There are no cells in Nature; cells exist only in our consciousness.
Nature is one and different elementary particles are just different states of our single moving World!
Only in this paradigm can cold nuclear fusion be physically explained and mathematically described.
And these are general words (philosophy) that mean nothing. It is better to show with the help of a formula how your six-dimensional correlates with physics.
And these are general words (philosophy) that mean nothing. It is better to show with the help of a formula how your six-dimensional correlates with physics.
Formulas please:
Only mathematics should follow philosophy and physics:
Bob Greenyer has just understood how the EVO transmutes and distributes that reformed matter in detail by looking at the residue that has been produced in the failure of the Cavitation (sonofusion) reactor from B-J. Huang.
One issue revealed in the analysis of current transmutation that has recently troubled me was how the transmuted material exited the EVO in seemingly ransom fashion and yet still managed to conform to the black hole theories that underpin Anti- De Sutter spacetime. There may be the reason to now suspect the possibility of the development within the center the EVO of a magnetic singularity rather than a gravitational singularity. The data Bob explains show now this reformed material is released and broadcast and how the internal mechanisms inside the EVO also endure the failure conditions of EVO termination. There is lots of wonderful detail here.
The Quark Gluon condensate matter digestion hypothesis process seems to be supported by this new data release and explanation. The creation and release of reformatted matter seems to occur at the end of the EVO lifecycle.
Bob does not beleive that Hot Fusion will ever work because you can't make Mother nature do what she does not want to do. She wants to do LENR.
The sacred geometry slant on this process looks to conform with Twister physics
In theoretical physics, twistor theory was proposed by Roger Penrose in 1967[1] as a possible path[2] to quantum gravity and has evolved into a widely studied branch of theoretical and mathematical physics. Penrose's idea was that twistor space should be the basic arena for physics from which space-time itself should emerge. It has led to powerful mathematical tools that have applications to differential and integral geometry, nonlinear differential equations and representation theory, and in physics to general relativity, quantum field theory, and the theory of scattering amplitudes. Twistor theory arose in the context of the rapidly expanding mathematical developments in Einstein's theory of general relativity in the late 1950s and in the 1960s and carries a number of influences from that period. In particular, Roger Penrose has credited Ivor Robinson as an important early influence in the development of twistor theory, through his construction of so-called Robinson congruences.[3]
This field shows that the twister is reminiscent of ancient geometry
Not in any direct or formal sense. The specific geometric forms (such as the flower of life) commonly discussed in sacred geometry are overwhelmingly simpler than the forms that emerge even from extremely simple rules in our models. However, the notion (dating back to antiquity) that constructs can combine to reproduce nature has definite conceptual resonance with our approach.
External Content
www.youtube.com
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
A Bob Greenyer Classic Video.
He was absolutely drained at the end
with all the effort he put into it.
Axil..
Did he ever add reactive metal dusts that that can be trapped in the field to see if they will turn into a baby sun? Abrasion, Like a washing machine motion grinder ?
Bob Greenyer has just understood how the EVO transmutes
Have you ever asked Bob about how he feels about your "interpretation" of his work? I would be really interested in/amused by his response.
One issue revealed in the analysis of current transmutation that has recently troubled me was how the transmuted material exited the EVO in seemingly ransom fashion..
Up to here you use normal words and perhaps address a good observation, you are on topic. Then you write :
and yet still managed to conform to the black hole theories that underpin Anti- De Sutter spacetime.
WHY?! do you feel the need to contaminate this discussion about transmutation into utterly gobbledygook about BH's and singularities.? It is so not needed, nonsensical and really no-one even considers it to be remotely correct. Please stick to what is happening and not your speculation you throw out at everyone. Try to stick to a simple topic perhaps, and not you selling your next theory (which is hopelessly outdated and mainstream rip-off anyhow) to all of us.
