This is material from a book that has been working on me for a while.It explains the origin of my nickname.
Inside you is a universe of atoms. The atom—the most indivisible building block of matter, or so we thought from the time of the ancient Greeks two thousand years ago until the 1930’s—is incomprehensibly small; there are more of them in everything you touch than you can possibly imagine. Now we know that there are pieces that are smaller still that make up the atoms themselves.
In fact, there exists inside of you more individual atoms than there are actual stars in the entire Universe. You yourself are a smaller universe—of atoms; and the stuff of which you are made is in fact stardust.
Sir Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal once said: “You are literally made from the ashes of long-dead stars.” In the 13.8 billion years since the Universe has recently been expanding from a denser state of matter (we’ll debate in this book whether it was a Big Bang, or some other starting point) up to the present time, countless generations of stars of all sizes and colors have been born, lived, died in massive explosions, and been reborn.
Each cycle of star birth and death—as subsequent generations of stars fuse ever heavier and more complex nuclei from the ashes of the prior generations—results in new quantities of matter with higher atomic weights. The periodic table of elements—all of the known atoms, in increasing order of the number of nuclear particles they contain— is “constructed”, proton by proton, within the interior of stars: in the crucible of nuclear fusion.
White, yellow, blue and red stars are among the various types of stars; our own Sun is a common type of star known as a yellow dwarf. The color of a star gives us clues about the abundance of atomic substances that we can expect to find in its core.
Our yellow sun is the source of the light and heat that makes Earth habitable, but unlike other larger and older stars, ours is mostly just hydrogen and helium. The Sun, itself, is not the source of much of the atomic “stuff” that makes up the Earth—iron, carbon, silicon, oxygen, and so forth—or even the life that inhabits it. That material came from other far distant stars that died long ago.
It is the red giant stars that are the most interesting from the point of view of the origin of life. Our own sun, 5 billion years into the future, will eventually become one of these red giants.
In the heart of each star—of which there are more than a trillion trillion in the Universe—is a blazing stellar furnace; a massive, hot star-forge, inside of which all the atomic elements are formed in the crucible of fusion. When stars die, some of them explode, and in such so-called supernovae explosions, the star’s contents become scattered across galaxies.
Some of that ancient material from long dead stars found its way to what is now Earth, billions of years in the past. It is in you now; the atoms in you came from an uncountable multitude of these ancient, red giant stars.
An interesting fact: 99% of “you” consists of just four atomic elements: hydrogen (H), carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O). Of the 92 naturally occurring chemical elements found on Earth, you have 60 or so of these elements inside you, in some amount; but every type of atom except H, C, N and O makes up less than 1% of you.
Hydrogen is both the most abundant element in the Universe (and in you!) but also the simplest. It has one proton— the most common “building block” that makes up atomic matter— in its core. Carbon has 6; nitrogen has 7; and oxygen, 8. The latter three of the primary atomic elements that make up “you”— carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen—are all formed from the fusion of hydrogen and helium in the core of red giant stars.
One of these red giants, the star Aldebaran, is a relative neighbor of ours located in the constellation Taurus. “Neighbor” is an interesting term when we talk about the vast size of the Universe: a ray of light originating at Aldebaran will still take 65 years to reach us, and that light ray is moving at 650 million miles per hour. Some neighbor!
More precisely put: you—the 99% of you that is made of H, C, N and O— is mostly made of red giant stardust. Just like that which is produced by the red giant Aldebaran.
Fusion is the nuclear process by which the enormous heat and density that exists at the core of a star forces hydrogen (and its bigger brother, helium) to come so close together that the protons and neutrons bind together and form larger atomic nuclei.
Lithium, for instance, is the third element in the periodic table, next after helium, and it is formed in stellar fusion of hydrogen and helium—the welding together of these constituents taking place at immense temperature and pressure.
In this crucible of heat and pressure, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the other more complex elements are likewise formed from the basic building block of hydrogen. Trillions of such stars have existed and expired in the time since the Universe was young, and you are here now because of it.
The key to all of this is hydrogen, as it is the primordial stuff from which all else is ultimately comprised. But a mind-bending thing to contemplate is this: all living things on Earth depend on carbon, so the fact that you exist at all, and can even think about carbon … is because you are made of carbon.
Cognitive carbon. I am, therefore I think.
Carbon, therefore has come to understand itself: where carbon came from, and how it comes to exists in us. A better way to express this is to say that DNA, the complex strand of chemicals (of which carbon is a vital component) of which you and all living things on Earth owe their existence, has evolved to create a form of life that has come to understand… itself.
Carbon understands carbon; DNA understands DNA. Earlier in my career, I helped the team that first sequenced a whole human genome in 1999. That team determined the “genetic code” that lies within our cells and directs our bodies to create our brains, eyes, hearts, skin. Determining that code—three billion letters long—was a monumental achievement on many, many levels.
Life has evolved through the course of the Universe, and in the process the stuff of which it is ultimately comprised has evolved self-awareness. There is no more profound idea than this one: consciousness, ultimately, is DNA understanding just exactly what DNA is, and where it came from, in a beautiful self-referential loop. “Self”—understanding the very meaning and essence of self.
It is the true origin of consciousness—and its ultimate purpose—that is the major idea that I want to strive to uncover in this book.
Through the miraculous process that caused red giant stars to create carbon (and nitrogen and oxygen), there is now a form of life that is aware of and can contemplate its own existence. But there is something even more amazing about this development of life evolving to understand life: life has now evolved to actually alter the long-term evolution of the Universe itself.
What the Universe—as vast as it is—will become as time pushes forward is actually dependent on this thing we call “life”. The Universe depends on us. God has created life for the purpose of evolving the Universe itself. We will be responsible for bringing about the conditions of its rebirth.
I have been battling against your heavy-handed tendencies toward censorship for the last year. The current, most egregious example is the claim of the lab origins of the Coronavirus pandemic in Wuhan; last year, I was banned from making any utterances about this claim, despite having a well-researched and carefully thought through position that I developed after performing my own numerical analysis of publicly accessible CDC ILI data and reading a number of scientific papers and other materials from a broad arrange of sources (including experts whose viewpoints differ from your own, and also policy papers from China’s own Military leadership.)
Now, you’ve been forced to backtrack and stop banning these ideas (because they are now finding traction as new facts are being disseminated which undermine what you asserted last year was “true”.)
Because what I was saying last year conflicted with your left-leaning “belief system” (which in this specific case has now been revealed as both a wrong and corrupt belief–but it is just the first of several such “proofs” that you should take care to learn from–more examples are coming) you stopped me from saying it; and as such, you actually delayed the penetration and discussion of key ideas–ideas that could have saved actual lives–from being debated and making their proper way into the body politic.
Now you have seen fit to arrogate unto yourselves the power to limit POLITICAL speech; to ban from your platforms those people who make utterances that conflict with your political ideologies. It is worth noting that if Facebook had been acting in 1776 as it does today, there would never have been an American Revolution or a U.S. Constitution; you people would have prevented that from happening. The irony is that these freedoms allowed your corporation to exist and evolve, and now you do your best to strangle them out of a misplaced idea of “doing good.”
The same fallacy of arrogant reasoning is proving true about immune-system boosting non-vaccine therapies (HCQ, Ivermectin, etc.); and the same is true about the suppression of claims, facts, papers and arguments showing that the current experimental “emergency use authorization” injections from Pfizer, Moderna, etc. are actually having statistically significant harmful outcomes, simply on the basis of adverse event comparisons to past vaccine applications that were administered at large scale.
The idea that natural immunity now no longer matters–that only artificially created immune responses through “vaccines” are “valid” — is another toxic idea that will have lasting long term negative effects on humanity. Our immune systems have been evolving over tens of millions of years; it is arrogant to presume that man-made vaccines are necessarily and always “better” than what nature has evolved for us.
Your tendencies toward idea- and viewpoint suppression are leading the world’s governments in the direction of “medical apartheid”, which is as toxic and repugnant an idea as has ever existed on the face of Earth.
Those of us who are firmly opposed to such toxic ideas–who have seen what similar ideas have done to destroy and harm humanity throughout history–have an inherent, God-given and Constitutionally protected right to engage in speech and debate to allow us to persuade people of our views; you must not be allowed as a “platform” to inhibit or influence the distribution of ideas to suit your own ideologies.
Your algorithms and implicit biases are actually harming people by preventing competing ideas from being debated, because you think you have an exclusive ownership of ‘truth’. When I was younger and less wise, I made the same errors that you make now; but with age has come wisdom. I understand the limits of your knowledge, as well as my own–even though you do not.
I understand at a deep level how Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem places fundamental limits on what you may assert as “factual”. Because of this, I understand that your practice of labelling, fact checking”, and blocking is fundamentally at odds with time-proven practices that lead to healthy societies over the long term. You think you are doing things in the name of good; when in fact the result is exactly the opposite of your intentions.
What you, the elite technocrats who run FaceBook, Twitter, etc. seem to have lost sight of is this: “Truth” is not a commodity that you have an exclusive ownership of; that you “grant” or dole out through your means of control to “ignorant” people.
“Truth” exists independent of your systems of control; free speech and debate are the natural and healthy ways that human beings DISCOVER truth. We as people don’t discover truth by virtue of your labels, fact-checks, algorithms, and censoring. People don’t DISCOVER truth by your handing it to them. Discovering truth is a process that requires us as individuals to DO THE WORK.
What you are engaged in is narrative control through selective propaganda. These authoritarian systems of censoring and control that you have implemented INHIBIT the natural discovery mechanisms for finding truth, and in the long term, are a net negative influence on humanity as a whole.
I enjoy listening to random YouTube history and science videos on the commute to and from work–it lets me use the time to enrich my understanding of the world we live in.
Today there was an interesting piece on the man who, instead of Cheops, might have been the original builder of the Great Pyramid of Giza.
Cheops was the pharaoh whom conventional historians believe built the pyramids, despite a blinding array of evidence that suggests the ancient Egyptians could not have done so using the technology they possessed at the time. History is not what we have been told.
After that especially intriguing video (it was coincidentally narrated by a man who wrote a book–“Chariots of the Gods”–that was my favorite one in 3rd grade, some 45 years ago) I stumbled onto a piece about new findings regarding galactic Dark Matter: specifically, the discovery of galaxies with NO Dark Matter, and others with an unusual concentration of it.
There may be a surprising linkage between these two esoteric topics; but that is the subject for another time. Today, I want to dig into this mystery: what might account for the finding that there are a few galaxies with no Dark Matter–or others with unusual concentrations of it? The answer may astound you.
