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

[Reality Check]

Insults Dirac and Einstein by associating them with Mills

He and Einstein would have rejoiced at seeing Mills' work imo.

13 July 2018 markie: Insults Dirac and Einstein by associating them with Mills ignorant, deluded and lying book.

Dirac and Einstein certainly knew about the theoretical and empirical basis of QM and GR. They were not ignorant. They were not deluded. They would have been appalled at Mills book.

 

[Reality Check]

It should be known that Dirac thought of his work as provisional.

It should be known that all scientists know that their work is provisional. Better science comes along !

 

[Hans]

He and Einstein would have rejoiced at seeing Mills' work imo.

IMO they would have had nothing to do with him. Why would real scientists 'rejoice' at seeing fake science and a scam being run?

 

[Reality Check]

There is no such thing as a spherical singularity.

Wrong.
A singularity is a location where math breaks down. It can be a point. It can be a sphere. It can be a cone. It can be a ring.

If we have an equation that is spherically symmetrical with a radius r then a singularity at r = 0 is a point singularity. A singularity at r = r_Bohr as in Mills delusions is a spherical singularity.

A well known example is the point singularity at the center of a black hole and the spherical "singularity" of its event horizon (in quotes because this is a coordinate singularity that exists in some coordinates but not others).

 

[Reality Check]

Yes for sure Mills has QM concepts in his book.

You do not understand how stupid it is to include arbitrary and partial QM concepts in classical physics. That is 1 thing that makes his book ignorant, deluded and lying.

 

[Reality Check]

It cannot be an unphysical singularity of 0D.

This is another area is where your ignorance of physics allows you to fall for Mills delusions, markie.

Points (0D), etc. are not "unphysical singularities". They are mathematical entities. What makes some points, surfaces, etc. into unphysical singularities is the breakdown of an physics equation including them.

For example a sphere with a 0D surface and mass has its gravitational field go to infinity as it is approached. Ditto for a charged sphere and its electric field. A massive charged sphere is an unphysical, spherical singularity.

Spin and why it is not a self-rotation of an extended body

The physical interpretation of Pauli's "degree of freedom" was initially unknown. Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli's criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.

The Stern–Gerlach experiment showed that spin is an intrinsic property that can be assigned to a point particle. The enormous success of QM includes using point particles.

 

[UncertainH]

Points (0D), etc. are not "unphysical singularities". They are mathematical entities. What makes some points, surfaces, etc. into unphysical singularities is the breakdown of an physics equation including them.

RC is quite right that singularities are mathematical and so depend on the equations themselves and sometimes the choice of co-ordinate system. Whether one agrees with the form of the equations are not, in order to show a singularity in Mills equations of the orbitsphere one would have to look at the equations and demonstrate that there is a singularity at a certain point or set of values. For instance the equation y = 1/x is undefined at x=0. It is not sufficient to take our pre-conceived notions on how we think something should or shouldn't be and simply declare that there is a singularity.

For instance, some have said that the mass density of the orbitsphere would be infinite based on the notion that if the orbitsphere has mass and is infinitely thin then density = mass/volume is undefined and is therefore a singularity. Of course, on a 2D surface, there is no such thing as volume and so this calculation of density has no meaning. If the equations that Mills uses are undefined at a certain set of points then by all means reference the equation and show us where the singularity is.

We have preconceived notions about what mass is and how things are supposed to work and sometimes new theories force us to challenge these notions. Certainly when QM was first introduced, many thought that it was preposterous as it challenged the way we thought things should work. Perhaps people thought that the limit of the speed of light in relativity was unfounded.

In Mills' theory, mass is electromagnetic in origin and is an emergent property due to 2D + 1 EM energy being trapped in stable configurations in a 3D + 1 spacetime. It is the dynamic nature of spacetime curving in the presence of this energy that results in the property that we call mass. In that sense one could say that his proposal is that spacetime itself is a kind of dynamic Lorentz invariant ether.

Can other particles pass through it - certainly. The other particles are also electromagnetic within his theory- some will perturb it and be re-emitted, some will resonate and move the orbitsphere to the next stable level, some will ionize the electron completely.

