The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

[Chris Coles]

Several events occurred since 2017, after the above debate came to a close. The first was when I had ordered my first order of 15 copies for PR purposes, (you need to understand that this debate was set into motion while I was finalising the final book PDF file), and those 15 copies arrived in the Philadelphia UPS depot . . . and promptly disappeared. Someone removed them and the only "someone" that could do that would have been the US government. Again, as I hold deep concerns regarding The Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty, that I believe made the United Kingdom a colony of the United States since 2012, (when I discovered it's existence), I sent another 8 copies to the White House and offered a deal to President Trump; that includes tearing up that treaty, copied that letter to Mrs May then the UK Prime Minister, who kindly posted a letter back to me to acknowledge my concerns. Part of my proposal being the creation of two gravity and energy research institutes, one in the US the other here in the UK. As a part of my deal I removed my book from sale.

The second was a BBC science program about the origins of the universe. One of my proofs regarding the debate I had created was that two lines of force in opposite directions across such as this planet, create a point of equilibrium of the forces at the centre of the planet where the two forces meet, which brings into the debate Newton's third Law, regarding where a force is applied requires an equal and opposite force at that exact point of the application of the original. Where, at that point of equilibrium at the centre of the planet, we have two forces meeting that require an equal and opposite force to counter each force application; at the central point of the meeting of the opposed forces. What I had done was show that a simple demonstration can be delivered using strips of elastic; where if we mark such a strip at that central point, and add equal points either side of the central point, we can observe the elastic stretches away from the central point in both directions towards the point of application of the two forces, the ends of the elastic. Which demonstration shows that gravity at the centre of any such mass object, is towards the surface at the centre while at one and the same time, the origins of the force of gravity at the surface is towards the centre. Additionally, that such a force structure has to also include points, between the surface and the centre, where the forces must again meet to cancel themselves out. I will attache the original paper delivered to the Royal Society. What the BBC program included was a young woman stepping out of the shadows holding a wider strip of elastic with gold stars on the elastic, which she stretched and relaxed a couple of times, and then stepped back into the shadows. That was the BBC giving the clear impression that my paper was stupid, while kindly acknowledging it's existence.

So I then set out to create a better demonstration using a steel spring driving a gear mechanism driving five separate dials; which in turn adds to Hooke's Law, Robert Hooke being the originator which was the origins of the use of a spring as a means to regulate the movement of a timepiece. (I suggest everyone read; The Man Who Knew Too Much). Again this was also sent to the Royal Society. (Indeed, all my drafts of the book since 2003 were deposited there). This again clearly demonstrates that two forces along the same line, cannot pass the point where they meet to form a point of equilibrium of the forces. That these demonstrations show, without doubt, that if gravity at the centre of a mass object is towards the surface at the centre of the mass and towards the centre of a mass at the surface, with additional points where those forces meet within any such mass object between the surface and the centre, then the mass must also have a shell of balanced force within the mass, between the surface and the centre. I calculated the combined forces at the centre of this planet is 197,359,446 G

Very recently the BBC interviewed the Astronomer Royal at 80, where half the interview is all about the 1950 -1960's debate about a steady state universe. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...l-at-80?page=1 where you will discover that the BBC has removed the 59 minute interview and that all other access shows the interview as only 30 minutes long. The BBC has received two copies of my book.

Just over a year ago I repeated my offer to create two gravity and energy research institutes, two weeks later CERN added me to their listing to receive their bi-monthly journal CERN Courier. (I had quoted two of their most senior scientists in my book).

There is reason to believe that my work is being considered for an award of some sort. It remains my belief that I have fully satisfied all requirements for a detailed description of a steady state universe. Then again, my work will completely destroy many scientific careers built upon big bang theory, and thus there is great incentive to never acknowledge it in any way.

Visual Proof of balanced forces in equilbrium.pdf Balanced Force Demonstration 21 10 2019.pdf

[davidstvz]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

I agree that Chris Coles comes off as a crank... that being said, I find myself sympathetic to many cranks these days. I think that it's clear there's a lot of officially sanctioned bullshit in the world today and I'm ultimately not educated enough in all the relevant fields to evaluate on my own what is bullshit and what isn't. So I'm left with the need to decide whether or not to trust people who are more intelligent or educated in a particular field than I am. My decision to trust is not at all scientific. I'm here because I trusted EJ after reading his gold chapter in "America's Bubble Economy: Profit When it Pops"... a book that, to be perfectly honest, reads like it was written by cranks and snake-oil salesmen (excepting EJ's chapter of course).

