Uncategorized

BUY ‘America’s Newton: The Reception of the Work of Randell Mills, in Historical and Contemporary Context – Thomas Stolper’… BUY NOW! BUY, BUY, BUY!

“Slightly pissed off because I paid $600 for my copy, and last time I checked they where going for $3000… … but it’s back in print… for $10!
Never mind… I want EVERY ONE OF YOU FUCKERS TO BE BUYING A COPY NOW! 
(you know who you are!)… if next time we meet, I find out you didn’t buy a copy of this book… I am going to knock fifty shades of fucking shit out of you! Seriously… and I’m doing Krav Maga three times a week, and getting good at it!” ;D

In fact I’m buying now, this is a 2008 update of the first edition (2006)

tel3

America’s Newton: The Reception of the Work of Randell Mills, in Historical and Contemporary Context by Thomas E. Stolper

newton.jpg

This book gives an answer, insofar as I knew it by 2008, to a question: why hasn’t the work of Randell Mills and his company, BlackLight Power (later renamed Brilliant Light Power), had a friendlier reception? The short answer: Mills rejected the incumbent foundational theory of physics (Schrödinger-based Quantum Mechanics, or SQM), which can explain only 5% of everything out there, and replaced it with a new foundational theory, called the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics. (The GUTCP, now a three-volume work of over 1800 pages, is available on Amazon and also available as a free PDF download from the website of Mills’ company.) Alas, journal editors, scientists, graduate students, science writers, science managers, venture capitalists, the funding agencies, Congress, and the attentive public are still taught to hold SQM in awe. America’s Newton is extensively documented for those who would like to read more about any of the topics mentioned. Erratum: on p. 228, I gave the wrong values for the minimum and maximum sizes of Mills’ oscillatory universe. Readers will no doubt find other mistakes. Much has happened since 2008, and Mills has made great progress towards commercialization of the nonpolluting carbon-free energy source that the world needs more than ever. But the most basic fact in science remains the same: the incumbent foundational theory of the physical sciences is still unable to explain 95% of all that exists.

D. Fafarman
5.0 out of 5 stars
A History as Grand as its Subject
January 29, 2009
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
This review adapts the one I wrote for Stolper’s 2006 “Genius Inventor”. This being the first review of “America’s Newton”, I feel a sense of urgency about bringing it over. In a sense this is the “second edition” of GI, but the changes are too extensive for that. I see that Stolper has addressed my concerns from the earlier work, and there is a lot of new material throughout. I have only browsed this volume so far, so the comments are mostly about GI (minus my objections). GI is still OK but if you have a choice I recommend this version.

Tom Stolper, a long-time member of the Hydrino Study Group, has written a superb scholarly history of the development of Dr. Randell Mills’ physical, chemical, and cosmological theories. The extent of the research Mr. Stolper has done is epic — he worked extremely hard at putting this together. He presents what amounts to a full retrospective of 20th Century physics, and a summary of where it currently stands. His perspective is both technological and cultural (with perhaps a stronger claim to authority in the latter) — for example, there’s a section titled “Tribalism and Socialization”. The book is full of fascinating anecdotes.

I personally have been following this saga for nearly two decades. I attended the historic 1999 American Chemical Society conference mentioned in the book. I also read the 3rd edition of Mills’ magnum opus and followed some of the derivations (though not in depth).

Both Mills and Stolper suffered a lot of grief in connection with the cold fusion fiasco of 1989. Mills has good reason to continue to distance himself from cold fusion, for reasons that Stolper makes clear if you have not been immersed in the details of the controversy.

Here are a few brief passages to give you the flavor of the work; this first one is rather poignant:

“Lorentz was the dean of physicists in the early 20th century, much admired by Einstein, but raised in the classical tradition, and unhappy about the way that quantum theory contradicted so much of it … just as unhappy about … the model of the hydrogen atom as Mills was. Lorentz found himself saying on one day that an electron following a curved path radiated energy, and on the next day saying, in the same lecture hall, that the electron orbiting the hydrogen atom didn’t. The many contradictions … weighed heavily on him … in 1924 he told Abraham Joffe, ‘I have lost the conviction that my work has led to objective truth, and I don’t know why I have lived. I only regret that I didn’t die five years ago, when everything still appeared clear to me.'”

These quotes show Stolper’s special grasp of group dynamics insight:

“Ignoring Mills and supporting Podkletnov was a classic example of how large outfits evaluate risks. They want incremental innovations that sustain existing programs, not major innovations that disrupt them. If Podkletnov-type antigravity work succeeded, then NASA would still be doing rocketry, and everything at NASA would go on much as before, though its work load would be a little lighter (pun intended). If Mills-type anti-gravity work succeeded, then NASA would enter upon its golden age, but at the price of organizational upheaval.”

“Political reporters and foreign correspondents can go and check the assertions of top officials for themselves. Science writers can’t do that with quantum theory or relativity theory or most other topics in science. They have to choose whom to believe, and nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of a thousand, the established authorities in science provide the best guidance. The Mills affair was worse than unusual. It was unprecedented in living memory, and situations without precedent are always hard to deal with.”

This one is rather droll :-):

“According to (Jonathan) Phillips, the bias against Mills’ ideas was so strong that the Journal of Physics D wouldn’t even send the line-broadening manuscript out for review in 2003, because, an editor said, the journal feared that reviewers would recommend publication.”

In Stolper’s closing remarks:

“Science is a candle in the dark, just as Carl Sagan said. It must be guarded and tended, because its flame is not yet as bright or steady as most scientists think or as the leaders of science would have us believe. The winds of obscurantism are still strong, and the surrounding darkness is vast indeed. Mills has lit a new candle, one that may in time become a beacon. The efforts of those who would hide its light under a bushel or snuff it out entirely need to be countered.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s