Jones— Regarding Higgs, Mills is not the only prediction of the Higgs boson. I believe Philippe Hatt has very accurately predicted its mass etc.
Regarding NASA and DOD ignoring a good thing, I think it involves the lucrative sale of solid fuel rockets produced by Thiocol and Hercules and other established rocket industries. The same sort of ignoring I recall happened in the late 1970’s early 1980’s when cryogenic processing of solid rocket propellants was developed. However it promised to upset the solid rocket business, based on large capital investments in the facilities for hot batch mixing and pouring the rocket propellant into casings housing the solid propellant and was rejected. Challenger, a manned spacecraft of the mid 80’s, blew up on takeoff as a seal between two segmented casings of the solid fuel rocket failed. This happened despite the fact that cryogenic processing had demonstrated safe cold mixing of ingredients—plasticizer, oxidant and fuel—with excellent chemical ratios producing up to 60% more energy per pound of solid propellant, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR CASING SEALS since a continuous pour of any desired volume was a key feature of the processing. The established rocket manufactures did not own the patents and the establishment saw fit to pay NO attention to the safety and improved performance of the new technology. Bob Cook From: ROGER ANDERTON<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:08 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons NASA has funded antigravity resarch, but what is missing is any announcement of big success. Anyway, unified field theory research gets mostly ignored; started with Boscovich (1758), how gravity is a residual of electricity from Boscovich theory explained at: Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special electrical nature - Ioan Has<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWBj1Ed4Mt4> [https://s.yimg.com/vv/api/res/1.2/MrkResMlcDJo2TkD06UFcA--~A/YXBwaWQ9bWFpbDtmaT1maWxsO2g9MjAwO3c9NDAw/https:/i.ytimg.com/vi/AWBj1Ed4Mt4/maxresdefault.jpg.cf.jpg] [- Description: https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/12/overlay-tile.png] [https://s.yimg.com/nq/storm/assets/enhancrV2/23/logos/youtube.png] Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special ele... Theoretical confirmation of the gravitation new origin having a special electrical nature with Coulomb law corre... On Monday, 29 January 2018, 14:53, JonesBeene <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in Mills hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later category. As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice man for this) Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an antigravitational force<https://www.google.com/patents/WO1995032021A1> The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and the Pentagon ignoredthemt? And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not even get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the reverse gyrotron? Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other credit and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately rationalize them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is that he is a creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply cannot put good ideas into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or more) at the problem. He is great fund-raiser but after all these years there is not a satisfactory independent replication, nor a real sample of hydrinos to test. The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If so, he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation of why it failed. Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar work into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim to have been the first … From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link: http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory
