Posts by Chris Coles 142 publicly visible posts • joined 9 May 2007
Just to relate that all my new emails disappeared this morning. So someone else has decided they do not like my remarks.
It remains my belief that the US military enjoy control over gravity, and have kept that a total secret, even from NASA.
NASA is about to launch a rocket to the moon.
Might it be that they, NASA, have recently come to fully understand that there are other people in the United States administration that have known for at least 70 years; that there are resident upon the surface of the planet; particularly in Nevada, several forms of alien life that had arrived here long before their discovery post WW2 that enjoy the capacity to travel interstellar distances at speeds greater than the speed of light, with vehicles, some small local craft created with materials obtained here on our planet, that would probably cost little more than a few million $ to build?
To open try reading the 1965 record of the experiences of Charles James Hall in his six volumes titled; Millennial Hospitality, where, for example, he records witnessing a small craft rise ~20 feet above ground and then travel 7 miles, start to stop in 3 seconds at an average speed of 8,400 mph, and at another place, that the craft; has; No Seat Belts.
Yes, it is so easy to comment that his observations are rubbish; except that was 1965 now more than 70 years ago.
It remains my belief that Hall was correctly describing simple facts. Facts that it would seem no one in the US military, (Generals often mentioned), that had passed on their certain knowledge to the likes of NASA. Yes, I disagree with Halls explanation of how to achieve their technology; and that I had written a chapter in my 2017 book The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy . . . titled; The Control of Gravity. That book was removed from sale by me as I am an opponent to the Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty; which I am convinced made the UK and Australia a colony of the US. That I had asked the Trump administration to tear up that treaty, but was ignored. Yes, I admit that was a mistake; be that as it may, there is a single copy of a later edition deposited in the United Kingdom British Library titled: The Universe is a Steady State Cloud of Surplus Proton Energy . . . that still has that chapter inside it.
A large part of my problem has been that I only recently discovered that the Royal Society in London, had been , apparently for many decades, "Binning" yes destroying; every paper or book copy sent, or in my case delivered to their front desk, to be passed into their library. So every copy of my work was automatically destroyed, rather than looked at for further discussion. I was told, "thousands of pages every year" by their librarian.
On my part I have made the decision that my work will NEVER be published in the English language until that treaty is torn up. That the control of gravity will never be taught in any English language university until the treaty is destroyed, and as such I have a proposal to create a totally independent Gravity and Energy Research Institute before the French government.
It is my profound belief that the refusal to accept any new thinking that destroys Big Bang theory by the most senior scientists in the UK had very effectively destroyed both Cosmology and Physics science in the UK. My last attempt to deliver a copy of my book to the Royal society president with a request to be allowed to demonstrate my facts regarding the associated discovery of the need to re-access Newtons third law to the RS membership, was in fact not even placed in front of the then president, that was also binned.
That Charles James Hall's description of what he observed in Nevada in 1965 was very accurate, and that NASA has recently discovered that Hall was correct; having just spent billions on an VERY old fashioned rocket. In which case now imagine the difficulties NASA now faces in relating their discovery to everyone.
The Royal Society in England has very effectively completely destroyed their credibility by creating a new religion called Big Bang; by refusing to accept ANY new thinking.
NASA must now accept their responsibility to tell everyone that they have been deliberately deceived by their own military; that they have to stop building a rocket, when others already on the planet can deliver anyone, anywhere in the surronding universe, at speeds beyond the speed of light.
If government was any form of traditional business, and the overheads had reached 500,000 employees, whole departments would have been gone years ago. We once ran an empire with 10,000 and one building; Somerset House. Now we have a half million and we simply cannot afford them any more. There is only one simple thing that will bring down the debt levels; cut the overhead of the nation. As my headline states; Never a word about reducing the cost of the civil service.
If you have ever worked in a large mechanical engineering works you will have come across what today might be seen as an old fashioned weight balance scale which might well be capable of weighing, say, 10 Tons. (I am using that as my example, but the same applies to a balance scale to weigh, say 1Kg), What you will discover is that any such balance scale will be disturbed from equilibrium by what is a tiny additional weight. You are telling us that with so much heat being delivered by the sun, (only during daylight hours), any additional heat input to the planet has no effect; when what I am saying is that ANY system in balance will be disturbed by a VERY small additional input.
In addition, as before described, the suns heat is only applied during daylight, and that the greenhouse industry have detailed fact sheets available to show that during daylight hours, CO2 declines as plants adsorb the CO2. Go look for yourself, and also see the very large CO2 storage tanks they need to keep the CO2 levels up during daylight hours. Today CO2 delivery to greenhouses is a very large industry.
What the entire net zero science establishment has done is refuse to accept any additional heat input to the planet as having any effect upon the climate; that, as you so strongly state, the entire problem is heat being retained by the CO2. So now tell me why all the existing science for global warming is now having to come to terms with the warming accelerating much faster than all their previous science has previously predicted using CO2 as the primary driver of global warming?
This is not some form of fun debate; we are experiencing now a dramatic acceleration in heat, and it is way past time for the science to explain why. All I can do is ask everyone to look again at the underlying heat input to the planet from heat engines, particularly those being used to generate electricity. That the existing explanation has no reference at all; to the actual heat input to the planet.
Please think about that?
If you have ever worked in a large mechanical engineering works you will have come across what today might be seen as an old fashioned weight balance scale which might well be capable of weighing, say, 10 Tons. (I am using that as my example, but the same applies to a balance scale to weigh, say 1Kg), What you will discover is that any such balance scale will be disturbed from equilibrium by what is a tiny additional weight. You are telling us that with so much heat being delivered by the sun, (only during daylight hours), any additional heat input to the planet has no effect; when what I am saying is that ANY system in balance will be disturbed by a VERY small additional input.
In addition, as before described, the suns heat is only applied during daylight, and that the greenhouse industry have detailed fact sheets available to show that during daylight hours, CO2 declines as plants adsorb the CO2. Go look for yourself, and also see the very large CO2 storage tanks they need to keep the CO2 levels up during daylight hours. Today CO2 delivery to greenhouses is a very large industry.
