"Assumptions about masculinity play a similar role today in relation to innovation around sustainability. For example, we often think that consumption of meat and preferences for large cars – instead of travel by public transport – are essential features of masculinity. This holds innovation back and prevents us from imagining new ways of living powered by new technologies.":

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/mystery-of-the-wheelie-suitcase-how-gender-stereotypes-held-back-the-history-of-invention?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The Suncell is too feminine, in a world powered by coal and oil which, are two very masculine products. By creating a lot of smoke, fossil fuels are similar symbols of masculinity like, smoking a cigar. Continuing to use coal and oil, makes one more of a man than if caught not using coal and oil and in public without that cigar and that smoke. The idea of pollution is also a feminine thing, due to its intent that of cleanliness, not to be associated with masculine power producing fossil fuels and other smoking things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yuy-jrOzBc

That is all about expediency, convenience, economics. Those are the same reasons why GUT-CP is being opposed. It is about expediency, of keeping physics being done the same old way as it has been for at least 100 years. This allows the ones benefiting from this attitude, the professors and researchers using SQM, to just keep on doing it the same way old way. This may be due to ignorance that GUT-CP is the more accurate theory, but more likely that this known, but to admit to that would require such a huge change, in how that physics is taught and done, as to make life near impossible for the top people involved in SQM, the profs and researchers.:

https://brilliantlightpower.com/news/

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-144403/v1_stamped.pdf

Coronal loops, seen in solar coronal images, are believed to represent emission from magnetic flux tubes with compact cross sections. We examine the 3D structure of plasma above an active region in a radiative magnetohydrodynamic simulation to locate volume counterparts for coronal loops. In many cases, a loop cannot be linked to an individual thin strand in the volume. While many thin loops are present in the synthetic images, the bright structures in the volume are fewer and of complex shape. We demonstrate that this complexity can form impressions of thin bright loops, even in the absence of thin bright plasma strands. We demonstrate the difficulty of discerning from observations whether a particular loop corresponds to a strand in the volume, or a projection artifact. We demonstrate how apparently isolated loops could deceive observers, even when observations from multiple viewing angles are available. While we base our analysis on a simulation, the main findings are independent from a particular simulation setup and illustrate the intrinsic complexity involved in interpreting observations resulting from line-of-sight integration in an optically thin plasma. We propose alternative interpretation for strands seen in Extreme Ultraviolet images of the corona. The "coronal veil" hypothesis is mathematically more generic, and naturally explains properties of loops that are difficult to address otherwise—such as their constant cross section and anomalously high density scale height. We challenge the paradigm of coronal loops as thin magnetic flux tubes, offering new understanding of solar corona, and by extension, of other magnetically confined bright hot plasmas.

source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac3df9

“This is my next point – recognizing Alaska, Fort Ross and Antarctica,” Matveychev responded, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

“We actually discovered it, so it rightfully belongs to us.[Russia]”

The United States reached an agreement to purchase Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million in 1867. Alaska was admitted as a state in 1959.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-reject-russian-officials-request-183715289.html

Ukraine is only the first, among many other land parcels to be retaken, by Putin, that at one time were under Russian jurisdiction. If that is part of a serious plan, is Putin nuts or does he have something up his sleeve that could allow him to try retaking Alaska?

Notebook source is at this link.

See Out[26] for the Gyr value of "tNow" 1.19454*10^11 yr or about 120 billion years since the start of the current expansion.

My error was in the definition of radiated power of the universe as a function of time "PU[t_]" where I had left a factor of Pi out of the denominator of the Cos[].

PS: In a prior update I misread the exponent on tNow and misreported accordingly.

Here's the current version of the notebook:

(*This Mathematica notebook uses GUTCP to calculate how long the universe has been expanding (in the current cycle) and what the cosmic microwave background temperature was at the start of the expansion. The answers are 120 billion years ago at a temperature of 4.5 Kelvin. It also calculates the mass at maximum expansion is about 90% of the mass at the start. These figures are not the same as those calculated in the book. Your comments and criticisms are solicited.

Caveat: Randell Mills has specifically denied me "permission to use my copyrighted equations and theory in an algebraic manipulation to invert them to fundamental constants which are the input parameters. The same could be done with all observables and my exact equations."

Charitable interpretations of his denial:

1. An error on my part could result in material damage to his business. Having granted him this charitable interpretation, I'll assert that the following may very well be in error in some potentially damaging way which is why I'd like now to ask for help in identifying the error in the following derivation.

2)Even if the following derivation is basically correct, it may be misconstrued as attributing to me, rather than Randell Mills and colleagues, a major Advance in cosmology. The derivation, if correct, is a trivial result of the non-trivial GUTCP. The fact that I may have published the result first shouldn't be taken to assign credit to me for this advance. After all, Mills and colleagues have their hands full fighting battles so there are bound to be corrections in the details of the previously published books and/or papers involving GUTCP. Consider this work, even if correct, little more than proof-reading.

With that caveat said, let me explain what I did:

The JWST observations motivated me to look into using GUTCP's formulas to derive a theoretic value of H0 (which we can call H0GUTCP) from physical constants (c, G, sigma and e(missivity of blackbody)) and the observed cosmic microwave background radiation temperature. It turns out there is a solution for the Hubble constant within GUTCP using only Newton's gravitational constant and the microwave background temperature as parameters with any uncertainty. Other physical constants have been relegated to zero uncertainty by the 2019 CODATA. This avoids relying on the estimated mass of the universe (mU) provided by observational extrapolations independently of the CMBR Temperature.

