Peak Expensive Oil

[santafe2]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

If hydrogen fuel cell vehicles become popular, the hydrogen will be made with grid electricity at the local fuel station with a sort of fuel cell running in reverse.
So a Mirai would, essentially, burn coal.

This is the same, and incorrect argument made against electric vehicles. Over time, fuel efficiency and clean tailpipes will win out for most transportation. It's already begun and in 20 years, coal will not be an acceptable fuel source for utilities in the US unless we're proposing that the economy will shrink and/or that there will be fewer humans. Both are certainly possible in a Mad Max incarnation of the world but I don't think that's much of a possibility.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

The answer has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Period!

If you go back to the early development of new magnetic materials, and then look at the ongoing development of same, you may have noticed the way old fashioned electric motors, (by that I mean, those that use the original magnetic layout from the earliest, more than one century old, electric motor demonstrations), have increased in power output. Low voltage battery powered hand tools are a very good example. Many of the increases in efficiency are either from new magnetic materials, a better understanding of the interaction between magnetic influences, or the use of computing and associated software to control the magnetic influences.

What is a magnet?

You may very well ask why I ask that specific question; it is because I firmly believe that conventional science does not fully understand exactly what creates magnetism in the first place.

It will take some 500 + pages to give a detailed explanation of my thinking, so I have to leave this with a thought to provoke you all here today.

What if the Proton is entirely an electromagnetic force field inviolably attached to a dipole that simply provides a positive and a negative attachment point for the two opposing, negative and positive ends of a length of electromagnetic force field?

In which case, the attachment of that electromagnetic force field forms the entire structure of the proton; including the development of the proton's electron, which is thus another feature of the structure of each individual proton.

That each proton has thus a need to, (under the rules laid down by James Clerk Maxwell), develop an positive electromagnetic attachment to an adjacent negative sink; within an external to the proton, energy system.

That electrons are not "stripped", but instead always induced, by the interaction of the continuous movement of these attachments; as they pass each other; in turn creating, (on the atomic scale), induced magnetism, which is always associated with the creation of electrons.

What follows is thus very simple; everything, including magnetism, stems from that electromagnetic force field structure of the proton.

If magnetism in a solid mass is entirely developed from the interaction of the movement of the protons within that mass; then magnetism is created by movement; and a magnet attached to a solid object; is not; "not doing any work"; it is instead the product of work.

In which case, there is a new force; there for the taking; and that brings me to the underlying difficulty. Which is the refusal of science to accept any new thinking that conflicts with established theory.

It is my intent to drive forward with this new thinking. To establish a gravity and energy research institute here in the UK. Except that established science will not support any such new thinking. Ergo, intellectual dead end!

No funding, no support; what do you recommend?

[astonas]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

...I firmly believe that conventional science does not fully understand exactly what creates magnetism in the first place.

I don't know, man...

There are indeed things that aren't known about magnetism, but they are well beyond the limits of current measurement techniques (by a lot). The whole string theory debate, for example, which is not capable of being resolved until measurement techniques improve beyond their current theoretical limits by many orders of magnitude.

Quantum mechanics, combined with quantum electrodynamics, works REALLY well, correctly predicting the experimental result of any magnetic effect ever observed, to a precision that extends at least to the limit of what can be measured with any tool made by man. It's literally the most precise theory in existence. That doesn't leave much of a gap in knowledge.

To replace existing theory, you'd have to find an experimental result that your theory explain, but existing theories can't.

What new experimental result are you proposing, that would demonstrate an effect or measurement that could distinguish your theory from these?

I see two choices:

(1) Invent a new class of tool that can measure with far more precision and accuracy than any has ever done, to discover an as-yet-undiscovered and possibly non-existent error in the current models' predictions, and THEN use your theory to predict that deviation more accurately.

(2) Discover a new effect exhibited by magnets that no one has ever noticed, AND is not adequately explained by the existing theories, but IS fully explained by your own, while retaining consistency of explanation with all other magnetic effects and measurements within your model.