What the entire net zero science establishment has done is refuse to accept any additional heat input to the planet as having any effect upon the climate; that, as you so strongly state, the entire problem is heat being retained by the CO2. So now tell me why all the existing science for global warming is now having to come to terms with the warming accelerating much faster than all their previous science has previously predicted using CO2 as the primary driver of global warming?
This is not some form of fun debate; we are experiencing now a dramatic acceleration in heat, and it is way past time for the science to explain why. All I can do is ask everyone to look again at the underlying heat input to the planet from heat engines, particularly those being used to generate electricity. That the existing explanation has no reference at all; to the actual heat input to the planet.
Please think about that?
When we turn to look at the century old technology of the power station, of creating heat, with coal, oil, gas, nuclear or even fusion, water is boiled to produce high pressure steam, which drives the turbine, to drive the electricity generator; which in turn, creates waste steam which has to be condensed back to water and returned to the boiler. That is a "Heat Engine", the same technology, heat air to drive a piston or a turbine, in all fossil fuel burning vehicles. We know a lot about the development of heat engines; for example, the efficiency of a well managed coal fired power station, is better than a nuclear powered power station, but it is generally accepted that ALL power stations have to remove more than 60% of the heat generated as waste heat, either into the atmosphere, or by pumping water from the sea to cool the waste steam back to water. For example the new nuclear power plants being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset here in the UK need a 2.8 Km long tunnel to deliver 120,000 litres per second of sea water, up to 12 Degrees C warmer, back into the surrounding sea.
For every 1GW of electricity generated, ~ 2.8 GW of heat is delivered back to sea. Very importantly, not just during daylight hours, but continually 24 hours of each day for the next 60 years. Now understand that these power station heat engines are the cause of rapidly growing air and, particularly sea temperatures, which are driving the increase in dramatic episodes of severe rainfall; rain that stems from the higher sea temperatures, creating equally rapid increases in evaporation of the sea surface, which drive the increase in rainfall. So net zero is not going to do anything about the heat generated by power stations. That our problem is the strange belief of those suggesting the solution is the reduction of CO2, when there is no debate about the heat source, and about the simple well known fact that during daylight, CO2 decreases due to adsorption by plant life.
All of us are facing the need to stop the use of ANY form of heat engine to create an energy source; or completely lose control of the climate of the planet. Please think about that when next time there is a report about a massive rain storm destructively washing through a town or city; or when the air temperature reaches the point where we humans cannot survive, and forest fires burn all surface plant growth.
We have no option; we must stop the use of heat engines, and that includes Fusion powered heat engines..
What I find fascinating is that Musk is still working on developing a rocket, when the US military have known, since at the least the 1950's, that we have aliens regularly visiting our planet since before settlers arrived in Nevada, who demonstrate total control over gravity, even to the point where their "local" equipment is manufactured using materials bought from our own material supplies.
What we have now is a series of books, published since 2003, (that I had only discovered earlier this year), that relate to Charles James Hall, in 1965, 20 years old and fresh out of university signing up for the USAF being assigned to AFB in Nevada to train become a meteorologist. That he spent 2 years there and then did his service in Vietnam, became an academic, got married and had children and his wife would find him on his computer but not telling her what he was working on. Later she persuaded him to print out some of his writings and she has now published six volumes titled: Millennial Hospitality. My advice is read the opening chapter of Volume IV, and then read the rest from the start.
What you will all discover are his descriptions of their vehicles, and their clothes, show the ability to fully control gravity with effects that I am sure, are very real, such as shutting down all electricity up to 4,000 feet from the object under control. Or again, describing one that rises ~20 - 30 feet from the surface and then moving 7 miles in 3 seconds and coming to a complete stop. Elsewhere he describes no seat belts inside. yes, call me a fool if you like, but then why does he constantly describe US Generals in direct contact with the aliens?
Go read the books and you will also learn that there are three alien races on the planet; Tall whites, Greys, and what are described as NW 24T, Norwegians with 24 teeth. That the Truman administration spent millions of $US on building better facilities for them, including a hanger 300 feet wide, 600 feet deep and ~90 feet tall to hold their interplanetary ship that regularly arrives from elsewhere in the surrounding universe. Yes, call me nuts if you like, but my opinion is, Hall is telling the truth.
My concern is another aspect of the AI debate; that we all know full well that there are some people that, let us say, employ an unhappy mind to their work. That at some point, one such may produce an AI concept that sets out to destroy everything, not much different to several now famous movies on the same subject. Then, it was a nice movie to watch; now it may be fast coming into reality.
""We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance," energy secretary Ed Milliband said at the time of the investment's announcement, "because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis."
The idea that nuclear will solve all of our problems, has to be challenged. Nuclear does not address the now out of control heat input to the planet from the ongoing use of heat engines to create energy, particularly electricity. Net zero argues that the overall problem is that the heat entering our atmosphere during daylight hours is retained by carbon dioxide CO2 gas at 400+ ppm, so the first thing to describe is something that has long been well known in the glasshouse industry, that increasing the CO2 input to the plant growth area inside the glasshouse both increases the quantity of plant product, and in doing so, dramatically reduces the level of CO2 within the glasshouse. The growing plants adsorb the CO2; for example you can find detailed research that shows during daylight, the adsorption in fact reduces CO2 by half. That the early morning level of 400 ppm reduces to ~200 ppm during daylight hours, and it is not until the sun sets, (and the greenhouse temperature reduces back to night time temperatures), that the CO2 levels retain their 400 ppm level. Just this simple example clearly demonstrates what is a fatal (for the planet), flaw in the concept of net zero; that there is insufficient CO2 within the planet atmosphere during daylight to retain the heat of the day.
Then we need to turn to another aspect of this debate, the sun only shines upon the area of the planet during daylight; so for two thirds of the rotation of the planet the heat reduces as the CO2 increases.