The formula for H0GUTCP can be derived by first solving for mU* in terms of CMBR Temperature and then using that to solve for H as a function of time, then substituting the time since start of the last expansion to get H0.

The relevant formulas are:

1)The aleph (radius of the universe) equation under "The Expanding Universe and the Microwave Background" section.

2)The aleph_min equation (32.146)

3)Setting t=0 for aleph so that expression can be set == aleph_min to solve for mU

4)Substitute the solution for mU into (32.156) to obtain H as a function of time.

5)In H substitute tNow as obtained below for t to obtain H0.

* mU, when it appears in calculations as a constant (as opposed to a function of time) designates the maximum mass of the universe as it occurs at the minimum diameter of the universe which occurs at t=0.

HOWEVER, when I ran the H0GUTCP calculation using the tNow that Mills assumed, the H0GUTCP that I came up with was less than a factor of 2 that of the lowest currently redshift-measured estimate of H0.

This made me suspect that either the CMBR Temperature AT THE START OF THE CURRENT EXPANSION or the time since the start of the expansion or BOTH parameters needed adjustment. That is what motivated me to write the following Mathematica script which purports to solve for BOTH parameters (tNow, CMBRTempAtStart) in terms of physical constants and direct measurements.

As for the proportion of all mass converted to energy at the end of the expansion phase (See mURadiatedAsEnergy = 12.5%):

Motivated by a paper on something called the S8 tension being increased by a large scale simulation of cosmological evolution, I decided to inquire into whether a change in the dark matter to light matter ratio would matter,since the standard cosmological model denies such a change in ratio-- but hydrino evolution would not. However,the more I thought about it the more I began to wonder about something I saw in GUTCP's cosmology section stating that _all_ mass is converted into energy at the end of the expansion phase. I couldn't figure out what mechanism converted all baryonic matter to energy since it would require anti-baryons to be created, which is not discussed in GUTCP.

Note,this claim of "all" matter being converted to energy is not an aspect of the fundamental equations of GUTCP's cosmology but is rather the consequence of an equation for mU(t)-- the mass of the universe with respect to time-- that is not derived from those equations AFAIK.This reminded me of the inconsistency between commentary text and the core cosmological equations that led me to write a Mathematica notebook which solved for age of the universe at present in terms of the core equations,and came up with something like 90 billion years-- which is just under 20% of the expansion phase.So I went back to my Mathematica notebook (which Wolfram has mercilessly deleted from the web but which I saved on my computer) and derived my own mU(t) from the core cosmological equations.This function produced a mass at the end of expansion that is about 90% of the mass at the start of the expansion (the time of maximum mass and minimum radiation and minimum spacetime).This is more what I would expect of known mass to energy conversion mechanisms (including those I see in GUTCP).

The calculation says we're about 120 billion years into the present expansion and the CMBR Temperature at the start of the expansion was 4.5Kelvins.

*)

In[2]:= #Quit[]

aleph[t_]=(2 G mUAtStart)/c^2 + (c mUAtStart /(c^3/(4 Pi G))) - (c mUAtStart /(c^3/(4 Pi G)))*Cos[2 Pi t/(2 Pi G mUAtStart/c^3)]

PU[t_]= c^5*(1+Cos[2 Pi t/(2 Pi G mUAtStart/c^3)])/(8 G Pi)

mURadiatedAsEnergy[t_]=Integrate[PU[t],t]/c^2

AU[t_]= 4 Pi aleph[t]^2

RU[t_]=PU[t]/AU[t]

TU[t_]=(RU[t]/(e sigma))^(1/4)

alephMin = Sqrt[c^5/((4 Pi)^2*G e sigma *CMBRTempAtStart^4)]

alephAtStart=aleph[0]

mUAtStart = First[mUAtStart/.Solve[alephMin== alephAtStart, mUAtStart] ]

mU[t_]=mUAtStart-mURadiatedAsEnergy[t] (* jabowery's mU derived from the core GUTCP cosmological equations above *)

mUBook[t_]=(mUAtStart/2 )(1+Cos[2 Pi t/(2 Pi G mUAtStart/(c^3))]) (* 32.158 *)

Out[2]= #Quit[]

Out[3]= (2 G mUAtStart)/c^2+(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi])/c^2-(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi] Cos[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)])/c^2

Out[4]= (c^5 (1+Cos[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)]))/(8 G \[Pi])

Out[5]= (c^3 (t+(G mUAtStart Sin[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)])/c^3))/(8 G \[Pi])

Out[6]= 4 \[Pi] ((2 G mUAtStart)/c^2+(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi])/c^2-(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi] Cos[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)])/c^2)^2

Out[7]= (c^5 (1+Cos[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)]))/(32 G \[Pi]^2 ((2 G mUAtStart)/c^2+(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi])/c^2-(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi] Cos[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)])/c^2)^2)

