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

[halleyscomet]

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



From Wiki



The French mathematical physicist Alexis Clairaut assessed it in 1747: "The famous book of Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy marked the epoch of a great revolution in physics. The method followed by its illustrious author Sir Newton ... spread the light of mathematics on a science which up to then had remained in the darkness of conjectures and hypotheses."[7]

Comparing the two betrays a rank ignorance of how scientific publishing has changed. At the time of Newton publishing a volume such as his was one of the ways you exposed your work to that time’s equivalent of peer review. Even then it was incredibly arrogant of Newton to do this, but then, this was Newton. If you had a problem that needed solving you didn’t go ask him for help. You went and suggested he was the only one who COULD solve the problem and suggested who among his adversaries he’d humiliate by doing so. His narcissism was arguably greater than his scientific genius.

Mills however can’t get a legitimate journal to publish his garbage so he HAS to self publish. If he has not drawn the absurd comparison you just made then it’s not out of humility but likely an awareness of how stupid, ignorant, and historically uneducated it would make him look. Such hubris might INVITE a more rigorous scrutiny of his excreted tome, which is something he desperately needs to avoid. One or two papers pointing out specific contradictions and nonsense in his marketing valise is one thing. Dozens would be harder for him to ignore.

 

[halleyscomet]

Make markie actually cite these sincere Rowan scientists. Hydrino only appears in one paper at Rowan university and it's to a survey paper that I don't see any independent verification in. The paper cites Mills and BLP as the source of all his information.

Markie has worked very hard to make it clear he has no comprehension of what constitutes independent research.

Amusingly, the Creationists I mentioned a while back have contacted me. They want to run a crowd funding campaign to prove Hydrinos exist before they publish their book using Hydrino theory as proof of Creationism. I need suggestions for platforms that might allow a crowdfunding campaign for “scientific” research. I’m thinking GoFundMe might be the best bet.

 

[markie]

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.

There is no interacting forces in the 2D world that comprises the orbitsphere membrane. And, it doesn't collapse inward towards the nucleus because the mass and charge currents that comprise it are moving, making a centripetal outward force. This is in force balance with the combined inward electrical and magnetic forces exerted by the proton on the electron orbitsphere. In this way Mills calculates the radius of hydrogen and the other elements.

 

[markie]

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?

Swede was a pun on the Nobel theme, I suppose..


Anderson should know better than to conflate messing with the hydrogen atom vs messing with a messed up theory about the hydrogen atom. That he does so is very telling.

 

[markie]

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

No, that calculation has naught to do with what we are talking about.
Let's do a thought experiment.
We have an orbitsphere with nothing inside it. What are the gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields inside that orbitsphere? None. That is the calculation you refer to. That is self evident.

Now, add a proton to the centre of that orbitsphere. Presto, there is now gravitational, electric and magnetic fields inside the orbitsphere. Although, the gravitational aspect is minimal.

 

[markie]

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.

That kind of vector addition thinking does not serve. It's akin to having a black hole, seeing that the vector forces of gravity are symmetrical outwards, and so they cancel, resulting in something that is indistinguishable from no gravity at all. False.

FYI, Mills' model has mass and charge move along great circle loops of current. In addition, each loop is sweeping out a space on the orbitsphere, moving at right angles to the direction of the current flowing in the loop iirc. So, there is lots of movement going on. From this we get electron spin and magnetic moment of the electron.

 

[markie]

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

I think you misunderstand. JT was admitting that it is well known that QM and GR are incompatible. I agree that they are. I merely added that Mills' atomic physics and GR *are* fully compatible. (Although, Mills makes a modification to GR.)

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.

GR is GR. Unlike GR, QM morphs according to the times. Like the Borg, it assimilates and changes according to what experiments reveal. It does this by adding more adjustable parameters or adjusting it's adjustable parameters. How many does it have now? 26 or so iirc.

 

[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.

No, that calculation has naught to do with what we are talking about.
Let's do a thought experiment.
We have an orbitsphere with nothing inside it. What are the gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields inside that orbitsphere? None. That is the calculation you refer to. That is self evident.

Now, add a proton to the centre of that orbitsphere. Presto, there is now gravitational, electric and magnetic fields inside the orbitsphere. Although, the gravitational aspect is minimal.

Singing!

https://youtu.be/ueZ6tvqhk8U?t=20s


If you can't keep the difference between a field and force straight, you can't even begin to discuss gravity and electromagnetism.

 

[markie]

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.

That proton radius puzzle is what I'm referring to. It started with a muon orbiting a proton. The values of the deduced proton radius were 5 percent or so off expected, at well over 5 sigma confidence. Later they retested for normal hydrogen and found a similar discrepancy.

See
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...uon-around-an-atom-confirm-physics-is-broken/
for a rather dramatic depiction re the muon - proton size discrepancy.

I agree, evidence against QM is not necessarily evidence for Mills' GUTCP.
Unless of course that same evidence is predicted by the GUTCP.

 

[markie]

Singing!

https://youtu.be/ueZ6tvqhk8U?t=20s


If you can't keep the difference between a field and force straight, you can't even begin to discuss gravity and electromagnetism.