This may seem like a harsh response, and maybe it is, but it is intended as good advise.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2055378_The_Trouble_with_de_Sitter_Space
Abstract
In this paper we assume the de Sitter space version of black hole Complementarity which states that a single causal patch of de Sitter space is described as an isolated finite temperature cavity bounded by a horizon which allows no loss of information. We discuss the how the symmetries of de Sitter space should be implemented. Then we prove a no go theorem for implementing the symmetries if the entropy is finite. Thus we must either give up the finiteness of de Sitter space entropy or the exact symmetry of the classical space. Each has interesting implications for the very long-time behaviour. We argue that the lifetime of a de Sitter phase can not exceed the Poincare recurrence time. This is supported by recent results of Kachru, Kallosh, Linde and Trivedi.
(24) (PDF) The Trouble with de Sitter Space. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…uble_with_de_Sitter_Space [accessed Mar 19 2024].
Display Morehttps://www.researchgate.net/p…uble_with_de_Sitter_Space
Abstract
In this paper we assume the de Sitter space version of black hole Complementarity which states that a single causal patch of de Sitter space is described as an isolated finite temperature cavity bounded by a horizon which allows no loss of information. We discuss the how the symmetries of de Sitter space should be implemented. Then we prove a no go theorem for implementing the symmetries if the entropy is finite. Thus we must either give up the finiteness of de Sitter space entropy or the exact symmetry of the classical space. Each has interesting implications for the very long-time behaviour. We argue that the lifetime of a de Sitter phase can not exceed the Poincare recurrence time. This is supported by recent results of Kachru, Kallosh, Linde and Trivedi.
(24) (PDF) The Trouble with de Sitter Space. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…uble_with_de_Sitter_Space [accessed Mar 19 2024].
Direct your search toward ANTI-de Sutter spacetime (AsD). Anti-de Sutter spacetime has a negative cosmological curvature whereas de Sutter spacetime(DS) has a positive cosmological curvature. These two possible solutions of the theory of general relativity are not the same.
In geometry, AdS and dS are qualitatively different from a holographic perspective. AdS slicing doesn't cut out the entire asymptotic boundary of the bulk, while dS slicing does.
AdS and dS spacetimes have scalar curvature of opposite sign. This difference can't be transformed away by a conformal relationship.
In geometry, AdS boundary correlators with Bunch-Davies initial conditions have the same singularity structure as their Euclidean AdS counterparts. This allows techniques, results, and understanding from AdS to be imported directly to dS.
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304231https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304231
QuoteWe study the wave equation for a massive scalar field in three-dimensional AdS-black hole and dS (de Sitter) spaces to find what is the difference and similarity between two spaces. Here the AdS-black hole is provided by the J=0 BTZ black hole. To investigate its event (cosmological) horizons, we compute the absorption cross section, quasinormal modes, and study the AdS(dS)/CFT correspondences. Although there remains an unclear point in defining the ingoing flux near infinity of the BTZ black hole, quasinormal modes are obtained and the AdS/CFT correspondence is confirmed. However, we do not find quasinormal modes and thus do not confirm the assumed dS/CFT correspondence. This difference between AdS-black hole and dS spaces is very interesting, because their global structures are similar to each other.
The reason is that the math describing EVO spacetime requires it.
No it doesnt
Display Morethe transmuted material exited the EVO in seemingly ransom fashion and yet still managed to conform to the black hole theories that underpin Anti- De Sutter spacetime.
...
The Quark Gluon condensate matter digestion hypothesis process seems to be supported by this new data release and explanation.
...
you can't make Mother nature do what she does not want to do. She wants to do LENR.
...
The sacred geometry slant on this process looks to conform with Twister physics
Sutter spacetime? Ransom? Mother nature is a beeeaaaoootch doing LENR? QGCMD Hypothesis Processes (HP's)? Sacred Slants TP conformity (are these inclined plane twisters)? I'm really confused. Is this more properly considered gobbledygook or word salad?
What we are seeing on this thread is a slow motion tragedy.
