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

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 2:08 PM
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<>


[- Description:]


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 <> wrote:


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 

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 

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 …

For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:

Reply via email to