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

[The Moog]

? People here have indeed suggested that gravity doesn't effect the sphere!

No they haven't.

Even our new resident "PhD" says that the earth inside a shell of mass would be akin to a BB inside a ping pong ball, jostled every which way without any kind of force restraint except when it hit the shell.

And he is correct.

In other words he is saying that the laws of orbital mechanics don't apply if the orbiting masses transition to a spherical shell.

They apply, try doing the maths instead of just making things up. Newtons's laws of motion are not hard to manage.

ETA: Or has Mill's rewritten Newton's laws of motion as well?

 

[Reality Check]

Delusions about the reasoning of HappySkeptic99

By your reasoning, as I put before,...

12 December 2018 markie: Delusions about the reasoning of HappySkeptic99

HappySkeptic99 presented the textbook explanation of the net force between a sphere and an internal body being zero for any inverse square force.
The same basic physics and math applies to a ring and an internal body.

 

[Reality Check]

A stupid insult to derail from his abysmal ignorance of physics.

Wow. A PhD. Based on what you said, I doubt it.

12 December 2018 markie: A stupid insult to derail from his abysmal ignorance of physics.

The credentials of HappySkeptic99 only matter because it shows that HappySkeptic99 has attended high school and knows high school physics where the shell theorem is sometimes derived. HappySkeptic99 has learned undergraduate physics where the shell theorem is always derived. Having a PhD means that HappySkeptic99 can easily understand the Wikipedia shell theorem article.

On the other hand, markie has shown themselves to be totally incapable of understanding the simple physics and math of the shell theorem.

 

[Reality Check]

Stupid citation of Mills obviously ignorant , deluded and lying book again

If anyone wants to see a real PhD's review of the first 12 chapters of Dr. Mills' GUTCP,

12 December 2018 markie: Stupid citation of Mills obviously ignorant , deluded and lying book again.

 

[jsfisher]

12 December 2018 markie: Stupid citation of Mills obviously ignorant , deluded and lying book again.

It is particularly stupid since the citation is for a reenactment of Mills' calculations ("Oh, look, I got just about the same answer when I put the same numbers into the formula"). Not what I'd call a review of Mills Big Book of Boo-Boos.

 

[Reality Check]

A lie of "reviews" of Mills deluded book from Mills company site

If anyone wants to see a real PhD's ..., you can download the pdf files here:

12 December 2018 markie: A lie of "reviews" of Mills deluded book from Mills company site!

Boor "reviews" that do not review his book !

Randy A. Booker, PhD. blindly accepts the obvious ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book and churns through the same math and calculations. Booker is not confident enough to associate his university with Mills:
the "UNC Asheville's report" lists the author as "Randy Booker, PhD, Department of Physics".

Mark W. Nansteel in 2006 blindly accepts the obvious ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book, this time Mills delusions on modeling polyatomic molecules and hydrocarbon molecules.

This is Mills' stupidity of "verification" that we have seen before. His ideas are so obviously deluded that he has not convinced a sizable group of scientists that they are worth independent research in 30 years. Instead Mills looks for gullible or paid consultants.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

12 December 2018 markie: Delusions about the reasoning of HappySkeptic99

HappySkeptic99 presented the textbook explanation of the net force between a sphere and an internal body being zero for any inverse square force.
The same basic physics and math applies to a ring and an internal body.

Not quite, Reality Check. A ring does not have a net zero force. It must be a shell. The ring, in its plane, gets increasingly more attractive to the side the is closest to the central mass. A ring, out of the plane, actually does have a restoring force, and would be a stable oscillator.

The geometrical reason why a shell has zero net force, is that a small solid angle subtended from the central mass, in opposite directions, hits the shell on opposite sides at radii R1 and R2. The areas (and therefore masses) that the solid angle interacts with with are proportional to R1^2 and R2^2. The gravitational force from each equal-area patch on the shell in the opposing regions is proportional to 1/R1^2 and 1/R2^2. The net force will be the multiple, which is just 1, or equal forces on each side.

A solid angle will not do this with a ring, because it will go outside the bounds of the ring on one side, and not the other. The math doesn't work for a ring. It is inherently unstable within the plane, and only has zero force when the mass is centered.

As Markie pointed out from a paper, the combination of the in-plane attractive force when off-center and restoring force off-plane can indeed give a stable rotating ring, if the ring is inclined and precessing, at a very narrow range of starting conditions. This wasn't obvious to me, but I can see that it could certainly be possible.

However, Mills' orbitsphere is definitely a sphere, regardless of whether it is made up of a long string, or a bunch of locked hoops.

 

[Reality Check]

A "suggested that gravity doesn't effect the sphere" lie

? People here have indeed suggested that gravity doesn't effect the sphere!

12 December 2018 markie: A "suggested that gravity doesn't effect the sphere" lie

People here have been stating the high school level, textbook physics which has been known for centuries and which markie remains deluded about. The net gravitational force between a sphere and an interior mass is zero. Every point on the sphere has gravity between it and the mass. Gravity does effect the sphere. Gravity does effect the mass. It is the net gravitational force that is zero.

A mass inside a sphere will "be akin to a BB inside a ping pong ball".
Any force on the central mass, e.g. it emits a photon or a radioactive nucleus emits an alpha particle, will make the mass move toward the sphere and crash into it . Even worse for markie's blind faith in Mill's delusions is that any external force on the sphere will make it crash into the internal body. Atoms in a gas collide. Atoms absorb and emit photons.