The above is not based on my, or anyone else's, opinion, that's just the universal standard for what it takes for one scientific model to replace another. Explain something the existing model can't, without introducing an incompatibility with any previously explainable effect or measurement.

Either choice seems like a pretty tall order to me. Good luck.

[GRG55]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

This is the same, and incorrect argument made against electric vehicles. Over time, fuel efficiency and clean tailpipes will win out for most transportation. It's already begun and in 20 years, coal will not be an acceptable fuel source for utilities in the US unless we're proposing that the economy will shrink and/or that there will be fewer humans. Both are certainly possible in a Mad Max incarnation of the world but I don't think that's much of a possibility.

Displacing coal in stationary power generation and other (steel furnaces, mine kilns, etc.) applications in North America is comparatively easy today. There are numerous well established lower carbon and no-carbon alternatives. The main impediments are the incredibly cheap cost of coal today (even natural gas can't compete) and who bears the cost of writing off the existing capital and replacing it. Both of these can be (& slowly are being) addressed through public policy decisions and hardly insurmountable.

Displacing hydrocarbon fuels in mobile applications is infinitely more challenging.

The easiest application to change is the railroads. They replaced coal with diesel during the last century. The technology to replace diesel with natural gas (in the form of LNG) is now well established. The hurdle to converting the fleet is the uncertainty of the future regulatory and tax environment. Because NG is not a zero carbon fuel it can be made prohibitively expense at the wave of a legislature pen. At this point it is corporately much less risk to continue to use diesel (which is much less expensive today than one year ago) than to risk capital to convert the fleet to a lower carbon fuel and have that legislated out of existence shortly after.

Private passenger vehicles are quite another matter. I don't think many of them are going to be replaced. In the absence of extraordinarily cheap and abundant credit the cost of purchasing a new passenger vehicle has already become prohibitive for a great many people. The cost of a clean tailpipe vehicle, such as a Tesla, even more so...and therefore restricted to the wealthy few. The expectation is that advances in technology and volume production will bring down this cost and make them available to more consumers. I have my doubts. Raising the cost of current vehicles (whether that be carbon or other taxes) makes the alternatives more attractive, but also puts a floor under the price of those alternatives. Layer on the demographics of Millenials displacing Boomers as income earners, rapidly increasing urbanization, Uber, driverless cars, shifting attitudes towards ownership of assets such as cars and it is not much of leap to imagine that we are close to or at a peak in total private passenger vehicle registrations and annual sales in North America. Maybe the way to own a Tesla Model S is to share it with 3 or 4 of your friends.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

I don't know, man...

There are indeed things that aren't known about magnetism, but they are well beyond the limits of current measurement techniques (by a lot). The whole string theory debate, for example, which is not capable of being resolved until measurement techniques improve beyond their current theoretical limits by many orders of magnitude.

Quantum mechanics, combined with quantum electrodynamics, works REALLY well, correctly predicting the experimental result of any magnetic effect ever observed, to a precision that extends at least to the limit of what can be measured with any tool made by man. It's literally the most precise theory in existence. That doesn't leave much of a gap in knowledge.

To replace existing theory, you'd have to find an experimental result that your theory explain, but existing theories can't.

What new experimental result are you proposing, that would demonstrate an effect or measurement that could distinguish your theory from these?

I see two choices:

(1) Invent a new class of tool that can measure with far more precision and accuracy than any has ever done, to discover an as-yet-undiscovered and possibly non-existent error in the current models' predictions, and THEN use your theory to predict that deviation more accurately.

(2) Discover a new effect exhibited by magnets that no one has ever noticed, AND is not adequately explained by the existing theories, but IS fully explained by your own, while retaining consistency of explanation with all other magnetic effects and measurements within your model.

The above is not based on my, or anyone else's, opinion, that's just the universal standard for what it takes for one scientific model to replace another. Explain something the existing model can't, without introducing an incompatibility with any previously explainable effect or measurement.

Either choice seems like a pretty tall order to me. Good luck.