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Capitalism inevitably creates a 'sad' unfair world, physicist says he has proved

Capitalism is inherently unfair and will produce a world full of ‘sad’ and disgusting inequalities, but Communism is also “doomed to fail”, a leading scientist claims to have proved using the laws of physics.

Professor Adrian Bejan told The Independent he was so excited by the “huge” implications of his theory that he kept having to pinch himself.

.....

And, displaying the contempt many scientists have for claims made by the current US President, Professor Frank Close, an Oxford University physicist, said: “'Huge’ seems to be a favourite Trumpism so perhaps not the best claim to be making these days.

“I suggest the authors be invited to make a prediction whose failure would be able to refute their theory. Otherwise it’s not good physics.”


So what is the prediction whose failure would refute your theory that the Universe is a cloud of surplus proton energy?

Buying and reading your book is not a prediction. While I respect your right to publish whatever you like I'm kind of getting the feeling that it's a bit like scientology in that you need to pay to see the light. The fact that you haven't offered up any experimental evidence for your theory or any experimental evidence against current physics makes me suspect your theory is is just a hypothesis.

The experimental evidence is in the book.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Capitalism inevitably creates a 'sad' unfair world, physicist says he has proved

Capitalism is inherently unfair and will produce a world full of ‘sad’ and disgusting inequalities, but Communism is also “doomed to fail”, a leading scientist claims to have proved using the laws of physics.

Professor Adrian Bejan told The Independent he was so excited by the “huge” implications of his theory that he kept having to pinch himself.

.....

And, displaying the contempt many scientists have for claims made by the current US President, Professor Frank Close, an Oxford University physicist, said: “'Huge’ seems to be a favourite Trumpism so perhaps not the best claim to be making these days.

“I suggest the authors be invited to make a prediction whose failure would be able to refute their theory. Otherwise it’s not good physics.”


So what is the prediction whose failure would refute your theory that the Universe is a cloud of surplus proton energy?

Buying and reading your book is not a prediction. While I respect your right to publish whatever you like I'm kind of getting the feeling that it's a bit like scientology in that you need to pay to see the light. The fact that you haven't offered up any experimental evidence for your theory or any experimental evidence against current physics makes me suspect your theory is is just a hypothesis.

The experimental evidence is in the book.

[bungee]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

The most realistic answer is to ask you to read the book.

Capitalism inevitably creates a 'sad' unfair world, physicist says he has proved

Capitalism is inherently unfair and will produce a world full of ‘sad’ and disgusting inequalities, but Communism is also “doomed to fail”, a leading scientist claims to have proved using the laws of physics.

Professor Adrian Bejan told The Independent he was so excited by the “huge” implications of his theory that he kept having to pinch himself.

.....

And, displaying the contempt many scientists have for claims made by the current US President, Professor Frank Close, an Oxford University physicist, said: “'Huge’ seems to be a favourite Trumpism so perhaps not the best claim to be making these days.

“I suggest the authors be invited to make a prediction whose failure would be able to refute their theory. Otherwise it’s not good physics.”


So what is the prediction whose failure would refute your theory that the Universe is a cloud of surplus proton energy?

Buying and reading your book is not a prediction. While I respect your right to publish whatever you like I'm kind of getting the feeling that it's a bit like scientology in that you need to pay to see the light. The fact that you haven't offered up any experimental evidence for your theory or any experimental evidence against current physics makes me suspect your theory is is just a hypothesis.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

How about an apology? Something like, "while I reject your theories and methodology, I argued against the man instead of the idea and that was my failure. I was disrespectful and needlessly combative and insulting and apologize for my behavior towards you and the community."

Have you ever attacked the person rather than argument here Woodsman?

Rather rich coming from you.

[Woodsman]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Your first post in this thread was to say astonas came off as an "evil little shit". Your next post asked for me to apologize for being disrespectful, insulting and arguing against the man and not the ideas. Your last post is a snide remark implying that my contribution is not valuable.

What response are you hoping to elicit?

That you fellas seem hardly different than those whom you rail against. That you appear in this thread to possess every bit of intellectual and moral arrogance you see in the "other" you've tried to make of Chris. And that having been personally in that same space myself as was Raz (to my comeuppance, ultimately) and others; knowing the impact of the loss, I still wouldn't miss either of you much. Because humility is more valuable than intelligence and intelligence without humility is inchoate evil everywhere and always.

[Southernguy]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

What about everybody taking a valium pill before posting?

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Oh please, Spence. How ever could we possibly go on without you?

Your first post in this thread was to say astonas came off as an "evil little shit". Your next post asked for me to apologize for being disrespectful, insulting and arguing against the man and not the ideas. Your last post is a snide remark implying that my contribution is not valuable.

