James I think your evaluation is correct. It does not matter which historical society you look into at some point in time they become ruled with CYA. Do not think you are somebody. Just now e built very large companies and government has responded by growing in a way that they can be a comparable entity. This cannot work in the long run. It did not work in Europe with a small group of people 'the aristocrats having it all and the masses suffering from the conditions imposed by the aristocrats and nature. They moved to the US. As far as I know there is no sanctuary any more on this globe. If it is, it is on its way to become part of the general (not US) western standard philosophy 'bigger is better'. Unfortunately some old fashion ideas, from the aristocratic society, is prevalent - ivy schools Harvard, Oxford,Cambridge, Sorbonne. When the European society faced the emigration they found it necessary to change (25% of Swedes emigrated to the US). Today you can hardly identify the differences between Europe and the states. The next successful group have no uninhabited land to move to. They are going to do, what the industrial society needed a General Motors to accomplish, with a group of independent one person companies working together for just one program. They say that 'need is the mother of all inventions'. We have become complacent. My interest in LENR is founded on the fact that LENR deployed will change the infrastructure and demand a change to a more flexible society. We just need this type of revolution or we will see revolution of another type - perhaps the violent type - that is nothing anybody can wish for. I think we just passed on another big opportunity when we bailed out the financial world. We were due a financial revolution. We still have a banking system built on principals established more than a hundred years ago. Totally ineffective but supported by the CYA people. I understand that many people in Vortex would like to be first to get glory or money because being at the right place at the right time. That is OK. However, there is a bigger goal. That is to bring any LENR to market. Mills is fine with me, Rossi is perfect etc. That would shake up such a large portion of the 'industrial complex' that the government would need to reform. A good and possible revolution. Sometimes I get a little irritated over the hostility and the adamant way certain ideas are presented. I rather saw we tried to sort out what is possible and then eliminate the unreasonable as soon as possible. To reach the goal, LENR to market, should be paramount. I hope nobody takes my statement here as a political statement. I think politics is of no consequence as all our representatives are manipulated and monitored by the establishment. Red or blue, which is best? I was confused over that for a long time as in Sweden the colors are reversed. Red is communists and social-democrats, while blue is for the conservatives. I hate to say bible again but the rent idea is often an issue in the bible and is always looked upon as a negative issue. One reason Hitler was able to recruit people against the Jews in Germany was that they often personified the rent seekers as you call them James. The rent seekers are the true conservatives because they have assets and the interest is to conserve the asset and live on the rent. The radicals are the guys who believes that you can cross the English channel without you or your vehicle is in contact with water. We just need a Bleriot, Rossi or Mills to succeed.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:48 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > With Robin van Spaandonk's assistance, I have been able to educate myself > on the Mills chronology. It is, insofar as chronology alone can be, > supportive of Mills's authenticity. However, if Mills is real, as this > chronology seems to indicate, it sheds new light on the sociology of > science in the US. > > First the significant chronology, then the new light on the sociology of > US science: > > The essential insight required for a revolution in physics was published > in 1964 by George Goedecke > <http://physics.nmsu.edu/people/emeriti/GeorgeGoedecke.html> in a paper > titled "Classically Radiationless Motions and Possible Implications for > Quantum Theory > <http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B281>". The > response to this paper's fundamental importance was utter silence except > for Wigner who was relieved that it had not been published earlier in the > 20th century because it would have side-tracked physics into a classical > paradigm rather than the development of quantum mechanics. > > However, and this is important, Mills, in developing his "Grand Unified > Theory of Classical Physics > <http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/TOE%2002.10.03/Djvu%20Files/EntireBook.djvu>", > had not read and was therefore not influenced by Goedecke. > > It was in 1985, when Mills took a course from H. A. Haus at MIT, that Haus > showed Mills the manuscript to Haus's paper "On the radiation from point > charges > <http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/54/12/10.1119/1.14729>", > regarding free electron lasers, that Mills saw the *potential* importance > of "the nonradiation condition > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition>" to a revolution in > physics. Haus did not see the potential importance of his own paper, as > did Mills. Haus did not see the potential importance, in part, because he > had not read Goedecke's paper and, in part, because his intellect was not > so attuned to the structure of theory as to recognize when a cornerstone > had appeared. > > It was not until 1988 that Mills had the empirical impetus to pursue his > intuition that the nonradiation