When we look at an century old technology of the power station, of creating heat, with coal, oil, gas, nuclear or even fusion, we observe water being boiled to produce very high pressure steam which drives the turbine to drive the electricity generator; which creates waste steam at a lower pressure and temperature which has to be condensed back to water to be returned to the boiler to create more steam. That is a "Heat Engine", no different to the same technology driving all fossil fuel burning vehicles. We know a lot about the development of heat engines, where for example the heat efficiency of a well managed coal fired power station, is much better than a nuclear powered power station, where the latter has to add the need to keep cool the nuclear pile; but it is generally accepted that ALL such power stations have to remove more than 60% of the heat generated as waste heat, either into the atmosphere, or by pumping water from the surrounding sea to cool the waste steam back to water. For example the new nuclear power plants being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset in the UK need a huge diameter tunnel, 2.8 miles long to deliver 120,000 litres per second of warm water, ~12 Degrees warmer than the input temperature, back out into the surrounding sea. For every 1GW of electricity generated, ~ 2.8 GW of heat is delivered back into the sea. Very importantly, not during daylight hours, but continually 24 hours of each day for the next 60 years.
Now understand that these power station heat engines are the cause of rapidly growing air and sea temperatures; particularly sea temperatures which are driving the rapid increase in dramatic episodes of severe rainfall; rain that stems from the higher sea temperatures creating equally rapid increases in evaporation of the sea surface which drive the increase in rainfall.
So going nuclear is not going to do anything about the heat generated by power stations. that our problem is the strange belief of those suggesting the solution is the reduction of CO2, when there is no debate about the heat source, and about the simple well known fact that during daylight, CO2 decreases due to adsorption by plant life.
All of us are facing the need to stop the use of ANY form of heat engine to create an energy source; or completely lose control of the climate of the planet.
Please think about that when next time there is a report about a massive rain storm destructively washing through a town or city; or again when the air temperature reaches the point where we humans cannot survive, and forest fires burn all surrounding surface plant growth.
We have no option; we must stop the use of heat engines. Period!
Go to any greenhouse CO2 delivery system and discover decades of evidence that during daylight, the plants in a greenhouse adsorb very substantial quantities of CO2. Indeed the entire green house industry is now fully wedded to the substantial increase in the productivity created by CO2 adsorption. In which case, the same applies to all plant life, everywhere, during daylight. Plants adsorb CO2 during the day. That in turn means that at all times, during the day when temperatures are at their peak, where there is available plant life on the surface, the quantum of CO2 available to retain heat is substantially reduced. Again, as the day time temperature reduces alongside the reduction in heating from sunlight, then the CO2 levels rise. So that opens the door to a simple fact, during the heat of the day there is a substantial reduction in CO2 levels, and thus a equally substantial reduction in the retention of the heat of the day by the action of the CO2 gas. That during the night, when CO2 is not being adsorbed by plant life, and the heat of the day is reduced, usually at least halved, then also the CO2 levels are at their highest. Let me bet my right arm, all recorded CO2 levels are night time levels; not daytime levels.
The problem is; the cause of global warming is not CO2. Yes CO2 is a marker for the use of fossil fuels to be burnt to generate energy . . . but it is not the source of the heat; heating the atmosphere..The source of the heat is the now ancient technology of the ubiquitous Heat Engine. Any form of system designed to create energy either heats air such as internal combustion engines, or aircraft engines, or gas turbine engines; or they heat water to provide steam to drive a turbine to drive an electricity generator, and that includes all forms of electricity generation involving the use of steam; nuclear being a great example as the nuclear system is less efficient than a well designed coal fired system due to the added need to cool the nuclear pile heat generating system. ALL heat engines produce more than 60% excess heat that has to be delivered out of the system back into the atmosphere.
Yes the climate is changing. Yes the cause is the increase of the excess heat from all forms of energy generation using now centuries old heat engine technology; Yet no one within the climate debate wants anyone to talk about these quite simple facts.
The truth is humanity is increasingly adding to the heat input to the planet from the use of heat engines; particularly to generate electricity. Again, CHINA has recently been building a great number of coal fired electricity generation power stations all across their nation. is that the underlying reason for the now very evident acceleration of the heating of the planet? Sticking to the theme of Net Zero by 2050 does not address the facts; that if we do nothing, it is increasingly clear, large areas of the planet surface will soon be uninhabitable. We have no option but to bring to a complete stop the use of any form of heat engine to generate energy; or we face the simple fact, we are making the planet uninhabitable.
As am now an very elderly it is my opinion that the greatest problem with AI is the quality of the mind that writes the code. Yes the vast majority are honest and hard working individuals; but we all know and have met and worked with individuals with shall we say; a distorted view of the world surrounding them. Our big problem going forward has to be code written by a distorted mind that does not like their surrounding humanity. We can be certain that such code will, eventually, destroy everything we expect to support honesty, ethics and integrity. We are entering an extremely dangerous period of human development where corporate needs will envelop and eventually destroy everything it comes into contact with.
Fascinating; you state that "Yes you are right, there is no such force as gravity." And then you state: "As for the rest...How the light path changes as it passes through a material with different density has nothing to do with space time, nor does it show why light is deflected by large gravitational objects (which is shown in Special Relativity)."
So, please; what is a large gravitational object . . ." when there is no such force as gravity"?
Again I did not say JA Fleming came up with Relativity in 1900; what I did show is that he demonstrated, (which is the exact requirement for a demonstration of a fact, a demonstration to confirm a scientific fact), that anyone can deflect light waves by using a transparent balloon lens filled with a dense gas. That, as such; Fleming was demonstrating how light waves are diverted by a change of density through which they are travelling, within a recognised scientific institution in December 1901. All Einstein did was describe such deflection without a specific cause. Space is not a cause; space is a name for a vast void and has no demonstrable function to cause an application of a force . . . neither has the word time any such function. A force has to be applied by some medium within space. So what is the medium?
