The British have essentially had a complete mental breakdown because of this! (they couldn’t handle the power of the Sun).
No offence Israel, but I’m coming to Tel Aviv… to Jerusalem, and I’m going to get Biblical on your arses! 😀
“For the first time in human history, the power of the Sun has been brought down to the surface of planet Earth”
“The most important discovery since fire”
I have NEVER been so serious of anything in my life… Israel, take all those Quantum Physics books and (don’t burn them) but put them to one side for a moment… take physics back one hundred years and start a fresh… read Randell Mills’ work… read The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics… study it in depth, from it’s inception, it’s history, it’s continual evolution… the background to hydrino energy… the implications it has in EVERY of discipline of science (and philosophy).
This discovery is the greatest in recent human history… anyone that grasps it, and understands it, masters it, can propel technology and science forward in ways we can not yet imagine.
EVERYTHING from energy, physics, cosmology, chemistry, genetics, molecular biology, drug development, ‘anti-gravity’, synthetic materials, electronics… there is NOTHING this is not going to effect… aviation, space exploration, mineral extraction, medicine…
I’ve exhausted myself… I don’t know what else to say. Israel… apply your best and brightest to this, whilst everyone else is pursuing ‘Quantum’… you will emerge as the technological powerhouse of the next hundred years… a technological superpower… unrivalled and untouchable. (sorry to those that disagree but there are military applications, I imagine Israel is already thinking the same!)
It’s the greatest gift you have since… … the Ark of the Covenant! 😀 (you can build yourself a new one! A 21st century Ark of the Covenant!)
Other inventions/patents from Dr Randell Mills ranging from genetic sequencing to selective drug delivery to Resonant magnetic susceptibility imagine (ReMSI)… the guys a genius!… https://www.google.com/search?q=randell+mills …
“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”
£1302.00 … for a one day conference! No wonder these people rule the world!
Leadership in a climate of disruptive change
18 March 2019 – 9:30am 5:30pm
Chatham House, London
Energy Transitions 2019
New Actors, New Technologies, New Business Models
18 March 2019 – 9:30am to 5:30pm
Chatham House, London
A global shift in the energy sector is under way with the rise of renewable energy sources spearheaded by their dominance of investment in the power sector. This is leading to disruptive change as the greater deployment of renewables and many associated technologies, such as storage, are challenging existing business models and threatening the market dominance of the existing actors. At the same time investment in fossil fuels has stabilized, as a slowdown of the financing of coal has been balanced by modest increases in spending in upstream oil and gas.
New global trends, electrification of new sectors such as transport and heating, along with the provision of modern energy services to over a billion people lacking access could further disrupt the energy sector, and the future impacts of these transitions on global energy security and sustainable transitions globally remain unclear.
Therefore, now, more than ever, it is critical that policy-makers and business leaders re-evaluate current and future strategies for delivering the domestic and international energy transition. The fourth annual Chatham House Energy Transitions conference will examine the new drivers of change, focusing on how different economies and industries can make the shift to a low-carbon energy future. Key questions to be explored include:
What will incentivize an acceleration in decarbonization and drive low-carbon innovation?
How can new technologies be deployed to transform grid interaction and enhance connectivity?
What are the implications of the changing policy environment for low-carbon investment?
How do disruptive shifts in the energy sector affect the prospects for enhancing access to clean, safe and sustainable energy in developing countries?
The Chatham House Rule
To enable as open a debate as possible, this conference will be held under the Chatham House Rule.
Achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting temperature increases to ‘well below’ 2°C requires environmental leadership to rapidly emerge within the world’s centres of economic policymaking: treasuries, finance ministries and ministries of economy and business.
Plenary Session at the Waddesdon Club 2018 annual meeting
The urgency of climate change dictates that the next generation of leaders must deliver the economic transformation needed; these individuals need to understand how climate and environment challenges will affect their time in power and define their legacies.
The Waddesdon Club is Chatham House’s response – through engaging future leaders, it seeks to equip them with the necessary tools, concepts, language, and capacities for influence needed to advance a mainstream economic agenda for climate change and sustainable development. Core to this approach is an annual retreat at Waddesdon Manor, offering a unique opportunity for participants to deepen their knowledge; widen their peer network, including meeting leading international experts; and share their respective perceptions, experiences and ideas on climate change issues.~
Previous Waddesdon Club Retreats
The inaugural Waddesdon Club retreat was held in October 2016 with a broad focus on the importance of low-carbon industrial strategies in mobilizing capital for low-carbon investment, driving down technology costs, fostering innovation and phasing out high-emitting activities.
