so we have to trust Sonny Miller, at least until he hires
Billy Bob to do the hard sell . I love it when an inventor presents a
potentially billion dollar device in a sweaty T-shirt. Nice contrast To
Randy Mills spotless lab coat and nothing after $100 million down the tubes.

Anyway, Sonny's magmo may raise once again the question of whether there is
usable energy stored in strong magnets. and also, the interrelationship
between torque and power. 

After 120 years of automobiles, there should be no mystery in that category
(converting torque to power and vice versa) but there often seems to be a
mystery in practice, especially when there is magnetic resonance in the
Schumann range, which is ~470 RPM. 

After all, we live in a gigantic waveguide. which is one way of looking at
this kind of resonance.

Re: [Vo]:Ah hah.... dark matter internal to common matter

[Bob Cook]

Bob and Russ--


Have you ever seen a number for the effective energy associated with one quanta 
of angular momentum?  Are those "fairy particles" merely spin quanta of energy 
only separated from their off spring photons, brother gravitons and kissing 
cousins magnitons and electons?


It seems to me that the poor quarks and their associates, gluons, are just 
"fairy fairies" IMHO with other fairies all the way down as some think.


Phillipe Hatt's theory about the the sexuality of leptons--electrons and 
positrons at least--gives a better prediction of the nature of protons and 
neutrons and other "heavy particles" than the "quark fairy tale" and does not 
involve "fairies".   The issue of sexuality of course is still a mystery  yet 
to become apparent as we grow older. (: -)


Bob Cook



From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 9:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ah hah dark matter internal to common matter

They are proposing MOND as a new/old solution.  The trouble is that MOND has 
adjustable parameters and does not explain why this occurs, only provides a 
means to fit an equation to the modification of Newtonian mechanics.  Michael 
McCulloch wrote a book about his MiHsC theory that derives from first 
hypothesis how inertial mass (Mi) can differ from gravitational mass.  The 
prediction seems to fit pretty well with the data without adjustable parameters 
- a very nice plus.  But, after reading his book (Physics from the Edge), I 
decided that what he proposed violated causality.  I wrote to him about it, and 
he agreed that it did violate causality but he was working on an explanation 
for that.  Perhaps his equations are right, but for the wrong reason.

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Russ George 
> wrote:
A new series of observations on the behavior of 153 galaxies defies the usual 
dark matter suspect being some mystery rogue fairy particle scampering about 
the universe in numbers many times that of common matter yet unobservable, what 
a common human mythological fantasy transformed into "science dogma."

https://www.insidescience.org/news/new-findings-muddy-understanding-dark-matter?source=realclearscience.com

More plausible it seems is that internal to common matter, inside that 
marvelous and mysterious bag of quarks that is everything, there are some bits 
that have eluded our mundane/egotistical observational methods which the 
collective faithful have steadfastly proclaimed as near perfect. Believe us 
they say, we are the learned majority not merely lemmings,  this is the way it 
is, and by the way if you would like to buy a nice bridge I can get you one at 
a deep discount or perhaps you'd rather a super-conducting super collider which 
comes with my pension plan.

There are so many forbidden mysteries are served so well by the notion that we 
haven't invented every theory and tool that is possible to invent.