OK, strictly speaking the field is uniform, the force is nothing.
No offence intended to the Jedi.

 

[JeanTate]

There is no interacting forces in the 2D world that comprises the orbitsphere membrane. And, it doesn't collapse inward towards the nucleus because the mass and charge currents that comprise it are moving, making a centripetal outward force. This is in force balance with the combined inward electrical and magnetic forces exerted by the proton on the electron orbitsphere. In this way Mills calculates the radius of hydrogen and the other elements.

I’ll say this once more: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

In more detail: you do realize, don’t you markie, that you are doing Mills’ ideas no favors? The more you use bad physics and mathematics to try to “explain” those ideas, the more certain it is that readers will realize that those ideas are nonsense.

 

[halleyscomet]

I merely added that Mills' atomic physics and GR *are* fully compatible. (Although, Mills makes a modification to GR.)

That's a bald faced lie and I think you know it. The physics themed fan-fiction Mills has self-published isn't even internally consistent. The man can't even decide if Hydrinos are heavily reactive forming all sorts of novel compounds or non-reactive, thus being, in his mind, candidates for dark matter.

It's bovine excrement all the way down.

 

[halleyscomet]

OK, strictly speaking the field is uniform, the force is nothing.
No offence intended to the Jedi.

Hmmm. Based on fact Mills and his claims are not.

Extracted from the rear end of a bull, Hydrino theory is.

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Note that starting at the 25 minute mark Mills discusses that Raman spectroscopy curve result we were discussing some days ago.

He says it is 'absolutely reproducible', and that they have done so at many labs, including that of the 'instrument manufacturer', which in context may be the Horiba Scientific company in Edison New Jersey.

Well, if this doesn't put the manufacturer back on the "to be emailed" list, I don't know what could.

 

[The Man]

There is no interacting forces in the 2D world that comprises the orbitsphere membrane. And, it doesn't collapse inward towards the nucleus because the mass and charge currents that comprise it are moving, making a centripetal outward force. This is in force balance with the combined inward electrical and magnetic forces exerted by the proton on the electron orbitsphere. In this way Mills calculates the radius of hydrogen and the other elements.

And again you seem to be forgetting that we have been over all this before. "centripetal outward force" you say? First off a centripetal force is directed inwards, towards the center. You might have been thinking of a centrifugal force instead. Still doesn't help you, as that would mean the attractive force of the proton on the shell is simply canceled by that centrifugal force, however one might postulate said centrifugal force arising. As a result the net force on the shell from the proton is again zero. Congratulations, as expected, you have just eliminated the only force on the shell from the proton. It might behoove you to try to recollect what we have been over here before.

 

[The Man]

That kind of vector addition thinking does not serve. It's akin to having a black hole, seeing that the vector forces of gravity are symmetrical outwards, and so they cancel, resulting in something that is indistinguishable from no gravity at all. False.

It is not a vector sum but the simple sum of charges passing through a given point, line or surface over some period of time. Don't matter which way they go after they pass just from which side they pass from, to and the sign of the charge. The basic definition of current.

FYI, Mills' model has mass and charge move along great circle loops of current. In addition, each loop is sweeping out a space on the orbitsphere, moving at right angles to the direction of the current flowing in the loop iirc. So, there is lots of movement going on. From this we get electron spin and magnetic moment of the electron.

FYI we have already been over this before " Mills' model has mass and charge move along great" counter rotating "circle loops". Net result again just zip.

 

[JeanTate]

I missed this post.

I think you misunderstand. JT was admitting that it is well known that QM and GR are incompatible.

Minor quibble: not “admitting”, but stating, as in widely accepted fact.

I agree that they are. I merely added that Mills' atomic physics and GR *are* fully compatible. (Although, Mills makes a modification to GR.)

Not minor, not a quibble: Mills’ so-called atomic physics is nonsense; nonsense is compatible with nonsense only (GR is not nonsense).

GR is GR. Unlike GR, QM morphs according to the times. Like the Borg, it assimilates and changes according to what experiments reveal. It does this by adding more adjustable parameters or adjusting it's adjustable parameters. How many does it have now? 26 or so iirc.

So much ignorance... both GR and QM (now better described as QFT, quantum field theory) have changed since the very first papers on each were published. This is normal in science. QM probably changed far more, in its first 30 years, if only because it did not have a single author/paper at its foundation, unlike GR. A great many experiments have sharpened QFT, but as far as I know, there’s been no fundamental change since the 1920s, say.

“adjustable parameters”? What, may I ask, are you referring to?

 

[The Man]

That kind of vector addition thinking does not serve. It's akin to having a black hole, seeing that the vector forces of gravity are symmetrical outwards, and so they cancel, resulting in something that is indistinguishable from no gravity at all. False.

Oh and when exactly are the "the vector forces of gravity are symmetrical outwards"? Again we have just been over what you get from vector forces that are symmetrically inwards, compression. Again unless something counters those forces.

 

[UncertainH]

“adjustable parameters”? What, may I ask, are you referring to?

Adjustable parameters is likely referring to the variational methods used find approximate solutions to the wave functions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variational_method_(quantum_mechanics)