No, this analog light based black hole referenced in that video produces hawking radiation.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:09 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe you are referring to a simulation of a black hole. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 5:00 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI > > The rotation of polaritons in a vortex produces a ANALOG black hole. Any > wave structure in a vortex will produce a black hole even water. > > See > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyMYcqxuZ_I > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> But SPP's can be coaxed into generating enormous magnetic fields. It is >> not too difficult to understand that these super fields can interact >> strongly with nucleons. Is there reason to believe that magnetic >> interaction by SPP's is not going to be adequate? The multiparticle >> entanglement theory is not proven to be required for LENR. >> >> No one has ever captured a small black hole and lived to tell about it! >> :-) >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:47 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI >> >> One of the tell tail indications that a black hole is involved is the >> cluster fusion mode in LENR reaction. This requires multiparticle >> entanglement. Only black holes produce this sort of entanglement(see >> ER=ERP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR). Standard QM >> entanglement is monogamous. Only two particles can be entangled. >> >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> SPP's are one thing, small black holes another. Why is there any >>> reason to believe that a black hole is required to initiate LENR >>> reactions? I suspect that SPP's can do the job without extra help. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 12:15 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI >>> >>> During a typical replication run of the Rossi effect, the pressure of >>> the hydrogen gas goes down over a relatively short timeframe. This might >>> mean that hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) has formed in major part because gas >>> is transformed into a solid. But the reaction does not take off >>> immediately. It might be that the energy needed for the HRM to produce >>> heavy SPP solitons need more time to accumulate. The Rossi reaction may be >>> a two step process that first forms rydberg matter, then that HRM >>> accumulates energy in SPPs to form the real cause of LENR: SPP black holes. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Why does it take so long for the Holmlid effect to manifest? >>>> >>>> When you have to pump energy into a population of black holes that >>>> stores huge amounts of energy, it take time and a lot of EMF power to do >>>> this. But once these solitons are well formed and their power storage >>>> threshold is reached, they become exquisitely responsive to any additional >>>> energy input. >>>> >>>> This is the reason why the Rossi replicators cannot get a quick >>>> response. They don't keep at it for long enough. Rossi must cook his fuel >>>> for a long time to deposit enough energy into those solitons for them to >>>> become active. >>>> >>>> I believe that application of just heat and laser light is not powerful >>>> enough EMF stimulation to fill up the energy bucket to the proper level. An >>>> electric arc might be the best way to pump power into the solitons. >>>> >>>> The lessen to take away, use an electric arc to preprocess your fuel. >>>> It will save a lot of time. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Bob Higgins <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Very much so. I should spend some time looking at the raw data. >>>>> Holmlid may have something interesting. His interpretation may have >>>>> sufficiently alienated the people who could help him interpret his results >>>>> that he may be a little in a bind. Energy conservation considerations >>>>> point to a misinterpretation of some kind on his part. >>>>> >>>>> While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having >>>>>> these nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a >>>>>> patho-skeptic. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not at all. What is important is to not write off raw experimental >>>>> data. Explanations of the data are always fair game. >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
