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

[Dave Rogers]

I think it does make a difference about how strong the counteracting forces are.
For instance I don't think a certain force applied to a pile of sand on the earth would produce the same effect as the same force applied to the same pile of sand on a neutron star.

Damn, I wish I could be as funny as that. A pile of sand on a neutron star? Seriously?

Dave

 

[markie]

Damn, I wish I could be as funny as that. A pile of sand on a neutron star? Seriously?

Dave

Yeah on a neutron star the sand would become a liquid film very quickly wouldn't it. Thought you would enjoy the picture. As an alternative you could imagine the sand on your favourite beach here on earth but somehow subject to billions of times the gravity of earth. I think the sand's 'rigidity' would be altered.

 

[markie]

How are the rings there in a spherical, 1-dimensional disk?

Concentric rings of mass charge current on a flat disk. So unlike the orbitsphere the rings are not the same size. Chapter 3 of Mills' GUTCP has some nice illustrations.

 

[Dave Rogers]

As an alternative you could imagine the sand on your favourite beach here on earth but somehow subject to billions of times the gravity of earth. I think the sand's 'rigidity' would be altered.

I think you need to learn about scaling laws as well as about the Shell Theorem.

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Concentric rings of mass charge current on a flat disk. So unlike the orbitsphere the rings are not the same size. Chapter 3 of Mills' GUTCP has some nice illustrations.

Then the middle is a spinning point? Why do some of these rings change direction when the disk becomes a sphere?

 

[Hellbound]

Yeah on a neutron star the sand would become a liquid film very quickly wouldn't it. Thought you would enjoy the picture. As an alternative you could imagine the sand on your favourite beach here on earth but somehow subject to billions of times the gravity of earth. I think the sand's 'rigidity' would be altered.

Um, no. This is almost comical in it's misunderstanding of physics.

The sand wouldn't become liquid or make a film.

In fact, it wouldn't be sand anymore.

It would be contracted into a solid mass of neutrons, like that which a neutron star is composed of. Look up the Pauli Exclusion Principal.

Just like this whole orbiting rings-but-really-rigid-shell-but-not-really-rigid-and-insubstantial-but-alos-not-really orbitsphere nonsense wouldn't stay stable for any measureable amount of time.

IN fact, I think your sand on the neutron star analogy is actually a pretty good one for the whole orbitsphere nonsense.

 

[UncertainH]

Then the middle is a spinning point? Why do some of these rings change direction when the disk becomes a sphere?

Just to clarify, Mills is not claiming that these rings actually exist, they are a mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere.

From GUTCP latest edition starting on Page 67:

The atomic orbital spin function comprises a constant uniform charge (current) density with moving charge confined to a 2 dimensional spherical shell. The current density is continuous, but it may be modeled as a current pattern comprising a superposition of an infinite series of correlated orthogonal great circle current loops. The equation of motion for each charge--density element (and correspondingly for each mass-density element) corresponds to that of a 1 dimensional great circle wherein each point charge(current)-density element moves time harmonically with constant angular velocity.

The aspect of no interaction at local zero-dimensional crossings of a two-dimensional fundamental particle has the same properties of the electric and magnetic fields of a photon from which the electron forms. Field lines of photons travelling at the speed of light also superimpose with the field and velocity direction vectors multivalues at each point that they cross.... Thus it is useful to regard an electron as a special state photon.

Thus the electron as an indivisible fundamental particle is related to the concepts of current and momentum elements, but the great circle current loop basis element used to generate and represent the bound electron current corresponding to spin should be considered more fundamentally in terms of sources of electric and magnetic field sources of momentum that in aggregate gives the corresponding properties of the electron as a whole.

 

[Darat]

That's not what rigidity is. Without lateral forces along the surface and interaction between the parts of the sphere, there is no rigidity. It doesn't matter how strong or well-balanced the forces on the individual parts (points or rings) are.

If you have a pile of sand, the gravitational force on every grain is perfectly balanced by upward contact forces. That doesn't make the sand pile rigid.

Stars in galaxies have the same balance between "inward pull of the central centripetal force" and "equal and opposite outward pull of the centrifugal 'force'". That does not make galaxies rigid. When perturbed by external forces, galaxies do this.

What prevents Mills-model hydrogen atoms from doing the same?

Wishes.

 

[Hellbound]

Wishes.

Actually, breaking news. I've been informed that there has been actual imagery captured of the forces that keep orbitspheres in place:

 

[markie]

Just to clarify, Mills is not claiming that these rings actually exist, they are a mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere.

From GUTCP latest edition starting on Page 67:

For sure, good point.

 

[markie]

Um, no. This is almost comical in it's misunderstanding of physics.

The sand wouldn't become liquid or make a film.

In fact, it wouldn't be sand anymore.

It would be contracted into a solid mass of neutrons, like that which a neutron star is composed of. Look up the Pauli Exclusion Principal.

Just like this whole orbiting rings-but-really-rigid-shell-but-not-really-rigid-and-insubstantial-but-alos-not-really orbitsphere nonsense wouldn't stay stable for any measureable amount of time.

IN fact, I think your sand on the neutron star analogy is actually a pretty good one for the whole orbitsphere nonsense.

Hey it wasn't me who started the sand analogy. It was only me who took it to ridiculous extremes.
A better picture would be this. Imagine a very rapidly spinning disk, vertical axis of rotation, spinning on the horizontal plane a few inches above the floor. Attached to the outer edges are hundreds of strong threads of equal length, and on the other end of each thread is a ballbearing. The thread and ballbearings are extended radially due to centrifugal force and form a circle as the disk spins. The evenly spaced ballbearings almost touch each other. Now we roll a volleyball towards the rapidly spinning object. What will happen when they collide? The ballbearings will effectively serve as the outer rim of an extended disk; the ball will hit it and bounce back as if it hit a solid, rigid disk. Yet there is no lateral force between the ballbearings.

