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

[WhatRoughBeast]

Mills introduces a resonant photon essentially stuck to the inner side of the electron orbitsphere, which influences "effective nuclear charge". So it is not as simple as you are thinking.

Do you mean to tell us that Mills is suggesting that a photon carries charge? Oh, my. That's a whole juicy bunch of fail right there. Or do you mean that a photon is uncharged but a "resonant photon" exhibits effective charge? Oh my, again. Do tell us more. Does the direction of motion determine whether the charge is positive or negative?

I'm amazed you keep bringing this up. Yes a shell of negative charge by itself will produce no EM inside it. But (need I repeat this?) there is a positive proton in the centre which does certainly exert an attractive force on the electron.

Errm, no. I mean, really, no. The Shell Theorem (which is very much a classical physics artifact) establishes that, for a spherical shell of uniform charge distribution the net force on an orbitshpere from an interior proton is zero. Oh, sure, there are local differences in force over the sphere, but as long as it remains a sphere of uniform distribution, the net is zero. Doesn't matter where the proton is, either. That you have, after all this time, not realized this does not speak well of your grasp of rather basic classical physics, and if your failure reflects Mills' thinking, it pretty much discredits him as well.

By your thinking, if our moon was pulverized to become a thin layer of dust spherically encompassing the earth, the earth would then exert no gravitational force on that shell. Ridiculous.

If the shell were rigid, the net force would in fact be zero. Same old Shell Theorem at work. It's why Hollow Earth theories with a suspended sun at the center don't pass the smell test - any perturbation of the central sun eventually (and sooner rather than later) causes the sun to crash into the surrounding shell. There are no restoring forces, since the rigid earth provides no net force on the sun.

You're not the only one who is amazed that it is necessary to keep bringing this up - your continued failure to grasp the most basic concepts which inconveniently fail to support Mills continues to amaze us all. Just not in a good way.

Come on, markie - in recent weeks you've been giving a maybe-decent impersonation of somebody who actually knows what he's talking about. Don't blow it like this.

 

[markie]

Do you mean to tell us that Mills is suggesting that a photon carries charge? Oh, my. That's a whole juicy bunch of fail right there. Or do you mean that a photon is uncharged but a "resonant photon" exhibits effective charge? Oh my, again. Do tell us more. Does the direction of motion determine whether the charge is positive or negative?



Errm, no. I mean, really, no. The Shell Theorem (which is very much a classical physics artifact) establishes that, for a spherical shell of uniform charge distribution the net force on an orbitshpere from an interior proton is zero. Oh, sure, there are local differences in force over the sphere, but as long as it remains a sphere of uniform distribution, the net is zero. Doesn't matter where the proton is, either. That you have, after all this time, not realized this does not speak well of your grasp of rather basic classical physics, and if your failure reflects Mills' thinking, it pretty much discredits him as well.



If the shell were rigid, the net force would in fact be zero. Same old Shell Theorem at work. It's why Hollow Earth theories with a suspended sun at the center don't pass the smell test - any perturbation of the central sun eventually (and sooner rather than later) causes the sun to crash into the surrounding shell. There are no restoring forces, since the rigid earth provides no net force on the sun.

You're not the only one who is amazed that it is necessary to keep bringing this up - your continued failure to grasp the most basic concepts which inconveniently fail to support Mills continues to amaze us all. Just not in a good way.

Come on, markie - in recent weeks you've been giving a maybe-decent impersonation of somebody who actually knows what he's talking about. Don't blow it like this.

You're conflating a zero 'net force' (arising by symmetry) with the actual gravitational force felt by any point on the shell. Consider: If the moon was broken up into two, each on opposite sides of the earth, the 'net force' would also be zero. But each half moon would still feel the gravitational force of the earth and hence both half moons would be kept in orbit.

 

[Reality Check]

Mindlessly parrots Mill's delusions and ignorance of the shell theorem

Mills introduces a resonant photon....

4 December 2018 markie: Mindlessly parrots Mill's delusions
A photon has no charge and cannot be "essentially stuck to the inner side of the electron orbitsphere". A photon inside a charged sphere escapes at the speed of light.