The second Waddesdon Club retreat took place in early 2018, with a discussion on the practical policy challenges of managing the green economy transition. Expert speakers highlighted the role of international institutions in shaping norms, policies and financial flows. Participants addressed the need for a vision that brings together poverty alleviation, tackling inequality and addressing climate change for a just transition amidst rapid decarbonisation.
Achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting temperature increases requires strong environmental leadership within economic policymaking. In October 2016, Chatham House used the unique setting of Windmill Hill to convene future leaders in finance and economy ministries from across the globe. The self styled ‘Waddesdon Club’ aimed to enhance understanding of climate and environmental challenges and ensure consideration within policy making at the highest level.
Organised by the Energy, Environment and Resources department and the International Economic departments at Chatham House the ‘retreat’ was attended by leading economic policymakers and experts from the fields of climate science, energy and finance. Utilising the inspiration of Windmill Hill, itself a celebration of the conservation and environmental work pursued by the Rothschild Foundation, attendees shared knowledge on the current political and economic context and explored the intersections of environmental and economic policymaking. With the long term aim of supporting economies to respond more effectively to global change, the event identified recommendations for future discussion.
In order to enhance attendees’ experience and support effective communication, a dedicated mobile app was developed for the event. Co-created by Chatham House and digital tool provider, Lumi, the app allowed real-time updates and feedback as well as being an on-going resource which supports the implementation of ideas discussed at the event.
Chatham House plan to continue the momentum built through the first Waddesdon Club with future events at Windmill Hill.
“Quantum Physics is a fairy tale! Like a pretty, perfect looking magical castle in the distance… but when you finally get up close and inside… it’s a dark deceptive trap that you can never escape from!… … And it’s about to collapse!”
From David Harriman’s course “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics,”…
Below is a series of lectures, David Harriman’s series, “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics/Reality.” Herein, he walks us through the history of physics and how the Kantian philosophy subverted the science.
“I love the way this guy pronounces ‘Kant’… it’s like the posh English way of pronouncing…
“Okey dokey Danny Boy!”
“Quite fitting though really!” 😀
“Anyone that knows me personally, knows I am literally like a little boy when it comes to this one! … X-Men comics! Anyone? No? GUESS WHO MY FAVOURITE X-MAN WAS!” 😀
“And still is?”
“GAMBIT! Well… I’m more inclined towards Magnetos Brotherhood these days”
In the 21st century, physicists, mathematicians and theoreticians have turned to supercomputers in their quest for the ‘Unified Theory’ of physics. Supercomputers have been used in every field from cosmology, Astro-physics, particle physics, to the search for the elusive ‘dark matter’ (which Mills has identified as ‘hydrino’). Thus far each effort (as far as I’m aware) has been based on the ‘Standard Model’ of physics, and as of yet produced no concrete results, new theories or confirmation of existing ones (I.e. Standard Model).
Why not use a supercomputer to test Mills’ GUT-CP model of atomic structure, and of the Universe? Mills has almost single handily built an entirely new model of physics, of the atom and electron… and has thus far proven to be far more accurate than the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics. Millsian software (as discussed previously) is a perfect example of the accuracy of his model in regards to molecular structure and calculating bond energy transfers. GUT-CP has predicted everything from the accelerated expansion of the Universe to recently confirmed ‘gravitational’ waves.
One such effort in the search for ‘dark matter’, ‘new physics’ and the fundamentals of particle physics & cosmology is the GAMBIT Collaboration project. GAMBIT is The Global And Modular BSM Inference Tool, and is made up of a collection of researchers from scientific intuitions worldwide, using the supercomputer Prometheus (amongst others) in the search for dark matter and a unified theory.
GAMBIT narrows the hiding places for ‘new physics’
The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences “Is it possible for today’s apparatus to detect the elementary particles of ‘new physics’ that are capable of explaining such mysteries as the nature of dark matter or the lack of symmetry between matter and antimatter? To answer this question, scientists from the international GAMBIT (Global and Modular Beyond-the-Standard-Model Inference Tool) Collaboration have developed a set of software tools that comprehensively analyse data collected during the most sophisticated contemporary experiments and measurements.” “Although almost a century has passed since Zwicky’s discovery, it has not been possible to investigate the composition of dark matter to this day, nor even to unambiguously confirm its existence. Over this time, theoreticians have constructed many extensions of the Standard Model containing particles that are to a greater or lesser extent exotic.”
