I ran across a post from Bob Greenyer
Did you run across a post where Bob Greenyer stated what Axilself stated about the population of "EVO tracts"?
Bob Greenyer assayed the population of EVO tracts within an small but representative area of a sample of the two foot diameter sphere that had been given to him for analysis and projected the number of EVOs from that number. Bob came up with an estimate of a quarter quadrillion EVOs indicated in that calculation.
I ran across a post from Bob Greenyer that explains why the Thor system is useful to clean the exhaust of the big electrical generators as follows:
This is exactly why it is useful right now as it is. Not proof of anything exotic, just useful from a commercial perspective.
sorry I.m not ingenuous enough to accept that
"reminiscent of EVOs" TM 9.29
is really "the number of EVOs".
Since each EVO is reminiscent of an entire universe, It blows the mind that the thor system contains a quarter of a quadrillion universes, each containing a quadrillion inhabitants, each reminiscent of Axil. But each EVO contains only one universe, which is 1 followed by zero zeros.
Axil, may I ask a question about your EVO as universe postulate law? Are these universes like ours, containing many galaxy clusters each with billions of stars etc? Or are they basic, empty universes? You state there is no Higgs field inside but how can a universe have no Higgs field? Since the Higgs field generates mass, they must be massless universes? As the inventor discoverer of these universes, you should self-name the this phenomenon. How about AMU's. Axillian Massless Universes. Or are they full-blown universes like ours, containing heptillions of EVO's each containing universes, like turtles, all the way down?
Scientists simulate micro universe – SkyShop
QuoteTo create this tiny universe, scientists cooled about 20,000 potassium-39 atoms to form Bose-Einstein condensate, which is a state of matter that allows scientists to simulate conditions in the early universe.
Nikolas said “there are many very interesting theoretical questions that can be raised about the different types of curvature of space-time and spatial curvature and what their effects are” and although there are still many obstacles to overcome to make direct comparisons with our universe , the team is optimistic that their work brings the scientific community closer to an important step in performing one-to-one simulations of the most important mechanisms that shaped the universe as we know it.
Research into this subject is being done with the help of atomic Bose Einstein condensates. These condensates can be used to create spacetime conditions that conform with the various spacetime conditions that are allowable under general relativity.
The EVO is a condition of spacetime that has a negative curvature which differs from the ambient universe which has a positive curvature.
From the effects that the EVO demonstrates, that spacetime type looks like one that existed in the early universe.
I always present theories that are being considered by organized science as they might be applied to the conditions that seem to be apparent in the behavior of the EVO.
How about AMU's. Axillian Massless Universes.
I do not come up with any theories that are original, but instead discuss theories that already have been recently put forth by organized science. If PhysicsForDummies was more familiar with current thinking in organized science, he would not post such stupid recriminating remarks.
Display Morehttps://skyshop.mx/en/scientists-simulate-micro-universe/
Scientists simulate micro universe
Research into this subject is being done with the help of atomic Bose Einstein condensates. These condensates can be used to create spacetime conditions that conform with the various spacetime conditions that are allowable under general relativity.
The EVO is a condition of spacetime that has a negative curvature which differs from the ambient universe which has a positive curvature.
From the effects that the EVO demonstrates, that spacetime type looks like one that existed in the early universe.
I always present theories that are being considered by organized science as they might be applied to the conditions that seem to be apparent in the behavior of the EVO.
I do not come up with any theories that are original, but instead discuss theories that already have been recently put forth by organized science. If PhysicsForDummies was more familiar with current thinking in organized science, he would not post such stupid recriminating remarks.
That article was written by a telescope salesman in Mexico. Even in the article it says these BEC's were not universes, and not even close to the same conditions that existed after the big bang. You as always are extrapolating junk pop-sci articles to fantasy conclusions. Not a single person on earth except you thinks you are presenting theories from organized science. Name one qualified individual who thinks you know what you are talking about.
i'm pretty sure you will find a way once to go together in holidays 
As me with my friend Tarasenko
Finally the most difficultfy of all of us is to remain enough open minded
That article was written by a telescope salesman in Mexico. Even in the article it says these BEC's were not universes, and not even close to the same conditions that existed after the big bang. You as always are extrapolating junk pop-sci articles to fantasy conclusions. Not a single person on earth except you thinks you are presenting theories from organized science. Name one qualified individual who thinks you know what you are talking about.
That article was written by a telescope salesman in Mexico. Even in the article it says these BEC's were not universes, and not even close to the same conditions that existed after the big bang. You as always are extrapolating junk pop-sci articles to fantasy conclusions. Not a single person on earth except you thinks you are presenting theories from organized science. Name one qualified individual who thinks you know what you are talking about.
If you don't like that prier reference, try this one. Look up John Wheeler.
'Spacetime foam' might just be the wildest thing in the known universe, and we're just starting to understand it.
QuoteIn 1955, influential physicist John Wheeler proposed that, at the quantum level, spacetime is not constant but "foamy," made up of ever-changing tiny bubbles. As for what these bubbles are "made" of, recent work suggests that spacetime bubbles are essentially mini-universes briefly forming inside our own.
