Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[markie]

Ah, more magic!

Let’s add deuterium and tritium then. Oh, and a muons half-life is anything but short ... care to do a calculation of how many times an electron goes around a muon before it decays? Very likely far more times than the Moon has gone round the Earth since you or I were born!

The velocity of the current loops of an orbitsphere are very fast, even approaching light speed for Hydrino approaching its deepest levels. So yeah it could 'orbit' many times. But its lifetime is still only 2 millionths of a second!

No comment on the QM failure re a muon orbiting a proton. OK.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Somewhat analogous to Newton's Principia, although Mills himself would be too modest to say so.

Snort. Cough Cough.

Gag.

Markie, did you read the previous post?

Modest? Really? You really do inhabit a different space-time continuum, don't you?

 

[markie]

More to the point, why is he bragging about reproducing obviously doctored data? He got downright sloppy when he didn't bother coming up with new readings when he supposedly re-did the test on new hardware.

Sorry, don't know what you're talking about.

 

[markie]

What electron? Do you mean the orbitsphere?" What is the "the force of the proton on" every part of the equal charge distributed "H atom's orbitsphere"?

Hint: the vector sum rhymes with Nero (and again only if the proton is exactly in the center)



Have you forgotten we have been over all this already?

If by vector sum being zero you are implying that a central object having a gravitational and electromagnetic force extending outward is somehow exerting no force on an spherical 2D surface surrounding it, good luck with that. Just don't tell your physics teacher.

 

[markie]

Right, just like the 'current loops' of an equal charge distributed "H atom's orbitsphere". Without at least some change in charge distribution over time there is just nothing to loop, endlessly or otherwise.

Through any point on the orbitsphere there are current loops going through it, in different directions, each loop having no influence on the others. The amount of mass and charge leaving a point is equal to the amount of mass and charge entering it, iirc. So it's on the move.

 

[markie]

Snort. Cough Cough.

Gag.

Markie, did you read the previous post?

Modest? Really? You really do inhabit a different space-time continuum, don't you?

Thought I would up the entertainment quotient.

 

[JeanTate]

The velocity of the current loops of an orbitsphere are very fast, even approaching light speed for Hydrino approaching its deepest levels. So yeah it could 'orbit' many times. But its lifetime is still only 2 millionths of a second!
<snip>

Sigh.

I’m not going to go over the same ground, re the magical orbitsphere, again; we did that before, and nothing you’ve posted so far, markie, adds anything significant.

It’s a deeply flawed, internally inconsistent set of ideas, especially from the point of view of classical physics.

 

[The Man]

If by vector sum being zero you are implying that a central object having a gravitational and electromagnetic force extending outward is somehow exerting no force on an spherical 2D surface surrounding it, good luck with that. Just don't tell your physics teacher.

Nope, there would be a comprehensive force that would already have to be countered by the interacting forces between different portions of the sphere itself or it would just collapse. My physics and mechanics of materials teacher's already knew that. When do you think your apparent "physics teacher", Mills, will learn or teach you that?

Again, remember, we have been through all this before.

 

[Reality Check]

Parrots Mills lies in his book yet again

From ....From Mills 2016 GUTCP page 9:

10 July 2018 markie: Parrots Mills lies in his book yet again!

A rational person not trust Mills lies and would learn

• The empirical Rydberg formula is arrived using quantum physics that has been shown to be correct by about 90 years of testing.
• The Bohr model is outdated and not used.
• The derivation of the energy levels of a hydrogen atom using the Schrodinger equation has no "postulates" that lead to the Rydberg formula.

 

[jonesdave116]

Snort. Cough Cough.

Gag.

Markie, did you read the previous post?

Modest? Really? You really do inhabit a different space-time continuum, don't you?

Let us re-quote Nobel laureate, Philip Anderson here: "If you could f......"
OK. Maybe not. However, you get the point. Mills is a dimwit, and knows crap about physics, but spins a good line to investors who are even more scientifically illiterate than he is. Fair play. It's a decent scam. Not one that I'd be taken in by, but there is always a sucker somewhere, eh? Markie? Michael Swede?

 

[Reality Check]

An "empty orbitsphere" lie when case 2 clearly has a central object

We're not talking about an empty orbitsphere. ....

10 July 2018 markie: An "empty orbitsphere" lie when case 2 mentions a central object and the analogy has been the Earth and the Moon.

Shell theorem

2.If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.

4 July 2018 markie: An ignorant question does not excuse the ignorance that a particle is not a sphere
The ignorant question: "The equation of motion of the moon, and the equation of motion of a very flattened, extended moon of the same mass and distance from the earth: Are they the same" when Mills delusion is an electron wrapped around a proton, i.e. the Moon wrapped around the Earth.

The correct question leads to the high school science answer that the equations are not the same. Case 1 is the Moon in a stable orbit around the Earth. Case 2 is the Moon not orbiting that Earth and any perturbation causing the Moon and Earth to probably collide.

 

[Horatius]

If by vector sum being zero you are implying that a central object having a gravitational and electromagnetic force extending outward is somehow exerting no force on an spherical 2D surface surrounding it, good luck with that. Just don't tell your physics teacher.