The following article from Physics World explains GAMBIT, the history of the ‘discovery’ of ‘dark matter’ and the subsequent search for it’s identity’. When supercomputers go over to the dark side “Despite oodles of data and plenty of theories, we still don’t know what dark matter is. Martin White and Pat Scott describe how a new software tool called GAMBIT – run on supercomputers such as Prometheus – will test how novel theories stack up when confronted with real data”
“Unexpected scientific paradigm shifts, where reality turns out not to be as we believed, can be just as exciting and perplexing. One such dramatic change in perspective has been the dawning realization over the last few decades that “ordinary” matter accounts for just a fifth of the matter in the universe, with the rest made of a mysterious “dark” matter. Physicists love unsolved problems, and they don’t come much bigger than working out the nature of this dark stuff.
If a blockbuster movie is ever made about the discovery of dark matter, the next decade may well be the climax. New data from experiments such as CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are telling us more about what dark matter can and cannot be, while the recent discovery of gravitational waves reminds us that even century-old theories (general relativity in this case) can be spectacularly confirmed in the blink of an eye”
GAMBIT project suggests theoretical particles are too massive for LHC detection “The idea of the GAMBIT Collaboration is to create tools for analyzing data from as many experiments as possible, from different areas of physics, and to compare them very closely with the predictions of new theories. Looking comprehensively, it is possible to narrow the search areas of new physics much faster, and over time also eliminate those models whose predictions have not been confirmed in measurements,” explains Dr. Marcin Chrzaszcz Verification of the new physics proposals takes place in the GAMBIT Collaboration as follows: Scientists choose a theoretical model and build it into the software. The program then scans the values of the main model parameters. For each set of parameters, predictions are calculated and compared to the data from the experiments. “In practice, nothing is trivial here. There are models where we have as many as 128 free parameters. Imagine scanning in a space of 128 dimensions—it’s something that kills every computer. Therefore, at the beginning, we limited ourselves to three versions of simpler supersymmetric models, known under the abbreviations CMSSM, NUHM1 and NUHM2. They have five, six and seven free parameters, respectively. But things nonetheless get complicated, because, for example, we only know some of the other parameters of the Standard Model with a certain accuracy. Therefore, they have to be treated like free parameters too, only changing to a lesser extent than the new physics parameters,” says Dr. Chrzaszcz.
The GAMBIT Project website gives the following explanation – “Welcome to the GAMBIT homepage. GAMBIT is a global fitting code for generic Beyond the Standard Model theories, designed to allow fast and easy definition of new models, observables, likelihoods, scanners and backend physics codes.”
Thus far, ALL previous efforts with GAMBIT and Prometheus have led to dead ends (like all of modern QM physics), but it is worth noting that all previous efforts using Prometheus have been built upon or have expanded upon THE STANDARD MODEL!
What if this code, or at least these supercomputers where used for Mills’ GUT-CP and hydrino model? Entering a theory based upon Classical Laws? Expanding upon Newton, Maxwell equations… essentially used to enter ALL of Mills 30 year research, theories, predictions and equations… tested against known observables in the Universe?
I believe the results of doing so would be extraordinary accurate compared to all previous attempts, and would be the beginning of creating a computer model/simulation of the Universe to such a degree of accuracy never before witnessed in mathematics, particle physics, Astro-physics and cosmology… essentially the beginning of creating a computer simulation of the history of the Universe, past, previous ;o, present and future… A COMPUTER SIMUALTION OF THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!
(as well as confirming hydrino as dark matter, the expansion/contraction of the Universe, gravitational waves and causes etc.)
Surely if all these Quantum Physicists, Astro-physicists and cosmologists are saying Mills is fundamentally wrong… take a risk and run it on a supercomputer such as Prometheus (fitting name considering!)… take a GAMBIT!
“The intro to the awsomest cartoon ever! I’m going to walk down the aisle to this theme!”
“The application of unlimited, unbounded energy are only constrained by human imagination, ingenuity and ambition” – Dr Randell Mills
Brilliant Light Power Terraforming Application Video
(The music! 😀 … No dolphins? 😦 )
“We need to start terraforming the planet in a positive and beneficial way for the sake of the survival of our species and all life on Earth… because at the moment we’re terraforming Earth like General Zod!… Take California for example, severe drought and water shortages, catastrophic wild fires… … although when those fires reached Rupert Murdoch’s home, I was privately thinking ‘swings and roundabouts!’… … but we could create a global paradise of abundance if we utilised this technology correctly”
Hydrino energy is high density, cheap, non- polluting, safe, and deployable anywhere in the world…
Obviously Brilliant Light Power and hydrino energy has the potential to eradicate the burning of ALL fossil fuels globally, thereby cutting global carbon emissions to ZERO!