The debate from my viewpoint is not about the measurement of magnetism; it is about the source of magnetism within a magnet and an even more interesting aspect; the source of gravity. What causes both magnetism in a solid mass magnet and what causes gravity, external to any solid mass object.

[seobook]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

The idea of "peak oil" is a total and complete myth - Marc Andreessen

[astonas]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Chris,

I genuinely like you. I respect your passion to make the world a better place, and your willingness to give so much of your time to that cause, even when we do passionately disagree about how one can best serve it. The world would certainly be a better place if more people made the effort you do.

It is out of respect that I want to give you a thoughtful, deeply honest response to what appears to be a technical issue. But I am sorry to say that my most honest and sincere request to this:

The debate from my viewpoint is not about the measurement of magnetism; it is about the source of magnetism within a magnet and an even more interesting aspect; the source of gravity. What causes both magnetism in a solid mass magnet and what causes gravity, external to any solid mass object.

Must be this:


The source of magnetism from a magnet is the alignment of spin and orbital angular momenta within and between atoms. This is not a mystery at all, and its description does not involve gravity in any way.

The link above points to an introductory text on the subject, but it does still contain an overview of the mathematical description you are implicitly claiming is erroneous. The part you'd be interested in spans Chapter 3: Diamagnetism and Paramagnetism of Bound Electrons, pages 31-49, and possibly also parts of Chapter 8: Magnetic Devices found on pages 121-137.

It should be emphasized that I've only linked to a beginner's introduction, and the full calculation (spread over numerous journal articles, and thus difficult to link) would have to be shown to be in error for any claim regarding its deficiencies to be taken seriously. This theory works perfectly well in predicting the results of any known experiment, after all. A replacement theory would in some manner have to be better at doing so.

Thus, in order to have a viable claim that gravity plays a role in magnetic effects, one would need to (1) establish which part of the full proof makes a computational error when it omits a term (of your proposing) corresponding to gravitational interaction, (2) adequately explain why this term's effects have not been detectable experimentally to date (but remain pertinent), and (3) propose an experiment that, if conducted and successful, would demonstrate that an incorrect prediction results unless one's hypothesis is incorporated in the theory.


That's how everything that's in canonical theory, got there, in the first place.


All of the order-of magnitude issues I described in my last post still apply fully, but now the requirement for exceeding current detection limits requires not merely incremental improvement, but many more orders of magnitude of improvement, since gravity is far weaker than E&M forces at the scale in question. (Thus adding gravity to the mix makes it harder, not easier, to detect an effect, than merely finding a problem with magnetism.)

The threshold is really pretty cut-and-dried. What I've described above is the standard that scientists hold each other, and themselves, to when they undertake to change a theory. If you can do the three things I've enumerated above, any physicist in the field will read your work with great interest.

But fail to sufficiently address those three things, and at best you will be met with a reply that politely points out that your idea is not yet worthy of consideration. And that's true no matter who you are, it gets said to professors at MIT, too. Most grant proposals are rejected, even from the best institutions.

I think this gives a hint about the size of the project you say you'd like to undertake.

It is not for the feint of heart, and would likely require many lifetimes of work. The existing theory, after all, encompasses the pinnacle of all work that has ever been published on the subject, building on research conduncted even long before Maxwell wrote his equations. The argument has also been read, without observation of an error, by every physicist since the establishment of quantum mechanics, during their training.


I will certainly never say that it is impossible for anyone to find what every one of these, including me, has missed.


But as I've said, I wish you luck. I do believe that great quantities of it (along with a stunning mastery of math, and an ability to learn concepts at almost super-human rates) will be required, no matter who was making the attempt. I myself certainly don't possess anywhere close to the ability to tackle a task so big.

The rewards would be tremendous, though. I have no doubt that not only I, but every other scientist in the world, would bow down to you if you succeed. A mere Nobel prize would be peanuts compared to the magnitude of this achievement. And even more important, a way to solve the energy problems of the world. It is easy to see why it's tempting.