To approach this Dark Matter concept from the proper direction (it is also the subject of a book I have been trying to complete for some time) I will start with a story that I have often used with my daughters, friends and family members. It goes like this:
If I were to imagine what things looked like where I am sitting right now–somewhere in the middle of Central California, but from a point in time some 250 years ago–what might I have seen? It is now the year 2021, so 250 years ago would have been the year 1771: five years before the founding of the US in 1776.
In Central California at that time I might have seen native Americans on horseback; Spanish Missionaries travelling on foot or riding in horse drawn carriages; or I might have seen Spanish or Mexican farmers, since at that time California was in the midst of the Spanish colonial period.
With regard to technology, I would have seen horse drawn carriages, wood burning stoves, hunting knives and arrows, wooden furrow plows pulled by horses, oxen or Burros and maybe a musket or two.
Wheels would have been entirely or mostly wood; there would have been no engines of any kind; advanced wooden wheels might have had strips of metal on the outside to strengthen them. The sky would be quiet, because air planes were still 150 years into the future.
And yet now, 250 years later, as I stand outside under the stars in this same spot, it is a completely different world. In my pocket is a supercomputer that connects me to anyone on the planet through streaming video; the world’s entire libraries of knowledge are at my fingertips online in any conceivable language I might wish to read them in; my pocket computer even listens to my voice, and speaks back to me. Oh yes: and robots can now dance.
I can send photos at the speed of light: pictures with such vivid color and resolution that people half way around the world can see what my eye sees, almost exactly as I see it.
If I look up into the night sky at the right time, I can see satellites tracing paths in the sky; I can see the red and white tail lights of aircraft; and occasionally, I might glimpse the International Space Station.
Inside of the ISS a small number of human beings live and work on the edge of space and look down on Earth from orbit (curiously, an ancient man by the name of Enoch may have once looked down on the Earth from orbit in the same way that they do now; and Enoch, it turns out, may have been the real builder of the pyramids. But I digress–that is a topic for another time).
In my driveway is a gas powered truck that can pull a load that would have taken a hundred horses 250 years ago; and if I need a flashlight outside in the darkness, I can use a device that makes brilliant, intense light from small grains of sand (silicon LEDs.) LEDs that can make a light that is brighter than the sun, or if I wish and with the twist of my wrist, can make light of almost any color of the rainbow.
In these past 250 years, most of modern science has been developed; within the last 100 years, we have discovered the secrets of the atom, determined the existence, location, and chemistry of distant stars and galaxies, and determined the nature and function of our own genetic DNA sequence.
In the last two decades, we have discovered the existence of thousands of “habitable zone” exoplanets circling distant suns using remote spectroscopy, and with this, we can even detect what gases circulate in their atmospheres.
We have developed nuclear power from splitting and from fusing atoms. Although most people are as yet unaware of this stunning fact, we stand at the precipice of an even greater industrial revolution that will dwarf all of those that have come before.
In the coming years, we will finally develop a new form of power generation technology that will enable what I call “Individual Energy Sovereignty”, which means that people who choose to do so will be able to become completely self-sufficient with respect to energy and food production.
For the first time in millennia, we will not be dependent on the economic stranglehold of the elites–we can be free from the banking system, the petrol-oligarchs, and the “grid”.
Free from those who, for their own selfish purposes, constrain and limit our access to energy in order to profit for themselves. We will be truly free, because with the ability to create our own locally needed sources of unlimited, clean energy comes the ability to fully be self-sufficient in terms of electricity, heating and cooling, water purification, growing food, and even 3D printing of materials–all the things that we need for our daily lives.
This paradigm shift will forever change politics: for it will enable us to treat one another as true equals. We won’t need to be forcibly dependent on “the system” to live and thrive.
All of this amazing advancement will have occurred within a 250 year window of nearly unimaginable progress in science and technology.
Along the way, within the last 20 years, one brilliant mind — Dr. Randell Mills — may have discovered the answer to clean, inexhaustible energy production: it involves extracting copious amounts of energy from hydrogen in a completely new way.
If his theory is correct (and the evidence is stacking up firmly in his favor) it has a mind-bending consequence: this method of producing energy from the most abundant substance in the Universe — hydrogen — has the side effect of producing what the inventor believes has the physical and chemical signatures of Dark Matter.
It could very well be that we will achieve Individual Energy Sovereignty on planet Earth in the next decade by turning hydrogen into Dark Matter. For more on the background of this, please see this blog post, among others that I’ve authored through the years. Also, see this PowerPoint.
But for now, lets stop and reflect: if this claim about turning hydrogen into Dark Matter is true, then civilization will have progressed from wooden horse-drawn carts to advanced computing, AI, robotics, and power generation from synthesis of Dark Matter in just 250 years.
As an aside: why do we think, in the millions of years that “mankind” has been on this planet–that this is only the first time that we’ve reached space, and discovered this energy production technique? [1]
In the span of 100,000 years there are 400 intervals of 250 years; in a million years, there are 400,000 such intervals. There are two things that to me seem quite clear: not only is it unlikely that we, right now on Earth, are the first to have discovered energy production from hydrogen to Dark Matter–but in the vast reaches of the Universe, it is almost impossible to conceive that other civilizations have not also discovered this same secret in the billions of years that the Universe has existed.
In fact, given that this method of power production is the most efficient means to produce energy from the most abundant substance found in the Universe–it is almost certain that all civilizations eventually discover it, just as we have, within just the last 100 years of our exponential science and technology learning curve growth. It is, after all, the simplest and most efficient means of extracting energy from hydrogen.
And now we’re ready to circle back to the topic of that youtube video: the curious finding that there are a small number of galaxies where no Dark Matter seems to be found; and others were there are unusually large concentrations of it.
Perhaps we’ve been looking in the wrong place all these decades for signs of intelligent life in the Universe, via the SETI project: perhaps the existence of Dark Matter is the unambiguous signature of intelligent life. For if we ourselves have discovered how to extract clean and copious amounts of energy efficiently from hydrogen… so must billions of other civilizations scattered across the Universe.
The presence, distribution, and concentration of Dark Matter… therefore corresponds to the concentration of intelligent life in the Universe, as all civilizations eventually discover how to harness it. Just as we have, in just the blink of an eye during the billions of years of existence of our home planet, Earth.
Dark Matter is the signature of intelligent life. Those virgin galaxies, devoid of Dark Matter… might perhaps be the few galaxies left where intelligent life has not yet taken hold–whereas the galaxies with an abundant concentration are those where intelligent life has become far more advanced than our own.
That, my fellow readers, is a monumental idea to consider. Before I conclude, I want to say a thank you to a special person, my Muse. You know who you are. Thank you for inspiring me to write again.
At the age of 52, I experienced a lifetime first: I took a private plane to speak at a conference at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
At the time, I was working at a start-up company involved with commercial insect rearing; I had developed some considerable expertise in the field, and the primary investor in the company had a private plane.
He had arranged for me to give the talk. The plane, which he co-owned with the pilot, was a six seater King Air. It wasn’t a Lear Jet or anything, but it was nice, comfortable, and a smooth ride.
Here’s what I discovered about how the world elite experience air travel on private planes.
For starters, I drove straight to the hangar and parked about 50 feet from the plane. There was no TSA; no lines; no agents of the state checking to see if I had permission to be there, no uniformed authority figures with weapons holstered demanding “Paperien, Bitte” to allow me to pass.
I didn’t need permission from the state to travel, as the rest of the population does. I just showed up at the hangar, and took off.
There was no awkward fumbling of ID’s or boarding passes, no limit on my luggage, nobody peeking inside my bag to see if I had 3.5 ounces of fluid inside my shaving kit instead of 3 oz, nobody telling me that I couldn’t bring my water bottle with me.
There was no forced disrobing while my belongings were X-rayed and peered into.
There was no symbolic “hand up surrender” posture required to indicate my submission to the state while they scanned my body with millimeter wave technology that basically looked underneath my clothes.
None of that.
It was just pure, unfettered free travel, the way our ancestors used to experience freedom to travel by horseback.
Most people don’t know this about those millimeter wave scanners they make you go through: They are just as effective with your hands down at your sides as they are otherwise.
The reason they make you raise your hands the way you must do (or else) is a subliminal, forced symbolic submissiveness: with your pants falling down because you had to take your belt off and in your stockinged shoeless feet, you have to “pose” the way the state orders you to.
Submit. Or don’t pass.
All of these rituals of control are looked upon favorably by the political party that is all about conformity, control, and coercion: the modern liberal Democrat. Do as we say, or we’ll silence you. Or worse.
I didn’t have to go through any of that.
In my case, I parked near the plane, shook hands with the pilot, got on board, and in 45 minutes – about half the time it would have taken commercially — I was on the ground in Santa Barbara.
There was no locked cabin door between me and the pilot; I joked and chatted with him while he tossed back skittles and feathered the throttle.
What did I see at the other end? It was a nicely appointed “club lounge” sort of facility with overstuffed chairs, a bar, quiet spaces to meet, a bathroom/locker room with a shower. Conceirge feeling everywhere. People smiling and asking if you needed something, rather than a warning not to park in the white zone, or blaring speakers asking Mr. So-and-So to please find a white courtesy phone. No lost luggage. No crowds.
None of that.
A rental car could be waiting twenty feet from the door at these terminals, or a Lyft/Uber driver picking me up 10 steps outside the door of the lounge.
No metal detectors; no police state. No papers, no hassle, no restrictions, no intrusiveness, just the sheer joy of travelling via air from point A to point B in as pleasant a manner as you can imagine.
Everyone in the whole world deserves to experience air travel like that, instead of being scanned, poked, prodded, intimidated, jammed and crammed into uncomfortable seats only to be lectured by overbearing “air crew” personnel about what you can and can’t do onboard.
You shouldn’t have to grin and bear it while they order you to put on your mask, put on your seatbelt, and listen to them drone on for the 10th time that day about how they’re sorry, but there’s no food aboard today’s flight and please put your seat and tray tables in their full upright and locked positions while you put away all the meager belongings they let you bring on board until they give you permission to touch them again.
The elites have a freedom to move that the rest of us only dream about.
These are the people who are telling you that you can’t drive gasoline powered cars or heat your house with gas while they jet from point to point without a care in the world.
We need to develop personal “hover cars” like we used to see in those futuristic sci-fi movies so that all of humanity can experience what it feels like to be truly free. To travel where you want, when you want, how you want, without needing permission from Big Brother first.
When I visited a friend in NYC in September of 2018, I stayed in a hotel in downtown Manhattan. I took a subway to get there, and when I reached my stop, I came up onto the street, walked a block or two, and came across Nikola Tesla Corner at West 40th street.