Hydrino technology can also replace ‘renewable’ energy sources such as solar and wind farms, which would potentially take up millions of square miles of the Earths landmass to host. There is no radioactive or chemical waste, or any pollution of any kind.
But also Dr Mills and Brilliant Light Power envision a world where the use of ‘hydrino’ technologies will be used to transform the planets most inhospitable wastelands and arid regions into ‘lush, liveable, crop-producing expanses’ whilst ‘also preventing drought in already cultivated areas such as California.’
A recent article unveiled plans by scientists to transform areas of the Sahara into a lush rainfall region with abundant greenery. Although the plan utilises a combination of wind turbines and solar panels, it highlights the possible ways in which future clean technologies will be used to positively alter and transform the Earths landscape.
I believe much more research should be conducted and careful consideration taken into the idea of transforming certain regions of the Earth, using hydrino power only. As pointed out in following article, transforming such areas as the Sahara may have unintended consequences for other regions such as the Amazon rainforest, and Atlantic ocean marine life… 8 Craziest Mega-Engineering Projects That Could Rework Earth “For one, sand from the Sahara is carried into the air, across the Atlantic, and deposited in South America. The rich dust that falls from the sky, and the rain storms caused by that dust picking up moisture during it’s transoceanic journey both fertilize the Amazon rain forest. No desert, no dust. No dust, no rain forest. During that journey, the dust also feeds a variety of sea life.”
Brett Holverstott mentions in his talk, in regards to how hydrino energy has the potential to help alleviate, if not eradicate :-
Ice cap melting
The dying of marine life
Being deployable in the third world
The cutting down of the Amazon rainforest
Global city smog
Construction of river dams
… amongst numerous other potential environmental benefits.
I also believe our new understanding of atomic structure and molecular physics (Millsian), could pave the way for new cleaner technologies and sustainable materials in industries other than energy. These may include :-
– Plastics and materials
– Food and crop growth
– Fertilisers and agriculture
– Mining and mineral extraction
– Methods for cleaning up past environmental damage (plastics, carbon emissions, nuclear and toxic waste), essentially reversing the damage already caused by the Industrial Revolution.
“The application of unlimited, unbounded energy are only constrained by human imagination, ingenuity and ambition” – Dr Randell Mills
“Before we venture out into the stars, looking to terraform other planets… maybe we should take a look back at our own and try and reverse the damage we’ve done here” – Danny Hurley
Robert Senftleben: Terraforming Planet Earth
Large parts of the surface of our planet have been devastated by human activity. Terraforming on a human scale is needed to bring these landscapes back to life. The knowledge and technology is there, and you can learn how to use it and participate.
EXCELLENT TED TALK!
How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
“Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.
Update (13/09/2-18) ;D Gaia 2.0 (Timothy M. Lenton, Bruno Latour – University of Exeter)
“A time-honoured theory into why conditions on Earth have remained stable enough for life to evolve over billions of years has been given a new, innovative twist.
For around half a century, the ‘Gaia’ hypothesis has provided a unique way of understanding how life has persisted on Earth. It champions the idea that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings evolved together as a single, self-regulating system that has kept the planet habitable for life—despite threats such as a brightening Sun, volcanoes and meteorite strikes. However, Professor Tim Lenton from the University of Exeter and famed French sociologist of science Professor Bruno Latour are now arguing that humans have the potential to ‘upgrade’ this planetary operating system to create “Gaia 2.0”. They believe that the evolution of both humans and their technology could add a new level of “self-awareness” to Earth’s self-regulation, which is at the heart of the original Gaia theory. As humans become more aware of the global consequences of their actions, including climate change, a new kind of deliberate self-regulation becomes possible where we limit our impacts on the planet. Professors Lenton and Latour suggest that this “conscience choice” to self-regulate introduces a “fundamental new state of Gaia—which could help us achieve greater global sustainability in the future. However, such self-aware self-regulation relies on our ability to continually monitor and model the state of the planet and our effects upon it. Professor Lenton, Director of Exeter’s new Global Systems Institute, said: “If we are to create a better world for the growing human population this century then we need to regulate our impacts on our life support-system, and deliberately create a more circular economy that relies—like the biosphere—on the recycling of materials powered by sustainable energy.” The original Gaia Theory was developed in the late 1960’s by James Lovelock, a British scientist and inventor. It suggested that both the organic and inorganic components of Earth evolved together as one single, self-regulating system which can control global temperature and atmospheric composition to maintain its own habitability. The new perspective article is published in leading journal Science on September 14, 2018. It follows recent research, led by Professor Lenton, which offered a fresh solution to how the Gaia hypothesis works in real terms: Stability comes from “sequential selection” in which situations where life destabilises the environment tend to be short-lived and result in further change until a stable situation emerges, which then tends to persist. Once this happens, the system has more time to acquire further properties that help to stabilise and maintain it—a process known as “selection by survival alone”. Creating transformative solutions to the global changes that humans are now causing is a key focus of the University of Exeter’s new Global Systems Institute.”