What response are you hoping to elicit?

[Woodsman]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Oh please, Spence. How ever could we possibly go on without you?

[jk]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

My only point was that if the community feels that itulip should be a safe space for pseudoscience and the charlatans who seek to profit from it, then I have no place here. Let me know and I'll be on my way so that you can all read your entrails in peace.

the implication of "safe space" is that there is no challenge. i would say challenge if you wish, but recognize that it may well be a waste of your time and energy. imo there are more important contributions you can make here.

What IS the proper way to handle someone who is harming a society and themselves because of their delusions? How does one encourage/force a deluded patient to confront reality, if not by speaking with them, or at least in their presence? I suppose I've by default settled on a model vaguely like an intervention, but does that actually work in practice?...

I'll readily defer to your expertise if my approach can't help. But I still don't know what a better approach is. Voting to demonstrate that no one has yet been convinced by their words? Cutting them off? Turning off their account? I've tried ignoring Chris for extended periods in the past, but all that seems to do is bring him back again later with an even more grandiose delusion. It certainly hasn't caused him to get the psychiatric help he needs. And in the meantime, he's wasted 14 years of his life. It's hard for me not to think of that as self-harm.

irl there are laws which may be invoked to contain or restrain someone who is a genuine threat to himself or others, but the standard for judging "threat" is pretty high. here, i question the seriousness of the threat.

and btw one cannot successfully force someone to "confront reality." as i indicated before, they will find a way to discount the new information or to even incorporate it into their pre-existing belief system. how are your efforts to get chris to "confront reality" working so far?

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

How about an apology? Something like, "while I reject your theories and methodology, I argued against the man instead of the idea and that was my failure. I was disrespectful and needlessly combative and insulting and apologize for my behavior towards you and the community."

Thank you Woody, but let it go; they have no intention of accepting their participation was unacceptably negative. As it is they have, IMHO, created a wonderful example of how some will do anything to depreciate another point of view; to the point of repeatedly stating that to do so is a fraud. I can take it; perhaps that is what they find so annoying.

Life is too short and we must rise above such outbursts.

Have a great weekend, Formula 1 season starts Sunday; Bottas to get his first win. Much more fun!

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

How about an apology? Something like, "while I reject your theories and methodology, I argued against the man instead of the idea and that was my failure. I was disrespectful and needlessly combative and insulting and apologize for my behavior towards you and the community."

If you thought my post was a roundabout way of expressing regret, you have misunderstood me. I'm not sorry and have no intention of apologizing.

Read the thread. Who made personal comments first? Who made claims they can't support? Who stands to gain financially by misleading the members of the forum?

My only point was that if the community feels that itulip should be a safe space for pseudoscience and the charlatans who seek to profit from it, then I have no place here. Let me know and I'll be on my way so that you can all read your entrails in peace.

[Woodsman]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

...I'll let it go and if even a handful of people think I'm the one out of line they can say so here and I'll banish myself from the site (with the exception of investor forums).

How about an apology? Something like, "while I reject your theories and methodology, I argued against the man instead of the idea and that was my failure. I was disrespectful and needlessly combative and insulting and apologize for my behavior towards you and the community."

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

"Among the thousands of iTulip community members, sixty stand out as our most active, enduring, and perceptive contributers and I salute you here: *T*, Andreuccio, ASH, babbittd, bart, bill, BiscayneSunrise, blazespinnaker, clue, Charles Mackay, Chomsky, Chris, Chris Coles, ..........." Taken from Acknowledgments, The Postcatastrophe Economy by Eric Janszen.

Certainly, in such a widespread international group of individuals, there will be many that will disagree with what any single individual will have to say on any matter herein. At the outset, that was indeed the basis for the original success of iTulip as a community, created under the leadership of EJ who, in turn, showed us all that he is dedicated to wide ranging discussion on matters related to the US economy. In that sense, I have great respect for jk. While he has at times been greatly challenged by my viewpoint, he remained respectful of my right to express it.

Anyone looking back at this thread will see that my words are a tiny part of the whole. It would seem that there are indeed those, that will go to any lengths; reams of text littered with denigration of the most personal form, all clearly designed to prevent another point of view; one that they disagree with. That is not free speech. Period!

One last point, I will remain proud that EJ made the decision to make me a member of the iTulip Shadow Fed. If my pride, in what others have decided were my sensible inputs to the ongoing debate, bring a sense of anger to some, what can one say in return? Personally, I will see such as a reflection of their mindset, rather than mine.