As with all the preceding chapters, I thoroughly enjoyed this one.
Your comments about electric fields being present outside of the dielectric triggered a memory.
I recently listened to an article, explaining how electrical energy is propagated. All to do with fields around the conductors. Apparently, when they laid the first transatlantic phone cable, it didn’t work as expected. If I remember correctly, it was down to the metal reinforced cable sheath, acting as a Faraday cage which suppressed the external field.
I have no idea if I’m just blathering on, but another one of the issues around is science, are the silos of expertise which struggle to cross-feed into each other.
I can't help wondering if maybe James Woolsey has advised the Trump administration that SunCell is going commercial and that was the real reason Trump declared the advent of a new Golden Age. If not, at least it's good science fiction. Ambassador Woolsey was CIA director and is on BLP Board of Advisors.
I understand the sentiment, but I think that is quite unlikely. There would likely be quite a few signs if top government officials were truly cognizant of the reality of Hydrino and BLP's efforts to commercialize a Hydrino-based power source.
The importance of understanding dark matter is made explicit in this chapter, and I appreciate the education. The models considered for publication in astrophysics journals all fail some key tests, and those 5 are listed. What get published meets criteria which also are good descriptions of science fiction. The dry wit of this author, worn like a shield against insanity, is quite enjoyable. Plausibility as a criteria? Blasphemy!
So, what makes supposedly credible science is science fiction and what is testable is tossed in the furnace. That certainly explains gain-of-function research.
The criteria for serious consideration for publication that you identify above Figure 11-3 appear as sheer satire, but they are not.
I have not perused the section of the source text that explains why Hydrino is dark. My limited understanding is that the Hydrino electron is bound so tightly that an ordinary photon has no effect. I want to know if Hydrino can be identified as dark matter by using a mass spectrometer by failing to interact with the energy used by the MS to dissociate and ionize matter. What results would be expected? Does the GC process purify Hydrino sufficiently? How can Hydrino be detected?
The cosmological data summary is good. Dr. Mills mentioned that there are molecular species (carbon monoxide, I think) found in the corona that are not compatible with the known temperature and that this can only happen if the heat is generated in the corona because it would need to be so very localized. That is, if coronal heating was due to some unexplained massive magnetic field effect, how would it localize specifically to avoid dissociating CO?
Thanks for including the correspondence with Dr. Hagen, whose interview by Brett Holverstott was most enjoyable.
Glad you are enjoying the monograph! One more chapter is forthcoming sometime in the next month or so. After that, we have a great deal of content planned that will be published over the course of the year.
Regarding Popper: The reason he wrote such a long diatribe about the philosophy of sciences is that he actually had very little to say about the philosophy of science that hadn't been said before. You can get people to buy your books and achieve quite a lot of prestige by making people think they are smarter than other people because they slogged through a book of that size and came away with the word "falsification". Unfortunately, "falsification" is a false criterion. An unpredicted measurement merely lowers the probability that the theory is true and it only does so to the degree the theory's prediction is in error. This was formalized in Algorithmic Probability. But one thing is for sure: He did enormous amounts of damage by overshadowing a genuine advancement in the philosophy of science the occurred right at the dawn of Moore's Law: The mathematical formalization of Occam's Razor in Algorithmic Information Theory -- the basis of Algorithmic Probability.
In the social sciences, where motivated reasoning is rampant, things have gotten so bad that the "Multiple Analysts, One Dataset" approach is increasingly the only way to make the social pseudoscientists behave themselves. But even then, there is no objective way to say which analysts win. This is where Algorithmic Probability comes to the rescue: You tell your analysts to compete in losslessly compressing their observational data in a single executable archive. That approximates the Algorithmic Information content of the "one dataset". The analysts with the theory producing the smallest executable archive wins. In statistics, this is called an "information criterion" however, since statistics don't do dynamics, they can't deal with causality in a principled manner. Algorithmic Information does.
...has a Mathematica notebook cosmological model based on the formulas in the GUTCP book. I came to different conclusions from the book, but of some interest is that when I calculated how much of the mass that exists at the start of an expansion is turned into energy at the end of an expansion, it came out to be 12.5%. I see no particular reason for the coincidence between that and the H(1/1)/H(1/N) mass at present but I figured I'd mention it.
That notebook seems to point to a need to refine the cosmological model of GUTCP, which wouldn't be surprising since it isn't central to the hydrino hypothesis (let alone BrLP's business) but then I am working alone and no one has bothered to review it so it may well be that I got something very wrong.
As with all the preceding chapters, I thoroughly enjoyed this one.