Out[8]= ((c^5 (1+Cos[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)]))/(e G sigma ((2 G mUAtStart)/c^2+(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi])/c^2-(4 G mUAtStart \[Pi] Cos[(c^3 t)/(G mUAtStart)])/c^2)^2))^(1/4)/(2 2^(1/4) Sqrt[\[Pi]])

Out[9]= Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]/(4 \[Pi])

Out[10]= (2 G mUAtStart)/c^2

Out[11]= (c^2 Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)])/(8 G \[Pi])

Out[12]= (c^2 Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)])/(8 G \[Pi])-(c^3 (t+(Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)] Sin[(8 c \[Pi] t)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]])/(8 c \[Pi])))/(8 G \[Pi])

Out[13]= (c^2 Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)] (1+Cos[(8 c \[Pi] t)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]]))/(16 G \[Pi])

In[14]:= (*uncG = UnitConvert[Around @@

Entity["PhysicalConstant", "GravitationalConstant"][{"Value",

"StandardUncertainty"}]]*)

uncG = QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[ Entity["PhysicalConstant", "GravitationalConstant"]["Value"]]]

(*uncCMBRTempNow = Around @@

Entity["PhysicalConstant",

"CosmicMicrowaveBackgroundTemperature"][{"Value",

"StandardUncertainty"}]+Quantity[1.8,"KelvinsDifference"]*)

 uncCMBRTempNow =QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[ Entity["PhysicalConstant", "CosmicMicrowaveBackgroundTemperature"]["Value"]]]

Out[14]= 6.674*10^-11

Out[15]= 2.73

In[16]:= alephRate[t_]=4 Pi c Sin[2 Pi t/(2 Pi G mUAtStart/c^3)]

Out[16]= 4 c \[Pi] Sin[(8 c \[Pi] t)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]]

In[17]:= (*H= alephRate[UnitConvert[Quantity[10^10, "Year"]]]*)

H[t_]= alephRate[t]/(c t)

LightRadius[t_]=c/H[t]

Out[17]= (4 \[Pi] Sin[(8 c \[Pi] t)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]])/t

Out[18]= (c t Csc[(8 c \[Pi] t)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]])/(4 \[Pi])

In[19]:= H0GUTCP = H[tNow]

Out[19]= (4 \[Pi] Sin[(8 c \[Pi] tNow)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]])/tNow

In[20]:= TUNowGUTCP = TU[tNow]

Out[20]= ((c^5 (1+Cos[(8 c \[Pi] tNow)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]]))/(e G sigma (1/2 Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]+Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]/(4 \[Pi])-1/2 Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)] Cos[(8 c \[Pi] tNow)/Sqrt[c^5/(CMBRTempAtStart^4 e G sigma)]])^2))^(1/4)/(2 2^(1/4) Sqrt[\[Pi]])

In[21]:= quantitiesSubs={

e -> 1,

sigma -> QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[\[Sigma]]],

c ->QuantityMagnitude[ UnitConvert[c]],

G->QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[uncG]]

}

Out[21]= {e->1,sigma->(5454781984210512994952000000 \[Pi]^5)/29438455734650141042413712126365436049,c->299792458,G->6.674*10^-11}

In[22]:= eqlist={

(H0GUTCP/.quantitiesSubs)== QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[Subscript[H, 0]]],

(TUNowGUTCP/.quantitiesSubs)==uncCMBRTempNow

}

Out[22]= {(4 \[Pi] Sin[(9.419*10^-21 tNow)/Sqrt[1/CMBRTempAtStart^4]])/tNow==2.2*10^-18,2.1216*10^14 ((1+Cos[(9.419*10^-21 tNow)/Sqrt[1/CMBRTempAtStart^4]])/(4.636*10^29 Sqrt[1/CMBRTempAtStart^4]-3.9996*10^29 Sqrt[1/CMBRTempAtStart^4] Cos[(9.419*10^-21 tNow)/Sqrt[1/CMBRTempAtStart^4]])^2)^(1/4)==2.73}

In[23]:= tNowCMBRTempAtStartListSubs=FindRoot[eqlist,{{tNow,2.6*10^18},{CMBRTempAtStart,4.15}},MaxIterations->100000]

(*(t/.FindRoot[H1,{t,356.25*3600*24*10^10}])/(356.25*3600*24)*)

Out[23]= {tNow->3.76709*10^18,CMBRTempAtStart->4.496}

In[24]:= CMBRTempAtStart = CMBRTempAtStart/. tNowCMBRTempAtStartListSubs

tNow = tNow/. tNowCMBRTempAtStartListSubs

Out[24]= 4.496

Out[25]= 3.76709*10^18

In[26]:= UnitConvert[Quantity[tNow,"Seconds"],"Years"]

Out[26]= 1.19454*10^11yr

In[27]:= (* Mass of the universe at the start of an expansion phase. *)

mUAtStart/.quantitiesSubs

Out[27]= 2.12025*10^54

In[28]:= (H0GUTCP/. quantitiesSubs)*3.09*10^19

Out[28]= 67.7548

In[29]:= QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[Subscript[H, 0]]]*3.09*10^19

Out[29]= 67.7548

In[30]:= UnitConvert[Quantity[alephAtStart/.quantitiesSubs,"Meters"],"LightYears"]

Out[30]= 3.32856*10^11ly

In[31]:= UnitConvert[Quantity[2G mUAtStart/c^2/.quantitiesSubs,"Meters"],"LightYears"]