It is my belief that the medium is the simple demonstrable fact . . . that all mass objects, regardless of how small that mass may be, (a gas molecule is an excellent example), to permit detection, must have an external force relative to the quantum of the mass that lays beyond the orbit of the electron/electrons surrounding the mass; that there is no such thing as a black particle without such an external force field. So everything you can detect within any scientific demonstration . . . must have such an external force field relating to that mass, beyond the orbit of the electrons surrounding the mass. Maxwell states that a positive field seeks the closest negative potential, or extends to infinity. It is thus my reasoning that, as such, any mass object has an external field of positive energy that must reach the closest negative or extend to infinity . . . so that means every single gas molecule within space must be so attached to each other. That such attachment is the force we describe as gravity.
Now we all know full well that space has gas molecules within it's known structure . . . they are regularly detected. So all I have done is show that Fleming had demonstrated that a change in density using a dense gas within a transparent bladder, will divert the motion of a light wave. Now all we need to do is demonstrate such diversion of light waves by changes in the density of the attached gas molecules within a void we describe as "Space". Scientists detect gas molecules in deep space every day. The latest volume of the much more detailed description has been deposited with both the Royal Society and also the British Library.
Humanity has a weakness, the desire to have a particular theory be proven right to advance their personal career; alongside a desire to ensure that no one must be permitted to argue otherwise, and damage the status of the theory. A wonderful example being space time. Yes, you may well ask; how does one come to such a profound conclusion? The answer being to read a book published more than a century ago; Waves And Ripples in Water, Air, and Aether; being A Course of Christmas Lectures delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain by J. A. Fleming, MA, D.Sc, F.R.S., M.INST.E.E., M.R.I., etc, etc. Lectures delivered 1901, first published 1902, and the book re-published 1912, several years before Einstein delivered Space Time.
The book sets out in great detail how to demonstrate that light waves, as also sound waves, are focused by a lens simply by a change of density within such a lens, for example created by filling a balloon with a dense gas; which then allowed the light or sound waves to be bent out of the original line of the origin of either the light waves or sound waves. That what Einstein later described as "Space Time" was demonstrated to children in 1901, first published 1902 and then subsequently re-published in 1912. That publication, and re-publication, was over a total of 13 years before Einstein published his theory of General Relativity in 1915 to claim that light waves are focused by gravity to create space time, when in fact, it had already been demonstrated 14 years earlier, within a well recognised scientific institution, and subsequently published as described above.
That all such focusing is entirely caused by a change in density of the medium through which the light or sound waves travelled. So what is the medium surrounding a large mass object? It is called an atmosphere, rapidly decreasing in density as the observation rises from from the surface of the object. There is no such force called gravity; that the force we call gravity is simply caused by the attachment of all gas molecules to each other and to mass.
each of you are using the English language to respond, yet use a vastly complicated mathematical language to "talk" to your software. On my part, for many years now I have wondered if the very best computer language would be to use the English language? particularly now that the whole basis for these new forms of usage are all about the use of language. Has anyone else here ever thought that the best computer language would be to use the English language? You are, after all, defining the problem in English; so why not build the entire model for a speaking computer, using the same language? Food for thought?
if, instead of a big bang, we live within a steady state universe, trillions of years old; then surely there will be particles of matter, of all forms and origins; which thus will allow the spread of life throughout the universe. That everywhere we might in future visit, we will find similar life forms to our own here on Earth? Food for thought?
All the situation needed was the creation of a small internal group of youngster employees to learn the ropes of the career from existing employees and let the aged drop off naturally. Career development driven by fear from the outset will come back to haunt Boeing in the long run.
"Datacenters are now responsible for 2.5 to 3.7 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions, Dunning claimed, and adoption of AI is projected to grow at a 37 per cent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between now and 2030."
Everyone has to come to terms with a small matter of an inappropriate term being used to describe the ongoing climate change debate; carbon dioxide emissions do not create heat. Yes carbon can be used to try and describe the trend of the transfer of heat production from burning fossil fuels; except that other than wind farms, and hydraulic powered generators; every major form of electricity production, coal, gas, wood chips and nuclear, and even the proposed fusion reactors, are all using the same heat engine technology that can only deliver ~35% efficiency. Here in the UK each of the two nuclear reactors being built at Hinkley Point will create 4524 MW of heat to generate 1630 MW of electricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
So the total heat input to the local environment is a continuous 5.8 GW, mostly into the surrounding sea. Now add the total excess heat output from every existing nuclear reactor powered electricity generation. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions by transferring their heat emissions to nuclear, as a green solution is an intellectual dead end. That has to include the electrical energy input to the production of Hydrogen.
The challenge this presents, requires the total elimination of any form of energy production using any form of heat engine as the means to produce energy.
They all built their model upon the concept that gravity emanates from the centre of a mass object, this planet being a good example, and pulls everything towards it, See Scientific American February 2002 ask the experts; Why are planets round? Again Issac Asimov came up with his suggestion, from the same thinking; that gravity would be minimal at the centre so that one would float around in the centre without any problems.
All of that was in turn caused by eminent scientists not reading Issac Newton's Principia, of if they did, not understanding the meaning of his words, particularly in his opening remarks, where he tells us that he made the decision to place his calculation of the mass of any object, right at the centre of a circle on the page which he regularly describes as "P", and then in Definition 1 he writes:
"I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any there is, that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. It is this quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name body or mass"
And adds in Definition VIII: "For I here design only to give a mathematical notion of these forces, without considering their physical causes and seats."
Ergo, his real interest is mathematics; he is thus less concerned with any underlying physical aspects of the debate and he continues: “I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense, accelerative, and motive; and use the words attraction, impulse or propensity of any sort towards a centre, promiscuously, and indifferently, one for another; considering these forces not physically, but mathematically: wherefore, the reader is not to imagine, that by those words, I anywhere take upon me to define the kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical reason thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to certain centres (which are only mathematical points); when at any time I happen to speak of centres as attracting, or as endued with attractive powers”
Newton laid down the foundations for modern mathematics and Principia; Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy is a towering monument to his undoubted genius. However, as you will now discover, by entirely concentrating upon presenting mathematical solutions; while at the same time deliberately avoiding distractions caused by physical aspects of the solutions he was presenting; he misunderstood the importance of just a few words he had written.