“I actually emailed Roger Penrose with this last year.”
“Did you get a response?”
“No… but then he is ‘Sir’ Roger Penrose, and what we know of the Queens Knighthood list, is it reads like a God damn sex offen..
“Drop it Danny Boy!”
Recent observations made by both the Planck observatory and the BICEP2 South Pole telescope, indicate possible remnants of a previous Universe. This possible indication has been interpreted by a number of physicists in different ways, but Roger Penrose of Oxford University believes what is being seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data, are radioactive swirls dubbed ‘Hawking Holes’, thus being proof of a previous Universe existing prior to this present one, in what he and his colleagues call the “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC).
(It is worth noting these conclusions are drawn mainly from the data from the Planck observatory, and raw data from the BICEP2 is still to be released)
Radioactive swirls in the cosmos may rewrite the origin story of the universe “The idea is called “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC), and what it asserts is that, rather than starting from a big bang, the universe continually expands and contracts, each time leaving behind tiny bits of electromagnetic radiation that remain as the process occurs over and over. The late Stephen Hawking predicted tiny dots of radiation, which others call ‘Hawking points’, left over from this cycle.”
These Swirls of Light Could Be Signs of a Previous Universe Existing Before Ours “Penrose’s CCC model was developed as an answer to a curious imbalance between measurements of our early Universe’s temperature and the state of order we might expect. According to him, this imbalance could be accounted for by the death of a pre-existing universe that was there before the Big Bang. Oscillating universes come in a few different forms, depending on your choice of model. Some suggest the Universe is destined to fall back in itself one day.”
This observation, and it’s interpretation caught my attention, because according to Mills’ GUT-CP, we live in an ‘Oscillating Universe’, eternally expanding and contracting over a period of a trillion years or so (give or take). According to Mills, the Universe is in a continual state of expansion from 9 billion light years to 312 billion light years, and then contraction phase back (every 450 billion years). This process happens because, during expansion phase (or ‘annihilation’), matter is converted directly into energy (through various ‘hydrino’ chemical and nuclear processes throughout the Universe, including our own Sun), which causes spacetime to expand everywhere throughout the Universe.
NOTE – Dr Randell Mills successfully predicted the acceleration of the expanding Universe in his model prior to it’s discovery. He was also the first to successfully predict gravitational waves in to his model.
After the Universe has expanded to it’s peak radius (312 billion light years), and the engines of the expansion phase have ‘run out’ so to speak (stars, supernovas, neutron stars etc.), and most of the Universes matter has been converted into energy… the Universe will then begin it’s contraction phase and the process is reversed. Radiation will create particles, which in turn create atoms, converting ‘dark energy’ into matter, thus contracting spacetime everywhere throughout the Universe.
“The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. The acceleration of the expansion of the presently observed universe was predicted by Mills in 1995 and has since been confirmed experimentally. Mills predicts that the universe expands and contracts over thousand-billion year cycles.” – Brilliant Light Power
It is important to note that The Big Bang Theory is just that… a theory, and no direct evidence for it has ever been put forward. The idea was based upon the fact that the Universe was expanding (prior to knowledge of it’s acceleration, which should in turn discount the theory). Many physicists and cosmologists throughout the 20th century questioned the theory, and by early 21st century a vast array of evidence has slowly accumulated to discount it.
– Reiss 1998. Hubble date showed that the Universe was NOT decelerating as predicted by the Big Bang Theory, but actually accelerating. Unknown to most in science, Mills had successfully predicted this two years prior in GUT-CP model. (this is when the idea of ‘dark’ matter’ came to the forefront of physics in order to account for this surprising observation).