That park was one place on my list to visit during my first ever NYC trip. In 51 years, I had never visited New York City. Long a fan of Nikola Tesla, I studied Electrical Engineering in college and became deeply impressed with his unmatched genius. He is the father of the modern AC electricity system that we still use today.
But I am also a fan of Tesla for a few more “strange coincidence” reasons.
Tesla built one of the first hydroelectric plants in the world at Niagara Falls with George Westinghouse in 1895. I was born in Niagara Falls, New York, although I’ve never been back to visit there since I was about a year old. I have an odd spacetime continuum connection there with Tesla that I want to eventually explore and understand.
In high school, I was a national semi-finalist for the Westinghouse National Science Scholarship, which was started by George Westinghouse.
I made it to the semifinals, the top 25 competitors in the nation. They only advanced the top 12 to the finals, and I wasn’t one of them.
My submission, a successful engineering project, had to do with a feedback control system for “steering” solar panels and tilting them so that they always faced into the sun to give you the most energy during the day.
I did this way back in 1983; I guess I should have patented it. I also made it to the semi finals of the Eisenhower Memorial Scholarship program that year, but just missed out on that one, too.
I got started on this project during my junior year of high school in the summer, when I found myself building “Solar Trackers” during a special program at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana where I eventually went to college.
Rose-Hulman has been the nations #1 undergraduate engineering college for more than 20 consecutive years. I learned to love physics, and I went there to study it as well as electrical engineering, because of Phil McKinley–the best physics teacher ever who taught AP physics in high school, as far as I’m concerned.
Later on in 1899, after the hydroelectric plant in Niagara Falls was built, Tesla built a wireless power lab in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I lived in Colorado Springs between the ages of 5 and 8. Another odd spacetime coincidence.
The promise of Tesla’s work there in Colorado — extracting free energy from the Earth’s natural electric and magnetic systems — directly threatened the interests of the titans of the energy and banking sector: it held out the promise of free energy for everyone, without us having to pay the Oil Barons or Edison Electric (financed by JP Morgan) or the other gatekeepers of energy.
It was genuinely a direct and credible threat to the elite: the real “power play” is, and always has been, about control of access to energy. He who controls energy controls the world.
The societal power struggles in our world are not really about money; Wall Street and dollars are an abstraction. The power struggle is really about controlling the means and access to energy. Tesla was on the verge of making ubiquitous energy available to everyone, produced at the point of use without the power grid network, and virtually free of charge.
That would have changed everything in our favor. It was not to be; JP Morgan cut him off and stopped financing his work.
I’ve long been a proponent of solving this “energy chokehold” problem, which is why I have been spending the last few years following Dr. Randell Mills’ brilliant work in Princeton.
I visited Mills again this past July, at the peak of Covid in New Jersey — and he’s making steady progress. I think he has a real shot to make something work in the next few years.
I am still trying to get him to hire me because I want to help him move the world forward to the the new industrial revolution that will be the result of his stellar work at Brilliant Light Power.
He, too, may offer the world an energy source that can break the stranglehold the elites hold on us by making virtually limitless, clean power available to anyone, anywhere, with zero pollution.
If not Mills, it may be others, like Aureon Energy in Canada.
Here is what the future could hold: imagine being able to build a home anywhere in the world, with no dependency on monopoly owned power lines or roads or grocery stores or cities; being able to grow your own food underground in a vast greenhouse; make your own heat and electricity; purify your own drinking water, and run your own metal forge to make things with–all with zero-pollutant electricity that you can make for yourself at home with a small appliance the size of a mini fridge.
Anyhow, back to Tesla: JP Morgan cut off his funding when he was working in Colorado, and Tesla eventually went broke and lived out the rest of his days in New York. Along the way, he filled many notebooks with his experiments, thoughts and science work. When he died, he left behind boxes of valuable notes on electricity, energy, magnetism, and many other esoteric topics. He lived in a building near that park in NYC.
Now for a detour. There was a man at MIT in Boston, Vannevar Bush, who was a brilliant scientist and a contemporary of Tesla. Vannevar was the head of many important projects before and after the world wars, and was involved with some of the biggest, including the Manhattan Project which led to the development of the atomic bomb.
One of the mysterious things he was involved in was a top secret organization called Majestic 12 (MJ12.)
It has long since become a legend of apocryphal “UFO” lore for a number of reasons that I won’t dig into, but some of it is covered here.
Suffice it to say, however, that Vannevar was a brilliant and accomplished man, Dean of the MIT School of Engineering among other things, and he was head of MJ 12 for a while.
While he was at MIT, Vannevar Bush had a colleague that he mentored there named John. John went on to do a great deal of interesting science work himself. He was awarded the National Medal of Science by Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s.
John worked on rotational radiation therapy for cancer; as part of that work, he was a noted expert on high voltage systems including the first million-volt X-ray generator, which he developed with Robert J. Van de Graaff, a contemporary of Nikola Teslas. His photo looks like what Julian Assange might look like in 30 years.
You’ve probably seen the Van De Graaff generators that build up static electricity and shoot bolts of electricity across the room, or allow you to light up a lightbulb that you hold in your hand. That’s a Van De Graaff generator.
When Tesla passed away, for reasons still cloaked in mystery his writings were seized by the FBI and turned over to the government. The FBI chose a noted expert in high voltage systems to look them over to see what innovations Tesla might have left behind that were kept secret; that man was John from MIT, the colleague that Vannevar Bush mentored.
Vannevar Bush, the same man who ran Majestic 12 for a time–which is rumored to have come into possession of materials and residue from crashed “UFOs”–was connected to John, at MIT. John turned out to be the person who last had access to Tesla’s works and private diaries to study and analyze–materials given to him by the FBI.
So who was this John? Well it turns out he was the son of a real estate developer in New York City; his mom’s name was Elizabeth Christ, and his father’s name was Fred. Elizabeth was from a small town in England, and when she migrated to the US, she brought a cherished belonging with her: a New Hebrides Bible, a family heirloom. Fred Jr. and John were brothers, sons of Frederick.
John’s full name… is John Trump. He is Donald J. Trump’s uncle.
Fred, John’s brother, is Donald’s father. And that New Hebrides Bible that belonged to Elizabeth Christ? Well, that would be the bible that Donald Trump held up outside of St. John’s Church on June 6th, 2020.
June 6th was “D-Day”, and the White House was under siege by a mob of what you probably thought were “protestors”.
But among them were Chinese nationals outside the perimeter (there are videos of this circulating) who were trying to stir up enough chaos to bring down both Trump and the White House.
On June 6th, D-Day, Trump took that cherished bible to St. Johns for a symbolic reason. That same day, he received a letter from Archbishop Vigano. Vigano wrote this letter to Trump on June 6th, 2020 and on October 30th, he wrote a second letter.
You should read them both, even if you personally don’t think much of the Catholic Church; Vigano is an interesting Archbishop.
When I visited NYC I stopped in at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the one across from Rockefeller Center in Manhattan. It is a blessing to just sit quietly inside for a while and absorb the spirituality of that wonderful place–especially given its juxtaposition to what stands directly across the street from it: Rockefeller center. The lion’s den of the New World Order elites.
The Energy Barons: elites who were perfectly personified by J.D. Rockefeller.
Anyhow, back to John Trump: he was the man tasked with studying the secret works left behind by Nikola Tesla, which likely contained notebooks full of information on how to build large scale free energy systems like the ones he was working on in Colorado Springs.
Again, John Trump’s mentor at MIT was the head of Majestic 12, Vannevar Bush. It is likely that all of the work that followed from studying Nikola Tesla’s diaries has been kept secret by the government for more than 70 years, possibly under the auspices of Majestic 12, a deeply classified program.
The reason it is kept secret? It may contain a means for the world to break free from the New World Order people who control the world’s banking, energy, food production, and mining systems.
I think “MJ12” may be behind the anti-gravity stuff that is leaking out in those Navy “UFO” videos that were popularized last year by Tom Delonge of Blink 182 and his “To The Stars Academy”. Many signs appear that some kind of massive “disclosure” is coming to the world, if we can hold onto our freedoms long enough.
John Trump, Donald’s uncle, may have had his hands on the solution to rescue all of humanity from the grip of the energy barons and oligarchs.
71 Million people just voted for Trump, and only a small fraction knew anything about this. But this week, there are beginning to be moves and countermoves happening that suggest the “Deep State” is out to prevent Trump from “declassifying” whatever it is that he may know from his uncle’s work.
Today’s move of Ezra Cohen Watnick landing at the Pentagon in a defense secretary role is a big “hint” to those of us in the know. Trump put him there for a reason; he was mentored by General Michael Flynn, one of the finest men we’ll ever be graced with. Something big is happening, and it will climax soon, one way or another.
It is likely that “they” killed JFK for trying to do what Trump may finally do, and were behind the impeachment of Richard Nixon, who it turns out was a friend of Donald Trumps in the mid 1970’s. “They” may have killed Robert Kennedy and JFK Jr. for the same reasons.
Why does Nixon matter in this story? Because he, too, had access to secrets long kept buried by the government, which he intended to release to the world via a series of documents placed in time capsules. One of those time capsules was recently located: it had been kept hidden in the library of the White House. Its whereabouts were disclosed some time this year.
Who got to it first, the CIA types, or Donald Trump? We don’t know. But what we do know is that Nixon and Trump were friends, Nixon wrote him many letters, and Trump put him up in a apartment in his building in New York City in the 1980’s for a while. Nixon was an insider on “UFOs” and Majestic 12.
Stay tuned, we may find out what has long been hidden. And if God is on our side, we may finally get our hands on free energy devices, compliments of Tesla, John Trump, or people like Randy Mills in Princeton, which will unshackle all of humanity from the tyranny of the elite… forever.
Those people who thought voting for Joe Biden was the right thing to do? Think again. Joe is the pawn of the people who want to maintain the chokehold on civilization, to continue to control and enslave it, to profit from it and keep it in a state of chaos and tension. We are pitted against one another because that is a tool that lets them maintain control. They use the media and social networking to help them maintain this left/right, black/white, gay/straight, capitalism/communism tension.
Those types, who own Joe Biden and clan, don’t want Trump to declassify anything. They want it kept hidden. They want to push the world into the “Great Reset” described by Vigano, which is a trap that will enslave humanity for centuries if it comes to pass.
It’s Too Late to Close It, But We Can Lessen Some of the Damage.
A perspective on the subject of covert mass psychology and modern internet-based social networks—with a curated collection of resources. Skip to resource links.