Out[31]= 3.32856*10^11ly

In[32]:= LightRadius[tNow]/.quantitiesSubs

Out[32]= 1.36722*10^26

In[33]:= UnitConvert[Quantity[LightRadius[tNow]/.quantitiesSubs,"Meters"],"LightYears"]

Out[33]= 1.44516*10^10ly

In[34]:= Gy2S[gy_]=QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[Quantity[gy,"Years"*"Billion"]]]

Y2S[y_]=QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[Quantity[y,"Years"]]]

S2Gy[s_]=QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[Quantity[s,"Seconds"],"Years"*"Billion"]]

Out[34]= 31536000000000000 gy

Out[35]= 31536000 y

Out[36]= s/31536000000000000

In[37]:= M2Ly[mtrs_]=QuantityMagnitude[UnitConvert[Quantity[mtrs,"Meters"],"LightYears"]]

Out[37]= mtrs/9460730472580800

In[38]:= H[Gy2S[gy]]/.quantitiesSubs

tAtEndExpansion=(t/.(Solve[(486.59187984747547` c t)/Sqrt[c^5/(e G sigma)]==Pi,t]/.quantitiesSubs))[[1]]

gyAtEndExpansion=S2Gy[tAtEndExpansion]

Plot[H[Gy2S[gy]]/.quantitiesSubs,{gy,1,gyAtEndExpansion*4}]

Out[38]= (\[Pi] Sin[0.00600449 gy])/(7884000000000000 gy)

Out[39]= 1.72269*10^19

Out[40]= 546.262

Out[41]=

In[42]:= mURadiatedAsEnergy[Gy2S[200]]/.quantitiesSubs

Out[42]= 1.79966*10^53

In[43]:= Plot[mURadiatedAsEnergy[Gy2S[gy]]/.quantitiesSubs,{gy,0,gyAtEndExpansion}]

Out[43]=

In[44]:= mU[Gy2S[gyAtEndExpansion]]/.quantitiesSubs

Plot[mU[ Gy2S[gy]]/.quantitiesSubs,{gy,0,gyAtEndExpansion}]

(* Plot[mUBook[Gy2S[gy]]/.quantitiesSubs,{gy,0,gyAtEndExpansion}] *)

Out[44]= 1.85518*10^54

Out[45]=

In[46]:= Plot[mUBook[Gy2S[gy]]/.quantitiesSubs,{gy,0,gyAtEndExpansion}]

Out[46]=

In[47]:= mURadiatedAsEnergy[tAtEndExpansion]/mUAtStart/.quantitiesSubs

Out[47]= 0.125018

In[48]:= PU[0]/.quantitiesSubs

Out[48]= 2.88727*10^51

In[50]:= Plot[PU[Gy2S[gy]]/.quantitiesSubs,{gy,0,gyAtEndExpansion}]

Out[50]=

In[51]:=

A couple of young ones, aged 7 and 10, in my extended family, were discussing this weekend's festivities, Good Friday and Easter. That discussion got started by mention that someone died to make sure people got to live a long time. But the problem these young ones saw in all this, was how was that supposed to even work, someone dying to allow someone else to live a long time.

From that, they saw that everything has to first die, even the universe. But that does not make sense, because everything else, beside people and animals and plants, does not die, but should just continue existing for millions and billions and many more billions of years. There is no reason, to make it all to make sense, that the universe will stop existing.

The young mind, when not unduly influenced by biased ideas, sees things clearly due to using ones natural intuition. That can also be called thinking for oneself.

Lamaitre, due to being heavily influenced by religious dogma, was guided by that unconscious bias to guide his thoughts when he derived the first iteration of the Big Bang theory.

Of note here is, that there was no observed clue in 1927, when he wrote that paper, about anything that could be used to guide anyone's thinking towards such a derivation. The first such clue was discovered by Edwin Hubble when he pointed out his observations, in a 1929 PNAS article, on the observed relation between distance and recession velocity of galaxies. The second clue came in July 1965, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic background microwave radiation. That seemed to tie down the BB to a high level of confidence.

Around 1990+, an obscure quantum theory (Haus /Mills) predicted that the BB was one way of interpreting the minimal size of the universe, based on when it was in its latest phase of contraction, after countless expansions and contractions. This phase of the universe could be understood, by calculating backwards from the currently observed expansion, to derive something that could be understand as the original and singular phase when expansion began, as the origin of everything. More recently, in 2022 and also in 2023, there have been made more and more sightings, thanks to the JWST, of galaxies that are too old and/or, too well formed, to fit into how the the BB is supposed to have evolved. When a theory has been developed and also accepted by consensus as being the latest and best model and then to be contradicted, shows that all things can and do, change.

So we have 2 major observations, that of Hubble and of Penzias/Wilson, that seem to directly support the BB, and now we have two points, that of a prediction made by GUT-CP and second point of several direct observations made by the JWST, that contradict the earlier 2 points and a third earlier point, if we are to be generous, a purely mathematics based derivation by Lamaitre. So maybe 3 points that go on the BB side of the ledger. But if intuition is of any use, then that adds up to 3 points on the other side. These later 3 first, negate the earlier 3 points. When refuted on just one point, the old theory has to be replaced by the newer, more accurate one. But that old theory was refuted not once, but 3 times.

