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 
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.


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 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 knowing the exact 
> energies, we can only derive some base frequencies! "Nothing" is said about 
> the other factors.
> Thus more work is needed!
> Jürg
> Am 24.01.18 um 11:51 schrieb Philippe Hatt:
> 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 (Plank)  instant.In other terms there is a mechanism creating one 
> electron and one proton from the neutron  at each instant.The  mass of that 
> electron is challenged by antimass to become an anti neutrino (which has then 
> a mass and an antimass ,hence 0 mass).The charge of that electron is 
> challenged by an anti charge (positive ) ,the whole being added as a wave to 
> the former wave created by the former electron and its anti electron , hence 
> the wave of the electron constantly changing.Indeed the problem is that 
> electron and positron are considered as having the same mass and only 
> opposite charges.So ,how can they annihilate ? My explanation is that the two 
> masses are the same ,nevertheless one is entering our space time ,the other 
> is going out of it .As a result two photons are created evolving at the edge 
> of our space time (no mass=no time for the photon ,even if we see that time 
> is existing for the photon). This has consequences on speed of light versus 
> speed of each photon , depending for me on the frequency of each photon .Also 
> ,the frequency is related to the energy of the photon,just because there are 
> "more photons in one photon "if the frequency is high.
> Let us come back to the nucleon ,i.e. a neutron creating at each quantized 
> time a proton and an electron challenged the instant later in order to create 
> an antineutrino and again a neutron .The process is continuous ,beginning 
> again and again with the same result .This amazing process solves a lot of 
> problems .Why is the electron not falling from its ground state ? Because it 
> is replaced by another .This second electron appears not at the same place as 
> the former one ,leaving a loophole .This is "classily " explained by 
> Heisenberg's uncertainty .For me this is just as valid explanation as "we do 
> not know".Einstein was right ,the quantum mechanic is not complete .
> The deep orbit theory is ,for me ,considering that phenomenon of a neutron 
> creating constantly a proton and an electron and an antineutrino .Actually 
> there is a continuous ,"iterated "massification/demassification of the 
> neutron ,which in that case is limited to the "external"part of the 
> neutron.If you look at my theory you see a neutron trunk made of 1800 
> electron masses ,plus an intermediary part of mass 71 electrons (18+18 versus 
> 18+17)and a lot of minor masses which are accompanied by magnetic charges 
> .This last part only is modified by the neutron/proton process .The total of 
> these minor masses is 3.137343 electron masses ,related to the dipolar 
> magnetic moments of neutron and proton in the following way:I 1.913 I + I 
> 2.793 I = 4.706 = 1.5 x 3.137343 .In other terms mass was transformed into 
> electromagnetism by antimass.Actually  mass + antimass = negative 
> electromagnetism ,and antimass + mass = positive electromagnetism .The 
> neutron is about mass + antimass ,hence its resulting mass of 939.5 MeV and 
> its  abnormal dipolar magnetic moment of -1.913 ,the proton is about antimass 
> + mass ,hence the slight loss of mass compared to neutron ,and its abnormal 
> dipolar magnetic moment of + 2.793.
> Antimass is not accepted as a concept .Nevertheless in the equation of Dirac 
> mass is always "squared" ,leaving two solutions opened ,mass and antimass.
> The binding energy is about the same phenomenon ,involving more masses ,a 
> part of the 71 electron masses .Please ,see my website www.philippehatt.com
> I am about to write a book mainly on binding energy and LENR .Deep orbit is 
> about neutron versus proton.LENR is about the massification/demassification 
> 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

Reply via email to