But here's the catch: don't expect any respect from anyone until you do. The world is positively littered with those who thought they had "the big idea." This field kind of falls into the category of perpetual motion: Success means that you've overturned the universally-accepted laws of the universe. Quite a feat. But an unsuccessful attempt is seen as just another demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Such critics will be fully justified in assuming Dunning Kruger, as well: only a handful of such theories (eg. supersymmetry, loop quantum gravity and string theory) have any credibility at all, and those have had many thousands of man-years put into them. And not one claims to have anything to do with power generation.


Only you know yourself fully: work experience, training, work ethic, energy level, speed in learning, mathematical virtuosity, number of years to devote to the effort, and more, are all parameters that only you can really know.

So here's why this reply saddens me. I think it may be time to ask yourself one question you might owe yourself and your family: "Is chasing this idea really how I want to spend my time?"

If I were answering that question for myself, the answer would be no. If I were retired, I don't know that a permanent condition of being dismissed or mocked would enhance my golden years, or if the fire of the fight could compensate for the time spent on it, instead of with family.

But that may not be your answer. For some, the only possible reason to get up in the morning is to keep fighting a fight, and without that, they'd wither. For that, tilting against windmills is as good as against giants. And if that's your answer, more power to you, and good luck.

I just felt that before you made the choice, you were owed a more detailed breakdown of the magnitude of the challenge, and the type of reception this idea must receive, from someone who has a different, but hopefully not entirely uninformed, perspective.

Either way, you have my sincere best wishes.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Chris,

I genuinely like you. I respect your passion to make the world a better place, and your willingness to give so much of your time to that cause, even when we do passionately disagree about how one can best serve it. The world would certainly be a better place if more people made the effort you do.

It is out of respect that I want to give you a thoughtful, deeply honest response to what appears to be a technical issue. But I am sorry to say that my most honest and sincere request to this:



Must be this:


The source of magnetism from a magnet is the alignment of spin and orbital angular momenta within and between atoms. This is not a mystery at all, and its description does not involve gravity in any way.

The link above points to an introductory text on the subject, but it does still contain an overview of the mathematical description you are implicitly claiming is erroneous. The part you'd be interested in spans Chapter 3: Diamagnetism and Paramagnetism of Bound Electrons, pages 31-49, and possibly also parts of Chapter 8: Magnetic Devices found on pages 121-137.

It should be emphasized that I've only linked to a beginner's introduction, and the full calculation (spread over numerous journal articles, and thus difficult to link) would have to be shown to be in error for any claim regarding its deficiencies to be taken seriously. This theory works perfectly well in predicting the results of any known experiment, after all. A replacement theory would in some manner have to be better at doing so.

Thus, in order to have a viable claim that gravity plays a role in magnetic effects, one would need to (1) establish which part of the full proof makes a computational error when it omits a term (of your proposing) corresponding to gravitational interaction, (2) adequately explain why this term's effects have not been detectable experimentally to date (but remain pertinent), and (3) propose an experiment that, if conducted and successful, would demonstrate that an incorrect prediction results unless one's hypothesis is incorporated in the theory.


That's how everything that's in canonical theory, got there, in the first place.


All of the order-of magnitude issues I described in my last post still apply fully, but now the requirement for exceeding current detection limits requires not merely incremental improvement, but many more orders of magnitude of improvement, since gravity is far weaker than E&M forces at the scale in question. (Thus adding gravity to the mix makes it harder, not easier, to detect an effect, than merely finding a problem with magnetism.)

The threshold is really pretty cut-and-dried. What I've described above is the standard that scientists hold each other, and themselves, to when they undertake to change a theory. If you can do the three things I've enumerated above, any physicist in the field will read your work with great interest.

But fail to sufficiently address those three things, and at best you will be met with a reply that politely points out that your idea is not yet worthy of consideration. And that's true no matter who you are, it gets said to professors at MIT, too. Most grant proposals are rejected, even from the best institutions.

I think this gives a hint about the size of the project you say you'd like to undertake.

It is not for the feint of heart, and would likely require many lifetimes of work. The existing theory, after all, encompasses the pinnacle of all work that has ever been published on the subject, building on research conduncted even long before Maxwell wrote his equations. The argument has also been read, without observation of an error, by every physicist since the establishment of quantum mechanics, during their training.