If you find this post interesting, see my two-part posts over there about anti-social media.
EDIT: Since the time I originally started to write this blog post, my Twitter account has been deactivated (thanks to the very same authoritarian Tech Titans that this article is partially about.)
Because of this, there are some broken links to images that I will have to go find the originals for, and fix when I have time. They pointed back to my Twitter account, sadly, which has been nuked.
This post is a continuing work in progress and not particularly well structured at the moment; I had to paste material from a variety of sources simply to salvage it before it got memory-holed by Big Tech. I will go back and edit it when I can.
Social Networks and Mass Psychology
I have collected links over the past few years for a number of illuminating resources on the subject of mass psychology, particularly in the domain of modern social networks, of which I was an early participant as far back as 1999.
These resources includes evidence of covert psychological operations—conducted by public, private and foreign entities—on modern “anti-” social networks as well as on mass media or through institutions of government and education.
In this post, I mainly focus on the social network perspective.
I used the term “anti-” social media in the title of this piece deliberately. It is impossible to conclude that the long term effects of the current abusive exploitation of these platforms–and the tools they enable which are used for “narrative” steering, conflict escalation and “thoughtcrime” punishment (that is, for carrying out covert PSYOP psychological operations campaigns on US and other citizens)—is anything other than ultimately destructive for a free and civilized society.
Exploits like this are not conducive to a stable society:
Recent studies have shown that in the US, the “polarization” gap between the “left” and the “right” members on the ideological spectrum has been widening—ever since the introduction of Facebook and Twitter, as it so happens.
In the below chart, the political “left” pole moves further left while the “right pole” remains essentially stable over time (this chart comes from the Economist.com.) This phenomenon is no doubt true of other countries as well.
There is a actually a good reason, in terms of social psychology, why this has happened. This video touches on the foundations of the idea, and it uncovers a particular vulnerability of the political left: as a group they are much more concerned with social conformity than the political right–and (anti)-social media platforms dramatically amplify this vulnerability in pathological ways.
The above graph covered the period from 1994-2017, but the gap has no doubt widened further in 2020. Here is another picture of the same thing:
And another one:
It is quite clear that the current Congressional ideological divide is *even worse” than these charts suggest, given that they are all several years old.
A question we all need answers to: why is this happening, “who” is behind it, and how is it being exploited?
I have a unique set of qualifications for speaking about this topic as it relates to social networks and technology, as you’ll discover by reading more of this post. I had collected these links and resources and added them over time to my pinned Twitter profile tweet thread, but having been locked out of my account recently for 10 days with no explanation given (which happened to many other conservative voices as well this year), it is clear I have to find another home for these resources or risk losing access to them.
The rise of “counter-offensive” campaigns such as “Q” is evidence of just how pervasive and important this “digital battlefield” on the social network platforms has become.
It is literally a war for the hearts and minds of the populace, and given that this covert digital warfare can stoke deep divisions and create mass hysteria (COVID-19, anyone?) it is capable of wreaking economic damage on the scale of conventional warfare without a single bomb being dropped.
While the future of anti-social networking at the tail end of 2020 looks increasingly grim given all the disinformation, censoring, deplatforming and digital warfare that has occurred this year (of which the “pandemic” and its knock-on effects are arguably one of the bits of evidence), there is a glimmering of hope.
There are methods to counteract some of the covert exploitation of social networks that contribute to this pathology (some of which are included in the resources section.) But it requires regulation of social networking companies that may be impossible to achieve at this late juncture. Time will tell.
While I would like to hope that the free market could resolve these issues, it is clear that there is (a) monopoly power being wielded by the Tech Giants to maintain their control, and they all tend to lean heavily toward the left end of the ideological spectrum and (b) there is a covert “push back” against solving the underlying vulnerabilities of modern social network platforms, because it would then close doors that certain agencies and entities want to keep firmly wedged open–because it allows them to do what they do.
A few simple changes in requirements for how platforms currently operate would slam the door shut. it remains to be seen if there is the political will to make these changes mandatory.
When I mention conventional “mass media” in the context of explaining some the ideas contained in this blog to people unfamiliar with the topic, I use a simple but powerful example to get them to start thinking differently about the “media” (social or otherwise) that they actively or passively consume.
Most people are blissfully unaware of the “passive consumption” effect. A simple question to ask get the conversation started: why do so many “internet” and device companies offer their “customers” curated news?
For example, why does Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. have a “news division”, and why do they have an interest in showing you a list of news headlines on their homepages, their devices, and even in the mass emails they send out?
I understand why Apple would want to inform you of their latest i-Gadget release in their emails, for example; but do you really need Apple News telling you what’s going on with “climate change”, politics, and international events? Why?
Given that there is a cost to operate these news curation “divisions”, what is the economic incentive to the companies running them? Who is paying the bills for these divisions, and why? Who is paying to place content there, and who manages the algorithms that select and prioritize headlines for your personalized “feed”? Why is it called a “feed” by the way? Think.
Let’s take a step back and address the higher level question first: why does this even matter?
Because the power to “curate”—the power simply to decide what headlines you are exposed to, in what order, headlines whose very wording often betrays a mild to strong bias—is immensely powerful as a means of subtle persuasive control.
When you realize that video content is even more persuasive than written content in subtly shifting public perceptions, the power to curate video streams (hello, YouTube!) is even more concerning.
With respect to curated news or content: most people often won’t read past the headlines for all but a fraction of the “news” that assails them daily; but even the act of just glancing past the headlines (or video thumbnails) on your screen or phone exposes your subconscious mind to the messaging.
Whether you know it or not, you’re absorbing the “message”. This, in fact, is why “news tickers” on the CNN TV screens that are ubiquitous (and exclusive!) at major US airports are so dangerous: even if you aren’t watching or listening to the talking heads on screen, you can still see the ticker out of the corner of your eye, and you will absorb the message unconsciously–and that message will often slip past the filters of your conscious mind. Things that you would reject if you perceived them consciously can sneak past your defenses.
A critically important question: Who decides what the ticker on the CNN news screen in the airport–the one that you’re not watching, but still absorbing subconsciously–streams past you? Why do you trust them?
Update: as of January 2021, CNN has cancelled its airport contracts! An end to subconscious propaganda peddling is in sight!
While this idea of subliminal persuasion has long been known and exploited by product marketers as well as propagandists (Edward Bernays is mentioned below in the resource section), the nature of (anti-) social media and modern digital internet-connected devices makes both the spectrum of channels of delivery and the frequency of exposure much more effective and potent.
In the US Intel community, the word “SIGDEV” (SIGINT Development, or Signals Intelligence Development) is becoming more widely known, and job titles with this term are now prominently featured. SIGDEV rose into the public consciousness thanks to famous “whistleblowers” such as Bill Binney, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, among others.
While Snowden was a user of these intelligence agency systems at the NSA and CIA, and became (in)famous for exposing some of their dangers via the materials he leaked to the public, I hold the dubious distinction of being one among thousands of engineers and scientists who wittingly or unwittingly built those technologies and installed them in the caverns of the NSA.
What I was told at the time about what the systems I was working on were to be used for—and what they actually came to be used for—were two very different things. Had I possessed the foresight to see that it would lead to the complete violation of our privacy and undermining of our 4th Amendment rights, in spite of protections like the FISC Court, perhaps I would not have participated in that work. Hindsight, as the say, is 20/20.
In my younger years I helped to design and build supercomputing machines that came to used for signals intelligence gathering at the NSA and elsewhere. Bill Binney and other whistleblowers have long since disclosed the existence of these programs, so I have nothing new to add other than to say “yep, they did exist, I helped build them.” I was not given any details about what they were being used for, nor the information contained in them; I only learned of this later on, after the whistleblowers exposed the facts.
I also launched a “social networking” company as far back as 1999—years before Facebook and Twitter came into existence—that already began to explore the use of GPS tracking of cell phones in the context of the “social graph” (the network of people to whom you are connected.)
While our original aims seemed innocent—using your phones’ GPS to offer you discounts at nearby Starbucks and help your friends find you there, for instance—the Pandora’s Box of nefarious abuses of the “social graph” connected to location tracking was far beyond our ability to see at that time. (That was an idea for which I actually wrote a preliminary patent in 1999—one that never progressed to a full patent because we ran out of funds).
In the end, I’m glad our company failed and we had nothing to do with the current nightmare of abusive exploitation of these anti-social network tools.
The concept of “Signals Intelligence” was once mainly “defensive” (collecting electronic and other intelligence on adversaries to allow the formulation of a defensive strategy against attempted attacks by them) but it has long since transformed into an “offensive” tool. By this I mean the exploitation of electronic networks and the content flowing through them to disrupt or defeat an adversary, primarily through psychological means. The ideas aren’t new, the aims aren’t new, but the channels of exploit are.
This is the age old tactic of deploying propaganda, now re-invented by exploiting very potent and often invisible channels of sociological influence on modern social networks. “SIGDEV” has now mutated from the concept of simply “monitoring” to the concept of electronic “exploitation”—from monitoring to “digital” control of large numbers of people.
I use the term “PSYOPS” in this post to broadly include both subliminal and overt attempts to persuade mass groups of people to not only shift attitudes, awareness, and perceptions—through the use of carefully crafted strategies and narratives using tools that exploit the strengths and weaknesses of the “social graph”—but more ominously, to influence people into self-destructive actions or patterns of behavior.
The “network of influencers” that makes up the “social graph” underlies all modern social networking platforms: Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Google, etc. Simply put, your ‘network’ is that constellation of people with whom you interact; information about “where” and “when” you create content, and what content you create and share to whom and who reacts to it and how is a valuable piece of information about you (your psychological and voting preferences profile can be inferred from a large sample of your posts over time.)
In this “social graph”, each person is a “node” in this sample network of people; some people have more “influence” than others on reaching, informing, and persuading others in their networks (and by extension to other loosely coupled networks.)
An example of a social graph. Each “dot” represents a person in a related network of people.
The reason I have decided to relocate this content here on my blog—I had been collecting nuggets in my pinned profile thread on Twitter, for ease of access via Tweet—is because the crazed censorship of the modern leftists in charge of social media.
At any moment my Twitter account—the years of history of my thoughts and utterances contained in it—can be lost in an instant, including these resources I have painstakingly curated and assembled.
This past month, a vast purge of “undesirables”, as the leftists see them, have been eliminated from Youtube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, all for the “thoughtcrime” of taking positions opposite those of the “ministry of Truth” on these platforms.
That fact alone should give all of us serious pause. The specter of “digital book burning” and Orwell’s 1984 “thoughtcrime” is all too real in the current digital media landscape.