You do realize that exactly that calculation is literally a part of physics education, right? Right?

 

[The Man]

Through any point on the orbitsphere there are current loops going through it, in different directions, each loop having no influence on the others. The amount of mass and charge leaving a point is equal to the amount of mass and charge entering it, iirc. So it's on the move.

What "current loops"? Again, as we have been through this all before, having a charge move one way through a point and the same or similar charge moves the opposite way though that same point then there has been no current, 'looping' or otherwise, through that point.

Exactly what charge is "on the move" and to where? At T₀ charge is evenly distributed over the sphere, at T₁ charge is evenly distributed over the sphere, at T₂ charge is evenly distributed over the sphere, at T₃ charge is evenly distributed... . Fantastic, these "current loops going" "in different directions" are indistinguishable from no changes at all.

 

[JeanTate]

Snort. Cough Cough.

Gag.

Markie, did you read the previous post?

Modest? Really? You really do inhabit a different space-time continuum, don't you?

Well, if Mills produces a free energy machine, a cure for AIDS and cancer, FTL spaceships, ...

 

[Reality Check]

A lie that JeanTate's post states that QM and GR are not incompatible with Mills

It should be welcome news that the physics of the atom and the physics of GR are not incompatible with Mills' theory.

10 July 2018 markie: A lie that JeanTate's post states that QM and GR are not incompatible with Mills "theory".

JeanTate wrote that QM and GR are fully consistent with all experimental and observational results so far which makes them effective. 30 years after QM and GR were published there were maybe thousands of QM and GR papers by maybe hundreds of different authors.

Mils on the other hand has not credibly produced "magical entities he calls hydrinos" after almost 30 years. 30 years of mostly Mills and his employees publishing papers. 30 years of few other scientists not being convinced by his evidence or theory.

 

[jonesdave116]

Well, if Mills produces a free energy machine, a cure for AIDS and cancer, FTL spaceships, ...

Yep, what are the odds? Naaahhh, I might risk a few quid on Belgium to beat France in the football. Mills? Well, I could always dump 50 - 60 IQ points and have a bet on that, I suppose. Probably not, though.

 

[Reality Check]

Parrots a Mills "more or less mathematics curve fits to the Rydberg formula" lie

IAs Mills says later on in page 9,...

10 July 2018 markie: Parrots a blatant Mills "more or less mathematics curve fits to the Rydberg formula" lie.

A partial lie about the outdated Bohr model which is a set of populates based on the experimental results, e.g. atoms are nuclei surrounded by electrons and atomic spectra. The Rydberg formula is derived from the postulates.

A definite lie about the Schrodinger equation which was derived by constructing a wave equation according to certain conditions (energy conservation, linearity, consistency with the De Broglie relations).

We derive the Rydberg formula from putting the potential of a proton into the equation.

The Lamb shift , fine structure, hyperfine structure, magnetic moment, Stern Gerlach experimental results, g factors, and relativistic invariance are all explained in quantum mechanics developed since 1926.

 

[Reality Check]

Speaks of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy

Speaking of which, read anything in the last couple of years about QT's problem with dealing with a simple muon orbiting a proton?

10 July 2018 markie: Speaks of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy and a probable "QT's problem with dealing with a simple muon orbiting a proton" lie.

This is simply that evidence against theory A (QM) is not evidence for theory B (Mills) unless we can show that A and B are the only theories that exist.

That is obviously false because Mills is not the only physics crank in the world !

There is no problem that I know of with QM and muon atoms. Just replace the electron in Schrodinger's equation with a muon. The larger mass of the muon results in much smaller orbitals.

There is the proton radius puzzle which is a difference in size as measured experimentally.

 

[Reality Check]

A stupid analogy of Newton's Principia to Mills book of ignorance, delusions and lies

Somewhat analogous to Newton's Principia, although Mills himself would be too modest to say so.

10 July 2018 markie: A stupid analogy of Newton's Principia to Mills book of ignorance, delusions and lies.

The real idiocy is that Newton derived the shell theorem. Newton knew that a body inside a shell with an inverse square force law between them (gravity or electromagnetism) has zero force on it. Newton would know that destroys Mills hydrogen atoms.

Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book and a paper
Part VII (June 2018): Mills' delusions of a "fifth force", "trapped photons", proton radius lie, etc.
28 June 2018: Page 57: Footnote 1 explicitly states "The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but...", i.e. a spherical mass and change singularity.
28 June 2018: Page 57: The "but..." in footnote 1 is the inane application of the Schwarzschild radius equation for the gravitational field outside of a massive body.
29 June 2018: Page 276: The insanity of scattering of electrons as plane waves hitting a spherical He atom.
2 July 2018: Page 1557: Mills blatant insanity of pseudoelectrons
3 July 2018: Page 393 onward: Equation 11.5 and 11.6 are the differential equations of motion for a particle of mass m in the case of a central field when he has spheres around 2 nuclei.

 

[Reality Check]

No comment on the QM failure re a muon orbiting a proton.

Repeating a "QM failure re a muon orbiting a proton" fantasy.