Anyway, again I am not saying his theory is right or wrong, simply that if one is going to declare that there is a singularity in his formulation please point to the specific equation and show where the singularity is.

 

[JeanTate]

Is a positron an anti-electron?

Yes.

Does a positron have an orbitsphere (or anti-orbitsphere)?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, hardly ever.

"Orbitspheres" refer to a 2D surface in the shape of a sphere (in Euclidean space), centered on an atomic nucleus. AFAIK, the only positron orbitspheres would be those in anti-atoms, e.g. anti-hydrogen (anti-proton nucleus, positron).

Electrons (and positrons) are truly magical, as detailed in ToMM (Tome of Mills' Magic). In the wild, they are infinitely thin, flat disks, with ~zero (2D) mass- and charge-density except at their centers. When an electron spots a wild positive charge - a proton say, or an alpha particle - it shrieks in delight and begins an amazing, magical transformation ... the disk grows and begins to curve as it approaches the proton (say); at one point in time it's like a wok without handles; the outer edge ripples and snakes, fingers grow and coalesce, until - with the proton magically in dead center - the soapbubble-like sheet snaps shut, to form a perfect, indivisible sphere. How the 2D mass- and charge-density changes during this transformation is a deeply held secret, the very essence of the magic otherwise on display in ToMM.

But wait! There's more!

Take a wild electron cozying up to a wild proton: sometimes the orbitsphere which forms is enormous (on an atomic scale) - check out Rydberg atoms^WP. In these the outer orbitsphere hangs around, chatting with its very distant inner neighbors for a long time (on an atomic timescale). Then, with a whoop and a whoosh it disappears! Only to materialize, magically, as a much smaller orbitsphere much closer to the proton. And perhaps the most magical part is this (I'm not 100% certain of it though): if you time it, the orbitsphere, in this transition, moves at a speed far exceeding that of light!

Now Mills has apparently been very quiet about this, but I suspect the real reason why he has yet to produce a hydrino-powered heater (or engine for a Hilux ute) is that he's spending most of his time working on how to harness this magical, FTL nature of orbitspheres so he can build FLT spaceships!

 

[JeanTate]

RC is quite right that singularities are mathematical and so depend on the equations themselves and sometimes the choice of co-ordinate system. Whether one agrees with the form of the equations are not, in order to show a singularity in Mills equations of the orbitsphere one would have to look at the equations and demonstrate that there is a singularity at a certain point or set of values. For instance the equation y = 1/x is undefined at x=0. It is not sufficient to take our pre-conceived notions on how we think something should or shouldn't be and simply declare that there is a singularity.

For instance, some have said that the mass density of the orbitsphere would be infinite based on the notion that if the orbitsphere has mass and is infinitely thin then density = mass/volume is undefined and is therefore a singularity. Of course, on a 2D surface, there is no such thing as volume and so this calculation of density has no meaning.

On the other hand, a "surface density" - of mass, or charge - is a perfectly well-defined thing. And one can reasonably ask, "what is the surface mass- and charge-density of orbitspheres?"

If the equations that Mills uses are undefined at a certain set of points then by all means reference the equation and show us where the singularity is.

It doesn't take much (mathematical) work to deal with these sorts of things.

We have preconceived notions about what mass is and how things are supposed to work and sometimes new theories force us to challenge these notions. Certainly when QM was first introduced, many thought that it was preposterous as it challenged the way we thought things should work. Perhaps people thought that the limit of the speed of light in relativity was unfounded.

In Mills' theory magic, mass is electromagnetic in origin and is an emergent property due to 2D + 1 EM energy being trapped in stable configurations in a 3D + 1 spacetime. It is the dynamic nature of spacetime curving in the presence of this energy that results in the property that we call mass. In that sense one could say that his proposal is that spacetime itself is a kind of dynamic Lorentz invariant ether.

FTFY

You realize, don't you, that this para is nothing more than a bunch of technical terms squished together, almost at random?

Can other particles pass through it - certainly. The other particles are also electromagnetic within his theory- some will perturb it and be re-emitted, some will resonate and move the orbitsphere to the next stable level, some will ionize the electron completely.