As did it would seem did everyone else since.They all ignored Newton's 3rd Law.
And yes that has been available since 2017 and I expect they are indeed waiting for me to die before acknowledging it; perhaps wanting to then "Discover" me.
Within my lifetime the majority of vehicles powered by either petrol or diesel were produced, and it is that aspect of this debate that has been, dare I say it, suppressed. We need to understand that our weather related problems have nothing to do with CO2; instead it is entirely caused by vehicles, and the associated production of electricity; because all such energy is produced by what are known as “Heat Engines”.
Burn a litre of petrol, or diesel, or produce electricity by nuclear power, all of the energy production is trammelled by the limitations of an inefficient heat to energy cycle of roughly 35%, (give or take a few percent depending upon the particular mechanism; piston engines in vehicles; steam turbines in power stations). The balance of the heat created is immediately distributed back into the surrounding atmosphere. Not to forget that ALL the energy created in any form of heat engine, always becomes heat eventually; the vehicle by movement, and braking, the electricity by distribution and the production of other forms of heat. All energy burnt/created within the heat engines eventually becomes a heat input to the atmosphere.
Not wanting anyone to try burning four litres of petrol in their garden, instead we need someone to set into motion a video demonstration of, say, a six lane motorway full of vehicles each travelling at, say, 90 kilometres an hour, above each showing an vivid illustration of the fuel being burnt, ~ 8 litres per hour, above each vehicle. Now take 1,495 billion vehicles including trucks https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world/ In point of fact; all the energy used by the vehicle heats the atmosphere. How much fossil fuel energy is produced each year? The 2021 figure is 135,923 terawatt-hours. Again, go back to 1950 and the figure was 20,139 terawatt-hours. So since 1950 fossil fuel heat input to the atmosphere has increased 6.75 times. http://www.Ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels THAT is the primary problem that it would seem no one wants to fully illustrate; then add the nuclear, (because we are being told that nuclear is the answer to global warming, (by changing all heat engine vehicles into electric vehicles), when in fact nuclear is just another form of heat engine,
producing heat to create steam to power steam turbines; to drive generators; as also all the research into fusion power, is again, all about another form of heat engine, to again create steam to power turbines. Fact: The electrical generating efficiency of standard steam turbine power plants varies from a high of 37% HHV4 for large, electric utility plants designed for the highest practical annual capacity
factor, to under 10% HHV for small, simple plants which make electricity as a byproduct of delivering steam to processes or district heating systems. https://www.turbinesinfo.com/steam-turbine-efficiency/
Please, do not be confused with the thermodynamic efficiency of a steam turbine of up to 90%, which no doubt matches the thermodynamic efficiency of the combustion of petrol within any modern petrol engine. We are always dealing with the entire mechanical process of energy generation, heat in one end, energy out at the other. The total of which always introduces up to 63% heat loss to the atmosphere.US Energy Information Administration; More than 60% of energy used for electricity generation is lost in conversion https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436#
There never was any problem with CO2, nor, again, with the production of meat using natural farming methods. Yes, the figures for carbon production show a massive increase; yet the quantum of atmospheric CO2 rises over time at a few parts per million. On the other hand, fossil fuel heat input has increased 675% . . . which accurately illustrates that the vast majority of carbon produced is being adsorbed by the planet; while taking the focus of intellectual thought away from the source of the heat into the atmosphere. It is my profound belief that we have to centre our ongoing research efforts onto any and every possible means to produce energy without any further reference to any form of heat engine. We must now, all of us, stop this inaccurate debate about CO2. Everyone has to be brought to realise every solution, using any form of heat engine, including nuclear or fusion power; is an intellectual dead end. Humanity has no option but to abandon the use of heat engines to produce energy in whatever form; vehicle power, or electricity generation, if it wishes to survive. That is the real challenge facing all of us.
Trying to place the blame upon, for example the production of beef, is a classic Red Herring designed to avoid the debate about where the heat is coming from ... Heat Engines. Our planet is drowning in heat . . . NOT CO2.
The problem is, fusion power is just another form of heat engine. To bring this debate up to date we need to go back to the beginning, where within my lifetime, 79 years, the majority of vehicles powered by either petrol or diesel were produced, and it is that aspect of this debate that has been, dare I say it, suppressed. For example, our weather related problems have nothing to do with beef production on grass; instead it is entirely caused by vehicles powered by heat engines, and exactly the same heat engine systems associated with the production of electricity; because all such energy is produced by what are known as “Heat Engines”. Burn a gallon of petrol, or diesel, produce electricity by nuclear power, all of the energy production is trammelled by the limitations of an inefficient heat to energy cycle of roughly 35%, (give or take a few percent depending upon the particular mechanism; piston engines in vehicles; steam turbines in power stations). The balance of the heat is immediately distributed back into the surrounding atmosphere. Mind you, not to forget that, all the energy created in any form of heat engine, always becomes heat eventually; the vehicle by movement, the electricity by distribution and the production of other forms of heat. All energy in the heat engines eventually becomes a heat input to the atmosphere.
Not wanting anyone to try burning a gallon of petrol in their garden, instead we need someone to set into motion a demonstration of, say, a six lane motorway full of vehicles each travelling at, say, 70 miles and hour, showing an illustration of the fuel being burnt, roughly 2 gallons per mile, above each vehicle. Now take 1,495 billion vehicles including trucks https://hedgescompany.com/blog/2021/06/how-many-cars-are-there-in-the-world/ and work it all out. THAT is the primary problem that it would seem no one wants to fully illustrate; and that does not include aircraft, then add the nuclear, (because we are being told that nuclear is the answer to global warming, when in fact it is just another form of heat engine, producing heat to create steam to power steam turbines; as also all the research into fusion power, is again, all about another form of heat engine). This time heating to some 10 million degrees to again turn water into steam to power turbines . . . same as; same as.