I will certainly never say that it is impossible for anyone to find what every one of these, including me, has missed.


But as I've said, I wish you luck. I do believe that great quantities of it (along with a stunning mastery of math, and an ability to learn concepts at almost super-human rates) will be required, no matter who was making the attempt. I myself certainly don't possess anywhere close to the ability to tackle a task so big.

The rewards would be tremendous, though. I have no doubt that not only I, but every other scientist in the world, would bow down to you if you succeed. A mere Nobel prize would be peanuts compared to the magnitude of this achievement. And even more important, a way to solve the energy problems of the world. It is easy to see why it's tempting.


But here's the catch: don't expect any respect from anyone until you do. The world is positively littered with those who thought they had "the big idea." This field kind of falls into the category of perpetual motion: Success means that you've overturned the universally-accepted laws of the universe. Quite a feat. But an unsuccessful attempt is seen as just another demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Such critics will be fully justified in assuming Dunning Kruger, as well: only a handful of such theories (eg. supersymmetry, loop quantum gravity and string theory) have any credibility at all, and those have had many thousands of man-years put into them. And not one claims to have anything to do with power generation.


Only you know yourself fully: work experience, training, work ethic, energy level, speed in learning, mathematical virtuosity, number of years to devote to the effort, and more, are all parameters that only you can really know.

So here's why this reply saddens me. I think it may be time to ask yourself one question you might owe yourself and your family: "Is chasing this idea really how I want to spend my time?"

If I were answering that question for myself, the answer would be no. If I were retired, I don't know that a permanent condition of being dismissed or mocked would enhance my golden years, or if the fire of the fight could compensate for the time spent on it, instead of with family.

But that may not be your answer. For some, the only possible reason to get up in the morning is to keep fighting a fight, and without that, they'd wither. For that, tilting against windmills is as good as against giants. And if that's your answer, more power to you, and good luck.

I just felt that before you made the choice, you were owed a more detailed breakdown of the magnitude of the challenge, and the type of reception this idea must receive, from someone who has a different, but hopefully not entirely uninformed, perspective.

Either way, you have my sincere best wishes.

Thank you; when the full story comes out, as it will, you will have to make a profound apology; I look forward to it.

[jk]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

• Science advances one funeral at a time.- max planck

[LorenS]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

The debate from my viewpoint is not about the measurement of magnetism; it is about the source of magnetism within a magnet and an even more interesting aspect; the source of gravity. What causes both magnetism in a solid mass magnet and what causes gravity, external to any solid mass object.

So you are saying that the magnetism of a current flowing in a conductor has a different source than the magnetism of a solid object? I didn't understand your post.

In addition: My understanding is that a magnet attached to a refrigerator door is doing no work. Work = force * distance?

[astonas]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

Thank you; when the full story comes out, as it will, you will have to make a profound apology; I look forward to it.

The only way to learn something new is to be taught that something one once thought, is in fact incorrect. I embrace being proven wrong, as must anyone who would value learning over ego. Only those who wish to preserve their ignorance want to be proven right all the time.

Consequently, if and when I do need to apologize, it will not be with profound regret, but rather with great joy over the opportunity to do so, and also my thanks to you, for giving me the opportunity to learn something new.

[astonas]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

• Science advances one funeral at a time.- max planck

This was a bit more true in Planck's day, at least when it comes to discussion of the nature of fundamental forces.

Today, the biggest barrier to changing the state of knowledge is no longer interpersonal resistance, but the vast trove of data that has accumulated between then and now. A new theory must be consistent with all prior verified observations. If it isn't, any observations that it doesn't fit better than the old theory must be addressed, justified, explained in some way. This gets harder and harder to do with time, as the data set grows.