And some will do the "passing through" with absolutely no perturbations whatsoever. Two entities with non-zero 2D charge-densities interacting as if the other didn't exist ... not exactly consistent with Maxwell's equations, wouldn't you say? Ditto re mass-densities, and GR. Note that, at "closest approach", the distance between the two entities (or parts thereof) is zero.

Anyway, again I am not saying his theory is right or wrong, simply that if one is going to declare that there is a singularity in his formulation please point to the specific equation and show where the singularity is.

Sure. It's one - of many - places where magic occurs!

 

[UncertainH]

You realize, don't you, that this para is nothing more than a bunch of technical terms squished together, almost at random?

Actually not at all. If you do a little searching you can find all kinds of interesting information, papers and articles on emergent spacetime theories and the EM origin of mass and Lorentz invariant ether theory. Some of the recent advances in optics are also quite interesting such as the so called "photonic molecules" and mobius polarized light. There is so much out there to remind us that our understanding of the universe is incomplete

 

[halleyscomet]

Actually not at all. If you do a little searching you can find all kinds of interesting information, papers and articles on emergent spacetime theories and the EM origin of mass and Lorentz invariant ether theory. Some of the recent advances in optics are also quite interesting such as the so called "photonic molecules" and mobius polarized light. There is so much out there to remind us that our understanding of the universe is incomplete

The fact that science is incomplete does not, in and of itself, provide support for comically outrageous mythologies such as Hydrinos, "Ancient aliens" building the Egyptian pyramids, or Bigfoot.

 

[UncertainH]

The fact that science is incomplete does not, in and of itself, provide support for comically outrageous mythologies such as Hydrinos, "Ancient aliens" building the Egyptian pyramids, or Bigfoot.

I completely agree. My comment was simply a response to being accused of randomly mashing words together

 

[JeanTate]

Actually not at all. If you do a little searching you can find all kinds of interesting information, papers and articles on emergent spacetime theories and the EM origin of mass and Lorentz invariant ether theory. Some of the recent advances in optics are also quite interesting such as the so called "photonic molecules" and mobius polarized light. There is so much out there to remind us that our understanding of the universe is incomplete

Indeed.

But there’s a key difference: the papers contain logic, mathematics, etc. And the articles based on them should reflect that (far too true, sadly, many such articles fall well short). And they tend not to mash all sorts of different ideas and papers together, at least not without citing sources, and distinguishing what are related and what are not.

Then there’s Mills. To him, QFT is rubbish (very few, if any, of the papers you indirectly refer to do anything but seek to build on, or modify, QFT). And Mills seems to be quite untroubled by obvious, internal inconsistencies. Nor that no one has independently found any hydrinos, or orbitspheres ...

 

[markie]

Is a positron an anti-electron?

Does a positron have an orbitsphere (or anti-orbitsphere)?

Yes and yes. In some circumstances a free (disk) positron and a free (disk) electron can meet and each form an orbitsphere, superimposing on each other and with a common centre. Their electric fields cancel. Mills' GUTCP discusses this as well as excited states and hyperfine structure of positronium in chapter 30.

 

[markie]

Well...

Sorta.

This was covered at length a while back, but the executive summary is the only really enforceable thing Mills has is the trademark on the use of the word “Hydrino” in power generation. Even that is so diluted that it’s unlikely to be enforceable.

It’s yet ANOTHER reason you’d have to be a moron to invest in BLP. If they have their science right and they get a working generator or heater to market, the core technologies will be reversed engineered and competing products on the market as fast as they can get through UL and regulatory approval.

Of course, that brings us to the fact that there’s no evidence of BLP having even started any of the regulatory work needed to get a new technology generating an exotic material as a waste product to market. Given the rank incompetence of their patent people, I doubt they’re on the ball with that either.

Later on in the BLP video you linked to, someone in the audience asked the question about the possibility of a SunCell being reverse engineered and manufactured by a competitor. Mills answered that while many products have been bootlegged, he has not heard of a power generator being bootlegged.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Later on in the BLP video you linked to, someone in the audience asked the question about the possibility of a SunCell being reverse engineered and manufactured by a competitor. Mills answered that while many products have been bootlegged, he has not heard of a power generator being bootlegged.