We find ourselves at a moment in history in which the private sector, rather than the government, is actually an oppressive authoritarian regime, intent on stamping out any voices that do not conform with the “party line”.
Resources
Links to resources with brief descriptions of each appear below. You will find that most links I provide below are presented in two forms: one to the original article or resource, and another to the webarchive of that same resource. Who knows if even this resource will remain accessible over time.
It pains me that it is even necessary to do this, but digital censorship has become so extreme that any piece of “contrarian” content can be disappeared at anytime by the platform fascists as they “unperson” the original author who creates or even references the work. Many links to content I had created earlier in the year now point to “Error: this content has been removed” pages on the (anti-)social network platforms.
The power to “deplatform” and destroy the digital identity of people should NOT be left to the authoritarian fascist left operators of (anti-) social media, but that is the world we find ourselves in.
As I provide these resource links, its useful to share with you the lens through which I view all content that I come across. I use the “rule of three criteria”:
The content might be objectively true.
The content might contain misinformation (innocently wrong, or innocently false: meaning that the author or person sharing the content is unaware that the material is not objectively true.)
The content may contain disinformation (maliciously and deliberately wrong, with the intention to deceive.)
At times, there is a 4th strategy: perhaps 95% true, with 5% deliberate disinformation. This technique is used to build “trust” in a source, but then inject just enough disinformation to subtly undermine some desired narrative.
My Twitter Profile starts with this pinned quote from an article by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:
I found this quote in a synopsis of Taleb’s writing in this ZeroHedge [2] article. The idea that he discusses is a doubled-edged sword: the “minority rule” also shows how a small number of intolerant and “evil” people can leverage the same effect to destructive ends. You don’t need a majority to bring about massive changes in a society. A cunning and crafty minority is sometimes all that it takes.
I use this next chart a lot. It came from the Edward Snowden leak archive, and was broadly disseminated in this article [2] from The Intercept. It came from “training materials” being used by US and other intelligence agencies who used this material to train new SIGDEV analysts in the tradecraft. (FVEY stands for the “Five Eyes” network, which is a consortium of the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.)
What the existence and content of this chart should make you realize is that the mechanics of using false personas on social media to influence is well understood by shadowy agencies of many governments, not just the US.
This slide from the same materials that Edward Snowden leaked is also very eye-opening:
It shows the means and methods for executing deceptions. Some of these tricks have been exploited for centuries by magicians, and also by demagogic politicians. But again: cast these techniques into (anti-) social media contexts, and you can clearly see the potential for dangerous exploitation of propaganda. These slides appear in full here [2]
This video (who knows if it will be scrubbed from memory on YouTube anytime soon) is also very illuminating. Listen carefully to the source. Remember again my “rule of three” for gauging its credibility.
Another anecdote that I found interesting was this one. It comes from this source.
What it reveals is that (some, but not all) Online Social Networks spend a great deal of effort trying to “clean up” the proliferation of fake accounts that are exploited by various entities to engage in digital warfare. It gives you some idea of how widespread the problem is, and an idea of the scale of the “combatants” who are using OSNs to disseminate propaganda.
This next resource exposes some of the ways in which the CCP exploits (anti-) social networks to achieve its objectives. A two minute excerpt is here on Twitter (but it could disappear at any time.)
Another Twitter thread that uncovers some of the details of how the CCP has expoited (anti-) social media to steer narratives around COVID-19 lockdowns in Italy appears here or here [2] It was written by Michael P Senger. Note that even the Twitter Threader App has been “compromised” by the leftist thought police: notice the injected banner at the top of the thread:
This next resource reveals some of the underpinnings of how group psychology is exploited in systems of government, and by extension, gives insight into how and why social networks are exploited for narrative shaping (propaganda.)
It refers to work by Edward Bernays, one of the fathers of market psychology and psychology of propaganda. His uncle was Sigmund Freud. This photo comes from the video located here on YouTube. Pay close attention to the excerpted text
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Edward Bernays
I mentioned earlier in this post that the “Q” phenomenon is a direct result of the digital warfare that is now taking place. I personally use this description of “Q”:
“Q” is a counter-narrative teaching “gamification” strategy designed, among other things, to create a larger base of the population capable of separating fact from propaganda using the tools of OSINT. It “fights” on the same battlefield as the social media manipulators.
“Q” came into existence on what was known at the time as the “8chan” network, now called “8kun”. This tool is part of the ‘grey web’, in that it is not widely known nor used by most of the general public. It has a few unique features: it is a “discussion board” for use by anonymous members (“ANONs”); it uses open source software, such that all of the code it relies on is available for publicly inspection, revision and critique; it has no concept of “followership” (so it is not a true social network with a clear “social graph”); and it offers a feature that is lacking in all other Online Social Networks: the ability to “digitally sign” posts on the boards, even though the person posting is anonymous.
This feature allows others to verify the authenticity of the “ANON” posting messages, even though he or she is anonymous. That is, the tripcode lets one verify that the same person is posting messages over time, thus preventing “impersonation” and theft of voice.
The importance of “impersonation protection” cannot be overstated, and will be discussed in depth later. This is the “door” that covert agencies want to keep wedged open: on all other (anti-) social networks, it is possible for covert agents to “take over” the voice of other accounts, and mislead followers who think they are reading the posts and utterances of the original poster.
Here is an insightful perspective on Cognitive Biases and Q: Leo Redfish and [2]. Because many of the “Q” community were recently the victims of the Digital Putsch by the Social Network Titans (Facebook, Twitter, et.al.) this tweet thread is of course no longer available on Twitter because the account was suspended.
I ask you this: read the thread on the archive links above, and ask yourself what is “dangerous” about this perspective to justify the suspension of this Twitter account?
I mentioned in the description of “Q” above two things: “gamification” and “OSINT”. “Gamification” refers to the notion of turning “work” into “games” in order to make people more likely to participate and keep participating over time. Before “Q” came into existence, there was a possible precursor: Cicada 3301. Among its possible purposes: identifying and coaching a class of “digital warriors” who would be capable of learning OSINT.
Here is an article that gives you an example of “Open Source Intelligence” gathering, or OSINT.
These next two videos are from Darren Brown, an English mentalist. In this show, Darren pulls a fast one on two advertisers, but it shows the devious potential of subliminal messaging.
This one, amusingly enough, is called “Toy Story: How to Control the Nation”. Darren is well aware of Bernay’s work.
This next thread [2] is a possible example of the 95% / 5% technique. It isn’t clear how much of it is credible information and how much is mis- or dis-information; there have been some apparently legitimate attacks levied against the credibility one of the people (Tore) in the documentary which Suzie Dawson unpacks.
That said, given my background I know that at least some of it is factual, credible or plausible. Even if the documentary in question is partially or wholly disinformation, it is worth studying: it is an example of the intent to deceive by obfuscation. If the claims in the documentary are false, it begts the question: who would want to confuse, distract or misdirect people’s attention around this topic? Who put up the funding to make and distribute the documentary?
Below are several video resources I have collected. As these were on YouTube, they may be disappeared down the memory hole at any moment.
Here are several of my more popular Twitter threads, which I fortunately saved on the wayback machine:
This was a good thread I wrote about the risks of Impersonation Thread and [2]
This was a response to article on Bloomberg by Quint Article and [2]
In this thread, I take apart those who call ‘Q’ a conspiracy theory; to the contrary, Q is a “counter narrative” tool that among other things is a theory about conspiracists.
This AOL thread AOL thread and [2] exposes some of the details of my former career:
This thread dug into the cell phone data set that was given to the New York Times by an unnamed source. I explain the dangers of this sort of data set, but also explain how it might lead to solving the Seth Rich murder in Washington DC: Cell Phone Data Thread and [2]
Hydrogen. It is the most abundant form of atomic matter in the visible Universe, and it is the primary reason that we derive so much of our energy from fossil fuels today.
Curiously, hydrogen may also turn out to be the substance that gets us away from the use of fossil fuels forever, but in a surprising way that most people are currently unaware of. This new technique does not involve either combustion or nuclear fusion.
Let’s cover what we know about hydrogen first, and then explain the rest.
Although hydrogen is abundant, it is a curious fact that 96% of the mass of the Universe is theorized to consist of an unknown, invisible substance—so called dark matter, and dark energy.
We can’t see it, but we can infer from its gravitational effects in the Universe at large that it must be present (including, in recent years, gravitational lensing effects captured by the Hubble Deep Field imagery.)
Dark Matter lensing of galaxies, Copyright NASA, February 2, 2012
Only 4% of the Universe’s matter is actually visible: either because it glows or reflects light, or because it absorbs light from light-emitting sources behind it (such as gas and dust.)
Of this visible matter in space, hydrogen and helium make up the vast majority: 98% of all visible matter is one of these two simple atomic substances (hydrogen has exactly one proton in its nucleus, and helium has two.) All of the other atomic elements make up only 2% of the already tiny 4% sliver that is visible matter.
So what’s special about hydrogen? The reason that we use fossil fuels today is their energy density, which refers to the amount of energy that we can extract from them per unit of volume; that energy is stored primarily in the hydrogen bonds of the fuel, which is released when these bonds are broken.
When we combust hydrogen-bearing fuels—meaning burning them in the presence of oxygen—we break these hydrogen bonds, and heat and light energy are produced, sometimes explosively. Only nuclear fission produces energy at higher energy densities, but at the cost of dangerous radiation and neutron flux.
The problem with combustion of hydrogen-containing fuels, however, is that their reaction byproducts include not only H2O (water) but also CO2, CO, SO2, and other gases. This is because the hydrogen bearing fuels—coal, oil, gasoline, kerosene, natural gas—include carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and other substances as part of their organic chemical composition; as these substances burn, the unwanted carbon and sulfur bearing gases are released.
It is possible, however, to combust pure hydrogen in pure oxygen, which creates only H2O as a product. This is essentially what happens in modern liquid-fueled rockets.
Liquid fueled booster on the Space Shuttle
Heat is produced from this combustion, which is then converted to mechanical power; and then, if desired, further converted into electrical power by various means using motors and generators.
The problem of using pure hydrogen, however, is that extracting, purifying and compressing hydrogen into liquid fuel form takes a great deal of energy up front; even though the combustion byproduct is clean, the “energy invested” in first extracting and storing the hydrogen gas for use in this way is too high, relative to other energy sources.
That is, the “energy cost per kilogram” of using hydrogen in this way exceeds the extraction and refinement cost of liquefied fuels such as gasoline or diesel used in internal combustion.
Hydrogen in this state is also in a much more explosive form, which means that fuel systems relying on compressed hydrogen must be much more carefully designed to prevent explosion.