Repeating your ignorance does not make it less ignorant, markie. A charge inside a uniform charged shell experiences no net forces from the electric field. It is free to move. That is the electric field version of the gravitational field shell theorem. P.S. I may have it wrong. Maybe you are ignorant about Newton's laws? That positive charge has no net forces from the shell. Newton's third law says that the shell experiences no net forces from the charge.

30 November 2018 markie: Writes that Mills has the delusion that electron shielding is "100 percent shielding".

30 November 2018 markie: Emphasizes his abysmal ignorance of classical physics yet again with a "electric and magnetic forces" fantasy

30 November 2018 markie: Fantasy that QM stopped ~90 years ago and a lie about a source.

30 November 2018 markie: Has a "closer and closer approximations" delusion about calculations Mills has not done.

29 November 2018 markie: Empathizes Mills denying classical physics yet again.

29 November 2018 markie: Does not understand he has written that denying electron shielding is part of Mills' orbitsphere insanity!

29 November 2018 markie: 2 "Mills can calculate the magnetic force of one electron on another. QM cannot do this." lies.

 

[Reality Check]

More parroting of Mill's delusions and lies (explaining QM classically)

Mills has little argument with earlier quantum physics. For other observations like the Quantum Hall Effect, etc he has very good classical explanations and computations, thank you.

4 December 2018 markie: More parroting of Mill's delusions and lies (explaining QM classically).

Quantum spin is impossible to explain classically and is older quantum physics (the Dirac equation). So what does the deluded Mills do? He arbitrarily states that his insanely invalid orbitsphere has quantized spin!

Mills hydrino is delusional theoretical physics because his book is full of ignorance, delusions and even lies.

 

[wollery]

You're conflating a zero 'net force' (arising by symmetry) with the actual gravitational force felt by any point on the shell. Consider: If the moon was broken up into two, each on opposite sides of the earth, the 'net force' would also be zero. But each half moon would still feel the gravitational force of the earth and hence both half moons would be kept in orbit.

Works for a sphere made up of individual discrete masses and charges, but NOT for rigid spheres.

In your example of the two half moons there is no physical link between the masses and they must therefore be treated separately. For a solid sphere all points on the sphere are physically linked and the net force is therefore the only force that counts. That's the whole point of shell theorem.

 

[Reality Check]

More parroting of Mills delusions rather than thinking for himself

Get past the wall of EM repulsive force and one gets into the attractive strong nuclear force, which Mills says is electromagnetic in nature.

4 December 2018 markie: More parroting of Mills delusions rather than thinking for himself or understanding what Mills wrote.

30 November 2018: Page 1623: Alpha decay lies and delusions to the point of insanity.
The insanity is what Mills wrote in his book, e.g. a electrical potential energy function between an alpha particle and the rest of the nucleus when that makes the nucleus explode. He ignores the strong nuclear force.
The other Mills insanity is that the strong nuclear force is electromagnetic in origin.

 

[Reality Check]

A lie about a science article and ignorance of solar physics

Ethan is a great communicator and I like his style and his moustache, but he is just repeating what he has been taught, to wit, the sun shines because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. No thank you. Nature has a way to get past the coulomb barrier and HUP isn't it.

4 December 2018 markie: A lie about a science article and ignorance of solar physics.
Nature has a way to get past the coulomb barrier and it is real working physics, not Mills ignorant delusions.
A delusion that "just repeating what he has been taught" is bad! Ethan is stating textbook physics that has a history of centuries classically and over a century for QM.

The Sun Wouldn’t Shine Without Quantum Physics does not mention the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Ethan shows that fusion will release energy because of E=mc^2. The problem is that classically fusion cannot happen.

So we do our calculations, we calculate how the protons in the Sun’s core have their energy distributed, and we come up with a number for these proton-proton collisions with sufficient energy to undergo nuclear fusion.

That number is exactly zero.

(my emphasis added)
The solution is

Each proton is a quantum particle, containing a probability function that describes its location, enabling the two wavefunctions of interacting particles to overlap ever so slightly, even when the repulsive electric force would otherwise keep them entirely apart.
There’s always a chance that these particles can undergo quantum tunneling, and wind up in a more stable bound state (e.g., deuterium) that causes the release of this fusion energy, and allows the chain reaction to proceed.

