AGD said in #121:
I am the one that even doubt you are Craig Cobb, remember? Video proof missing btw.
Do you remember I said I was in Williston a few days ago, and I am thinking of holding seminars for oil companies and their workers on cryptos?
Here is a pic of me by the wave machine in The Ark:
https://postimg.cc/zVckP0pySecond row of pics, center, on official Williston page. Note vertical silver pipe, right side top in both pics.
http://www.willistonparks.com/williston-arcYou are right. Thanks for posting the link to your thread which was my first post here, Phinnaeous Gage. "James A. Donald" was the first to respond to Satoshi Nakamoto, a day later. "James A. Donald". coder of "Crypto Kong" is surely James A. ( for Allen) Bowery.
https://www.whois.com/whois/jim.comjim.com
Updated 1 second agoDomain Information
Domain:jim.com
Registrar:Tucows Domains Inc.
Registered On:1995-02-24
Expires On:2020-02-25
Updated On:2017-10-12
Status:clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited
Name Servers:ns1.cyberultra.net
ns2.cyberultra.net
http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/double-slit-4-18-2018.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1uFeiZJq1xxiYdfARhEF7R7XS_eVLiCAQss2dymjSeuwQmgOo1BRnYx-o============================================================
ECHEQUE RE-DIRECTS TO JIM.COM. ECHEQUE WAS FIRST REGISTERED JUST TWO MONTHS AFTER JIM.COM, I.E. IN APRIL 1995.
https://www.whois.com/whois/echeque.comecheque.com Updated 1 second ago
Domain Information
Domain:echeque.com
Registrar:Tucows Domains Inc.
Registered On:1995-04-24
Expires On:2020-04-25
Updated On:2017-10-12
Status:clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited
Name Servers:ns1.cyberultra.net
ns2.cyberultra.net
============================================
James Bowery I've also been collaborating with this guy to, in my not-so-copious spare time, program a numeric model of neutron diffraction based on GUToCP. EDITED INSERTION HERE BY DOUBLESPEND TIMESTAMP: folks does this look like Satoshi's Oct 31 2008 bitcoin presentation?
https://postimg.cc/PPBRv3mW http://zhydrogen.com/.../2018/04/double-slit-4-18-2018.pdf
https://www.facebook.com/jabowery/posts/10215963193623424James Bowery
April 18 ·
I'm starting to get into the science surrounding the GUToCP controversy because, not surprisingly to this cynic, none of the folks who should be doing due diligence in accord with their fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, are. Moreover, they're not about to respond to sound decision theoretic arguments that they could end up being personally sued by angry stockholders of companies like GE Capital, if GUToCP turns out to be valid. If I owned stock in any energy companies, or in companies heavily dependent on the particulars of energy generation and distribution, I'd find somewhere else to park those assets at least for the next year -- not because of my analysis, given below, of a key scientific controversy, but because the inability of key executives to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility is plain enough. I base this solely on their failure to invest the few thousand dollars it would take to discount the risk and cover their behinds. That's what it would cost to ask an engineer who was visiting Princeton University for some other reason, to take a long lunch and drive over to the Brilliant Light, Inc. laboratory a few minutes from Princeton. He'd have to have a reasonable infrared meter costing at most a few hundred dollars, take a reading of the electric meter on the side of the building, go inside, take an IR reading from the device they purportedly have running with a coefficient of performance of over 100, estimate the integrated energy emitted, go back outside and take another reading of the electric meter. This is so technically challenging, I suspect a 7th grade student would find it difficult. Perhaps they should replace guys like Jeff Immelt with an 8th grader.
This last week, yet another paper (via the story at the link below) was published about the anomalous ~3.5keV X-Ray astronomy "line" (although it is spread out more than one would expect of an emission line) that has been reported in several papers over the last several years. The signal is faint but it corresponds to areas suspected to contain high densities of dark matter. Early attempts to "debunk" this observation are now starting to give way to a confluence of different instruments, statistical methods and investigators seeing it. Early attempts to theoretically explain it as some sort of emission from dark matter tried the "axino" theory. As those attempts failed for one reason or another, a new attempt to explain dark matter as consisting of "sterile neutrinos" took the place of axinos. (For later reference, note that none of these theories explain why axinos or sterile neutrinos should be 95% of the mass of the universe. Remember that sentence for the end of this exposition.)
I saw lots of references to "the 3.5keV sterile neutrino" taking the place of the hypothesized axino. Trying to trace back where anyone got the idea that there should be a "sterile neutrino" with a mass of 3.5keV, I found the first occurrence of "3.5keV" in the literature associated with sterile neutrinos was a paper that was trying to place "constraints" on the mass of the hypothetical particle by looking at the emerging X-Ray astronomy data. Now, if you didn't bristle at the mention of the word "constraints" on a "hypothetical particle" based on emerging but noisy measurements, perhaps I should explain something about the philosophy of science:
Science is about predicting from observations. One key form this takes is "replication" as in "I predict anyone who follows my directions for an experiment will see the same thing I saw." But it also applies to novel experiments where if your theory is good, and your experimental method sound, you can be assured of the outcome of measurements like, for example, the mass of a particle.
What these guys are doing is revealed in this damning passage from one of the axino papers:
"Due to the large number of parameters at disposal in supersymmetric models, it is hard to exclude with certainty the axino scenario."
"The large numbers of parameters" means their model "predicts" very little about the mass of hypothesized particles. That's why when they make stuff up like "sterile neutrinos" they don't know what the mass is going to be but -- hey -- they need _something_ to explain disturbing data so they "hypothesize" something so vague that they can make it "fit" any observations that come along from the experimentalists.
This is known as "cheating".
But you know what? There is a theory that has been around since the early 1990s that not only "predicts" a form of "dark matter" that will produce a 3.5keV signature -- but it has no "parameters" -- only fundamental physical constants.
R. L. Mills The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, November 1995 Edition HydroCatalysis Power Corp. Malvern, PA Library of Congress Catalog Number 94-077780 Chp.22 ISBN number ISBN 0-9635171-1-2
Moreover, it predicts that this 3.5keV signature won't be a "line" but will be continuum radiation -- a spectral band -- with a 3.5keV cutoff which will look _sort of_ like a "line" but is actually a rapidly decaying peak at 3.5keV. Moreover (you're going to get tired of these "moreover"s) this 3.5keV is the result of a dark-matter-to-lower-energy-dark-matter conversion. Moreover, the higher energy form of dark matter is predicted to be the most ubiquitous form of dark matter -- and is therefore the most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe (DM being 95% of the mass of the universe). Moreover, its transition to the lower energy dark matter is catalyzed by the second most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe: hydrogen. Moreover the most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe is a lower energy state of the second most ubiquitous form of matter in the universe. In other words, dark matter can be thought of as the "ash" of hydrogen that goes through an energy loss that is catalyzed in the plasma atmospheres surrounding stars. Moreover, when catalyzed in stellar atmospheres, the energy emitted is exceedingly high "temperature", which explains why coronas are millions of degrees while the surface of the sun is only in the thousands.