Blackholes produced by cold fusion are the conclusion of analysis of the photographs of these objects by T. Matsumoto. Matsumoto's blackholes don't swallow the surrounding mass and get larger. Rather, a general rule for blackholes is that the smaller a blackhole is the faster it disintegrates. It appears therefore that getting additional mass into these blackholes limits how destructive they can be. There are observations by Russians at proton 10 labs where they had a "black spot" that they force- fed. If I remember right, it spit out the force-fed matter but transmutated it. Therefore, small blackholes which are also small mass likely don't possess a singularity. Take a look at this analysis of the Swartzschild equation.
Hence, there is a quantum-gravity solution where some kind charged particle is the fundamental from which everything else is composed.
Thus we must either give up the finiteness of de Sitter space entropy or the exact symmetry of the classical space.
The problem with GR (general relativity) is that it is not conform with real mass. This is independent of any space you use. So we here talk of educated nonsense that Eistein at the end of his live himself did throw in the garbage bin. But nobody ever did read what Einstein wrote after 1940...
No it doesnt
The existence of matter inside the EVO as a mix of transmuted matter indicates that that matter does not eventually aggregate inside a central black hole. As predicted by current theory. as follows:
Anti-de Sitter space
QuoteAnti-de Sitter spaceThe unproven "AdS instability conjecture" introduced by the physicists Piotr Bizon and Andrzej Rostworowski in 2011 states that arbitrarily small perturbations of certain shapes in AdS lead to the formation of black holes.[5] Mathematician Georgios Moschidis proved that given spherical symmetry, the conjecture holds true for the specific cases of the Einstein-null dust system with an internal mirror (2017) and the Einstein-massless Vlasov system (2018).[6][7]
The sentence that you objected to was as follows:
QuoteOne issue revealed in the analysis of current transmutation that has recently troubled me was how the transmuted material exited the EVO in seemingly ransom fashion and yet still managed to conform to the black hole theories that underpin Anti- De Sutter spacetime.
With this sentence I intended to express doubts that the current thinking about black holes in anti de Sutter space (The unproven "AdS instability conjecture" )is undercut by the way matter seems to behave inside the EVO.
The existence of matter inside the EVO as a mix of transmuted matter indicates that that matter does not eventually aggregate inside a central black hole.
Not really.
Why, you might ask?
Because the existence of transmuted matter inside an EVO is in question. And "eventually" is an indeterminate time with no real meaning, which a physicist would never use. And even the existence of the EVO is questioned by some. And some people (all people except you?) question whether your "theories" are more than fanciful gobbledygook".
The ideal that "matter does not eventually aggregate inside a central blackhole" is the conjecture of the analysis of the Swartzschild equation in the slide in post # 1374.
If there is a quantum limit to smallest mass, charge or combination of mass and charge, then that quanta limits mass density and there can be no singularity. Hence, one rewrites the Swartzchild equation to balance kinetic energy to gravitation potential energy. So, the limit speed which Swartzschild proposed to be the speed of light is the extreme point of balance of these energies. Anyone familiar with the electromagnetic force understands that the magnetic torque increases as the relative speed between charged particles increases. So, the limit speed expresses the point at which the shear tears particles apart. But to what? To some fundamental particle from which everything else is composed. Hence, assumption to prediction: assume such particle, multiply both sides of Swartzschild equation to create the balance point and one find just what one expects.
So, limit kinetic energy at which disintegration happens is a ratio of the number of fundamental particles to the radius of planetoid. Small mass blackholes have a small radius. Large mass blackholes have a large radius. The fundamental radiation from a blackhole fills space. It expands spaces. It is a particle which accomplishes the task of "dark energy".
The proton 10 lab experiments indicate that any element can be built up by combining the fundamental particles. The only attempt that I am aware of to show the fundamental composes all particle in the standard model is "Particles, Primes, and "Cold Fusion" by Hrushovetz at ICCF-7. Are you curious enough to look at it?
LIKE CHARGES CAN ATTRACT..
From a young age, we are taught in school that like charges – whether both positive or both negative – will repel each other, while opposite charges attract. It turns out that under certain conditions, like charges can actually attract each other instead. In work recently published in Nature Nanotechnology, researchers at the University of Oxford have demonstrated the attraction of like-charged particles in solutions.