That will not work with Mills delusion of free particles such as electrons and protons being disks or bound particles being spheres.

 

[Reality Check]

Cannot recognize more Mills insanity (his massless bosons)

As you may know, Mills prefers to see his bosons as massless, like the photon and the gluon.

4 December 2018 markie: Cannot recognize more Mills insanity (his massless bosons)!
W and Z bosons have measured masses from experiments of 80.385±0.015 GeV/c and 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c.

Adding more Mills insanity just makes 3 December 2018: Page 1617: Mills' actual insanity of the strong nuclear interaction being electromagnetic in origin. less sane.

 

[markie]

Works for a sphere made up of individual discrete masses and charges,

Glad someone sees it

but NOT for rigid spheres.
In your example of the two half moons there is no physical link between the masses and they must therefore be treated separately. For a solid sphere all points on the sphere are physically linked and the net force is therefore the only force that counts. That's the whole point of shell theorem.

Being rigid really has nothing to do with it. Consider: If instead of 2 half moons on opposite sides of the earth it was rather one continuous, rigid ring of matter encircling the earth. As long as the ring was rotating as fast as the orbital velocity of the original moon (or the two half moons), it would remain in orbit. If it wasn't spinning it would come crashing down to the earth of course. That is because the earth is exerting a gravitational force on it whether it is rigid or not.
Again, the shell theorem is about the force of gravity exerted by the shell ; it is not about the gravity of something else exerted on the shell.

 

[Myriad]

Glad someone sees it


Being rigid really has nothing to do with it. Consider: If instead of 2 half moons on opposite sides of the earth it was rather one continuous, rigid ring of matter encircling the earth. As long as the ring was rotating as fast as the orbital velocity of the original moon (or the two half moons), it would remain in orbit. If it wasn't spinning it would come crashing down to the earth of course. That is because the earth is exerting a gravitational force on it whether it is rigid or not.
Again, the shell theorem is about the force of gravity exerted by the shell ; it is not about the gravity of something else exerted on the shell.

Nope, the rigid ring would be orbitally unstable. Any small perturbation would eventually send the sun crashing into it. Its rotation rate would make no difference one way or another. Ask Larry Niven.

 

[markie]

4 December 2018 markie: A lie about a science article and ignorance of solar physics.
Nature has a way to get past the coulomb barrier and it is real working physics, not Mills ignorant delusions.
A delusion that "just repeating what he has been taught" is bad! Ethan is stating textbook physics that has a history of centuries classically and over a century for QM.

The Sun Wouldn’t Shine Without Quantum Physics does not mention the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Ethan shows that fusion will release energy because of E=mc^2. The problem is that classically fusion cannot happen.

(my emphasis added)
The solution is

That will not work with Mills delusion of free particles such as electrons and protons being disks or bound particles being spheres.

True Ethan does not mention HUP explicitly but is is implicit in quantum tunnelling.

Contemplate this: a high jumper may not generate enough vertical force to raise his centre of gravity above a high jump bar. But it is still possible for him to clear it. Why? The high jumper is not a point. He is not simply a centre of gravity. He is an extended entity. He drapes over the bar with the Fosbury flop and clears the bar, while his centre of gravity follows a parabolic path and goes under the bar.
And this feat occurred even without quantum physics, imagine that.

 

[markie]

Nope, the rigid ring would be orbitally unstable. Any small perturbation would eventually send the sun crashing into it. Its rotation rate would make no difference one way or another. Ask Larry Niven.

In real life there would be physical stresses on such a rigid ring because it is not a one dimensional loop. Of course. But the fact remain the gravity still operates on the orbiting object whether it continuous and rigid, continuous and not rigid, or discontinuous.

 

[Reality Check]

Shows his ignorance about quantum mechanics

True Ethan does not mention HUP explicitly but is is implicit in quantum tunnelling.

4 December 2018 markie: Shows his ignorance about quantum mechanics and a lack of reading comprehension.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a statement about complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p.