It's a bit like arguments that the earth is flat. When one only has limited data, such as only the fact that a ship disappears on the horizon from the bottom up, one can make all kinds of arguments as to why this might be. (That the light is bending, that waves obstruct the lower portions of the ship first at and greater distance there's more of them, etc.) And in this case, the personality of the disputants can indeed determine whether the idea is accepted. Planck's quote reflects that issue, which was still dominant in his day, on questions like this one.

But when we've had ships and airplanes go around the world, and pictures from space that show the planet, and GPS satellites orbiting the earth, it is simply harder to make the case for a flat earth. Any description that claims the earth is flat must explain how all the other observations could be made, and still not observe that the earth is flat. Such an elaborate story would have to invoke things like "dark matter bends the light to give the appearance of roundness, even from a distance" and maybe "a mysterious teleportation mechanism that allows one to move from one end to the other without noticing" but it will always be possible to come up with such an idea. It just wouldn't be believed by anyone. Such descriptions have to be increasingly outlandish, as ever more data comes in, and Occam's razor becomes an increasingly valid response.

In Plank's day, when people were still resisting the idea of quantum mechanics, and the sub-atomic particle theory of forces, there could be valid and meaningful disagreements over the dependencies of electromagnetism and gravity, that could NOT yet be resolved with clear data.

But the theory we have today has done a great job of keeping up with the experimental observations. The precision with which it predicts outcomes by now extends to the limit of our ability to observe. Furthermore, every one of our computers and electronic devices wouldn't function the way they do, if gravity played a fundamental role in electromagnetism. The semiconductor transistor, and the hard drive, wouldn't work, if the effect were big enough to derive power from. (Those are like the GPS satellites that make it pretty clear that the earth is round.) To those that can follow the math, and have studied and performed the experiments that validate it, claiming that there is a connection between magnetism and gravity that can be exploited to generate power is exactly like claiming the earth is flat. The world we see around us just couldn't function the way it obviously does, if it were true.

The only real difference between the two cases, is that the data is not as easy for the layperson to see: there aren't great "picture of the earth, taken from the moon" equivalents, which can be fully understood with no prior preparation, or study. Not everyone has yet traced and understood the causal chain connecting fundamental forces to their macroscopically obvious effects, so they sometimes make the mistake of assuming there isn't any such connection at all.

That's why we can't just wait for someone to die to turn over a new leaf on this one. People just aren't the limiting factor anymore. The total set of observations have long ago overwhelmed the influence of mere personality. And that means a person can't just make a convincing argument for their case anymore, they have to show experimental evidence.

[jk]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

This was a bit more true in Planck's day, at least when it comes to discussion of the nature of fundamental forces.

my reference for the phenomenon observed by planck is HUMAN nature, which hasn't changed a great deal from planck's day.

[astonas]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

my reference for the phenomenon observed by planck is HUMAN nature, which hasn't changed a great deal from planck's day.

Well, on that, we're in agreement. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and I am grateful for the correction. I'll let it go.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Peak Expensive Oil

So you are saying that the magnetism of a current flowing in a conductor has a different source than the magnetism of a solid object? I didn't understand your post.

In addition: My understanding is that a magnet attached to a refrigerator door is doing no work. Work = force * distance?

I can well understand your confusion as all I posted was by far and away the briefest description of what is an entirely new description of the structure of the proton and the external electromagnetic force field environment surrounding each proton; and the full range of the consequences of that structure and external environment. My problem is I either try and explain this here, when the full explanation is covered by some 500 plus pages, 60 chapters and 190 illustrations, (so far as I may add another chapter over this Christmas).

To answer your two questions:

Answer; no, the current flowing through a conductor, such as a copper wire, is the same process, but within the mass of the magnetic material. What I am saying is that the electromagnetic force field attachments surrounding the proton act in the same way as the copper conductor; as a conductor advantageously passing another such conductor; the internal movements of which, in the same manner as an induction process between various industrial conductors and magnetic elements; in turn induce electromagnetism within the atoms of the mass of the permanent magnet.

Answer; in which case, the "work" is being done within the stationary mass. The movement over your "distance?" is entirely associated with the movement of the internal electromagnetic force field attachments between all of the protons within the mass. That a stationary permanent magnet is producing its own induced magnetism within its structure from the internal movement of the atoms of the mass of the magnet.