Here is another reference
https://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.123502
One Bubble to Rule Them All
James Hartle1, 2 and Thomas Hertog3
1Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, 93106, USA
2Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM3 Institute for Theoretical Physics, KU Leuven, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
QuoteAbstract
We apply the principles of quantum mechanics and quantum cosmology to predict probabilities for our local observations of a universe undergoing false vacuum eternal in action. At a sufficiently fine-grained level, histories of the universe describe a mosaic of bubble universes separated by inflationary regions. We show that predictions for local observations can be obtained directly from sets of much coarser grained histories which only follow a single bubble. These coarse-grained histories contain neither information about our unobservable location nor about the unobservable large-scale structure outside our own bubble. Applied to a landscape of false vacua in the no- boundary state we predict our local universe emerged from the dominant decay channel of the lowest energy false vacuum. We compare and contrast this framework for prediction based on quantum cosmology with traditional approaches to the measure problem in cosmology.
There are hundreds more references that you have no clue of but should have.
There are hundreds more references
Bubble bubble toil and trouble... Shakespeare
"
Let sea-discoverers to new worlds have gone;
Let maps to other, worlds on worlds have shown;" Donne
There is not much gap between the speculation of theoretical physicists and metaphysicists
However the latter is more lyrical
Does this qualify as unateral phenomena?
Nature photographer captures rare, spectacular red sprites in skies over WA's Kimberley A West Australian photographer has captured on camera one of the world's rarest natural phenomena that's almost impossible to see with the naked eye. Kimberley man JJ Rao was out shooting a wet-season thunderstorm just outside of Derby when he was lucky enough to snap several red sprites. "About the blink of an eye and it's gone," he said. "You could sort of describe it as huge, feathery tendrils of reds and purples and specks of really bright red."
https://www.lada.kz/aktau_news …bozzhyra-v-mangistau.html Опять возникло напряжение на Босжеры
https://drive.google.com/.../1u9MD6p70b6FDQQWy87SIMX.../view
In an attempt to balance some of the distortion of science in this thread, here is a dumped down version of the appearance of mass from the vacuum.
Experimental Evidence of a Phenomenon That May End The Universe - False Vacuum Decay (youtube.com)
0:00 Can the universe just end? 1:30 The basics: empty space is not empty 3:00 Can universe have an even lower energy state? 3:50 Bubble nucleation and how it would happen 4:40 It would be instant 5:00 What needs to happen to make these bubbles 5:30 First experimental evidence of vacuum decay 7:00 This explains so much 8:00 Conclusions 9:30 Is gravity preventing this from happening? And how black holes come into play.
If you already understand the vacuum, I suggest you check you understanding by starting with conclusion at 8:00 above.
If you already understand the vacuum, I suggest you check you understanding by starting with conclusion at 8:00 above.
I posted on this video here
Sabine also lends insight into this subject in this video.
The EVO has a vacuum state that is lower than that of the ambient universe since it has a negative cosmological constant and therefore it is anti de-Sutter spacetime. In this way, the EVO meets the definition of a true vacuum state. Being AdS, it is instable and will not consume our metastable spacetime. The EVO starts out as a submicron aggregation of exciton polaritons and grows over time until its size reaches about 250 microns. At this size scale it will explode in a Bosenova. Because AdS is unstable and will not grow out of control, there is no chance that the EVO will consume the universe. But it will consume matter as it grows and will make that matter disaggregate and effectively disappear.
It is important for the LENR reactor developers to understand the the EVO is a destructive system and will effect the design and viability of their reactor designs.
Scientists Are Freaking Out Over 'Bubbles Of Nothing' That Eat Spacetime
It is not April fools day yet...
Translation: This is pretty ridiculous, perhaps read back what you write on this forum and do some more distilling of your 'thinking' before throwing this at others in a public forum. Lots and lots of nothing, bubbles of nothing, weirdness and even the creation of a gazillion universes representing EVO's, mixed with standard model concepts that are ancient as well.
Really?!
Really?!
Here is an article based on the paper that I referenced above
Giuseppe Dibitetto, Nicolò Petri, Marjorie Schillo
A bubble of nothing (BoN) is a non-perturbative instability that causes a vacuum to decay into nothing. BoNs are important for many higher dimensional theories proposed beyond the Standard Model.
In a bubble of nothing, space itself ceases to exist. If a bubble of nothing spontaneously forms in false-vacuum spacetime, it will grow and eventually swallow the entire universe.
The idea of a bubble of nothing was first explored by Witten in 1982. Witten started with a simple model, a world with our four familiar dimensions of space and time, plus one curled-up extra dimension.
A bubble from nothing occurs when the compact size collapses to zero size at the bubble wall. The endpoint of closed string tachyon condensation condensations is referred to as the "nothing" state.
Edward Witten got the $3 million in 2012
Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ze_in_Fundamental_Physics
Just interesting
Here is a new "thingy" I discovered that must relate to an EVO. The EVO is composed of "unparticles".