– Space Circles Are Proof of a Pre-Big Bang Universe? (2010) Recycled-universe theory “works on paper,” but details missing, critics say.– 3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang (Steinhardt and Turok) “Steinhardt and Turok—working closely with a few like-minded colleagues—have now developed these insights into a thorough alternative to the prevailing, Genesis-like view of cosmology. According to the Big Bang theory, the whole universe emerged during a single moment some 13.7 billion years ago. In the competing theory, our universe generates and regenerates itself in an endless cycle of creation. The latest version of the cyclic model even matches key pieces of observational evidence supporting the older view.”
“We weren’t looking for cycles,” Steinhardt says, “but the model naturally produces them.” After a collision, energy gives rise to matter in the brane worlds. The matter then evolves into the kind of universe we know: galaxies, stars, planets, the works. Space within the branes expands, and at first the distance between the branes (in the bulk) grows too. When the brane worlds expand so much that their space is nearly empty, however, attractive forces between the branes draw the world-sheets together again. A new collision occurs, and a new cycle of creation begins. In this model, each round of existence—each cycle from one collision to the next—stretches about a trillion years. By that reckoning, our universe is still in its infancy, being only 0.1 percent of the way through the current cycle.The cyclic universe directly solves the problem of before. With an infinity of Big Bangs, time stretches into forever in both directions. “The Big Bang was not the beginning of space and time,” Steinhardt says. “There was a before, and before matters because it leaves an imprint on what happens in the next cycle.”
– As Holverstott states in ‘Randell Mills and the search for Hydrino energy’, numerous ‘ancient’ structures are being discovered throughout the Cosmos that seem to predate the accepted 13.6 billion years ‘beginning’.
~Including a ‘quasar that is 13 billion light years away, yet powered by a black hole about 2 billion times the mass of the Sun’ (Mortlock 2011).
~A star smaller than our own Sun, which has almost no trace of elements heavier than hydrogen or helium, with a ratio of helium lower than that theoretically created in the big bang. Dubbed ‘The Star That Should Not Exist’(which is so sweet! :D)
– More recently a gargantuan black hole found in 2013, again throws doubt upon the notion of nothing in our ‘known’ Universe existing prior. I believe many more objects and structures will be found in the coming years and decades that will support Mils’ GUT-CP and his ‘Oscillating Universe’ Model.
– Young black hole had monstrous growth spurt Super-massive object found in early Universe tests theories of cosmic evolution. “A black hole that grew to gargantuan size in the Universe’s first billion years is by far the largest yet spotted from such an early date, researchers have announced. The object, discovered by astronomers in 2013, is 12 billion times as massive as the Sun, and six times greater than its largest-known contemporaries. Its existence poses a challenge for theories of the evolution of black holes, stars and galaxies, astronomers say.”
Mills model of an Oscillating Universe is NOT to be confused with other models such as the Big Bounce or CCC, which are still based in Quantum Models such as string or M theory… this is a truly original, more eloquent and simpler model, that has been arrived at through a classical understanding of atomic structure and gravitational forces (i.e hydrino model).
For further details see… Summary Of Randell Mills’s Unified Theory (Holverstott)
“To be honest… … what’s the fucking point? What is the fucking point!” “For the first time in human history, the power of the sun has been brought down to planet Earth” “What?” “Oh fuck off!…Just fuck off!”
“We wage a war with no rules A snowstorm with no end We share a bottle with a foe Or get a bullet from a friend”
Alex… you attempted to blow me up on a commercial flight, and you where going to make it look like it was me. Then you unleash every paedophile, stalker and low life piece of shit in Britain on me… … IT FELT FUCKING GOOD PAL. It really did. … It feels fucking good knowing others are now telling you, that YOU have to back off.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson (L) greets Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Foreign Office in London, February 6, 2017.
The top contenders to replace outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May who resigned on Friday are viewed as pro-Israeli friends of the Jews and are likely to continue the strong ties between the Jewish Sate and Great Britain.
Top among them are British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
When the German parliament approved a motion earlier this month equating the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement with antisemitic, Hunt tweeted his support for the gesture.
“Tremors, turbulence & terror in Mid East remind us of urgent need for peace: two-state solution. But the foundations for peace are respect & coexistence. Boycotting Israel — the world’s only Jewish state — is antisemitic. I salute Germany for taking stand,” Hunt wrote.
Johnson, a Conservative lawmaker is favorite to replace May. When he was the London Mayor in 2015, he visited Israel and stopped to pray at the Western Wall.