That an attached electromagnetic force field within a suitably structured mass of protons forming atoms; between those individual protons forming the mass; acts as a conductor and produces exactly the same effects within the structure of the atom as a conductor we are familiar with outside of the atom; inducing electrons and associated magnetic effects so very well described by others such as James Clerk Maxwell.

In point of fact, all I have done is place pressure upon myself to get the book into print.

So to help everyone understand I am going to outline the story of the book.

This all starts many years ago when I found myself unable to justify big bang theory, so this is the product of an adult lifetime of thinking. During the 1990's I had started to put some of my thinking on paper and the Internet. Then was diverted by my work on other matters that resulted in my traveling throughout the US having opened an office in Washington DC and my proposals for a Video-911 system for the entire US based upon my US patents granted me, 5,712,679; 6,181,373; and 6,469,735. I am certain that I can say I am the original inventor of the wireless camera phone with navigation such as GPS.

While attending one of many wireless conferences within the US I found myself in an evening discussion with four or five other delegates in San Francisco and, over a glass of beer, started to discuss my thinking regarding the effects of gravity within a solid mass and found myself confronted by a scientist out of NIST (National Institute of Standards), vigorously banging his fist on the table saying "Chris; You must publish" and then went on to say, "I will write a review if you do".

Importantly, I have never before attempted to write a book. So I sat down and started to knock out a reasonable outline of my theories and sent him the first draft. What happened next unnerved me as he had immediately sent it to his old professor in of all places, the university of Southampton. That in turn set me to realise that I need to get it into print and being me, sitting in an office in DC, I looked on the Internet for a local publisher and sent it off and a few days later rang him up. That was July 2002. The individual in question being Stephen Mautner, The Joseph Henry Press. His answer was "I cannot publish that, you destroy everything". He also imparted that he might one day regret not doing so. (During 2006, having sent further revisions, he rang me and during a very pleasant conversation he wished me luck, recognised that he may later be seen as a fool for passing this up and would pass on to anyone he thinks might help).

Back to 2002. Having realised that I must publish it myself and having for some years by then enjoyed a very strong friendship with my wireless and navigation mentor, Len Sugerman http://archive.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_4025934/ I asked Len if he would mind my using his name to form a publishing company in his name to publish my new book. So he asked for a copy to read and wrote back to say:

Chris,

it will be an honor to have my name associated with the famous (or infamous) Chris Coles from here to eternity! Would you consider adding one more line to the Dedication list on the Contents page:..." and to all, young and old alike, who think in the raw" (or "who think outside of the box" ) They are your kind of people!

Regards, Len.

The book title: The Universe is a Cloud, Some Raw Food for Thought was published 2003.

At that time all it contained was a rough outline of why I believe that the internal gravitational structure of any solid mass object is such that gravity, while towards the centre at the surface, is towards the surface at the centre, with balanced gravity effects between the surface and the centre making it quite impossible to form a singularity and thus that there has never been a big bang. Amazon have copies for sale at as little as $0.01 with my name spelt incorrectly.

Try as hard as I like, no one has ever written a review and as I had to abandon my attempts to establish a Video-911 system, (another very long story), and return to the UK, I just carried on writing and sending off copies of the additional work to others. In 2004, having written a chapter describing in detail how the Whirlpool galaxy M51 has evolved under the rules set out under my theories, ending it with an intent to produce a poster, I sent a copy to the Hubble Space Science Institute. Much to my surprise, they used an image of M51 and the Eagle Nebula, (precisely what I would need for such a poster), as their 15th anniversary images but never wrote to me. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2005/12/

Again, in July 2004, Scientific American published The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars by Prof Bruce Balick and Adam Frank, which ended with this:

"New information ultimately upends the best of theories in every field of research. That is the nature of progress. Discovery is often disruptive. It clears out old niches and prepares the way for big (and often disorienting) leaps forward. Scientific theories are built to be used, but they must be mistrusted, tested and improved".

