Serious Theories and Idle Speculations on other matters.

    • New
    Quote from Drgenek

    Figure 5 is a beautiful image. I agree that a macro structure like that is reasonable. I expect the fractal nature Bob proposes could produce objects from the pico or nano scale to centimeter in diameter. This type of object seems limited to disintegration and reintegration of elements. That is blackhole theory. That is transmutations that are not stepwise weak nuclear transmutations as shown in the analysis of Santilli's IFCP or AquaFuel. I refer you to the electron gravity string for the details of the analysis. RE: Electrogravity (electron-gravity) as a cause of nuclear reactions.

    I understand quite a bit of Black Hole theory. I even remember the equations in an exam.


    But I don't understand the rest of this.


    From the electrogravity thread - which I also did not understand: examining mass balance and stochiometry can raise worthwhile questions about experiments.


    But it is too far away to extrapolate from that to a fundamental new theory of physics not otherwise substantiated nor leading to strong (can easily be refuted if wrong) predictions different from current theories that would allow it to be tested.


    But maybe this is the idle speculation thread here in which case I can shut up?


    :)

    • New

    So basically, do don't understand anything on this thread or related threads but by virtue of your say so rather than actual facts or logically refutation you wish everybody would join your claim of being scientific without use of any science. Isn't that idle speculation?


    Those of us who are not of sceptic school of philosophy see value in speculation. We see a crisis because the pressure to shut-up coming from sceptic philosophy. Sceptic philosophy is adverse to scientific progress. Let the forum be free.


    Please keep contributing. We need the comic relief.

    • New
    Quote from Drgenek

    So basically, do don't understand anything on this thread or related threads but by virtue of your say so rather than actual facts or logically refutation you wish everybody would join your claim of being scientific without use of any science. Isn't that idle speculation?

    Well idle speculation is allowed.


    But, the idea that the evidence for such a theory, if based on stochiometric data, is not enough because the gap is too big 9too many assumptions joining it up) is not idle speculation and is common sense.

    • New

    Ring vortex solitons in nonlocal nonlinear media


    Abstract:

    We study the formation and propagation of two-dimensional vortex solitons, i.e. solitons with a phase singularity, in optical materials with a nonlocal focusing nonlinearity. We show that nonlocality stabilizes

    the dynamics of an otherwise unstable vortex beam. This occurs for either single or higher charge fundamental vortices as well as higher order (multiple ring) vortex solitons. Our results pave the way for experimental observation of stable vortex rings in other nonlocal nonlinear systems including Bose-Einstein condensates with pronounced long-range interparticle interaction.


    Ring vortex solitons in nonlocal nonlinear media.pdf

    • New
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Well idle speculation is allowed.


    But, the idea that the evidence for such a theory, if based on stochiometric data, is not enough because the gap is too big 9too many assumptions joining it up) is not idle speculation and is common sense.

    You are not being very clear in your communication. However, if you suppose there are too big of gaps and too many assumptions, while not letting facts or specifics get in your way, then that, it is idle speculation. Idle speculation is allowed but it not common sense.


    You have yet to provide any logical argument. Your belief that you present a commonsense view is greatly in error! Your common sense is just your philosophy. It is an excuse for not being willing to follow the data or engage in fair exchange of viewpoint.


    You probably can't describe what theory you are talking about. Are you generalizing arguments for argument's sake?


    As a propagandist so far, you have provided only glittering generalities.

    Edited once, last by Drgenek: THHuxleynew probably is able but is not willing. ().

    Like 1
    • New

    The most significant speculation is as follows:

    Matter movement can cause fusion. Bob Greenyer provides various evidence in

    Disruptive - Striking evidence making the core of LENR . Particularly, I would like any speculation you feel you needs said on the chapter Adamenko evidence. This a black spot into which various elements were fired, then disappeared.


    I think Adamenko evidence supports the core speculation that there are blackholes (Matsumoto blackholes) which are solutions to the Schwarzschild equation which do not have these two general preached properties of blackholes: 1) they are not so massive that not even light can escape them and 2) they are not quantum constructions therefore, they contain a singularity. Hence, the opposite is a Matsumoto blackhole can be quantum construct that does not contain a singularity. Therefore, a cluster of "neutrons" with a low integer number of neutrons can convert to a Matsumoto blackhole. The test for this speculation is the graph in this link. RE: Serious Theories and Idle Speculations on other matters.


