I've been pushed inside.
Yesterday I managed 1200 im, but had to do 4x300 instead of 3x400 and this was still only 2200 and I was not over impressed with the speed.
Again I weighed in at 177, can't seem to get back down.
I see the stuff about QC and missing parts that everyone is looking for are already patented by AuT; I wonder why I haven't seen the Chinese showing some interest, but the USA people are pretty slow to come to the table. I am making progress, assembling my technical team, having too much to do has some disadvantages, but staying on top of this has provided insights, a major one, however well documented in the earlier patents, came to me last night and others earlier in the week. It is like being in an avalanche of discovery. I would like to share more of it here with you, but I am at that place where I'm just not able to say everything I want as the patents have to catch up with my ability to edit them.
Another day post verification.
Yesterday I managed 1200 im, but had to do 4x300 instead of 3x400 and this was still only 2200 and I was not over impressed with the speed.
Again I weighed in at 177, can't seem to get back down.
I see the stuff about QC and missing parts that everyone is looking for are already patented by AuT; I wonder why I haven't seen the Chinese showing some interest, but the USA people are pretty slow to come to the table. I am making progress, assembling my technical team, having too much to do has some disadvantages, but staying on top of this has provided insights, a major one, however well documented in the earlier patents, came to me last night and others earlier in the week. It is like being in an avalanche of discovery. I would like to share more of it here with you, but I am at that place where I'm just not able to say everything I want as the patents have to catch up with my ability to edit them.
Another day post verification.
Last week I was gratified as science began to catch up with me and simultaneously insulted by being ignored, the APS ignored the fact that I clearly set out the model on which the "discovery" years before MIT and they even refused to publish the articles which set it out. Worse still, they ignore it still, incredibly small minded and they are, perhaps, more conceited and scientifically prejudiced than I am, and that is saying a lot.
However, I am published, the proof is there, in their records as well as in the public domain so I will continue to gloat about that today. If the universe is fair, and it is not, I will get the last laugh and if not, I will be the joker in the deck for all the false awards that will be given out for my science to these morally bankrupt scientific competitors.
Who first said: "We have to be mature enough to handle a little moral ambiguity." I don't think it was me, but if no one else said it, I guess I did.
However, I am published, the proof is there, in their records as well as in the public domain so I will continue to gloat about that today. If the universe is fair, and it is not, I will get the last laugh and if not, I will be the joker in the deck for all the false awards that will be given out for my science to these morally bankrupt scientific competitors.
Who first said: "We have to be mature enough to handle a little moral ambiguity." I don't think it was me, but if no one else said it, I guess I did.
I pointed this out to the editors (at phys.org); days ahve gone by with nothing and I expect nothing.
"This is the scientific prejudice I have referred to above. It would be nice if all of you to write the aps and MIT and tell them what a raw deal this is." I said in my last post on this issue. You have to be ready to allow the world to treat you like dirt, but like dirt allow beautiful and ugly things to spring forth.
For you, my loyal reader, my only loyal reader and apparently not as loyal as I would hope, I thank you for all you have done and for all the pain too, since both saved me and brought me here, not quite 10 pounds lighter, but still pushing water at a rate that would make most pump systems proud.
There was a significant milestone last week worth considering.
MIT found "completely unexpected" fractals last week:
Phys.org: Scientists discover fractal patterns in a quantum material.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-scientists-fractal-patterns-quantum-material.html
SciTechDaily: “Completely Unexpected” – MIT Scientists Discover Fractal Patterns in Quantum Material.
https://scitechdaily.com/completely-unexpected-mit-scientists-discover-fractal-patterns-in-quantum-material/
While MIT is right, under the standard model, fractals are unexpected. Under AuT Fractals are not unexpected. Four peer review articles were published (copies can be found at this link: http://www.gmfpc.com/aut-details) beginning in 2018 not only predicting the fractals, but showing the mathematical basis.
Before those articles, several books were published on this topic dating back to 2012-2013. This model was also presented at a physics conference in 2018 and to the American Physics Society in April of 2019.
This does not lessen the importance of the MIT study which verified the predictions in those articles. What it shows is that the AuT model is new and unexpected; but is verified by third party observations which are decidedly not looking for it.
AuT predicts the unexpected.
Not everyone can say "I am 7 years ahead of MIT," but I can and I fart in the general direction of all those who stand in my way.
I have an empire of dirt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ahHWROn8M0
No comments:
Post a Comment