In recent decades, as a result of the space program, fuel cells have been created. These cells can extract hydrogen from natural gas, for example; rather than combusting the hydrogen, they create electricity directly from so-called proton exchange membranes (PEM).
This is more energy efficient than using internal combustion engines to first convert chemical energy to mechanical power, and then to drive generators to convert again to electrical power, because the electric current in a PEM can be produced in one step directly from the hydrogen atoms.
The byproduct, again, is water: the protons isolated from the hydrogen gas are later re-combined with oxygen, and this creates water in the fuel cell, along with electrons. However the cells require expensive catalysts, like platinum, in order to work; and one still has to store hydrogen or a hydrogen containing fuel to use these cells.
Newer techniques may be able to efficiently extract hydrogen from water using electrolysis (using electricity to break apart hydrogen and oxygen from water.) There is interesting ongoing research involving low voltage, inexpensive catalysts to try to achieve this.
In theory, one could extract hydrogen from water directly at the point of use in a fuel cell, thereby skipping the separation, compression and storage steps. In this way, the system would be potentially lighter and safer since there is no stored compressed hydrogen, only a water tank.
Lastly, there are projects underway to try to extract energy from hydrogen in the way that the sun produces it: through a process called fusion. By using enormous reaction-starting energies, complex magnetic confinement systems, and powerful lasers, we can try to force two hydrogen atoms so close together that they “fuse” into a helium atom, and in the process release an enormous amount of energy.
The current problem, however, is the enormous amount of energy and complexity required to make a hydrogen fusion system work. The best estimate is that nuclear fusion systems are always “20 years away”, but that has been said for the last 60 or so years.
The world has spent many tens of billions of dollars trying to create hot fusion reactors that produce more power out than they require to start up the fusion reaction.
A modern fusion reactor.
While all of this is encouraging, there may also be a way to extract energy from hydrogen in a much simpler and more efficient way–far more efficient in energy terms than either combustion, using PEM fuel cells, or complex fusion reactors. To understand how this might be possible, we have to take a detour to understand the work of Dr. Randell Mills.
In the mid 1980’s, during his studies at Harvard and MIT, Dr. Randell Mills worked with a research team on the “star wars” missile defense system created during the Reagan Presidency. His work involved the study of free electron lasers, which form “beams” of electrons in free space. These can then be aimed at an enemy target, such as an incoming missile.
Electrons, one of the fundamental particles that make up all matter in the Universe, exist in three different states, Mills realized.
They can exist individually, in free space, as part of an electron beam, for instance. They can alternatively exist in orbital positions or shells around atomic nuclei or molecules. Lastly, electrons can exist on the surfaces of conductors, such as metallic wires or substrates. It turns out the physical properties and behaviors of electrons are different in these three scenarios; Mills worked out a new mathematical framework to better represent their behavior.
As Dr. Mills began to look more deeply at the known physics of electrons to understand how free electron lasers might work, he realized that our understanding of the physical nature of electrons, and even the simplest atomic substance, hydrogen, which contains one positively charged proton and one electron surrounding it…was woefully incomplete. There were surprising gaps, and the mathematical “tricks” required to renormalize related Quantum Mechanics formulae (to remove pesky “infinities” from the equations) were troubling.
One form of the Schroedinger wave equation.
As he set about studying the known math and physics, which includes conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s equation, Einstein’s relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the study of Quantum Mechanics (QM) and subsequent extensions such as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Mills realized that there is a better, simpler method for describing the quantized physics of electrons and photons, and by extension, their behavior in atoms like hydrogen.
This led him to devise a new physics, called “GUT-CP”, or “Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics”. His framework is captured in three breathtakingly detailed volumes, a masterwork, that he continuously updates and makes available for free to any interested parties to read.
With this new understanding of the “physicality” of the electron, Mills was able to derive a new approach to understanding atomic physics, including quantum behaviors, which had an interesting consequence: it eliminated the need to use the highly complex and counter-intuitive framework invented in the 1930’s known as “Quantum Mechanics”, which was based on the so-called Shroedinger Wave Equation.
It did away with some of the puzzling consequences of the mathematics of Schroedinger, Dirac and Feynman (see chapter 42 of Volume III), while preserving the physicality of quantum behavior and rooting it in a new foundation that explains physics from the quarks to the Cosmos in a unified manner.
The problem, however, is that in his early papers on this subject (including this one, in 2005) , as well as in his volume I book, he boldly exposed what he saw as the flaws inherent in the current framework of Quantum Mechanics, which infuriated most of the current physics community, who have come to accept QM as the “gospel”.
Such is the history of science: quite often, the new guy with the theory that overturns the accepted view is marginalized, castigated, and ridiculed: until a day comes that his ideas can no longer be ignored. The fact that the modern physics community doesn’t accept his thesis doesn’t mean that Mills theory is wrong: it is simply highly unpopular within vast segments of the current physics community.
We must wait until the rest of the world catches up to the evidence Mills has been amassing through the decades, which conclusively prove his model is more likely correct than not. As 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
Volume III of Mills masterful work on GUT-CP.
The short story is this: Mills new model for electron (and photon) behavior led him to realize that there should also exist a potentially new state of hydrogen, not yet discovered by modern chemistry and physics (although tantalizing and otherwise inexplicable clues exist in both chemistry and physics, which Mills neatly resolves), in which molecular hydrogen (H2) may exist with its electrons more tightly bound to the nuclei that they surround than is predicted by conventional physics.
One of many techniques Mills has used to demonstrate the existence of H2 ¼ Others available here.
Mills predicted the existence of this state of hydrogen from first principles in GUT-CP; then spent the next decades finding ways of first creating it in the lab and finally proving its existence through a variety of methods. He also worked out methods, embodied in special software, for accurately predicting molecular shapes from the same underlying mathematics: bond angles, bond lengths, and energies. Volume II of his book is full of examples. Ultimately, he realized that it is possible to exploit this new form of hydrogen by creating usable clean energy from its formation.
In the process of converting H2 into this new form, one variant of which is dubbed H2 ¼, an enormous amount of heat and EUV (extreme ultra-violet light) energy is released, far greater than what can be achieved through ordinary combustion of hydrogen (not as much as through fusion; but the equipment needed is far simpler and less costly.)
It also sometimes forms a “cold plasma”, inexplicable under current chemistry and physics given the set of reactants, pressures, temperatures, and input energies.
A plasma test involving hydrino production.
The resulting product, H2 ¼ , which Mills nicknamed “hydrino”, is a small molecule having a diameter similar to molecular helium; its behavior in diffusion through the atmosphere is therefore similar (it escapes into space, as helium does.)
It is highly stable and non-reactive, neither accepting nor emitting photons while in this state; it can, in principle, be used in industrial applications in place of helium, which is relatively rare and becoming harder to extract.
Critics say “hydrino” doesn’t exist; Mills numerous lab results, using a whole spectrum of techniques, suggests otherwise. The problem in science is this: if you don’t accept the explanation given, but you are faced with clear data and inarguable physical phenomena, then it is up to you to produce an alternate explanation that fits the observations. No one is yet able to do so.
Mills went one step further, which gave more fuel to his critics. By carefully measuring the Extreme Ultra Violet (EUV) light produced during hydrino formation, matching this to otherwise unexplained observations made by astrophysicists, and reasoning about the non-reactiveness of H2 ¼, Mills realized that this state of hydrogen has all the fingerprints of so-called Dark Matter.
It is non-reactive, non light-emitting once in this state, and has a mass that fits with cosmological observations of Dark Matter’s gravitational effects. This is a startlingly elegant conclusion; rather than postulate some mysterious exotic particle like charginos, sleptons, or neutralinos (which the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics has failed to do, and which no experiment to date has been able to find) Mills’ concluded that Dark Matter is simply hydrogen, albeit in this special state: not only is hydrogen therefore the most abundant substance in the visible, “lit” Universe, it is also the substance that makes up the majority of the matter in the “unlit”, or dark Universe.
Hydrogen, in the H2 ¼ or hydrino state (or one of its variants) … is Dark Matter.
What Dr. Mills has now shown is that it is indeed possible to create, and measure, this new state of hydrogen; and it is also possible, through a variety of methods, to capture the energy released during the formation of H2 ¼ and use it to generate power. Through the years, he has studied photovoltaics (using special solar panels that are tuned for EUV spectrum); magneto hydrodynamics; and also conventional steam/turbine generation using the heat of the H2 ¼ reaction to vaporize water.
Water bath calorimetry demonstrating power production
While this latter method is not the most efficient, it does produce steam very cheaply, and the technology to convert this into electricity is well understood and in use world wide. There is no radiation, no hazardous waste, no greenhouse gases produced; and the system can rely, in principle, entirely on water as the source of hydrogen (just as in the case with electrolysis and PEM cells.)
Because Earth has abundant water, as do the other planets and comets, there is an almost limitless supply of “fuel”, which the hydrino reaction uses sparingly anyway. Of all the “fuels” we can think of, hydrogen is the most abundant.
According to Mills’ estimates, the economic benefits of a hydrino-powered power generation infrastructure are enormous. The estimated capital cost is a fraction of that required for modern conventional central power plant generation, on a per Megawatt basis; far less, too, than any solar or wind powered “renewable” energy system, which suffer from intermittency in power production. (Ironically, I just drove past the massive wind turbine farms that blight the landscape in Tehachapi California, fully half of which were stationary.)
Furthermore, the energy density of a system that generates electrical power from hydrino—and the fact that it can run continuously, unlike solar or wind generators—is such that a hydrino-based energy system can do away with the need for the “grid” : energy production can be moved to “the point of use”, there is no longer a need for central generation or massive distribution systems (which represent a risk of failure anyway, due to EMP attacks or Carrington-like coronal mass ejection events from the sun) and the only consumable necessary is a small supply of water from which the hydrogen is extracted.
Mills has been working hard for decades to reach a point of commercial production capability, and his latest work on steam production may finally be the correct point of initial market entry. Greater future efficiencies can eventually be realized from either photovoltaic conversion of EUV or from magneto hydrodynamics,when the necessary technology catches up, but there is a huge amount of existing knowledge and infrastructure for handling steam turbine applications; and there is also a massive worldwide market for heat generation, which can also be satisfied very quickly with a hydrino-based steam generation system.
As Mills presses forward, the world will eventually have to accept that however one chooses to explain it—using GUT-CP as the theoretical framework, or not—he has developed a method to generate copious amounts of power in the cleanest way possible, without dangerous emissions or waste products, using only hydrogen extracted from water as a consumable.