 

[Reality Check]

Not quite, Reality Check. A ring does not have a net zero force. It must be a shell. The ring, in its plane, gets increasingly more attractive to the side the is closest to the central mass. A ring, out of the plane, actually does have a restoring force, and would be a stable oscillator.

Thanks for the correction, HappySkeptic99. I should have written that the same physics and math shows that a ring around a central mass has zero gravitational force.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

? People here have indeed suggested that gravity doesn't effect the sphere! Even our new resident "PhD" says that the earth inside a shell of mass would be akin to a BB inside a ping pong ball, jostled every which way without any kind of force restraint except when it hit the shell. In other words he is saying that the laws of orbital mechanics don't apply if the orbiting masses transition to a spherical shell.

Newton's laws work just fine, but each point on the hard spherical shell is no longer in its own orbit if it's part of a solid body. When you link up the points, force is transmitted between them, and they act as one unit. Then the shell theorem applies.

1) A point outside a spherical shell will perceive a net gravitational force from the shell, as if all the shell's mass was at it's exact center.
2) A point inside a spherical shell will perceive no net gravitational forces from the shell.

Mills has a real problem with his spheres. They can't be "hard spheres", they have to be elastic, or they wouldn't be able to come to an equilibrium radius. But, if they are elastic, an elastic sphere isn't stable either (someone posted something about dynamic simulations), and what is the elasticity? How does the elasticity not affect the energy of the system? Is it like memory foam, and it eventually goes to zero force, but resists fast change?

It is crazy how willfully one has to ignore the problems with this construction, and it gains you nothing. It un-answers known physics experiments, while gaining nothing of value.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Thanks for the correction, HappySkeptic99. I should have written that the same physics and math shows that a ring around a central mass has zero gravitational force.

Yes, if the mass is centered But in a shell, it works for the complete inside of the shell, centered or not.

 

[jadebox]

? People here have indeed suggested that gravity doesn't effect the sphere!

No, that's not what they said. They said that the net effect within the sphere is zero.

Even our new resident "PhD" says that the earth inside a shell of mass would be akin to a BB inside a ping pong ball, jostled every which way without any kind of force restraint except when it hit the shell. In other words he is saying that the laws of orbital mechanics don't apply if the orbiting masses transition to a spherical shell.

He is right, of course. Inside the sphere, the net effect of gravity between any point inside the shell and the shell is zero. It's known as the "Shell Theorom" and Wikipedia has an article explaining it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

Edit: I need to remember to read the next page of replies before I reply.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Speaking of "******* hilarious", you seriously comparing BLP to a business that is selling a product as opposed to doing research is just that.

I think we all agree that BLP doesn't have a product to sell.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Newton's laws work just fine, but each point on the hard spherical shell is no longer in its own orbit if it's part of a solid body. When you link up the points, force is transmitted between them, and they act as one unit. Then the shell theorem applies.

1) A point outside a spherical shell will perceive a net gravitational force from the shell, as if all the shell's mass was at it's exact center.
2) A point inside a spherical shell will perceive no net gravitational forces from the shell.

Mills has a real problem with his spheres. They can't be "hard spheres", they have to be elastic, or they wouldn't be able to come to an equilibrium radius. But, if they are elastic, an elastic sphere isn't stable either (someone posted something about dynamic simulations), and what is the elasticity? How does the elasticity not affect the energy of the system? Is it like memory foam, and it eventually goes to zero force, but resists fast change?

It is crazy how willfully one has to ignore the problems with this construction, and it gains you nothing. It un-answers known physics experiments, while gaining nothing of value.

The actual assertion is that it's a series of independent, overlapping rings, which pass through each other as if they were the only ones there. So imagine that rather than one moon there's an infinite number of moons, all in stable orbits, all of which are insubstantial to each other, and all of which the laws of physics act on as if they were the only moon.

 

[Hellbound]

It is crazy how willfully one has to ignore the problems with this construction, and it gains you nothing. It un-answers known physics experiments, while gaining nothing of value.

Just posting to say, I love that phrasing. "Un-answers". I'm stealing that

 

[Hans]

I think we all agree that BLP doesn't have a product to sell.

Its the one thing BLP and Mill CAN do very well - not make a produce to sell and they have been achieving that for 30 years.

 

[jadebox]

So imagine that rather than one moon there's an infinite number of moons, all in stable orbits, all of which are insubstantial to each other, and all of which the laws of physics act on as if they were the only moon.

I find that hard to imagine.

Nevertheless, Markie still insists that a sphere can orbit a mass that is inside the sphere.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

The actual assertion is that it's a series of independent, overlapping rings, which pass through each other as if they were the only ones there. So imagine that rather than one moon there's an infinite number of moons, all in stable orbits, all of which are insubstantial to each other, and all of which the laws of physics act on as if they were the only moon.

And that assertion is self-contradictory.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And that assertion is self-contradictory.

It does seem to adapt itself to whatever properties markie needs it to have at any given moment.

 

[Mike!]

It does seem to adapt itself to whatever properties markie needs it to have at any given moment.

It's a hat, a brosch, a pteridactile!