At the time The Jerusalem Post reported that he told the Rabbi of the Western Wall Shmuel Rabinowitz, that he had Jewish ancestry. “Yes, I have Jews in my family from Moscow, some of them rabbis. That’s on my mother’s side,” Johnson said.
Johnson, who is a member of the Anglican faith, wrote in the Western All guest book, “It is a great privilege to come to this Wall for the first time in my life, and I join the prayers for peace in Jerusalem.”
Speaking at a conference in Switzerland, Johnson spoke in support of May, who he said had been “patient and stoical” in facing all the difficulties around the country’s departure from the bloc.
She tried and failed three times to get a deeply divided British parliament to ratify her divorce deal.
“The job of our next leader in the UK, he or she, is to get out of the EU properly and put Brexit to bed,” Johnson said.
“And to make sure we have an exciting, dynamic, but also socially compassionate conservatism that can see off Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party,” he said, referring to the main opposition party.
He declined to give further details of his own leadership campaign, in which he will face rivals including Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and probably former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, the ex-Leader of the House of Commons Andrea Leadsom and several others.
“I don’t wish to elaborate on what I’m going to do and how we are going to do it, but believe me you will hear possibly more about that than you necessarily want to in the next few days,” Johnson said. Steve Linde and Reuters contributed to this report.
“Quite simply… fuck ’em! If the world ‘greatest’ minds and theoreticians can’t see what Mills has done… they’re mentally delusional retards. That’s the state of 21st century physics… DELUSIONAL! Borderline schizophrenic. Quasi mystical metaphysical schizophrenic bullshit!… no basis in nature or reality at all.”
Any Jewish quantum physicists who reads Smolins book and doesn’t agree with it can say… ‘Meh, Smolin… Smolin!‘ 😀
Book Review: How Quantum Mechanics Puts the ‘Real’ in Reality
In “Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution,” Lee Smolin argues for a “realist” view of the universe that is not ruled by probability alone.
One day, Albert Einstein was walking in Princeton with his biographer and fellow physicist Abraham Pais. At one point, Einstein turned to Pais and asked: “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”
Quantum mechanics appears to place a special emphasis on the act of observation — and thus, perhaps, on the human beings who carry out the observations.
BOOK REVIEW — “Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum,” by Lee Smolin (Penguin Press, 352 pages).
To the layperson, the question is absurd; of course the moon is still there. But then one reads a bit of quantum mechanics, and suddenly the answer is less clear.
Quantum mechanics, now just over 100 years old, describes the universe very differently from so-called classical physics (the physics of Isaac Newton). In classical physics, particles have clearly defined positions and speeds. If you measure an object’s location and speed, you can predict where it will be in the future. In quantum mechanics, however, all we can do is calculate the probability of getting some particular result when we make a measurement (of a particle’s position or speed, or some other property).
Those probabilities are governed by an abstract mathematical entity known as the wave function. Before the measurement is made, the system can be in many states at once — think of Schrödinger’s poor cat, alive and dead at the same time. When a measurement is carried out, the wave function is said to “collapse,” and just one of the various states that might have been becomes real.
And so, quantum mechanics appears to place a special emphasis on the act of observation — and thus, perhaps, on the human beings who carry out the observations. This is in stark contrast to earlier theories, which attempted to describe the universe “as it really is” — to show how its various parts move about, whether humans are there to observe the results or not. Now you see why Einstein brought up the moon: Surely the act of observation can’t matter; presumably the universe is what it is, whether we’re looking at it or not … right?
Einstein certainly hoped so, and so does Lee Smolin, the author of “Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum.” Smolin is an American physicist based at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario; his previous books include “Three Roads to Quantum Gravity,” “The Trouble with Physics” and “Time Reborn.’’
In his latest book, Smolin’s admiration for Einstein shines through; it was Einstein’s later philosophical writings that inspired him to pursue a career in theoretical physics. And like Einstein, he takes the position that philosophers call “realist.” As he writes, “The reality that we realists seek is the world as it is, or would be, in our absence.”
Perhaps, Smolin suggests, realism can be restored if we “interpret” quantum mechanics correctly. Some quantum theory pioneers, like Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, believed that the central role of probabilities meant that quantum mechanics is ultimately about knowledge. As Bohr put it: “It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we say about nature.”
If [the many-worlds interpretation] is right, Smolin lived and died on September 2, 1998; each statement is true, but in a different world.
The theory, rather awkwardly, seems to involve us. The view that Bohr and Heisenberg endorsed became known as the Copenhagen interpretation, after the city where the two men collaborated.