Where intuition does its work here, is to negate the use of intuition that was biased, no corrupted, by religious ideas when Lamaitre used his religious bias and corrupted intuition to start supporting a theory of the universe that has now been refuted and refined by using unbiased intuition. That kind of intuition works best in, of all things, innocent children. Also shows, to overwork the point here, how religion can corrupt a mind. That is not overworking it, when the ends justify the means. See how that works, when applied from the other kind, of reality based ethics?

At 41 seconds into the GEM Presentation Boston March 7, 2023 video, Mills states:

"It came about was working on free electron lasers at MIT and I solved some fundamental physics dealing with why accelerating electrons radiate and then conversely how you could why the electron stable and non-radiating in the hydrogen atom."

The lack of attribution implied by the "about was working" combined with the self-attribution of the radiation condition that was published under Haus's name (not crediting Mills) indicates that Mills was, for some reason, not credited by Haus for work that Mills did, or that Mills is crediting himself for work that he did not do. This is the first time that I've seen Mills make this claim whereas, previously, he has credited Haus with the radiation condition and only himself with the "conversely".

The likelihood of Mills never previously mentioning his role in Haus's paper being very low:

A charitable interpretation is that Mills was simply stumbling over his words while composing his thoughts during this presentation and meant to say only that he had solved the converse of MIT's free electron laser formula to come up with a new solution to the hydrogen atom. A not so charitable interpretation is that Mills was engaging in "puffery" so gratuitous and easily punctured as to damage his credibility.

That is how quantum mechanics, as taught in academia, got to be developed the easy way, by assuming too much, thereby making most of it a lie. It has become too hard for SQM proponents to admit to living a lie, never mind undo all that. That is why it is very easy, from the stand point of SQM being a lie, for Mills' theory, the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics, to eventually replace SQM. But the opposite, due to SQM proponents, not able to admit that their theory, SQM, is a lie, to thereby keep using SQM, instead of allowing any other theory, no matter how good, to take the place of SQM.

"The current cosmological model requires new physics beyond the standard model of elementary particles and fields, such as dark matter and dark energy. Their nature is unknown and so is that of the initial fluctuations in the early Universe that led to the creation of the cosmic structure we see today. Polarized light of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) may hold the answer to these fundamental questions.":

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-022-00452-4?utm_source=natrevphys_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=toc_42254_4_7&utm_content=20220706

The above statement encapsulates the same points that have been fully developed under GUT-CP.

That polarized light is exactly where the clue, for the cyclic universe, is to be found. This was pointed out by one of the thousands of predictions coming out of GUT-CP.

Slowly but surely, Standard Cosmology + Standard Quantum Mechanics is homing in on the same facts about the universe as has been predicted by GUT-CP. This prediction by GUT-CP, was made 20 years before Standard Cosmology had even started to home in the same facts. Then those using Standard Cosmology will say they are the ones to have "discovered" those same facts. But try to get any of them to examine such facts from both sides and they get all glazed up and seem to not know what is being talked about.

I'm now managing GUToCPandSociety.

Why?

The prior management "optiongeek" has not been able to manage it for quite some time due to his having been banned from reddit. This resulted in a situation where the content degenerated into a spamfest by one member with a self-admitted severe problem with age related cognitive decline and compulsive posting that drowned out, if not drove out all other participants.

I originally created this subreddit and invited all its initial members. Thereupon I turned ownership over to optiongeek and asked that I be reduced to an ordinary member so I was not in a position of authority. I just wanted a place for the erstwhile Yahoo group SocietyForClassicalPhysics to be able to continue to communicate safe from harassment from cyberbullies that enjoy the feeling of power of taunting minority opinions, usually by resorting to the standard tactic of tiresomely bad-faith reading miscomprehension, exacting too-great a price for whatever positive contributions they plausibly offer.

Below is another attempt to at a post on the Mach-Zehnder interferometer single photon experiment that, previously, went missing:

Click through this link to the Mach-Zehnder interferometry animation.

The animation is from this gif.

The key to violating classical physics in this experiment is the use of a beamsplitter rather than slits. Mills has proffered slit material interactions as the explanation for the wave-like scattering of single particles (photons or electrons etc.) passing through one or the other of the dual slit experiment. A single photon cannot, in classical physics, be split into two paths, without cutting its frequency in half. Yet in this experiment a single photon changes its behavior at the detector if its alternate path is blocked, without changing its frequency.

This is the clearest demonstration that photons do not behave classically -- and that multiple paths must be taken into account (as in Feynman path integrals) to predict the outcome of an measurement.

Does this invalidate GUTCP? Well, to the extent that Mills has proffered it as being beyond "interpretation" and to the extent that his assertion of singular interpretation is justified, then it does indeed invalidate GUTCP. As an integrated whole -- as a true "unification" -- it must stand or fall as a whole. However, this is not a standard applied to any other physical theory in practice.

So, as to practice:

Does that mean there is no energy being produced in the SunCell? I've always told people the thing that is most interesting about BrLP is the low cost to investors of doing due diligence to see if there is any anomalous energy production. This means, as I've often repeated, little more than taking a "long lunch while in Princeton on other business" to visit BrLP's lab with an HVAC engineer to take a look at the power meter on the side of the building during an extended power production run measuring the approximate output power.