    The proposed reason for the conversion of neutrons to "neutrons" is what Matsumoto calls fermentation. I propose fermentation is an enrichment of neutrons with strings (or what Matsumoto calls itons). The strings would be as in the review link.

    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.

    • New
    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    That was a pretty boring lecture. String theory is worthless IMHO.

    If one goggles string theory :"Instead of treating subatomic particles as the fundamental building blocks of matter, string theory says that everything is made of unbelievably tiny strings, whose vibrations produce effects that we interpret as atoms, electrons and quarks." I agree that is useless. However, Susskind has recently made a point that string theory of hadrons differ significantly from the above definition of string theory.


    In the nucleus a worldline become worldsheets because there are multiple boson exchanges at multiple quantum levels at the same time. The exchange of force creates a physical object, a string.


    Organization of matter at a finer level that the standard model would explain the families of the standard model. If Einstein thought experiment reveals that concept of energy has no physical basis except to envision it as a form of mass. Then, rather than string vibration making mass, the kinetic distribution of fundamental mass produces the illusion of immaterial energy.

    • New

    If there is a kinetic distribution of fundamental mass that creates the illusion of immaterial energy. Then what about potential energy? Potential energy would be net zero gain to one side or the other of a boundary.

    Hence, potential energy creates an opportunity for motion without fuel. See this comment of the fuel less propulsion thread.


    Post
    RE: New electrostatic propulsion device with claims of 1 G force.
    […]

    I found this about the reversibility problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. youtube.com/watch?v=9AoRxtYZrZ…NLp3btbkQ&index=3&t=4380s The video link should start talking about philosophy in physics and then give the example about the reversibility problem in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If not I suggest you find the chapter Morals, Aesthetics, Philosophy .
    Drgenek
    • New
    Quote from Drgenek

    If there is a kinetic distribution of fundamental mass that creates the illusion of immaterial energy. Then what about potential energy? Potential energy would be net zero gain to one side or the other of a boundary.

    Hence, potential energy creates an opportunity for motion without fuel. See this comment of the fuel less propulsion thread.


    Post
    RE: New electrostatic propulsion device with claims of 1 G force.
    […]

    I found this about the reversibility problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. youtube.com/watch?v=9AoRxtYZrZ…NLp3btbkQ&index=3&t=4380s The video link should start talking about philosophy in physics and then give the example about the reversibility problem in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If not I suggest you find the chapter Morals, Aesthetics, Philosophy .
    Drgenek

    You don't understand at all what energy is.

    Energy is not a physical entity, it's just a number, energy is a measure of matter movement.

    As for movement without fuel, then, please, for example, light (electromagnetic wave, electric current) moves in the process of electromagnetic induction without fuel! It only remains to understand the physics of this process and extend it to the movement of matter in the process of material-neutrino induction. I write about this in my articles.

    • New
    Quote from Aleksandr Nikitin
    ?

    I still can't understand what you wrote in your articles. Mostly because it seems you change definitions essential to the mathematics. You want us to imagine what you are talking about. But you go to so many non-common views at once, that you leave no common understanding to build on. If you could talk using a common understanding, let us see point by point, we could understand you. But you don't even provide new definitions that we can use.


    When I talk about fuel less propulsion, I define it so that people understand that I mean conversion of entropy to kinetic energy. I see nothing like that from you. On what basis can you communicate?


    I bring to you examples of motion to cold fusion that seems to say what you are saying, but your comments cut conversation in such a way that they don't allow for conversation. The response you get is a result of the confusion you generate.


    Perhaps you could start by discussing an example in an article you didn't write. There must be something somewhere that you could mostly agree with. With a common understanding of anything, we might start a conversation.

    • New
    • New
    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    I understand the basics of string theory. I also think it has been useless in calculating anything useful. It is just as useless as Bob Greenyer looking at images and speculating miraculous theories. Or Axil pontificating about EVO black hole polariton strong-weak unification theories. Or Nikitinion non-mechanical motion neutrino fields LENR induction. Or the Cherpenov "electric charge does not exist, Maxwell was an evil moron" guy. Sorry, that is MHO.

    "Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt.

    • New
    Quote from Alan Smith

    'Great minds discuss wines, average minds discuss football, small minds discuss shopping'. Teddy Rossevelt.

    On your advice I went to the wine shop today. "Winemakers" Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons from 1989 send us their greetings!

    There is cognac, but ideas are not sold, even for that kind of money.

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.