condition exposed by Haus's paper could > revolutionize physical theory. That impetus came in the form, *not* of > cold fusion (which wouldn't appear until 1989), but of the discovery of > high temperature superconductors. These materials, unlike cold fusion, > were reliably reproducible and seemed to challenge then-current > interpretations of physical theory. > > Then in 1989 cold fusion came a long and the signal to noise ratio > surrounding Mills's work went to hell. > > Mills didn't learn of Goedecke's paper for another decade. > > Implications of Mills's authenticity for the sociology of science in the > US: > > It is unfortunate that cold fusion came so close on the heels of high > temperature superconductors as Mills might have had a chance to develop his > theory in the absence of such a sociologically confounding phenomenon. > > Having said that, three social factors stand out as significant in the > sociology of science beyond the standard notion of tribal instincts of the > physics community protecting a dominant interpretation of theory: > > 1) As has been noted before about cold fusion, the University of Utah is > not only not Ivy League, it is in a State known primarily as an ultimate > expression of the founding culture of the United States as a nation of > settlers fleeing theocracy seeking intellectual as well as religious > freedom. > > 2) Goedecke was at the University of New Mexico. While not as "in your > face" as Utah, New Mexico is also very much part of the wild-west frontier > settlement culture of the United States. > > 3) Mills, while being a graduate of the heart of the Ivy League in > cambridge, was from a farming family. > > I think it is reasonable to conjecture that if Mills had been a graduate > of some place like the University of New Mexico, Utah or even the upper > midwest <http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml> land grant colleges > (such as the Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanic Arts where > courts have ruled the digital computer was invented), and had come up with > exactly the same theory, he probably wouldn't have received nearly as much > derision, because he would not have received any substantial investment and > his theory would have been dismissed with more casual prejudice than was > Goedecke's paper by Wigner. > > That Mills was an Ivy League PhD is critical. Being Ivy League isn't > enough to remove the taint of being a product of the nation of settlers. > > The sociology of US scientific conflict is not "Ivy League vs no-name > schools" nor even so much "accepted theory vs revolutionary theory". The > sociology of US scientific conflict is very similar to the conflict that > has been playing out in the US over the last century: > > The US as a nation of settlers vs the US as a nation of immigrants. > > The key to understanding this is the political economics of land. > > Immigrants, however disadvantaged, talented and penniless, arrive in a > settled civilization. The fiction of "property" as a "natural right" is > introduced very soon after settlement but it is a fiction just the same. > Settlers arrive in an uncivilized land where land is not yet claimed as > legally recognized property. It is no mere metaphor that settlers have to > fight, kill and be killed to "found" a regime of property rights, hence > civilization, on land. Upon the closing of the American frontier the > widest selling book other than the Bible was Henry George's "Progress and > Poverty" in which he recognized the key importance of land in political > economy's notion of "economic rent". Rent seeking is a, to use a systems > engineering term, "bug" in civilization. George attempted to fix that bug. > However, as Machiavelli warns in "The Prince" > <http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm>: > > there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, > or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction > of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those > who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in > those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear > of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the > incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they > have had a long experience of them. > > > Immigrants bring with them deep experience in and adaptation to rent > seeking cultures. This adaptation to the exploitation of the rent seeking > bug in civilization becomes both a dependence and an advantage in wresting > land and associated economic rent streams from the settling culture. > > US science, like much of US politics, has become a battle ground in which > the acquisition of economic rent streams is increasingly sought by peoples > increasingly adapted to evolutionary contests in rent seeking. The Ivy > League, by handing out what amounts to life patents of nobility in the > guise of "degrees", has taken the place of the old world aristocracy with > its claim on economic rent streams but, as we see with Mills -- blood line > taints even those granted life titles. > > > > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:33 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: >> >>> It's actually the other way around. Mills came up with the theory first, >>> then >>> started looking for ways to realize practical benefits from it. >>> >> >> Ah! Then that is a start on an answer to my request for a chronology >> stated in my prior response: >> >> I guess what might help buy this enough to start diving into the theory >> more seriously would be a chronology of the genesis of this theory to see >> to what degree Mills is guilty or innocent of what he accuses others: at >> hoc over-fitting to achieve these "miracles" of theory and technology. >> >> >