Humanity has no option but to abandon the use of heat engines to produce energy in whatever form; vehicle power, or electricity generation, if it wishes to survive. That is the real challenge facing all of us. Trying to raise funds for fusion power research is another example of a classic Red Herring specifically designed to avoid the debate about where the heat is coming from … heat Engines.
"Possibly the most shocking quote in the article is the one at the end where Amazon say "We did nothing wrong."
As things stand, this report is an excellent example of a simple fact; There is no rule of law affecting corporate leadership within the USA. That any senior leadership within any major corporation can pay a small sum of money; NOT to a court of the law under the direction of a judge and jury, but instead to a regulatory institution. This report, just like many others shows that there is no rule of law; that today the United States is a lawless, classically feudal nation.
Totally incorrect! The concept of a rentier economy describes where a sale is never fully enacted; the purchaser pays a price but never receives full value of a conventional purchase, instead receives a classic rental contract from the company providing the goods. All rentier contracts are NEVER any form of conventional sale; where the ownership of the product sold passes to the purchaser; with the particular aspect of book sales being, you purchase the physical book, but that the publisher and author retain the rights to the text; to prevent anyone from being able to sell the text onwards in multiple copies of the text; thus allowing anyone to act as secondary publishers of the text for their own purposes.
As for saying the secondary publisher is a charity; forgets that all such pay their managers an income; and thus the charity managers profit, often greatly. To re-enforce that statement, in all the years I have been dealing with charities; I have never met an unpaid manager, or creator of a charity. yes the managers use the services of volunteers to help in the charity shop; but the people at the top always take an income; and charities always sell whatever for a cost to the purchaser . . . charities are there to obtain an income to pass on to particular local or national or even international needs, they are never cost free, must always derive an income from their activities.
while everyone here is focused upon the operating system, there is a much larger problem no one seems to have fully recognised; user files damaged by software designed to break into such files to force users into rental of software; alongside the deliberate destruction of user rights once purchased under classic free market rules; that are now no longer accepted. A good example was when Microsoft made the decision to remove support for Paint. What they did was deliberately damage ANY illustration, within ANY previous document created in Word, that had been created by the previously totally law abiding owner of their software; someone who had purchased and was the lawful owner of their version of Word. Recently Microsoft announced that they were going after the last owners of Word . . . to force them into being only able to access their previously totally lawfully created files, by renting access to 365.
A very good simile would be the historical ownership of fine china, where to force the previous purchasers of fine china to purchase new items, the manufacturers climbed through every window in every home and smashed their previously purchased fine china. For that is EXACTLY what the likes of Microsoft, and others, have been and continue to do. Of even greater importance, many others now do the same thing, damage the original document to force the use of their new business model upon users.
We need software that will protect the original documents, to remove all the externally applied damage; so that the owner of their work always has full access to it for the future.
It would seem the majority do not fully understand how wireless networks work. the signal from the local tower does not target your device, it broadcasts everything in EVERY direction. All that was needed would have been the MAC Number of his phone and to obtain that was the reason for all the earlier contacts, that had been made during the run up to that face to face meeting . . . which were to establish for certain the relevant MAC and associated code numbers for the phone. From that point all they needed to do is create a clone, using the information already obtained and required to do that. From then onwards, EVERY aspect of the creation of the new webaverse wallet would have also been set up on their clone, and that clone would not have needed to be anywhere other than within reception of the local tower. As creating a clone is a simple thing to implement, using their team to ensure everything was correctly set up; creating the wallet in the clone was entirely under the full control of webaverse, and as such was as easy as it was for the eventually scammed. All they had to do is use the fully available facilities within the clone to immediately move the funds onward under their clones full control. It is the never admitted aspect of all mobile telecommunications; the only thing that differentiates your phone from all others are the MAC address and associated settings. Indeed, it is possible to do that for EVERY such device. ANYONE could do that at any time at their convenience. All they need is the MAC address and associated settings. Period!
What such reports do is open a can of worms that should have been opened many decades ago with regard to who we, (those outside of so called Government, i.e. civil service), are actually dealing with? It is my belief, in large part from family knowledge, that the most senior levels of the civil service are staffed with what are described as "Exclusives". Plymouth Brethren Exclusives are a group of religious extremists who are as extreme, if not more so, than the most severe Muslim clerics. They, and particularly their wives and children, are not permitted to read newspapers, watch TV or listen to radio broadcasts, so from the outset, they have no knowledge of much of modern technology. Their wives and children are held never to talk to "heathens", for fear of dreadful consequences. A cousin, who left, had to leave his wife and children behind, never to see them again. So everyone is dealing with people who have no real interest in anything not already set out in the Holy Bible; who live in a completely closed society, and believe that the majority of the population of the nation are "Heathens" who pose an extreme danger to themselves and their families. If you ever, as I did once, try to speak to one of their womenfolk in a supermarket, you will observe a face emanating extreme fear, they will not talk to you. My eldest brother once told me that if I tried to knock on the door of my "Exclusive" uncle, he would slam the door in my face while shouting . . . Heathen!
As such these exclusives are a totally enclosed extreme religious sect, none of which should have ever been promoted to the levels they now hold within the administration of the nation. Bear that in mind when we keep reading reports of the inflow of people in boats crossing the English Channel, with the Home Office doing nothing to stop that flow.
When we once needed battleships for the Navy, we built them for ourselves; , when we needed aircraft to defend the nation we built them for ourselves; when we needed a computer to track the messages of our enemies, we built it for ourselves; when we needed radar to track the movement of aircraft attacking our nation, we built them ourselves. The United Kingdom once had an exceptional ability to invent, design and manufacture whatever we needed. Not only that, but we were the leaders in such industries. We created them; ships; railways, aircraft, computers, radar, nuclear power stations. . . you name it, we invented it, designed it and manufactured it. So what went wrong?
All I can do here is challenge everyone to present herein their understanding of the decisions that have, very effectively, destroyed our capability to remain a world leading manufacturer of whatever we need to remain competitive. Come on, everyone, Why?