The journey began for the lead scientist Madhavi Krishnan back in the mid-2000s, when she came across the “like-charge attraction problem” while studying how DNA molecules squeezed into slit-like boxes. It was expected that the DNA would flatten into a pancake-like geometry, but instead it aligned alongside the edge of the box. Without any external forces being applied, the only explanation was that the DNA was attracted to the box, despite them both being negatively charged. Thus, an interest in how attraction and repulsion may not be as they seem was born.
The like-charge problem is not new knowledge though. Different scientists over the years have tried to explain how like charges can attract, with some of the earliest works coming from Irving Langmuir back in the 1930s.
One of the areas where like-charge attraction is seen the most is within fluids, and the interaction of solid matter with fluids. “I encountered the problem early in my trajectory as a scientist,” Krishnan tells Physics World. “Considering the observations entailed such a fundamental departure from the current understanding of a basic and central phenomenon in the fluid phase, turning away from the problem was never going to be an option.”
The attraction of like charges in fluids has been seen many times using multivalent ions, but these are known ionic species that are exempt from DLVO (Derjaguin–Landau–Verwey–Overbeek) theory – the expectation that like-charged molecules will repel at long ranges when van der Waals forces are too weak to influence the interactions between molecules.
However, a number of molecules that are expected to follow the rules of DLVO theory – such as nucleic acids, liposomes, polymers and colloidal particles in aqueous media – have been shown to possess some level of attraction when like charges are present.
Why do some like charges attract?
Current theories of charge attraction within solvents consider the fluid to be a continuum but overlook some of the finer details of the solvent and how it interacts with solid interfaces. However, new theories suggest that the behaviour of the solvent at an interface has a significant influence on the total interaction free energy of two charge-carrying objects when they approach each other.
The latest study from Krishnan and colleagues showed that the solvent plays an unforeseen but crucial role in interparticle interactions and can break the charge reversal symmetry. The team also found that the degree of interparticle interactions that the solvent is responsible for depends strongly on the pH of the solution.
The researchers used bright-field microscopy to examine a range of solid particles, including inorganic silica, polymeric particles, and polyelectrolyte- and polypeptide-coated surfaces, within various solvents. They found that in an aqueous solution, negatively charged particles attracted each other and formed clusters, while positively charged particles repelled. However, in solvents that have an inverted dipole at an interface – such as alcohols – the opposite was true: positively charged particles attracted each other and negatively charged particles repelled.
“The findings would suggest a major re-calibration of basic principles that we believe govern the interaction of molecules and particles, and that we encounter at an early stage in our schooling and education,” says Krishnan. “The study brings to light an adjustment required of something we regard as a ‘textbook principle’.”
The reason for the like charges attracting each other is attributed to the solvent having a large influence on the interparticle interactions, which can spontaneously assemble the like-charged particles in the solution. This is because the concerted action of electrical charge at the interface and the local interfacial solvation structure generate an “electrosolvation force” between the negatively charged functional groups in the solution, causing the particles to attract each other and cluster.
READ MOREPhoto of water droplets clinging to a spiderweb
Sliding water droplets surprise scientists
The team also found that both the sign and magnitude of the free energy contribution can have an impact on whether the particles form self-assembled systems (a negative free energy will drive spontaneity and self-assembly). It’s thought that these like-charge attractions are responsible for nanometre-scale biological processes, such as biomolecular folding of macromolecules in the body.
When asked about the impact of the study, Krishnan says that “the major open frontier is how this interaction affects biology. Biology is loaded with charge. These forces are the bedrock on which interactions between molecules plays out, influencing the way they come together, are packaged into small spaces, and ultimately carry out their function.”
“These are the most exciting directions, and I hope for us to be able to pursue at least some interesting questions in the general area,” Krishnan adds.