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Just to clarify, Mills is not claiming that these rings actually exist, they are a mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere.

From GUTCP latest edition starting on Page 67:

I agree that one can choose any mathematical tool you want, regardless of how ridiculous it is, if it makes precise predictions. But, if the predictions are better without an arbitrary construction, then one should throw away the construction.

This is the argument some of Mills' supporters use -- that a hypothesis can make any arbitrary construction one wants, provided it works. Particle-wave duality is pretty out-there, after all, but it works.

The reality is that no, you can't just create an arbitrary construction, without determining the implications of your construction. In Mills case of the rotating charge rings, he doesn't even get a stable construction -- remember he is trying to use classical physics. Then, his calculations don't even get correct results.

I totally understand why Mills created his charged rings. They take the radial dimension out of the equation (once he defines a stable radius), making the math a lot easier (2-D, not 3-D). He needs rings to prevent the radiation condition.

What he has done is created a 2-D projection of the 3-D wavefunction, for Hydrogen, onto a hard sphere. Yes, this makes math really easy. Too bad physicists never thought of it (sarcasm).

Except, it doesn't work for anything except Hydrogen, and it doesn't even work for Hydrogen, when you try to get high accuracy. QM does give the precise result. I went through Mills' fine structure constant derivation, and anything beyond the first term is not even derived. The first term is well known, and does have a classical analog. Mills invents the farther terms with no backup (almost like he invented them), and still gets an answer that is not close enough.

As for Mills' "Millsian" program, yes he has invented formulas that match empirical results reasonably well -- but they have no backup in his theory. No-one knows where the terms come from -- almost like he invented them to match experiment. It is well known that there are patterns in ionization energies that can be fit to curves, and it is difficult to calculate them using QM from first principles. It is much easier to look in the back of the textbook, and say "look, I can come up with a formula".

Now, Mills claims that his formulas only use fundamental constants. This is "partly true", by which I mean it is misleading. I can fit anything to anything using only fundamental constants. I can put them in exponents, denominators, multiplicative factors, and raise them to different powers. I bet with a bit of work, I could invent more accurate formulas than Mills, just by adding a few higher order terms. Of course, I'd have to update it, when new experimental results invalidated them.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually, breaking news. I've been informed that there has been actual imagery captured of the forces that keep orbitspheres in place:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6875c14012a3b380.jpg[/qimg]

And Electric Comets glowing!

 

[jonesdave116]

And Electric Comets glowing!

Mills is right up there with Thornhill & Talbott when it comes to scientific credibility! They should work together on a theory of.......................... complete bollocks.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I don't think Mills is deluded. That would require him to believe this BS.

 

[JeanTate]

Thanks.

The rotating rings are always there, whether in the free electron disk or the spherical orbitsphere. (For the spinning free electron disk it is an inward magnetic force that is in balance the outward centrifugal inertial mass 'force'.)

Apart from those which rotate in opposite directions, none of these (uncountably infinite in number) disk rings intersect with any other, right?

Yet electrons can collide with other electrons. And electron scattering experimental results give no hint whatsoever of any structure, much less planar disks.

Also, these rotating rings - which have mass and charge - intersect without any effect in both shells and disks ... yet a ring in one electron most certainly reacts when it intersects with a ring in another electron. How come?

 

[UncertainH]

What he has done is created a 2-D projection of the 3-D wavefunction, for Hydrogen, onto a hard sphere. Yes, this makes math really easy.

Sorry you'll have to do better than that. His proposal is that leptons are 2 dimensional and can change shape or size this is not to make the math easy. You will have to read most of the book to understand all of the derivations. Your opinion is not correct.

I went through Mills' fine structure constant derivation, and anything beyond the first term is not even derived. The first term is well known, and does have a classical analog. Mills invents the farther terms with no backup (almost like he invented them), and still gets an answer that is not close enough.

Again all the derivations are there so yes I suppose he did invent them.

As for Mills' "Millsian" program, yes he has invented formulas that match empirical results reasonably well -- but they have no backup in his theory.

Millsian started out as equations, then spreadsheets based on those equations, then visualization tools added. Quite a few years ago I followed through the derivations of some of those equations, put them in spreadsheets and confirmed them for myself because I was (and still am) skeptical. Others have done the same. Yes Millsian is completely backed up by his theory.

 

[UncertainH]

Also, these rotating rings - which have mass and charge - intersect without any effect in both shells and disks ... yet a ring in one electron most certainly reacts when it intersects with a ring in another electron. How come?

From the section from gutcp that I posted

Thus it is useful to regard an electron as a special state photon. Page 67,68

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not that this affects any of the arguments being made...

Each “orbiting point” on the sphere belongs to an infinite (countable?) number of rings, all of which have the same radius and center.

Uncountable, as the rings are in one-to-one correspondence with angles, which are in one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers from zero to pi (or zero to one hundred eighty if you prefer degrees, or zero to two pi or zero to three sixty if you're counting directed (oriented) rings).

 

[Hans]

Again, must I say: lots of different apparatuses - validated as generating excess energy - have been 'produced' over the years. Nothing good enough to develop to market. If you have observed the trajectory of the progress in the last four years since the inception of the SunCell type of reaction, then perhaps you would not assume certain things the way you do but rather grasp the magnitude of what is about to transpire.

Lol......nothing of 'magnitude' is going to happen markie.....what is going to happen is what has been happening for the last thirty years......a scam.

The trajectory is into nothing.......