The underlying problem, illustrated above, is not a matter of if or when any new thought may "arrive"; it is the long term effects of the way new thinking is currently funded; where the large corporate or government program has an undeniable advantage simply though being able to easily access the funds necessary to allow progress. While at one and the same time, a lack of access to necessary funding, often ending with the originator being "bought". Another example has to be the way, as William Kingston has frequently described; "Kingston's conviction that intellectual property no longer serves the purposes for which it was originally set up is reflected in many publications arguing for its reform. His research revealed the extent to which owners of patents or copyrights are intimidated by firms which have large funds for litigation. It led him to propose that compulsory technical arbitration should be a pre-condition for any reference to the Courts . . . Inevitably, Kingston's concern with intellectual property spread to interest in property rights in general, and especially in those rights which lead to business becoming global in scope. An aspect of this is the growth of bureaucracies, both national and international, on which he has also written. In his view, this development reflects policies that are inimical to innovation." (Taken from the cover sheet of: INNOVATION The Creative Impulse in Human Progress, by William Kingston).
My own experience has clearly demonstrated to me that science, as practised here in the UK, has no real interest in any new thinking that in any way, damages the career prospects of existing proponents of a failed theory; instead they will do everything in their power, to suppress it to cover up their own failures. And who cares?
"Such a simple strategic error of tactical judgement is thus gravely to be regarded and best completely avoided at whatever the cost for the price exacted by failure is astronomical and virtually incalculable."
My oh! my; what an interesting thought, and why not also relate it to the intent of a present UK citizen . . . soon to move to a new nation and set out to present his work in a new language . . . that would result in at least two primary science subjects, physics and cosmology, being also, exclusively, taught in a new nation's language, such as to exclude all the existing US and UK universities from being the primary source of the new knowledge. How much will that simple strategic error "Cost"? Time remains of the essence.
Imagine; two centuries ago; when your mother bought a fine china bowl . . . And the result was that at some point afterwards, the fine china bowl maker climbed through every window of every past customer and smashed the fine china bowl. From that moment onwards, she would have to pay a subscription to use the next bowl . . . that at any point in the future, the manufacturer could smash this new bowl if the subscription was not paid??
What we are observing is the destruction of the concept of a purchase made in a classic free market; to be replaced with classic feudalism. I set out this debate in great detail with my free PDF book The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective, particularly chapter 4 and 5. The detail covers a substantial debate, go read it for yourselves.
http://chriscoles.com/The%20Road%20Ahead%20from%20a%20Grass%20Roots%20Perspective.pdf
What we are witnessing is the complete rejection of a free market; which in turn has been replaced with classic feudalism. By accepting such feudalism, we destroy centuries of development of the concept of why we originally created the concept of a free market . . . Today all of our freedoms are being destroyed by people who do not believe in any form of free market; who instead insist that they can dictate every aspect of the way we all live . . . which is, again, classic feudalism.
Do our governments fully understand that they now govern classic feudal nation's; that they have permitted the destruction of freedom; to replace that freedom with feudalism?
For many years I worked permanent nights as a Toolmaker setting multi-spindle bar carrier lathes. Such machinery needs to be worked 24hrs a day, every day possible, and while three shifts were originally the norm, eventually we ended up with a 12 hour night, start 20:00 with a half hour for "lunch" at 01:30 to 02:00, finish shift at 08:00, that was the first four nights, Monday to Thursday . . . finish 08:00 Friday morning, return back to work 16:00 Friday and work through to 02:00 Saturday morning for a 60 hour week.. Downsides; 130 Db continuous noise; covered head to foot with cutting oil spray, so needed a bath each end of shift; cuts to fingers from razor edged tooling. Upsides: getting a machine weighing many tons, to regularly produce thousands of machined components, accurate to a few thou, where the grinning day shift operator tells you, "I never touched it, ran all day" with the stack of full component boxes as proof of his statement. There are many challenges in such work that bring one to realise that; if you can meet the challenges of such work, you can do anything; meet any challenge.
When I first started out at that work pay was sufficient for a great lifestyle, while over the years the pay consistently reduced to not much more than basic minimum wage. Oh! And walking distance to the factory. Might sound odd to Register readers, Another upside was I could work all day Monday on my own projects, so at least one 24 hr day a week, even extending to home from work Tuesday morning, not needing to sleep until after lunch, meant I had time to do may things other than work for an income. Which is why today I can describe myself as an Internationally recognised inventor, as also author.
Next time you start your car, remember that almost all components under the car bonnet came from tool makers working like that. On my part, next time you look at a digger working on a construction site, take a close look at the steel ends to all the hydraulic pipes, each part taking ~ 20 -28 seconds to machine, completely, internally and externally.; and in every manufacturing nation around the world. . . Sitting quietly in your home with you PC . . . You Never had it so good.
Having watched her coronation on a new TV, out in the middle of the local village green; enjoyed the many memories of her husband Prince Philip; watched in awe at her work to bring so many nations into her Commonwealth; news of her passing brought tears to my eyes. Some will know that I deeply disapprove of what one might describe as a Feudal Mercantile Economy, corporate feudalism; yet her strong leadership, over such a long lifetime, brought another viewpoint that will live on for many coming centuries. I for one will miss her Christmas message to us all. God Save the King, King Charles III. May his coming reign bring similar success.
You clearly do not understand the concept of freedom of thought, and thus believe that a nation of more than a billion slaves, to a leadership dedicated to ensuring no one is EVER allowed to form their own view of the road ahead; can possibly rule the future planet; which China so clearly demonstrated by murdering their very best young people who had simply sat down to peacefully ask for the freedom to choose their own leadership. India is well known to be riven by deep corruption; their slaves are called "untouchables".
As a classic Brit, I have the brass cheek to believe in the capacity of the British nation to return to success. And another thing, it is the ownership of technology that creates opportunity, not the ownership of slaves. One good mind can, and as has been repeatedly demonstrated; create great prosperity.
If as I have in the past, spent any time in the US, to meet and converse with their very best people, you will know full well that, yes, while they might be described as being on the back foot right now; their people show great resilience, combined with a very competitive mindset. Their road ahead is already clearly set out and will allow them an easy return to success in all things. Nations that insist upon acquiring slaves will fail; nations that accept new thinking always succeed, as the only thing to fear is fear itself.