Display MoreLIKE CHARGES CAN ATTRACT..
https://physicsworld.com/a/sci…dium=email&utm_source=iop
From a young age, we are taught in school that like charges – whether both positive or both negative – will repel each other, while opposite charges attract. It turns out that under certain conditions, like charges can actually attract each other instead. In work recently published in Nature Nanotechnology, researchers at the University of Oxford have demonstrated the attraction of like-charged particles in solutions.
The journey began for the lead scientist Madhavi Krishnan back in the mid-2000s, when she came across the “like-charge attraction problem” while studying how DNA molecules squeezed into slit-like boxes. It was expected that the DNA would flatten into a pancake-like geometry, but instead it aligned alongside the edge of the box. Without any external forces being applied, the only explanation was that the DNA was attracted to the box, despite them both being negatively charged. Thus, an interest in how attraction and repulsion may not be as they seem was born.
The like-charge problem is not new knowledge though. Different scientists over the years have tried to explain how like charges can attract, with some of the earliest works coming from Irving Langmuir back in the 1930s.
One of the areas where like-charge attraction is seen the most is within fluids, and the interaction of solid matter with fluids. “I encountered the problem early in my trajectory as a scientist,” Krishnan tells Physics World. “Considering the observations entailed such a fundamental departure from the current understanding of a basic and central phenomenon in the fluid phase, turning away from the problem was never going to be an option.”
The attraction of like charges in fluids has been seen many times using multivalent ions, but these are known ionic species that are exempt from DLVO (Derjaguin–Landau–Verwey–Overbeek) theory – the expectation that like-charged molecules will repel at long ranges when van der Waals forces are too weak to influence the interactions between molecules.
However, a number of molecules that are expected to follow the rules of DLVO theory – such as nucleic acids, liposomes, polymers and colloidal particles in aqueous media – have been shown to possess some level of attraction when like charges are present.
Why do some like charges attract?
Current theories of charge attraction within solvents consider the fluid to be a continuum but overlook some of the finer details of the solvent and how it interacts with solid interfaces. However, new theories suggest that the behaviour of the solvent at an interface has a significant influence on the total interaction free energy of two charge-carrying objects when they approach each other.
The latest study from Krishnan and colleagues showed that the solvent plays an unforeseen but crucial role in interparticle interactions and can break the charge reversal symmetry. The team also found that the degree of interparticle interactions that the solvent is responsible for depends strongly on the pH of the solution.
The researchers used bright-field microscopy to examine a range of solid particles, including inorganic silica, polymeric particles, and polyelectrolyte- and polypeptide-coated surfaces, within various solvents. They found that in an aqueous solution, negatively charged particles attracted each other and formed clusters, while positively charged particles repelled. However, in solvents that have an inverted dipole at an interface – such as alcohols – the opposite was true: positively charged particles attracted each other and negatively charged particles repelled.
“The findings would suggest a major re-calibration of basic principles that we believe govern the interaction of molecules and particles, and that we encounter at an early stage in our schooling and education,” says Krishnan. “The study brings to light an adjustment required of something we regard as a ‘textbook principle’.”
The reason for the like charges attracting each other is attributed to the solvent having a large influence on the interparticle interactions, which can spontaneously assemble the like-charged particles in the solution. This is because the concerted action of electrical charge at the interface and the local interfacial solvation structure generate an “electrosolvation force” between the negatively charged functional groups in the solution, causing the particles to attract each other and cluster.
READ MOREPhoto of water droplets clinging to a spiderweb
Sliding water droplets surprise scientists
The team also found that both the sign and magnitude of the free energy contribution can have an impact on whether the particles form self-assembled systems (a negative free energy will drive spontaneity and self-assembly). It’s thought that these like-charge attractions are responsible for nanometre-scale biological processes, such as biomolecular folding of macromolecules in the body.
When asked about the impact of the study, Krishnan says that “the major open frontier is how this interaction affects biology. Biology is loaded with charge. These forces are the bedrock on which interactions between molecules plays out, influencing the way they come together, are packaged into small spaces, and ultimately carry out their function.”
“These are the most exciting directions, and I hope for us to be able to pursue at least some interesting questions in the general area,” Krishnan adds.
EZ water can help explain this.