I have had an image of the M2-9 Nebula by Bruce Balick in every edition and he had been given a copy of the original first edition text to support my request to approve my use of his image and afterwards, a copy of the book. When the Scientific American article was published I emailed him to ask to meet to chat; his answer: "No time, too busy, good luck".

Later the Very Long Baseline Array took a new look at the jet from a quasar, (my theory shows why it must be an annular orifice, an artifact of the gravitational structure of what I describe as a Galactic Core Object at the centre of an active galaxy), and they showed that their new observations seemed to show evidence of a different structure than expected from conventional theories. http://www.universetoday.com/10567/q...ut-their-jets/

I had sent a copy of the book to every university campus radio station in the US, not one word.

Len took a copy in to an old friend of his, the chief cosmologist in NMSU who answered; "What do you say to someone claiming to have found a cure for cancer? I will not say any more".

By late 2007 I set into motion the production of a Galley Proof paperback of the then latest text but did not receive them until early 2008 and by then had realised I had to re-write chapters and add further to cover my then realisation of the existence of the external energy environment of the proton. And so the process continued. I approached Channel 4 TV. Their head of science programs came back immediately to say he was interested and that he had passed it all to their chief scientist; who, apparently, within 24 hours of receiving the book, all 514 pages of it, came back to say emphatically No! Considering the speed of the resulting rejection, I have to assume he must have told his boss I was a mad man.

For some time I had also been sending every new addition to the Royal Society in London. A gliding friend, a member of the Institute of Physics rang them up to ask to go in and talk to them; they told him he could not; "they only do that by invitation and they were not going to".

I have also presented them with several related papers, a good example being when I show how, using strips of elastic to show how the balanced gravity effects can be easily observed on a test and demonstration setup. But then later afterwards I watched a BBC Horizon program where one of the presenters, I must add without any explanation, stepped forward with a strip of elastic upon which were spaced out star shaped stickers, and stretched it back and forth several times with a big grin on their face and then stepped back out of camera. I kid you not; they did just that!

Every major scientific journal has received a copy of the 2008 e-book. which from then onwards has a foreword written by Donald Birx, now Chancellor Pen State Erie.

No one ever comes back. I have to come to the conclusion that I scare the hell out of the scientific community, who will have to admit they had made some dreadfully simple errors in their thinking that have left them without a leg to stand upon. None of them want to admit I even exist.

So I have kept on writing. Recently I discovered that their mistake; believing gravity emanates from the centre of a planet, (for example), and draws everything towards it; stems from a misunderstanding of three words published by Isaac Newton in Principia and have added a detailed description of how a line of the force of gravity develops and works in every case.

In the background, as this had to become a hobby rather than a "potential" for a living, and because I also was getting extensive recognition for my views regarding how to capitalise job creation via my rules for the investment of free enterprise equity capital under The Capital Spillway Trust; the OECD in Paris adding The Capital Spillway Trust to their Institutional Investors and Long-term Investment group, and my now being constantly invited to attend finance conferences, the book has been on the back burner.

I believe that I show how there has never been a big bang; that the universe is in steady state; a completely new, very detailed description of the structure of the proton; and thus how that new description opens to an understanding of what gravity is and how it operates; that gravity is just another function of those external to the proton energy environment attachments of the electromagnetic force field attachments between each proton's electron, (the proton's electron being a part of the structure of the proton), and any adjacent proton's electron, used as the sink for the positive electromagnetic force field of the first proton. That gravity is an electromagnetic force.

When I was forced back to the UK in 2003, I was as close to bankrupt as is possible without becoming so. I have since settled down to a quiet existence doing what I can with a very small income; including being invited by EJ to join his then new Shadow Fed. Lately, with every spare penny being used for travel expenses for the financial conferences I attend, the last being two days in Paris for the OECD LTI group in November, all I can do is keep going until I have earned an income sufficient to enable me to again publish the book for myself.

So you can all understand what I have achieved with The Capital Spillway Trust, I have added my latest paper sent out to the delegates of the OECD LTI Group.