Unparticle physics - Wikipedia
All particles exist in states that may be characterized by a certain energy, momentum and mass. In most of the Standard Model of particle physics, particles of the same type cannot exist in another state with all these properties scaled up or down by a common factor – electrons, for example, always have the same mass regardless of their energy or momentum. But this is not always the case: massless particles, such as photons, can exist with their properties scaled equally. This immunity to scaling is called "scale invariance"
Suppose a W- particle is produced by beta decay. It has a mass but not an invariant mass. Since, when it decays it produces a beta particle and an antineutrino and the sum of the masses and energy are distributed between the neutrino and the beta particle. There is range of energy for the beta particle and we can't measure the range for the antineutrino. If the antineutrino is massless, one can claim scale invariance but not so if the neutrino has mass.
So, consider Pharis Williams' phat equation. Let an electron-neutrino combination (W-) exist with scale variance but in defined states such that the energy/mass combined is E=n2(~13.6 eV). On one end of this range of states the decay produces a proton, an electron, an antineutrino and .07824260693 Mev and on the other end the combination is a neutron. One doesn't need all that energy as part of first state rather only something near ~13.6 eV. One can do a fitting to define the states using special relativity. Then the various states of "unparticles" is presumptively true if a precise fitting exists. One finds there are 240 states. The value (~ 13.6 eV) becomes more precisely 13.58378414 eV and the value of the anti-neutrino mass is 0.108670274 eV. The n=1 state is a hydrogen atom which is not quite ionized. Further, higher order states require that the electron possess the state. So, these states exist without the need for a proton. So, the phat equation then becomes the means of defining the unparticle states of the electron. These higher order states define interaction between the electrons which possess. Hence, one can define the state of any cluster of electrons. A cluster of electrons has been called an EVO.
Of course, this all seems like just strange math suggestions that you would never justify by verifying it yourself. So, have you fun but at the expense of not knowing what truth you could have understood.
A cluster of electrons create an electrical potential on an electron. So, electrons are forced out of cluster of electrons with an energy that is proportional to the number of electrons in the cluster. Further, since these higher order electrons posse the states, the electron cluster can be infested with protons or deuterons without significantly affecting these higher order states. Ed Storms has measured energies of ejected deuterons in the MeV range. The point being that deuterons in this energy range should be able to cause nuclear reactions. So, if these higher order state of the electrons do exist as quantum states, then the energies of ejected deuterons should correlate to energy of this higher order states of electrons.
What is the chance that the analysis fits so well if the there is no truth to whole "unparticle" thing? Could it be there is actual math to back-up the whole cold fusion thing?
Display MoreAll particles exist in states that may be characterized by a certain energy, momentum and mass. In most of the Standard Model of particle physics, particles of the same type cannot exist in another state with all these properties scaled up or down by a common factor – electrons, for example, always have the same mass regardless of their energy or momentum. But this is not always the case: massless particles, such as photons, can exist with their properties scaled equally. This immunity to scaling is called "scale invariance"
Suppose a W- particle is produced by beta decay. It has a mass but not an invariant mass. Since, when it decays it produces a beta particle and an antineutrino and the sum of the masses and energy are distributed between the neutrino and the beta particle. There is range of energy for the beta particle and we can't measure the range for the antineutrino. If the antineutrino is massless, one can claim scale invariance but not so if the neutrino has mass.
So, consider Pharis Williams' phat equation. Let an electron-neutrino combination (W-) exist with scale variance but in defined states such that the energy/mass combined is E=n2(~13.6 eV). On one end of this range of states the decay produces a proton, an electron, an antineutrino and .07824260693 Mev and on the other end the combination is a neutron. One doesn't need all that energy as part of first state rather only something near ~13.6 eV. One can do a fitting to define the states using special relativity. Then the various states of "unparticles" is presumptively true if a precise fitting exists. One finds there are 240 states. The value (~ 13.6 eV) becomes more precisely 13.58378414 eV and the value of the anti-neutrino mass is 0.108670274 eV. The n=1 state is a hydrogen atom which is not quite ionized. Further, higher order states require that the electron possess the state. So, these states exist without the need for a proton. So, the phat equation then becomes the means of defining the unparticle states of the electron. These higher order states define interaction between the electrons which possess. Hence, one can define the state of any cluster of electrons. A cluster of electrons has been called an EVO.
Of course, this all seems like just strange math suggestions that you would never justify by verifying it yourself. So, have you fun but at the expense of not knowing what truth you could have understood.
A cluster of electrons create an electrical potential on an electron. So, electrons are forced out of cluster of electrons with an energy that is proportional to the number of electrons in the cluster. Further, since these higher order electrons posse the states, the electron cluster can be infested with protons or deuterons without significantly affecting these higher order states. Ed Storms has measured energies of ejected deuterons in the MeV range. The point being that deuterons in this energy range should be able to cause nuclear reactions. So, if these higher order state of the electrons do exist as quantum states, then the energies of ejected deuterons should correlate to energy of this higher order states of electrons.
What is the chance that the analysis fits so well if the there is no truth to whole "unparticle" thing? Could it be there is actual math to back-up the whole cold fusion thing?
You are like a bear that walked in circles for a long time in a Standard Model cage, and when it was released into the forest, it still continues to walk in circles.
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.