But as Smolin points out, there’s another version of the theory that allows for a realist view. This is the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation (named after two other early quantum thinkers), also known as pilot wave theory. In pilot wave theory, there’s still a wave function, but, in addition, each particle has an actual, definite location, even when it’s not being observed. This makes the theory “realist”; indeed, it may sound like a throwback to the physics of Newton.
But there’s a difference: Classical mechanics was purely “local”: physical objects could only affect one another if they touched (or if they influenced each other by means of a field, like an electric field). But quantum mechanics — including the pilot wave version — is inherently nonlocal. Sometimes, two particles are governed by a single wave function; when this happens, they are said to be “entangled.” When we measure the properties of one member of an entangled pair, we instantly gain information about the other member, even if it’s far away. Einstein dismissed such interaction as “spooky action at a distance,” but numerous experiments, beginning in the 1980s, have confirmed that entanglement is real.
Smolin is drawn to pilot wave theory, but cautions that it, too, has its problems. For starters, the wave function has no geographical limits. This leads to tricky questions about the unused parts of the wave function, the parts that don’t seem to play a role in dictating where particles actually end up. As an example, Smolin imagines the wave function that describes his own life’s trajectory. (Such a wave function would be far too complex to actually figure out, but the idea is all that matters for Smolin’s purposes.) On September 2, 1998, he had been booked on Swissair flight 111 from New York to Geneva, Switzerland. At the last minute, he re-booked for a later flight. The plane he would have been on crashed off Nova Scotia, killing all 229 on board. If pilot wave theory is to be taken seriously, he writes, “a branch of the wave function of the atoms that then constituted me is to this day bunched up at the bottom of St. Margaret’s Bay, off the village of Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia.”
There are other interpretations of quantum theory besides Copenhagen and pilot waves. A current favorite, endorsed by thinkers such as Max Tegmark, David Deutsch, and Sean Carroll, is the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), which goes back to the work of Hugh Everett III in the 1950s. In the many-worlds view, the wave function never collapses; rather, every time a quantum system can evolve in one way or another, it does both. Everything that can happen does happen — but in separate universes.
If MWI is right, Smolin lived and died on September 2, 1998; each statement is true, but in a different world. To Smolin, this “sounds more like science fiction than science”; in the end, he believes that MWI raises more questions than it answers. In brief, he finds every version of quantum mechanics unsatisfying. Having said that, it’s worth remembering that quantum mechanics works; depending on how you measure it, its predictions have been confirmed to 11 or perhaps even 14 decimal places. (The problems come up when we ask what the theory means.)
By this point we’re about halfway through the book, and Smolin, having highlighted quantum theory’s shortcomings, begins to look for a path forward. And he’s not afraid to use the widest of wide-angle lenses. What do we mean when we speak of causes and effects? Are space and time real? Is one of them more fundamental than the other? (Yes: In Smolin’s view, time is more basic, while space may be “emergent.”)
On what might we anchor a fundamental physical description of the universe? Here, Smolin takes us back to the work of the 17th century German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz. Smolin admires Leibniz’s “principle of sufficient reason,” which says, roughly, that every time we find that the universe could have been like this or like that, we can also find, with further investigation, why it is one way and not the other. He’s also drawn to the “relational” view of physics espoused by Leibniz: While Newton argued for a fixed backdrop of absolute space and time, against which physical objects moved about, Leibniz recognized that objects and events can ultimately be described only in relation to other objects or events.
If things go well, Smolin will have made the universe safe for realism; if they go badly, he will have filled up quite a few notebooks for nothing.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to abandon the bulk of modern physics, and then build it back up in a more coherent fashion from first principles. This is Smolin’s ambitious goal. Needless to say, he doesn’t quite pull it off — but he leaves us with provocative ideas that deserve attention. One of these is his proposed “causal theory of views.” We’re asked to imagine what the universe looks like from the point of view of each individual event. Smolin treats these as fundamental, and attempts to build up space and time — indeed, the rest of physics, including quantum mechanics — from there. If things go well, Smolin will have made the universe safe for realism; if they go badly, he will have filled up quite a few notebooks for nothing. (Thankfully, along with the chutzpah, there is humility. Describing his other work, he says: “This theory is new, and, as is the case with any new theory, it is most likely wrong.”)
I do not believe in ghosts — but if I did, I would picture the ghost of Einstein looking down and saying: “Keep trying. Don’t give up.”
Dan Falk (@danfalk) is a science journalist based in Toronto. His books include “The Science of Shakespeare” and “In Search of Time.”