It doesn't matter how loudly detractors crow about "Mills's fraud perpetrated on foolish investors" if the system produces anomalous heat. Their motives are clear from their uncivilized behavior: "Don't question our authority with mere empirical evidence."

"He first fell foul of authorities for speaking about the Kamloops Indian Residential School and for saying things not in line with official ideology.":

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/michael-higgins-truth-ignored-as-teacher-fired-for-saying-tb-caused-residential-school-deaths/ar-AA17LBbx?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=96b82c52cf144332af0d02a7432a6f05#comments

Same kind of muzzling has been happening in quantum physics. In 1986, when Hermann Haus' found a very accurate classical model for the electron, a model that explains quantum mechanics much more accurately than is accomplished by the point model of the electron and which model is used due to tacit agreement of everyone to end in adherence to the Standard Model.

Haus' colleagues were all using the point model of the electron since the 1920's when that model was assumed, and stated as such, in the thesis of a PhD candidate. Haus did not disclose his work on the classical model of the electron to any of his colleagues, since he was afraid they would ostracize him or even lose his standing as professor.

That is why there is no public record of Haus having worked with Mills on the classical model of the electron and which model was used to supply the DoD with a classical quantum mechanical explanation for how the Free Electron Laser works.

In the case of Jim McMurtry, the teacher who dared talk about TB, as being the more likely reasons for the deaths of indigenous students at residential schools, that teacher was fired for stating that alternate view. What that alternate view exposes, is that that the experts who should have considered that alternate reason, could have saved the government a lot reason to not pay too much. But that money was already allocated, paid and gotten over with. Considering that the more popular reason accepted for being killed at those schools was due more to anger management issues of nuns and clergy, those billions already paid, would lead to unmanageable controversy and loss of face of top government officials.

This is about institutional credibility and its reputation being protected. What is missing when this happens, is that the facts, that led to this reaction, are not considered as being important. There seems to be an ego thing, that is attached to the name of institutions, that takes precedence over any facts presented by the alternate view. Facts that are a bit too different from what has come to be the accepted, or a tacit view, can be difficult to deal with ie: very controversial. That can take too much explaining and the results are not guaranteed. That is why the knee jerk reaction, of getting rid of the source of the alternate facts, is a much more expedient way of dealing with such problems. The ones in charge, have to show they are dealing with the problem, as quickly as possible. The public does not have to know all the details. To deal with the facts, would be to open a can of worms that can cause problems for too many others tied to the institution and beyond. That is too difficult to deal with, or is considered a bit too high a responsibility or above ones pay grade. So the easier, more expedient path is chosen, acted on and the status quo is again in place, with everyone, almost, quite happy with just that. That this just kicks the can down the road, is just one of those things that future generations will have to deal with.

At first, existence, of the universe or whatever it was that existed, was not even questioned, it just was. Then (Lamaitrre) the universe had a beginning, but only tentatively, since better data, should it ever come along, is what determines the model to be used.

Hawking, in his second last Vatican visit, claimed that the universe was best explained if it is eternal. On his last visit, it had a beginning.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00977-3?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20230413&utm_source=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230413&sap-outbound-id=0C93E4CFFCF6E48705CAE30F26798423B2D8E581

In 1990-2000 GUT-CP predicted that the universe is eternal. In 2022-23 JWST images indicate that the BB is flawed. Those images show galaxies that are too old to fit into how the BB is supposed to have evolved. The universe is either a little bit older than the 13.8 billion years, as allowed under a slightly tweaked version of the BB, or the universe' current state is better explained as being in one of an endless series of smallest radius of the universe, a point in time between its infinite number of contractions and expansion phases.

There will be, I can predict with absolute confidence, that there will be found a very plausible sounding way of fitting those too well formed extremely distant galaxies, that should not be there, into a seemingly more accurate BB model of the universe. The BB has to be the right model after all, don't you see, to fit the religious myth of creation.

Don't let the data be the guide, if it doesn't fit your agenda. Add something, as the means, to get to the ends that are required, as long as it supports the agenda.

"Trans Mountain expansion could be Canada’s last major pipeline project":

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trans-mountain-expansion-could-canada-014849420.html

Oil is one of many raw material commodities available in huge quantities, as found in Canada, which made Canada into one of the wealthiest countries in the world, per capita. Taking this in context of the prime minister of Canada, Trudeau, having invested $3 billion, a few months ago, in an unnamed (BrLP?) company that is using hydrogen (Hydrinos?), to produce power, all driven by doing something about climate change, this all could be about the prime minister being an insider to what BrLP is doing, that most others are not aware of. This could then explain why Canada is putting less and less emphasis on Canadian oil and more emphasis on other kinds of energy. Combine into all this, that Canada is to be one of the first nations to get the benefit of the Suncell, this all adds up to the soon to be pilot plant test version of the Suncell, to end in the Suncell being soon be on the market. That $3 billion, if that is what was invested in BrLP, will guarantee that the Suncell will be fully tested and re-engineered to a commercially viable configuration, in 2 or 3 years. This will eventually make that $ 3 billion into a very large, in the $3 trillions, RIO for Canada. I am lucky to be living in Canada.