Your comments about electric fields being present outside of the dielectric triggered a memory.
I recently listened to an article, explaining how electrical energy is propagated. All to do with fields around the conductors. Apparently, when they laid the first transatlantic phone cable, it didn’t work as expected. If I remember correctly, it was down to the metal reinforced cable sheath, acting as a Faraday cage which suppressed the external field.
I have no idea if I’m just blathering on, but another one of the issues around is science, are the silos of expertise which struggle to cross-feed into each other.
I can't help wondering if maybe James Woolsey has advised the Trump administration that SunCell is going commercial and that was the real reason Trump declared the advent of a new Golden Age. If not, at least it's good science fiction. Ambassador Woolsey was CIA director and is on BLP Board of Advisors.
I understand the sentiment, but I think that is quite unlikely. There would likely be quite a few signs if top government officials were truly cognizant of the reality of Hydrino and BLP's efforts to commercialize a Hydrino-based power source.
The importance of understanding dark matter is made explicit in this chapter, and I appreciate the education. The models considered for publication in astrophysics journals all fail some key tests, and those 5 are listed. What get published meets criteria which also are good descriptions of science fiction. The dry wit of this author, worn like a shield against insanity, is quite enjoyable. Plausibility as a criteria? Blasphemy!
So, what makes supposedly credible science is science fiction and what is testable is tossed in the furnace. That certainly explains gain-of-function research.
The criteria for serious consideration for publication that you identify above Figure 11-3 appear as sheer satire, but they are not.
I have not perused the section of the source text that explains why Hydrino is dark. My limited understanding is that the Hydrino electron is bound so tightly that an ordinary photon has no effect. I want to know if Hydrino can be identified as dark matter by using a mass spectrometer by failing to interact with the energy used by the MS to dissociate and ionize matter. What results would be expected? Does the GC process purify Hydrino sufficiently? How can Hydrino be detected?
The cosmological data summary is good. Dr. Mills mentioned that there are molecular species (carbon monoxide, I think) found in the corona that are not compatible with the known temperature and that this can only happen if the heat is generated in the corona because it would need to be so very localized. That is, if coronal heating was due to some unexplained massive magnetic field effect, how would it localize specifically to avoid dissociating CO?
Thanks for including the correspondence with Dr. Hagen, whose interview by Brett Holverstott was most enjoyable.
So this is the final chapter? I have thoroughly enjoyed reading each chapter! Kind of sad no more coming out.
Glad you are enjoying the monograph! One more chapter is forthcoming sometime in the next month or so. After that, we have a great deal of content planned that will be published over the course of the year.
Regarding Popper: The reason he wrote such a long diatribe about the philosophy of sciences is that he actually had very little to say about the philosophy of science that hadn't been said before. You can get people to buy your books and achieve quite a lot of prestige by making people think they are smarter than other people because they slogged through a book of that size and came away with the word "falsification". Unfortunately, "falsification" is a false criterion. An unpredicted measurement merely lowers the probability that the theory is true and it only does so to the degree the theory's prediction is in error. This was formalized in Algorithmic Probability. But one thing is for sure: He did enormous amounts of damage by overshadowing a genuine advancement in the philosophy of science the occurred right at the dawn of Moore's Law: The mathematical formalization of Occam's Razor in Algorithmic Information Theory -- the basis of Algorithmic Probability.
In the social sciences, where motivated reasoning is rampant, things have gotten so bad that the "Multiple Analysts, One Dataset" approach is increasingly the only way to make the social pseudoscientists behave themselves. But even then, there is no objective way to say which analysts win. This is where Algorithmic Probability comes to the rescue: You tell your analysts to compete in losslessly compressing their observational data in a single executable archive. That approximates the Algorithmic Information content of the "one dataset". The analysts with the theory producing the smallest executable archive wins. In statistics, this is called an "information criterion" however, since statistics don't do dynamics, they can't deal with causality in a principled manner. Algorithmic Information does.
https://github.com/jabowery/GUTCP
...has a Mathematica notebook cosmological model based on the formulas in the GUTCP book. I came to different conclusions from the book, but of some interest is that when I calculated how much of the mass that exists at the start of an expansion is turned into energy at the end of an expansion, it came out to be 12.5%. I see no particular reason for the coincidence between that and the H(1/1)/H(1/N) mass at present but I figured I'd mention it.
That notebook seems to point to a need to refine the cosmological model of GUTCP, which wouldn't be surprising since it isn't central to the hydrino hypothesis (let alone BrLP's business) but then I am working alone and no one has bothered to review it so it may well be that I got something very wrong.