RE: [Vo]:RE: UDH, wimps, and dark matter
http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0528v1.pdf See page 18 of the paper for a up-to-date experiment to look for WIMPs. It is clear dark matter WIMPS are favored over LENR for research funding, at least the funding not associated with dark projects. Bob Cook Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 7:33:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: UDH, wimps, and dark matter Jones— On further thought neutron stars may be a BEC of Cooper pairs of H or even a dandy randy batch of hydrinos. I’ll bet Axil has some additional thoughts on this issue—maybe a BEC of wimpzillas. IMHO black holes may be nothing more than a BEC of wimpzillas at 10-e27 eV for each one—lots of energy cooped up by a unified gravitational field--gluons and quarks be damned. Have a good day, Bob Cook From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 6:40:11 AM To: Vortex List Subject: [Vo]:RE: UDH, wimps, and dark matter Another curious thought: The neutron star. Could these fairly well-known objects be composed of UDH, instead of neutrons? The concept of UDH was not around when these objects were first studied and named and of course no one has ever been close to one- or even done an experiment which confirms that any large mass of neutrons would be possible. In fact all laboratory efforts to bind neutrons to each other suggest there is no stable way to do this in small groupings. Yet that complete failure to bind neutrons has not deterred Astronomers as they had no other option. A neutron star is the collapsed core of a large star which before collapse had a total of between 10 and 30 solar masses and 99% of that mass was hydrogen – with almost no neutrons. Therefore Ockham would say the simplest answer is that in the end - two forms of hydrogen are involved in this type of object – not a wholesale transformation of one form to another form which is known to decay. Neutron stars result from a supernova explosion combined with gravitational collapse but it happens too fast for complete conversion into neutrons, plus once formed, the star no longer actively generates heat, and that suggests the hydrogen has become dark matter, whatever that is – possibly WIMPS which are themselves composed of UDH in its most stable form. But not a complete transformation in a short time to neutrons. The Universe is a simpler place to explain as being composed of mostly hydrogen in different forms, especially since there is no doubt that neutrons decay over time and protons do not. Most of the basic models for the supernova collapse imply that they in the end they are composed almost entirely of neutrons when a few hours before there was almost no neutrons at all, but the theorists that developed these models did not have knowledge of any other dense form of matter with no net charge (to work with in creating the model) – that is ... before Holmlid came along with the UDH concept. Perhaps it is time to revisit neutron stars with other thinking but of course that would only happen when Holmlid is independently confirmed. It is premature to do so now. When this happens, my suggestion is that we honor Holmlid and rename the neutron star as the Holmlid star.
RE: [Vo]:RE: UDH, wimps, and dark matter
Jones— On further thought neutron stars may be a BEC of Cooper pairs of H or even a dandy randy batch of hydrinos. I’ll bet Axil has some additional thoughts on this issue—maybe a BEC of wimpzillas. IMHO black holes may be nothing more than a BEC of wimpzillas at 10-e27 eV for each one—lots of energy cooped up by a unified gravitational field--gluons and quarks be damned. Have a good day, Bob Cook From: JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 6:40:11 AM To: Vortex List Subject: [Vo]:RE: UDH, wimps, and dark matter Another curious thought: The neutron star. Could these fairly well-known objects be composed of UDH, instead of neutrons? The concept of UDH was not around when these objects were first studied and named and of course no one has ever been close to one- or even done an experiment which confirms that any large mass of neutrons would be possible. In fact all laboratory efforts to bind neutrons to each other suggest there is no stable way to do this in small groupings. Yet that complete failure to bind neutrons has not deterred Astronomers as they had no other option. A neutron star is the collapsed core of a large star which before collapse had a total of between 10 and 30 solar masses and 99% of that mass was hydrogen – with almost no neutrons. Therefore Ockham would say the simplest answer is that in the end - two forms of hydrogen are involved in this type of object – not a wholesale transformation of one form to another form which is known to decay. Neutron stars result from a supernova explosion combined with gravitational collapse but it happens too fast for complete conversion into neutrons, plus once formed, the star no longer actively generates heat, and that suggests the hydrogen has become dark matter, whatever that is – possibly WIMPS which are themselves composed of UDH in its most stable form. But not a complete transformation in a short time to neutrons. The Universe is a simpler place to explain as being composed of mostly hydrogen in different forms, especially since there is no doubt that neutrons decay over time and protons do not. Most of the basic models for the supernova collapse imply that they in the end they are composed almost entirely of neutrons when a few hours before there was almost no neutrons at all, but the theorists that developed these models did not have knowledge of any other dense form of matter with no net charge (to work with in creating the model) – that is ... before Holmlid came along with the UDH concept. Perhaps it is time to revisit neutron stars with other thinking but of course that would only happen when Holmlid is independently confirmed. It is premature to do so now. When this happens, my suggestion is that we honor Holmlid and rename the neutron star as the Holmlid star.
[Vo]:RE: UDH, wimps, and dark matter
Another curious thought: The neutron star. Could these fairly well-known objects be composed of UDH, instead of neutrons? The concept of UDH was not around when these objects were first studied and named and of course no one has ever been close to one- or even done an experiment which confirms that any large mass of neutrons would be possible. In fact all laboratory efforts to bind neutrons to each other suggest there is no stable way to do this in small groupings. Yet that complete failure to bind neutrons has not deterred Astronomers as they had no other option. A neutron star is the collapsed core of a large star which before collapse had a total of between 10 and 30 solar masses and 99% of that mass was hydrogen – with almost no neutrons. Therefore Ockham would say the simplest answer is that in the end - two forms of hydrogen are involved in this type of object – not a wholesale transformation of one form to another form which is known to decay. Neutron stars result from a supernova explosion combined with gravitational collapse but it happens too fast for complete conversion into neutrons, plus once formed, the star no longer actively generates heat, and that suggests the hydrogen has become dark matter, whatever that is – possibly WIMPS which are themselves composed of UDH in its most stable form. But not a complete transformation in a short time to neutrons. The Universe is a simpler place to explain as being composed of mostly hydrogen in different forms, especially since there is no doubt that neutrons decay over time and protons do not. Most of the basic models for the supernova collapse imply that they in the end they are composed almost entirely of neutrons when a few hours before there was almost no neutrons at all, but the theorists that developed these models did not have knowledge of any other dense form of matter with no net charge (to work with in creating the model) – that is ... before Holmlid came along with the UDH concept. Perhaps it is time to revisit neutron stars with other thinking but of course that would only happen when Holmlid is independently confirmed. It is premature to do so now. When this happens, my suggestion is that we honor Holmlid and rename the neutron star as the Holmlid star.