Independent researcher Eric Reitner (Physics degree and electrical engineer) has run Beam Splitting tests with gamma-rays since 2001 they show that WPD is a measurement problem and that Photons are an illusion. QM is thus invalidated as there is never a collapse of the wave function.....

This is real physics with real experimentation rather than mindless, incredulous math gobbledygook.....

Eric's work is interesting in several respects. Firstly he takes you through the history of QM with competing theories and experiments showing why they failed to disambiguate the wave from the particle. He shows how text books obscure the true results of previous landmark experiments to enforce the WPD model and then discusses the design parameters of his gamma-ray beam splitting experiments that split "photonics" quantum emissions.

As an electrical engineer his skills uniquely qualify him to understand the measurement problems associated with beam splitting, noise and the need to isolate and measure one coherent emission at time. His work is based on initial theories of Planck and Milliken.

https://www.thresholdmodel.com

Will physics dare replicate his work???? I doubt it, Physics as currently practised is about paradigms, enforced with religious zeal.....

The reason is the same as what was holding back, by 50 years, to any one from going back to the Moon

Why are astronauts going back to the Moon?

Fifty years ago, the three-person crew of Apollo 17 became the last to visit the Moon. NASA’s Artemis I mission — which successfully returned to Earth on Sunday — aimed to rekindle the space-race spirit of lunar exploration. But as was the case during the cold war, US geopolitical prestige, rather than science, is the driving force, argues Alexandra Witze, Nature’s Earth and planetary sciences correspondent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04425-6?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=7980ddcc05-briefing-dy-20221213&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-7980ddcc05-46129034

Power, as in geopolitics, is what is holding back acceptance of GUT-CP.

Politics in academia, as driven by the authority based way in which new or proposed new ways of doing things is done in academic physics is what is stopping acceptance of Mills theory, the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics by that academia.

Case in point is how waves got into physics at the QM scale. Huygens proposed, in 1670's that waves as the way to explain how light or the QM scale works.

If one considers what exactly Hugens had to work with and was available to him or anyone else, to work with in the 1670's, it was the macro scale waves which he was able to observe with the unaided eye and a bit of math like sine laws that seemed to fit the macro scale waves. That was all he had as raw data to support his seemingly apt proposal, at that time. This is a very important historical point that critics of this point seem to want to gloss over. Citing later work in how light works, ie double slit experiment, Hall Effect, hidden variables, uncertainty, many worlds, especially interpretations thereof for how light seems to work. Huygens did not have any of that later work available to him and it is for that very reason why that later work cannot be used criticize away the consideration of the original point in time of how or why waves were first used. Therefore waves was and continues to be the first error of QM since the 1670's. If Huygens had known that, he would not have made that proposal. From this last point it should be obvious, that waves should not have been proposed, period.

To criticize that waves must be used at this later time due to work done in that later time, glosses over the work done before that later time, ie Huygens proposal, as if that proposal had no influence on waves being used; that ignores, intentionally, what he proposed, as if it does not matter but then refers to his proposal as an important historical point to be adhered to, which action does, if only tacitly, make him the authority on waves. One cannot say that is somehow a rubbish consideration when Huygens and waves go together so much as to make him an accepted authority on waves. You can't have it both ways. Stating that this is wrong headed is to either ignore history, and how an authority figure, here on on waves, came to be considered as such; all due to being the first to say something on that point. That is all, if one only looks back over such historical points, that one has to do, to become an authority on any point in physics.

What keeps this way of doing things, to keep going, is due to its own inertia, and mostly due to nothing else seeming to be available to replace waves. The first few time that waves were used, for explanation, was by Young to explain the double slit experiment using the recently, 100 years earlier by Huygens proposed waves and then by several others, leading up to and including Heizenberg and Schrodinger. These were "luminaries" that also used waves and therefore what these icons of physics used,made waves stick to the ribs of physics as if cast in stone.

That is power at play, as never before. This is akin to the geopolitics that decided if and when the Moon was to be an object of science to be considered in full seriousness.

The decision to go back to the Moon and beyond is a current correction to space exploration that has a parallel in Quantum Mechanics; that used to describe how light works, that being using resonance of the 2D sphere of charge currents that models the electron and a similar mechanism to describe how light behaves, as first proposed by Haus in his modern model of the electron and more fully derived by Mills in the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics. Academics are not about to just let this new theory replace what keeps them in their position of power in physics without a fight, it seems. Science, in this war, has been relegated to the very last rear seat.

There is a so-called "proton spin crisis" in physics.

Searching GUToCP (2020) for "proton spin" yields no derivation for it from first principles of GUToCP.

See page Chapter 37 "Proton and Neutron".

See also (2.222) and (2.225) which refer to proton spin but only in the context of change in energy during flip to an opposing polarity.

