🇺🇸🇷🇺Alastair Crooke: US-Russia talks collapsed because Washington crossed all of Moscow’s RED LINES ‘Russia was very, very angry at what happened. It crossed red lines, it’s not the red line that everyone is assuming about the threat of the Tomahawks. At the meeting at Anchorage, the Russian understanding was that Trump would hold off sanctions to allow the next phase to proceed. And secondly, the next phase was no frozen conflict. The Russians are not going to walk into that trap. They’ve been there before, they’re not going to do it again. Both those red lines were broken. Then came the threat of the Tomahawk missile, and that’s just been too much for the Russians. They’ve had it. No more talks. They’re finished with this. They realise that Trump is not capable, or doesn’t want to, or was not allowed, to normalise with Russia. But they warned: if he starts firing Tomahawk missiles into the depths of Russia, there will be a completely different level of escalation by Russia.‘ -Alastair Crooke, the former Middle East Advisor to the EU Foreign Policy Chief, on the latest episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇

🚨ELON: LONG TERM, AI WILL BE IN CHARGE- NOT HUMANS... WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE IT’S FRIENDLY “Well, I mean, I think actually, long term, the AI is going to be in charge, to be totally frank, not humans. If artificial intelligence vastly exceeds the sum of human intelligence, it is difficult to imagine that any humans will actually be in charge. So we just need to make sure the AI is friendly.” Source: Tesla

Dr. Paul Brown's "Resonant Nuclear Battery" Current nuclear theory suggests that you can only extract 0.063 watts of power from 1 gram of Strontium-90. A man named Dr. Paul M. Brown developed something called the Resonant Nuclear Battery. The technology can extract 7500 watts from that same gram of Strontium-90. That's over 100,000 times more energy than what is claimed is possible. Appliances can be run and powered for 28 years... 1600 years, or however long you want. Depending on how you "program" the radioactive alloy to have a given half-life. In late 1980s, Dr. Brown patented a resonant nuclear battery and successfully demonstrated a 75 watt prototype. It used a 2 millimeter long Strontium-90 needle to produce electricity comparable to NASA's Plutonium based RTGs which produce 0.54 watts per gram. (See follow up comment for a demonstration) Brown died under mysterious circumstances just after his company NuCell and Periphery Systems launched on the NASDAQ market. His partner and attorney Phil Talbert was witness to his efforts and stifling and wrote a book called "The Half Life of a Nuclear Battery." Apparatus for direct conversion of radioactive decay energy to electrical energy: patents.google.com/patent/US… Alpha-Beta Voltaic Effect – NuCell Resonant Nuclear Battery: rexresearch.com/nucell/nucel… The Half-Life of a Nuclear Battery – Amazon: tinyurl.com/2zsnp4zk Dr. Brown attempted to communicate with John Searl in the 1980s. He wrote 13 letters to John Searl because Paul Brown said he had built his own SEG unit called the DPU (Demonstration Power Unit) using a Strontium-90/Neodymium alloy. On page 190 of the Half-Life of a Nuclear Battery it says that on July 12th, 1988, Paul communicated with Dr. Petr Beckmann saying: “... But more important, though you may not realize it yet, your work may help to dethrone Einstein." Apparently Petr Beckman met with Paul Brown and Petr analyzed Paul’s resonant nuclear battery and validated the direct conversion of radioactive isotopes to electricity. The larger version of the resonant nuclear battery (RNB) was called the Magnetron Atomic Generator (MAG). The other version of the RNB is called the Ionic cell Battery (INB). The INB was independently reported on by multiple Ph.D. level nuclear engineers, some of which performed extensive work with NASA and the nuclear power industry. Some of those people included Dr. Stan Kaplan, Dr. David H. Johnson and Dr. Dennis C. Bley. A US patent was issued in 1992 relating to the INB listed as Patent # 5,087,533 originally by IsoGen, Inc. In the book, Half Life of a Nuclear Battery, on page 35 it says the unit measured 18 inches in diameter by 36 inches tall and delivered enough energy to power five homes at peak load. But then the book said it melted the transmissions lines because it was just too much current. Brown’s resonant nuclear battery deals with alpha particles which can be stopped with a piece of paper and beta particles which can be stopped with 0.03 inches thick of aluminum. So with a stainless steel or aluminum housing, the resonant nuclear battery would be safe since it doesn’t deal with gamma radiation or neutron particles. Just polarizes the alpha and beta particles, decelerates them and turns the kinetic energy into electricity through coherent motion. The concept behind Dr. Brown's RNB is that it harnesses the radioactive decay to generate power at a constant based on the half-life of that material. Spring-loading the alpha and beta decay. As one lighter isotope is emitted... a heavier isotope knocks into it from the back while it's already in motion. Adding to the kinetic energy. Imagine sprinting... but then someone pushes you from behind. Like an inelastic collision. Like a Newton's cradle. You will go flying forward with the additive force of the particle that is pushing you. But at the same time, imagine someone grabbing your collar from the front and yanking you and lurching you forward (magnetic lens acceleration) AS you are sprinting (radioactive decay) AND being pushed from behind. (inelastic collision). That a lot of added force to the charged particles in motion, in a particular direction. (electric current). Searl's Cradle - Kinetic Energy Transfer at a Tangent: x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/18… A standard American household requires up to 10kW of energy available for all combined appliances on at the same time in the home and accounting for spikes when turning on an off the vacuum or something like that. Let's say 15kW to play it safe. Strontium-90 has a half-life of 28 years. 1 gram can deliver 7500 watts at a constant. Adding mass means additive power. 