Stars work because quantum mechanics has wave functions of position that can overlap which is the textbook physics in The Sun Wouldn’t Shine Without Quantum Physics

Each proton is a quantum particle, containing a probability function that describes its location, enabling the two wavefunctions of interacting particles to overlap ever so slightly, even when the repulsive electric force would otherwise keep them entirely apart.
There’s always a chance that these particles can undergo quantum tunneling, and wind up in a more stable bound state (e.g., deuterium) that causes the release of this fusion energy, and allows the chain reaction to proceed.

That is a position wave function.

First year university physics students learn this. They start with a particle in a box using the position wave function. They may transform to the momentum wave function and look at the example from that angle. They do not use both wave functions. They do not use the HUP. They then look at a particle in a finite potential well to find that there is a non-zero probability of a particle being outside of the well.

 

[Reality Check]

Contemplate this: a high jumper may not generate enough vertical force to raise his centre of gravity above a high jump bar.....

Contemplate real classical physics where the problem is about energy and potential energy, markie. To get over the bar, the high jumper has to expend more energy than the gravitational potential energy of the bar to get their center of gravity above the bar. Classically they will crash into the bar if they have an energy less than the gravitational potential energy (or fall under it!).

Now swap the high jumper for a quantum particle. A quantum particle has a non-zero probability of not crashing into the bar when their energy is less than the gravitational potential energy of the bar.

 

[markie]

4 December 2018 markie: Shows his ignorance about quantum mechanics and a lack of reading comprehension.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a statement about complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p.

Stars work because quantum mechanics has wave functions of position that can overlap which is the textbook physics in The Sun Wouldn’t Shine Without Quantum Physics

That is a position wave function.

First year university physics students learn this. They start with a particle in a box using the position wave function. They may transform to the momentum wave function and look at the example from that angle. They do not use both wave functions. They do not use the HUP. They then look at a particle in a finite potential well to find that there is a non-zero probability of a particle being outside of the well.

From Wiki on tunnelling:
"Tunnelling is often explained in terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the premise that the quantum object has more than one fixed state (not a wave nor a particle) in general."
Are you saying that tunnelling should not be explained in terms of HUP?

 

[markie]

Contemplate real classical physics where the problem is about energy and potential energy, markie. To get over the bar, the high jumper has to expend more energy than the gravitational potential energy of the bar to get their center of gravity above the bar. Classically they will crash into the bar if they have an energy less than the gravitational potential energy (or fall under it!).

For sure, the high jumper is expending extra energy to essentially change his shape as he goes over the bar. But he cannot alter the trajectory of his centre of gravity after his take off.

Now swap the high jumper for a quantum particle. A quantum particle has a non-zero probability of not crashing into the bar when their energy is less than the gravitational potential energy of the bar.

Really, QM gets around the problem by using spatial extension as well. Except that its spatial extension is in then form of an abstract probability function rather than a physically real spatial extension.

 

[Reality Check]

"spatial extension as well" and "abstract probability function" lies about QM

Really, QM gets around the problem by using spatial extension as well. Except that its spatial extension is in then form of an abstract probability function rather than a physically real spatial extension.

4 December 2018 markie: "spatial extension as well" and "abstract probability function" lies about QM.

There is no "spatial extension" at all in QM.
There is no "abstract probability function" in QM. The wave function is a mapping of every possible state of a system to complex numbers.

 

[Reality Check]

From Wiki on tunnelling:...

I am saying that you cannot understand Wikipedia. The physics of quantum tunneling does not include HUP. Some explanations may include HUP. HUP says that position and momentum are mutually uncertain. So it is reasonable to expect that not having an certain position allows particles to tunnel. The actual working out of the tunneling completely ignores HUP.

 

[jadebox]

Lots of new concepts were deemed 'insane' when first introduced, only to be accepted later on.

And, uncountably more ideas deemed insane proved to be ... insane.

Forget all the rest. Just show us a hydrino or admit that it is all a crock.

 

[markie]

And, uncountably more ideas deemed insane proved to be ... insane.

Forget all the rest. Just show us a hydrino or admit that it is all a crock.

What demonstrable properties of a hydrino would satisfy you that it was in fact a hydrino?