Step #1
Produce a real power generator instead of these BS models Mills uses for show but don't actually generate a damn bit of power.

Step #2
oops Not possible to reverse engineer a hydrino power generator that only exists in Mills' and others' fantasies. Go back to step #1 before passing go and receiving 200 (gadzillion) dollars.

 

[jrhowell]

Mills answered that while many products have been bootlegged, he has not heard of a power generator being bootlegged.

What a strange response. A generator that supposedly gets its fuel out of thin air. Why would anyone want to copy that?

(Of course he isn’t worried about that. There will never be be anything to copy. The real worry is investors getting wise to what is really going on.)

 

[halleyscomet]

Later on in the BLP video you linked to, someone in the audience asked the question about the possibility of a SunCell being reverse engineered and manufactured by a competitor. Mills answered that while many products have been bootlegged, he has not heard of a power generator being bootlegged.

“Bootlegged?” Did the idiot actually use that word or are you paraphrasing?

Did he ACTUALLY compare industrial reverse engineering to bootlegging?

Christ almighty he’s an ignorant moron. Apple and Samsung have spent YEARS in legal patent battles. The entire non-IBM portion of the PC industry was built upon Compaq reverse engineering the IBM PC and creating compatible components.

One of Trump’s major justifications for the trade war he’s started with China is the flagrant abuse of patents that goes on there.

I’m sorry, but you’ve exposed Mills as being even more ignorant, more uneducated, and less informed overall than even _I_ had thought him. This isn’t just foolish. It’s soul-crushingly stupid. It’s corporate negligence on an epic scale. It’s the sort of thing that gets investors to walk into the office and start shooting people because their retirement fund just evaporated.

BLP is DOOMED. I don’t think they’ll ever produce a product, but if they do competitors will reverse engineer their hardware and eat their lunch. Mills will be sitting there dumbfounded because he was too *********** stupid to anticipate industrial espionage over hardware that would render a multi trillion dollar energy industry obsolete overnight.

 

[markie]

Wrong.
A singularity is a location where math breaks down. It can be a point. It can be a sphere. It can be a cone. It can be a ring.

If we have an equation that is spherically symmetrical with a radius r then a singularity at r = 0 is a point singularity. A singularity at r = r_Bohr as in Mills delusions is a spherical singularity.

A well known example is the point singularity at the center of a black hole and the spherical "singularity" of its event horizon (in quotes because this is a coordinate singularity that exists in some coordinates but not others).

Using a point in physics to represent, say, a centre of gravity or a centre of charge is acceptable, because force wise it ends up being equivalent to a distributed mass or charge. But the physical reality is that it is not a point.

There are no places in Mills' theory where the "math breaks down". He avoids singularities. Now, he permits 'discontinuities' in mass and charge and space-time itself, at the orbitsphere. But the math doesn't break down.

 

[markie]

This is another area is where your ignorance of physics allows you to fall for Mills delusions, markie.

Points (0D), etc. are not "unphysical singularities". They are mathematical entities. What makes some points, surfaces, etc. into unphysical singularities is the breakdown of an physics equation including them.

For example a sphere with a 0D surface and mass has its gravitational field go to infinity as it is approached. Ditto for a charged sphere and its electric field. A massive charged sphere is an unphysical, spherical singularity.

Spin and why it is not a self-rotation of an extended body

Quote:
The physical interpretation of Pauli's "degree of freedom" was initially unknown. Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli's criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.


The Stern–Gerlach experiment showed that spin is an intrinsic property that can be assigned to a point particle. The enormous success of QM includes using point particles.

In Mills' model the surface does not move faster than light speed. For one, the electron's orbitsphere is much larger than Kronig's, who envisioned the electron as a small sphere in orbit. Also, the surface movement of Mill's orbitsphere is a superposition of movements.

In Mills' theory, spin is explained. In QM, spin in 'intrinsic', in other words, just a given with no physical mechanism. After all it is impossible for a point of 0D to actually spin.