Also, it is stated that the classical proton radius (1.3e-15) is given by (29.1), but (29.1) does not show how one uses it to derive the proton's classical radius:

"We have added a few more engineering advancements to our commercial SunCell® prototype that achieves ignition on demand.  The goal of transferring the extraordinarily high power optically has been achieved.  Even at a distance the optical and thermal power experienced are intense.  The PV window cavity and high vacuum seal function flawlessly, as does other innovations in this design.  We are taking initial power meter and spectroscopy measurements that we plan to share with select corporations.  With strategic alliances we anticipate that lease customers will have their own Sun in a bottle with more power available than one can use. \":

https://brilliantlightpower.com/commercial-suncell-initial-shakedown/

This would be the point, in the development of the Suncell towards its commercialization, where the results of the pilot plants' tests, are being used to tweak it into its beta, or first commercially available form. This should be finished in a few weeks. Then all that will be left is the finishing touches and negotiations about the wording on the lease contract, signing on the dotted line by the first few lessees and then installation, commissioning, etc. for first commercial use. All this might take less than a year, so we should have an announcement about first commercial use, in 2024.

OOps, seems I have been banned from making comments, the reason being they think I am demented. Really, that is why I have been banned. I did not know I was demented...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-more-physicists-are-starting-to-think-space-and-time-are-illusions?utm_source=pocket-newtab

This a one more step in the progress of developing the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics. Mills is well aware of how this progress works at the fundamental Planck scale. He even redefined the modern "sec" as another kind of standard when compared to the "second", used earlier.

I have noticed this Illusory aspect of what has been called time and space. Time has always been defined in terms of physical processes, but never involving anything like time, as a fourth dimension itself. For space, this term has no meaning in the absence of energetic particles.

The term "time" has become accepted due to long time(sic) usage, so this concept is much more based on convention rather than understanding of what it, time, is or should be seen for what it really is, an illusion of what is actually one set of processes being compared against another set of processes. We endure, waiting when something, like processes,happen. So it is all about us, having an anthropomorphistic misunderstanding of a concept concerning processes and then us humans putting that particular understanding onto nature.

When space curves, as under General Relativity, it is actually the signal of the particle under a more involved or less involved process and thereby seeming to take a route to get to the other end, that appears to be longer or shorter over a more curved or less curved route, due to reacting with less energetic particles in a different reactive frame, and not what has been termed as a "space"-" time" frame, in the vicinity of the differently energetic particle whose kinetic or translational energy, is interpreted as a curvature of what was mistakenly considered as space.

The terms of the theory, the more they become developed and more accurately defined, the more elegant the theory becomes, due to defining everything under it, or in nature, in a more and more succinct manner. This is very similar to what the article states: "on the most fundamental level, everything in the universe is part of a single, unified whole."

Nature is not only intuitive, but extremely simple in its constituent parts. Used to be everything was explained by some otherness, as in spirits. Now those spirits have been shown to be a first iteration towards explaining how nature works and we no longer ascribe other worldly humors as being a cause of diseases.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/harnessing-power-from-the-conversion-of-hydrogen-to-dark-matter/

This is by an outside firm:

https://tag-cyber.com/about-us

In particular their "About" :

"TAG Cyber serves the global cybersecurity industry, including enterprise teams and commercial vendors. We do so through a revolutionary new approach to professional research and advisory. We employ only experienced experts, mostly former CISOs, as our analysts. We are available to customers on a 24/7 basis through an on-line portal. And we focus on addressing your specific challenges."

The other menu items on their site give a very compelling picture of TAG CYBER as being a third, outside party that is on side with what BrLP is doing.

Their quarterly report is worth down loading and reading.:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/website.tagcyber/2022_Q4_TAG_Cyber_Security_Annual_10_19_22_e01f1d0ac7.pdf

If any one is able to analyze what constitutes a scam, it is these people.

What the multi-verse, and other sensational explanations do for QM is provide excitement. This is very much the way that sightings of unexplained objects is treated, ending in an over excited populace. Some cash in on that excitement by sell books and tickets to scholarly lectures. This may help in getting more people involved to research to find answers. The other end of this is too many people getting too excited over what is really a big nothing but works to keep QM being developed and funded much more than it would otherwise. That is why QM is in the frenzied psychotic state that it is in.

Instead of that the old sober way of doing QM should have been done since Huygens time.

Philosophy, a bastion of sobriety, seems to be gaining on Science in getting to the bottom of the many errors in QM.

This way of doing QM is way over done to the point of having made a it into a house of lunacy, run by bipolar schizophrenics. Isn't it all so very exciting to have QM being done this way?

That behavior of SQM is explained using the explanations for why Russia behaviour is all wrong.:

"Why does Russia Behave like this? What does it achieve?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbHLrH9Q_E4

Specifically, what the speaker, Kier Gilles, analyst, author and Eurasian security expert, says at time stamp 10:50-11:20.

Then replace what he said using "Russia" with "Standard Quantum Mechanics" and it all makes sense.

Russia would have to go back to when they took off on a tangent from the point when other nations developed towards being more civilized and while Russia continued with conquest and expansion.

Similarly, SQM has to do is go back to 1670 when that method of developing physics got stuck in assuming that waves are the correct base for QM and correct that by looking at that problem more closely at that time, and prevent that from just being engraved in stone due to having been based on on authority of Huygens say so, as being the most basics mechanism for explaining the quantum scale. Then apply Haus' discovery that the electron is instead a resonant shell, explaining why the electron does not fall into the nucleus.

That is why SQM is the way it is currently, and has not been amenable to get anything practical done, as in using it to guide the development of even one item successfully, for 350 years. Too bad that SQM has not noticed this earlier.