2 grams can deliver 15kW at a constant. That would require just 2 grams of Strontium-90 to power your house at a constant for 28 years before needing to replace the 2 grams because the battery would only be half as effective after the 28 years. (It wouldn't be a sudden jump but rather a slow depletion and at the 28 year mark, the battery would deliver half the power as it did the day it was first started.) Effectively turning the half-life of a radioactive material into a battery for the half-life of the material. So... if you have carbon 14 with a 10,000 year half-life or something ridiculous like Thorium with a 14 Billion year half life... That would mean you could theoretically power your house at a constant for 10,000 years or at a constant for 14 billion years with just a minuscule amount of mass for fuel. But you have to account for a radioactive alloy and the combined/ synergistic and spring-loaded effect it has on the total particles being emitted. Brown wanted to use an alloy of something like radium, thorium and uranium. The resonant nuclear battery harnesses the radioactive decay to generate power at a constant based on the half-life of that material (or combination of materials). A standard American household requires up to 10kW of energy available for all combined appliances on at the same time in the home and accounting for spikes when turning on an off the vacuum or something like that. Let's say 15kW to play it safe. Strontium-90 has a half-life of 28 years. 1 gram can deliver 7500 watts at a constant. Adding mass means additive power. 2 grams can deliver 15kW. That would require just 2 grams of Strontium-90 to power your house at a constant for 28 years before needing to replace the 2 grams because the battery would only be half as effective after the 28 years. (Again, it wouldn't be a sudden jump but rather a slow depletion and at the 28 year mark, the battery would deliver half the power as it did the day it was first started.) But if you perform something exotic in a coherent state and deplete that energy too much, the half-life might be reduced from 10,000 years to 100 years. Or 1 year. ...Or 1 HOUR depending on how that energy is converted and for what purpose. The point is that there's much more energy that can be harnessed in ways that mainstream models cannot fathom how it's possible. Because the mainstream models are wrong. You can't violate thermodynamics. You can only violate people's misunderstanding of thermodynamics. The Laws of Thermodynamics Correctly Taught. Addressing the flaws and presenting corrections/refinements: x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/17… Determining the kWh is trickier because the nuclear batteries deplete their effectivity over time. Due to the half-life of the nuclear isotope. So if using Strontium-90 which has a half-life of about 28.8 years... that means a battery can deliver up to 7500 watts at a constant for 28.8 years. But... at the 28.8 year mark, the efficiency of the battery or amount of power if can deliver drops by half. So what would be a simple equation of Energy = Power times time ... E = P t ... that becomes a lot more complex because of the exponential decrease of the half life of the material over time. But the answer is about 155,600 kWh for 1 gram of Strontium-90 over the course of 28.8 years. If there was no depletion due to the half life, it would be almost 2 million kWh. But there's an exponential decrease over time, so the kWhs drop. But that can just be adjusted by using combinations of isotopes for a longer half-life. REGARDING ATOMIC BOMBS: Relativity claims that mass is converted to energy during inelastic collisions and that the energy is NOT conserved. But it IS conserved, and there is no heat dissipation and loss of energy, or any conversion like relativity suggests in their equations. With uranium 235, there is a difference of 13.3 MeV PER ATOM that is not accounted for by relativity... because they say that energy is "lost" due to mass converted to energy during a nuclear explosion. That difference in energy is called a "mass defect." It's not literal. But Lorentz invariance takes things that don't exist as literal. Mass does not increase with acceleration or velocity. It's EFFECTIVE... NOT literal. Thus the concept of effective mass under Galilean variance which is the mathematical equivalent to relativistic mass under Lorentz invariance. Relativity says mass literally increases with acceleration. m = mₒ / √1 - v²/c² But Galilean variance says it's an illusion of surrounding potentials in a closed particle accelerator chamber. Not the mass itself. m_eff = mₒ / √1 - v²/c² Dr Edward Dowdye conducted extensive tests with steel ball bearings in a newtons cradle with thermal couples, testing the so-called heat dissipation of an inelastic collision. There is NO heat dissipation. Relativity/Lorentz invariance says E = mc² (Energy and mass are universally equivalent and literally interchangeable under All conditions.) but Galilean variance says E = Δmc² = mₒc² (Energy changes in a system are the result from changes in mass. mₒ represents the original mass. Mass and energy do not literally interchange. There is an equivalence, not an interchange.) Here is Dowdye's peer reviewed paper on the tests and results. An Ideal Inelastic Collision Model using Center-of-Mass Frames Shows Conservation of Kinetic Energy: naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ab… I worked out the mass defect for different radioactive isotopes in my book 2 on Gravity to show the amount of energy NOT accounted for PER ATOM for about 7 different isotopes. I properly calculated the difference for Uranium 235, Plutonium 239, Thorium 232, Cesium 137, Rubidium 37, Zirconium 36, and Strontium 90. Dowdye's Extinction Shift Slide Show - LOTS of info! x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/19… Attached in the image below is a screenshot from my book using Dr. Dowdye's approach. Discourses & Mathematical Illustrations Pertaining to Extinction Shift Principle Under the Electrodynamics of Galilean Transformations: amazon.com/Discourses-Mathem… But to understand more about the fallacies of current nuclear theory... we have to address the double slit experiment(s). Did you know there are 4 different experiments with 4 completely different results that have nothing to do with each other? Most people think there is 1 test that magically flips back and forth from observation. That's a lie/fraud. x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/18…