He is currently in the process of raising funding to emerge from decades of research and begin the process of commercialization, for which the timing cannot be more critical. Whatever you think of the current risk of increasing atmospheric levels of CO2, it is evident that the societal pressures—rational or not—to “do something about it” , are cresting, and will eventually cause civil unrest on way or another.
The time for the SunCell, and the hydrino economy, is now.
I’m in the process of writing a “cosmology” themed book with a difficult and complex thesis: explicating the role that living things might play in the long term evolution of the Universe, through the mechanism of entropy reversal. (Entropy is sometimes described as a measure of the “disorganization of matter.” The laws of Thermodynamics assert that it always increases.)
The book’s overall topic is far too deep to delve into here, but I came across some material recently that may find its way into my book, and the thinking I did around this new topic lit up some fresh ideas.
To thoroughly grasp this “essay”, you’ll have to watch both videos linked below, then come back and read this again.
On 12/10/2019, I watched this video:
This video covers a fascinating bit of research that purports to prove, in a fairly robust way, that human conscious thought can–statistically speaking, anyway–influence the outcome of a quantum mechanics “double slit” experiment (for details, watch the video.)
The experimental subjects in this study can apparently imagine themselves influencing a certain condition in the double-slit apparatus, causing something to be “observed” (thereby “collapsing the wave function”) such that this conscious effort apparently has a quantitatively measurable effect on the outcome of the experiment.
While I have trouble acknowledging this (I’m a Quantum Mechanics heretic, thanks to my friend Dr. Randell Mills) I have no choice but to accept that these guys are evidently onto something with this experiment; the results are compelling.
Personally, I have objections to the idea that the current form of Quantum Mechanics (QM) – that is, the theory, from a mathematical/framework point of view – is the correct mapping of theory to the physical phenomena of “quantum physics”. There are many well-known “quirks” with the QM framework that are dissatisfying and reveal it to be arguably incomplete.
To be more clear: I acknowledge the validity of (at least some or most of) the phenomena that are described as consequences of quantum physics, even though I disagree that our current abstraction of how to represent these phenomena mathematically via QM is the “best fit”. I think Dr. Mills work is a better fit in most cases (although this double slit result is hard to reconcile.)
In any case, the researchers behind this particular experiment seem to have been meticulous in removing all possible extraneous mechanisms that might interfere with their experimental results, and they conducted these experiments with fairly ingenious controls and delay protocols that make their conclusions very difficult to refute.
They were also thorough in their use of meta-analysis techniques to inspect their raw data for evidence of bias (p-hacking and selective reporting, for example.) There are also efforts underway to duplicate their results which appear to show confirmation.
The results seem to show, among other things, that “meditators” (people who practice meditative thinking) can achieve more statistically significant effects on influencing the double slit result than others; but that humans, when “observing” the experiment have on the whole a statistically significant influence on the double slit result in contrast with simple machines.
The experimenters used an ingenious setup involving the internet as a distance separator, and had a Linux “bot” sometimes take the place of actual humans in performing the experiment, which involves interacting with a web page displaying some sort of feedback graph. This turns out to be a task that can be automated by a “bot” with a small bit of clever web programming.
The “Linux bots” – machine “observers” that sometimes took the place of actual humans — showed results that would be expected by pure chance (i.e., no QM “observer effect”) whereas humans showed QM “observer effect” results with (so the experimenters claim) 5-sigma statistical significance.
Let’s assume for the moment that this experiment was conducted meticulously and actually shows something valid: that human conscious thought affects the outcome of a distant double-slit experiment, thus confirming the hypothesized “observer effect” of Quantum Mechanics. (This is a mind-blowing result all by itself, by the way.)
This led me to a few speculative questions of interest:
Do children show the same magnitude of effect as adults? Does it vary by age? Is there an ‘age of consciousness’ metric that can be derived from doing this experiment on different age groups?
Can animals (dogs, dolphins, elephants, chimps, crows) be “taught” the feedback method used in this experiment well enough to serve as “conscious observers”? If they can, what does this mean?
If we re-define consciousness narrowly as “that state of mental activity which has the known and measurable 5-sigma affect on this new double slit experiment” – if we define consciousness in this way, knowing that simple “Linux bots” do not show this effect, can we use this as a sort of “Turing test” for eventual “AGIs” (Artificial General Intelligence) to determine when they eventually “cross the threshold of cognition” ?
In the video mentioned below, one of the speakers relates some cognition experiments with babies, wherein at a certain age (8 months) they become “aware” that gravity has an expected manifestation. Eight month old babies, when presented with hovering objects that seemingly defy gravity, show signs of awareness that “something is amiss” (whereas 5 month old babies do not.) At this age, babies are also aware of the concept of “self” via mirror experiments.
Again: assuming that it is a valid experiment, can this “double slit” experiment–or one like it–be used to narrowly determine the “age of conscious awareness” as children mature?
Does it correlate with this 8-months old cognitive state? If so, what accounts for what happens to children’s mental abilities when they cross this “threshold” and are able thereafter to influence a double slit outcome? Does it correlate somehow to neural connectedness or density?
On 12/11/2019, I then watched this video on AI:
Having just watched the “double slit” video the day before, I immediately grasped the applicability of the double-slit experiment as a kind of “Turing Test” to determine whether/when an AGI achieves “conscious awareness”.
If an advanced machine (much more sophisticated than the “Linux bots” of the prior video) can eventually “influence the double slit” outcome in the same way (or better!) than humans can, perhaps this serves a “proof of consciousness”! A positive “Turing Test” result.
This may be an effective discriminator to determine when the “singularity” event horizon has finally been crossed, per Ray Kurzweil’s characterization of this threshold.
From the connection of this experiment to some of the topics covered in the AI video, I speculate as follows: we have already created artificial intelligence systems that significantly outperform humans in chess, go, image classification, etc. As improvements continue (and borrowing from Kurzweil’s perspectives on this) there will come a time when a generalized artificial intelligence “crosses some threshold” (i.e., the “singularity”.)
If machine-based life evolves to demonstrate “consciousness” and then is further able to exert this QM observer effect, and if it is orders of magnitude more effective at this than modern humans… oh, my.
That will have unimaginable consequences on the state of the Universe, “post-singularity.” Because this means “spooky action at a distance” could be exploited by artificial life perhaps for superluminal communication (or God knows what else.)
Another interesting topic in the above video surfaced when some panelists were discussing the “purpose of consciousness” and the purpose and meaning of human emotion as an origin of moral force and as a motivating impetus of human activity in general. Restating things in my own words: emotions are a stimulus/reward system that exists to provide an “impulse” for humans (through consciousness) to do whatever it is that we do.
Where I tie this into my book thesis is this: I believe that humans (and other living things) are actually “designed” to fulfill a particular role in the evolution of the Universe—the long term reversal of entropy (just why this is so is the topic of the book.) Living things do so by creating lower-entropy “ordered states of matter” (the ultimate example of which will be the highly ordered states of matter–advanced artificial life–that arises when machines become self-aware after the singularity, and reproduce exponentially per Ray Kurzweil’s vision.)
Consciousness and emotional drive are the mechanisms that “compel” living things (particularly humans) to act out their role as entropy reducers. These drives represent the wellspring of humanity’s creative force.
Consciousness appears to have a direct relationship to states of matter (via the QM observer effect.) Post-singularity “artificial lifeforms” may, therefore, “evolve” something analogous to emotions, in order to provide the “motivation” for theirown continued expansion throughout the Cosmos.
If they did not do so, what “motivation” would “compel” these new life forms to continue evolving and expanding?
Another interesting talk about consciousness which connects some of these threads together:
update: Add this to the mix. If this is already possible, what might an advanced AI do with this?
Yesterday, July 31, 2018, something genuinely momentous was revealed to the world. Outside of a handful of people, hardly anyone noticed it.
The tweet below, viewed by a tiny audience, leads to a science paper that hints at something truly remarkable. Only a very small group of people familiar with the work of the man behind it grasp its full significance.
Everyone on Earth will someday become aware of what lies beneath this mysterious tweet, if the science results that it points to hold up to scrutiny and the experiments can be reproduced.
Why does it matter? Because if these results are replicable, and the rest of Mills’ work comes to fruition, then it quite literally changes everything for human life on Earth, and also mankind’s future in space, going forward.
This bold statement is based on the fact that Mills’ framework–a new model of physics that explains what is going on in the experiment about which this paper was written–leads to new ideas for producing almost inexhaustible supplies of cheap, clean, abundant energy … almost indefinitely.
Mills’ theory has other implications, as well, which are the subject of a book that I’m in the process of writing.
— BrilliantLightPower (@BrilliantLight1) July 31, 2018
To those of us who have been following Dr. Randell Mills’ work, the founder of Brilliant Light Power located in Cranbury, New Jersey (a stone’s throw from Princeton) the article came as a welcome confirmation that we have long awaited; we’ve known of his work in this area for some time.
I saw drafts of this paper from almost a year ago and have been fortunate to have been able to visit Dr. Mills several times in the past three years. He’s one of the most brilliant people I’ve had the honor of meeting.
The paper referenced in this tweet doesn’t so much describe a phenomenon that Dr. Mills discovered; it’s actually more correct to say that he predicted the phenomenon described in this paper, and he is now able to prove its existence experimentally in a number of ways, including the experiments that are the subject of this paper.
This paper reflects more than 25 years of research by Dr. Mills in this area. What is significant about this paper is that Mills has gone to great lengths to provide all of the details necessary for others to replicate his experimental results.
In the history of science, the most interesting and world-changing phenomena arise when some experiment produces a result that nobody can explain within the current frameworks of science.
Even better is when that unexpected result was predicted in advance by a new set of ideas (for example, the curvature of space around the sun that bends light from distant stars which Einstein predicted with his work on relativity).
When this happens in science, it forces us to rethink all that we believed we understood.
Situations like this come along once, maybe twice a century. They change everything; doorways to entirely new knowledge and new ways of living are thrown open when such a revelation happens in science. The future for all of us became immeasurably brighter because of what came to light yesterday in this esoteric journal article on physics.
One might say our future now looks …. brilliant.
A glint of silver reflecting the golden light of the rising sun now takes on an entirely new meaning and symbolic importance, following yesterday’s news.
July 31st witnessed the quiet announcement of a little-noticed paper by Mills, Lu, and Frazer which was published in the August 2018 Chinese Journal of Physics (why Mills’ research in this area first appeared in a Chinese journal, and not an American one, is a long story for another day.)
The link in the tweet points to an arcane paper about Physics published in a well-regarded journal; it is something that 99.999% of the population won’t read. Which is unfortunate, because everyone needs to know and understand the significance of what it says.