Time remains of the essence.
The past history of the United Kingdom was as a science super power; we led the world in many areas of science. The very first thing to do is to think positive. There are very specific proposals in front of the government for a means to fund the creation of at least one major new research institute, here in the UK. Which if followed up with enthusiasm, will, not "may" . . . will . . . create an opportunity for the UK to return to full scientific leadership in direct conjunction with the United States; where an identical research institution will compliment the first to lead the world. It will be Europe that will regret their post Brexit actions, as the positive results of the two new research institutes will lead the world to a recognition that the UK remains a Science Super Power. Who ever becomes Prime Minister has been presented with a choice, to accept the deal offered and retain scientific leadership. The very same applies to the US. Scientific Leadership requires new thinking to be accepted and fully supported. The choice is theirs, on both sides of the pond; theirs to win via positive leadership being fully applied to new thinking.
JWST is orbiting the sun while the entire solar system is also orbiting the Milky Way galaxy; so it seems reasonable to assume the majority of such impacts will stem from the direction of movement through space. So why not launch a separate shield specifically designed to cover that risk? Simple!
If what we are being told about the ongoing threat to the health of the vaccinated is correct, then the same thing is happening to the CCP, that their death rate is now ~40% above normal. On the other hand, if no one within China has the courage to tell the CCP the truth, that the vaccinations are the cause of the increase in deaths, and instead, the CCP has taken on board the idea that the increase of death rates are entirely the result of the unvaccinated spreading such infections. Then to the CCP, the lock downs make sense, and can be seen as a classic case of panic . . . citizens are dying, "we" are dying too, so everything we must do is bring the ongoing infections to the minimum. The simple fact is, Corona viruses are also the source of the common cold, which we all know spreads throughout every nation. Trying to bring to a halt the spread of a common cold is never going to work; instead, we long ago learned to live with it. Now old fashioned ideas like catch the virus and survive makes you immune for the rest of your life, have been dumped; panic rules.
As someone that started out with Windows 3.1 through to W7 who turned to Linux Mint, as I did so the underlying problem came into view; well expressed by many other comments herein . . . a refusal to understand the problems caused to, what one might describe as, the common computer user . . . the absolute refusal of what one might describe as Linux enthusiasts to accept that many will not know all of the subtleties of managing the software. As I see it, the great achievement of Microsoft, right from the beginning, was the creation of books that set it all out, in plain English, how to manage their software. There very simply is no comparison to such as; Microsoft Windows XP Inside Out . . . with Linux Mint. of even greater importance, try asking the Linux enthusiasts for answers and find your self being treated as an idiot . . . not worth the bother; as many have also described herein. It is Microsoft documentation that delivered their dominance, because it gave answers to any and every question, without any suggestion that asking was a demonstration of the users stupidity. Until Linux creates documentation to the same standards of understandable quality, they will not break through to the majority of Microsoft users.
"Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't seem difficult to me to do that without introducing secret code. Happy to listen to other thoughts on this subject as I'm genuinely curious."
Surely that is the most important question of all; why TPM? What is the true function?
On my part, I grew up with DOS, and as I worked my way forward it became very clear that Microsoft, as others, came to realise that they could do something , no previous business could have done; climb through the window of EVERY previous purchaser, and destroy the previous product that they had sold to the customer. Imagine, every piece of fine china, for example, bought and used in a family setting, one morning . . . suddenly smashed to pieces . . .
My belief is that the TPM function is to reinforce that function with ANY earlier example of their own software, as well as making it impossible to use ANY software that they have defined as being competitive to their perceived market. That today, they have not one jot of interest in accepting the rules of a free market; that their intent is to use such functions to destroy a free market and replace it with a monopoly.
By chance of birth I come into this debate with uncommon knowledge, the existence of the extreme religious sect called; Plymouth Brethren "Exclusives". My uncle Peter was such, and my eldest brother once told me that, if I walked up to his front door and knocked on it, he would slam the door in my face while describing me as a "Heathen". A cousin, brought up within that family, eventually decided to leave and in doing so, had to leave behind his wife and children. Many such exclusives are in fact, senior civil servants, as was my uncle Peter, who I understand was Clerk of Works to the House of Commons. Again, I also gather that the same problem applies to the US, and, indeed, of all places, China. These are people that do not read anything other than a bible, (or in China the "Party doctrine). Again, within such communities, who are not permitted any normal social interaction with outsiders; they will only gather together with others of their sect. So it will be imperative that they only promote to the most senior levels of the civil service; other members of their sect. These people, exclusives, are not permitted ANY external social interaction, or as the title of this states; they are not permitted to read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the radio. They have no contact whatsoever with their surrounding communities; this is an entirely exclusive group that consider themselves to be above everyone else.
It is thus no wonder that they cannot take proper command of any new technology.
At long last we will have confirmation that, instead of being able to observe the remnants of big bang, we will be shown images that will confirm the universe stretches out to the limits of the JWST vision, exactly as we all see it at night from here on planet Earth.
We need answers to a considerable number of questions, all of which stem from my understanding of the past history of corruption within the civil service. Starting from the founding of many companies here in the UK who will have approached the civil service for a grant. If their experience was anything like mine, to get a grant, I was presented with a stark choice, hand over shares in my company, or no grant. So now understand that, if they took the deal offered; they were from that moment onward; under the complete control of the civil service holders of their company stock. Did Autonomy receive any such grants, under similar conditions regarding holdings of stock in their company? Were members of the civil service appointed to the management of Autonomy? Were any of the founders of Autonomy members of the civil service? Turning to the long delays of the judgement, has the judge been placed under any pressure to revise, or redact his judgement, from anyone within the civil service? Are such attempts to so revise, or redact . . . legal? If any of these questions can be answered in the positive, surely it is in both the interest of the reputation of the United Kingdom; and the interest of HP to find out if they reflect the true nature of the underlying corruption?