What it says is this:
Silver, in the presence of water and given the correct but apparently benign pre-conditions, does something completely inexplicable according to conventional chemistry and physics. It detonates and generates a significant shock wave.
But it doesn’t detonate in a way that anyone would have expected (the fact that it detonates at all is unexpected.)
Nobody (except for Dr. Randell Mills and his colleagues) has a good explanation for what is going on with this reaction of silver and water. More precisely put, the silver causes the hydrogen dissociated from the water to do something inexplicable. The energy signatures that the reaction produces reveal something even more remarkable about hydrogen, for which Mills’ framework is the only plausible explanation at present.
What the hydrogen does is the subject of Mills’ research for the past two and a half decades; it has vast implications, far too deep to cover here. That said, there are many interesting ways to eventually exploit this behavior of hydrogen for new methods of energy production.
How interesting is the phenomenon with silver? Well, given that silver and water are not known to show any interesting energetic chemical reactions according to conventional chemistry, it comes as a shock to discover that a reaction involving silver and water (and indirectly, but importantly, hydrogen) produces an explosive reaction that has the equivalent energy one would expect from an amount of gunpowder that is 10 times the amount of silver and water that were used.
Ten times.
But unlike gunpowder or ammonium, the reaction with hydrated silver does NOT involve combustion. In other experiments, Mills had shown that these reactions can take place in a vacuum, or in a chamber filled with an inert gas such as argon.
Silver should not react in this way. As previously mentioned, the fact that it does has profound implications. Mills has written many other papers, and published a three-book treatise that describes, in his view, the physics that accounts for this reaction.
With this important, seminal paper, now the rest of the world can attempt to reproduce his results. The more confirmations that occur, the more credibility the rest of his work will accrue, and then the revolutionary improvements to energy production that Mills has long spoken of may come to fruition.
If they do, it will make a new industrial revolution possible, perhaps even leading to new means of space propulsion. These ideas, and more, are captured in Brett Holverstott’s book about Dr. Mills, available here.
Keep your eyes open for reports that Mills’ experimental results are repeated elsewhere. At that moment, the world truly begins to change.
Was Stephen Hawking correct about the Big Bang? Did the Universe actually evolve in a single expansionary event starting from a vanishingly small, initially superdense “singularity“?
Shockingly, in June of 2017, Neil Turok, a close friend, physicist, and colleague of Hawking’s said: “maybe not.”
Update: Forbes has an article that further disputes the “Big Bang” theory.
Last week marked the passing of Stephen Hawking, a brilliant man who was an acclaimed theoretical physicist and mathematician; an esteemed graduate of both Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England. Hawking was viewed by many as one of the greatest physicists of the century; his work will likely continue to influence physics and cosmology—the study of the Universe, its origins, and its evolution—for untold decades.
Hawking, known worldwide and instantly recognizable because of his lifelong battle with ALS, discovered and popularized the ideas of Black Holes and the Big Bang theory, among other “big ideas” of physics.
He authored many popular books about cosmology, in a determined effort to bring the complexities of theoretical physics to within the reach of the general populace. His most popular book, first published in 1988, is titled “A Brief History Of Time“; it tells the story of the evolution of the Universe from infinitesimally small fractions of a second after the “genesis” event to its eventual end.
Through his work in physics, he sought to explain some of the greatest puzzles of cosmology, such as the origin of the Universe—the Big Bang; the distribution of matter in the Universe—why we see matter clumped into stars, galaxies and galactic clusters as we do; the puzzle of the cosmic background radiation’s existence and asymmetry; and the gravitational effects that account for the motion of stars, dust clouds, and gases orbiting around “invisible” galactic centers.
Hawking posited the existence of celestial objects that we have now detected through a number of direct and indirect astrophysical observations, which have been named “Black Holes” because they appear to be superdense objects with such strong gravitational fields that they trap light itself and prevent it from escaping, thus their name.
Among the many questions of cosmology that he grappled with is one that has been debated for nearly a century by Einstein and many others: how is the Universe evolving over time, and what will become of it over the long-term? Is the Universe “static”—that is, unchanging over time? Einstein initially thought this was the case, and was proven wrong by Edwin Hubble’s red shift discoveries in the 1920s. Or is the Universe “open”, or “closed”?
By “closed”, we mean this: if we accept that the genesis of the Universe was the Big Bang, are there forces that could bring about an eventual collapse back to an ultradense state, similar to what existed at the beginning of time, or will the Universe go on expanding and becoming ever colder and less and less dense, forever—the “open” case?
As always throughout the history of science, Hawking’s ideas may withstand the test of time unchanged; or they may inspire others to either augment, or completely overturn them as new ideas and theories compete to explain the phenomena of our Universe.
In any case, his work is indisputably of immense value.
Over the last few years, I have been reading the work of a virtually unknown and controversial physicist, Dr. Randell Mills. In particular, I was attracted to his volume III book, “Collective Phenomena, High Energy Physics, and Cosmology”.
In the last few years, I visited him several times at his facility in New Jersey, located a stone’s throw from Princeton and also Einstein’s late home, and I invited him to present a guest lecture at Fresno State in February of 2017.
While some people casually write off his work as pseudoscience, his work is surprisingly difficult to dismiss when one digs deeper and examines it objectively. His written works are breaktakingly detailed, and have been freely available for anyone to access on his website for many years (although his website, brilliantlightpower.com may turn some people away because of the bold claims he makes on the front page. Without understanding the depths from which these claims come, it is easy to conclude the wrong things about Randell Mills.)
His work is based on a solid mathematical and theoretical foundation, albeit one that conflicts with accepted dogma. There are good reasons to believe that some of his ideas may be worth paying closer attention to, because he continues to amass some interesting experimental results that align perfectly with his theoretical framework, results that are otherwise difficult or impossible to explain by conventional physics.
Situations of this sort—mysteries around the edges of science that have no clean and clear explanation—have long been the “clues” in science that something interesting, monumental, and as yet undiscovered was about to be revealed. The Luminiferous Aether of Michaelson and Morely, the double-slit experiment, and Einstein’s explanation for the photoelectric effect are a few classic examples.
In the late 1800s, some physicists were so certain that “we knew everything” that they discouraged students from studying physics as a career, believing that “everything is already known, there is nothing left to discover.” They were absymsally wrong.
One of the things that Dr. Mills derives from his theoretical framework is an elegant and compelling argument about the nature of Dark Matter, a substance that has been postulated to account for the vast majority of the “invisible” mass of the Universe, but for which there is still no satisfying explanation: what exactly is it?
The theory of Quantum Mechanics and the so-called Standard Model, for instance, which predict and attempt to explain the properties of all known particles, do not yield a good prediction for what Dark Matter should be, and continued “big science” experiments through the recent decades that have sought to explain it have failed to identify any particles that can adequately account for Dark Matter’s proposed properties.
Despite our inability to identify it, there is mounting circumstantial evidence that it simply has to exist, including at the center of our sun and galaxy. Dr. Mills has some interesting ideas about how its possible creation explains the million degree temperature of our own sun’s corona, another currently unresolved mystery.
Despite the mysteries, there may exist an explanation for Dark Matter that neatly ties together all of the current unknowns : Dr. Randell Mills’ theory, which has an elegant postulate for what Dark Matter is. It is Hydrogen, albeit in a different physical state than is currently predicted or understood by conventional physics. Mathematically, it requires accepting the possibility that Rydberg states can not only be integers, but fractional integers of the form 1/N, with N <= 137.
Given that almost all of the visible matter in the Universe (the stars and galaxies) is comprised of Hydrogen (and a little helium, and a lot less everything else) it is satisfying to think that the missing “Dark Matter” is also Hydrogen: it is a simple and beautiful result, if true.
But there is more to Mills’ idea.
In his work, Dr. Mills has published papers that not only predicted, on a theoretical basis, the expansion of the Universe (a phenomena now accepted and observed via astrophysical measurements) but also the acceleration of the rate of expansion–that is, it is now known that the Universe is not only expanding, but speeding up its expansion.
Years before this phenomenon was discovered and documented by astrophysicists, Dr. Mills had already predicted it, and proposed an explanation. It is the same underlying theory that accounts for Dark Matter.
One of the additional ideas that emerges from Dr. Mills framework for cosmology, based as it is on his refined model for the physical properties of the hydrogen atom, photon, and the electron, is that the Universe is not only “closed” (meaning that someday, it will collapse back in on itself) but also cyclical: that is, the Universe did not in fact go through a single “Big Bang” event orginating as Hawking proposed from a vanishingly small “point”, but instead the Universe “oscillates” back and forth between a maximum radius and a minimum (but still fairly large) radius, repeatedly.
There are, in fact, some astronomical observations taken by the Hubble Deep Space Telescope in recent years that seem to suggest the existence of stars and galactic objects that are “too old” for the region of space that they appear to lie in; a paradox that is not easily explainable by conventional cosmology.
Mills, however, has an explanation: these stars and objects already existed before the time of the last cosmological “contraction” cycle, and have persisted through the time of the last universal contraction and re-expansion. In other words, they were “born” before the last expansion event, and are still around.
I read about Mills “cyclical Universe” idea a few years ago. Last year, in June of 2017, I read with shock the following article — in it, Professor Neil Turok, one of Hawking’s closest friends and colleagues, claims he has discovered a mathematical flaw in Hawking’s Big Bang models, with the result that “Turok claims that the Universe is in a perpetual state of big bangs in a new theory.”
Shockingly, when I came across that claim, I had just read Chapter 32 of Randell Mill’s book on Cosmology, in which he lays out a cogent and well-reasoned case for the cyclic expansion and contraction of the Universe; precisely the same thing that Turok was now claiming was the result of corrections to Hawking’s mathematics.
Is it possible that Mills is right, and Hawking is wrong? Dr. Mills continues to collect experimental evidence that his theory of the hydrogen atom — upon which the rest of his theoretical framework builds — is in fact correct.
We are blessed to live in an exciting moment in time. Within the last century, we have had luminaries such as Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Richard Feynman, John Wheeler, and many others help to uncover the mysteries of the Universe.
Soon, perhaps we can add another name to that list, a man whose work has been overlooked, although it may unify much of physics in a surprising and elegant new way: Dr. Randell Mills.
About the author: Eric Tilton, a former chip designer, worked on supercomputing technology in the mid 1990’s at Paracel, Inc. of Pasadena, California. Paracel’s products were used, among other applications, in the field of computational biology: they were used to help Dr. J Craig Venter complete the first ever whole human genome sequence in the year 2000.
Cognitivecarbon 